It made me cringe just watching it.
It made me cringe just watching it.
Seriously, as cool as the concept is, the ad was pure cringe.
Playing a game on the couch. Oops, gotta make a flight, better pick it up and NEVER STOP PLAYING.
Just shooting some hoops. Hey, that was great, let's shoot some virtual hoops on this lighted court because, well, reasons!
Hey, neighbor lady wants me to come by. Better bring my Nintendo so I can passively tell here to leave me the fuck alone!
I agree with you, but.....
enter firewalled hardened US government servers
She wasn't letting the US government handler her e-mail, remember?
So every company is a major enterprise now?
The overwhelming majority of companies use NAT, and either don't employ people to manage their network, or outsource it to local mom and pop tech folks.
You can't assume ignorance when the scale of the vast majority of businesses is less than 100 employees.
Not that it would be required - no subnet would ever come even close to consuming 2^64 addresses. (And no, it's not the same as 640k being enough for everyone!)
I hate this argument. It is beyond ridiculous as it is the very same argument they made roughly 30-40yrs ago about IPv4;
When IPv4 was introduced in the 1970s and accepted as the protocol for the Internet, they did not foresee this explosion in the popularity of the Internet or the extent to which online technologies would become all pervasive.
So how old is IPv4, really?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc... (September 1981)
So basically, I have been on earth a few months longer than the IPv4 RFC was finalized. IPv4 is no longer enough, but the same ridiculous and short-sighted arguments are still OK? We don't need to conserve addresses because v6 is so large. Give it 30-40 more years. See if that argument still stands, especially when the only means of doing NAT in v6 is basically 1-1, which ensures that every company would need at least 2
The problem is, you aren't going to encourage widespread adoption on the enterprise level by telling them that the structure of their networks, which have worked for nearly decades at this point, must change.
Now they need to hire some firewall gurus, some routing gurus, and some LAN\WAN gurus, where in the past, all of those may not have been necessary.
Go into any small/medium/large/enterprise business, and you will see NAT in perpetuity. Very few companies have v4 subnets large enough to where they do not have to use it.
Regardless, the crux of my point is this; If they wanted to encourage widespread adoption, a form of NAT should have been in place since the RFC was published.
The issue is not the automation.
It's not the lack of a specific social program.
It's an issue of scale.
We still allow any company interested in buying another to do so.
We bring over hundreds of thousands of immigrants ranging from lowest skill level to highest.
We have the same amounts immigrating illegally.
We do not tariff anymore. We just tax the people and the companies.
What does this amount to?
Well, when you have a large amount of people, and only 3 companies they can work for, you get high unemployment.
Imagine if we had zero illegal, and abused H1-B immigration?
Imagine any imported goods and services, where already locally available, were taxed at a local market rate?
Imagine what would happen if the exported labor and H1-B labor was taxed at a local market rate?
it's not about guaranteeing an equality of outcome, it's about ensuring the local market is not undercut by foreign entities.
And finally, the majority of cities now have populations as large or larger than that of the entire state in which they reside in from 50 years ago.
Localize and protect the workforce. Prohibit the buyout culture.
That would do wonders in and of itself.
SaaS in large scale deployments. Done.
Seriously, why do we continue to listen to people bitch, just because on their home pc they feel like it will be a problem?
You are getting dual stack just so shit can eventually work.
That is not the same as providing an easy and familiar (to most all businesses and home users that connect to the internet) technology like NAT which they can play around with and learn how to implement v6 in their environment.
And that is the point. 90% of environments use NAT in some way. Telling everybody they now need to learn proper firewall configurations instead of telling them it works just like v4, means you get people who won't give a shit about it, and who won't get a plan in place.
Actually, the very reason we are stuck with IPv4 right now is due to a consortium just like this deciding that "pure v6, no NAT" is the way to go, which is effectively what is stifling deployment and adoption.
Carriers are now trying to figure out how to segment what they have for customers (/64 is the smallest routeable subnet), and finding IPAM solutions to manage such large network sizes.
Truth be told, if they would have went with some form of v6 NAT, deployment could have been at least 25% done by now.
You can still restrict the BGP routes to
Couple that with translation tech like Cisco's AFT, and we would be much further along then we already are.
Boohoo, lazy basement dweller thinks he is the only person to work a twelve hour shift.
Ahh yes, another fine example of internet testosterone being used to overcompensate for intellectual deficiency.
I can't tell you if you are just that much of a Nintendo fanboy, or or if you are so young as to have never had your testicles drop in the first place.
Look, the tyranny of having to put down one remote control device in order to pick up a second device is perhaps a textbook example of 'first world problems'.
If I think it is a QC failure, and others do as well, we are entitled to our opinion no matter how much of a "first world problem" you think it is. We paid money for something, and if a part of it sucks, we are allowed to voice that opinion.
Hey, I can solve the world's problems in one go. You are an underemployed super genius. Nintendo is staffed and managed by people who are short bus riding morons. You go there, get a 9-5, and parades will be thrown in your honor.
Nintendo has been hemorrhaging money for quite some time. It may not be filled with "short bus riders" (way to demean a class of people completely unrelated to this discussion, you pantheon of moral character, you!), but it is led by someone who is ignorant of the reality of the market he is supposed to be serving. See below for reference;
If you have 2 CPUs that are of a completely different architecture, it is a major fucking problem.
Can you tell me why VMWare has not been ported to say, Intel Atom?
You can get HP Moonshot servers with tons of nodes, but because the CPU is so limited and does not
support the same instructions as a Xeon, VMware will not run on it.
At all. Period.
And both the Atom and Xeon lines are x86-based.
CPU arch and instruction sets make a huge difference in porting.
OK, it's pretty obvious many folks did not understand what I was hinting at, so here goes;
If I have limited resources and talent, I am not going to pick Nintendo, since what talent I do have does not have to be wasted on CPU\GPU optimizations. For Sony and MS, the HW is almost entirely identical. Yes, certain OS specifics are going to come into play, but those are minuscule issues in comparison to problems where a game expects a certain instruction set, and they have to port around it.
If I want to develop for Nintendo, I already know the market segment is much smaller, and it will require a pool of dedicated PowerPC folks to accomplish.
That being said, I can pick up people familiar with x86 pretty much anywhere and everywhere, and outside of OS deviations, I am covered for 3 different platforms.
It's a cost\benefit problem. Nintendo choosing to go PowerPC again this year has made the more costly platform, and further pushed 3rd party devs away.
Hey look everybody, it's the elusive self-righteous piece of shit!
I can't believe we are catching one in the wild like this. Boy are we lucky!
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Judging from other folks commenting, I am not the only one who thought it was a failure of Nintendo to release it like that.
And hey, maybe after a 12hr shift at work, I and many others just want to chill out and play a video game.
What I don't want to do is play some bastardization of duck, duck, goose and musical chairs, just because Nintendo QC
was so inept as to let something like this slip by. If it warranted an update later on to address, it was a QC failure. Period.
I had my WiiU in the tail end of 2013.
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon