cronjobber

I stand corrected, RFC 4038 seems to be what I was looking for. But it seems to be a late addition, and OS support is optional. If developers think moving their apps to IPv6 is too complicated, I can't fault them.

IPv6 could have done three things. First, embed the "legacy" address space. Second, have legacy-to-legacy connections use v4 on the wire. Third, strongly encourage existing user-maintained configuration (config file formats etc.) to remain perfectly valid as long as they don't use v6 addresses (or other v6 features.)

You are right, you'd still need a "legacy" address to connect to "true" v4 servers, but that address would be all you need, while most operating systems, routers, client and server software could be, technically, all-v6 all-the-time by now.

It sucks at being compatible with ipv4. The "billion dollar mistake" :-)

It also sucks at having software/hardware stacks nearly as well debugged as those for ipv4, which means running ipv6 at all is a security risk.

Nobody would switch for sundry technical advantages. The main driver for conversion is that ipv4 addresses are scarce. As soon as "we" seriously "move to ipv6", however, the scarcity driven pressure to convert is relieved. We're bound to reach an equilibrium that will include ipv4 for a long time, possibly forever.

"We" don't have to move to ipv6, even if "they" have to. The internet can plausibly support both protocols forever.

From the article: "It’s not like they’re bumping it by a buck and making a little bit more money. They are really tanking sales and it kind of has a ripple effect to us, being a small company trying to do demand planning"

The relevant Econ 101 buzzword isn't "supply and demand," it's "agency problem".

Amazon is "tanking sales" unilaterally, while the supplier manages stock on assumptions of higher sales at the regular, lower price point.

Google introduced and normalized the spyware/adware business model. Nothing but fawning adoration from programmers.

Microsoft copied the model for operating systems. Token resistance from programmers.

Kite copies the model for programming tools. Too late, programmers.

> Economics and politics haven't caught up with this yet.

That seems unlikely. Political and economic leadership throughout the "White West" has been subsidizing and expanding the non-productive underclass for decades.

> but what solution do you have?

It isn't easy, but as long as nation states are plausibly more powerful than Google, we—humanity—can hope.

Use antitrust to inhibit moves like the one under discussion.

Use privacy legislation to plug the Google data vacuum nozzle.

Suspend net neutrality in ways calculated to allow ISPs to suck Google dry, while not hurting anybody else too much.

You are wrong, like most homeopathy critics.

Have you ever observed typical homeopathy users—middle to upper-middle class mothers of young children—in their natural habitat?

I have. They're all "true believers" in that they really think homeopathic remedies are useful, for themselves and their kids. And yet, despite that, they also exhibit a well developed instinct on when not to rely on homeopathy and send themselves or the child off to a "real" medical practitioner. Strange, isn't it?

It ceases to be inexplicably strange if you think about their shared belief in homeopathy as a socially evolved strategy about how to keep themselves and (more crucially) their children away from doctors in those plentiful cases of minor sniffies where a doctor is overkill and actually more likely to do harm than do any better than "doing nothing".

The sad thing is that society doesn't allow a mother to just "do nothing". Where there's no accepted alternative, she "must" visit a doctor, lest she be accused of neglecting her duty to care for her children.

That's why it seems that some parts of society—and not the stereotypically "stupid" ones at all—have evolved mechanisms that afford them social license to avoid the doctor when the doctor is more likely to do harm than good.

Most of your comments would be vastly improved by omitting the reams of repl output.

Because my reading of the article is that Google doesn't restrict the policy to Google ads.

> publishers have to also be responsible for any ad networks or affiliates they have on their site which could use these methods

That may or may not be turn out to be legally anti competitive, but it certainly merits an investigation.

My personal opinion is that it is a clear abuse of G's market dominant position.

Antitrust regulators should look into this one.

EDIT: ...because the policy punishes advertisers use of other advertising providers.

True. Sadly.

Alas, while Russian (and Chinese) general disinterest in f'ing with you does help, their equally developed general disinterest in your well-being means they might have incentive to sell or trade with entities more... interested.