Touche lol
Good try, but somehow we need to account for why they DON'T look like ducks when you can't see the legs, but suddenly DO look like ducks when you get a glimpse of gams.
I always wonder about the context of this exchange... What's the scenario in which pointing out the existence of legs convinces someone that they are in fact looking at ducks?
Off topic, but we need to stop with adding dimensions to chess for hyperbole.
Of course it's subjective, but it was you who asked why people continue to use Plex. This is a reason, and the reason is valid whether you share the same experience or not.
Because Plexamp is by far the best music player I've ever used.
The lateral! You love to see it.
Week 3... Let's goooooooo!
Agreed... At least our offense looks pretty unstoppable for now!
Where is everybody?? Let's go Niners!
My comment, which you refer to, said nothing about NAT -or- firewalls. Rather, it's a direct response to the second sentence in the article's opening paragraph: "To the average computer user, the idea that someone could just… connect to your computer feels exotic, or even dangerous..."
You may be correct that nobody would recommend implementing IPv6 without a firewall. But this article avoids the subject of firewalls completely, which in combination with that opening paragraph leaves the distinct impression that we shouldn't be concerned about it because that's the way the internet was meant to be.
Of course this has nothing to do with NAT or IPv6, and the value of IPv6 can't be overstated. But to ignore the security part of the equation is going to have one of two effects: 1) people who don't know better will think they can use IPv6 without a firewall, or 2) people who understand the risks will be skeptical of the claims that IPv6 is better because you are leaving out an important part of the equation.
I read "Networking for Dummies" in 2005, and it gave me a GREAT baseline understanding. I don't recall how much it discussed ipv6 at that time, but I imagine the newer editions cover it.