A significant portion of the web has already transitioned over to IPv6, and the remainder could be accessed through NAT. At that point, any difficulty due to IP collisions is not the ISPs fault, and it shifts the onus to those straggling websites and servers to upgrade.
No. It merely means people sitting on CGNAT cannot function as nodes, and that only applies to TOR in its current form. TOR could be re-implemented in UDP, using a third party to synchronize two nodes. In such a setup, only that third party would need to be globally accessible, of course it would also limit the security of the system as the routing data would be more readily available to someone hosting one of these nodes.
That's not the point. He's referring to false positives, and users being unable to access resources because their neighbor used it all up, or got their shared address banned.
They did fix the issue. They designed IPv6. The trouble is that fifteen years later when the need is finally here, companies are too cheap/lazy/stubborn to adopt it.
No. I'm saying plenty of consumers are running software and/or hardware that can't even use IPv6. While enabling IPv6, so those that can use it can do so and relinquish their IPv4 address, will go a long way towards relieving the pressure on ISPs, that's considerably different from saying everyone has already updated.
Tons of people still use WinXP that has no functional IPv6 stack. Tons of people use old consumer modems and routers that have no IPv6 stack. Even many new modems and routers don't come with IPv6 capability. Was this poor planning on the part of ISPs, and entirely their fault? Abso-fucking-lutely!
Or you know, just use one of the many IPv6 tunneling mechanisms. The issue is that many of those mechanisms use IP protocol 41, and many ISPs, modems, and routers filter out non-standard protocol traffic.
It's still technically NAT, because your modem is having it's external address translated to an internet addressable address on the ISP's side. The difference is that what you are seeing is a one-to-one translation with direct passthrough of all traffic. CGNAT typically refers to a one-to-many translation, where multiple subscribers are tied to a single address, and there is no inbound traffic.
You specifically mentioned "carbon fiber reinforced plastics", but there is a whole field of composites that do not use low temperature plastics. High performance brakes use carbon fiber in a silicon carbide matrix. Some high performance racing engines use carbon fiber in an aluminum matrix for cylinders. The landing gear on the F-16 was silicon carbide fiber in a titanium matrix. I've already mentioned the carbon-carbon composite used for the thermal insulation on the Shuttle.
My point is that most people (who have any idea what carbon fiber even is) confuse carbon fiber with plastic parts, and while that is its most common use, nothing precludes carbon fiber from high temperature applications.
While the plastic is obviously a bad idea, the carbon fiber is not. It's certainly more difficult, but you can reinforce metals and ceramics with carbon fiber. The high temperature leading edge tiles on Shuttle are carbon-carbon, or carbon fiber reinforced graphite.
Stagnation temperature is a bigger issue than friction at those speeds. Ambient temperature at that altitude is around 200-250K, so an object traveling at Mach 5.1 through it will have boundary layer temperatures of around 1200-1500K, even before any additional temperature from friction.
Actually, there are real advantages to using wing warping to create control surfaces. Fighter aircraft transitioned to fully moving stabilators decades ago, and there is research into using aerodynamic forces to produce wing twist and roll control, replacing ailerons, rather than trying to fight that twist with ever stiffer wings.
Rockwell worked on plans for a hypersonic spaceplane powered by a scramjet, using DARPA funds, starting as far back as the early 1980s. The X-30 project was scraped, but later revived into the X-43 project. The X-43 was actually tested first in June 2001, over a year before the Australian HyShot, although admittedly, the test was a failure, and HyShot was the first successful scramjet flight.
No one is questioning the Australian's expertise and merit in the field of scramjet propulsion, but it's foolish to think they are the only ones in the game. England developed the first turbojet engine, but that's not to say German and the US weren't hot on their heals. Besides, no one is claiming this is the first scramjet flight. The claim is that this is the first scramjet flight using hydrocarbon fuels, which are much easier to manage and store than the cryogenic hydrogen used by ever flight previous.
In other words, everything would have to be verified and signed by a central authority before it could be allowed to interact with other elements of the system. Thus, one could not implement it openly.
They probably would have crashed long before reaching the towers. I realize aircraft are robust objects, and a bullet through the hull is not going to result in explosive decompression, and I'm even all for gun rights (or at least opposed to needless, ineffective laws), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let the average yahoo take a gun onto an airliner. The only reason to carry a gun on your person is because you might have the need to fire it, and I don't want anyone without special training using one. There's a whole lot of lightweight materials up there that a bullet will sail right through, and there is often sensitive, vital equipment installed behind it.
Opposes the "right to choose".... what? Anything? Is he somehow against free will? Please elaborate on this for those not involved with your particular special interest.
In standard encryption, both the user and the server are trying to protect some shared secret. In DRM, both the application and the server are trying to protect some shared secret from the user. If the user themselves cannot be trusted, then the user cannot be trusted to build a proper implementation, and thus the standard cannot be openly implemented. Running the user's code would be no different from a third party attacker providing your encryption software.
Seems that for all the "gung ho capitalism is awesome" types, they'd rather all the customers be kept in the dark about what they're buying.
Which is really a shame, as the only way capitalism actually works as intended is when the individual customer is sufficiently intelligent and informed to act as the regulating force in the market, and only take actions that are in their long term best interest.
Implementing something openly means anyone can implement it. If any user could implement it, then any user could just as easily fake implementing it, lie to the previous block of code in the chain, and immediately divulge the keys to themselves. DRM cannot allow this to happen, thus the keys AND the code must both be protected from the user.
Just because you don't have DRM does not mean users can freely access your system. Conditional access is completely separate from DRM. Conditional access limits initial access to the content. DRM prevents what users can do once they do access the content. DRM is not even to protect against users violating your copyrights by redistributing your content, as time and again, history has shown that all DRM systems will be broken, and broken in short order. People who illegally download content never have to deal with DRM. DRM is merely to artificially restrict how the otherwise legitimate paying customer can consume the content.
Wrong. If we standardize it in the browser, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on free web browsers such as Firefox or Chromium... and of course, if the DRM were properly implemented, this could result in the distribution of web browsers that could not be run on free operating systems such as GNU/Linux, unlocked ChromeOS, or after-market blends of Android.
DRM requires that every single piece of code that handles unencrypted content, from the browser, to the operating system, to the hardware drivers, and even the firmware on that hardware, be signed and authenticated such that it will uphold the restrictions of the DRM. Yes. By definition that means that Flash has a broken DRM implementation.
Except... the proposed changes do not actually implement the DRM itself. The DRM itself is still going to be done using external plugins. The changes are to implement a standardized interface for these plugins to connect to, and to authenticate that the browser and operating system has not been modified in any manner so as to defeat the DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
A significant portion of the web has already transitioned over to IPv6, and the remainder could be accessed through NAT. At that point, any difficulty due to IP collisions is not the ISPs fault, and it shifts the onus to those straggling websites and servers to upgrade.
No. It merely means people sitting on CGNAT cannot function as nodes, and that only applies to TOR in its current form. TOR could be re-implemented in UDP, using a third party to synchronize two nodes. In such a setup, only that third party would need to be globally accessible, of course it would also limit the security of the system as the routing data would be more readily available to someone hosting one of these nodes.
That's not the point. He's referring to false positives, and users being unable to access resources because their neighbor used it all up, or got their shared address banned.
To be fair, we would be saying the same thing were we migrating to IPv6....
They did fix the issue. They designed IPv6. The trouble is that fifteen years later when the need is finally here, companies are too cheap/lazy/stubborn to adopt it.
No. I'm saying plenty of consumers are running software and/or hardware that can't even use IPv6. While enabling IPv6, so those that can use it can do so and relinquish their IPv4 address, will go a long way towards relieving the pressure on ISPs, that's considerably different from saying everyone has already updated.
Those that could convert to IPv6 would do so, freeing up IPv4 space for those that could not.
Tons of people still use WinXP that has no functional IPv6 stack. Tons of people use old consumer modems and routers that have no IPv6 stack. Even many new modems and routers don't come with IPv6 capability. Was this poor planning on the part of ISPs, and entirely their fault? Abso-fucking-lutely!
Or you know, just use one of the many IPv6 tunneling mechanisms. The issue is that many of those mechanisms use IP protocol 41, and many ISPs, modems, and routers filter out non-standard protocol traffic.
It's still technically NAT, because your modem is having it's external address translated to an internet addressable address on the ISP's side. The difference is that what you are seeing is a one-to-one translation with direct passthrough of all traffic. CGNAT typically refers to a one-to-many translation, where multiple subscribers are tied to a single address, and there is no inbound traffic.
80Plus ratings only measure PSU efficiency down to 20% capacity. Chances are at a mere 50W idle, you're running well below that level.
You specifically mentioned "carbon fiber reinforced plastics", but there is a whole field of composites that do not use low temperature plastics. High performance brakes use carbon fiber in a silicon carbide matrix. Some high performance racing engines use carbon fiber in an aluminum matrix for cylinders. The landing gear on the F-16 was silicon carbide fiber in a titanium matrix. I've already mentioned the carbon-carbon composite used for the thermal insulation on the Shuttle.
My point is that most people (who have any idea what carbon fiber even is) confuse carbon fiber with plastic parts, and while that is its most common use, nothing precludes carbon fiber from high temperature applications.
So it lands somewhere to their west?
While the plastic is obviously a bad idea, the carbon fiber is not. It's certainly more difficult, but you can reinforce metals and ceramics with carbon fiber. The high temperature leading edge tiles on Shuttle are carbon-carbon, or carbon fiber reinforced graphite.
Stagnation temperature is a bigger issue than friction at those speeds. Ambient temperature at that altitude is around 200-250K, so an object traveling at Mach 5.1 through it will have boundary layer temperatures of around 1200-1500K, even before any additional temperature from friction.
Actually, there are real advantages to using wing warping to create control surfaces. Fighter aircraft transitioned to fully moving stabilators decades ago, and there is research into using aerodynamic forces to produce wing twist and roll control, replacing ailerons, rather than trying to fight that twist with ever stiffer wings.
Rockwell worked on plans for a hypersonic spaceplane powered by a scramjet, using DARPA funds, starting as far back as the early 1980s. The X-30 project was scraped, but later revived into the X-43 project. The X-43 was actually tested first in June 2001, over a year before the Australian HyShot, although admittedly, the test was a failure, and HyShot was the first successful scramjet flight.
No one is questioning the Australian's expertise and merit in the field of scramjet propulsion, but it's foolish to think they are the only ones in the game. England developed the first turbojet engine, but that's not to say German and the US weren't hot on their heals. Besides, no one is claiming this is the first scramjet flight. The claim is that this is the first scramjet flight using hydrocarbon fuels, which are much easier to manage and store than the cryogenic hydrogen used by ever flight previous.
In other words, everything would have to be verified and signed by a central authority before it could be allowed to interact with other elements of the system. Thus, one could not implement it openly.
They probably would have crashed long before reaching the towers. I realize aircraft are robust objects, and a bullet through the hull is not going to result in explosive decompression, and I'm even all for gun rights (or at least opposed to needless, ineffective laws), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let the average yahoo take a gun onto an airliner. The only reason to carry a gun on your person is because you might have the need to fire it, and I don't want anyone without special training using one. There's a whole lot of lightweight materials up there that a bullet will sail right through, and there is often sensitive, vital equipment installed behind it.
opposes the right to choose
Opposes the "right to choose".... what? Anything? Is he somehow against free will? Please elaborate on this for those not involved with your particular special interest.
In standard encryption, both the user and the server are trying to protect some shared secret. In DRM, both the application and the server are trying to protect some shared secret from the user. If the user themselves cannot be trusted, then the user cannot be trusted to build a proper implementation, and thus the standard cannot be openly implemented. Running the user's code would be no different from a third party attacker providing your encryption software.
Seems that for all the "gung ho capitalism is awesome" types, they'd rather all the customers be kept in the dark about what they're buying.
Which is really a shame, as the only way capitalism actually works as intended is when the individual customer is sufficiently intelligent and informed to act as the regulating force in the market, and only take actions that are in their long term best interest.
Implementing something openly means anyone can implement it. If any user could implement it, then any user could just as easily fake implementing it, lie to the previous block of code in the chain, and immediately divulge the keys to themselves. DRM cannot allow this to happen, thus the keys AND the code must both be protected from the user.
Just because you don't have DRM does not mean users can freely access your system. Conditional access is completely separate from DRM. Conditional access limits initial access to the content. DRM prevents what users can do once they do access the content. DRM is not even to protect against users violating your copyrights by redistributing your content, as time and again, history has shown that all DRM systems will be broken, and broken in short order. People who illegally download content never have to deal with DRM. DRM is merely to artificially restrict how the otherwise legitimate paying customer can consume the content.
Wrong. If we standardize it in the browser, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on free web browsers such as Firefox or Chromium... and of course, if the DRM were properly implemented, this could result in the distribution of web browsers that could not be run on free operating systems such as GNU/Linux, unlocked ChromeOS, or after-market blends of Android.
DRM requires that every single piece of code that handles unencrypted content, from the browser, to the operating system, to the hardware drivers, and even the firmware on that hardware, be signed and authenticated such that it will uphold the restrictions of the DRM. Yes. By definition that means that Flash has a broken DRM implementation.
Except... the proposed changes do not actually implement the DRM itself. The DRM itself is still going to be done using external plugins. The changes are to implement a standardized interface for these plugins to connect to, and to authenticate that the browser and operating system has not been modified in any manner so as to defeat the DRM.