(we've been a year away from running out of IP addresses for years)
IANA has already allocated the last/8 IP blocks January 2001 to the RIRs (Regional lnternet Registeries) Once the RIRs run out, they will not be able to get any more. APNIC (The Asia Pacific RIR) had allocated their last block four months after in April 2001.
ARIN is the North America RIR and still has smaller blocks left, but once they are gone then they have to make due with what blocks they can get back.
So we are not a year away, we are a year past running out at the highest levels.
so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.
So you agree that if I post a goatse URL in reply to your message, that you are responsible for that? Responsible as in it is your fault, and you agree you must accept the blame for it?
Considering you are posting anonymous while attempting to claim liability and responsibility for anything posted in reply to you is the height of humor.
Oh wow, I am very sorry. I got my posts completely mixed up somehow. Actually the trolling post was by gweihir, not you. He made a number of posts, and two of them replied to by poperatzo. For some reason I thought this was one of those.
So I fully withdraw that comment, and apologize for mixing you up with someone else.
While it seems the person you're replying to is mostly trolling (he got me too), I would like to take a small part of your comment to discuss if I may.
I don't know about this immortality project, though. I can absolutely see the possibility of there coming a time when I've had enough. The existence of this project does demonstrate one thing for sure, though: the rich guys who are funding it sure have a high regard for themselves. Is there any evidence that anybody else wants them around forever? You think their trophy wives are thrilled knowing that Daddy Warbucks is going to last indefinitely? I'm betting there are some progeny that definitely wouldn't approve of them attaining immortality. Immortality would definitely change things.
I've always thought such reasoning was a little suspect, if not outright selfish (Not to say I am surprised about the rich being selfish of course;)
Yes, immortality would most definitely change things. I've posted before along those exact same lines.
But as you have pointed out, a very large group of people seem to oppose research into immortality because of either A) It will upset the status-quo which they are in, and so don't want it to happen, or B) It will be first given to rich people, of which they are not, and so don't want it to happen.
While I readily admit, yes immortality would very likely be given to the rich first ignoring the rest, and I also admit I am not rich nor part of the status-quo and so not only will not be among the first to be involved in the fruits of such research, but quite possibly would still end up dying of old age due to my status even IF immortality became possible within my life time.
I also admit to agreeing with your second sentence as well. I personally don't really want to live a hundred years, let alone be immortal or live forever (But I reserve the right to change my mind on that one:P If assuming a time when medical technology can fix "old age", it's not unreasonable to assume I wouldn't have the medical issues I do now causing me to feel that way.)
I just don't see any of that as a valid reason to avoid such research in the first place.
Even people in group "A" above, such as the examples you've already given, who arguably would see such a change as personally harming them, I would argue is not a sound and valid reason, despite being a reason none the less. There really will come a time at some point however when the question must be asked: Does the benefit of long life to the individual, or even to society in whole, out-weigh the desires or needs of these few?
At this point in time, there are too many people who (rationally or not) believe having immortals around would be harmful to the rest of society, and thus such research should be banned. While we may or may not agree with that reasoning, I can see that will be the reason society as a whole will not answer the above question in the affirmative anytime soon. An individual may, but as the past has proven, that doesn't matter much.
Of course those lines of reasoning have a ton of assumptions in them, which might not turn out to be true in the end.
I guess the point of all this is just my bewilderment at the vast number of people who are outright against such research that could potentially benefit their lives so greatly compared to anything in the past, based on the assumption that society as a whole is so broken as to actively keep such literally life changing technology out of the hands of most people including them. This in an age where even cell phones can be bought in gas stations and extremely powerful computing resources are available to most anyone who wants them. While I don't argue when others claim the government has far more important things to worry about, when a private individual or company wishes to answer these questions before technology reaches the point that the issue is forced upon us immediately, it seems amazing that so many people wouldn't want to avail themselves of such wisdom. Especially so on another persons dime and time.
Henrietta Lacks only lived for 31 years. Her cancerous tumour might do better, but even that won't live forever.
Poor choice of words by the GP, as no the cells will not live forever, however the cells ARE immortal (aka the topic of this discussion)
Immortal doesn't necessarily mean forever. For example it is likely a person hit in the head hard enough and enough times, they will die no matter how immortal or not they are. Kill It With Fire is another true and tested method of destruction, as is Nuke It From Orbit.
Immortal tends to specifically address the built-in destruction of the body and/or mind that is considered the "default route" for means of death. Thus, there is no particular need to concern ones self with the other ways that exist to die when solely researching immortality. That is, as they say, another topic all together.
Currently it is held that if you take care of yourself and don't get killed in some other manor, you might live to be 100. Even a single order of magnitude improvement would be worth while from such research, let alone to be immortal. While living 1000 years is not immortal either, it would be a vast improvement for an individual to achieve none the less.
Key word there is improvement for the individual. Some argue that a society would not improve, or in fact might be harmed, by such individuals existing. Others dismiss that as hogwash without evidence, however this point of view also has little evidence. Actual and honest research into that area might be a tad important before actually executing any plan to aid in immortality. Personally I fall into the second category as I have no particular care for protecting the status-quo, but I can more than admit such a change would be quite disruptive for our current forms of society. While that fact may suck, it would be far better to refrain from creating immortals, than to create them and discover a problem afterwards that might result in destruction to such individuals or even an all out war.
There is a lot more to research than just the biological facts that have been researched for some time now already, and that isn't to say that area doesn't require more research (it does), but is to say even $5 million is a tiny drop in the bucket of what would be seriously required to make any useful progress. Arguing if any useful results from only this one grant will emerge is silly, because they won't from this alone.
But as with all else related to research, useful discoveries come about in time, and incremental improvements are all we can hope for while an individuals life time is restricted to less than 100 years.
Why don't you have the IP entered in your connection bookmark? Both puTTY and SecurCRT store connection profiles, where you can put the IP instead of hostname for critical servers.
Bash has aliases and shell scripts to call ssh. Even windows CLI has batch scripts. If "ssh ns1" doesn't resolve, I can run "~/.ssh/ns1.sh" easily enough, which contains the "ssh <ip>" command.
Also if your DNS regularly goes down, I'd guess remembering addresses is the least of your network troubles.
You can already use the alias fe80::%eth0 for your gateway. Best part is you only need to remember that single address, unlike IPv4 which requires me remembering many different "x.x.x.1" addresses used as the gateways right now.
You can even organize it identically to your IPv4 layout. You still only need to really remember 1-2 numbers that will change depending if you use a/24 or/16, and a single prefix that never changes. Anyone managing larger than a/16 is already going to have the entire thing documented in a management system or at worse a wiki. Excel will not cut it at that size. Basically put, if you have an IPv4/12 or larger network, you already have software that manages the addresses for you. Nothing will change there with IPv6.
At home I have a/24. That means 3 octets are assigned and fixed already. Gives 253 usable addresses. Most of your IPv6 address will also be assigned. Instead of x.x.x.1 you have yyyy::1 Instead of x.x.x.10 you have yyyy::10 Instead of x.x.x.100 you have yyyy::100 See the pattern here?
You can even avoid using the hex digits A-F and stick to 0-9 only. Sure, per "group" you only get 9999 IPs instead of 65534 IPs, but either is better than 253 or less.
At work I manage a/16. That means 2 octets are fixed. I grouped that into 255 blocks of roughly 253 addresses each. Each block is a logical division. x.x.0.y is routers/switches. x.x.1.y is servers. x.x.4.y are static IPs, and x.x.5.y are dynamic ones. Instead, you can use yyyy::1:z and yyyy::2:z and so on. .
The best part, my IPv4 and IPv6 suffixes pretty much match for my "dot zero" infrastructure and "dot one" servers blocks. Learning the IPv6 prefix took no longer than remembering a brand new/28 allocated from an ISP.
Your fixed prefix will likely be 8 hex characters. Even a chimp can memorize 8 hex numbers they work with every day:P
The absolute worst situation is going to be having a post-it note in your wallet/purse with the prefixes on it... Pretty much what most of us network admins do anyway for any IPs assigned by upstream providers or other 3rd parties.
I have my entire internal/16 memorized fully. It's the 10ish tiny/29 and smaller blocks from my 4 ISPs that are the bitch to remember! Growing my internal IP blocks with IPv6 took literally less than one full day to memorize the prefix. Just because I waste most of my/64 allocation by padding it with zeros on the left doesn't matter now. Once I get more than 20k network devices, they will be added slowly over time just like right now. You only have to learn new subnets individually as you add them in at the time they are created, and IPv6 will not change that.
Is the abuse of power by a person in a position of power, to try to obtain sexual favors. Making a comment about a co-workers boobs in NOT harassment. Slapping a co-worker's ass is NOT harassment (but it may be assault). However a boss telling an employee that he/she will be denied advancement unless he/she performs some sort of sex act IS sexual harassment. But like many other words such as "genocide" and "terrorist", "harassment" has been bastardized to include any sexual behavior between anyone if one of the parties doesn't consent (or later changes their mind about consenting).
So say I am not your boss, and further I am in no position to advance you. You are claiming none of the following are sexual harassment, or harassment of any form?
* I always replaced your name with "teeny-dick" while referring to you in conversations with others, both with and without you present * I set up a new contact in Outlook with your name as "Teeny-Dick" so only that displays when I send company-wide and department-wide emails with you CC'ed * I white-out your name on paperwork and write in teeny-dick instead * Every time you walked away from your PC and forgot to hit lock, I replaced your desktop background with a photoshopped picture of your face on another mans body who is displaying a very small penis * I regularly printed and left said picture around the office walls in hallways, your desk, other peoples desks, and under your co-workers car wipers in the parking lot * And I never stopped if and when you said something about it, but instead reply "No thanks teeny dick, this is too much innocent fun!"...
Just to be clear here, you're saying none of that is harassment? Seriously? All because I'm not your boss and/or I'm not in a position to advance you? Am I mistaken about your claim?
Do you honestly believe you would NOT go to my manager or HR with claims of harassment, wanting them to make me stop?
I call bull-fucking-shit on you. You would be livid at the end of the first day, let alone weeks/months/years later.
Such acts are most certainly harassment, and sexual harassment at that. No where in there at all do I need to be your boss or in a position to advance you before those acts magically become harassment. They ARE harassment. Always. They are harassment if they are true or false, and they are still harassment if we are total strangers.
You should probably update your personal definition of the word before you get yourself in trouble by doing those things to others whom do not work directly below you.
I suppose I'll be moderated "troll" if I suggest that the government shouldn't waste time and money rewriting software that already exists and can be licensed in the commercial market.
That isn't trolling at all. But I don't see why it shouldn't be handled like any other purchasing decision.
Commercial Product A cost $X Commercial Product B cost $Y Paying developers time to create that product will cost $Z
All else being equal, why _wouldn't_ you choose the option with the lowest cost?
Of course all else is rarely equal, but still people in companies do this kind of thing daily, weighing the cost vs benefit vs features and then factor in the other issues such as support/maintenance over the lifetime of the product and the computing resources required to use said product.
If paying developers to create it and maintain it turns out significantly cheaper than the other options, it only makes sense to create it in-house. If buying it and paying the support contract, as well as paying for modification/customization of features turns out cheaper than other options, then it makes sense to buy the thing and not worry about it.
Without knowing dollar amounts involved and the required feature list, it's impossible to know what each option costs in whole. We also don't really know all the factors involved. I'm sure cost is a factor in there somewhere, but it could rank anywhere from #1 to #last.
What's more, when Windows pukes on itself and the non-power user takes it to "my computer friend" who proceeds to want nothing more to do with it since no rescue discs will work... They are gunna be pissed.
If so much as a hint for a recommendation on their next machine is mentioned, said computer geek will strongly say anything but this.
It's not just us who will end up not buying the things but everyone else, as people tend to remember getting burned on a bad purchase. This is the very market Microsoft is targeting these low end tablet wanna-be systems to. Once people start getting burned in their purchase, word will spread and they will have even more hostility at them than they already do.
Although I doubt they care about that last point, evidenced by the fact they are even entertaining the idea.
Replace "SQL" with "hammer" and replace "NoSQL" with "Screw Driver" and then ask the question again. You will see how silly it actually is.
The right tool is best for the particular job at hand, always. If you refuse to define the job, it is not possible to guess ahead of time which tool will be better for it.
I was aware that the atmosphere was extremely thin relative to the earths diameter. But I had no idea the total water volume would be even less than that!
So my takeaway from today is it's obviously okay to take GPL software and use it however I want, regardless of whether or not my use violates the terms defined within the GPL. RMS doesn't feel other licenses need to be honored, so there's no compelling reason to follow the terms of his licenses. So lets start using it in our commercial devices, modify it however we want and not bother releasing the source.
Not only could you release "closed" software with GPL in it, but that "closed" software would be in no way closed without copyright.
You do realize that if everyone lost access to copyright protection equally, then you couldn't possibly release closed source software, since you would have no protection under the law to do so.
You are correct that you would be allowed to use GPL software in anyway you wish, literally ANY way.
Just as we would be equally allowed to use your "closed" software in any way possible too.
RMS has repeatedly said that if copyright was abolished, the right to use closed software anyway we want legally would far outweigh the loss of legal protection of the GPL.
AKA he would be perfectly fine with you using GPL code in your now OPEN software.
If the Earth was not present, the Moon would continue in its present orbit about the Sun, so it meets the other major criterion for planet status.
You have some 'tense' mistakes near the end.
Yes, if the Earth was not present, then yes the Moon would then be a planet. But that isn't the case. The Earth is present, so the moon does Not match either definition of planet right now.
The detail you refuse to accept is that the Earth DOES exist, and the moon is in orbit around Earth. That means it does not match "In orbit around the sun" part which is currently required to be called a planet. The correct term is Satellite. That is what we call a large body in orbit NOT around the sun, but which is orbiting a larger body which itself is in orbit around the sun.
The Earths gravitational pull on the moon is MUCH stronger than that of the sun, purely due to the distances involved. THAT is the definition the moon fits as it is now.
I never once argued how important the moon is/was for the Earth to be in the place it is today. I agree it played a very large role in our place in the solar system, as well as a very large role in the development of the Earth itself. Personally I even suspect the moon was very important for life on Earth, although there is no solid proof of that yet.
I also have no doubt at all that if the Earth was not present, but the moon was, then the moon would have become a planet.
But the fact remains, that isn't how things turned out. The Earth is here, which the moon orbits, and thus the moon turned out to be a satellite and not a planet.
.
As for the rest of your post, you are arguing for this: A) Leave planet as the 2nd definition, and thus make the word meaningless and useless for any human communications. B) Have no word to reference the eight large bodies orbiting the sun.
WTF would you want that? How is that useful or helpful? If you reply to any part of this post, please reply to this: Name ONE useful situation where you would want to refer to millions of rocks in our solar system by a common term, at the expense of being able to refer to the large bodies orbiting the sun? How does this definition make your communications easier or better?
If the word "Planet" was left alone, then there are millions of planets in our solar system, and scientists would only very rarely have any reason to use that term. We simply don't have a need to refer to the millions of rocks in orbit around the sun!
But due to telescopes, space probes/landers, and gravitational wabble observations, we DO quite frequently need a word to reference the big things out there that do orbit the sun that would be useful for us to explore and potentially utilize the resources of.
Might as well use the word "Planet" for that.
Even if you want to ignore our current 3rd definition of the term, why would you want to stick with definition #2? People who are hungup on the original definition of a word generally expect that definition #1 is and always will be the only definition that matters, and ignore ALL future changes.
Definition #1 of Planet is "any body in the heavens that orbits the Earth". Under that definition, the Earth is NOT a planet, but the Sun, Moon, Mars, etc all the way out to the tiny rocks such as Pluto Eris and the millions of bodies larger than both of those, are all planets.
We changed away from definition #1 when it was proven the Sun is the center of the solar system, not the Earth. Doing so brought the word "Planet" back in line with it's original intent, which was to reference the things we see out there in orbit.
We changed from #2 to the current 3rd definition to keep that same tradition. With our new knowledge about exactly how many objects are in orbit around the sun (millions), it became pointless to refer to all of that using a term where the spirit was to define the bodies with some size that we cou
You wouldn't want a single medium that will both last a thousand years as well as not at all be read again for a thousand years.
What you want is a medium that will last a minimum of a couple years, then before a couple years pass copy that data to a new medium device, making updates and translations as needed.
If each generation updates the records more than once, keeping things updated with whatever language changes end up happening over time, then the Content will last thousands of years, yet the medium will not be required to survive longer than a few years.
Then we don't have to make assumptions about the language that will be required a thousand years from now. It will become that over time. The only language to start it with are languages of today.
Our current hard drive technology can do this already. Store multiple copies on multiple drives. Make damn sure the data will get copied and updated before all of them fail. Always copy onto a new hard drive. It is reasonable to expect future storage devices to only last longer than current ones, not less. Keep copying over to the newest and best available at that moment. Never neglect it for too long.
Bonus points if you throw in something about how scientists are only in it for the money, fame, and groupies.
Oblg.:
<Leela> After 14 years of graduate school, Professor Farnsworth settled into the glamorous life of a scientist: Fast cars, trendy nightspots, beautiful women - the Professor designed them all working out of his tiny, one-room apartment.
Are you serious? Pretty sure you're just trolling, but wow.
So yea, they did actually reference linguists. That's why one group of objects is called "Planet" and the other group is called "Dwarf Planet", being a subset and all.
Also, since when did the Earths moon orbit the Sun alone? It's sorta part of the definition, of both words. The moon is a satellite, not a planet or dwarf planet.
If you can't even bother to learn the definitions of the new terms, you don't have much right to complain about them.
Pluto will always be a planet to me for as long as I exist. Anyone who feels the need to correct me can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
So when discussing large bodies in space we might have an interest in sending probes to, how do you single out those eight bodies from the millions upon millions of planets you think our solar system has?
We changed the definition because instead of 9 interesting objects in one group, the old definition means we have millions of planets and no way to distinguish the rare few large ones. The new definition separates the eight large bodies we are interested in, from the millions upon millions of rocks out there.
There can not be nine planets, ever, under either definition. There are either eight, or millions. The former definition is not useful at all to us, while the newer one is.
What possible benefit do you get by claiming there are millions of planets and Jupiter is in the same group as this 2" diameter rock in my yard? Do you honestly think we will find any life at all living on dust in space? Then why group the dust together with objects like Earth and Mars?
I do think the screen on the iPad 3 is very nice. I was even considering buying one, but in use I just find it a pain in the ass: I'm very used to having a convenient "back" button in Android. It even works to go back to the previous application that you were using. For example if you tap on a youtube link in the browser, it takes you to the youtube app - tap "back", and you will be back where you were in the browser.
Also if it is jailbroken (You really should jailbreak it, the configuration options are as plentiful as unix), Activator is pretty much a required tweak. You can set any of the gestures/buttons/actions to do this or any of a hundred+ other commands. I also use it on my phone while in the car to control the iPod app in a way that doesn't require looking at or touching the screen at all. On my volume rocker switch, I hit "Up, Down" to go to next track, "Down, Up" to go back a track, and "Up and Down together" to pause/play. Much safer way to use a car mount bracket and bluetooth stereo.
Also a task manager can pretty up the whole operation. Personally I use MultiFl0w (Not free, but I don't remember what I paid for it so long ago), and activator is configured to call it upon a "home button double-tap". All open app windows show up and you tab on any to bring it forward, and can easily jump between 12 apps with just two actions (or three if you have more apps running than 12) There are plenty of other task managers to install, and a bunch of free ones too. Pick your stylistic poison.
I also use Backgrounder, to switch between "native" background usage (via the real API) and the standard unix way (app doesn't go away until you close it... But mind your batt life!)
Lastly there is even a tweak in Cydia that adds a function to Activator, to perform the exact "Android back button" behavior that you can bind to the home button. I'm not exactly sure what it was called (And never personally used it) but it had both "Back" and "Android" in the name, for search terms.
Please note all the above suggestions except the very first one require jailbreaking. Head to pwnmyi.com to get the right app, connect your device by USB, and run it. Use http://pwnmyi.com/gui/ To plug in your device, OS ver, and PC OS info to find the right jailbreak app/version and download links.
There's an even easier way to turn off a Windows computer. Push the power button. It'll shutdown nicely. (Log off, no questions).
What's the problem?
Since the parent post specifically stated "If there was a button on the taskbar to do that, they'd never use the Start menu at all!", then obviously the problem is the button on the front is not an icon in the taskbar;P
But seriously, I (and I dare say 'we', as in Slashdot users) likely have no problems with the keyboard shortcuts, or the start menu, or even the power button. In fact if the OS was not Windows, we likely wouldn't even be having a discussion about rebooting or powering down, except to brag about uptime-peen;}
I've always done the same, using slightly older PC hardware with Debian as a router. My last system started having hard drive problems after 5 years of service, so on my hunt for new hardware I've kept the power draw issue in mind.
They have on-board dual gigabit, plus a PCI Express slot with a quad port gigabit card in it. It can boot from USB as well, and even has an internal USB jack on the motherboard, as well as headers you can use your own connector with, and keep the USB flash drive internal.
Other than a small fan in the PSU, there is basically no moving parts to fail, and the PSU is only 200 watt max. It draws just under 60 watt when idle.
Add in a 2gb soDIMM and the price is still under $400, a great buy if you only need 2 network interfaces. I already had the quad gigabit card, which might bump the price up a bit more, but it's well worth it for the lack of over heating issues most tiny embedded systems have like the Guruplug.
Ironically I have an old server down in the basement running a vulnerable 2.6.18.8 kernel, where the only reason I leave it even running is the uptime being at 16:34:29 up 832 days, 21:00
It survived the leap second just fine and is still running along nicely.
I hear a lot of the problems might have been around a vulnerable NTPd on a vulnerable kernel, and I do not run nptd.
I also have another machine here that started off life as a 2.6.18 kernel but has been kpatched to the latest version, and it too survived the leap second, and it does run nptd. I can only assume the fix was already kspliced in shortly after release.
All in all the whole thing seemed like a nonissue.
Slashdot Mirror
(we've been a year away from running out of IP addresses for years)
IANA has already allocated the last /8 IP blocks January 2001 to the RIRs (Regional lnternet Registeries)
Once the RIRs run out, they will not be able to get any more.
APNIC (The Asia Pacific RIR) had allocated their last block four months after in April 2001.
ARIN is the North America RIR and still has smaller blocks left, but once they are gone then they have to make due with what blocks they can get back.
So we are not a year away, we are a year past running out at the highest levels.
so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.
So you agree that if I post a goatse URL in reply to your message, that you are responsible for that? Responsible as in it is your fault, and you agree you must accept the blame for it?
Considering you are posting anonymous while attempting to claim liability and responsibility for anything posted in reply to you is the height of humor.
Oh wow, I am very sorry. I got my posts completely mixed up somehow.
Actually the trolling post was by gweihir, not you.
He made a number of posts, and two of them replied to by poperatzo. For some reason I thought this was one of those.
So I fully withdraw that comment, and apologize for mixing you up with someone else.
While it seems the person you're replying to is mostly trolling (he got me too), I would like to take a small part of your comment to discuss if I may.
I don't know about this immortality project, though. I can absolutely see the possibility of there coming a time when I've had enough. The existence of this project does demonstrate one thing for sure, though: the rich guys who are funding it sure have a high regard for themselves. Is there any evidence that anybody else wants them around forever? You think their trophy wives are thrilled knowing that Daddy Warbucks is going to last indefinitely? I'm betting there are some progeny that definitely wouldn't approve of them attaining immortality. Immortality would definitely change things.
I've always thought such reasoning was a little suspect, if not outright selfish (Not to say I am surprised about the rich being selfish of course ;)
Yes, immortality would most definitely change things. I've posted before along those exact same lines.
But as you have pointed out, a very large group of people seem to oppose research into immortality because of either
A) It will upset the status-quo which they are in, and so don't want it to happen, or
B) It will be first given to rich people, of which they are not, and so don't want it to happen.
While I readily admit, yes immortality would very likely be given to the rich first ignoring the rest, and I also admit I am not rich nor part of the status-quo and so not only will not be among the first to be involved in the fruits of such research, but quite possibly would still end up dying of old age due to my status even IF immortality became possible within my life time.
I also admit to agreeing with your second sentence as well. I personally don't really want to live a hundred years, let alone be immortal or live forever (But I reserve the right to change my mind on that one :P If assuming a time when medical technology can fix "old age", it's not unreasonable to assume I wouldn't have the medical issues I do now causing me to feel that way.)
I just don't see any of that as a valid reason to avoid such research in the first place.
Even people in group "A" above, such as the examples you've already given, who arguably would see such a change as personally harming them, I would argue is not a sound and valid reason, despite being a reason none the less.
There really will come a time at some point however when the question must be asked: Does the benefit of long life to the individual, or even to society in whole, out-weigh the desires or needs of these few?
At this point in time, there are too many people who (rationally or not) believe having immortals around would be harmful to the rest of society, and thus such research should be banned.
While we may or may not agree with that reasoning, I can see that will be the reason society as a whole will not answer the above question in the affirmative anytime soon. An individual may, but as the past has proven, that doesn't matter much.
Of course those lines of reasoning have a ton of assumptions in them, which might not turn out to be true in the end.
I guess the point of all this is just my bewilderment at the vast number of people who are outright against such research that could potentially benefit their lives so greatly compared to anything in the past, based on the assumption that society as a whole is so broken as to actively keep such literally life changing technology out of the hands of most people including them.
This in an age where even cell phones can be bought in gas stations and extremely powerful computing resources are available to most anyone who wants them.
While I don't argue when others claim the government has far more important things to worry about, when a private individual or company wishes to answer these questions before technology reaches the point that the issue is forced upon us immediately, it seems amazing that so many people wouldn't want to avail themselves of such wisdom. Especially so on another persons dime and time.
Henrietta Lacks only lived for 31 years. Her cancerous tumour might do better, but even that won't live forever.
Poor choice of words by the GP, as no the cells will not live forever, however the cells ARE immortal (aka the topic of this discussion)
Immortal doesn't necessarily mean forever. For example it is likely a person hit in the head hard enough and enough times, they will die no matter how immortal or not they are. Kill It With Fire is another true and tested method of destruction, as is Nuke It From Orbit.
Immortal tends to specifically address the built-in destruction of the body and/or mind that is considered the "default route" for means of death.
Thus, there is no particular need to concern ones self with the other ways that exist to die when solely researching immortality. That is, as they say, another topic all together.
Currently it is held that if you take care of yourself and don't get killed in some other manor, you might live to be 100. Even a single order of magnitude improvement would be worth while from such research, let alone to be immortal. While living 1000 years is not immortal either, it would be a vast improvement for an individual to achieve none the less.
Key word there is improvement for the individual. Some argue that a society would not improve, or in fact might be harmed, by such individuals existing. Others dismiss that as hogwash without evidence, however this point of view also has little evidence. Actual and honest research into that area might be a tad important before actually executing any plan to aid in immortality.
Personally I fall into the second category as I have no particular care for protecting the status-quo, but I can more than admit such a change would be quite disruptive for our current forms of society.
While that fact may suck, it would be far better to refrain from creating immortals, than to create them and discover a problem afterwards that might result in destruction to such individuals or even an all out war.
There is a lot more to research than just the biological facts that have been researched for some time now already, and that isn't to say that area doesn't require more research (it does), but is to say even $5 million is a tiny drop in the bucket of what would be seriously required to make any useful progress. Arguing if any useful results from only this one grant will emerge is silly, because they won't from this alone.
But as with all else related to research, useful discoveries come about in time, and incremental improvements are all we can hope for while an individuals life time is restricted to less than 100 years.
Why don't you have the IP entered in your connection bookmark? Both puTTY and SecurCRT store connection profiles, where you can put the IP instead of hostname for critical servers.
Bash has aliases and shell scripts to call ssh. Even windows CLI has batch scripts.
If "ssh ns1" doesn't resolve, I can run "~/.ssh/ns1.sh" easily enough, which contains the "ssh <ip>" command.
Also if your DNS regularly goes down, I'd guess remembering addresses is the least of your network troubles.
You can already use the alias fe80::%eth0 for your gateway. Best part is you only need to remember that single address, unlike IPv4 which requires me remembering many different "x.x.x.1" addresses used as the gateways right now.
You can even organize it identically to your IPv4 layout. You still only need to really remember 1-2 numbers that will change depending if you use a /24 or /16, and a single prefix that never changes. /16 is already going to have the entire thing documented in a management system or at worse a wiki. Excel will not cut it at that size. /12 or larger network, you already have software that manages the addresses for you. Nothing will change there with IPv6.
Anyone managing larger than a
Basically put, if you have an IPv4
At home I have a /24. That means 3 octets are assigned and fixed already. Gives 253 usable addresses. Most of your IPv6 address will also be assigned.
Instead of x.x.x.1 you have yyyy::1
Instead of x.x.x.10 you have yyyy::10
Instead of x.x.x.100 you have yyyy::100
See the pattern here?
You can even avoid using the hex digits A-F and stick to 0-9 only.
Sure, per "group" you only get 9999 IPs instead of 65534 IPs, but either is better than 253 or less.
At work I manage a /16. That means 2 octets are fixed. I grouped that into 255 blocks of roughly 253 addresses each. Each block is a logical division.
x.x.0.y is routers/switches. x.x.1.y is servers. x.x.4.y are static IPs, and x.x.5.y are dynamic ones.
Instead, you can use yyyy::1:z and yyyy::2:z and so on. .
The best part, my IPv4 and IPv6 suffixes pretty much match for my "dot zero" infrastructure and "dot one" servers blocks. Learning the IPv6 prefix took no longer than remembering a brand new /28 allocated from an ISP.
Your fixed prefix will likely be 8 hex characters. Even a chimp can memorize 8 hex numbers they work with every day :P
The absolute worst situation is going to be having a post-it note in your wallet/purse with the prefixes on it... Pretty much what most of us network admins do anyway for any IPs assigned by upstream providers or other 3rd parties.
I have my entire internal /16 memorized fully. It's the 10ish tiny /29 and smaller blocks from my 4 ISPs that are the bitch to remember! Growing my internal IP blocks with IPv6 took literally less than one full day to memorize the prefix. Just because I waste most of my /64 allocation by padding it with zeros on the left doesn't matter now.
Once I get more than 20k network devices, they will be added slowly over time just like right now. You only have to learn new subnets individually as you add them in at the time they are created, and IPv6 will not change that.
Just because one uses Apple, does not mean they are gay. They are predominately metrosexual. There's a difference.
But isn't the Metro interface a Microsoft technology?
Is the abuse of power by a person in a position of power, to try to obtain sexual favors. Making a comment about a co-workers boobs in NOT harassment. Slapping a co-worker's ass is NOT harassment (but it may be assault). However a boss telling an employee that he/she will be denied advancement unless he/she performs some sort of sex act IS sexual harassment. But like many other words such as "genocide" and "terrorist", "harassment" has been bastardized to include any sexual behavior between anyone if one of the parties doesn't consent (or later changes their mind about consenting).
So say I am not your boss, and further I am in no position to advance you. You are claiming none of the following are sexual harassment, or harassment of any form?
* I always replaced your name with "teeny-dick" while referring to you in conversations with others, both with and without you present
* I set up a new contact in Outlook with your name as "Teeny-Dick" so only that displays when I send company-wide and department-wide emails with you CC'ed
* I white-out your name on paperwork and write in teeny-dick instead
* Every time you walked away from your PC and forgot to hit lock, I replaced your desktop background with a photoshopped picture of your face on another mans body who is displaying a very small penis
* I regularly printed and left said picture around the office walls in hallways, your desk, other peoples desks, and under your co-workers car wipers in the parking lot
* And I never stopped if and when you said something about it, but instead reply "No thanks teeny dick, this is too much innocent fun!"...
Just to be clear here, you're saying none of that is harassment? Seriously?
All because I'm not your boss and/or I'm not in a position to advance you? Am I mistaken about your claim?
Do you honestly believe you would NOT go to my manager or HR with claims of harassment, wanting them to make me stop?
I call bull-fucking-shit on you. You would be livid at the end of the first day, let alone weeks/months/years later.
Such acts are most certainly harassment, and sexual harassment at that. No where in there at all do I need to be your boss or in a position to advance you before those acts magically become harassment. They ARE harassment. Always.
They are harassment if they are true or false, and they are still harassment if we are total strangers.
You should probably update your personal definition of the word before you get yourself in trouble by doing those things to others whom do not work directly below you.
I suppose I'll be moderated "troll" if I suggest that the government shouldn't waste time and money rewriting software that already exists and can be licensed in the commercial market.
That isn't trolling at all. But I don't see why it shouldn't be handled like any other purchasing decision.
Commercial Product A cost $X
Commercial Product B cost $Y
Paying developers time to create that product will cost $Z
All else being equal, why _wouldn't_ you choose the option with the lowest cost?
Of course all else is rarely equal, but still people in companies do this kind of thing daily, weighing the cost vs benefit vs features and then factor in the other issues such as support/maintenance over the lifetime of the product and the computing resources required to use said product.
If paying developers to create it and maintain it turns out significantly cheaper than the other options, it only makes sense to create it in-house.
If buying it and paying the support contract, as well as paying for modification/customization of features turns out cheaper than other options, then it makes sense to buy the thing and not worry about it.
Without knowing dollar amounts involved and the required feature list, it's impossible to know what each option costs in whole.
We also don't really know all the factors involved. I'm sure cost is a factor in there somewhere, but it could rank anywhere from #1 to #last.
What's more, when Windows pukes on itself and the non-power user takes it to "my computer friend" who proceeds to want nothing more to do with it since no rescue discs will work... They are gunna be pissed.
If so much as a hint for a recommendation on their next machine is mentioned, said computer geek will strongly say anything but this.
It's not just us who will end up not buying the things but everyone else, as people tend to remember getting burned on a bad purchase.
This is the very market Microsoft is targeting these low end tablet wanna-be systems to. Once people start getting burned in their purchase, word will spread and they will have even more hostility at them than they already do.
Although I doubt they care about that last point, evidenced by the fact they are even entertaining the idea.
Replace "SQL" with "hammer" and replace "NoSQL" with "Screw Driver" and then ask the question again. You will see how silly it actually is.
The right tool is best for the particular job at hand, always. If you refuse to define the job, it is not possible to guess ahead of time which tool will be better for it.
Wow, that is am impressive graphic. Thank you.
I was aware that the atmosphere was extremely thin relative to the earths diameter.
But I had no idea the total water volume would be even less than that!
So my takeaway from today is it's obviously okay to take GPL software and use it however I want, regardless of whether or not my use violates the terms defined within the GPL. RMS doesn't feel other licenses need to be honored, so there's no compelling reason to follow the terms of his licenses. So lets start using it in our commercial devices, modify it however we want and not bother releasing the source.
Not only could you release "closed" software with GPL in it, but that "closed" software would be in no way closed without copyright.
You do realize that if everyone lost access to copyright protection equally, then you couldn't possibly release closed source software, since you would have no protection under the law to do so.
You are correct that you would be allowed to use GPL software in anyway you wish, literally ANY way.
Just as we would be equally allowed to use your "closed" software in any way possible too.
RMS has repeatedly said that if copyright was abolished, the right to use closed software anyway we want legally would far outweigh the loss of legal protection of the GPL.
AKA he would be perfectly fine with you using GPL code in your now OPEN software.
I have neither the time nor feel the need to respond to the rest of parent post.
Then enjoy rambling to yourself, instead of having a civilized conversation. I'll leave you to it.
The only thing even close to correct is your #3.
If the Earth was not present, the Moon would continue in its present orbit about the Sun, so it meets the other major criterion for planet status.
You have some 'tense' mistakes near the end.
Yes, if the Earth was not present, then yes the Moon would then be a planet.
But that isn't the case. The Earth is present, so the moon does Not match either definition of planet right now.
The detail you refuse to accept is that the Earth DOES exist, and the moon is in orbit around Earth. That means it does not match "In orbit around the sun" part which is currently required to be called a planet.
The correct term is Satellite. That is what we call a large body in orbit NOT around the sun, but which is orbiting a larger body which itself is in orbit around the sun.
The Earths gravitational pull on the moon is MUCH stronger than that of the sun, purely due to the distances involved. THAT is the definition the moon fits as it is now.
I never once argued how important the moon is/was for the Earth to be in the place it is today. I agree it played a very large role in our place in the solar system, as well as a very large role in the development of the Earth itself. Personally I even suspect the moon was very important for life on Earth, although there is no solid proof of that yet.
I also have no doubt at all that if the Earth was not present, but the moon was, then the moon would have become a planet.
But the fact remains, that isn't how things turned out. The Earth is here, which the moon orbits, and thus the moon turned out to be a satellite and not a planet.
.
As for the rest of your post, you are arguing for this:
A) Leave planet as the 2nd definition, and thus make the word meaningless and useless for any human communications.
B) Have no word to reference the eight large bodies orbiting the sun.
WTF would you want that? How is that useful or helpful?
If you reply to any part of this post, please reply to this: Name ONE useful situation where you would want to refer to millions of rocks in our solar system by a common term, at the expense of being able to refer to the large bodies orbiting the sun? How does this definition make your communications easier or better?
If the word "Planet" was left alone, then there are millions of planets in our solar system, and scientists would only very rarely have any reason to use that term. We simply don't have a need to refer to the millions of rocks in orbit around the sun!
But due to telescopes, space probes/landers, and gravitational wabble observations, we DO quite frequently need a word to reference the big things out there that do orbit the sun that would be useful for us to explore and potentially utilize the resources of.
Might as well use the word "Planet" for that.
Even if you want to ignore our current 3rd definition of the term, why would you want to stick with definition #2?
People who are hungup on the original definition of a word generally expect that definition #1 is and always will be the only definition that matters, and ignore ALL future changes.
Definition #1 of Planet is "any body in the heavens that orbits the Earth".
Under that definition, the Earth is NOT a planet, but the Sun, Moon, Mars, etc all the way out to the tiny rocks such as Pluto Eris and the millions of bodies larger than both of those, are all planets.
We changed away from definition #1 when it was proven the Sun is the center of the solar system, not the Earth.
Doing so brought the word "Planet" back in line with it's original intent, which was to reference the things we see out there in orbit.
We changed from #2 to the current 3rd definition to keep that same tradition.
With our new knowledge about exactly how many objects are in orbit around the sun (millions), it became pointless to refer to all of that using a term where the spirit was to define the bodies with some size that we cou
You wouldn't want a single medium that will both last a thousand years as well as not at all be read again for a thousand years.
What you want is a medium that will last a minimum of a couple years, then before a couple years pass copy that data to a new medium device, making updates and translations as needed.
If each generation updates the records more than once, keeping things updated with whatever language changes end up happening over time, then the Content will last thousands of years, yet the medium will not be required to survive longer than a few years.
Then we don't have to make assumptions about the language that will be required a thousand years from now. It will become that over time. The only language to start it with are languages of today.
Our current hard drive technology can do this already.
Store multiple copies on multiple drives. Make damn sure the data will get copied and updated before all of them fail. Always copy onto a new hard drive.
It is reasonable to expect future storage devices to only last longer than current ones, not less.
Keep copying over to the newest and best available at that moment. Never neglect it for too long.
Bonus points if you throw in something about how scientists are only in it for the money, fame, and groupies.
Oblg.:
<Leela> After 14 years of graduate school, Professor Farnsworth settled into the glamorous life of a scientist: Fast cars, trendy nightspots, beautiful women - the Professor designed them all working out of his tiny, one-room apartment.
Are you serious? Pretty sure you're just trolling, but wow.
So yea, they did actually reference linguists. That's why one group of objects is called "Planet" and the other group is called "Dwarf Planet", being a subset and all.
Also, since when did the Earths moon orbit the Sun alone? It's sorta part of the definition, of both words. The moon is a satellite, not a planet or dwarf planet.
If you can't even bother to learn the definitions of the new terms, you don't have much right to complain about them.
Pluto will always be a planet to me for as long as I exist. Anyone who feels the need to correct me can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
So when discussing large bodies in space we might have an interest in sending probes to, how do you single out those eight bodies from the millions upon millions of planets you think our solar system has?
We changed the definition because instead of 9 interesting objects in one group, the old definition means we have millions of planets and no way to distinguish the rare few large ones.
The new definition separates the eight large bodies we are interested in, from the millions upon millions of rocks out there.
There can not be nine planets, ever, under either definition. There are either eight, or millions. The former definition is not useful at all to us, while the newer one is.
What possible benefit do you get by claiming there are millions of planets and Jupiter is in the same group as this 2" diameter rock in my yard?
Do you honestly think we will find any life at all living on dust in space? Then why group the dust together with objects like Earth and Mars?
I do think the screen on the iPad 3 is very nice. I was even considering buying one, but in use I just find it a pain in the ass: I'm very used to having a convenient "back" button in Android. It even works to go back to the previous application that you were using. For example if you tap on a youtube link in the browser, it takes you to the youtube app - tap "back", and you will be back where you were in the browser.
http://gigaom.com/apple/how-to-use-ipad-multitasking-gestures-and-why-you-should/
Specifically #3 on the list.
Also if it is jailbroken (You really should jailbreak it, the configuration options are as plentiful as unix), Activator is pretty much a required tweak.
You can set any of the gestures/buttons/actions to do this or any of a hundred+ other commands.
I also use it on my phone while in the car to control the iPod app in a way that doesn't require looking at or touching the screen at all. On my volume rocker switch, I hit "Up, Down" to go to next track, "Down, Up" to go back a track, and "Up and Down together" to pause/play. Much safer way to use a car mount bracket and bluetooth stereo.
Also a task manager can pretty up the whole operation. Personally I use MultiFl0w (Not free, but I don't remember what I paid for it so long ago), and activator is configured to call it upon a "home button double-tap".
All open app windows show up and you tab on any to bring it forward, and can easily jump between 12 apps with just two actions (or three if you have more apps running than 12)
There are plenty of other task managers to install, and a bunch of free ones too. Pick your stylistic poison.
I also use Backgrounder, to switch between "native" background usage (via the real API) and the standard unix way (app doesn't go away until you close it... But mind your batt life!)
Lastly there is even a tweak in Cydia that adds a function to Activator, to perform the exact "Android back button" behavior that you can bind to the home button. I'm not exactly sure what it was called (And never personally used it) but it had both "Back" and "Android" in the name, for search terms.
Please note all the above suggestions except the very first one require jailbreaking.
Head to pwnmyi.com to get the right app, connect your device by USB, and run it. Use http://pwnmyi.com/gui/ To plug in your device, OS ver, and PC OS info to find the right jailbreak app/version and download links.
There's an even easier way to turn off a Windows computer.
Push the power button.
It'll shutdown nicely. (Log off, no questions).
What's the problem?
Since the parent post specifically stated "If there was a button on the taskbar to do that, they'd never use the Start menu at all!", then obviously the problem is the button on the front is not an icon in the taskbar ;P
But seriously, I (and I dare say 'we', as in Slashdot users) likely have no problems with the keyboard shortcuts, or the start menu, or even the power button. In fact if the OS was not Windows, we likely wouldn't even be having a discussion about rebooting or powering down, except to brag about uptime-peen ;}
What do you think happened when the last sentient species figured this out, about.. oh, 13.7 billion years ago..
Insufficient data for meaningful answer
And then AC said "Now let there be light!"
(No not Anonymous Coward AC, this AC)
They have on-board dual gigabit, plus a PCI Express slot with a quad port gigabit card in it.
Oops, should have hit preview...
I meant to say they have a PCI express slot, which you can Get a quad port gigabit card to put in it. :}
It does not come with one of course
I've always done the same, using slightly older PC hardware with Debian as a router.
My last system started having hard drive problems after 5 years of service, so on my hunt for new hardware I've kept the power draw issue in mind.
I just purchased some of these little 1u Atom servers:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101365
They have on-board dual gigabit, plus a PCI Express slot with a quad port gigabit card in it.
It can boot from USB as well, and even has an internal USB jack on the motherboard, as well as headers you can use your own connector with, and keep the USB flash drive internal.
Other than a small fan in the PSU, there is basically no moving parts to fail, and the PSU is only 200 watt max. It draws just under 60 watt when idle.
Add in a 2gb soDIMM and the price is still under $400, a great buy if you only need 2 network interfaces. I already had the quad gigabit card, which might bump the price up a bit more, but it's well worth it for the lack of over heating issues most tiny embedded systems have like the Guruplug.
Ironically I have an old server down in the basement running a vulnerable 2.6.18.8 kernel, where the only reason I leave it even running is the uptime being at
16:34:29 up 832 days, 21:00
It survived the leap second just fine and is still running along nicely.
I hear a lot of the problems might have been around a vulnerable NTPd on a vulnerable kernel, and I do not run nptd.
I also have another machine here that started off life as a 2.6.18 kernel but has been kpatched to the latest version, and it too survived the leap second, and it does run nptd. I can only assume the fix was already kspliced in shortly after release.
All in all the whole thing seemed like a nonissue.