This is new to MMOs.. where the first M stands for massively, ie > 1000 simultaneous players. Gemstone II didn't have that 14 odd years ago. The dynamics of games become considerably more complex with every order of magnitude growth. Up to everquest, the magnitude had been pretty well stuck in the range of 100. With everquest and its gaming descendents we've moved clearly into 1000 player territory. With WOW they're starting to poke at seeing what might be possible in the 10k range.
There isn't a program that can't be written as a state machine;
This reminded me of the time I had a manager who discovered this in some magazine he was reading, and decided we should rebuild all of our software as state machines. That was the day I finally started looking for my next job.
Ah, but you see, we already fought a war to obtain the legal right to use it fully independently, and without any sort of licensure, which is exactly what we're claiming the precedent ought to be, so you see, no inconsistency whatsoever: if someone else wants control of our internet, they can just fight a war with us.
Well, as to when we sent the engineers to lay the cables in other countries and continents, that has been going on since the 1950s.
As to what right invention confers to us, I'd say none. But I don't think other countries or the UN have any better claim. Personally, I think each country would be smart to launch their own root server, and start allowing them to diverge.
The US has a veto on the security council, but it doesn't matter. The point I'm making is that the member nations pushing this through the UN can decide at any time that they are no longer going to act through the UN, and instead act unilateraly and set up their own root servers. No country needs either the UN's nor our permission to do this, and all have the legal power to make it work.
As to Iraq, I argue that we are trying to leave an independent government in control there, with the specific goal of not pissing off the Europeans. I believe the other scenario involved a willingness to piss off the rest of the world at a much higher level.
I guess it is only 60 days. Still, I believe that would be enough to seize control of a lot of production capacity if we were sufficiently willing to piss people off.
Even international companies are founded somewhere, and headquartered somewhere.
MCI/Worldcom: US AT&T: US
ntt/bt not.
But who do you think layed the cable that most internet traffic is running on?
And for those US companies, they received massive tax rebates and financial assistance from the government for building that cable, so in a sense, most of that cable is US government funded.
As a bottom line, I think the US has a fairly good claim to being financially responsible for the success of the internet.
OTOH, I think the internet itself would be better off if various countries did fragment the root servers. Single point of failure is never a good thing.
It's not really the right thing though. Every country should manage their own root servers. It would be better for the internet to learn early how to work around this.
You're completely right of course. I just like to go off to an imaginary world where people aren't this stupid once in while, but thanks for bringing me back to earth.
Same issue, really. There are reasons for them to want to play nice, and advantages to doing so, but there is no fundamental technological reason they can't start handing out duplicates of existing IP addresses, as long as they are willing to accept some fragmentation.
That's the purpose of the SPR. In the event that we need to conquer another country, or multiple countries, we'll have at least 6 months, probably more to do it. Believe me, it won't take us 6 months to seize the oil pumps, docks, and shipping lanes of 2 or 3 middle eastern countries.
Actually, to be fair, we did lay most of the cable carrying most of the internet traffic, and we did invent the protocols, which are technically far more important than the cables.
But more importantly to respond to a) We actually should learn to live with fragmentation, because it will make the internet more robust, capable, and efficient. b) I don't really think there is any RIGHT to control. Anyone who wants their own root server can have one, and that seems like much more of a RIGHT to me.
It's about who the ISPs treat as the authority. Currently, the whole world treats ICANN as the authority, but I have no doubt whatsoever that is going to change.
There is no need for the EU and others to hack their way in to our root servers. They can just set up their own root servers, and legally mandate that all their ISPs switch over. It's actually the exact same thing that would happen in a voluntary handover, except for the legal mandate requirement. Technologically, it would be identical, and would have (from the EU perspective) the same desired effect.
It's their obvious strategy. There is absolutely no reason they have to live with us controlling the internet. Just put their own root DNS servers in place, and legally mandate that all of their ISPs switch over. It's not rocket science, but it will fragment the internet a bit.
Ahh, but note that they didn't call it the xibox, and that they did not already have a part number involved. I suppose ATI could have called their new line the X800360, but how confusing would that look? And what's better, a x850360 or an x800720? It all gets very confusing.;-)
My point was that dell is already capable of shipping a (linux based?) mini OS capable of running a huge battery of hardware tests to detect hardware problems on a small partition on the hard drive. My laptop has this, it's something like 5G (probably bigger than it needs to be). You can boot this partition, and run about 800 different hardware tests. They should work on making this the definitive test of whether or not you have a hardware problem, and handle OS/software installation issues separately.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding toxic is some great music. If only they could have gotten someone good to sing it.
This is new to MMOs .. where the first M stands for massively, ie > 1000 simultaneous players. Gemstone II didn't have that 14 odd years ago. The dynamics of games become considerably more complex with every order of magnitude growth. Up to everquest, the magnitude had been pretty well stuck in the range of 100. With everquest and its gaming descendents we've moved clearly into 1000 player territory. With WOW they're starting to poke at seeing what might be possible in the 10k range.
usually law wise it doesn't become an issue unless it is considered a deadly disease. IE one like AIDS with pretty much assured fatality and no cure.
And another factor: when you have a real plague, it becomes somewhat more challenging to get out of bed and reach an urban population center.
There isn't a program that can't be written as a state machine;
This reminded me of the time I had a manager who discovered this in some magazine he was reading, and decided we should rebuild all of our software as state machines. That was the day I finally started looking for my next job.
Ah, but you see, we already fought a war to obtain the legal right to use it fully independently, and without any sort of licensure, which is exactly what we're claiming the precedent ought to be, so you see, no inconsistency whatsoever: if someone else wants control of our internet, they can just fight a war with us.
Well, as to when we sent the engineers to lay the cables in other countries and continents, that has been going on since the 1950s.
As to what right invention confers to us, I'd say none. But I don't think other countries or the UN have any better claim. Personally, I think each country would be smart to launch their own root server, and start allowing them to diverge.
I refer you to any of a number of histories of c:
4 00/c/c.html
http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html
c is clearly an american invention.
The US has a veto on the security council, but it doesn't matter. The point I'm making is that the member nations pushing this through the UN can decide at any time that they are no longer going to act through the UN, and instead act unilateraly and set up their own root servers. No country needs either the UN's nor our permission to do this, and all have the legal power to make it work.
As to Iraq, I argue that we are trying to leave an independent government in control there, with the specific goal of not pissing off the Europeans. I believe the other scenario involved a willingness to piss off the rest of the world at a much higher level.
a cts.html
As to the SPR:
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-f
I guess it is only 60 days. Still, I believe that would be enough to seize control of a lot of production capacity if we were sufficiently willing to piss people off.
I'm afraid if you look closely, you'll find those protocols were written in c and assembly, also american inventions.
;-)
And the specs for those protocols are all written in American English.
Even international companies are founded somewhere, and headquartered somewhere.
MCI/Worldcom: US
AT&T: US
ntt/bt not.
But who do you think layed the cable that most internet traffic is running on?
And for those US companies, they received massive tax rebates and financial assistance from the government for building that cable, so in a sense, most of that cable is US government funded.
As a bottom line, I think the US has a fairly good claim to being financially responsible for the success of the internet.
OTOH, I think the internet itself would be better off if various countries did fragment the root servers. Single point of failure is never a good thing.
It's not really the right thing though. Every country should manage their own root servers. It would be better for the internet to learn early how to work around this.
You're completely right of course. I just like to go off to an imaginary world where people aren't this stupid once in while, but thanks for bringing me back to earth.
Same issue, really. There are reasons for them to want to play nice, and advantages to doing so, but there is no fundamental technological reason they can't start handing out duplicates of existing IP addresses, as long as they are willing to accept some fragmentation.
Sorry, factually incorrect:
= 328791
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b
That's the purpose of the SPR. In the event that we need to conquer another country, or multiple countries, we'll have at least 6 months, probably more to do it. Believe me, it won't take us 6 months to seize the oil pumps, docks, and shipping lanes of 2 or 3 middle eastern countries.
Actually, to be fair, we did lay most of the cable carrying most of the internet traffic, and we did invent the protocols, which are technically far more important than the cables.
But more importantly to respond to
a) We actually should learn to live with fragmentation, because it will make the internet more robust, capable, and efficient.
b) I don't really think there is any RIGHT to control. Anyone who wants their own root server can have one, and that seems like much more of a RIGHT to me.
It's about who the ISPs treat as the authority. Currently, the whole world treats ICANN as the authority, but I have no doubt whatsoever that is going to change.
There is no need for the EU and others to hack their way in to our root servers. They can just set up their own root servers, and legally mandate that all their ISPs switch over. It's actually the exact same thing that would happen in a voluntary handover, except for the legal mandate requirement. Technologically, it would be identical, and would have (from the EU perspective) the same desired effect.
It's their obvious strategy. There is absolutely no reason they have to live with us controlling the internet. Just put their own root DNS servers in place, and legally mandate that all of their ISPs switch over. It's not rocket science, but it will fragment the internet a bit.
http://www.chaintechusa.com/tw/eng/product_list.as p?MPSNo=13&SPSNo=36t s_id/8894
http://www.laptops4me.com/product_info.php/produc
$61.
Have fun.
An embedded future in which every embedded device will have a fully functioning OS with modern development tools and languages, of course.
Ahh, but note that they didn't call it the xibox, and that they did not already have a part number involved. I suppose ATI could have called their new line the X800360, but how confusing would that look? And what's better, a x850360 or an x800720? It all gets very confusing. ;-)
My point was that dell is already capable of shipping a (linux based?) mini OS capable of running a huge battery of hardware tests to detect hardware problems on a small partition on the hard drive. My laptop has this, it's something like 5G (probably bigger than it needs to be). You can boot this partition, and run about 800 different hardware tests. They should work on making this the definitive test of whether or not you have a hardware problem, and handle OS/software installation issues separately.