... that is, enough ports if they really wanted to.
Somehow, I think the tools to handle the allocation of ports per bridge would be more expensive to develop and put in place than simply biting the bullet and rolling out IPV6, however.
But I'm not going to buy a Mac with an iNTEL processor. (Senseless prejudice against an excessively predatory company, I know.) And there are no notebook or desktop Macs that I am aware of with ARM cpus.
So, yeah, but, no, not really.
I do wonder how hard a 3 GHz ARM would be to build, and how it would compare. Would they have to hack seriously out-of-order execution and deep pipes onto the things? Or is the ARM's architecture efficient enough to dispense with those band-aids?
These are part of Yahoo's business operation model. Can Microsoft offer functional equivalents with their technology, protocols, whatever, that are anything more than vague promises?
Does Microsoft technology have a real record of keeping operation costs down without opening security holes right and left?
Remember what they rushed MSW95 onto the net with.
And remember how much their irresponsibility has cost us, no, is costing us right now in terms of bandwidth being used in unsolicited advertisements and trojan bait deliveries, in terms of authentication tokens stolen, in terms of server and workstation horsepower being diverted from the nominal owner's work to the work of intruders, in terms of actual money being lost to ordinary end users and their banks by way of falsely authorized transactions, etc., etc., etc.
Will Microsoft allow Yahoo to maintain and honor the commitments it has made? Can they, even?
No. Microsoft has to have a business case. Microsoft, in particular, being the spoiled 200 pound bully on the playground, has to have a very solid business case with legally binding guarantees that they will allow Yahoo to maintain and fulfill current business commitments.
And their public arguments at this time indicate anything but such a business plan, and guarantees to _alter_ Yahoo's business.
Microsoft has nothing of value to offer that won't be burned up in less than a year of bad planning and bad execution. We know their record. This move, whether Microsoft consciously intends it or not, can only result in the death of Yahoo.
What proof do you have that it won't? Remember, you have almost thirty years of history against you here.
but the question is whether that's what's really happening.
I mean, yeah, they want to build those as cheap as possible to get profit up, but has anyone done a survey of the actually density of domains per IP address? Or of how many different addresses are being used by those parking sites?
I don't want my retirement fund ruining the future market for some short-term gain.
Seriously, I'm wondering if the whole financial world has fallen into the hands of a bunch of maniacs who are so high on _something_ that they don't think they are going to be around next year, not to mention ten or twenty years from now.
If Yahoo were in serious trouble of, not just ceasing to grow, not just losing some market share in a market that is close to saturated, but of suddenly imploding, it might be important to look at the value the buyer can bring to the table.
But even when we look at the value Microsoft is bringing to the deal, it's in "unspecified" changes to Yahoo's business plan, operating structure, etc. In fact, given Microsoft's history and Yahoo's history and Microsoft's current attitude, this deal cannot be seen as doing anything other than violence to Yahoo.
And that leaves the question of whether a company still under court scrutiny (and theoretical punishment) for monopoly practices should even be looking at expanding in a new market.
Gates, Ballmer, and that bunch have gone powerblind.
You be vigilant on the things that worry you on your dollar and on your time.
As we can see, even Microsoft can't seem to be vigilant on everything at once.
And the question to ask would be, what alternative? OpenBSD has (yet another) theoretical vulnerability. Is it one that affects the things you use obsd for?
MSWxxx has yet another real vulnerability. Is it one that affects what you use MSWxxx for?
It's better to allocate your time to be vigilant on things that matter (to you).
does sound ridiculous, but I'm imagining 50 chihuahuas and one clydesdale and I'm thinking, if I could figure out the harness problem, and the problem of getting them all pulling in the same direction, I'd at least like to give it a try once.
As a rough guess, fifty chihuahua-power is probably greater than one horsepower.
How many Alaskan huskies equal a clydesdale? I wonder if anyone has mentioned horsepower per husky on wikipedia.
Yeah, off-topic, except that the harness problem is somewhat analogous to the problem of writing efficient muli-(erm)threading software.
Processor dependent software (for the Mac) was essentially irrelevant at the time of the switch.
Not quite, since the emulator will never be as fast as the real CPU (ergo, executing binaries that can't be re-compiled) but that was not an argument in favor of the x86 at that time.
One might argue that drivers don't have to be re-written as much, I suppose, but the reality of driver availability for the Mac has not really changed, as near as I can tell.
The switch to iNTEL seems like a great thing, but it will turn into a blind alley within five years. The x86 architecture has some serious flaws that iNTEL has been able to fake their way past by pushing the speed, but the wall stands in front of us, and the wall requires a different architecture to get through.
Von-Neumann equivalence is only useful as long as you have effectively infinite stack and infinitesimal CPU cycles.
(Our entire industry, for the last thirty years, has been behaving like the proverbial drunk looking for his wallet under the street lamp where there is light instead of down the other side of the bar where he dropped it in the dark.)
No amount of publishing the change can undo the copies with the original license.
I think what he (or whoever is behind his "change of mind") is hoping is that the same theory that government use to assert that tiny announcements in the backs of newspapers are sufficient announcement of things like development districts, condemnations, liens, changes in ordinances, etc., will allow him to assert that an announcement on sourceforge (amplified by groklaw and slashdot, etc.) is sufficient notice.
That, and the hope that enough noise will cause anyone who might really want to use the code to suffer fear, uncertainty, and doubt sufficient to run away from the code.
On the other hand, I think someone mentioned already the possibility that his project wasn't getting enough attention, so he decided he'd rather have a bad name than none at all.
"Unnamed persons with hidden connections to a certain well-known and very large software company are paying him to provide fuel for a little fodder, I mean, fodder for a lot of fud."
I thought that was fun once. Collect all the different things people do and understand them under a single theory.
Marriage has proved there are better things.
Besides, it is already known that the math is only the best model we have for a limited set of problem domains. Do you really want to squeeze 6 billion or so humans into a single domain?
Actually, the Constitution is a low level set of checks and balances.
As a whole it does make a good template of the high level concepts.
But it never specifies the high level concepts, because the moment they become specified is the moment lawyers can start perverting them. That's part of why it's so hard to talk about "freedom" and "privacy" and such as legal concepts. And that is as it should be, because one person thinks freedom is going to the websites he wants, and another person's idea of freedom is not having computers in her house. One person thinks that the right of privacy is to wear the clothes she wants and another thinks not having the right to wear no clothes is an invasion of his privacy.
That is a problem with the constitutions of many "modern" democracies with constitutions written after the US Constitution. They try to model US democracy by modeling the high level stuff instead of re-writing the checks and balances to fit the traditions of their own countries.
Slashdot Mirror
My Japanese ISP does not offer IPv6 last I asked. Nothing on their site mentions it at this time, near as I can tell.
(I could e-mail them again and ask if things have changed over the last four years since I last asked, though.)
Let's change the IPv4 addresses to look like this:
;-¥
123.32.1.23:0.0.0.0 is a host.
123.23.1.23:255.255.255.255 is a router.
123.23.1.23:1-254.1-254.1-254.1-254:0.0.0.0 is a host.
Cool idea, huh?
... that is, enough ports if they really wanted to.
Somehow, I think the tools to handle the allocation of ports per bridge would be more expensive to develop and put in place than simply biting the bullet and rolling out IPV6, however.
Yeah, I know.
But I'm not going to buy a Mac with an iNTEL processor. (Senseless prejudice against an excessively predatory company, I know.) And there are no notebook or desktop Macs that I am aware of with ARM cpus.
So, yeah, but, no, not really.
I do wonder how hard a 3 GHz ARM would be to build, and how it would compare. Would they have to hack seriously out-of-order execution and deep pipes onto the things? Or is the ARM's architecture efficient enough to dispense with those band-aids?
There are a lot of things we do on the net that don't _look_ like we are running servers.
These are part of Yahoo's business operation model. Can Microsoft offer functional equivalents with their technology, protocols, whatever, that are anything more than vague promises?
Does Microsoft technology have a real record of keeping operation costs down without opening security holes right and left?
Remember what they rushed MSW95 onto the net with.
And remember how much their irresponsibility has cost us, no, is costing us right now in terms of bandwidth being used in unsolicited advertisements and trojan bait deliveries, in terms of authentication tokens stolen, in terms of server and workstation horsepower being diverted from the nominal owner's work to the work of intruders, in terms of actual money being lost to ordinary end users and their banks by way of falsely authorized transactions, etc., etc., etc.
Will Microsoft allow Yahoo to maintain and honor the commitments it has made? Can they, even?
No. Microsoft has to have a business case. Microsoft, in particular, being the spoiled 200 pound bully on the playground, has to have a very solid business case with legally binding guarantees that they will allow Yahoo to maintain and fulfill current business commitments.
And their public arguments at this time indicate anything but such a business plan, and guarantees to _alter_ Yahoo's business.
Microsoft has nothing of value to offer that won't be burned up in less than a year of bad planning and bad execution. We know their record. This move, whether Microsoft consciously intends it or not, can only result in the death of Yahoo.
What proof do you have that it won't? Remember, you have almost thirty years of history against you here.
but the question is whether that's what's really happening.
I mean, yeah, they want to build those as cheap as possible to get profit up, but has anyone done a survey of the actually density of domains per IP address? Or of how many different addresses are being used by those parking sites?
I don't want my retirement fund ruining the future market for some short-term gain.
Seriously, I'm wondering if the whole financial world has fallen into the hands of a bunch of maniacs who are so high on _something_ that they don't think they are going to be around next year, not to mention ten or twenty years from now.
not dereliction of duty?
whenever the stockholders insist?
We are not talking about a company known for intending to improve the value of companies they buy.
Detroit's general retirement fund?
No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket in freefall.
There is, at the very least, informed self-interest vs. unbridled greed.
Unbridled greed is not how any kind of retirement fund should be run.
This is war.
If Yahoo were in serious trouble of, not just ceasing to grow, not just losing some market share in a market that is close to saturated, but of suddenly imploding, it might be important to look at the value the buyer can bring to the table.
But even when we look at the value Microsoft is bringing to the deal, it's in "unspecified" changes to Yahoo's business plan, operating structure, etc. In fact, given Microsoft's history and Yahoo's history and Microsoft's current attitude, this deal cannot be seen as doing anything other than violence to Yahoo.
And that leaves the question of whether a company still under court scrutiny (and theoretical punishment) for monopoly practices should even be looking at expanding in a new market.
Gates, Ballmer, and that bunch have gone powerblind.
7.3477 × 10^22 kg
So, let's see: 10^11 tons is roughly 10^14 kg (or exactly, if that's metric tons).
So, 1 x 10^14 / 7.35 x 10^22 would be about 1.36 * 10^-9, so your math on the percentage is correct.
You be vigilant on the things that worry you on your dollar and on your time.
As we can see, even Microsoft can't seem to be vigilant on everything at once.
And the question to ask would be, what alternative? OpenBSD has (yet another) theoretical vulnerability. Is it one that affects the things you use obsd for?
MSWxxx has yet another real vulnerability. Is it one that affects what you use MSWxxx for?
It's better to allocate your time to be vigilant on things that matter (to you).
I'll at least half agree with the wild west assertion.
But you get awfully excited about what is essentially another person/group's resource allocation choice.
I'm sure they'll take the exploit seriously when they see a reason to. Right now, they seem to think they have higher priorities.
Call it a different kind of race condition, if you will. But the only way to "fix" this race condition requires compromising the project itself.
They keep the core team small for a reason.
freedom of the user, freedom of the producer
limitations?
And, if you're claiming some kind of market race, you might want to check for relevant dates concerning ZFS
Of course, if you're just trolling, ignore me.
does sound ridiculous, but I'm imagining 50 chihuahuas and one clydesdale and I'm thinking, if I could figure out the harness problem, and the problem of getting them all pulling in the same direction, I'd at least like to give it a try once.
As a rough guess, fifty chihuahua-power is probably greater than one horsepower.
How many Alaskan huskies equal a clydesdale? I wonder if anyone has mentioned horsepower per husky on wikipedia.
Yeah, off-topic, except that the harness problem is somewhat analogous to the problem of writing efficient muli-(erm)threading software.
Processor dependent software (for the Mac) was essentially irrelevant at the time of the switch.
Not quite, since the emulator will never be as fast as the real CPU (ergo, executing binaries that can't be re-compiled) but that was not an argument in favor of the x86 at that time.
One might argue that drivers don't have to be re-written as much, I suppose, but the reality of driver availability for the Mac has not really changed, as near as I can tell.
The switch to iNTEL seems like a great thing, but it will turn into a blind alley within five years. The x86 architecture has some serious flaws that iNTEL has been able to fake their way past by pushing the speed, but the wall stands in front of us, and the wall requires a different architecture to get through.
Von-Neumann equivalence is only useful as long as you have effectively infinite stack and infinitesimal CPU cycles.
(Our entire industry, for the last thirty years, has been behaving like the proverbial drunk looking for his wallet under the street lamp where there is light instead of down the other side of the bar where he dropped it in the dark.)
No amount of publishing the change can undo the copies with the original license.
I think what he (or whoever is behind his "change of mind") is hoping is that the same theory that government use to assert that tiny announcements in the backs of newspapers are sufficient announcement of things like development districts, condemnations, liens, changes in ordinances, etc., will allow him to assert that an announcement on sourceforge (amplified by groklaw and slashdot, etc.) is sufficient notice.
That, and the hope that enough noise will cause anyone who might really want to use the code to suffer fear, uncertainty, and doubt sufficient to run away from the code.
On the other hand, I think someone mentioned already the possibility that his project wasn't getting enough attention, so he decided he'd rather have a bad name than none at all.
"Unnamed persons with hidden connections to a certain well-known and very large software company are paying him to provide fuel for a little fodder, I mean, fodder for a lot of fud."
It's a theory, okay?
Trying to screw people around for a long time tends to cause oneself a lot of confusion.
Refraining from trying to screw people around tends to let you see the world a lot better as it really is.
I thought that was fun once. Collect all the different things people do and understand them under a single theory.
Marriage has proved there are better things.
Besides, it is already known that the math is only the best model we have for a limited set of problem domains. Do you really want to squeeze 6 billion or so humans into a single domain?
Actually, the Constitution is a low level set of checks and balances.
As a whole it does make a good template of the high level concepts.
But it never specifies the high level concepts, because the moment they become specified is the moment lawyers can start perverting them. That's part of why it's so hard to talk about "freedom" and "privacy" and such as legal concepts. And that is as it should be, because one person thinks freedom is going to the websites he wants, and another person's idea of freedom is not having computers in her house. One person thinks that the right of privacy is to wear the clothes she wants and another thinks not having the right to wear no clothes is an invasion of his privacy.
That is a problem with the constitutions of many "modern" democracies with constitutions written after the US Constitution. They try to model US democracy by modeling the high level stuff instead of re-writing the checks and balances to fit the traditions of their own countries.