Well, a day is usually defined as the period between sun coming up and going down again. As God seemingly created the sun on the fourth day, it's bleeding obvious that the thing shouldn't be taken literally.
So, please tell me, what has the USA done to the root cause of the killings: Wahibi doctrine spread actively by the Saudi government. I have yet to see any pressure put on the Saudi government to stop their fundamentalistic expansion. It's going to get much worse still, not in the least because of the erratic actions of the US government.
I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there. For space colonies we've got this little bit of extra latency to contend with anyway, so I doubt IP is going to cut it. My guess is that with a 10-20 minute round trip time, ACK packets simply won't get there in time.
Given the IPv6 address space of 2^128 different addresses, this equates to roughly 10^38 different addresses. The IPv4 range is restricted to 4 billion, so of order 10^9 addresses, so nearly enough to give every person on earth a single IP address. This turns out to be too little, so let's just assign every person on earth 4 billion addresses (so every person on earth gets an entire IPv4 range to play with), and let's say we cater for of the order 10^10, 10^11 (10-100 billion) people. This figure easily includes companies. This scheme will need 10^20 different IP addresses. So, we then have managed to use about 67 of the available 128 bits, or in other words a fraction of 10^-18 (2^-61) of the entire space of addresses. That's not really a lot yet. I'm pretty sure that we'll need at least a decade to figure out how we can use 4 billion addresses per person/company.
Ok, let's do better, let's assign each cell in these 10^10 people with a single IP address. According
to some source, the human body consists of 10^14 cells. Assigning one address to each cell for each person thus equates to the use of 10^24 addresses. Then, we've managed to fill up 10^-14 of the available space. Not even noticable, while we now can address any cell in anyones brain with ease.
You can juggle the numbers in various ways (square foot of earth as another poster said), but what remains is that IPv6 address space is mindboggingly big, and save for assigning every atom on earth a unique IP-address (we would need about 170 bits for that), it should last quite a while before we find ways of wasting enough of the address space that it starts to matter. I'm pretty sure that we'll come up with ingenious ways to do this, but so far my own efforts in this respect have made puny dents in the number. Try to figure out some scheme that (a) makes sense and (b) requires so many IP-addresses that we might conceivably run out in a century or so. Try it, it's fun!
You need an easy way to get customers to buy a product. You construct and patent a "one click shopping button". VOILA! Now no-one can build another "one click shopping button" of *any* design.
Unfortunately, here the story ends as Barnes and Noble found out.
The difference lies in the pressure from their home markets and the place where they can develop software. EU companies can safely develop their software for their home market undisturbed by considerations of patent law, and even get a few strategic patents in the US. Once they grow big enough to make the jump over the big pond, they have plenty of time to prepare themselves to cope with US patent law. They will also be big enough to start cross-licensing agreements etc. If need be, they can buy the licenses for the rights they miss. Only for the USA.
No such luck for US companies. They will have to cope with software patents from day one if they want to grow in their home market. This will hamper their growth and potentially kill their business early on. Furthermore, if they survive this and want to start selling their software abroad, they can not easily ignore patent law, even for software only sold outside of the United States. This because the software will be *developed* inside the US, and on this the patent holder can but a stop to it. Even if it's not sold in the US, patent law makes it illegal to actually manufacture it.
So if they want to make the move to the rest of the world with patent encumbered products, they'll have to move the development (design, architecture, etc.) to a place outside of the US as well. In practice they will cease being an US software company. Of course they can also obtain the necessary licenses for the patented software, but they will be competing in the rest of the world with local companies (that are not operating in the US) that do not have to pay this patent tax.
Most importantly however, certain types of software will simply not be made in the US. I personally was involved in a scheme like this, where in the early nineties I worked for a company that independently developed something that turned out to be patented in the US. The one that patented the general technique did not really build a business out of it, but the existence of the patent itself has kept all possible competition from the US at bay. Nobody would invest in anything remotely connected to it because there were litigation issues involved.
The only competitor this company has seen in the US that uses a technique similar to the one we've been using all this time went to great lengths to establish a patent of their own that was significantly different from the original patent. We however could safely develop the technique, use and sell it in Europe, grow, develop alternative techniques as a second plan, attract investors, while in the meantime we've collected sufficient prior art to annihilate this particular patent if need be. This company is now operating in the USA as well without any problem or direct competition as the US inventor has preemptively killed all US competition.
Oh, it will make an impact on the US. If software patents are completely banned from the EU, it will be very difficult for US companies to compete on EU soil.
First of all, European companies can obtain software patents in the US, thereby effectively eliminating possible competition from that part of the world, while establishing a market in the EU. Once these companies make the move over, they've got their protection through the USPTO racket scheme.
Second. US companies respecting the software patents of other US companies will not be able to develop products based on these patents (unless cross-licensing is in place), quite obviously. This will give them a huge disadvantage when trying to bring products to Europe: they won't be able to use particular techniques their local competitors in EU markets will be able to use, and all stuff they have protection for over in the US can be copied by this local competition.
So my guess is that when US companies are starting to hurt from this both inside the US and outside of it, there's going to be some reconsideration of patent law.
The more apt analogy would be a world where warehouses are used by burglers both for storing stuff and for putting poison in the stored food. When you find someone storing warez in such a house, are you still going to sell the crackers?
Getting international observers in was the plan, but unfortunately, at least in Ohio
this was made impossible, probably by State Law. All in all, the OSCE found that the elections were a success, despite the inspectors being denied access to the polling stations apart from a few selected counties.
I'm pretty sure that save for actually breaking up the planet in tiny little pieces and distribute these through the solar system, bacteria, cockroaches and scorpions are pretty safe for anything we can throw at them.
If spending money on a purely defensive weapon isn't worth it, I don't know what to say
It all depends on the amount of money involved and the likelihood of actually getting defended. In this particular case, with huge costs and a very slim chance of getting the shield working in the next 30 years, it would probably be more cost-efficient to establish world peace in that time.
Oh, and btw, this might look like a purely defensive weapon, but if implemented can be used easily for offensive purposes: "Hey China, give us all your base or we're gonna throw nukes at ya! No, you can't throw back: shields up for greater justice!". No need to argue that the US wouldn't do such a thing, it is the possibility that it can that will make for instance China very wary.
In any case, once it looks like it's working, expect global tension to skyrocket again and possibly a preemptive strike from one of the non-shielded.
Scholar is a generic term that actually describes the market for scholarly products and can't be trademarked. You don't want General Mills to have a trademark on 'Cereal', or 'Breakfast', now would you?
Third option: direct half of the money that goes to Microsoft into the development of replacement software. One package at a time. That way you can see that the intentions are honest and not a cheap ploy to ignore parliament.
In this particular case, Dutch parliament has decided a year back that the right tool for the job would be open source software. Government however now completely ignores parliament and attempts to con up an exclusive deal with Microsoft. It might too difficult to go a full open-source route right away, but striking a deal that will tie the government (plus its public documents) to the beast of Redmond for a couple of years exclusively means, in essence, that government has ignored parliament. And this is not the first time.
All I will say is don't judge a whole nation on the actions of a few.
You forget, it's not a few, it's the majority that is accepting this, and the rest of the world is well in its rights to judge a nation by the actions of its majority. Iraq has happened, Guantanamo bay has happened, Abu Ghraib has happened, Falluja has happened, Molub and other towns are happening, and the ones ultimately responsible have been given a carte blanche to screw up some more. Face it, the excuse that the fuckup government was an accident does not work anymore. The US has chosen to go the Bush route and the nation (note, not every single individual) is judged by this. Right now, the US is well underway of becoming intensely evil, regardless of the large amount of decency that still exists.
Actually, as far as I know, John F. Kennedy was the first and the last catholic President. John Kerry was the second catholic that ran for presidency (from the major parties). Grandparent apparently doesn't understand WASP.
LOL! The dollar has quite a bit to go before American labour prices are comparable to Chinese and Indian. Think about an order, maybe two: 10 or 100 dollars for a single euro (given that Europe doesn't budge). Before such a thing happens, hell has indeed frozen over in the US on a scale in which the depression of the 30's will seem like a holiday in the sun.
No, the falling dollar is a cheap trick to finance the national debt, at the risk of losing the dollar as the world currency. It's a risky bet, as a lost reputation will be ever so hard to regain.
Norway is getting their GDP by exporting huge amounts of North Sea Brent Oil. Without it they have little natural reserves and a small population and not a whole lot of economic activity. I mean, Saudi Arabia probably has a much higher GDP than the US, but that wouldn't make them an example of an economic wonder.
Luxembourg has a banking system that, due to its location, leeches of Dutch, Belgian, German and French money that needs some place that is out of control of their respective governments. Due to pressure of the EU, the Luxembourg bank secret is faltering, expect a decline in GDP there.
For the rest, I completely agree with you. Europe is generally a better place to live in than the US, unless you're filthy rich. But for them we have Switzerland.
China calls themselves a republic maybe because they are?
The first definition of republic is simply anything that's not a monarchy, the second is the one you're aiming for, but that's only the second.
Although replying to your comment, I did not intend to imply anything about your thoughts on free speech issue in the United States. The link (and subsequent story) I posted was something I found relevant to the *entire* discussion at hand and simply anchored it to the first relevant comment I found (instead of level zero posting).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, a day is usually defined as the period between sun coming up and going down again. As God seemingly created the sun on the fourth day, it's bleeding obvious that the thing shouldn't be taken literally.
So, please tell me, what has the USA done to the root cause of the killings: Wahibi doctrine spread actively by the Saudi government. I have yet to see any pressure put on the Saudi government to stop their fundamentalistic expansion. It's going to get much worse still, not in the least because of the erratic actions of the US government.
I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there. For space colonies we've got this little bit of extra latency to contend with anyway, so I doubt IP is going to cut it. My guess is that with a 10-20 minute round trip time, ACK packets simply won't get there in time.
Ok, let's do better, let's assign each cell in these 10^10 people with a single IP address. According to some source, the human body consists of 10^14 cells. Assigning one address to each cell for each person thus equates to the use of 10^24 addresses. Then, we've managed to fill up 10^-14 of the available space. Not even noticable, while we now can address any cell in anyones brain with ease.
You can juggle the numbers in various ways (square foot of earth as another poster said), but what remains is that IPv6 address space is mindboggingly big, and save for assigning every atom on earth a unique IP-address (we would need about 170 bits for that), it should last quite a while before we find ways of wasting enough of the address space that it starts to matter. I'm pretty sure that we'll come up with ingenious ways to do this, but so far my own efforts in this respect have made puny dents in the number. Try to figure out some scheme that (a) makes sense and (b) requires so many IP-addresses that we might conceivably run out in a century or so. Try it, it's fun!
Unfortunately, here the story ends as Barnes and Noble found out.
The difference lies in the pressure from their home markets and the place where they can develop software. EU companies can safely develop their software for their home market undisturbed by considerations of patent law, and even get a few strategic patents in the US. Once they grow big enough to make the jump over the big pond, they have plenty of time to prepare themselves to cope with US patent law. They will also be big enough to start cross-licensing agreements etc. If need be, they can buy the licenses for the rights they miss. Only for the USA.
No such luck for US companies. They will have to cope with software patents from day one if they want to grow in their home market. This will hamper their growth and potentially kill their business early on. Furthermore, if they survive this and want to start selling their software abroad, they can not easily ignore patent law, even for software only sold outside of the United States. This because the software will be *developed* inside the US, and on this the patent holder can but a stop to it. Even if it's not sold in the US, patent law makes it illegal to actually manufacture it.
So if they want to make the move to the rest of the world with patent encumbered products, they'll have to move the development (design, architecture, etc.) to a place outside of the US as well. In practice they will cease being an US software company. Of course they can also obtain the necessary licenses for the patented software, but they will be competing in the rest of the world with local companies (that are not operating in the US) that do not have to pay this patent tax.
Most importantly however, certain types of software will simply not be made in the US. I personally was involved in a scheme like this, where in the early nineties I worked for a company that independently developed something that turned out to be patented in the US. The one that patented the general technique did not really build a business out of it, but the existence of the patent itself has kept all possible competition from the US at bay. Nobody would invest in anything remotely connected to it because there were litigation issues involved.
The only competitor this company has seen in the US that uses a technique similar to the one we've been using all this time went to great lengths to establish a patent of their own that was significantly different from the original patent. We however could safely develop the technique, use and sell it in Europe, grow, develop alternative techniques as a second plan, attract investors, while in the meantime we've collected sufficient prior art to annihilate this particular patent if need be. This company is now operating in the USA as well without any problem or direct competition as the US inventor has preemptively killed all US competition.
First of all, European companies can obtain software patents in the US, thereby effectively eliminating possible competition from that part of the world, while establishing a market in the EU. Once these companies make the move over, they've got their protection through the USPTO racket scheme.
Second. US companies respecting the software patents of other US companies will not be able to develop products based on these patents (unless cross-licensing is in place), quite obviously. This will give them a huge disadvantage when trying to bring products to Europe: they won't be able to use particular techniques their local competitors in EU markets will be able to use, and all stuff they have protection for over in the US can be copied by this local competition.
So my guess is that when US companies are starting to hurt from this both inside the US and outside of it, there's going to be some reconsideration of patent law.
The more apt analogy would be a world where warehouses are used by burglers both for storing stuff and for putting poison in the stored food. When you find someone storing warez in such a house, are you still going to sell the crackers?
In other words, the USA is well underway ;)
I'm pretty sure that save for actually breaking up the planet in tiny little pieces and distribute these through the solar system, bacteria, cockroaches and scorpions are pretty safe for anything we can throw at them.
You're from Vegas?
It all depends on the amount of money involved and the likelihood of actually getting defended. In this particular case, with huge costs and a very slim chance of getting the shield working in the next 30 years, it would probably be more cost-efficient to establish world peace in that time.
Oh, and btw, this might look like a purely defensive weapon, but if implemented can be used easily for offensive purposes: "Hey China, give us all your base or we're gonna throw nukes at ya! No, you can't throw back: shields up for greater justice!". No need to argue that the US wouldn't do such a thing, it is the possibility that it can that will make for instance China very wary.
In any case, once it looks like it's working, expect global tension to skyrocket again and possibly a preemptive strike from one of the non-shielded.
Then just be a good consumer and vote with your wallet. Just buy your education at Wallmart, I'm sure they'll have some.
Nope, finding the two farthest cities from eachother is simply O(N^2), and given in the distance table for TSP. Finding the middle city however....
Yes, they have until 2006, which is a great time to start granting 5 year contracts to parties that shouldn't be considered in 2 years time.
Scholar is a generic term that actually describes the market for scholarly products and can't be trademarked. You don't want General Mills to have a trademark on 'Cereal', or 'Breakfast', now would you?
Third option: direct half of the money that goes to Microsoft into the development of replacement software. One package at a time. That way you can see that the intentions are honest and not a cheap ploy to ignore parliament.
In this particular case, Dutch parliament has decided a year back that the right tool for the job would be open source software. Government however now completely ignores parliament and attempts to con up an exclusive deal with Microsoft. It might too difficult to go a full open-source route right away, but striking a deal that will tie the government (plus its public documents) to the beast of Redmond for a couple of years exclusively means, in essence, that government has ignored parliament. And this is not the first time.
Fryslân boppe!
</tongue in cheek>
You forget, it's not a few, it's the majority that is accepting this, and the rest of the world is well in its rights to judge a nation by the actions of its majority. Iraq has happened, Guantanamo bay has happened, Abu Ghraib has happened, Falluja has happened, Molub and other towns are happening, and the ones ultimately responsible have been given a carte blanche to screw up some more. Face it, the excuse that the fuckup government was an accident does not work anymore. The US has chosen to go the Bush route and the nation (note, not every single individual) is judged by this. Right now, the US is well underway of becoming intensely evil, regardless of the large amount of decency that still exists.
Actually, as far as I know, John F. Kennedy was the first and the last catholic President. John Kerry was the second catholic that ran for presidency (from the major parties). Grandparent apparently doesn't understand WASP.
No, the falling dollar is a cheap trick to finance the national debt, at the risk of losing the dollar as the world currency. It's a risky bet, as a lost reputation will be ever so hard to regain.
Luxembourg has a banking system that, due to its location, leeches of Dutch, Belgian, German and French money that needs some place that is out of control of their respective governments. Due to pressure of the EU, the Luxembourg bank secret is faltering, expect a decline in GDP there.
For the rest, I completely agree with you. Europe is generally a better place to live in than the US, unless you're filthy rich. But for them we have Switzerland.
China calls themselves a republic maybe because they are? The first definition of republic is simply anything that's not a monarchy, the second is the one you're aiming for, but that's only the second.
Although replying to your comment, I did not intend to imply anything about your thoughts on free speech issue in the United States. The link (and subsequent story) I posted was something I found relevant to the *entire* discussion at hand and simply anchored it to the first relevant comment I found (instead of level zero posting).