Perhaps if the whole thing wasn't run by a small clique of sociopathic dorks who wield a ridiculous bureaucracy in a manner that can yield any conclusion that they wish it to yield, then people might stick around for longer than their first editing war.
The weather has been nice enough for an explosion of humankind for about 15,000 or 20,000 years now. Now, civilization takes some time to grow so I'm not proposing it could have happened all that early in the latest warm period and that may increase the odds by a factor of 2 or 4.
But you've got 3 more powers of ten to explain.
If you want to talk about odds, it's fairly dishonest to dismiss the bulk of the data you're working with. If we go back to your graph, and deal with the past one hundred millennia, then the reality is that only 10% of that period has been accommodating of massive growth in the human population. If you consider the period of time necessary for humanity to proliferate in the way that it has, the current state of humanity has only really been plausible for the past couple of thousand years at the very most.
So, in brief, we're in the period representing the 2-4% of the last 100 millennia during which human growth in the way that we've seen it would be plausible. Suddenly the odds look a lot better, huh?
Stop arguing. You know jack about dick on the subject as spazdor has repeatedly shown by actually giving you a chance to research the curve fitting of the heat distribution curves, but I doubt you have the formal education to know how to plot it and will continue telling spazdor they are wrong.
Yeah. It's also a big stretch to imagine that a "radical, one-time shift in human behaviour" coincided with a global change towards a climate that accommodates many of the elements of that "radical, one-time shift," right?
Just about as good as the odds of it landing anywhere else.
You could turn it around and imagine for yourself that you were standing in front of a big paper graph, depicting temperature variations over a timeline. The timeline is about 400 thousand years in length, and there is a dramatic spike in the graph every 100 thousand years or so.
Now, you notice that there's a period of X years between the spikes, and that the last spike occurred X years ago, minus a couple of decades.
Now, what are the odds that a spike is going to occur in the near future? Go on, make a guesstimate.
People don't have a bad habit of conflating NAT and security. NAT provides a basic, stateful firewall, and that most certainly/is/ security, incidental or not. IPv6 likely won't bring us all back to the happy days of full end-to-end connectivity, but rather popularise the stateful firewall sans the NAT in CPEs.
In the end, everyone agreed that the easiest solution would be for Laping to physically fix things himself. "I had to drive two hours back to push a power button," says Laping, recalling that he turned right around and got back on the road once the NIC was up and running again.
Lesson learned: Even with smart devices, wireless services and VPN technology, not every problem can be dealt with remotely; make sure your backups know the basics -- like how to power down
Lesson learned: Hire IT staff who have the mental capacity to download a hardware manual for the server, locate the power button on a diagram, and direct the on-site people to the correct button. That's just absurd.
The problem with VPN is that, IIRC, the spec requires that traffic destined for link-local addresses not assigned to an interface on which it is received be dropped. If that's so, a device serving VPN clients should drop any traffic received on a LAN interface with a link-local destination address assigned to a remote VPN client. I'm sure it's possible to find implementations that hack around that issue, but since it's perfectly possible to do it the right way to similar effect (FD00::/8 with EUI-64,) those hacks should be ignored.
If your network will only ever span a single segment, and if you don't plan on connecting via VPN, sure. Link-local addresses don't route, so if you'd need layer 3 forwarding, you'd need FD00::/8 addresses.
After all, one of the nice things with NAT is it means my internal network addresses don't change on the whim of my ISP. They give me a 24.x.x.x today and a 70.x.x.x tomorrow? Nothing changes. But if full IPv6 is used, then when my ISP decides they need to do their prefixes, everything in my house gets a new IP as they inherit the new prefix. That's a huge PITA.
If "full" IPv6 is used, then surely your local addressing will be handled using FD00::/8 addresses, and no local issues will arise when you're issued new global unicast addresses by your ISP. It's only a PITA if you do it wrong.
The Backburner might be considered slightly overpowered with the added compression blast, but not significantly so. Natascha is nothing but heavy upgrade cruft. No sane or sensible heavy would use it.
You can't not use channels. They're a fact of life in a cable plant. If you take the output of the streamers feeding the broadcast content, throw IP around it, and toss it out a CMTS, then you're creating more overhead and more cost than multiplexing it onto a pure digital CATV channel.
A CMTS fundamentally does pretty much precisely the same thing as a digital CATV node. It just adds a lot of overhead on top of that to provide unicast service.
Tethering has value to the customer, and that's why they buy phones that feature tethering, or applications that enable it. Tethering is not a service provided by the carrier, so they have no business charging for it, just like they have no business charging for the installation of any other third party applications that may use the supposedly unlimited data connection. You cannot argue that the service provider offers anything on your system other than the data connection, because it does not.
There's nothing Marxist about this. It's about service providers delivering what they claim to provide, and about treating the customer with respect.
While you're on the subject of weak arguments, you should probably examine your own. You're falling prey to the "device" mentality. "Device" has nothing to do with it. Throughput is what the company is selling, and throughput is what you're consuming. By the same rationale, your ISP could sell you an "unlimited data" product and argue that it only extends to your modem, not to the machines behind it.
If your network access "device" cannot support other "devices" by providing access to the data connection, then surely your network access "device" does not have unlimited access. They're ones and zeros. They go through your phone. If you have an unlimited data contract for your phone, then you should have unlimited access to the data connection.
You might know the dogs, but the delivery guy does not. Why should he take the chance, or brave phobias to deliver a package into the property, rather than just to the property? Think before you compose.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if the whole thing wasn't run by a small clique of sociopathic dorks who wield a ridiculous bureaucracy in a manner that can yield any conclusion that they wish it to yield, then people might stick around for longer than their first editing war.
Every procedure on that site is a complete farce.
Awesome new way to launder all of my illicit income.
There, fixed that for you.
Haha, plebs.
(Authored in Opera.)
If you owed your creditors an arm and a leg, the arm would probably be a good place to start.
All the while, the rest of us are stuck moving refrigerators and colour TVs.
If you want to talk about odds, it's fairly dishonest to dismiss the bulk of the data you're working with. If we go back to your graph, and deal with the past one hundred millennia, then the reality is that only 10% of that period has been accommodating of massive growth in the human population. If you consider the period of time necessary for humanity to proliferate in the way that it has, the current state of humanity has only really been plausible for the past couple of thousand years at the very most.
So, in brief, we're in the period representing the 2-4% of the last 100 millennia during which human growth in the way that we've seen it would be plausible. Suddenly the odds look a lot better, huh?
You ought to seek help.
Yeah. It's also a big stretch to imagine that a "radical, one-time shift in human behaviour" coincided with a global change towards a climate that accommodates many of the elements of that "radical, one-time shift," right?
You're missing the point.
Just about as good as the odds of it landing anywhere else.
You could turn it around and imagine for yourself that you were standing in front of a big paper graph, depicting temperature variations over a timeline. The timeline is about 400 thousand years in length, and there is a dramatic spike in the graph every 100 thousand years or so.
Now, you notice that there's a period of X years between the spikes, and that the last spike occurred X years ago, minus a couple of decades.
Now, what are the odds that a spike is going to occur in the near future? Go on, make a guesstimate.
People don't have a bad habit of conflating NAT and security. NAT provides a basic, stateful firewall, and that most certainly /is/ security, incidental or not. IPv6 likely won't bring us all back to the happy days of full end-to-end connectivity, but rather popularise the stateful firewall sans the NAT in CPEs.
Messerschmitt.
Lesson learned: Hire IT staff who have the mental capacity to download a hardware manual for the server, locate the power button on a diagram, and direct the on-site people to the correct button. That's just absurd.
At least you're consistent.
Why the long and predictable diatribe if you're going to arrive at the obvious conclusion in the end anyway?
The problem with VPN is that, IIRC, the spec requires that traffic destined for link-local addresses not assigned to an interface on which it is received be dropped. If that's so, a device serving VPN clients should drop any traffic received on a LAN interface with a link-local destination address assigned to a remote VPN client. I'm sure it's possible to find implementations that hack around that issue, but since it's perfectly possible to do it the right way to similar effect (FD00::/8 with EUI-64,) those hacks should be ignored.
If your network will only ever span a single segment, and if you don't plan on connecting via VPN, sure. Link-local addresses don't route, so if you'd need layer 3 forwarding, you'd need FD00::/8 addresses.
If "full" IPv6 is used, then surely your local addressing will be handled using FD00::/8 addresses, and no local issues will arise when you're issued new global unicast addresses by your ISP. It's only a PITA if you do it wrong.
The Backburner might be considered slightly overpowered with the added compression blast, but not significantly so. Natascha is nothing but heavy upgrade cruft. No sane or sensible heavy would use it.
You can't not use channels. They're a fact of life in a cable plant. If you take the output of the streamers feeding the broadcast content, throw IP around it, and toss it out a CMTS, then you're creating more overhead and more cost than multiplexing it onto a pure digital CATV channel.
A CMTS fundamentally does pretty much precisely the same thing as a digital CATV node. It just adds a lot of overhead on top of that to provide unicast service.
Tethering has value to the customer, and that's why they buy phones that feature tethering, or applications that enable it. Tethering is not a service provided by the carrier, so they have no business charging for it, just like they have no business charging for the installation of any other third party applications that may use the supposedly unlimited data connection. You cannot argue that the service provider offers anything on your system other than the data connection, because it does not.
There's nothing Marxist about this. It's about service providers delivering what they claim to provide, and about treating the customer with respect.
While you're on the subject of weak arguments, you should probably examine your own. You're falling prey to the "device" mentality. "Device" has nothing to do with it. Throughput is what the company is selling, and throughput is what you're consuming. By the same rationale, your ISP could sell you an "unlimited data" product and argue that it only extends to your modem, not to the machines behind it.
If your network access "device" cannot support other "devices" by providing access to the data connection, then surely your network access "device" does not have unlimited access. They're ones and zeros. They go through your phone. If you have an unlimited data contract for your phone, then you should have unlimited access to the data connection.
You might know the dogs, but the delivery guy does not. Why should he take the chance, or brave phobias to deliver a package into the property, rather than just to the property? Think before you compose.
You can be absolutely certain that people have been fired for buying HP.