The real mystery is why is stuff like this never on a GUI settings menu. There always is one, but it usually fails to be any good at configuring anything.
Because Live-Aid showed what a wonderful return we get on massive, planned investments in Africa.
The reality of the modern world is, you can't buy the lives it would take to fix the problems man generally causes for other men. But you can boundlessly advance technology and hope they become irrelevant in the process, which is generally how we've done things, historically - with aforementioned dramatic failures for expecting different.
If human nature wasn't what it was, maybe that could be the case. But the problem is we don't just need to hit some definition of sustainbly comfortable - we need to make things so ridiculously cheap that it isn't worth the bother of trying to charge people for it.
To some extent this is what open-source software is about: things we all agree are necessary, but which we'd all have to pay a lot to find a good, trustworthy one of. The benefit of computers is that the barrier to "cheap enough as to be better off free" is a lot lower compared to other material demands.
While I don't think it could be profitable in the conventional sense, being able to use the resources in space rather then on the ground would certainly change considerations for future missions.
But I'd say the most exciting idea is essentially what someone way up the top mentioned: transferring asteroids out of the asteroid belt to lunar or - more preferably (IMO) - Earth orbit.
If we ever want to build a space elevator we'll need a counterweight. And what better place to setup a permanent space-habitat then a very large artificial satellite (orbiting at an appropriate distance).
The Prius electric motor is water-cooled - and that'll probably be the trend for electric cars in the future (at least till hub motors become viable I guess - but there are reasons to think we'll never totally use them). So the heat it puts out can be pretty trivially relocated to somewhere more useful.
In heat pump mode you could direct the input air over the radiator grille, which would pretty seamlessly improve it's efficiency.
Yes but there's also no particularly reason an electrical contact needs to be manually accessible by a person at all.
Any type of disaster which would make a standardized high current connector a danger would also easily make a petrol pump a danger (i.e. ripping the cords up or something).
And in that situation, it's easy enough to trip a breaker and cut off all supply at the source and eliminate the problem entirely. Not so for gasoline.
And that's before you add active electronic measures where the charger can establish that there's actually a car connected to it before distributing current, and vehicle and charger can then monitor the process and kill the supply if a ground-fault occurs - probably faster then someone could be exposed.
It's a fallacy that 0% growth is somehow compatible with sustainability though. 0% growth is simply stagnation, unless all your processes are at 100% efficiency. Since that can never happen, you can maintain growth indefinitely. You can have economic growth while using less real resources by using them more efficiently.
I'm also wary of the term "consumption" in general. It depends how you define it. The average person can consume a great deal more in value-added goods, without needing any more raw resources. Our consumption of oil is unsustainable, but that's always been true.
There was probably no technical failures of BitCoin or Tor leading to this. But a real product got transacted (and turning BitCoin into cash - at some point - also involves a real transaction with normal currency) and that would be how it was tracked.
With enough intelligence, even a dead-drop system probably would've been compromised since there's only so far you can realistically go if you have limited manpower and a certain volume to move, and you'd only require 1 reuse of a drop site for surveillance to find someone to follow.
I'd also agree that this is most definitely a misguided effort, based on some fairly badly informed foreign (American) opinions of how Australian politics and culture works. Sol Trujillo's unspectacular run as Telstra's CEO is kind of a good case in point, since he came in and was utterly convinced he was just going to buy and bully the Australian government to get what he wanted. It backfired spectacularly, Telstra's stock price tanked and he was pretty much hounded out of the country.
The supervisor's right - they should return them sooner.
Honestly, nothing drove me more nuts than people being inconsiderate with communal glassware. My lab was excellently equipped, with a more than sufficient supply of glassware for the people working there - if they were kept in circulation, that is. Instead they sat in fridges, freezers, in the back of fumehoods, often unlabelled and far past the point of their contents being important or, in some cases, even known.
It's bad lab practice. Keep stocks of intermediates etc. in cleaned out reagent bottles. Keep small samples in glass vials or other "disposable" glassware. Don't store your NMR tubes or marker pens in glassware (I'm not making these examples up).
Although, thinking back on it, maybe that stuff was only really bugging me because it was the last six months of my PhD and *everything* was bugging me...
I would have been quite annoyed at that. Hell, I even get annoyed when the people near my lab bench have a bunch of glassware (UNLABELED) scattered around and encroaching on my workspace. It's not like we're heating 12M HCl every day, but even if we're using.15M KI in water, it's not that hard to label things and keep a lab space organized! of course, some of these people have to be reminded about using the right disposal container...
but then, we're not PhD students
It's a good idea in theory but it breaks when it's confronted with reality or complex synthesis. The sheer number of difficult compounds which end up stuck inside a round bottom flask can be staggering. Not inaccessible - you can scrape the little bit you need out each time, but also already not enough as to make discarding them or trying to hard to get them out unwise.
It's also because, IMO, not a lot of people appreciate scale particularly well when you're trying to do controls: you can't very well be washing out beakers or glassware in the middle of an experiment, and then using them for other parts of it - it's a sure fire way to cause contamination either with precursors or just soap. You also probably don't want to discard anything until you've run the analysis which might be a few days away. So say you go through, 5 steps needing a beaker of something. That's 5 beakers you need to pre-wash, dry, and then hold on to to stop some idiot from making them dirty. And that might be for 1 sample. You probably need to do 2 or 3. So that's 15 right there, not accounting for the number in excess you need to not deplete stocks due to breakage or unscheduled use or whatever. Multiply by 30 people and you get the picture.
Please outline a plan to make a router ASIC designed for a 32-bit address system handle a 128-bit address system.
There is no possible way to make IPv6 backwards compatible with IPv4 because an IPv4 host cannot uniquely specify an arbitrary IPv6 address, which means it absolutely can't actually send reply packets to IPv6 hosts without some type of transitionary mechanism of the many that have been developed.
The hard part is convincing any supervisor that their basic lab equipment is in fact a serious impediment to research. Quarter million dollar nano-ink printer? Where do I sign! "Hi, we need to get about 100 more beakers because at any 1 time people are using 50 or so for various things" - "Well I don't know. I think people should really just return them sooner".
I'm curious as to what they think could've been done to make that work. You feed a router ASIC designed for 32-bit addressing a 128-bit address, and you're going to get nothing sensible out.
The problem is the lack of transition mechanisms and the collective action problem that no one group has any incentive to implement them.
What I think is funny is that IPv6 proponents are all gung-ho about IPv6 but then make note of the fact that they use it - with NAT'd IPv4 addresses. Why would you bother doing that if IPv6 met your needs? Well, simply put, it probably doesn't.
Because the whole world isn't IPv6 yet, and you clearly don't understand how IP addressing works?
Yes I am 100% sure this will happen, not in any way lead to immediate public backlash and then be trivially defeated by people NAT'ing everything again promptly.
It's not going to happen, and/. needs to get over this mindset that all security and freedom must be provided by technology first because it was never remotely possible.
NAT on IPv4 wouldn't provide you with single IP failover anyway - it's default mode of operation is to uniquely map ports on a single external IP to multiple IPs and ports on the internal side.
To do HA you're already using a special case configuration. I mean, yes, it's NAT, but not as it's commonly used.
This isn't a hard problem and it certainly isn't a protocol problem and with the proliferation of Linux based router/firewalls its not even an implementation problem. Any consumer IPv6 device should default it's firewall to "disallow unsolicited inbound". Slap Bonjour and UPnP on top of that so people's XBoxes and iPads can continue to unsafely open whatever ports they like and go nuts.
Pretty much this. If the feature can't be barred off (and by most accounts, it probably shouldn't be since I don't really wants apps checking to see what kind of security environment they're in - let developers figure that one out) then the OS should lie about what's out there. Disallow net access? Then mimic no connectivity. Disallow contacts access? Tell the app I have no contacts, or better - give me an option to send a random dummy list of contacts.
It feels like that would be the right step away from full-sandboxing - enough interoperability to be useful, while letting me make sure things are well behaved before I let them near my actual data.
Slashdot Mirror
The real mystery is why is stuff like this never on a GUI settings menu. There always is one, but it usually fails to be any good at configuring anything.
Because Live-Aid showed what a wonderful return we get on massive, planned investments in Africa.
The reality of the modern world is, you can't buy the lives it would take to fix the problems man generally causes for other men. But you can boundlessly advance technology and hope they become irrelevant in the process, which is generally how we've done things, historically - with aforementioned dramatic failures for expecting different.
Depends what you want to do.
If human nature wasn't what it was, maybe that could be the case. But the problem is we don't just need to hit some definition of sustainbly comfortable - we need to make things so ridiculously cheap that it isn't worth the bother of trying to charge people for it.
To some extent this is what open-source software is about: things we all agree are necessary, but which we'd all have to pay a lot to find a good, trustworthy one of. The benefit of computers is that the barrier to "cheap enough as to be better off free" is a lot lower compared to other material demands.
While I don't think it could be profitable in the conventional sense, being able to use the resources in space rather then on the ground would certainly change considerations for future missions.
But I'd say the most exciting idea is essentially what someone way up the top mentioned: transferring asteroids out of the asteroid belt to lunar or - more preferably (IMO) - Earth orbit.
If we ever want to build a space elevator we'll need a counterweight. And what better place to setup a permanent space-habitat then a very large artificial satellite (orbiting at an appropriate distance).
It's almost as if the perils of mankind are not at all analogous to large scale problems involving billions of people.
Asteroid mining you can do with a consortium and money. Try governing human behavior.
More importantly, Mars is already uninhabitable as it stands. You can't exactly make it worse. The same can't be said for Earth.
The Prius electric motor is water-cooled - and that'll probably be the trend for electric cars in the future (at least till hub motors become viable I guess - but there are reasons to think we'll never totally use them). So the heat it puts out can be pretty trivially relocated to somewhere more useful.
In heat pump mode you could direct the input air over the radiator grille, which would pretty seamlessly improve it's efficiency.
Iridium. The only amounts on the planet originally come from meteorites.
Yes but there's also no particularly reason an electrical contact needs to be manually accessible by a person at all.
Any type of disaster which would make a standardized high current connector a danger would also easily make a petrol pump a danger (i.e. ripping the cords up or something).
And in that situation, it's easy enough to trip a breaker and cut off all supply at the source and eliminate the problem entirely. Not so for gasoline.
And that's before you add active electronic measures where the charger can establish that there's actually a car connected to it before distributing current, and vehicle and charger can then monitor the process and kill the supply if a ground-fault occurs - probably faster then someone could be exposed.
It's a fallacy that 0% growth is somehow compatible with sustainability though. 0% growth is simply stagnation, unless all your processes are at 100% efficiency. Since that can never happen, you can maintain growth indefinitely. You can have economic growth while using less real resources by using them more efficiently.
I'm also wary of the term "consumption" in general. It depends how you define it. The average person can consume a great deal more in value-added goods, without needing any more raw resources. Our consumption of oil is unsustainable, but that's always been true.
Look everyone it's the slippery slope fallacy.
Bingo.
There was probably no technical failures of BitCoin or Tor leading to this. But a real product got transacted (and turning BitCoin into cash - at some point - also involves a real transaction with normal currency) and that would be how it was tracked.
With enough intelligence, even a dead-drop system probably would've been compromised since there's only so far you can realistically go if you have limited manpower and a certain volume to move, and you'd only require 1 reuse of a drop site for surveillance to find someone to follow.
I'd also agree that this is most definitely a misguided effort, based on some fairly badly informed foreign (American) opinions of how Australian politics and culture works. Sol Trujillo's unspectacular run as Telstra's CEO is kind of a good case in point, since he came in and was utterly convinced he was just going to buy and bully the Australian government to get what he wanted. It backfired spectacularly, Telstra's stock price tanked and he was pretty much hounded out of the country.
The supervisor's right - they should return them sooner.
Honestly, nothing drove me more nuts than people being inconsiderate with communal glassware. My lab was excellently equipped, with a more than sufficient supply of glassware for the people working there - if they were kept in circulation, that is. Instead they sat in fridges, freezers, in the back of fumehoods, often unlabelled and far past the point of their contents being important or, in some cases, even known.
It's bad lab practice. Keep stocks of intermediates etc. in cleaned out reagent bottles. Keep small samples in glass vials or other "disposable" glassware. Don't store your NMR tubes or marker pens in glassware (I'm not making these examples up).
Although, thinking back on it, maybe that stuff was only really bugging me because it was the last six months of my PhD and *everything* was bugging me...
I would have been quite annoyed at that. Hell, I even get annoyed when the people near my lab bench have a bunch of glassware (UNLABELED) scattered around and encroaching on my workspace. It's not like we're heating 12M HCl every day, but even if we're using .15M KI in water, it's not that hard to label things and keep a lab space organized! of course, some of these people have to be reminded about using the right disposal container...
but then, we're not PhD students
It's a good idea in theory but it breaks when it's confronted with reality or complex synthesis. The sheer number of difficult compounds which end up stuck inside a round bottom flask can be staggering. Not inaccessible - you can scrape the little bit you need out each time, but also already not enough as to make discarding them or trying to hard to get them out unwise.
It's also because, IMO, not a lot of people appreciate scale particularly well when you're trying to do controls: you can't very well be washing out beakers or glassware in the middle of an experiment, and then using them for other parts of it - it's a sure fire way to cause contamination either with precursors or just soap. You also probably don't want to discard anything until you've run the analysis which might be a few days away. So say you go through, 5 steps needing a beaker of something. That's 5 beakers you need to pre-wash, dry, and then hold on to to stop some idiot from making them dirty. And that might be for 1 sample. You probably need to do 2 or 3. So that's 15 right there, not accounting for the number in excess you need to not deplete stocks due to breakage or unscheduled use or whatever. Multiply by 30 people and you get the picture.
Please outline a plan to make a router ASIC designed for a 32-bit address system handle a 128-bit address system.
There is no possible way to make IPv6 backwards compatible with IPv4 because an IPv4 host cannot uniquely specify an arbitrary IPv6 address, which means it absolutely can't actually send reply packets to IPv6 hosts without some type of transitionary mechanism of the many that have been developed.
Also, if being anonymous is important to you, you should be using Tor.
Otherwise most notions of "anonymity" that you have are a joke.
And with that comment it becomes apparent you've no idea what you're talking about.
You should consider just accepting your role as "dumb consumer" and not worry about this at all.
This is a fantastic - and obvious - idea.
The hard part is convincing any supervisor that their basic lab equipment is in fact a serious impediment to research. Quarter million dollar nano-ink printer? Where do I sign! "Hi, we need to get about 100 more beakers because at any 1 time people are using 50 or so for various things" - "Well I don't know. I think people should really just return them sooner".
In an interview one of the designers of IPv6 admitted that they should have made it backwards compatible. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.
I'm curious as to what they think could've been done to make that work. You feed a router ASIC designed for 32-bit addressing a 128-bit address, and you're going to get nothing sensible out.
The problem is the lack of transition mechanisms and the collective action problem that no one group has any incentive to implement them.
What I think is funny is that IPv6 proponents are all gung-ho about IPv6 but then make note of the fact that they use it - with NAT'd IPv4 addresses. Why would you bother doing that if IPv6 met your needs? Well, simply put, it probably doesn't.
Because the whole world isn't IPv6 yet, and you clearly don't understand how IP addressing works?
Well I guess it's done since a good consumer router will default to this?
Yes I am 100% sure this will happen, not in any way lead to immediate public backlash and then be trivially defeated by people NAT'ing everything again promptly.
It's not going to happen, and /. needs to get over this mindset that all security and freedom must be provided by technology first because it was never remotely possible.
NAT on IPv4 wouldn't provide you with single IP failover anyway - it's default mode of operation is to uniquely map ports on a single external IP to multiple IPs and ports on the internal side.
To do HA you're already using a special case configuration. I mean, yes, it's NAT, but not as it's commonly used.
Bingo.
This isn't a hard problem and it certainly isn't a protocol problem and with the proliferation of Linux based router/firewalls its not even an implementation problem. Any consumer IPv6 device should default it's firewall to "disallow unsolicited inbound". Slap Bonjour and UPnP on top of that so people's XBoxes and iPads can continue to unsafely open whatever ports they like and go nuts.
Pretty much this. If the feature can't be barred off (and by most accounts, it probably shouldn't be since I don't really wants apps checking to see what kind of security environment they're in - let developers figure that one out) then the OS should lie about what's out there. Disallow net access? Then mimic no connectivity. Disallow contacts access? Tell the app I have no contacts, or better - give me an option to send a random dummy list of contacts.
It feels like that would be the right step away from full-sandboxing - enough interoperability to be useful, while letting me make sure things are well behaved before I let them near my actual data.