I've more than once had problems seeing past a DC motor, an arm, and some gearing, while going 110 km/hr down the freeway. If it means I don't have to peer through a rapidly moving wedge of clear glass I'll consider it.
Oh, man, that sounds like a joke, but I bet it would sell like crazy.
Extra points if you can sideswipe the ambulance in Lefortovo Tunnel and make the patient fall out the back, without the security camera catching you at it, and *still* get the survivors to hire you.
B) if you DID use the 2893 extensions to "park" all of the IPv4 space in IPv6, you could pretty much, more or less, that day, stop handing out IPv4 space and make all new allocations move to IPv6, but it wouldn't be a problem because everyone would be able to "talk" to everyone else.
Well, yes, obviously. That's what I assumed they would do, anyway.
I guess you *did* technically name three broadband IPv6 providers, one each for Hawaii, PNW, and Montana.
So, here I am in Houston, and you want me to switch to IPv6 at home... what are my options? Get a PRI pulled to my demarc and peel off a fractional T1 for Citynet? That's hardly cost effective. I think I'll pass.
Unfortunately the IPv4 address space isn't embedded in the IPv6 address space in the way that you suggest.
I thought there was a chunk of IPv6 address space allocated to IPv4 addresses.
[...]
Ok, so, according to DJB this address space (RFC 2893) could be used for this purpose, but the folks responsible for implementing IPv6 have said that this shouldn't be done.
So I guess that gets back to my original question, why wasn't this done? There's technical support for it in the standard, they just say you're not supposed to do it? Why the hell not? What is the motivation for the bizarre behavior that DJB is complaining about in that article.
But Apple doesn't support upgrading their laptops at all. They come out with new ones, if you want to upgrade yours, you have to buy a new one.
I'm not interested in either of *these* laptops, but let's compare a couple I was interested in a little while back... the entry level Macbook and Thinkpad.
The processor and hardware specs for the Macbook and the Thinkpad were identical: same CPU, same GPU, same ports, same memory, same resolution. The differences?
The Macbook included a camera.
The Thinkpad was $240 cheaper, included a swappable optical drive, a docking port, a swappable hard drive, two buttons on the trackpad, and a better keyboard than anything Apple has had on a laptop since the Japanese Powerbook 2400.
Alternatively, you could pay the same price as the Macbook, and get a real GPU instead of the horrid embedded intel thing.
Oh, and that Powerbook 2400 I mentioned? The keyboard was by an IBM group in Tokyo.
Apples hardware has been and still is mediocre, and the number of people who would buy Macs if all they could run on them was Windows is negligible. It's OS X that makes all the difference, and the only thing that could possibly make any Macbook (including the Macbook Air) a "winner" in any even contest.
The logical way to go would have been to switch to IPv6 for everything in the core of the internet, working out to the edges, so that IPv4 was routed over an IPv6 network, without requiring anyone at the end points to change... IPv4 packets would be turned into IPv6 packets in the IPv4 subset of the IPv6 address space when they left the IPv4 endpoints, and then turned back to IPv4 if the destination didn't support IPv6. To access IPv6 resources you'd need a gateway that did both DNS and NATting, so your IPv4 lookup for an A record would be handled as a lookup for an AAAA record, and then a private IPv4 address would be assigned to that IPv6 address for you, and a fake A record comes back.
For many purposes proxy gateways would work just fine, with increasingly many programs supporting HTTP proxies for connectivity.
iii. Open Source Compatibility. Microsoft will promise not to sue open source developers for development and non-commercial distribution of implementations of these Open Protocols. Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license.
Translation: open source programs that interoperate with Microsoft products will serve as a free software development arm for Microsoft. No matter what open source license they use, Microsoft's submarine patents will make them equivalent to shareware.
Non Serviam. I'll use open APIs, not "shareware" ones from Microsoft.
Manufactured and manipulated demand has always been a part of market forces. At times it's included armed forces as well (consider the history of the British East India Company). The "manufactured and manipulated" part of the story can always be taken as a given.
I've been beating the drum about Internet Explorer and its deliberate malware distribution features like ActiveX for years. Over 10 years, in fact, since it was 1997 when Microsoft introduced Active Desktop...
When people tell me "oh yes, I use Internet Explorer, but I only visit well known websites I can trust" I have been able in some cases to convince them that thanks to forums and other sources of third party content even "trusted" websites can source malware.
Despite what Trend Micro suggests, the best approach to security is still taking proper care with the software you use. They talk about attacks on embedded devices like cellphones, but note that they're primarily talking about their potential as backdoors for infected files, not about their embedded browsers being attacked directly. Antivirus companies want antivirus software installed on everything... that's how they make money... but until they ship software that is purely a scanner and doesn't patch the OS you're more likely to have the AV software than any virus damage your PDA, cellphone, or non-Windows PC.
But taking care with the software you use DOESN'T mean only using bad software on good websites, but not using bad software at all. The best antivirus, then, is to avoid using software that deliberately includes backdoors to allow automatic installation and execution of unsandboxed code from websites. The poster boy for this insane design is, of course, Internet Explorer, which is actually built around this model and were Microsoft to fix it they would have to break a lot of working products. But there are similar design flaws, albeit ones not so automatically easy to exploit, in other browsers... for example Firefox and Safari will happily install code for you if the code is wrapped up in the appropriate package. In Firefox that package is the XPI... and I would recommend keeping the list of whitelisted sites in Firefox empty at all times. In Safari that package is the Dashboard widget, and the option 'Open "Safe" Files after downloading' which is now (thankfully) off by default in new installs (though it doesn't prevent Dashboard widgets from being installed).
And now Microsoft is pushing a cross-platform infection vector under the name Silverlight, and there's an open-source clone of it by the name "Moonlight" under development. Some days I despair, truly.
And no number of "I'm about to do something stupid, is this OK?" dialog boxes are good enough. After 20 years as a system administrator, the last several years of which were spent fighting an increasingly frustrating battle against malware riding on this misfeature of Microsoft's security model, I can only recall one time where someone was *twice* convinced to download and explicitly run an infected file from the shell... but I've repeatedly had people come to me saying "Peter... I clicked on the wrong button again, and my computer's acting funny".
If you're a software developer, and you find yourself adding an "I'm about to do something stupid" dialog... please reconsider whether it's actually necessary. It almost never is. People really would rather explicitly download and install a plugin, for example, than have the browser pop up annoying messages all the time. Really.
If you made a bag of this it would stick to itself on the inside. You would need to make a multi-layered bag with a film of some other non-self-healing substance on the inside and probably on the outside as well. That would, of course, limit the number of times it could heal because eventually the separating film would fail and your bacg would end up like a lump of silly-putty.
Looking further, RDF seems to be a rather specialized language, and honestly except for the simplest examples N3 doesn't seem to be significantly better than XML - it's more complex and actually seems less human-readable, based on the examples I've found. And for the cases where N3 is really a win, token separated values are a bigger win.
The last line of this article ends "whether it is true or not". It should read "whether it is relevant or not". The failure of HD-DVD has nothing to do with whether it is superior or inferior, but to market forces. There have been any number of situations over the years, centuries, and millennia, where technically superior products and technologies have failed (whether to be reborn later, in some form, or not) in the face of chance vagaries of the market.
Note that I am not arguing that it is superior, I neither know nor care since I have no interest in the technology itself and no media in either format, simply suggesting a significant improvement to the way the comment is phrased.
Interesting. RDF still seems a little verbose, even in N3 format. For tabular data a token-separated layout (of which CSV is an elaboration) would seem better, and would work for RDF... for example:
<http://www.slashdot.org> type bookmark <http://www.slashdot.org> visited "somedate" <http://example.com> type bookmark <http://example.com> visited "anotherdate" <http://example.com> password-hash "8193787837893" ...
Decompressing does not cause a loss of quality. Recompressing in a lossy format may, but there are a variety of lossless formats you can use if you find that you can hear a difference (I can with some files, but not with most), or if you want to retain the option of recompressing the music with a different codec in the future.
But natural selection is defined in a very narrow scope (it's an intrinsic property of science to try to not overstate something when there's yet to be evidence to go along with it
One key part of this is specifically that kind of expansion of scope. If you don't expend the scope of the term beyond an extremely strict biological definition, the quoted extract is more or less meaningless. After all, the selection that was going on was no more "natural selection" than the selection that derived dingos, pekinese, and german shepherds from a common ancestor.
The only meaningful interpretation is that the article is drawing a parallel between natural selection and market forces (whether the authors consciously realized it or not) and treating them both as subsets of a common feedback/selection mechanism.
CSV is just a special case of token-separated files, and both TSV and CSV parsers do have well known failure modes, BUT so do XML parsers, and with XML you have whole classes of failure modes that are absent in strict table formats... like parsers that don't distinguish between nested tags and attributes, or that *do* distinguish between them when the file creator didn't intend them to be distinguished, and so on. There are so many optional features in XML where more than one alternative is reasonable, and if you don't pick the right ones you're hosed.
The XML advocate then comes back and says "use a battle-tested parser". But:
* Somehow "use a battle-tested CSV parser" never occurs to them. * Even with a battle-tested *parser*, you have to deal with things like:
All of which may fit some DOM and all of which produce something that you or I can see are meant to be the same thing... and I've seen all of them used to mean the same thing. Apple's property list files are by no means the worst abuse of XML out there.
But a good XML parser has to be able to deal with them all, and produce hooks to pull useful information out of any possible DOM, because some asshole programmer is going to throw them all at it some time. And once it's parsed you STILL have to deal with it... and if there are multiple implementations generating the same file you know some damn fool is going to pick a different plausibly equivalent option for the above lines (especially if they're using a 'battle tested XML generator') so you have to handle that...
If you only have one generator it's simpler, until they reimplement it and pick a different option.
Matching quotes in CSV is a lot easier. Really.
ASN.1 is not my favorite, though I've dealt with worse beasts (DCA containing mixed EBCDIC and ASCII, for example), but at least there are battle-tested parsers for it.
S-expressions have some unfortunate history, but trust me... there are people who hate XML at least as much.
INI files: there's open source multi-platform parsers for it. There's one in Samba, for example.
XML does solve the problem of having an interoperable and expressive markup language.
Indeed it does, and if it was only used for that purpose without trying to push it as a general solution for information transfer where it's NOT appropriate I would have no problem with it.
Slashdot Mirror
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=440893&page=1
http://www.nanoxchange.com/NewsNewsstand.asp?ID=283
I've more than once had problems seeing past a DC motor, an arm, and some gearing, while going 110 km/hr down the freeway. If it means I don't have to peer through a rapidly moving wedge of clear glass I'll consider it.
Oh, man, that sounds like a joke, but I bet it would sell like crazy.
Extra points if you can sideswipe the ambulance in Lefortovo Tunnel and make the patient fall out the back, without the security camera catching you at it, and *still* get the survivors to hire you.
A lot of these behaviors seem like they should be red flags for any candidate for any position, no?
B) if you DID use the 2893 extensions to "park" all of the IPv4 space in IPv6, you could pretty much, more or less, that day, stop handing out IPv4 space and make all new allocations move to IPv6, but it wouldn't be a problem because everyone would be able to "talk" to everyone else.
Well, yes, obviously. That's what I assumed they would do, anyway.
That is obvious, isn't it?
No?
OK, so in the US, and apart from Lavanet (a great company, I used them when I was visiting Hawaii, but they're not nationwide) that's:
CITYNET - great company for metropolitan office buildings and office parks. Not a broadband company.
Spectrum Networks - Whoops, Pacific Northwest only.
Cutthroat Communications - Whoops, Montana only.
I guess you *did* technically name three broadband IPv6 providers, one each for Hawaii, PNW, and Montana.
So, here I am in Houston, and you want me to switch to IPv6 at home... what are my options? Get a PRI pulled to my demarc and peel off a fractional T1 for Citynet? That's hardly cost effective. I think I'll pass.
Unfortunately the IPv4 address space isn't embedded in the IPv6 address space in the way that you suggest.
I thought there was a chunk of IPv6 address space allocated to IPv4 addresses.
[...]
Ok, so, according to DJB this address space (RFC 2893) could be used for this purpose, but the folks responsible for implementing IPv6 have said that this shouldn't be done.
So I guess that gets back to my original question, why wasn't this done? There's technical support for it in the standard, they just say you're not supposed to do it? Why the hell not? What is the motivation for the bizarre behavior that DJB is complaining about in that article.
Switch to an upstream provider that support IPv6.
Name three broadband IPv6 providers.
But Apple doesn't support upgrading their laptops at all. They come out with new ones, if you want to upgrade yours, you have to buy a new one.
I'm not interested in either of *these* laptops, but let's compare a couple I was interested in a little while back... the entry level Macbook and Thinkpad.
The processor and hardware specs for the Macbook and the Thinkpad were identical: same CPU, same GPU, same ports, same memory, same resolution. The differences?
The Macbook included a camera.
The Thinkpad was $240 cheaper, included a swappable optical drive, a docking port, a swappable hard drive, two buttons on the trackpad, and a better keyboard than anything Apple has had on a laptop since the Japanese Powerbook 2400.
Alternatively, you could pay the same price as the Macbook, and get a real GPU instead of the horrid embedded intel thing.
Oh, and that Powerbook 2400 I mentioned? The keyboard was by an IBM group in Tokyo.
Apples hardware has been and still is mediocre, and the number of people who would buy Macs if all they could run on them was Windows is negligible. It's OS X that makes all the difference, and the only thing that could possibly make any Macbook (including the Macbook Air) a "winner" in any even contest.
The logical way to go would have been to switch to IPv6 for everything in the core of the internet, working out to the edges, so that IPv4 was routed over an IPv6 network, without requiring anyone at the end points to change... IPv4 packets would be turned into IPv6 packets in the IPv4 subset of the IPv6 address space when they left the IPv4 endpoints, and then turned back to IPv4 if the destination didn't support IPv6. To access IPv6 resources you'd need a gateway that did both DNS and NATting, so your IPv4 lookup for an A record would be handled as a lookup for an AAAA record, and then a private IPv4 address would be assigned to that IPv6 address for you, and a fake A record comes back.
For many purposes proxy gateways would work just fine, with increasingly many programs supporting HTTP proxies for connectivity.
Why didn't this happen?
Until my upstream supports IPv6, the fact that all my computers support it is pretty much irrelevant.
So yes, I care, but what can I *do*?
Translation: open source programs that interoperate with Microsoft products will serve as a free software development arm for Microsoft. No matter what open source license they use, Microsoft's submarine patents will make them equivalent to shareware.
Non Serviam. I'll use open APIs, not "shareware" ones from Microsoft.
Manufactured and manipulated demand has always been a part of market forces. At times it's included armed forces as well (consider the history of the British East India Company). The "manufactured and manipulated" part of the story can always be taken as a given.
When you write: think twice before visiting a site which you're not sure of. Especially if you browse with internet exploder..
Surely you mean think twice before [...] you browse with internet exploder..
I've been beating the drum about Internet Explorer and its deliberate malware distribution features like ActiveX for years. Over 10 years, in fact, since it was 1997 when Microsoft introduced Active Desktop...
When people tell me "oh yes, I use Internet Explorer, but I only visit well known websites I can trust" I have been able in some cases to convince them that thanks to forums and other sources of third party content even "trusted" websites can source malware.
Despite what Trend Micro suggests, the best approach to security is still taking proper care with the software you use. They talk about attacks on embedded devices like cellphones, but note that they're primarily talking about their potential as backdoors for infected files, not about their embedded browsers being attacked directly. Antivirus companies want antivirus software installed on everything... that's how they make money... but until they ship software that is purely a scanner and doesn't patch the OS you're more likely to have the AV software than any virus damage your PDA, cellphone, or non-Windows PC.
But taking care with the software you use DOESN'T mean only using bad software on good websites, but not using bad software at all. The best antivirus, then, is to avoid using software that deliberately includes backdoors to allow automatic installation and execution of unsandboxed code from websites. The poster boy for this insane design is, of course, Internet Explorer, which is actually built around this model and were Microsoft to fix it they would have to break a lot of working products. But there are similar design flaws, albeit ones not so automatically easy to exploit, in other browsers... for example Firefox and Safari will happily install code for you if the code is wrapped up in the appropriate package. In Firefox that package is the XPI... and I would recommend keeping the list of whitelisted sites in Firefox empty at all times. In Safari that package is the Dashboard widget, and the option 'Open "Safe" Files after downloading' which is now (thankfully) off by default in new installs (though it doesn't prevent Dashboard widgets from being installed).
And now Microsoft is pushing a cross-platform infection vector under the name Silverlight, and there's an open-source clone of it by the name "Moonlight" under development. Some days I despair, truly.
And no number of "I'm about to do something stupid, is this OK?" dialog boxes are good enough. After 20 years as a system administrator, the last several years of which were spent fighting an increasingly frustrating battle against malware riding on this misfeature of Microsoft's security model, I can only recall one time where someone was *twice* convinced to download and explicitly run an infected file from the shell... but I've repeatedly had people come to me saying "Peter... I clicked on the wrong button again, and my computer's acting funny".
If you're a software developer, and you find yourself adding an "I'm about to do something stupid" dialog... please reconsider whether it's actually necessary. It almost never is. People really would rather explicitly download and install a plugin, for example, than have the browser pop up annoying messages all the time. Really.
If you made a bag of this it would stick to itself on the inside. You would need to make a multi-layered bag with a film of some other non-self-healing substance on the inside and probably on the outside as well. That would, of course, limit the number of times it could heal because eventually the separating film would fail and your bacg would end up like a lump of silly-putty.
Looking further, RDF seems to be a rather specialized language, and honestly except for the simplest examples N3 doesn't seem to be significantly better than XML - it's more complex and actually seems less human-readable, based on the examples I've found. And for the cases where N3 is really a win, token separated values are a bigger win.
The last line of this article ends "whether it is true or not". It should read "whether it is relevant or not". The failure of HD-DVD has nothing to do with whether it is superior or inferior, but to market forces. There have been any number of situations over the years, centuries, and millennia, where technically superior products and technologies have failed (whether to be reborn later, in some form, or not) in the face of chance vagaries of the market.
Note that I am not arguing that it is superior, I neither know nor care since I have no interest in the technology itself and no media in either format, simply suggesting a significant improvement to the way the comment is phrased.
I think you're overanalyzing.
You mean like when they [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]?
Decompressing does not cause a loss of quality. Recompressing in a lossy format may, but there are a variety of lossless formats you can use if you find that you can hear a difference (I can with some files, but not with most), or if you want to retain the option of recompressing the music with a different codec in the future.
But natural selection is defined in a very narrow scope (it's an intrinsic property of science to try to not overstate something when there's yet to be evidence to go along with it
One key part of this is specifically that kind of expansion of scope. If you don't expend the scope of the term beyond an extremely strict biological definition, the quoted extract is more or less meaningless. After all, the selection that was going on was no more "natural selection" than the selection that derived dingos, pekinese, and german shepherds from a common ancestor.
The only meaningful interpretation is that the article is drawing a parallel between natural selection and market forces (whether the authors consciously realized it or not) and treating them both as subsets of a common feedback/selection mechanism.
The XML advocate then comes back and says "use a battle-tested parser". But:
* Somehow "use a battle-tested CSV parser" never occurs to them.
* Even with a battle-tested *parser*, you have to deal with things like: All of which may fit some DOM and all of which produce something that you or I can see are meant to be the same thing... and I've seen all of them used to mean the same thing. Apple's property list files are by no means the worst abuse of XML out there.
But a good XML parser has to be able to deal with them all, and produce hooks to pull useful information out of any possible DOM, because some asshole programmer is going to throw them all at it some time. And once it's parsed you STILL have to deal with it... and if there are multiple implementations generating the same file you know some damn fool is going to pick a different plausibly equivalent option for the above lines (especially if they're using a 'battle tested XML generator') so you have to handle that...
If you only have one generator it's simpler, until they reimplement it and pick a different option.
Matching quotes in CSV is a lot easier. Really.
ASN.1 is not my favorite, though I've dealt with worse beasts (DCA containing mixed EBCDIC and ASCII, for example), but at least there are battle-tested parsers for it.
S-expressions have some unfortunate history, but trust me... there are people who hate XML at least as much.
INI files: there's open source multi-platform parsers for it. There's one in Samba, for example.
XML does solve the problem of having an interoperable and expressive markup language.
Indeed it does, and if it was only used for that purpose without trying to push it as a general solution for information transfer where it's NOT appropriate I would have no problem with it.
A legitimate claim comes around and they get to lobby their way out of it.
What part of the claim do you believe to be legitimate?