In most cases, the splitter will be hard-wired to the antenna. Installing the filter on the antenna side will require cutting into the existing coaxial cable, which most people will require engineers to do. The affected houses will probably get a small box that plugs in between the aerial and the TV or set-top box. Something similar was done when Channel 5 was first broadcast on analogue to prevent interference with video recorders. Pretty much anyone can handle plugging the filter box in, which means the installation costs are zero.
This post sums up the concept well enough. Each OAM value (usually associated with the letter l) means that the phase of the light around the beam centre changes by 2pi. So, l=0 is no change in phase, l=1 is 2pi change in phase and so on. There's no upper limit to OAM values, and light waves with different OAM are orthogonal, so you can theoretically have infinitely many beams with no interference between them. There are no more theoretical problems with this than having say an infinite number of GigE cards and cables. There is no way you could build something that actually uses an infinite number of beams with individual vorticities, of course, but that's the same with the infinite gigabit links too.
Dynamic typing is common in functional programming languages but not essential; Haskell is statically typed and is one of the purer functional languages.
While that's true, a standard (and popular library) for SCTP-over-UDP could be created. At most, you'd need a single well-known UDP port for inbound SCTP-over-UDP (9989 is suggested by the Internet draft for this). SCTP ports would be used to distinguish between separate SCTP-using services on the server. I'm sure that the existing Linux and BSD SCTP stacks could support this with little effort. Firewalls that only permit HTTP/HTTPS would block this variant, but it would work well enough through NATs, especially if the multiple-endpoint parts of standard SCTP were left out.
The issue is that with unsalted hashes, you only need to use brute-force once to generate your rainbow table, at which point all the passwords are cracked simultaneously. (OK, in practice you would not wait for a full rainbow table to be produced; you'd download a list of pre-computed common passwords and start with those.) With salt and a strong password, you still have to do all of that brute-force work just to obtain a single password, even if you have several GPUs doing the calculations.
I suspect that the real answer was that fc00::/7 was created just to keep all the anti-publicly-allocated-address people happy, and was never taken that seriously. All the real connectivity would use link-local or suitably firewalled global address space. VPNs between separate companies would be handled via IPSEC, and no new addresses would be needed. Of course, that works fine in theory, but will probably never happen in reality...
Actually, that shouldn't be too hard to do; just replace the initial "2001:" of your global prefix with "fc00:" and you should be done. (You could probably do something similar with 6to4, where the network prefix is defined by your external IPv4 address.)
Have you been living under a rock? In the U.S. every major city has 100mbit+ net service offered by many providers to residents and business alike. It would more difficult to not find 100mbit in a major urban area than it would be to find it.
Not living in the US, I wouldn't know. All I have to go on are the reports on/. and other such sites, which give the impression that those speeds are far from the norm. (If they are, this whole thread is rather pointless, apart from the issue of rural schools.) Not that 100mbit+ internet for end-users is that common yet outside the US either...
And now you're talking about schools mantling their own fiber! I'm sorry, are they going to employ their own lien men and NOC operators?
That'd be done either by whatever organisation runs the local school system or some group set up specifically as an ISP for the schools. (Assuming we're using JANET as an example...)
You also gota realize that the UK is like the size of California. No sorry, quite a bit smaller. And that's just 1 of 50 states that need to be interconnected. Ever hear of alaska? Ya, it's like the size of France, who thinks that'll be cheap to fiber up? I'll bet that it should cost the same to cross 20,000 miles of roads as it does to cross 2,000 miles. Maybe you can find me a single citation for the cost your talking about. I've looked up the prices, my estimate is quite conservative. Your price of "virtually nothing" is a laughable as it is fantastic. As in: it only exists in your fantasy.
This excuse comes up way too often. I imagine it's perfectly easy to wire up New York and its surrounding areas for not much more than Sweden. Meanwhile, there seems to be nowhere that has 100Mb/s Internet in the US that isn't sat on a university WAN. There is nothing at all stopping an ultrafast ISP being set up specifically in San Francisco, New York or other cities and ignoring anywhere remotely rural.
"I already have 50Mbps at home, going to 100Mbps sometime soon, with probably a 20Mbps backup - all for me."
I'm sure that makes it easy to download all those text books. But seriously, what the hell are you doing with 50mbps? Oh I'm sure you have a really good reason to need to double that bandwidth too.
I imagine he's using Virgin at home, in which case the speed doubling is their doing, not the poster's choice...
So with that disclaimer out of the way, does anyone think that it is possible that prolonged disputes like these might actually end up slowing the widespread adoption of IPv6? With IPv4, the number of potential addresses to have to block to effectively blacklist a site that the recognized powers have deemed offensive is substantially smaller than it could be with IPv6. Even though there may be many v4 IP's available right now, that number is still shrinking daily, and cannot possibly last more than a few more years. With a full-scale move to IPv6, even *hoping* to block an organization by IP would be completely impossible on any sort of time scale that humans could identify with, so would the organizations that are trying to shut off places like the pirate bay be lobbying to try to slow (or even halt) the adoption of IPv6, so that what they are trying to do here doesn't end up becoming completely unworkable? Why? Or why not?
Blocking by IP address appears to be near-impossible now; I fail to see that IPv6 will make it worse.
On the subject of blocking IPv6 hosts, if a/64 (or whatever) is owned entirely by the organisation you want to block, blocking is easy. If it's shared with other users, though, a lot will depend on the host company's willingness to help. Some may somehow force a specific address per client (DHCPv6?) which makes blocking no harder than at present, or be willing to act on take-down requests. With unhelpful host companies, the offending site could try fast-flux DNS techniques to temporary addresses within the local/64. At that point I suspect the whole/64 would be blocked regardless of collateral damage. Alternatively, DNS blocks could be used, with the same effectiveness that we see today.
Ultimately though, the thing to remember is that at some point, people need to know what the present address is. I imagine that the address distribution methods will be somehow disrupted to prevent updates and then the IPs will be blocked. That applies regardless of the underlying protocol!
Apparently, the SDK has always had a basic compiler included.
As for alternatives, that's probably what will happen; people without MSDN access will just use GCC or Clang instead. However, given that the open source alternatives are far better supported under Linux or OS X, why write software for Windows? We're more likely to get new software projects targeting Linux, OS X or the mobile equivalents (Android/iOS) and ignoring Windows entirely. Alternatively, we get more web apps hosted on Linux servers that do not care about the type of client used. Either way, Microsoft and Windows users end up losing out on native software.
That's interesting. I knew you could get +5 Flamebait/Troll by combinations of Interesting+2*Troll+lots of Underrated mods (like theseposts), but never a pure +5 with no mod type other than Underrated. I thought you needed at least one "normal" mod type for it to show up.
For the original poster, the local atomic clock would indeed be a real atomic clock, so your NTP master clock drift ought to be minimal even if you only sync nightly. Of course, it's far more likely that a couple of cheap GPS receivers would be used in practice. Other servers and desktop machines would sync time using NTP over the existing internal network.
It's hard to really compare the two, since they're aimed at different audiences and topics. Hacker News (HN, news.ycombinator.com) is probably closer to a combination of Reddit and the/. Firehose than Slashdot proper, so you get a lot more random blog articles posted (or "Show HN" posts to show off the poster's latest creation). In the case of Slashdot, a lot of those either get filtered out at firehose level or merged into one summary referencing two or three related articles. The better HN submissions usually end up reposted on Slashdot with a day or two. HN also has a lot more articles on startup/business type stuff with little programming involved, which Slashdot avoids.
I hadn't spotted that polar red had used the IPO amount rather than the full "value" of Facebook. I agree that Facebook users are not worth anything like the amounts quoted, though.
One thing we're ignoring is that present-day Facebook has offices and datacentres worldwide to handle their 800m users, and those would have an intrinsic value of their own. Even so, I can't see Facebook assets coming to significantly more than $1bn, never mind $10bn+.
If this post is to be believed, it's Sky-only. If you currently have cable, you're even worse off (£240/year for Sky + internet costs (cable or installing a new phone line) on top).
It's my understanding the quantum energy of that radiation is related to the frequency-- and terahertz radition is pretty high up there on the reactivity scale.
In terms of energy per photon, teraherz radiation (with wavelength ~300um - microwave to far-infrared?) is far less energetic than visible light. The issue here is power at this specific freqency. The wiring of the integrated circuits in the pump is probably around the same as the radiation wavelength, so you have a reasonably well-tuned antenna receiving lots of power...
That's miles out. Back in 2007, it *was* around €1.50/£-ish. By 2009-ish, that had dropped to around €1.10/£ - far worse than today, and since then the pound has strengthened again to ~€1.22/£.
I wondered about this as well. We have a perfectly good mod/meta-mod system on traditional Slashdot that is a lot more flexible than Facebook-style "Like". Why not use it? A "+n likes" button tells you a lot less about why a comment is good or bad than "4, Informative" or "-1, Redundant", too, which you would think would be essential for SlashBI to work well.
I may be odd though, since I miss being able to mod Facebook posts Troll, Funny or Insightful, too...
Slashdot Mirror
In most cases, the splitter will be hard-wired to the antenna. Installing the filter on the antenna side will require cutting into the existing coaxial cable, which most people will require engineers to do. The affected houses will probably get a small box that plugs in between the aerial and the TV or set-top box. Something similar was done when Channel 5 was first broadcast on analogue to prevent interference with video recorders. Pretty much anyone can handle plugging the filter box in, which means the installation costs are zero.
It would have helped if the summary had pointed at the actual Nature article or the ArXiv preprint.
This post sums up the concept well enough. Each OAM value (usually associated with the letter l) means that the phase of the light around the beam centre changes by 2pi. So, l=0 is no change in phase, l=1 is 2pi change in phase and so on. There's no upper limit to OAM values, and light waves with different OAM are orthogonal, so you can theoretically have infinitely many beams with no interference between them. There are no more theoretical problems with this than having say an infinite number of GigE cards and cables. There is no way you could build something that actually uses an infinite number of beams with individual vorticities, of course, but that's the same with the infinite gigabit links too.
RBS weren't fully taken over (Wiki says 84%); I suppose the government could claim the other 16% too but it's unlikely to happen.
Dynamic typing is common in functional programming languages but not essential; Haskell is statically typed and is one of the purer functional languages.
While that's true, a standard (and popular library) for SCTP-over-UDP could be created. At most, you'd need a single well-known UDP port for inbound SCTP-over-UDP (9989 is suggested by the Internet draft for this). SCTP ports would be used to distinguish between separate SCTP-using services on the server. I'm sure that the existing Linux and BSD SCTP stacks could support this with little effort. Firewalls that only permit HTTP/HTTPS would block this variant, but it would work well enough through NATs, especially if the multiple-endpoint parts of standard SCTP were left out.
The issue is that with unsalted hashes, you only need to use brute-force once to generate your rainbow table, at which point all the passwords are cracked simultaneously. (OK, in practice you would not wait for a full rainbow table to be produced; you'd download a list of pre-computed common passwords and start with those.) With salt and a strong password, you still have to do all of that brute-force work just to obtain a single password, even if you have several GPUs doing the calculations.
I'd forgotten about the Sprint 2600:: address. :(
I suspect that the real answer was that fc00::/7 was created just to keep all the anti-publicly-allocated-address people happy, and was never taken that seriously. All the real connectivity would use link-local or suitably firewalled global address space. VPNs between separate companies would be handled via IPSEC, and no new addresses would be needed. Of course, that works fine in theory, but will probably never happen in reality...
Actually, that shouldn't be too hard to do; just replace the initial "2001:" of your global prefix with "fc00:" and you should be done. (You could probably do something similar with 6to4, where the network prefix is defined by your external IPv4 address.)
Have you been living under a rock? In the U.S. every major city has 100mbit+ net service offered by many providers to residents and business alike. It would more difficult to not find 100mbit in a major urban area than it would be to find it.
Not living in the US, I wouldn't know. All I have to go on are the reports on /. and other such sites, which give the impression that those speeds are far from the norm. (If they are, this whole thread is rather pointless, apart from the issue of rural schools.) Not that 100mbit+ internet for end-users is that common yet outside the US either...
And now you're talking about schools mantling their own fiber! I'm sorry, are they going to employ their own lien men and NOC operators?
That'd be done either by whatever organisation runs the local school system or some group set up specifically as an ISP for the schools. (Assuming we're using JANET as an example...)
You also gota realize that the UK is like the size of California. No sorry, quite a bit smaller. And that's just 1 of 50 states that need to be interconnected. Ever hear of alaska? Ya, it's like the size of France, who thinks that'll be cheap to fiber up? I'll bet that it should cost the same to cross 20,000 miles of roads as it does to cross 2,000 miles. Maybe you can find me a single citation for the cost your talking about. I've looked up the prices, my estimate is quite conservative. Your price of "virtually nothing" is a laughable as it is fantastic. As in: it only exists in your fantasy.
This excuse comes up way too often. I imagine it's perfectly easy to wire up New York and its surrounding areas for not much more than Sweden. Meanwhile, there seems to be nowhere that has 100Mb/s Internet in the US that isn't sat on a university WAN. There is nothing at all stopping an ultrafast ISP being set up specifically in San Francisco, New York or other cities and ignoring anywhere remotely rural.
I'm sure that makes it easy to download all those text books. But seriously, what the hell are you doing with 50mbps? Oh I'm sure you have a really good reason to need to double that bandwidth too.
I imagine he's using Virgin at home, in which case the speed doubling is their doing, not the poster's choice...
So with that disclaimer out of the way, does anyone think that it is possible that prolonged disputes like these might actually end up slowing the widespread adoption of IPv6? With IPv4, the number of potential addresses to have to block to effectively blacklist a site that the recognized powers have deemed offensive is substantially smaller than it could be with IPv6. Even though there may be many v4 IP's available right now, that number is still shrinking daily, and cannot possibly last more than a few more years. With a full-scale move to IPv6, even *hoping* to block an organization by IP would be completely impossible on any sort of time scale that humans could identify with, so would the organizations that are trying to shut off places like the pirate bay be lobbying to try to slow (or even halt) the adoption of IPv6, so that what they are trying to do here doesn't end up becoming completely unworkable? Why? Or why not?
Blocking by IP address appears to be near-impossible now; I fail to see that IPv6 will make it worse.
On the subject of blocking IPv6 hosts, if a /64 (or whatever) is owned entirely by the organisation you want to block, blocking is easy. If it's shared with other users, though, a lot will depend on the host company's willingness to help. Some may somehow force a specific address per client (DHCPv6?) which makes blocking no harder than at present, or be willing to act on take-down requests. With unhelpful host companies, the offending site could try fast-flux DNS techniques to temporary addresses within the local /64. At that point I suspect the whole /64 would be blocked regardless of collateral damage. Alternatively, DNS blocks could be used, with the same effectiveness that we see today.
Ultimately though, the thing to remember is that at some point, people need to know what the present address is. I imagine that the address distribution methods will be somehow disrupted to prevent updates and then the IPs will be blocked. That applies regardless of the underlying protocol!
Apparently, the SDK has always had a basic compiler included.
As for alternatives, that's probably what will happen; people without MSDN access will just use GCC or Clang instead. However, given that the open source alternatives are far better supported under Linux or OS X, why write software for Windows? We're more likely to get new software projects targeting Linux, OS X or the mobile equivalents (Android/iOS) and ignoring Windows entirely. Alternatively, we get more web apps hosted on Linux servers that do not care about the type of client used. Either way, Microsoft and Windows users end up losing out on native software.
That's interesting. I knew you could get +5 Flamebait/Troll by combinations of Interesting+2*Troll+lots of Underrated mods (like these posts), but never a pure +5 with no mod type other than Underrated. I thought you needed at least one "normal" mod type for it to show up.
For the original poster, the local atomic clock would indeed be a real atomic clock, so your NTP master clock drift ought to be minimal even if you only sync nightly. Of course, it's far more likely that a couple of cheap GPS receivers would be used in practice. Other servers and desktop machines would sync time using NTP over the existing internal network.
It's hard to really compare the two, since they're aimed at different audiences and topics. Hacker News (HN, news.ycombinator.com) is probably closer to a combination of Reddit and the /. Firehose than Slashdot proper, so you get a lot more random blog articles posted (or "Show HN" posts to show off the poster's latest creation). In the case of Slashdot, a lot of those either get filtered out at firehose level or merged into one summary referencing two or three related articles. The better HN submissions usually end up reposted on Slashdot with a day or two. HN also has a lot more articles on startup/business type stuff with little programming involved, which Slashdot avoids.
http://news.ycombinator.com/ might work better...
I hadn't spotted that polar red had used the IPO amount rather than the full "value" of Facebook. I agree that Facebook users are not worth anything like the amounts quoted, though.
One thing we're ignoring is that present-day Facebook has offices and datacentres worldwide to handle their 800m users, and those would have an intrinsic value of their own. Even so, I can't see Facebook assets coming to significantly more than $1bn, never mind $10bn+.
didn't undervalue themselves
16 billion is about $18 per user. that's ridiculous.
It's an improvement on about $30 per Instagram user...
If this post is to be believed, it's Sky-only. If you currently have cable, you're even worse off (£240/year for Sky + internet costs (cable or installing a new phone line) on top).
All ignored except .arpa, presumably, although that's assuming people bother to set up reverse DNS.
It's my understanding the quantum energy of that radiation is related to the frequency-- and terahertz radition is pretty high up there on the reactivity scale.
In terms of energy per photon, teraherz radiation (with wavelength ~300um - microwave to far-infrared?) is far less energetic than visible light. The issue here is power at this specific freqency. The wiring of the integrated circuits in the pump is probably around the same as the radiation wavelength, so you have a reasonably well-tuned antenna receiving lots of power...
That's miles out. Back in 2007, it *was* around €1.50/£-ish. By 2009-ish, that had dropped to around €1.10/£ - far worse than today, and since then the pound has strengthened again to ~€1.22/£.
I wondered about this as well. We have a perfectly good mod/meta-mod system on traditional Slashdot that is a lot more flexible than Facebook-style "Like". Why not use it? A "+n likes" button tells you a lot less about why a comment is good or bad than "4, Informative" or "-1, Redundant", too, which you would think would be essential for SlashBI to work well.
I may be odd though, since I miss being able to mod Facebook posts Troll, Funny or Insightful, too...
Would ACLs in Windows count?