Future proof? Everyone says IPv6 is future proof. No one will ever need more than 2^64 addresses.
You're regurgitating the old "nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM" myth. And it is a myth. It comes from the design assumption of MS-DOS that it would only ever run on early processors with a 1-megabyte address space. That assumption made sense when IBM and Microsoft's joint plan was to migrate everybody to OS/2 once 80286s became available. It only fell apart when the IBM/Microsoft partnership fell apart, and MS decided that MS-DOS could be kept going with various kludges to work around the 640K barrier.
Every system for counting things makes some kind of assumption about how big the count can get. If you design a counting system so that it's infinitely extendable, you add a lot of complexity, which raises cost and lowers reliability. It always makes more sense to make some kind of assumption about the biggest number you plan to deal with and work from there. All information systems are designed that way.
You get in trouble when you make the assumed biggest number too small, as frequently happens. But I think 2^128 (not 2^64) is a big enough number for IP addresses. Consider that there would have to be 2^52 IP addresses allocated for every star in the observable universe for us to use up that many addresses. That's going to take a long time. I think it's safe to say that by the time we do, the Internet, in anything like its present form, will be obsolete. I wouldn't even count on the human race surviving that long.
The good grammar tells you he's a fake, but what kind? Obviously, a fake scam artist. In other words, a fake fake.
But if he's not a real fake, what is he really? The only possibility that makes sense is that he really is the premier of Swaziland. I suggest you send him the information he requested. Or better yet, send it to me, and I'll handle the transaction for you.
And in fact, the Wikipedia page for Contiki links to a web server running on a C64! Shall we see if we can Slashdot it?
Whenever I trash MS-DOS 1.0 on Slashdot, I get a contradictions ("arguments" presumes too much actual knowledge) from people who insist that it's the best OS that could have been implemented on the hardware available in 1981. The counterexamples I usually answer are things like CP/M (the leader before commodity PCs took over), QNX (now sold as an embedded OS, but originally meant as a desktop system), and CTOS (utterly dead now, but my favorite at one time) that all had more power and lower hardware requirements. These examples go right by people because they've never heard of these OSs. (Except maybe CP/M, and then they assume that it's the same level as MS-DOS 1.0, because 1.0 was based on QDOS, and QDOS pretended to be a CP/M clone.) I'm very pleased to learn about Contiki, even though I'll probably never work with it, since it's a prime example that you can even do high-powered OSs with GUIs on 80s-era hardware.
If you saw one sign, I'd guess you're talking about a modern billboard. I'm talking about.... (Googles for examples.) Wait, here's a set that's still up! Judging from their condition, they've been maintained by some private enthusiast. As I understand it, Phillip Morris abandoned the sign-poems in the early 60s. As an advertising method, it was better suited to the era of two-lane blacktops than that of Interstates.
Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet...
I had to read the comments in chronological order to see how long it would take for somebody to make the obligatory Al Gore joke. It took 8 whole minutes. Get it together, people!
Well, the main reason Obama's doing so well is that people agree that he "looks presidential" when he's talking about the economic crisis. For better or for worse, electoral politics is very much about personality.
Almost everybody else has free TV, for now at least. Even if you live in a really bad reception area (as I do) you can probably get one or two network stations. You might need one of those silver wirey things, it's called an antenna.
I have one of those somewhere, but if I decided to watch the debate, I guess it would probably be easier to call up a stream. Still, I hate looking at politicians, so I'll probably resort to another obsolete technology, radio.
Easy enough to secure the patient. And often stimulating seizures helps the neurosurgeon what to cut in order the prevent further seizures. Wilder Penfield, who pioneered this kind of surgery, has a really graphic description of such an operation in his autobiography.
Sure it is. As is selling dangerous drugs, rape, robbery, and murder. And yet these crimes continue.
Tough laws, by themselves, are never a solution. I'm not saying that tough laws are useless, but we've fallen into this nasty habit of throwing a lot of people in jail and then pretending to ourselves that's we've solved the problem. That pretense has turned out to be pretty expensive — cell space for 7.2 million adults costs. And the problems that we're pretending to solve are pretty much as bad as ever.
If you're going to complain about people who can't keep track of the difference between lose and loose, the least you can do is keep track of the post you're replying to, and respond to something they actually said.
They're not clients because they don't fit into the client-server model. As for whether or not "thin" applies, I have to admit that my argument is subjective and prejudiced!
You might catch a few people before they go in harm's way...
Didn't I meet you during the design meetings for the Titanic? You were the one that said, "Liveboats are useless, they won't stop the ship from sinking."
Which is why the students have the option of using an iPod Touch instead. Both devices have a WiFi interface, and tying into the campus WiFi network is presumably what this is all about.
Can we get some realistic math for once? Attending a private school like ACU costs close to $110K for four years. A fancy $300 PDA doesn't even begin to account for that.
Also, colleges now rely heavily on the web and email for communicating with students. Bulletins, class schedules, online study materials, web-based paperwork... It's efficient and cheap. This works better if everybody has a standard device that works the same way with the campus WiFi network. Usually, colleges accomplish this by making all the students buy a standard laptop or tablet.
That route makes sense to me, but I can guess why the ACU people went the PDA route. People take their PDAs everywhere, so ACU can get information out to the entire student body quickly. That makes for a convenient fact to cite when parents want to know what the school is doing to prevent another Virginia Tech.
There's a lot of good web-based applications out there. (And a lot of bad ones.) And the web would seem to be ideal for kind of applications you're talking about.
But not all applications can be ported to the web world, despite all the AJAX hype. Even when they can, the desktop versions have too much lockin to ever go away completely. So there will always be a need for the traditional computer desktop.
About that term "thin client". I agree that its current usage is technically illiterate. But we're stuck with it, much too late to complain.
And some people still use Lynx. Every bit of software that's ever been written has its hardcore users who won't give it up except at gunpoint. Doesn't say anything about the viability of the product.
Your use of the word "terminal" reveals you as with-it technically and out-of-it marketwise. As you correctly perceive, "thin clients" are not clients, because they don't run a local application making requests to a remote server. They're terminals: they blindly display whatever graphics the "server" ("host" is a better word) sends them.
And as such, they're not really thin either. True, there's not a lot of hardware on the user's desktop. But it takes a lot of network bandwidth to keep that display up to date. I think of them not as thin clients but thick terminals. But "thin client", though technically bullshit, is well established — we're stuck with it.
I pine for the real thin clients, the Java-based network computers Sun and Oracle tried to sell 10 years ago. It was a great idea, but it had no chance of succeeding. Even if Java had been ready for prime time (the basic platform still needed a year or two of shaking out, and the GUI libraries have issues that have still not been properly resolved) there was too much lock in by existing client OSs (Windows mostly, but also others, including some from Sun). So what we ended up with is technology that allows people to continue to run their old OS, only on a centrally managed "server". It's only called a thin client because it addresses the same market.
It works, but I still hate it. Such a brute force networking approach offends my delicate sensibilities.
Well, "beta" doesn't necessarily mean "not ready for day to day use", especially with Google products. GMail has millions of users, but is still officially "beta."
But jargon aside, I think you're correct. Google people have their blind spots, but all in all they're pretty smart, and I find it hard to believe that this release of Chrome was meant to to grab any significant market share. Too many functional limitations.
If you go by the emphasis of the comic book, this version of Chrome is mostly about contributing to the open source browser community, and getting that community to rethink some of its strategies. And that actually makes sense. My only question is whether there will ever be a more serious version that will actually compete with other browsers. I think, probably not, but I'd be very happy to be wrong.
What's not true? You seem to think I'm making some legal argument. Mine is a simple ethical argument: invading somebody's privacy is wrong. That's true even if the somebody is Governor Moose Lips.
Slashdot Mirror
Future proof? Everyone says IPv6 is future proof. No one will ever need more than 2^64 addresses.
You're regurgitating the old "nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM" myth. And it is a myth. It comes from the design assumption of MS-DOS that it would only ever run on early processors with a 1-megabyte address space. That assumption made sense when IBM and Microsoft's joint plan was to migrate everybody to OS/2 once 80286s became available. It only fell apart when the IBM/Microsoft partnership fell apart, and MS decided that MS-DOS could be kept going with various kludges to work around the 640K barrier.
Every system for counting things makes some kind of assumption about how big the count can get. If you design a counting system so that it's infinitely extendable, you add a lot of complexity, which raises cost and lowers reliability. It always makes more sense to make some kind of assumption about the biggest number you plan to deal with and work from there. All information systems are designed that way.
You get in trouble when you make the assumed biggest number too small, as frequently happens. But I think 2^128 (not 2^64) is a big enough number for IP addresses. Consider that there would have to be 2^52 IP addresses allocated for every star in the observable universe for us to use up that many addresses. That's going to take a long time. I think it's safe to say that by the time we do, the Internet, in anything like its present form, will be obsolete. I wouldn't even count on the human race surviving that long.
The good grammar tells you he's a fake, but what kind? Obviously, a fake scam artist. In other words, a fake fake.
But if he's not a real fake, what is he really? The only possibility that makes sense is that he really is the premier of Swaziland. I suggest you send him the information he requested. Or better yet, send it to me, and I'll handle the transaction for you.
Disk drives are for wimps, as the enduring usefulness of the C64 testifies.
And in fact, the Wikipedia page for Contiki links to a web server running on a C64! Shall we see if we can Slashdot it?
Whenever I trash MS-DOS 1.0 on Slashdot, I get a contradictions ("arguments" presumes too much actual knowledge) from people who insist that it's the best OS that could have been implemented on the hardware available in 1981. The counterexamples I usually answer are things like CP/M (the leader before commodity PCs took over), QNX (now sold as an embedded OS, but originally meant as a desktop system), and CTOS (utterly dead now, but my favorite at one time) that all had more power and lower hardware requirements. These examples go right by people because they've never heard of these OSs. (Except maybe CP/M, and then they assume that it's the same level as MS-DOS 1.0, because 1.0 was based on QDOS, and QDOS pretended to be a CP/M clone.) I'm very pleased to learn about Contiki, even though I'll probably never work with it, since it's a prime example that you can even do high-powered OSs with GUIs on 80s-era hardware.
If you saw one sign, I'd guess you're talking about a modern billboard. I'm talking about.... (Googles for examples.) Wait, here's a set that's still up! Judging from their condition, they've been maintained by some private enthusiast. As I understand it, Phillip Morris abandoned the sign-poems in the early 60s. As an advertising method, it was better suited to the era of two-lane blacktops than that of Interstates.
What? This is America. Everybody gets a TV implant at birth!
Get a VPN account with a U.S. provider. Not only gives you access to U.S. content, it protects your system when you're using hotspots.
After seeing this lead in:
Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet...
I had to read the comments in chronological order to see how long it would take for somebody to make the obligatory Al Gore joke. It took 8 whole minutes. Get it together, people!
Well, the main reason Obama's doing so well is that people agree that he "looks presidential" when he's talking about the economic crisis. For better or for worse, electoral politics is very much about personality.
For those of us that no longer have a television,
Who, the Amish? They don't vote.
Almost everybody else has free TV, for now at least. Even if you live in a really bad reception area (as I do) you can probably get one or two network stations. You might need one of those silver wirey things, it's called an antenna.
I have one of those somewhere, but if I decided to watch the debate, I guess it would probably be easier to call up a stream. Still, I hate looking at politicians, so I'll probably resort to another obsolete technology, radio.
Easy enough to secure the patient. And often stimulating seizures helps the neurosurgeon what to cut in order the prevent further seizures. Wilder Penfield, who pioneered this kind of surgery, has a really graphic description of such an operation in his autobiography.
Sure it is. As is selling dangerous drugs, rape, robbery, and murder. And yet these crimes continue.
Tough laws, by themselves, are never a solution. I'm not saying that tough laws are useless, but we've fallen into this nasty habit of throwing a lot of people in jail and then pretending to ourselves that's we've solved the problem. That pretense has turned out to be pretty expensive — cell space for 7.2 million adults costs. And the problems that we're pretending to solve are pretty much as bad as ever.
How can you make a Burma Shave joke on Slashdot, where most of the users were born at least a decade after the last sign came down?
If you're going to complain about people who can't keep track of the difference between lose and loose, the least you can do is keep track of the post you're replying to, and respond to something they actually said.
They're not clients because they don't fit into the client-server model. As for whether or not "thin" applies, I have to admit that my argument is subjective and prejudiced!
It was a perfectly good joke, until you came and spoiled it!
Did you happen to notice that TFA is about a private school?
You might catch a few people before they go in harm's way ...
Didn't I meet you during the design meetings for the Titanic? You were the one that said, "Liveboats are useless, they won't stop the ship from sinking."
Which is why the students have the option of using an iPod Touch instead. Both devices have a WiFi interface, and tying into the campus WiFi network is presumably what this is all about.
Can we get some realistic math for once? Attending a private school like ACU costs close to $110K for four years. A fancy $300 PDA doesn't even begin to account for that.
Also, colleges now rely heavily on the web and email for communicating with students. Bulletins, class schedules, online study materials, web-based paperwork... It's efficient and cheap. This works better if everybody has a standard device that works the same way with the campus WiFi network. Usually, colleges accomplish this by making all the students buy a standard laptop or tablet.
That route makes sense to me, but I can guess why the ACU people went the PDA route. People take their PDAs everywhere, so ACU can get information out to the entire student body quickly. That makes for a convenient fact to cite when parents want to know what the school is doing to prevent another Virginia Tech.
There's a lot of good web-based applications out there. (And a lot of bad ones.) And the web would seem to be ideal for kind of applications you're talking about.
But not all applications can be ported to the web world, despite all the AJAX hype. Even when they can, the desktop versions have too much lockin to ever go away completely. So there will always be a need for the traditional computer desktop.
About that term "thin client". I agree that its current usage is technically illiterate. But we're stuck with it, much too late to complain.
And some people still use Lynx. Every bit of software that's ever been written has its hardcore users who won't give it up except at gunpoint. Doesn't say anything about the viability of the product.
Your use of the word "terminal" reveals you as with-it technically and out-of-it marketwise. As you correctly perceive, "thin clients" are not clients, because they don't run a local application making requests to a remote server. They're terminals: they blindly display whatever graphics the "server" ("host" is a better word) sends them.
And as such, they're not really thin either. True, there's not a lot of hardware on the user's desktop. But it takes a lot of network bandwidth to keep that display up to date. I think of them not as thin clients but thick terminals. But "thin client", though technically bullshit, is well established — we're stuck with it.
I pine for the real thin clients, the Java-based network computers Sun and Oracle tried to sell 10 years ago. It was a great idea, but it had no chance of succeeding. Even if Java had been ready for prime time (the basic platform still needed a year or two of shaking out, and the GUI libraries have issues that have still not been properly resolved) there was too much lock in by existing client OSs (Windows mostly, but also others, including some from Sun). So what we ended up with is technology that allows people to continue to run their old OS, only on a centrally managed "server". It's only called a thin client because it addresses the same market.
It works, but I still hate it. Such a brute force networking approach offends my delicate sensibilities.
Well, "beta" doesn't necessarily mean "not ready for day to day use", especially with Google products. GMail has millions of users, but is still officially "beta."
But jargon aside, I think you're correct. Google people have their blind spots, but all in all they're pretty smart, and I find it hard to believe that this release of Chrome was meant to to grab any significant market share. Too many functional limitations.
If you go by the emphasis of the comic book, this version of Chrome is mostly about contributing to the open source browser community, and getting that community to rethink some of its strategies. And that actually makes sense. My only question is whether there will ever be a more serious version that will actually compete with other browsers. I think, probably not, but I'd be very happy to be wrong.
What's not true? You seem to think I'm making some legal argument. Mine is a simple ethical argument: invading somebody's privacy is wrong. That's true even if the somebody is Governor Moose Lips.