See the handful of tags where it says "Allowed HTML" when you are posting to Slashdot? I seem to recall there being some suggestion that things like b for bold were discouraged, and that we are supposed to use stylesheets instead. NO WAY. Let me repeat that. NO WAY. Why? Because these handful of core tags are simple and easy to remember. If you start forcing people to use complicated stuff, we are just going to end up with more abominations like WikiText and WBBScript, which just re-invent the simple tags that HTML already has. Yuck. Please don't do that.
OTOH, if they are not talking about taking away my simple little tags, then sorry for the rant.
Imagine what kind of cooling system you would need. You think a Slashdotting melts servers? Just wait. Then again, I never thought I'd see a useful 4-letter domain name again, so maybe it's actually cold there now. OK. didn't have time to read all the replies. Hope I'm not being redundant.
Haha, you're right. I once suggested that I'd be happy to give someone software under GPL. I'd just charge them $1 million for each copy.:)
I seem to recall having heard of a slightly less outrageos version of this occuring, where the vendor charged $5000/copy. It seemed to work, because most people who paid that much for something wouldn't put it up for download.
Of course, this only works for specialized products where such a charge is warranted, or for large contracts. In most cases, such as an OS or a browser, licensing the software GPL and charging a reasonable price for it has the unintended consequence of making it gratis
So, while the Forbes author's leap isn't accurate in every case, it's accurate in the contexts that most people care about.
Oh shit! They're gonna start making politicians?!?
If this happens, the Republicans will run Clippy and the Democrats will run Bob. Yeah, yeah, you could vote for a human; but nobody will want to "throw their vote away" on a third party.
So what? GWB ended habeus corpus. We're getting closer and closer to being like the Chinese all the time. The next thing you know we'll be19ufknan/v
NO CARRIER.
Habeus Corpus done bit the dust. America? Never heard of it. Don't misunderestimate it. We'll just get ridda dem damn nasty math guys. Mission Accomplished.
Sorry, you just tickled on of my pet peeves. Just because So-n-so won a Nobel Prize in physics, doesn't mean that he's right if he claims F=m/a. He still has to use science, and in this case even the lowliest undergrad should be able to prove him wrong.
I'd have to say no. If you're just getting started with nukes, it makes sense to build a simple howitzer-like device first, or maybe an implosion fission device if you think you've got the right plans and the skills to execute them. Specialized weapons like the neutron bomb, more powerful weapons like H-bombs, etc. would probably come later. Of course, that's assuming the NK's have the sense to follow a well-known, established practice for building such tricky and dangerous technology. They're nuts, so maybe they tried to build some kind of sophisticated bomb and failed. I think it's more likely they just stuffed an old mine with conventional explosives or built an implosion bomb that didn't implode quite right, producing lower than expected yield. In other words, Occam's razor.
What would TV coverage of this look like? You can't just have a shot of the screen, but if you cut back and forth you miss screen action. They probably have to edit together a lot of highlights. I can't imagine this would be very entertaining to watch on live TV... ok, some stuff like one-on-one fighting games might play well... it would be like boxing without the chance of actual injury. Yes, I guess this could be watchable if done right. The missing element is that you aren't watching your friends get beat, or beating your friends, or well... gaming. Robot wars was OK TV because most of us don't have the time, money or skill to make a decent fighting bot. Everyone can game. When I was a kid and was totally game crazy, the time I spent having to just *watch* was pure agony. Gimme the joystick!!! How many kids these days get their only daily exercise fighting their siblings for the controller? You're going to take gaming and make it totally passive? Those kids are going to explode, leaving nasty bits of fat all over the walls. Hey... that'd be a cool effect in a game.
OK, "kill all humans" is Futurama lore, not Slashdot. I'm too lazy to copy/paste any more, but there is plenty of hot grits in the code out there, and stuff...
The other day I read a story where they interviewed a Chinese soldier who was disgusted with the NKs. Why? Because they returned a border crosser, a young woman. This took place on a bridge over a river that divides China and NK. As soon as she was signed over, the NKs took a sharp steel wire and ran it through the flesh between the thumb and forefingers of a hand. They led her away screaming. Apparently, this is routine behavior. Other Chinese border guards related stories of NKs running the wire underneath the collarbones of returnees, harnessing them together. Needless to say, these people are not seen at the border again.
In the same article, there were stories of NKs sneaking into China, robbing banks, in general making trouble. However, most of the border crossers are coming to China to find prosperity and freedom. Yes. Prosperity and freedom. In a country that we usually associate with wage slavery and oppression. The woman at the bridge knew she would be killed. They must all realize they will be killed, yet they risk being returned. Now that has *got* to be one lousy place to live.
I don't see how the NK regime can last. It's just a question of how it's going to go down. If I were the premier of China, I'd make a secret deal with SK to put a military sqeeeze on the place, since NK would probably be overwhelmed by a Chinese invasion. The Chinese could really come out looking like good guys if they then turned it over to SK for re-unification ala Germany. I'm not that optimistic though. I think we're more likely to see the "Korean autonomous zone" or some such nonsense that's really part of the Chinese empire. Maybe real soon now.
My Walkman broke earlier this year. Will I get an iPod? No. I use Yahoo Music Unlimited on my laptop now. Listening to local FM on the walk to work was my only reason to have a mobile player of any kind. If I get another mobile player, it'll have to support Yahoo's DRM and it'll have to have recording off FM. I've been looking at some of the Sandisk players. As far as I'm concerned, the iPod never lived. It just doesn't interest me. I like the PC platform and things associated with it, simply because its vast popularity brings in so many network effects (plethora of add-on cards, many different applications and OS choices, etc.). The iPod is a specialized device tied in to the Apple chic. I don't care about Apple chic. In fact, I'm decidedly against it simply because of that. Also, street criminals love them--nice and white in the night, easy to know what you're ripping off as you slug somebody and run away. I'm not saying that I'd let that dictate my choice, but it's something to consider when you're walking around a city with any ammount of crime.
OK, as long as laptops still have EVERY STINKING MOUSE GESTURE enabled by default, and as long as the settings for that crap are buried in some obscure place that's always proprietary to the laptop manufacturer. I mean, we have to have *some* time to waste when setting up the new machines.
...that an effective business model for Free Software would be to charge $5000/program. That way, teenagers won't buy one copy and put it up for download. True, it only takes one re-distributor to spoil this model, but at a certain price, which I figured to be about $5000, nobody would want to give away something they had spent that much money for, and by the time there was enough cooperation among a group of people to buy a copy and put it up, the next version would come along. The formation of a group that took donations for that express purpose would never happen, because it would be regarded as detrimental to Free Software. It looks like my little joke maybe, just maybe, might not have been such so much of a joke after all. I was a little high on the price. Surely these packages must be available for free download somwhere, although without the support contract. I doubt that Red Hat is really putting my hypothetical model to the test. I also joked that I'd be willing to write under GPL, and sell the program for $1 million. Just one customer would be enough, and I wouldn't even care if they redistributed it.
In a degenerate case like this, theory breaks down. In an economy of two, say, travelers stranded on a desert island, money is unecessary. If they were Adam and Eve, and had children, that would be radicly deflationary unless they had a printing press too. Even then, they wouldn't have a need for money as we know it until they had managed to populate the island to some critical number.
I'm not disagreeing with your main point though. I'd much rather be a trailer park resident in the modern US than a king in medieval times.
but then you don't get the fixed header size of IPv6
IPv6 has a fixed header size in name only. Extension headers do the same thing options did. Looks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Point taken about the routers though, as they can, AFAIK, ignore all except hop-by-hop options. If they can ignore hop-by-hop, then life is easy for router guys, but it still sucks for TCP/IP stack implementations because they have to, at the very least, parse and ignore the extension headers--and the stacks have already been parsing v4 options, so this aspect of v6 is really no better for stack guys than v4 was.
The only reason to implement it is backwards compatibility
IMHO, that reason weighs against all the others by an order of magnitude.
OK, fine. Where are you going to stick the extra octet? The only legal place to put it is in the IPv4 options. A proposal that did just that, IPv7, was actually floated. IIRC, it was dubbed "toasternet" because the proposal got "toasted". Interestingly enough, I was able to experimentally route "toasted" IPv4 packets, and hit about half of the web sites I tested. I had no way to verify end-to-end transmission, but sometimes my SYNs worked and sometimes they didn't. AFAIK, The existing infrastructure does one of two things: 1. ignore the options and route the packet normally. 2. Drop the packet, because admins set up the network to drop packets with such options as "suspicious".
FWIW, I think IPv7 was a fine proposal, and I have no idea why it got "toasted". People would have had to augment their existing IPv4 stacks. All IPv4 address owners would have immediately gotten a/32 in your proposal (a/32 now has 256 IPs). The options field could hold even more data, making a/32 into 64k IP-addresses. Perhaps the internet authorities didn't like the idea of simply multiplying everybody's address allocation. Google around for "toasternet" and IPv7 if you're really curious. I'm sure the full story is out there somewhere.
It doesn't make sense, so you have to give it your own sense. Here's how I've always done that:
If the "a" had come through, then we would have got the original meaning. It was Armstrong representing mankind. Without the "a", it becomes all of us. This is not to imply that Armstrong was overestimating his own importance. AFAIK, he was as humble as anyone can be in that circumstance. Nevertheless, the "divine edit" of the "a" makes the two parts of the utterance into a nonsequitur that can be resolved by assuming that Armstrong meant that the "one small step for man" was taken by all of us, to the extent that we were all humans just like him; the small step was the mere physical act of getting there. The "giant leap" was all the implications of having gotten there.
...was certainly a "quantum leap", not a small step. I don't know the etymology of the phrase, but I always thought it had something to do with the revolutionary transition from classical to modern physics, and all the resulting technology that stemmed from that. I could be wrong of course, or right. I won't know until I measure.
Did the bomb actually "demoralize" Japan? My perception has been that it gave them a way of doing honorably what was formerly considered dishonorable, namely surrendering. Then again, I suppose it's conceivable that the entire society could have enterred into a mutual suicide pact, forcing us to annihilate them or press for something less than unconditional surrender. I wonder how far we would have gone with the nukings and firebombings if that had happened. I'm glad we don't have the answer to that question. Japan's decision at the end of the war was certainly wise, and in my mind, honorable; but I'm a Westerner. Any Japanese here who could offer more insight?
Slashdot Mirror
See the handful of tags where it says "Allowed HTML" when you are posting to Slashdot? I seem to recall there being some suggestion that things like b for bold were discouraged, and that we are supposed to use stylesheets instead. NO WAY. Let me repeat that. NO WAY. Why? Because these handful of core tags are simple and easy to remember. If you start forcing people to use complicated stuff, we are just going to end up with more abominations like WikiText and WBBScript, which just re-invent the simple tags that HTML already has. Yuck. Please don't do that.
OTOH, if they are not talking about taking away my simple little tags, then sorry for the rant.
Imagine what kind of cooling system you would need. You think a Slashdotting melts servers? Just wait. Then again, I never thought I'd see a useful 4-letter domain name again, so maybe it's actually cold there now. OK. didn't have time to read all the replies. Hope I'm not being redundant.
Call me Ishmael. I alone survived.
Haha, you're right. I once suggested that I'd be happy to give someone software under GPL. I'd just charge them $1 million for each copy. :)
I seem to recall having heard of a slightly less outrageos version of this occuring, where the vendor charged $5000/copy. It seemed to work, because most people who paid that much for something wouldn't put it up for download.
Of course, this only works for specialized products where such a charge is warranted, or for large contracts. In most cases, such as an OS or a browser, licensing the software GPL and charging a reasonable price for it has the unintended consequence of making it gratis
So, while the Forbes author's leap isn't accurate in every case, it's accurate in the contexts that most people care about.
...have my secretary deconstruct the article and send me an executive summary of said deconstruction, so I can ignore it later.
Oh shit! They're gonna start making politicians?!?
If this happens, the Republicans will run Clippy and the Democrats will run Bob. Yeah, yeah, you could vote for a human; but nobody will want to "throw their vote away" on a third party.
So what? GWB ended habeus corpus. We're getting closer and closer to being like the Chinese all the time. The next thing you know we'll be19ufknan /v
NO CARRIER.
Habeus Corpus done bit the dust. America? Never heard of it. Don't misunderestimate it. We'll just get ridda dem damn nasty math guys. Mission Accomplished.
Sorry, you just tickled on of my pet peeves. Just because So-n-so won a Nobel Prize in physics, doesn't mean that he's right if he claims F=m/a. He still has to use science, and in this case even the lowliest undergrad should be able to prove him wrong.
I'd have to say no. If you're just getting started with nukes, it makes sense to build a simple howitzer-like device first, or maybe an implosion fission device if you think you've got the right plans and the skills to execute them. Specialized weapons like the neutron bomb, more powerful weapons like H-bombs, etc. would probably come later. Of course, that's assuming the NK's have the sense to follow a well-known, established practice for building such tricky and dangerous technology. They're nuts, so maybe they tried to build some kind of sophisticated bomb and failed. I think it's more likely they just stuffed an old mine with conventional explosives or built an implosion bomb that didn't implode quite right, producing lower than expected yield. In other words, Occam's razor.
Walk slightly faster!! They're coming this way!!!
What would TV coverage of this look like? You can't just have a shot of the screen, but if you cut back and forth you miss screen action. They probably have to edit together a lot of highlights. I can't imagine this would be very entertaining to watch on live TV... ok, some stuff like one-on-one fighting games might play well... it would be like boxing without the chance of actual injury. Yes, I guess this could be watchable if done right. The missing element is that you aren't watching your friends get beat, or beating your friends, or well... gaming. Robot wars was OK TV because most of us don't have the time, money or skill to make a decent fighting bot. Everyone can game. When I was a kid and was totally game crazy, the time I spent having to just *watch* was pure agony. Gimme the joystick!!! How many kids these days get their only daily exercise fighting their siblings for the controller? You're going to take gaming and make it totally passive? Those kids are going to explode, leaving nasty bits of fat all over the walls. Hey... that'd be a cool effect in a game.
In Soviet Russia Google code searches you. I for one welcome our code searching overlords as long as there aren't too many programs out there that want to kill all humans.
OK, "kill all humans" is Futurama lore, not Slashdot. I'm too lazy to copy/paste any more, but there is plenty of hot grits in the code out there, and stuff...
Story I read in The Australian
The other day I read a story where they interviewed a Chinese soldier who was disgusted with the NKs. Why? Because they returned a border crosser, a young woman. This took place on a bridge over a river that divides China and NK. As soon as she was signed over, the NKs took a sharp steel wire and ran it through the flesh between the thumb and forefingers of a hand. They led her away screaming. Apparently, this is routine behavior. Other Chinese border guards related stories of NKs running the wire underneath the collarbones of returnees, harnessing them together. Needless to say, these people are not seen at the border again.
In the same article, there were stories of NKs sneaking into China, robbing banks, in general making trouble. However, most of the border crossers are coming to China to find prosperity and freedom. Yes. Prosperity and freedom. In a country that we usually associate with wage slavery and oppression. The woman at the bridge knew she would be killed. They must all realize they will be killed, yet they risk being returned. Now that has *got* to be one lousy place to live.
I don't see how the NK regime can last. It's just a question of how it's going to go down. If I were the premier of China, I'd make a secret deal with SK to put a military sqeeeze on the place, since NK would probably be overwhelmed by a Chinese invasion. The Chinese could really come out looking like good guys if they then turned it over to SK for re-unification ala Germany. I'm not that optimistic though. I think we're more likely to see the "Korean autonomous zone" or some such nonsense that's really part of the Chinese empire. Maybe real soon now.
My Walkman broke earlier this year. Will I get an iPod? No. I use Yahoo Music Unlimited on my laptop now. Listening to local FM on the walk to work was my only reason to have a mobile player of any kind. If I get another mobile player, it'll have to support Yahoo's DRM and it'll have to have recording off FM. I've been looking at some of the Sandisk players. As far as I'm concerned, the iPod never lived. It just doesn't interest me. I like the PC platform and things associated with it, simply because its vast popularity brings in so many network effects (plethora of add-on cards, many different applications and OS choices, etc.). The iPod is a specialized device tied in to the Apple chic. I don't care about Apple chic. In fact, I'm decidedly against it simply because of that. Also, street criminals love them--nice and white in the night, easy to know what you're ripping off as you slug somebody and run away. I'm not saying that I'd let that dictate my choice, but it's something to consider when you're walking around a city with any ammount of crime.
OK, as long as laptops still have EVERY STINKING MOUSE GESTURE enabled by default, and as long as the settings for that crap are buried in some obscure place that's always proprietary to the laptop manufacturer. I mean, we have to have *some* time to waste when setting up the new machines.
...that an effective business model for Free Software would be to charge $5000/program. That way, teenagers won't buy one copy and put it up for download. True, it only takes one re-distributor to spoil this model, but at a certain price, which I figured to be about $5000, nobody would want to give away something they had spent that much money for, and by the time there was enough cooperation among a group of people to buy a copy and put it up, the next version would come along. The formation of a group that took donations for that express purpose would never happen, because it would be regarded as detrimental to Free Software. It looks like my little joke maybe, just maybe, might not have been such so much of a joke after all. I was a little high on the price. Surely these packages must be available for free download somwhere, although without the support contract. I doubt that Red Hat is really putting my hypothetical model to the test. I also joked that I'd be willing to write under GPL, and sell the program for $1 million. Just one customer would be enough, and I wouldn't even care if they redistributed it.
In a degenerate case like this, theory breaks down. In an economy of two, say, travelers stranded on a desert island, money is unecessary. If they were Adam and Eve, and had children, that would be radicly deflationary unless they had a printing press too. Even then, they wouldn't have a need for money as we know it until they had managed to populate the island to some critical number.
I'm not disagreeing with your main point though. I'd much rather be a trailer park resident in the modern US than a king in medieval times.
but then you don't get the fixed header size of IPv6
IPv6 has a fixed header size in name only. Extension headers do the same thing options did. Looks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Point taken about the routers though, as they can, AFAIK, ignore all except hop-by-hop options. If they can ignore hop-by-hop, then life is easy for router guys, but it still sucks for TCP/IP stack implementations because they have to, at the very least, parse and ignore the extension headers--and the stacks have already been parsing v4 options, so this aspect of v6 is really no better for stack guys than v4 was.
The only reason to implement it is backwards compatibility
IMHO, that reason weighs against all the others by an order of magnitude.
OK, fine. Where are you going to stick the extra octet? The only legal place to put it is in the IPv4 options. A proposal that did just that, IPv7, was actually floated. IIRC, it was dubbed "toasternet" because the proposal got "toasted". Interestingly enough, I was able to experimentally route "toasted" IPv4 packets, and hit about half of the web sites I tested. I had no way to verify end-to-end transmission, but sometimes my SYNs worked and sometimes they didn't. AFAIK, The existing infrastructure does one of two things: 1. ignore the options and route the packet normally. 2. Drop the packet, because admins set up the network to drop packets with such options as "suspicious".
FWIW, I think IPv7 was a fine proposal, and I have no idea why it got "toasted". People would have had to augment their existing IPv4 stacks. All IPv4 address owners would have immediately gotten a /32 in your proposal (a /32 now has 256 IPs). The options field could hold even more data, making a /32 into 64k IP-addresses. Perhaps the internet authorities didn't like the idea of simply multiplying everybody's address allocation. Google around for "toasternet" and IPv7 if you're really curious. I'm sure the full story is out there somewhere.
It doesn't make sense, so you have to give it your own sense. Here's how I've always done that:
If the "a" had come through, then we would have got the original meaning. It was Armstrong representing mankind. Without the "a", it becomes all of us. This is not to imply that Armstrong was overestimating his own importance. AFAIK, he was as humble as anyone can be in that circumstance. Nevertheless, the "divine edit" of the "a" makes the two parts of the utterance into a nonsequitur that can be resolved by assuming that Armstrong meant that the "one small step for man" was taken by all of us, to the extent that we were all humans just like him; the small step was the mere physical act of getting there. The "giant leap" was all the implications of having gotten there.
Besides. Why mess with success.
When I multiply that out, I get 1.990656e+9
That's about 2 Gbps
So, you could fit about 7000 of these uncompressed video streams over the 14 Tb/s link, unless I'm screwing up the calculation someplace.
...was certainly a "quantum leap", not a small step. I don't know the etymology of the phrase, but I always thought it had something to do with the revolutionary transition from classical to modern physics, and all the resulting technology that stemmed from that. I could be wrong of course, or right. I won't know until I measure.
Did the bomb actually "demoralize" Japan? My perception has been that it gave them a way of doing honorably what was formerly considered dishonorable, namely surrendering. Then again, I suppose it's conceivable that the entire society could have enterred into a mutual suicide pact, forcing us to annihilate them or press for something less than unconditional surrender. I wonder how far we would have gone with the nukings and firebombings if that had happened. I'm glad we don't have the answer to that question. Japan's decision at the end of the war was certainly wise, and in my mind, honorable; but I'm a Westerner. Any Japanese here who could offer more insight?