The lack of skid marks indicating braking action should be a fairly good indication it wasn't the care though. The braking system in all cars is power-assist, but still directly mechanical. Couple that with the observation the brakes can overpower the engine in all the Toyotas this complaint is aimed at, and it's a fair guess that "dangerous stupidity" is being rewritten into "car fault! Clearly! I'm calling my lawyer"
The accelerator pedal uses two hall-effect sensors.
However the real issue is that in every single case, the throttle is wide-open, but no braking is recorded. Which means either you have a fault which disables logging of braking action and somehow wipes out a direct mechanical system at the same time it accelerates out of control, or, the driver stomps on the wrong pedal, panics, and keeps pressing it.
So basically you're saying: there is no difference.
Which makes the design decision not to specify a NAT protocol for IPv6 an excellent one, since we won't end up with the hacky workaround which is NAT being implemented - the path of least resistance (after not using IPv6) is to actually implement proper default firewalls.
Given that NAT accomplishes exactly this, there's no reason to think why IPv4 routers would although most also include a default security firewall one can turn on which does do this. It's a single button push.
The market has currently evolved with NAT working "well enough" for most people though - but it certainly didn't until UPnP came along - which was in response to a need for things to "just work" for the home user. For the longest time with NAT, they certainly didn't (unless, as I did when I was younger, you just routinely tossed your computer in the DMZ when you needed to use something).
There's no reason to think (and certainly no reason to criticize) that a (very simple) adaptation doesn't exist, and so instead we clearly need to add in a system which has been consistently breaking things left, right and center - and certainly preventing things from "just working" for the home user - when the fix is literally just changing a default setting.
Nothing I have read, or inferred, suggests that there is in-fact anyway to make IPv4 work with longer addresses that doesn't end up at "well then everyone will have to patch their router and network stack..." at which point you're back to IPv6.
People keep saying it, but no-one ever seems to actually propose what should be done, or know of anything which doesn't involve upgrading every router to make it work - thus making it just as difficult as IPv6, with the same basic problem.
Which implies (1) you're technically adept enough to worry about this, and thus (2) you could just forward a dynamic SSH proxy from the torrent machine and use it for connecting.
Or install a SOCKS proxy, and use ProxySwitchy! or similar in your web browser.
This is all of course assuming these sites continue to bother with this for IPv6 connections (they won't) and for IPv4 you'll still be NAT'd in some way so you've no worries (until you're double NAT'd, then you're going to be sharing that login with thousands of others).
Which people will get, because the people who don't care will buy consumer level devices which will just have the default firewall configured to block all incoming connections, thus providing the exact level of security they presently get with NAT.
You could even throw UPnP on top of that to selectively allow inbound ports to particular IPv6 addresses to accept connections.
Bottom-up engineering is really the principle we need to apply though. If cross-boundaries communication works on Earth, that's data we can collect and study to find out what the points of contention are - i.e. we can look at what elements are most commonly misinterpreted across cultures.
With that in mind, you can then move on to tests like you specify - corrupted datastreams, noisy datastreams etc. But to get anywhere, at the very least we need to figure out how we can - scientifically - traverse the cultural boundaries of Earth. But it does stand to reason that we can make at least some assumptions - after all - we're not trying to talk to creationists from Texas, we can make a very fair assumption that whoever receives messages from Earth is probably somewhere near or familiar with the forefronts of their society's technological and scientific achievements and would notice particular aspects we can assume, at our present understanding, are common to the universe (oddities like a potential shift in alpha along an axis not withstanding).
Things keep working fine because we keep falling back on solutions which are anything but.
The internet *used* to not be an entanglement of NATs, but that's been the case so long now that it's accepted as the norm and considered to be a "feature" - the concept of a firewall has been polluted to be "isn't that just my router?"
The next stage of this situation though is double NAT - which a lot of applications are NOT going to work seamlessly once ISP's stop letting us have a global IP address to use for logical units (i.e. a business or a home currently has a globally accessible IP address). Instead thousands of unrelated users are going to get to share 65536 TCP and UDP ports. Suddenly, you are going to lose control of port forwarding out of your own subnet and pass that up to your ISP, who's simply not going to let you do things like direct port 22 to your public IP for remote SSH. Do you have a solution for getting through double NAT on both sides of the connection for any type of peer-to-peer application? Can you get SIP through that, or a VPN tunnel, without needing a mediating server in the middle - and how happy will you be to pay for that privilege?
The current NAT situation was bearable. The double NAT situation is going to be a whole new kettle of things generally ceasing to function properly. But yeah fine, let's keep that up since give it a couple of years and the perception will be that it's "working fine".
Well IBM are obviously trying to target consumer grade devices with this technology - their goal is to beat out Flash RAM with horizontal Racetrack memory (the magnetic track is built with a conventional process) and eventually regular hard disk drives with vertical Racetrack memory (more like the picture shown in the article).
The numbers on this type of technology are pretty staggering if it works - 3.5" drives in the petabyte storage range because. Meaning a 10-disk array could store the sum output of CERN's data for a year (realistically it won't, because CERN put a lot of time and money into efficiently culling their output - they'd probably just turn that off because hey, it's better to store *everything*.)
Numerous people had this exact problem with the OP's example or RA2. My brother got hit with it. We owned the game legit, but what triggered the "everything explodes after 30 seconds" behavior is that the installer *did not* tell you if you mistyped the serial number. This was incredibly easy to do since it had an incredibly long serial number.
1000 cores at 1Ghz on a single chip, networked to a 1000 other chips, would probably just about make a non-real time simulation of a full human brain possible (going off something I read about this somewhere).
Although if it is possible to arbitrarily scale the number of cores, then we might be able to seriously consider building a system of very simple processors acting as electronic neurons.
Pebble-bed reactors can't meltdown. Blow them up and all you do is scatter the pebbles (and bits of pebbles) over a small area, and spread them out enough that they stop reacting altogether.
Though I imagine the notion that someone MIGHT steal the pebbles and try to turn them into a bomb would give most people pause.
And, yes, I am aware that 3D viewing requires that one pay attention only to the main element of the scene (trying to look at the background when only the foreground is in focus will always result in blurring even with the best 3D).
This to me is actually the biggest flaw of 3D. I love looking at the backgrounds of films - I like seeing all the effort and little details that have gone into them, even if the focus isn't on them. Which is why, despite seeing Avatar in 3D (because of the 3D and the "must see" that was going around) I was thoroughly disappointed in the technology: in a movie supposed to be all about the detail of the world, you spend a whole lot of time in scenes struggling to track the focus point because you WANT to look at the backgrounds when they're around.
This right here is why we should have a space agency and launch capabilities. At the very least, we have an equatorial strip of land on which we could put a space port for satellite launches.
It is absurd that Australia lives as a 1st world country with the export profile of a 3rd world one and is going to bite us in the ass when our natural resource production inevitably starts to slow down - we desperately need high tech local production, and we kind of need it now.
Space is good, because it requires a diverse range of high-tech innovative technology - if we could foster just a small portion of manufacturing capacity like this locally, we'd be in a better position to commercialize our innovations.
Because Australia generally has low quality broadband distribution. It's concentrated on the major metropolis's, and costs a lot more then services in other areas.
Even our ISPs have given up on peering agreements - with download caps now, even downloading within Australia chews your bandwidth (and why though? The big expense for us is undersea cables so internal traffic should be cheap).
It's more that once one thing becomes self-replicating, it's going to dominate fairly easily over everything that isn't, since at that point every trial by it is a success, whereas everything else is still struggling to produce any 1 particular species.
You can't sell it back even at wholesale because the electrical grid just isn't set up to deal with thousands of small distributors.
The power you sell back to the grid never goes beyond the neighborhood transformer station.
Clearly because CCP says it it must be true. This is like asking the corrupt officer to tell you if they're being unfairly targeted.
The actual full response lists at least a semi-decent investigation of the issues raised, but not the additional issues which came up during the scandal (and were far more interesting/outrageous) which was that players had game developers as MSN contacts and routinely communicated with them. Conflict of interest much in a single sharded competitive MMO?
Furthermore, it's pretty clear that Arkanon has no real interest in carrying out his job properly since if he did then he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of specifically hinting as strongly as he could that *obviously* CCP is being targeted just because.
CCP has no idea what t20 did to how anyone perceives them in relation to BoB, and no idea about why they're policies might elicit the counter-responses they do. They're completely inept at community management issues and as far as many can tell it's something of a minor miracle EVE is as good as it is, though almost anyone will tell you that's because they basically said "yes we allow scams and social engineering attacks" between members of the playerbase. For some reason they seem to feel that this gives them freehand to play the game how they want as well.
But by all means it's going to be great how this turns out well. I'm sure 2000+ account bans and trans-atlantic solicitors letters can't possibly be bad publicity.
Slashdot Mirror
The lack of skid marks indicating braking action should be a fairly good indication it wasn't the care though. The braking system in all cars is power-assist, but still directly mechanical. Couple that with the observation the brakes can overpower the engine in all the Toyotas this complaint is aimed at, and it's a fair guess that "dangerous stupidity" is being rewritten into "car fault! Clearly! I'm calling my lawyer"
I mean, we have a model of this type of event before. Just now we have a new boogieman in the form of computers.
The accelerator pedal uses two hall-effect sensors.
However the real issue is that in every single case, the throttle is wide-open, but no braking is recorded. Which means either you have a fault which disables logging of braking action and somehow wipes out a direct mechanical system at the same time it accelerates out of control, or, the driver stomps on the wrong pedal, panics, and keeps pressing it.
So basically you're saying: there is no difference.
Which makes the design decision not to specify a NAT protocol for IPv6 an excellent one, since we won't end up with the hacky workaround which is NAT being implemented - the path of least resistance (after not using IPv6) is to actually implement proper default firewalls.
Given that NAT accomplishes exactly this, there's no reason to think why IPv4 routers would although most also include a default security firewall one can turn on which does do this. It's a single button push.
The market has currently evolved with NAT working "well enough" for most people though - but it certainly didn't until UPnP came along - which was in response to a need for things to "just work" for the home user. For the longest time with NAT, they certainly didn't (unless, as I did when I was younger, you just routinely tossed your computer in the DMZ when you needed to use something).
There's no reason to think (and certainly no reason to criticize) that a (very simple) adaptation doesn't exist, and so instead we clearly need to add in a system which has been consistently breaking things left, right and center - and certainly preventing things from "just working" for the home user - when the fix is literally just changing a default setting.
Nothing I have read, or inferred, suggests that there is in-fact anyway to make IPv4 work with longer addresses that doesn't end up at "well then everyone will have to patch their router and network stack..." at which point you're back to IPv6.
People keep saying it, but no-one ever seems to actually propose what should be done, or know of anything which doesn't involve upgrading every router to make it work - thus making it just as difficult as IPv6, with the same basic problem.
Which implies (1) you're technically adept enough to worry about this, and thus (2) you could just forward a dynamic SSH proxy from the torrent machine and use it for connecting.
Or install a SOCKS proxy, and use ProxySwitchy! or similar in your web browser.
This is all of course assuming these sites continue to bother with this for IPv6 connections (they won't) and for IPv4 you'll still be NAT'd in some way so you've no worries (until you're double NAT'd, then you're going to be sharing that login with thousands of others).
Which people will get, because the people who don't care will buy consumer level devices which will just have the default firewall configured to block all incoming connections, thus providing the exact level of security they presently get with NAT.
You could even throw UPnP on top of that to selectively allow inbound ports to particular IPv6 addresses to accept connections.
Bottom-up engineering is really the principle we need to apply though. If cross-boundaries communication works on Earth, that's data we can collect and study to find out what the points of contention are - i.e. we can look at what elements are most commonly misinterpreted across cultures.
With that in mind, you can then move on to tests like you specify - corrupted datastreams, noisy datastreams etc. But to get anywhere, at the very least we need to figure out how we can - scientifically - traverse the cultural boundaries of Earth. But it does stand to reason that we can make at least some assumptions - after all - we're not trying to talk to creationists from Texas, we can make a very fair assumption that whoever receives messages from Earth is probably somewhere near or familiar with the forefronts of their society's technological and scientific achievements and would notice particular aspects we can assume, at our present understanding, are common to the universe (oddities like a potential shift in alpha along an axis not withstanding).
Which is very different to double NAT where one of the NAT's is NOT being controlled by you.
You're not going to be configuring anything on your ISPs NAT to be forwarded specifically to you.
Things keep working fine because we keep falling back on solutions which are anything but.
The internet *used* to not be an entanglement of NATs, but that's been the case so long now that it's accepted as the norm and considered to be a "feature" - the concept of a firewall has been polluted to be "isn't that just my router?"
The next stage of this situation though is double NAT - which a lot of applications are NOT going to work seamlessly once ISP's stop letting us have a global IP address to use for logical units (i.e. a business or a home currently has a globally accessible IP address). Instead thousands of unrelated users are going to get to share 65536 TCP and UDP ports. Suddenly, you are going to lose control of port forwarding out of your own subnet and pass that up to your ISP, who's simply not going to let you do things like direct port 22 to your public IP for remote SSH. Do you have a solution for getting through double NAT on both sides of the connection for any type of peer-to-peer application? Can you get SIP through that, or a VPN tunnel, without needing a mediating server in the middle - and how happy will you be to pay for that privilege?
The current NAT situation was bearable. The double NAT situation is going to be a whole new kettle of things generally ceasing to function properly. But yeah fine, let's keep that up since give it a couple of years and the perception will be that it's "working fine".
Orion is silly.
The Nuclear Thermal Rockets solve all fallout issues, and are more efficient to boot.
Well IBM are obviously trying to target consumer grade devices with this technology - their goal is to beat out Flash RAM with horizontal Racetrack memory (the magnetic track is built with a conventional process) and eventually regular hard disk drives with vertical Racetrack memory (more like the picture shown in the article).
The numbers on this type of technology are pretty staggering if it works - 3.5" drives in the petabyte storage range because. Meaning a 10-disk array could store the sum output of CERN's data for a year (realistically it won't, because CERN put a lot of time and money into efficiently culling their output - they'd probably just turn that off because hey, it's better to store *everything*.)
Numerous people had this exact problem with the OP's example or RA2. My brother got hit with it. We owned the game legit, but what triggered the "everything explodes after 30 seconds" behavior is that the installer *did not* tell you if you mistyped the serial number. This was incredibly easy to do since it had an incredibly long serial number.
1000 cores at 1Ghz on a single chip, networked to a 1000 other chips, would probably just about make a non-real time simulation of a full human brain possible (going off something I read about this somewhere). Although if it is possible to arbitrarily scale the number of cores, then we might be able to seriously consider building a system of very simple processors acting as electronic neurons.
Pebble-bed reactors can't meltdown. Blow them up and all you do is scatter the pebbles (and bits of pebbles) over a small area, and spread them out enough that they stop reacting altogether. Though I imagine the notion that someone MIGHT steal the pebbles and try to turn them into a bomb would give most people pause.
And, yes, I am aware that 3D viewing requires that one pay attention only to the main element of the scene (trying to look at the background when only the foreground is in focus will always result in blurring even with the best 3D).
This to me is actually the biggest flaw of 3D. I love looking at the backgrounds of films - I like seeing all the effort and little details that have gone into them, even if the focus isn't on them. Which is why, despite seeing Avatar in 3D (because of the 3D and the "must see" that was going around) I was thoroughly disappointed in the technology: in a movie supposed to be all about the detail of the world, you spend a whole lot of time in scenes struggling to track the focus point because you WANT to look at the backgrounds when they're around.
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.
This right here is why we should have a space agency and launch capabilities. At the very least, we have an equatorial strip of land on which we could put a space port for satellite launches. It is absurd that Australia lives as a 1st world country with the export profile of a 3rd world one and is going to bite us in the ass when our natural resource production inevitably starts to slow down - we desperately need high tech local production, and we kind of need it now. Space is good, because it requires a diverse range of high-tech innovative technology - if we could foster just a small portion of manufacturing capacity like this locally, we'd be in a better position to commercialize our innovations.
Because Australia generally has low quality broadband distribution. It's concentrated on the major metropolis's, and costs a lot more then services in other areas. Even our ISPs have given up on peering agreements - with download caps now, even downloading within Australia chews your bandwidth (and why though? The big expense for us is undersea cables so internal traffic should be cheap).
Nuclear thermal lightbulbs don't produce radioactive fallout, and provide better thrust.
It's more that once one thing becomes self-replicating, it's going to dominate fairly easily over everything that isn't, since at that point every trial by it is a success, whereas everything else is still struggling to produce any 1 particular species.
You can't sell it back even at wholesale because the electrical grid just isn't set up to deal with thousands of small distributors. The power you sell back to the grid never goes beyond the neighborhood transformer station.
Clearly because CCP says it it must be true. This is like asking the corrupt officer to tell you if they're being unfairly targeted. The actual full response lists at least a semi-decent investigation of the issues raised, but not the additional issues which came up during the scandal (and were far more interesting/outrageous) which was that players had game developers as MSN contacts and routinely communicated with them. Conflict of interest much in a single sharded competitive MMO? Furthermore, it's pretty clear that Arkanon has no real interest in carrying out his job properly since if he did then he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of specifically hinting as strongly as he could that *obviously* CCP is being targeted just because. CCP has no idea what t20 did to how anyone perceives them in relation to BoB, and no idea about why they're policies might elicit the counter-responses they do. They're completely inept at community management issues and as far as many can tell it's something of a minor miracle EVE is as good as it is, though almost anyone will tell you that's because they basically said "yes we allow scams and social engineering attacks" between members of the playerbase. For some reason they seem to feel that this gives them freehand to play the game how they want as well. But by all means it's going to be great how this turns out well. I'm sure 2000+ account bans and trans-atlantic solicitors letters can't possibly be bad publicity.