It's not just some small alarmist group raising a bell over nothing. We will run out of IPv4 at some point. Some estimates say two years, some say eight. Could be more, could be less. At any rate, we WILL run out. Why not adopt a clearly better alternative while we've got time? How can it be disadvantageous?
I consider myself relatively competent behind the wheel. I also consider a lot of people not-quite-so-competent. But while I have a healthy distrust for other drivers, I'll trust them over a computer any day. Either I'm driving, or the radar is.
Perhaps there's a reason I'm not stopping before I hit that car. Perhaps it's a maneuver that I decide "You know what, rear-ending the guy in front of me is a lot better than [fill in the blank with something the computer doesn't know about]".
The infrastructure is useless without the systems which utilize it, and the systems are useless without an infrastructure on which to run.
Don't delude yourself by thinking that one demographic is more or less important than the other.
I can only imagine that this will have no real benefit other than increasing the already alarming amount of sludge that clogs the intertube and giving spammers a bigger playground.
Not to mention, that anyone with a registered domain name (about which they care) should be pretty upset by this, because it will dilute your brand uniqueness relative to the total number of domains, along with forcing you to purchase more domains if you're of the mind to prevent 'typo domains' from poaching valuable traffic and sending clueless visitors to unsavory websites.
Next from Thomas B. Fordham Institute: "Newer Study Than the Last Wastes Money Investigating The Pointlessness of New Studies Which Investigate What We Already Know"
I've not read Sagan's work, but I do have a note on your response, Smooth Wambat.
It's a perfectly logical, rational conclusion based on the available evidence.
As I've said, I've not read Sagan's work, but your "logic" here is inherently flawed. You argue that God cannot not exist due to the lack of evidence in His favor. You continue your conjecture by appending that IEL is conceivably possible because there exists no evidence to the contrary.
These two logical stances don't jive. You cannot argue that one of the two constructs is NOT possible because of a LACK of evidence, and then turn around in that same paragraph and argue that the second construct IS possible due to a lack of CONTRADICTORY evidence.
My question to yourself, and the rest of the SlashDot community at large: Why must the existence of the Lord and IEL be mutually exclusive? Are the two not both possible? Provide for me either A) a scriptural reference or B) an actual logical argument that either 1) negates the possibility of God having created IEL, or 2) explains why the existence of IEL would disprove God's existence. I'm submitting a request for responses to any ONE of the possible four permutations of {A,B} and {1,2}.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have liked my school to do the same.
It's not just some small alarmist group raising a bell over nothing. We will run out of IPv4 at some point. Some estimates say two years, some say eight. Could be more, could be less. At any rate, we WILL run out. Why not adopt a clearly better alternative while we've got time? How can it be disadvantageous?
I consider myself relatively competent behind the wheel. I also consider a lot of people not-quite-so-competent. But while I have a healthy distrust for other drivers, I'll trust them over a computer any day. Either I'm driving, or the radar is. Perhaps there's a reason I'm not stopping before I hit that car. Perhaps it's a maneuver that I decide "You know what, rear-ending the guy in front of me is a lot better than [fill in the blank with something the computer doesn't know about]".
Only if they're alone in the woods.
Ouch.
The infrastructure is useless without the systems which utilize it, and the systems are useless without an infrastructure on which to run. Don't delude yourself by thinking that one demographic is more or less important than the other.
As the title suggests.
I can only imagine that this will have no real benefit other than increasing the already alarming amount of sludge that clogs the intertube and giving spammers a bigger playground.
Not to mention, that anyone with a registered domain name (about which they care) should be pretty upset by this, because it will dilute your brand uniqueness relative to the total number of domains, along with forcing you to purchase more domains if you're of the mind to prevent 'typo domains' from poaching valuable traffic and sending clueless visitors to unsavory websites.
@ICANN: This is just disappointing.
Next from Thomas B. Fordham Institute: "Newer Study Than the Last Wastes Money Investigating The Pointlessness of New Studies Which Investigate What We Already Know"
I've not read Sagan's work, but I do have a note on your response, Smooth Wambat.
It's a perfectly logical, rational conclusion based on the available evidence.As I've said, I've not read Sagan's work, but your "logic" here is inherently flawed. You argue that God cannot not exist due to the lack of evidence in His favor. You continue your conjecture by appending that IEL is conceivably possible because there exists no evidence to the contrary.
These two logical stances don't jive. You cannot argue that one of the two constructs is NOT possible because of a LACK of evidence, and then turn around in that same paragraph and argue that the second construct IS possible due to a lack of CONTRADICTORY evidence.
My question to yourself, and the rest of the SlashDot community at large: Why must the existence of the Lord and IEL be mutually exclusive? Are the two not both possible? Provide for me either A) a scriptural reference or B) an actual logical argument that either 1) negates the possibility of God having created IEL, or 2) explains why the existence of IEL would disprove God's existence. I'm submitting a request for responses to any ONE of the possible four permutations of {A,B} and {1,2}.