When you are learning, it's easier (and probably best) to start with the simple models and then add in more complex things later on - otherwise there would just be too many facts to assimilate in one go.
The GP's 6 year old son may now have incorrect knowledge of what happens to the density of water as temperature changes, and the precise behaviour of a melting solid - but his reasoning was intelligent and correct for a simple model of matter. As he gets older he can learn a more complete model but I'm pretty sure he currently knows more about physics than I did when I was 6!
That Assanage loves to spill the secrets of others doesn't mean he is the same way. You'll notice that Wikileaks has no part devoted to him. He hasn't released things like childhood photos/essays, financial information, and so on about himself.
He may not have released his own information (in fact, how could that be a "leak?") but if I recall there was an episode a couple of years ago where someone leaked the Wikileaks contributor list to Wikileaks - and they had to choose between following their policy of publishing what was leaked to them or piss off their funding sources. They chose the former.
Tons of people have worked out that this stupid policy is not a solution - why hasn't the government?
TFS says that they have:
'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano.
Seriously, I would assume that any hijacker nowadays would be going to kill all the passengers anyway, and I'd far rather die having forced the plane down into a field than having let the plane crash into a building. Of course, I'd far rather NOT die, and I believe that resisting would be the only way to avoid certain death.
If I remember right, one of Linus' main complaints was that there were no hard numbers to support the fact that CK's scheduler was any better. Users would report that things seemed "less jerky" when using it but there was no test that put a number to this.
Now it seems that a change is going in which makes things seem "less jerky"...
What's frustrating or complicated about it? It's pretty much the same as IPv4 with a few differences: * The number of available bits is larger so a/24 in IPv6 is very different to a/24 in IPv4 * LANs all use/64s * Using/127s on point to point links (the IPv6 equivalent of an IPv4/31) might cause problems so don't do it.
A lot of it seems a lot simpler to me than IPv4 subnetting.
The host portions of your addresses are 64 bits and automatically generated from the MAC address, so these will stay consistent before and after the renumbering. Hosts are not statically configured with their global address; they get them from the router (via ra-autoconfiguration) or the DHCP server.
This means that you renumber the router interface and it automatically gives the right addresses to hosts. The only thing left to do are DNS and firewall rules, which can be fixed with a simple regexp.
For ADSL and similar services, cutting people off is generally* done by account name on the authentication server rather than IP address. Customers' IP addresses can change on a regular basis; their account name never does. Otherwise access is disabled by disabling the port which the customer connects to. It would be quite rare to disable access by blocking their IP.
I'm not sure about that - I'm *not* a mechanic but I prefer to do my own work on my car to learn about it. A manual might say something along the lines of "this bolt might be quite stiff" but with a video you can get a lot more of an impression of the effort it takes to turn it.
Videos are handy. Book form manuals are far more useful. Books and videos are even better
It happens in analogue ham radio too. In FM, thanks to the capture effect, it means that one of the two gets heard and there is a 'protocol' between speakers to deal with that. I don't know what the effect is of multiple signals on the modulation used in D-Star though.
I had some thoughts about this when I first looked into D-Star.
There are some reserved bits in the data section of the protocol (even when voice is being transmitted) which are defined as 0 in current implementations. It would be relatively easy for repeaters to be upgraded to understand that a 1 in one of those indicates a different codec, and use some more reserved bits to indicate which codec.
Repeaters (separate units) could be used to transcode if the end users are using different codecs - this would involve a software change on the repeaters but would not require that people who've already got D-Star radios upgrade.
The basic D-Star design seems quite good to me, but I can't understand why some kind of futureproofing wasn't designed in from the start since the quality of codecs is improving all the time!
Latency is crucial for the application you are talking about.
Low bandwidth and error tolerance is more important for a codec which will primarily be used for simplex radio applications which Codec2 is designed for (ignoring for the moment the D-Star reflectors.)
Different applications, different requirements. This is why there are lots of codecs;)
Dan MD1CLV
When a state provider only has a couple of network peers and seems to be changing them around - that's things that nerds (or network nerds at least) would be interested in. When those states have dominated political agendas as much as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan have in the past decade then that makes it newsworthy.
They might not be being a *good* neighbour - I mean, doing this is going to be in Iran's interest - but it's in the interest of Iraq and Afghanistan too to have internet feeds from multiple political entities. Regardless of how America is treating them now, it is not a good idea for Iraq or Afghanistan to be 100% reliant on them.
Slashdot Mirror
Whooooooooooooooooooooosh...
When you are learning, it's easier (and probably best) to start with the simple models and then add in more complex things later on - otherwise there would just be too many facts to assimilate in one go.
The GP's 6 year old son may now have incorrect knowledge of what happens to the density of water as temperature changes, and the precise behaviour of a melting solid - but his reasoning was intelligent and correct for a simple model of matter. As he gets older he can learn a more complete model but I'm pretty sure he currently knows more about physics than I did when I was 6!
That Assanage loves to spill the secrets of others doesn't mean he is the same way. You'll notice that Wikileaks has no part devoted to him. He hasn't released things like childhood photos/essays, financial information, and so on about himself.
He may not have released his own information (in fact, how could that be a "leak?") but if I recall there was an episode a couple of years ago where someone leaked the Wikileaks contributor list to Wikileaks - and they had to choose between following their policy of publishing what was leaked to them or piss off their funding sources. They chose the former.
Tons of people have worked out that this stupid policy is not a solution - why hasn't the government?
TFS says that they have:
'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano.
I'm not particularly brave, but I would resist.
Seriously, I would assume that any hijacker nowadays would be going to kill all the passengers anyway, and I'd far rather die having forced the plane down into a field than having let the plane crash into a building. Of course, I'd far rather NOT die, and I believe that resisting would be the only way to avoid certain death.
Do you happen to have a reference for that?
(Not that I disbelieve you, it just seems very odd and I'd like to learn more about the background...)
If I remember right, one of Linus' main complaints was that there were no hard numbers to support the fact that CK's scheduler was any better. Users would report that things seemed "less jerky" when using it but there was no test that put a number to this.
Now it seems that a change is going in which makes things seem "less jerky"...
That's trivially solved with a mirror orbiting the sun in counter-ecliptic orbit, though.
For certain values of "trivial," that is...
Sadly, some of the real calls are indistinguishable from parodies.
http://twitter.com/gmp24_1/status/27329849789
http://twitter.com/gmp24_3/status/27326427592
http://twitter.com/gmp24_4/status/27328848357
The last one is possibly the oddest.
A floatation device bazooka sounds like something that The Janitor from Scrubs would create
What's frustrating or complicated about it? It's pretty much the same as IPv4 with a few differences: /24 in IPv6 is very different to a /24 in IPv4 /64s /127s on point to point links (the IPv6 equivalent of an IPv4 /31) might cause problems so don't do it.
* The number of available bits is larger so a
* LANs all use
* Using
A lot of it seems a lot simpler to me than IPv4 subnetting.
No, he said "mouse"!
In IPv6, renumbering becomes trivial.
The host portions of your addresses are 64 bits and automatically generated from the MAC address, so these will stay consistent before and after the renumbering.
Hosts are not statically configured with their global address; they get them from the router (via ra-autoconfiguration) or the DHCP server.
This means that you renumber the router interface and it automatically gives the right addresses to hosts. The only thing left to do are DNS and firewall rules, which can be fixed with a simple regexp.
As any computer person knows, ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP PLAN.
As any competent computer person knows, there's a second part to that... AND TEST IT REGULARLY. How does that fit in to your analogy, eh?!
For ADSL and similar services, cutting people off is generally* done by account name on the authentication server rather than IP address. Customers' IP addresses can change on a regular basis; their account name never does. Otherwise access is disabled by disabling the port which the customer connects to. It would be quite rare to disable access by blocking their IP.
* For "generally" read "always"
I'm not sure about that - I'm *not* a mechanic but I prefer to do my own work on my car to learn about it. A manual might say something along the lines of "this bolt might be quite stiff" but with a video you can get a lot more of an impression of the effort it takes to turn it.
Videos are handy.
Book form manuals are far more useful.
Books and videos are even better
It happens in analogue ham radio too. In FM, thanks to the capture effect, it means that one of the two gets heard and there is a 'protocol' between speakers to deal with that. I don't know what the effect is of multiple signals on the modulation used in D-Star though.
I had some thoughts about this when I first looked into D-Star.
There are some reserved bits in the data section of the protocol (even when voice is being transmitted) which are defined as 0 in current implementations. It would be relatively easy for repeaters to be upgraded to understand that a 1 in one of those indicates a different codec, and use some more reserved bits to indicate which codec.
Repeaters (separate units) could be used to transcode if the end users are using different codecs - this would involve a software change on the repeaters but would not require that people who've already got D-Star radios upgrade.
The basic D-Star design seems quite good to me, but I can't understand why some kind of futureproofing wasn't designed in from the start since the quality of codecs is improving all the time!
Dan MD1CLV
Latency is crucial for the application you are talking about. Low bandwidth and error tolerance is more important for a codec which will primarily be used for simplex radio applications which Codec2 is designed for (ignoring for the moment the D-Star reflectors.) Different applications, different requirements. This is why there are lots of codecs ;)
Dan MD1CLV
When a state provider only has a couple of network peers and seems to be changing them around - that's things that nerds (or network nerds at least) would be interested in. When those states have dominated political agendas as much as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan have in the past decade then that makes it newsworthy.
They might not be being a *good* neighbour - I mean, doing this is going to be in Iran's interest - but it's in the interest of Iraq and Afghanistan too to have internet feeds from multiple political entities. Regardless of how America is treating them now, it is not a good idea for Iraq or Afghanistan to be 100% reliant on them.