You conveniently cut out the part of the quote that said ARIN would "receive a request for IPv4 address space that is justified and meets the policy". Have you ever applied for IPv4 space? ARIN does say no if your application does not have sufficient justification. I've had it happen, when someone decided we needed to apply for space when we hadn't really filled our existing space (it was just assigned inefficiently).
Isolating and identifying a gene (or particle, or planet) is not innovation. Using that knowledge to do something else is. Nobody is forcing them to publish the information as soon as they find it.
There is a path to financial return: apply the knowledge you have discovered! There is a lot of money to be made by the person that can figure out how to block a gene that triggers an illness. Don't just expect to isolate a gene and sit back and roll in the money.
Do you think that an astronomer should be able to patent a planet because they saw it first? How about the particle physicists working on the LHC patenting the Higgs bosun if they find it (sorry, no gravity without a license!)? Why should someone be able to patent a naturally occurring gene, just because they found it first? If they find something original, such as an easy way to detect the presence or absence of a gene that can lead to illness, or a way to use that knowledge to treat the condition caused by the gene, patent away, but nobody should be able to patent something that has existed in thousands or millions of people for decades or centuries just because they were the first to track it down. They didn't invent or create anything.
It is kind of hard to make a straight-line irrigation beam extend and contract to form a hexagon as it goes around. These plots are irrigated from underground aquifers. There's a well in the middle and then a long irrigation beam that goes in a circle around the well. The pressure is controlled so the sprinkler heads near the middle release less water (since they cover less ground).
The relativistic speed means their clocks run slower than clocks sitting still on Earth, according to special relativity. Another source of GPS time difference is that they are farther away from the center of Earth's gravity than we are, so according to general relativity, their clocks run faster than clocks on Earth. Both factors have to be taken into account.
In both cases, I'm not sure I'd have even caught it with visual checks. The throttle cable broke on the throttle end (the cable separated from the end piece in the throttle, which was just a little cylinder of metal). The only way to even see it was to remove the air filter holder (old-style big round filter on top of the engine), and the broken cable end did not look frayed. The clutch cable broke on the pedal end, and there the little cylinder of metal on the end of the cable broke into several pieces, leaving nothing on the end of the cable (I had the pieces rolling around on the floor).
I've never seen a throttle cable break gradually; cables usually break suddenly. I've had a throttle cable and a clutch cable break, and neither was "a gradual thing". It was more like I stepped on the pedal and heard a "ping" as the metal broke (the clutch cable broke on the pedal end, so I then heard bits of metal rattling around on the floor).
Reading comments, it seems many are claiming that the iPad is not a "computer" but an "appliance", and therefore doesn't need to be opened up (physically or programmatically). Why do people give Apple a free pass on this? Apple is pushing it to be better than a netbook, and those are "computers" that are not locked down. Apple isn't locking the iPad down for any reason other than to sell more stuff (the lock-down is for Apple's sake, not the end-user's).
But hey, let's compare the iPad to some appliances around the house. My washing machine came with an exploded parts diagram (and I have ordered replacement parts to fix it myself). I don't have to buy my food through Whirlpool to put it in my refrigerator or microwave. Panasonic doesn't get to approve all the TV programs I watch, or what devices I plug into my TV. My cordless drill had a battery wear out, so I bought a third-party battery. The drill also came with a parts diagram (which I also used to fix it once).
Why is it "good" that after you pay Apple for the privilege of owning an iPad, you also have to pay Apple for the privilege of loading applications on the device you bought?
About the power: sorry, I was going off one Wikipedia page (always a mistake I guess). Still, that's an order of magnitude less than large commercial reactors. The total US Navy nuclear reactor output is a very small fraction of the US power grid requirements.
You replied to a story about a small tritium leak. The page I linked described a number of other issues with US Navy nuclear practices. Also, when a land nuclear power plant has a problem, you can't dump it and run.
There are numerous cases of US Navy problems with nuclear reactors and their management (see for example this list. The other big issue is that naval reactors have little relation to commercial reactors; a big naval reactor might generate 50MW, while each reactor at Brown's Ferry can generate 1100MW.
I'm in favor of nuclear power, but the US Navy is not the magic answer or shining example you make it out to be.
Why should the government subsidize Internet access for somebody that lives an an "exceptionally remote area"? When I bought my house, I checked first to make sure the Internet access I wanted was available. If you choose to live in an area that doesn't have certain services available, why should you be able to demand taxpayers provide it to you later?
RTFS and do the math. 203 million addresses were allocated in 2009; a/8 is 16.7 million addresses; reclaiming a/8 (which would probably take a lot of time and effort, possibly in court) would put off the IPv4 depletion by about one month. It isn't worth the effort; better to put it into IPv6.
My crappy little free phone can run Google Maps and any of a half-dozen or so other GPS mapping programs that I can download for free. The people that write them don't need my phone manufacturer or cell provider's permission. They can compete with the GPS app that came with the phone. The same is true for web browsers and so many other things. Why is it that when Apple is afraid of the slightest bit of competition and locks it out at every opportunity, people accept it (even for one minute, much less for two years)? Apple's app may be the best thing every made, but if that is the case, it'll be more widely used than Google's on its own merits, not because Apple is afraid to let Google compete with them.
A 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen leaves 25% (not 33%) black, and 16:9 digital TVs were available for under $300 (not over $500). 3G spectrum was allocated years ago, long before the analog TV cut-off; it takes time (and a lot of money) to roll out new services in new frequency bands. Since Congress kept changing the analog cut-off date, nobody was going to spend a dime buying and building out equipment to utilize the old high-UHF frequency until it was actually available. You might start seeing some of it in use next year.
The DIRECT proponents only seem to take into account development costs, not ongoing flight costs. The SSME is one of (if not the most) expensive engine ever built, and DIRECT proposes to use four of them to launch and then let them burn up on re-entry (no re-use). The J-2X is a much cheaper engine, and Ares I only uses one, so the per-flight hardware costs are much lower.
If you build an expensive vehicle, you aren't going to get to fly many of them before the budget is cut.
Hey, my father worked on the Saturn V guidance system, and he's still working on Ares; they haven't all left yet!
Anyway, building a new Saturn V would be similar to Ford digging out the plans for a 1967 Mustang and building a new one. We have 40 years of performance, safety, materials, and efficiency improvements that are not reflected in the old plans that would have to be taken into account. The computers are completely different, so things like the guidance and control systems would have to be rewritten (and retested/recertified) from scratch. At that point, you'd want to significantly update the engines for modern materials and construction engineering, which is what was done on a small scale with the J-2X engine for Ares I, but even that was based on post-Saturn work. The Saturn V was in some ways a brute-force solution, and not really economical for the long term. It was also never considered a "production" vehicle; every one that flew was different, with different software (development continued through the life of the vehicle).
Just look at the changes in the Space Shuttle Main Engines and other systems over the life of the shuttle. Now apply that level of change to something that hasn't flown in over 36 years.
Um, in 5.5 months, you've had 15 emails? 5.5 months is about 24 weeks or 120 business days; what are you doing only sending email every week and a half?
I had an open software case with HP on an AlphaServer/TruCluster issue that lasted a little over a year. I think I sent over 200 email messages about that case (and there were other people involved as well). We had weekly conference call updates, as well as several meetings with various combinations of HP sales, support, engineers, and managers (many from out of state) in our office. Yeah, it sucked, but part of my job as system administrator is to stay on top of our vendors to make sure they are holding up their end of our support contracts. We aren't any big HP or AlphaServer customer (this was a cluster of two ES40s and represented 2/3 of our total installed base of Alphas, and we didn't have any other HP stuff at all), but we kept on them so they knew they had to deliver.
You should understand DNSSEC before criticizing it. It doesn't work with SSL-style certificates that have to be signed by a recognized certificate authority. Also, it doesn't change the existing protocol, it extends it in a (mostly) backwards-compatible way. DNS servers just have to know how to request and handle the new additional records; old servers and clients keep working fine.
Your proposed solutions only fix one small piece of the DNS problem, that of spoofed network packets. DNSSEC authenticates the entire response chain, so that (for example) you can be sure that your ISP isn't modifying responses to point you somewhere else (such as their servers) rather than what you requested.
With DNSSEC, you could possibly eliminate the SSL certificate authorities and use signed DNS records to include the certificate information (so you can make sure that when you go to https://www.foo.com/, you really got www.foo.com's certificate and not that of a man-in-the-middle attacker).
Slashdot Mirror
You conveniently cut out the part of the quote that said ARIN would "receive a request for IPv4 address space that is justified and meets the policy". Have you ever applied for IPv4 space? ARIN does say no if your application does not have sufficient justification. I've had it happen, when someone decided we needed to apply for space when we hadn't really filled our existing space (it was just assigned inefficiently).
What does "2K-10" mean? How can you subtract 10 from 2 Kelvin? You can't go below absolute zero. Oh, you meant "2k-10", but that's 2000-10 or 1990.
In any case, using an "abbreviation" that is longer than the original is pretty pointless.
So all those IBM PC compatible systems that were sold with 640K RAM didn't exist either? You could have 8 sockets with 7x 4K RAM chips and 1x 4K ROM.
Isolating and identifying a gene (or particle, or planet) is not innovation. Using that knowledge to do something else is. Nobody is forcing them to publish the information as soon as they find it.
There is a path to financial return: apply the knowledge you have discovered! There is a lot of money to be made by the person that can figure out how to block a gene that triggers an illness. Don't just expect to isolate a gene and sit back and roll in the money.
Do you think that an astronomer should be able to patent a planet because they saw it first? How about the particle physicists working on the LHC patenting the Higgs bosun if they find it (sorry, no gravity without a license!)? Why should someone be able to patent a naturally occurring gene, just because they found it first? If they find something original, such as an easy way to detect the presence or absence of a gene that can lead to illness, or a way to use that knowledge to treat the condition caused by the gene, patent away, but nobody should be able to patent something that has existed in thousands or millions of people for decades or centuries just because they were the first to track it down. They didn't invent or create anything.
It is kind of hard to make a straight-line irrigation beam extend and contract to form a hexagon as it goes around. These plots are irrigated from underground aquifers. There's a well in the middle and then a long irrigation beam that goes in a circle around the well. The pressure is controlled so the sprinkler heads near the middle release less water (since they cover less ground).
The relativistic speed means their clocks run slower than clocks sitting still on Earth, according to special relativity. Another source of GPS time difference is that they are farther away from the center of Earth's gravity than we are, so according to general relativity, their clocks run faster than clocks on Earth. Both factors have to be taken into account.
In both cases, I'm not sure I'd have even caught it with visual checks. The throttle cable broke on the throttle end (the cable separated from the end piece in the throttle, which was just a little cylinder of metal). The only way to even see it was to remove the air filter holder (old-style big round filter on top of the engine), and the broken cable end did not look frayed. The clutch cable broke on the pedal end, and there the little cylinder of metal on the end of the cable broke into several pieces, leaving nothing on the end of the cable (I had the pieces rolling around on the floor).
I've never seen a throttle cable break gradually; cables usually break suddenly. I've had a throttle cable and a clutch cable break, and neither was "a gradual thing". It was more like I stepped on the pedal and heard a "ping" as the metal broke (the clutch cable broke on the pedal end, so I then heard bits of metal rattling around on the floor).
Reading comments, it seems many are claiming that the iPad is not a "computer" but an "appliance", and therefore doesn't need to be opened up (physically or programmatically). Why do people give Apple a free pass on this? Apple is pushing it to be better than a netbook, and those are "computers" that are not locked down. Apple isn't locking the iPad down for any reason other than to sell more stuff (the lock-down is for Apple's sake, not the end-user's).
But hey, let's compare the iPad to some appliances around the house. My washing machine came with an exploded parts diagram (and I have ordered replacement parts to fix it myself). I don't have to buy my food through Whirlpool to put it in my refrigerator or microwave. Panasonic doesn't get to approve all the TV programs I watch, or what devices I plug into my TV. My cordless drill had a battery wear out, so I bought a third-party battery. The drill also came with a parts diagram (which I also used to fix it once).
Why is it "good" that after you pay Apple for the privilege of owning an iPad, you also have to pay Apple for the privilege of loading applications on the device you bought?
About the power: sorry, I was going off one Wikipedia page (always a mistake I guess). Still, that's an order of magnitude less than large commercial reactors. The total US Navy nuclear reactor output is a very small fraction of the US power grid requirements.
You replied to a story about a small tritium leak. The page I linked described a number of other issues with US Navy nuclear practices. Also, when a land nuclear power plant has a problem, you can't dump it and run.
There are numerous cases of US Navy problems with nuclear reactors and their management (see for example this list. The other big issue is that naval reactors have little relation to commercial reactors; a big naval reactor might generate 50MW, while each reactor at Brown's Ferry can generate 1100MW.
I'm in favor of nuclear power, but the US Navy is not the magic answer or shining example you make it out to be.
Ah yes, because the US government has a great record running nuclear power plants.
Why should the government subsidize Internet access for somebody that lives an an "exceptionally remote area"? When I bought my house, I checked first to make sure the Internet access I wanted was available. If you choose to live in an area that doesn't have certain services available, why should you be able to demand taxpayers provide it to you later?
RTFS and do the math. 203 million addresses were allocated in 2009; a /8 is 16.7 million addresses; reclaiming a /8 (which would probably take a lot of time and effort, possibly in court) would put off the IPv4 depletion by about one month. It isn't worth the effort; better to put it into IPv6.
My crappy little free phone can run Google Maps and any of a half-dozen or so other GPS mapping programs that I can download for free. The people that write them don't need my phone manufacturer or cell provider's permission. They can compete with the GPS app that came with the phone. The same is true for web browsers and so many other things. Why is it that when Apple is afraid of the slightest bit of competition and locks it out at every opportunity, people accept it (even for one minute, much less for two years)? Apple's app may be the best thing every made, but if that is the case, it'll be more widely used than Google's on its own merits, not because Apple is afraid to let Google compete with them.
A 16:9 image on a 4:3 screen leaves 25% (not 33%) black, and 16:9 digital TVs were available for under $300 (not over $500). 3G spectrum was allocated years ago, long before the analog TV cut-off; it takes time (and a lot of money) to roll out new services in new frequency bands. Since Congress kept changing the analog cut-off date, nobody was going to spend a dime buying and building out equipment to utilize the old high-UHF frequency until it was actually available. You might start seeing some of it in use next year.
Yeah, I knew it wasn't a GM, but c'mon, wasn't that the first thing that popped into your head when you saw "last big-block V8"?
and one day Mad Max will get this engine. Now we know; the clock is ticking on the apocalypse.
Yeah, but "southern LA" is redundant; all of Lower Alabama is southern.
The DIRECT proponents only seem to take into account development costs, not ongoing flight costs. The SSME is one of (if not the most) expensive engine ever built, and DIRECT proposes to use four of them to launch and then let them burn up on re-entry (no re-use). The J-2X is a much cheaper engine, and Ares I only uses one, so the per-flight hardware costs are much lower.
If you build an expensive vehicle, you aren't going to get to fly many of them before the budget is cut.
Hey, my father worked on the Saturn V guidance system, and he's still working on Ares; they haven't all left yet!
Anyway, building a new Saturn V would be similar to Ford digging out the plans for a 1967 Mustang and building a new one. We have 40 years of performance, safety, materials, and efficiency improvements that are not reflected in the old plans that would have to be taken into account. The computers are completely different, so things like the guidance and control systems would have to be rewritten (and retested/recertified) from scratch. At that point, you'd want to significantly update the engines for modern materials and construction engineering, which is what was done on a small scale with the J-2X engine for Ares I, but even that was based on post-Saturn work. The Saturn V was in some ways a brute-force solution, and not really economical for the long term. It was also never considered a "production" vehicle; every one that flew was different, with different software (development continued through the life of the vehicle).
Just look at the changes in the Space Shuttle Main Engines and other systems over the life of the shuttle. Now apply that level of change to something that hasn't flown in over 36 years.
Um, in 5.5 months, you've had 15 emails? 5.5 months is about 24 weeks or 120 business days; what are you doing only sending email every week and a half?
I had an open software case with HP on an AlphaServer/TruCluster issue that lasted a little over a year. I think I sent over 200 email messages about that case (and there were other people involved as well). We had weekly conference call updates, as well as several meetings with various combinations of HP sales, support, engineers, and managers (many from out of state) in our office. Yeah, it sucked, but part of my job as system administrator is to stay on top of our vendors to make sure they are holding up their end of our support contracts. We aren't any big HP or AlphaServer customer (this was a cluster of two ES40s and represented 2/3 of our total installed base of Alphas, and we didn't have any other HP stuff at all), but we kept on them so they knew they had to deliver.
You should understand DNSSEC before criticizing it. It doesn't work with SSL-style certificates that have to be signed by a recognized certificate authority. Also, it doesn't change the existing protocol, it extends it in a (mostly) backwards-compatible way. DNS servers just have to know how to request and handle the new additional records; old servers and clients keep working fine.
Your proposed solutions only fix one small piece of the DNS problem, that of spoofed network packets. DNSSEC authenticates the entire response chain, so that (for example) you can be sure that your ISP isn't modifying responses to point you somewhere else (such as their servers) rather than what you requested.
With DNSSEC, you could possibly eliminate the SSL certificate authorities and use signed DNS records to include the certificate information (so you can make sure that when you go to https://www.foo.com/, you really got www.foo.com's certificate and not that of a man-in-the-middle attacker).