It's just what happens when you have one party supplying the hardware and another party supplying the software, and both with different priorities.
The Android scenario is closer to the PC scenario in the bad old days before "Windows Update" etc.For example the old computers might still be running an old version of Windows. Is that a problem? Yes. Did Dell/HP/etc care? No. Did Microsoft care? Not back then. Did most users care? No. Not until something goes wrong.
"My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products," Jobs told Isaacson. "[T]he products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
When you have separate companies treating the software and hardware as different products, with different vision and priorities, the "whole product" is less likely to be as great.
However, there are vast numbers of examples in Chinese history in which individuals moved from a low social status to political prominence through success in imperial examination.
No doubt the odds were still against a peasant student, but the odds were still much better than say a peasant in feudal Europe rising to a similar level without a revolution/rebellion.
Lastly, Chinese Emperors would come and go, but they often kept much of the same bureaucracy around to do the actually day-to-day operations.
I guess they'd rather spend time eating, drinking, making merry and choosing concubines/wives;).
Yeah, I use Linux, but mainly "CLI" coz the "popular" linux desktops are shit and have got even shittier. They're not good for the noobs. They're not good for the nerds. The Linux Desktop bunch should get a clue, if "screen" ( http://www.gnu.org/s/screen/ ) is still better and faster at task managing than your GUI, you've failed. If normal users are still having problems with sound, you've failed.
The main goal of the ReactOS project is to provide an operating system which is binary compatible with Windows. This will allow your Windows applications and drivers to run as they would on your Windows system. Additionally, the look and feel of the Windows operating system is used, such that people accustomed to the familiar user interface of Windows® would find using ReactOS straightforward. The ultimate goal of ReactOS is to allow you to remove Windows® and install ReactOS without the end user noticing the change.
Otherwise it would be nice to see Microsoft sweat more (but not Ballmer tho;) ) to actually come up with a better product .
Remember, there were many models whose job was NOT to make a truly honest prediction---the models were adjuncts to the sales force.
Yeah, they're a bit like the models used to sell cars. Very pretty, very sexy. But usually nothing to do with the actual product. Just to attract you and then distract you from looking too closely at the actual product.;)
In practice all these economic and financial models are to distract/discourage you from looking too closely at whatever they are actually trying to sell to you;).
1) You're mistaken. In IPv4 a device can have multiple IP addresses, in fact most IPv4 devices have multiple IP addresses. The issue is ISPs usually charge you more for public IPv4 addresses if you want more. So how many real world ISP would allow users to use multiple IPv6 addresses without charging extra? 2) using the new IP address will cause non-SCTP connections to break. That does not necessarily happen for the "c) via VPN" scenario.
And I'm not too sure about the security of SCTP connections. Since you can use a different IP address to resume your connection, if there are security bugs or weaknesses, someone else might be able to "resume" your connection;).
Right now NAT is such a huge barrier to end to end communications that other problems with TCP still get more ink.
Where you see a barrier, others see a layer of abstraction.
no-NAT IPv6 end to end addresses puts in place most of the foundation for truly constant mobile connectivity
What if you want to move a friend's device from using his internet connection (out of credits) to using your mobile phone's internet connection?
Do you: a) Go without NAT and wait for all the required routers in the world to figure out where your friend's device now is, so that they can still send packets to its IPv6 address but now located in a different ISP's network? Good luck with that. b) Get your friend to sign up for all the ISPs to get all the necessary multiple IPv6 addresses for multi-homing? c) Use NAT and share the connection? Yes this can break your friends connections, But he can actually make new ones (whereas with a) and b) he might not be able to). Another thing, if your friend uses a VPN service through your NAT, your friend can keep his endpoint IP addresses and not break connections, despite hopping from different NAT connections or nonNAT connections. With this the ISPs and their devices don't have to be informed of any configuration or routing changes.
Despite what all the "ivory tower academics" think there are many reasons to use NAT in the real messy world out there.
priority: noun, 1. the state or quality of being earlier in time, occurrence, etc. 2. the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.; precedence. 3. the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, services, facilities, etc., especially during a shortage. 4. something given special attention.
And those very highest levels of government can decide whether to get rid of those 2 million unelected civilian positions, or not. Otherwise why is the Libertarian Party even bothering with the US elections? So if they get power they would also keep all those 2 million civilian positions?
But only if voters vote for someone who reduces the number of federal employees.
Yes and therefore my statement is true: "As I have been saying over and over again, the US voters still decide who gets into Government."
The US voters can still control the Government and the size of Government.
And hence voter education is important.
If the voters keep voting for people who don't reduce the number of federal employees, that means that: a) that's not their priority. b) that's not what they want. c) they're doing it wrong
So apparently it isn't a standard, and can break zeroconf
That's why I said: "a.here TLD, reserved officially for local use" and "analogous way to the way that the RFC1918 IP addresses are reserved officially for private use".
If RFC1918 IP addresses didn't exist people could have used arbitrary IP ranges they hope won't conflict. The same reason why RFC1918 is a better idea than that, is the same reason why there should be a.here or similar TLD.
Once you have a standard, others can build upon it. For example: many areas might allow you to visit http://here/ so that you can get a list of publicly advertised stuff/people that you can interact with.
This sort of thing can make it easier for you to do virtual telekinesis in different areas, and not just in places you are "accustomed" to (home, office).
I have proposed this type of TLD to the ICANN (back when Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson were there) and also the IETF. But the ICANN prefers to keep inflicting "Yet Another dotCom TLD money grab" on us.
There are 537 publicly elected positions in the federal government. There are over 2 million unelected civilian positions in the federal government (excluding the US Postal Service). So no, the US voters do not get to decide who gets into the federal government. They only decide on the very highest levels of government.
And those very highest levels of government can decide whether to get rid of those 2 million unelected civilian positions, or not. Otherwise why is the Libertarian Party even bothering with the US elections? So if they get power they would also keep all those 2 million civilian positions?
The Libertarians and you say the voters should choose Small Government. And I say the votes should not obsess over Big or Small - they should choose Better Government - which is not automatically Smaller Government - just look at various countries around the world.
most which has to survive based on its ability to return more value than it consumes.
Does that apply to the 147 companies that control most of the Global economy? All they need is to continue getting enough cash and power to do what they want. And you may have noticed that does not necessarily mean returning more value.
From what I see the average US voter has even less say on what the people in the "147" do than what the 2 million in the US Government do.
Many of those 147 Corporations that control most of the Global Economy would still exist even if Governments were small - they and the corporations they control operate and profit in many countries around the world, with big and small Governments. And some even operate in countries with near nonexistent governments.
OK let's say the US goes small government but the Federal Reserve is allowed to continue "business as usual". Will things really improve? Go google for who the Federal Reserve "loaned" trillions to.
Ultimately someone's got to be in charge of the US Dollar. Whether the Federal Reserve or someone else.
Note: I hope you're not one of those wackos who think that everyone in the US should start buying and selling stuff in gold instead of US dollars. The US dollar is necessary for the USA and it is actually advantageous to the USA (petrodollar, "reserve currency", etc).
The problem is the Federal Reserve does not appear to be well regulated/controlled by the Government (and the People). Just because the Government is doing a bad job of it doesn't mean the Government should stop trying to regulate/control it and completely leave it to "Market Forces" (aka the 147 Corporations).
So it's not a matter of small or big. It's a matter of Good or Bad. Good/Bad Government/Regulation.
So how do you get quality of government when it is that large and corruption that firmly entrenched?
Seems you still don't understand or refuse to understand.
As I have been saying over and over again, the US voters still decide who gets into Government. That hasn't changed _YET_. If they voted for someone else, that someone else would be in, correct? The US is not Saddam's Iraq yet right?
They voted for Bush, Bush got re-elected. They voted for Obama, Obama got in. Are you saying they didn't vote for them? AFAIK nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to vote that way, and can I assume the elections aren't that badly diebolded? So the buck ultimately stops at the voters.
How do you improve the quality of voters and candidates? Better education? Good upbringing, whatever that is?
My view is that a large government cannot be high quality. Huge size means greater complexity and far weaker ability to control quality.
Using your logic then a large country like the USA cannot be high quality either? If not, why not using your same argument?
And if you want a stronger ability to control quality does that mean you should reduce the number of voters too? Maybe to one?;)
Thing is we have more than enough human stupidity already, why create more?
Anyway I'm biased. In my opinion it's better to focus on augmenting humans than to create AIs. The lines will get blurry in some cases, but there's still a difference in philosophy and objective.
If you want nonhuman intelligence there's already plenty at the pet stores and farms, AND we don't treat them all that well, so why create AIs? To enslave them? What if they are smart enough to not want to be slaves? What if we create AIs that are like us, but we do it in a way where we still don't understand why they work. Don't laugh - there are some AI projects where they seem to be just throwing stuff together and hoping it works. So what if the end result wants the right to vote and wants the right to live freely without being killed?
In my opinion many animals are much smarter than Rosette. They can't randomly spit that many words at you, but they can often guess whether what you are doing will result in a future that would be better for them or worse.
The more intelligent ones might also have some idea on whether the resulting future would be better or worse for you and others too, not just them.
Prediction is an important part of intelligence. First: Model of world, model of others, model of self. Next: Prediction of world, prediction of others, prediction of self. Most humans are surprisingly poor at prediction of self, but I guess it works well enough. Maybe consciousness is a result of your mind recursively predicting itself.
Anyway regurgitating phrases and words is just stupid. 50 years of AI and this wins the prize?
Yes he did understand your question. But that was not _my_ question which was a the ".here TLD?" one.
Anyway, your reply and his just shows that what I write is hard for people to understand. Dunno why.
Regarding your question, I wonder how should "numeric only" IPs work if a browser supports both IPv4 and IPv6? The two address ranges would overlap. So would numeric-only IPs mean IPv4 only?
BTW: on some OSes you can ping 4.8. Which isn't a numeric only IP address, so it's even messier than that;).
Lisp is great for all the code that you have to write. Perl is great for all the code that you don't have to write.
That's why I prefer Perl to Lisp. For most of the problems I've needed to solve, someone else usually has written most of the required code AND made it freely available for me to reuse[1]. This means there is less code for me to write, document and support. Perl may be ugly and inferior when compared to Lisp, but I only have to write a little of it.
Whereas if I write in Lisp, even though Lisp might theoretically be more powerful and expressive, in practice I would have to write a lot more code than I would have to if I used perl/python or similar.
If you're writing stuff that nobody else has written good tools/libraries for, Lisp might be a better choice.
[1] See CPAN and elsewhere. Examples: Need to talk to Postgresql with an easy interface that prevents SQL injection? Use DBI and DBD::Pg. Need to parse and or create DHCP packets? Use Net::DHCP::Packet.
Fact is, unless the US elections are so badly Diebolded, nobody is forcing the voters to vote for either of the 2 parties. They can vote for someone else, or even be candidates (yes there are some barriers in some places for Independent candidates but whining about them isn't going to fix them, and fact is independents still do manage to run).
In this day and age if the voters can still be so easily influenced AGAINST their own interests by campaign money then the voters are the main problem.
Otherwise one can conclude the voters still prefer either D or R. Just because you think the voters should vote differently doesn't mean that they agree with you. Sarah Palin was rather popular wasn't she? George Bush was reelected wasn't he? You might say he shouldn't have won but the main point is GWB still got a lot of votes.
So seems to me the D&Rs know what the voters who actually bother to vote want and keep giving it to them.
The Libertarian Party on the other hand seem to be a bunch of loonies/idiots. Evidence being they keep getting obsessed with the quantity of Government.
It's not quantity of Government that matters - it's quality of Government. Thinking that making Governments smaller will magically make things better is as stupid as thinking that reducing the number of voters would magically make things better.
In that circumstance, the individuals would be the ones doing the enforcing. Maybe shooting the thug, maybe destroying considerable property owned by the thug, that sort of thing.
1) A large corporation can wield quite a lot of firepower.
2) If those individuals can't use the ballot box to improve things in a democracy what makes you think they'll do a good job with the ammo box?
You have a democracy, so work to improve the Gov. Fact is in the USA, in the past few elections 98% of those who bothered to vote, voted for either one of the Two Parties. The rest literally don't count. If many of you really don't like either party, vote for someone else, or even be a candidate. If there are enough of you, the Two Parties might even change to try to satisfy you. If there aren't enough of you, there is no good reason why the Two Parties should do what you want - they rightfully should be more concerned about the 98% who voted for them.
Here's my proposal, start a reality TV show called "Vote Them Off The Planet". Then you have the candidates (George Bush, Obama, Sarah Palin, Random Celebrity, Random Politician ) etc.
Then you have the categories: One Way, Return.
Those that win the One Way, can choose to: a) Not go. b) Go one way (not come back) c) Pay for the return trip, and go.
Those that win the Return, can choose to: a) Not go. b) Go one way. c) Go "Return".
I think there would be more merit to this human space travel than sending astronauts to Mars (presumably one-way).
Sending humans to Mars is a stupid idea given our current level of technology. A far better first step would be building space stations which humans can actually live on (not merely rot away on for a few months) - artificial gravity, radiation shielding.
Once you've got such space craft, going to Mars becomes easier (but still a silly idea- going to Ceres or more suitable asteroids would be a better idea).
In the traditional classroom a teacher gives a long lecture on stuff with minimal interaction. But nowadays it's actually a waste of time for teachers to do what can be already done with videos: http://www.khanacademy.org/
So teachers should focus on doing what the videos can't. Seems In some schools, the students watch the lectures/videos at home, then come to school, do stuff and get help from the teacher.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just what happens when you have one party supplying the hardware and another party supplying the software, and both with different priorities.
The Android scenario is closer to the PC scenario in the bad old days before "Windows Update" etc.For example the old computers might still be running an old version of Windows. Is that a problem? Yes. Did Dell/HP/etc care? No. Did Microsoft care? Not back then. Did most users care? No. Not until something goes wrong.
As a recent article says, Apple of today is focused on Product not Profit: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/10/25/2246209/how-steve-jobs-solved-the-innovators-dilemma
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/steve-jobs-failure_n_1025732.html
"My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products," Jobs told Isaacson. "[T]he products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
When you have separate companies treating the software and hardware as different products, with different vision and priorities, the "whole product" is less likely to be as great.
In China, if you were male, and did well in the Imperial examinations you had a chance to become a bureaucrat even if you were from a peasant background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar-bureaucrats
Quote from wiki:
However, there are vast numbers of examples in Chinese history in which individuals moved from a low social status to political prominence through success in imperial examination.
http://www.sacu.org/examinations.html
No doubt the odds were still against a peasant student, but the odds were still much better than say a peasant in feudal Europe rising to a similar level without a revolution/rebellion.
Lastly, Chinese Emperors would come and go, but they often kept much of the same bureaucracy around to do the actually day-to-day operations.
I guess they'd rather spend time eating, drinking, making merry and choosing concubines/wives ;).
The Chinese on the other hand prefer to think about the right to bear paws, and bile... ;)
Yeah, I use Linux, but mainly "CLI" coz the "popular" linux desktops are shit and have got even shittier. They're not good for the noobs. They're not good for the nerds. The Linux Desktop bunch should get a clue, if "screen" ( http://www.gnu.org/s/screen/ ) is still better and faster at task managing than your GUI, you've failed. If normal users are still having problems with sound, you've failed.
As for Windows, too bad reactos isn't making progress fast enough: http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
The main goal of the ReactOS project is to provide an operating system which is binary compatible with Windows. This will allow your Windows applications and drivers to run as they would on your Windows system. Additionally, the look and feel of the Windows operating system is used, such that people accustomed to the familiar user interface of Windows® would find using ReactOS straightforward. The ultimate goal of ReactOS is to allow you to remove Windows® and install ReactOS without the end user noticing the change.
Otherwise it would be nice to see Microsoft sweat more (but not Ballmer tho ;) ) to actually come up with a better product .
Remember, there were many models whose job was NOT to make a truly honest prediction---the models were adjuncts to the sales force.
Yeah, they're a bit like the models used to sell cars. Very pretty, very sexy. But usually nothing to do with the actual product. Just to attract you and then distract you from looking too closely at the actual product. ;)
It doesn't really matter that much.
;).
In practice all these economic and financial models are to distract/discourage you from looking too closely at whatever they are actually trying to sell to you
Why would non-SCTP connections break?
Because TCP and UDP connections are: IP address+Port to/from IP Address+Port.
So if you change the IP address, you have to make new connections. You cannot continue using the old connections.
1) You're mistaken. In IPv4 a device can have multiple IP addresses, in fact most IPv4 devices have multiple IP addresses. The issue is ISPs usually charge you more for public IPv4 addresses if you want more. So how many real world ISP would allow users to use multiple IPv6 addresses without charging extra?
;).
2) using the new IP address will cause non-SCTP connections to break. That does not necessarily happen for the "c) via VPN" scenario.
And I'm not too sure about the security of SCTP connections. Since you can use a different IP address to resume your connection, if there are security bugs or weaknesses, someone else might be able to "resume" your connection
Right now NAT is such a huge barrier to end to end communications that other problems with TCP still get more ink.
Where you see a barrier, others see a layer of abstraction.
no-NAT IPv6 end to end addresses puts in place most of the foundation for truly constant mobile connectivity
What if you want to move a friend's device from using his internet connection (out of credits) to using your mobile phone's internet connection?
Do you:
a) Go without NAT and wait for all the required routers in the world to figure out where your friend's device now is, so that they can still send packets to its IPv6 address but now located in a different ISP's network? Good luck with that.
b) Get your friend to sign up for all the ISPs to get all the necessary multiple IPv6 addresses for multi-homing?
c) Use NAT and share the connection? Yes this can break your friends connections, But he can actually make new ones (whereas with a) and b) he might not be able to). Another thing, if your friend uses a VPN service through your NAT, your friend can keep his endpoint IP addresses and not break connections, despite hopping from different NAT connections or nonNAT connections. With this the ISPs and their devices don't have to be informed of any configuration or routing changes.
Despite what all the "ivory tower academics" think
there are many reasons to use NAT in the real messy world out there.
Perl comes preinstalled on OSX, Solaris, AIX, BSD, and > 1000 Linux Distros.
And sure is more powerful than "sh" - and more consistent across platforms than "sh".
One script to rule them all...
That's a)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/priority
priority: noun,
1.
the state or quality of being earlier in time, occurrence, etc.
2.
the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.; precedence.
3.
the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, services, facilities, etc., especially during a shortage.
4.
something given special attention.
And those very highest levels of government can decide whether to get rid of those 2 million unelected civilian positions, or not. Otherwise why is the Libertarian Party even bothering with the US elections? So if they get power they would also keep all those 2 million civilian positions?
But only if voters vote for someone who reduces the number of federal employees.
Yes and therefore my statement is true: "As I have been saying over and over again, the US voters still decide who gets into Government."
The US voters can still control the Government and the size of Government.
And hence voter education is important.
If the voters keep voting for people who don't reduce the number of federal employees, that means that:
a) that's not their priority.
b) that's not what they want.
c) they're doing it wrong
Democracy at work.
So apparently it isn't a standard, and can break zeroconf
That's why I said: "a .here TLD, reserved officially for local use" and "analogous way to the way that the RFC1918 IP addresses are reserved officially for private use".
If RFC1918 IP addresses didn't exist people could have used arbitrary IP ranges they hope won't conflict. The same reason why RFC1918 is a better idea than that, is the same reason why there should be a .here or similar TLD.
Once you have a standard, others can build upon it. For example: many areas might allow you to visit http://here/ so that you can get a list of publicly advertised stuff/people that you can interact with.
This sort of thing can make it easier for you to do virtual telekinesis in different areas, and not just in places you are "accustomed" to (home, office).
I have proposed this type of TLD to the ICANN (back when Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson were there) and also the IETF. But the ICANN prefers to keep inflicting "Yet Another dotCom TLD money grab" on us.
There are 537 publicly elected positions in the federal government. There are over 2 million unelected civilian positions in the federal government (excluding the US Postal Service). So no, the US voters do not get to decide who gets into the federal government. They only decide on the very highest levels of government.
And those very highest levels of government can decide whether to get rid of those 2 million unelected civilian positions, or not. Otherwise why is the Libertarian Party even bothering with the US elections? So if they get power they would also keep all those 2 million civilian positions?
The Libertarians and you say the voters should choose Small Government. And I say the votes should not obsess over Big or Small - they should choose Better Government - which is not automatically Smaller Government - just look at various countries around the world.
most which has to survive based on its ability to return more value than it consumes.
Does that apply to the 147 companies that control most of the Global economy? All they need is to continue getting enough cash and power to do what they want. And you may have noticed that does not necessarily mean returning more value.
From what I see the average US voter has even less say on what the people in the "147" do than what the 2 million in the US Government do.
Many of those 147 Corporations that control most of the Global Economy would still exist even if Governments were small - they and the corporations they control operate and profit in many countries around the world, with big and small Governments. And some even operate in countries with near nonexistent governments.
OK let's say the US goes small government but the Federal Reserve is allowed to continue "business as usual". Will things really improve? Go google for who the Federal Reserve "loaned" trillions to.
Ultimately someone's got to be in charge of the US Dollar. Whether the Federal Reserve or someone else.
Note: I hope you're not one of those wackos who think that everyone in the US should start buying and selling stuff in gold instead of US dollars. The US dollar is necessary for the USA and it is actually advantageous to the USA (petrodollar, "reserve currency", etc).
The problem is the Federal Reserve does not appear to be well regulated/controlled by the Government (and the People). Just because the Government is doing a bad job of it doesn't mean the Government should stop trying to regulate/control it and completely leave it to "Market Forces" (aka the 147 Corporations).
So it's not a matter of small or big. It's a matter of Good or Bad. Good/Bad Government/Regulation.
So how do you get quality of government when it is that large and corruption that firmly entrenched?
Seems you still don't understand or refuse to understand.
As I have been saying over and over again, the US voters still decide who gets into Government. That hasn't changed _YET_. If they voted for someone else, that someone else would be in, correct? The US is not Saddam's Iraq yet right?
They voted for Bush, Bush got re-elected. They voted for Obama, Obama got in. Are you saying they didn't vote for them? AFAIK nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to vote that way, and can I assume the elections aren't that badly diebolded? So the buck ultimately stops at the voters.
How do you improve the quality of voters and candidates? Better education? Good upbringing, whatever that is?
My view is that a large government cannot be high quality. Huge size means greater complexity and far weaker ability to control quality.
Using your logic then a large country like the USA cannot be high quality either? If not, why not using your same argument?
And if you want a stronger ability to control quality does that mean you should reduce the number of voters too? Maybe to one? ;)
Thing is we have more than enough human stupidity already, why create more?
Anyway I'm biased. In my opinion it's better to focus on augmenting humans than to create AIs. The lines will get blurry in some cases, but there's still a difference in philosophy and objective.
If you want nonhuman intelligence there's already plenty at the pet stores and farms, AND we don't treat them all that well, so why create AIs? To enslave them? What if they are smart enough to not want to be slaves? What if we create AIs that are like us, but we do it in a way where we still don't understand why they work. Don't laugh - there are some AI projects where they seem to be just throwing stuff together and hoping it works. So what if the end result wants the right to vote and wants the right to live freely without being killed?
In my opinion many animals are much smarter than Rosette. They can't randomly spit that many words at you, but they can often guess whether what you are doing will result in a future that would be better for them or worse.
The more intelligent ones might also have some idea on whether the resulting future would be better or worse for you and others too, not just them.
Prediction is an important part of intelligence. First: Model of world, model of others, model of self. Next: Prediction of world, prediction of others, prediction of self. Most humans are surprisingly poor at prediction of self, but I guess it works well enough. Maybe consciousness is a result of your mind recursively predicting itself.
Anyway regurgitating phrases and words is just stupid. 50 years of AI and this wins the prize?
Yes he did understand your question. But that was not _my_ question which was a the ".here TLD?" one.
;).
Anyway, your reply and his just shows that what I write is hard for people to understand. Dunno why.
Regarding your question, I wonder how should "numeric only" IPs work if a browser supports both IPv4 and IPv6? The two address ranges would overlap. So would numeric-only IPs mean IPv4 only?
BTW: on some OSes you can ping 4.8. Which isn't a numeric only IP address, so it's even messier than that
I don't see why it's such a big problem.
Solutions/workarounds:
a) just don't click on the ads
b) block google ads from their search page.
Should be easy to do a) right?
So now we can use LOL and say "hey Vint Cerf uses it in public correspondence too!". :).
p.s. Too bad he didn't seem to understand my question. Oh well.
Lisp is great for all the code that you have to write.
Perl is great for all the code that you don't have to write.
That's why I prefer Perl to Lisp. For most of the problems I've needed to solve, someone else usually has written most of the required code AND made it freely available for me to reuse[1]. This means there is less code for me to write, document and support. Perl may be ugly and inferior when compared to Lisp, but I only have to write a little of it.
Whereas if I write in Lisp, even though Lisp might theoretically be more powerful and expressive, in practice I would have to write a lot more code than I would have to if I used perl/python or similar.
If you're writing stuff that nobody else has written good tools/libraries for, Lisp might be a better choice.
[1] See CPAN and elsewhere. Examples: Need to talk to Postgresql with an easy interface that prevents SQL injection? Use DBI and DBD::Pg. Need to parse and or create DHCP packets? Use Net::DHCP::Packet.
Fact is, unless the US elections are so badly Diebolded, nobody is forcing the voters to vote for either of the 2 parties. They can vote for someone else, or even be candidates (yes there are some barriers in some places for Independent candidates but whining about them isn't going to fix them, and fact is independents still do manage to run).
In this day and age if the voters can still be so easily influenced AGAINST their own interests by campaign money then the voters are the main problem.
Otherwise one can conclude the voters still prefer either D or R. Just because you think the voters should vote differently doesn't mean that they agree with you. Sarah Palin was rather popular wasn't she? George Bush was reelected wasn't he? You might say he shouldn't have won but the main point is GWB still got a lot of votes.
So seems to me the D&Rs know what the voters who actually bother to vote want and keep giving it to them.
The Libertarian Party on the other hand seem to be a bunch of loonies/idiots. Evidence being they keep getting obsessed with the quantity of Government.
It's not quantity of Government that matters - it's quality of Government. Thinking that making Governments smaller will magically make things better is as stupid as thinking that reducing the number of voters would magically make things better.
In that circumstance, the individuals would be the ones doing the enforcing. Maybe shooting the thug, maybe destroying considerable property owned by the thug, that sort of thing.
1) A large corporation can wield quite a lot of firepower.
2) If those individuals can't use the ballot box to improve things in a democracy what makes you think they'll do a good job with the ammo box?
You have a democracy, so work to improve the Gov. Fact is in the USA, in the past few elections 98% of those who bothered to vote, voted for either one of the Two Parties. The rest literally don't count. If many of you really don't like either party, vote for someone else, or even be a candidate. If there are enough of you, the Two Parties might even change to try to satisfy you. If there aren't enough of you, there is no good reason why the Two Parties should do what you want - they rightfully should be more concerned about the 98% who voted for them.
feeding politicians to the keas is a bad idea - their natural diet is nuts and the added protein would be bad for them.
Protein bad for them? How about the saturated fats?
Hey I'm all for sending humans to space.
Here's my proposal, start a reality TV show called "Vote Them Off The Planet". Then you have the candidates (George Bush, Obama, Sarah Palin, Random Celebrity, Random Politician ) etc.
Then you have the categories: One Way, Return.
Those that win the One Way, can choose to:
a) Not go.
b) Go one way (not come back)
c) Pay for the return trip, and go.
Those that win the Return, can choose to:
a) Not go.
b) Go one way.
c) Go "Return".
I think there would be more merit to this human space travel than sending astronauts to Mars (presumably one-way).
Sending humans to Mars is a stupid idea given our current level of technology. A far better first step would be building space stations which humans can actually live on (not merely rot away on for a few months) - artificial gravity, radiation shielding.
Once you've got such space craft, going to Mars becomes easier (but still a silly idea- going to Ceres or more suitable asteroids would be a better idea).
In the traditional classroom a teacher gives a long lecture on stuff with minimal interaction. But nowadays it's actually a waste of time for teachers to do what can be already done with videos: http://www.khanacademy.org/
So teachers should focus on doing what the videos can't. Seems In some schools, the students watch the lectures/videos at home, then come to school, do stuff and get help from the teacher.