Given the quantity of addresses available for IPv6, I'm unsure as to why IPv4 couldn't / wasn't made a subset of IPv6?
Right now we've got a catch-22 it seems. Why would I offer an IPv6 ONLY service, if that means a ton of my users will be locked out? As long as I offer an IPv4 service, why would my users switch? They can just use IPv4 up the stack.
If IPv4 address were subsets of IPv6, couldn't an IPv4 users request an IPv4 address. Once it hits their ISP, check routing and prefix if possible with IPv6 prefix. This could happen anywhere along the line, including just the last hop. My server can just run an IPv6 stack, and know that the rest of the internet, IPv4 and 6, can reach it.
Instead, we've got a "fresh start" approach, which seems like a bit of a stretch.
Or am I missing something obvious here? It sure looks to me at this point that running an IPv6 only server is a bit complicated unless you set up a broker or something else manually.
First the daVinci project made a TON of noise about their October 2004 launch plans. Did those ever happen?
Then we have aera corp, which is selling tickets for rides NEXT YEAR. They are ALREADY selling these. This is without demonstrating anything, or even having an engine, much less a space vehicle that can support a crew of humans. They have THIRTY flights scheduled for 2007.
"We're using such plain-vanilla technology that very little detailed testing is required," Sprague said.
MOTHER OF GOD!
Now we have this Canadian Arrow group. I mean, NONE of these guys has even gone to space ONCE with even a test pilot! I guess I'd just be a little cautious going up in things from these operations, hopefully folks considering this get some good advice before signing up.
The one contender I have some faith in is Burt Rutan and the Virgin Galatic effort.
These guys actually test, have actually gone to sub-orbital space and back with real live people inside their vehicle. Solid history building actual flying machines that don't kill people, and met some folks with great things to say about the group.
Curiously, I also noticed they don't have as many hot air releases.
So, while some folks seem to get tons of PR and are ALREADY selling tickets, I'd keep the eyes away from the Golden Palance Casino Davinci Project, Aerea Corp or Canadian arrow, and on Burt Rutan and his gang.
Microsoft is constantly telling folks lies, and then creating "independent" verifications about them on performance issues. Witness the veritest reports
So you know as we all do that every morning Microsoft engineers are waking up, and KNOWING that these tests are totally bogus and blatently rigged, go out and lie like crazy to their customers about what the results prove.
Even if the product is faster, at least avoid creating such crap tests. I remember the garbage J2EE benchmarking as well, and wonder what microsoft is thinking getting up every day to push this stuff?
In the security world, trust plays a very important role in security. In addition to putting locks on doors, a business does well to hire employees it can trust.
In the long term, do you see any value in working to establish trust with your customers? My mother currently would share info with google she would never consider sharing with Microsoft, which I thought was interesting.
With ActiveX, when all the junk spyware sites would try to install software, it was impossible to always deny the publisher install rights, but you could easily ALWAYS allow publishers to load up your computer with the worst junk imaginable.
If you've ever been to a retirement home using Internet Explorer on a shared computer, you would laugh at how much junk computers would be loaded with.
Along came Firefox, and with it the freedom from training folks to click a million times no to a million ActiveX dialogs. Pop-ups and other forms of nastyness reduced.
All of a sudden a fire seems to have been lit under Microsoft around security and its browser.
Aside from the above listed changes, what other positive changes do you think Microsoft will introduce as a result of some competition, particularly in the browser space, but also elsewhere.
Still not convinced the MPAA / RIAA approach to trying to have folks fired who say things they don't like is compatible with the academic enviroment. Notice I'm specifically only addressing what folks say, arguements they make.
Clearly, actually copyright infringment would be something they could go after.
Ahh well, the RIAA used to have language around on mp3's being illegal.
Hehe... Historically, the idea that a robust debate creates a healthy society has been a strengthening factor for the US. Fair enough, with the Iraq war there was a bit of the if you disagree with me you are a traitor and should be jailed mentality.
I actually remember Hans Blix being hammered pretty good for saying that he couldn't show WMD in Iraq, despite Powell's big WMD presentation. At the time there was a fair bit of effort to move him out of the picture.
Point well taken. I'm talking more broadly I guess then the current administration.
Interesting how one of the pressure tactics were the license audits. Propriatary vendors obviously have the right to do this, but it appears to have been a source of great leverage in silencing critics.
Also interesting, the teacher was only going to share his opinion on why using P2P may be legal. In America at least we are generally pretty protective of the right to debate ideas. The MPAA and its spanish counterparts though appear to be opposed to this concept.
If you're going to be an academic institution it would seem prudent to move away from software and support of groups that are unwilling to even allow different opinions to be expressed on a college compus about a topic. We used to call that type of exchange education.
Hey just has people's trust. Anyone (and everyone) could take the source and start their own thing. If EVERYONE really was aligned against him this is what would happen.
Folks trust him because he's a bit pragmatic, and doesn't troll to high heaven. Looking over the background their are other fast channels, I'm not sure I by the 1000x faster arguement given sched_yield() etc. So yeah, something good to fix, but let's stop with the linux as dictator. He's only dictator as long as the people who matter are willing to follow him.
The sites down, but I'm very impressed that they are going to 100,000 feet and managing to create a safe experience for whoever is going up using styrofoam and duck tape!
This compares very well with spending $20 million if true (somehow I doubt the writeup).
I'm assuming that this is more then just taking pictures in space (as I can look up thousands of them already). The $20 million referenced as a comparable is for an actual flight into space, and in fact is actually an orbital flight.
Before even clicking I was thinking, Andrew Orlowski for sure.
He did the slam linus pieces, slam google pieces. More importantly though, he's often wrong on things (spelling errors are hillarious for a "bureau chief").
The thing is, Slashdot needs to stop linking to his stories, or he will employed for life.
This is a really interesting case study in monopoly behavior and the value of competition. Microsoft you will remember pretty much stopped IE development and shut down the IE team.
Firefox came along, and whamo, all of a sudden Microsoft has developers writing things like. Very impressive. What's interesting for me is they are huge huge company by comparision to Firefox, but it took firefox to really get them to start making some improvements.
"Unjust" is a subjective term. I'm a fan of a just society as most folks are, and so interested to understand the depth of injustice suffered by the group putting on the show.
But a botched delivery by the powers that be of a new series, leading to low ratings is not unjust. It is just a screwup it would seem.
When the new McFish Griddle Whopper flops because of poor marketing, is that also unjust to the McFish Griddle Whopper researcher? Seems like a stretch.
One thing really deserves highlighting. Nikon writes:
As a proprietary format, Nikon secures NEF's structure and processing through various technologies.
Securing this structure is intended for the photographer's benefit... Discussions propagated on the internet suggesting otherwise are misinformed about the unique structure of NEF.
In other words, they are NOT doing this for their own benefit or to create lock-in or control of how images taken on their cameras may be used, but are doing it for camera owners, or so they say. Seems a bit bogus here...
A nikon owner myself. Get to make some recommendations at work about a camera, and a chance to move some dollars in a different direction. Actually think enough technical people making recommendations could make a difference.
It's worth remembering what type of companies yahoo and google are.
Yahoo you will remember pulled a fast one and ENABLED every single newsletter and other junk mail type preference automatically, even if when you signed up you specifically said you didn't want to receive junk mail.
It seems pretty clear to me, and I imagined most others, that bitkeeper was
a) the better solution over patches, and that b) given the proprietary nature not likely to last an incredibly long time.
It seemed a good choice for the job (weighing factors including license). When a better choice came along, I thought it was pretty clear that there would be room for a move.
I think there has been a LOT of perhaps overlooked value in getting a bunch of folks familiar with the changeset model. A significant net positive in my book overall, props to Larry and Linus for making it happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! You said it better then I did.
The neat thing is you could translate back and forth more then once, all without maintaining state. Next link IPv6 OK? Add prefeix, send IPv6 packet.
Next link IPv4 only? Strip prefix.
In fact, this way client or servers could upgrade to IPv6 without worrying about everyone else except their next hop.
I was just thinking of server side, but this could allow anyone to upgrade as they wished, as long as they had the support of their next hop.
This is so obvious that there must have been a reason this ISN'T the way it was done. Be curious if someone had the details.
What is the IPv6 prefix for IPv4 addresses? How does one set up the transparent gateways?
In the initial spec I didn't notice this. Can you point to some more details?
Given the quantity of addresses available for IPv6, I'm unsure as to why IPv4 couldn't / wasn't made a subset of IPv6?
Right now we've got a catch-22 it seems. Why would I offer an IPv6 ONLY service, if that means a ton of my users will be locked out? As long as I offer an IPv4 service, why would my users switch? They can just use IPv4 up the stack.
If IPv4 address were subsets of IPv6, couldn't an IPv4 users request an IPv4 address. Once it hits their ISP, check routing and prefix if possible with IPv6 prefix. This could happen anywhere along the line, including just the last hop. My server can just run an IPv6 stack, and know that the rest of the internet, IPv4 and 6, can reach it.
Instead, we've got a "fresh start" approach, which seems like a bit of a stretch.
Or am I missing something obvious here? It sure looks to me at this point that running an IPv6 only server is a bit complicated unless you set up a broker or something else manually.
First the daVinci project made a TON of noise about their October 2004 launch plans. Did those ever happen?
Then we have aera corp, which is selling tickets for rides NEXT YEAR. They are ALREADY selling these. This is without demonstrating anything, or even having an engine, much less a space vehicle that can support a crew of humans. They have THIRTY flights scheduled for 2007.
"We're using such plain-vanilla technology that very little detailed testing is required," Sprague said.
MOTHER OF GOD!
Now we have this Canadian Arrow group. I mean, NONE of these guys has even gone to space ONCE with even a test pilot! I guess I'd just be a little cautious going up in things from these operations, hopefully folks considering this get some good advice before signing up.
The one contender I have some faith in is Burt Rutan and the Virgin Galatic effort.
These guys actually test, have actually gone to sub-orbital space and back with real live people inside their vehicle. Solid history building actual flying machines that don't kill people, and met some folks with great things to say about the group.
Curiously, I also noticed they don't have as many hot air releases.
So, while some folks seem to get tons of PR and are ALREADY selling tickets, I'd keep the eyes away from the Golden Palance Casino Davinci Project, Aerea Corp or Canadian arrow, and on Burt Rutan and his gang.
Microsoft is constantly telling folks lies, and then creating "independent" verifications about them on performance issues. Witness the veritest reports
So you know as we all do that every morning Microsoft engineers are waking up, and KNOWING that these tests are totally bogus and blatently rigged, go out and lie like crazy to their customers about what the results prove.
Even if the product is faster, at least avoid creating such crap tests. I remember the garbage J2EE benchmarking as well, and wonder what microsoft is thinking getting up every day to push this stuff?
In the security world, trust plays a very important role in security. In addition to putting locks on doors, a business does well to hire employees it can trust.
In the long term, do you see any value in working to establish trust with your customers? My mother currently would share info with google she would never consider sharing with Microsoft, which I thought was interesting.
With ActiveX, when all the junk spyware sites would try to install software, it was impossible to always deny the publisher install rights, but you could easily ALWAYS allow publishers to load up your computer with the worst junk imaginable.
If you've ever been to a retirement home using Internet Explorer on a shared computer, you would laugh at how much junk computers would be loaded with.
Along came Firefox, and with it the freedom from training folks to click a million times no to a million ActiveX dialogs. Pop-ups and other forms of nastyness reduced.
All of a sudden a fire seems to have been lit under Microsoft around security and its browser.
Aside from the above listed changes, what other positive changes do you think Microsoft will introduce as a result of some competition, particularly in the browser space, but also elsewhere.
I would suggest that commenting against the war hasn't been entirely repercussion free for folks from goverment involvement, see http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/05/lost-washburn.ph p
Still not convinced the MPAA / RIAA approach to trying to have folks fired who say things they don't like is compatible with the academic enviroment. Notice I'm specifically only addressing what folks say, arguements they make.
Clearly, actually copyright infringment would be something they could go after.
Ahh well, the RIAA used to have language around on mp3's being illegal.
Hehe... Historically, the idea that a robust debate creates a healthy society has been a strengthening factor for the US. Fair enough, with the Iraq war there was a bit of the if you disagree with me you are a traitor and should be jailed mentality.
I actually remember Hans Blix being hammered pretty good for saying that he couldn't show WMD in Iraq, despite Powell's big WMD presentation. At the time there was a fair bit of effort to move him out of the picture.
Point well taken. I'm talking more broadly I guess then the current administration.
Interesting how one of the pressure tactics were the license audits. Propriatary vendors obviously have the right to do this, but it appears to have been a source of great leverage in silencing critics.
Also interesting, the teacher was only going to share his opinion on why using P2P may be legal. In America at least we are generally pretty protective of the right to debate ideas. The MPAA and its spanish counterparts though appear to be opposed to this concept.
If you're going to be an academic institution it would seem prudent to move away from software and support of groups that are unwilling to even allow different opinions to be expressed on a college compus about a topic. We used to call that type of exchange education.
Hey just has people's trust. Anyone (and everyone) could take the source and start their own thing. If EVERYONE really was aligned against him this is what would happen.
Folks trust him because he's a bit pragmatic, and doesn't troll to high heaven. Looking over the background their are other fast channels, I'm not sure I by the 1000x faster arguement given sched_yield() etc. So yeah, something good to fix, but let's stop with the linux as dictator. He's only dictator as long as the people who matter are willing to follow him.
The sites down, but I'm very impressed that they are going to 100,000 feet and managing to create a safe experience for whoever is going up using styrofoam and duck tape!
This compares very well with spending $20 million if true (somehow I doubt the writeup).
I'm assuming that this is more then just taking pictures in space (as I can look up thousands of them already). The $20 million referenced as a comparable is for an actual flight into space, and in fact is actually an orbital flight.
WMA was only one I could get
e _and_Gromit_Trailer_330k.wmv
http://screenrant.com.nyud.net:8090/images/Wallac
Hahah.. I hope this is a lower volume app. I'd be curious to know a bit more about the memory footprint of this combo.
A nice review, but I just want the score from 1 - 10.
Before even clicking I was thinking, Andrew Orlowski for sure.
He did the slam linus pieces, slam google pieces. More importantly though, he's often wrong on things (spelling errors are hillarious for a "bureau chief").
The thing is, Slashdot needs to stop linking to his stories, or he will employed for life.
This is a really interesting case study in monopoly behavior and the value of competition. Microsoft you will remember pretty much stopped IE development and shut down the IE team.
Firefox came along, and whamo, all of a sudden Microsoft has developers writing things like. Very impressive. What's interesting for me is they are huge huge company by comparision to Firefox, but it took firefox to really get them to start making some improvements.
Did anyone notice that there seems to be a move to have a bit of an apple look and feel? Really weird, and doesn't actually look that good.
One hopes that they have their legions of UI designers doing cool stuff, this is early enough in the process that this may just be a rough mockup.
"Unjust" is a subjective term. I'm a fan of a just society as most folks are, and so interested to understand the depth of injustice suffered by the group putting on the show.
But a botched delivery by the powers that be of a new series, leading to low ratings is not unjust. It is just a screwup it would seem.
When the new McFish Griddle Whopper flops because of poor marketing, is that also unjust to the McFish Griddle Whopper researcher? Seems like a stretch.
Just my 2 cents.
In other words, they are NOT doing this for their own benefit or to create lock-in or control of how images taken on their cameras may be used, but are doing it for camera owners, or so they say. Seems a bit bogus here...
A nikon owner myself. Get to make some recommendations at work about a camera, and a chance to move some dollars in a different direction. Actually think enough technical people making recommendations could make a difference.
1-800-WWW-DELL
It's worth remembering what type of companies yahoo and google are.
3 3235&tid=111
Yahoo you will remember pulled a fast one and ENABLED every single newsletter and other junk mail type preference automatically, even if when you signed up you specifically said you didn't want to receive junk mail.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/29/18
In other words, if Yahoo thinks they can get away with it, they will screw their users.
I havn't gotten that same sense with google yet. They havn't pulled a fast one, tried to lock up my gmail emails or any of the other stunts.
That counts for a lot with me. I just don't have time to work out what stunt Yahoo is going to pull next.
It seems pretty clear to me, and I imagined most others, that bitkeeper was
a) the better solution over patches, and that
b) given the proprietary nature not likely to last an incredibly long time.
It seemed a good choice for the job (weighing factors including license). When a better choice came along, I thought it was pretty clear that there would be room for a move.
I think there has been a LOT of perhaps overlooked value in getting a bunch of folks familiar with the changeset model. A significant net positive in my book overall, props to Larry and Linus for making it happen.
2 cents
I'm no fan of ICANN. However, not sure the ITU is exactly the type of org to handle the internet.
Anyone who has tried to access their specs for standards often finds that they cost an ARMLOAD of money.
Has this changed? I think they would find they need to modify things a bit to work well.
Key features for google:
- IMAP access (even if paid)
- Vanity domains (even if paid)
The above two would get me to switch. I wish they'd offer it, like the interface.
- Individual and Group calendaring
Would get a TON of business to switch. Too far out I think for them though from core business.
Beware of unlimited hosting offers, they are all lies.
It is impossible to provide unlimited space for a fixed amount (in this case $15).