Does this idiot also let play kids with loaded guns because "that will teach them"?
I mean, sure don't fix minor flaws, we discontinued support, tough bananas if you keep on using it. But a major security flaw for which you already have the solution for? Anyone but a douchebag would release the patch.
They were convinced America couldn't possibly have a second one, and if they did, maybe that was their last one, and hence decided not to surrender. When the second one was dropped in such short succession they realized there were a lot more where that came from and finally decided to surrender.
Map reduce ain't pure functional programming. Map-reduce as implemented in practice today uses storage which breaks the purely functional paradigm. It is a good example of mostly functional though.
It does scale. I've got news for you but there are no 100% completely secure systems out there. They are all mostly secure but if I really want in I can send the Army, NSA, FBI and CIA and compel you to break the system open for me. I don't know if you follow the news, but we have several recent examples where this took place.
Spoken like a true academic. Mostly secure does work in practice. My house is mostly secure, my car is mostly secure, my bank is mostly secure. None of them are perfectly secure, as all of them would fail to a sufficiently strong attack, but generally they do fine.
So does mostly functional programming. It works great in practice even though it is not 100% safe but neither is functional programming once you allow monads which are needed to make FP Turing complete.
So Erik Meijer is arguing that mostly functional programming which is widely used in industry "does not work" and suggest instead purely functional programs which have been around for decades and gone nowhere?
'Mathematicians seldom face ethical questions. We enjoy the feeling that what we do is separate from the everyday world.
Actually this is a recent affectation. Historically mathematicians very much enjoyed the interaction of mathematics with the real world, e.g. Archimedes, Isaac Newton, Fibonacci, Euler, Gauss, Hilbert, Poincare, Pascal, Bernoulli, Cartan, von Neumann, Turing, Dirichlet.
More recently we have Stephen Smale, Terry Tao and Tim Gowers all three mathematicians of the first order who have dabbled in various applications.
And any other protocol, which is not IPv4 or IPv6, is not going to be a real option. Even if a technically superior protocol showed up, IPv6 would still have a 20 year head-start.
The IPv6 head start is so minimal that Linksys shipping a new shimming protocol with its NAT routers would exceed IPv6 usage within six months.
IMHO that is still the way to go, because IPv6 just isn't happening.
given untouched gear would not be able to "do anything about" new unimplemented bits.
There in lies your key error. You can have those packets be routed to an extended-field capable router using existing BGP/IGP routing protocols. The switches do not need to know anything about the extended field behavior to do that.
My assertion is playing games with protocol fields does not make deployment appreciably any different or better than IPv6.
IPv6 was particularly badly designed in terms of ease of implementation. It has many other virtues but easiness of implementation ain't one of them. A Jackson-Pollock-design-style protocol is likely easier to implement than flag day IPv6.
This is exactly why we are running out of IPv4 addresses and we still do not implement IPv6. If you want to carry on arguing that IPv6 is the superior choice you are welcome to it, but you have a mountain of facts and 16 years of trying against you.
>40% of my Internet traffic by volume is IPv6.
Oh wow. You win then. An IPv6 fanboi,erh,sorry,strong proponent routes ~40% of his traffic using IPv6. Color me impressed.
Seriously dude, reread your statement. You are damning IPv6 with faint praise when even a proponent cannot get the count over ~40% the day before we run out of IPv4 addresses.
Globally IPv6 makes for ~2% of traffic sixteen years after it was first proposed.
As does IPv6, but my mod is light years easier than those of IPv6 which is what you propose.
In your scenario with an "extension", using the extended addresses would only be possible when all the network gear between the sender and recipient understands the extended address.
Not at all. That is the only solution you could think of, but there are smarter, simpler solutions. E.g. route all 255:255:255:8 packets to an extended field aware router down-stream (not unlike 255:255:255:255 are "routed" to the DHCP local server).
You couldn't come up with a solution in five seconds and declare the whole thing impossible, which goes back to my point, you are raising minor technical objections and treating them as major showstoppers.
Sure, if you don't understand much about how networks work you can handwave all the problems away as "minor technical issues",
He he, kiddo the software developed by my team routed more traffic in a second than all the torrents you've ever downloaded in your lifetime put together, which explains why what looks as an insurmountable problem to you is just another day at the office for me.
That you do not see how to do something doesn't mean other people with more experience can do it either.
Without careful planning in advance of deployment reserved fields in protocols often go unused as subsequent modifications are not operationally viable.
Correct, which is why I did not propose an extension field, but rather a reserved value.
Variable length addressing would have absolutely solved the problem only if it was defined from the beginning addresses may be between x and y bits in length and all systems handling addresses are expected to support the full range of address lengths.
Sure, all you do is you define the behavior but do not require the devices to actually do anything about it. Only later do you require the behavior to take place.
Not on a production network it ain't.... Without parallel deployment or flag day it is the same or worse than IPv6.
Let me FTFY:
Without parallel deployment or flag day it is at worse the same but likely much easier than IPv6.
Seriously think about it. Every issue you have with extensible fields you would have with a new protocol, while by virtue of being fully backward compatible you would avoid some of the worst issues of "flag day" IPv6, which we haven't yet managed to roll out 16 years after first proposed.
I don't see any merit in your technical objections. Why would "everyone decide how best to change to protocol to use extended addresses"? What I'm suggesting is that the extension behavior should have been there from the get go,
Similarly rolliing at an extension is in now ay "about as hard as switching to IPv6". IPv6 was designed to be a flag day protocol. How is this about as hard as "extending in a minor way the current protocol without need for interruption?"
I can carry on, but all you are doing is pointing out minor technical issues which would have needed to be taken care of. Yup, so they would have. Still it would have been easier to use an existing protocol.
Every fix length field should have a reserved value for an extension. .
Back in the early days of the internet each header bit was precious, so it was important to have packet headers as small as possible. However even then we could easily have reserved say 255:255:255:8 as the extensible value of the IP address.
By the time they are needed, namely in present day, it is a rather trivial mod to make network gear which reads another 32 bits past the end of the standard TCP/IP headers to collect the extended IP address, and presto IPv4 address shortage is gone.
If you're simply not very intelligent, but work really hard, would we put you in charge of things?
I actually hire people all the time and given the choice between someone slightly more talented but less hard working, and a hard worker but slightly less talented I'll take the hard worker every time.
For one, a lot of what we call "talent" is just repetition and experience which means that after a while the hard worker will seem more talented than the original wizz kid.
Without adjusting for inflation gas prices under Bush second term average $2.7165 and so far under Obama they averaged $3.1728.
First this is a minor difference, second you fail to explain where exactly the president gets to set gasoline prices, which are controlled by worldwide demand.
I see a pattern here. You reach a conclusion and facts be damned.
Your original post had an incorrect number. Your reply is wrong on two counts:
1) Gasoline prices for most of Obama's mandate have been lower than during GWB second term.
2) If you are going to add the price of gas, then you need to include the price of public transportation into your accounting which comes, in most cities to around $1.5-2K a year.
A cheap car (like a Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit) costs about $5000+/year to own.
I call BS.
I owned a Honda Civic four door sedan for ten years, which I bought new around $13K, sold it for $3K and paid around $1K in insurance a year and $200 in maintenance.
Total cost of ownership a year: $2,200 which is quite a bit lower than your BS figure of $5K a year.
Just to point out that the Parisian "five story" building will actually be described as 7 using the American count (ground floor+inhabited attic), but otherwise you are spot on. The SF housing crisis is all about height restrictions.
Do you propose that we pay everyone who runs for office too?
We do already. Look it up. If presidential candidates voluntarily sign up they get money from the state to run. In the last two elections both the republican and democratic candidates chose not to sign up, but had they had they would have gotten money.
More than half of the politicians in DC are millionaires, so how might that play into the "incompetents" factor?
In several ways. First many of them are born in third base, like Mitt Romney and Al Gore. Second, this only supports my point. Competent poor people cannot afford to forego the income, so only milionaires end up being representatives of the "people".
Once they are there, they all learn pretty quickly how to get money from lobbyists,
This too also supports my comments, Since they are not paid proportionally the must resort to lobbyists to close the gap. Give them a secure source of income and they are much more likely to ignore the lobbyist entreaties.
Seriously, most people reflexively reject high salaries for politicians, without thinking of its implications. Would you suggest your favorite sports team pay substantially less than market rates? then why do you suggest the same for your city/district/state/country?
If you pay politicians mediocre salaries (which we do) don't act all surprised when we end up with a bunch of incompetents. Any truly good manager/politician would make 10-100x more in the private sector than as a politician.
No decent programming language would read into a buffer without itself testing for a valid length. Such a test has negligible cost compared to actually reading the array, so there is no reason not to make it.
We could fix it and stop this billion dollar bugs or we can carry on "with tradition" and refuse to fix that basic mistake from the C designers.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this idiot also let play kids with loaded guns because "that will teach them"?
I mean, sure don't fix minor flaws, we discontinued support, tough bananas if you keep on using it. But a major security flaw for which you already have the solution for? Anyone but a douchebag would release the patch.
They were convinced America couldn't possibly have a second one, and if they did, maybe that was their last one, and hence decided not to surrender. When the second one was dropped in such short succession they realized there were a lot more where that came from and finally decided to surrender.
I'm glad to see that you make this important moral decision about right and wrong come to dollars and cents. Sounds right to me.... NOT!
The posted a clear no-fly warning on the corkboard of their interplanetary local office.
Map reduce ain't pure functional programming. Map-reduce as implemented in practice today uses storage which breaks the purely functional paradigm. It is a good example of mostly functional though.
It does scale. I've got news for you but there are no 100% completely secure systems out there. They are all mostly secure but if I really want in I can send the Army, NSA, FBI and CIA and compel you to break the system open for me. I don't know if you follow the news, but we have several recent examples where this took place.
From TFA:
mostly secure does not work
Spoken like a true academic. Mostly secure does work in practice. My house is mostly secure, my car is mostly secure, my bank is mostly secure. None of them are perfectly secure, as all of them would fail to a sufficiently strong attack, but generally they do fine.
So does mostly functional programming. It works great in practice even though it is not 100% safe but neither is functional programming once you allow monads which are needed to make FP Turing complete.
So Erik Meijer is arguing that mostly functional programming which is widely used in industry "does not work" and suggest instead purely functional programs which have been around for decades and gone nowhere?
Through the looking glass indeed.
'Mathematicians seldom face ethical questions. We enjoy the feeling that what we do is separate from the everyday world.
Actually this is a recent affectation. Historically mathematicians very much enjoyed the interaction of mathematics with the real world, e.g. Archimedes, Isaac Newton, Fibonacci, Euler, Gauss, Hilbert, Poincare, Pascal, Bernoulli, Cartan, von Neumann, Turing, Dirichlet.
More recently we have Stephen Smale, Terry Tao and Tim Gowers all three mathematicians of the first order who have dabbled in various applications.
And any other protocol, which is not IPv4 or IPv6, is not going to be a real option. Even if a technically superior protocol showed up, IPv6 would still have a 20 year head-start.
The IPv6 head start is so minimal that Linksys shipping a new shimming protocol with its NAT routers would exceed IPv6 usage within six months.
IMHO that is still the way to go, because IPv6 just isn't happening.
given untouched gear would not be able to "do anything about" new unimplemented bits.
There in lies your key error. You can have those packets be routed to an extended-field capable router using existing BGP/IGP routing protocols. The switches do not need to know anything about the extended field behavior to do that.
My assertion is playing games with protocol fields does not make deployment appreciably any different or better than IPv6.
IPv6 was particularly badly designed in terms of ease of implementation. It has many other virtues but easiness of implementation ain't one of them. A Jackson-Pollock-design-style protocol is likely easier to implement than flag day IPv6.
This is exactly why we are running out of IPv4 addresses and we still do not implement IPv6. If you want to carry on arguing that IPv6 is the superior choice you are welcome to it, but you have a mountain of facts and 16 years of trying against you.
>40% of my Internet traffic by volume is IPv6.
Oh wow. You win then. An IPv6 fanboi,erh,sorry,strong proponent routes ~40% of his traffic using IPv6. Color me impressed.
Seriously dude, reread your statement. You are damning IPv6 with faint praise when even a proponent cannot get the count over ~40% the day before we run out of IPv4 addresses.
Globally IPv6 makes for ~2% of traffic sixteen years after it was first proposed.
Your "trivial mod" involves redesigning hardware,
As does IPv6, but my mod is light years easier than those of IPv6 which is what you propose.
In your scenario with an "extension", using the extended addresses would only be possible when all the network gear between the sender and recipient understands the extended address.
Not at all. That is the only solution you could think of, but there are smarter, simpler solutions. E.g. route all 255:255:255:8 packets to an extended field aware router down-stream (not unlike 255:255:255:255 are "routed" to the DHCP local server).
You couldn't come up with a solution in five seconds and declare the whole thing impossible, which goes back to my point, you are raising minor technical objections and treating them as major showstoppers.
Sure, if you don't understand much about how networks work you can handwave all the problems away as "minor technical issues",
He he, kiddo the software developed by my team routed more traffic in a second than all the torrents you've ever downloaded in your lifetime put together, which explains why what looks as an insurmountable problem to you is just another day at the office for me.
That you do not see how to do something doesn't mean other people with more experience can do it either.
Without careful planning in advance of deployment reserved fields in protocols often go unused as subsequent modifications are not operationally viable.
Correct, which is why I did not propose an extension field, but rather a reserved value.
Variable length addressing would have absolutely solved the problem only if it was defined from the beginning addresses may be between x and y bits in length and all systems handling addresses are expected to support the full range of address lengths.
Sure, all you do is you define the behavior but do not require the devices to actually do anything about it. Only later do you require the behavior to take place.
Not on a production network it ain't.... Without parallel deployment or flag day it is the same or worse than IPv6.
Let me FTFY:
Without parallel deployment or flag day it is at worse the same but likely much easier than IPv6.
Seriously think about it. Every issue you have with extensible fields you would have with a new protocol, while by virtue of being fully backward compatible you would avoid some of the worst issues of "flag day" IPv6, which we haven't yet managed to roll out 16 years after first proposed.
I don't see any merit in your technical objections. Why would "everyone decide how best to change to protocol to use extended addresses"? What I'm suggesting is that the extension behavior should have been there from the get go,
Similarly rolliing at an extension is in now ay "about as hard as switching to IPv6". IPv6 was designed to be a flag day protocol. How is this about as hard as "extending in a minor way the current protocol without need for interruption?"
I can carry on, but all you are doing is pointing out minor technical issues which would have needed to be taken care of. Yup, so they would have. Still it would have been easier to use an existing protocol.
There is lesson to be learned here:
Every fix length field should have a reserved value for an extension. .
Back in the early days of the internet each header bit was precious, so it was important to have packet headers as small as possible. However even then we could easily have reserved say 255:255:255:8 as the extensible value of the IP address.
By the time they are needed, namely in present day, it is a rather trivial mod to make network gear which reads another 32 bits past the end of the standard TCP/IP headers to collect the extended IP address, and presto IPv4 address shortage is gone.
If you're simply not very intelligent, but work really hard, would we put you in charge of things?
I actually hire people all the time and given the choice between someone slightly more talented but less hard working, and a hard worker but slightly less talented I'll take the hard worker every time.
For one, a lot of what we call "talent" is just repetition and experience which means that after a while the hard worker will seem more talented than the original wizz kid.
Without adjusting for inflation gas prices under Bush second term average $2.7165 and so far under Obama they averaged $3.1728.
First this is a minor difference, second you fail to explain where exactly the president gets to set gasoline prices, which are controlled by worldwide demand.
I see a pattern here. You reach a conclusion and facts be damned.
Your original post had an incorrect number. Your reply is wrong on two counts:
1) Gasoline prices for most of Obama's mandate have been lower than during GWB second term.
2) If you are going to add the price of gas, then you need to include the price of public transportation into your accounting which comes, in most cities to around $1.5-2K a year.
This is unadulterated horseshit.
Median gross rent in Pitt is $674, in SF is $1362. source.
A cheap car (like a Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit) costs about $5000+/year to own.
I call BS.
I owned a Honda Civic four door sedan for ten years, which I bought new around $13K, sold it for $3K and paid around $1K in insurance a year and $200 in maintenance.
Total cost of ownership a year: $2,200 which is quite a bit lower than your BS figure of $5K a year.
Just to point out that the Parisian "five story" building will actually be described as 7 using the American count (ground floor+inhabited attic), but otherwise you are spot on. The SF housing crisis is all about height restrictions.
Do you propose that we pay everyone who runs for office too?
We do already. Look it up. If presidential candidates voluntarily sign up they get money from the state to run. In the last two elections both the republican and democratic candidates chose not to sign up, but had they had they would have gotten money.
More than half of the politicians in DC are millionaires, so how might that play into the "incompetents" factor?
In several ways. First many of them are born in third base, like Mitt Romney and Al Gore. Second, this only supports my point. Competent poor people cannot afford to forego the income, so only milionaires end up being representatives of the "people".
Once they are there, they all learn pretty quickly how to get money from lobbyists,
This too also supports my comments, Since they are not paid proportionally the must resort to lobbyists to close the gap. Give them a secure source of income and they are much more likely to ignore the lobbyist entreaties.
Seriously, most people reflexively reject high salaries for politicians, without thinking of its implications. Would you suggest your favorite sports team pay substantially less than market rates? then why do you suggest the same for your city/district/state/country?
If you pay politicians mediocre salaries (which we do) don't act all surprised when we end up with a bunch of incompetents. Any truly good manager/politician would make 10-100x more in the private sector than as a politician.
No decent programming language would read into a buffer without itself testing for a valid length. Such a test has negligible cost compared to actually reading the array, so there is no reason not to make it.
We could fix it and stop this billion dollar bugs or we can carry on "with tradition" and refuse to fix that basic mistake from the C designers.