Well, now that they don't make and sell them in Mexico anymore, getting parts for that Beetle is going to get progressively more and more expensive. Where I love these cars (I've owned three in my life time), they are maintenance nightmares compared to your average auto on the show room floor today. Every 3,000 miles you simply MUST do four things... 1. Change the Oil, 2. Adjust the valves, 3. Adjust the brakes, 4. Check the timing. I had the process down to about 30 min every 2 months or so, but this is going to be a problem for most people who can't do this themselves. Valve adjustments require the engine to be totally cool, so if you don't do it yourself, you are going to leave your car with the mechanic at least overnight. Not doing valve adjustments is a sure fire way of burning a vale/seat and buying yourself some serious engine work.
For most people, this maintenance schedule is just too much.... For me, it was great when I was young, but now when getting off my back on the ground is starting to be somewhat of a question, it's not so great.
Really? You have to tell your DHCP server the MAC of every device on your network?
Unless you're using static assignments ("reservations"), then you don't need to tell the server anything at all. The "MAC" of the device can change, btw. (different NIC, wireless vs. wired, etc.) And a MAC isn't the only thing the server can use. (in fact, I'm cursing Sun for the ALOM using the serial number instead of MAC for it's client-id.)
For heaven's sake, so are we doing away with ARP tables now? Read what I wrote.. IF YOU CARE about which phone is which, then MAC's are something you will need to know at some level.
Look, in order to respond to ANY DHCP request (or pass ANY packets over layer 2 for that matter) you MUST know the MAC address of the destination (or be doing a broadcast to everybody on the segment). IPv6 doesn't mess with layer 2, you still need to know the MAC of the destination you are trying to send that packet to. If you care who's phone is who's, then you (at some level) will need to know the MAC address of each.
This is why you want internet to be a government owned and operated service, like the highways. That way if you don't like your service you can at least vote for change, unlike now where your only option more money.
Seriously now... That's NOT a viable answer to this problem.. Roads are a unique solution, and in some places the level of service they provide is horrible. (Like LA during "rush hour"). No, I don't want THAT kind of service from my ISP.
If you want to start talking about doing stuff like we did to get electricity and phones into rural America using private investment though favorable regulations, say give out tax abatements for "last mile" infrastructure owners who allow third party use of their networks at competitive rates, or forbid the owner of the "last mile" infrastructure from actually selling to retail customers, you'd be on to something...
But for your lifetime and that of your grandkids it is limitless, in practice
And why should that make it acceptable to not care about the longer term consequences?
It doesn't, but it does take the urgency out of the argument, which is my point there. We are NOT running out of oil, so making the argument that *we* need to deal with this issue with urgency is wrong. No we don't, there is plenty of time to work on the technology.
In my experience (for what it's worth) it is usually plainly obvious that you are working at a place that doesn't share your morals and ethics long before you get into a situation where it's quit or agree to do something unethical. It's hard sometimes though to just up and jump ship, depending on the job market and your personal situation. My advice is to start looking around once it's obvious, because if they do unethical things to others, they will do them to you. You may not be able to leave right now, but do PLAN to leave as soon as you can.
I've had to quit but one job for this kind of thing. I did it with no place to go, a wife 9 months pregnant a local job market that looked as bleak as I can imagine. It wasn't easy at the time, but it clearly was the right thing to do in hindsight. I just wish I had planned ahead and had another option on the table before I got forced into jumping. So I understand why it's sometimes necessary to hold your nose and do what you are told, and I don't begrudge the IT worker for choosing to stay.
- reminds me of something a previous President said - he had to violate free market principles to save the free market... And oh how you all laughed when he said it, now you borrowed his logic.
Utopia is always sold that way... And always with the same results.
You cannot throttle me, I have unlimited usage, it's in the contract! Quick, somebody turn them into the FCC for a fine or two.... Oh, you say it's just network congestion? Fat chance that's true, I want my NETFLIX to stream at the full 4K resolution or else.....
Surely the MAC address is still unique... IPv6 doesn't mess with layer 2 on down.... If you really care who's phone is who's, you have to set up layer 2 to be secure anyway, so you are going to need to know, in advance, who's MAC is who's. You'd need that knowledge for a DHCP server too... Nothing really changes here...
What a waste of address space... That many PUBLIC IP's? What a mess that must be.
Personally, I don't know why ANYBODY not running a server would even want an public IP and not behind a NAT. It's way too dangerous, even with a modern firewall and security settings. Yea, sure your torrent client might have issues, but what are you downloading with that anyway?
Hey, Three Mile Island wasn't that big of an environmental issue. As it turned out, the radiation released from the plant was extremely small. It was, however, a serious economic issue for the operator.
The US produce somewhere around 19% of the world wide carbon emission. Are we taking over the world to enforce this plan? Russia and China are going to do what ever the hell they want.
We will reach out to them of course, and ask them to volunteer to comply with the emission reductions.
They will of course tell us to pound sand... Or better yet, agree to the emission caps, then hold us to ours while ignoring theirs...
and mentions that he likes fracking for natural gas because it's domestic, fairly clean and we have a lot of it, that's the politician I'm going to pay attention to
Fracking is far from "environmentally responsible"...
How's that? Pumping stuff a few miles into the ground is somehow dangerous to the environment? Fracking isn't anymore dangerous than plain drilling.
Why are 6 billion people likely to starve due to a 35-year plan to remove fossil fuels? That sounds like a grossly unrealistic consequence at first brush.
It's called fertilizer.... MOST of it we use today come from Fossil fuel based sources...
Honestly 35 years to get rid of fossils doesn't seem insane to me. Except I don't have an obvious replacement in mind for airplane fuel, but that's sort of trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Just suggesting we "get rid" of fossil fuels is going to be pretty much insane. Aircraft fuel is the least of your worries, it's just kerosene and any flammable liquid can generally be used in a turbine if you refine it well enough, so pick anything else you want to burn. We just use kerosene because it has a lot of energy for it's volume and weight..
What you CANNOT replace is the generation of fertilizers which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If you don't solve this problem FIRST, you are going to kill off a substantial portion of the population though starvation when you turn off the fossil fuels.
We aren't talking about controlling climate. We are talking about arresting a sudden impetus for rapid climate change.
You don't have poof that global warming is man made, yet you think man can stop it? And before you get all up in arms, remember "Correlation does not imply causation." And don't forget that the climate has been though some pretty large swings in the past eons, none of which where possibly caused by man.
There is no viable substitute for petroleum.
Then we are doomed because petroleum is not limitless. The cost will creep ever further from the average person's reach, then even from the rich's reach.
Unless we can manufacture more petroleum. The only way to do that, is with an energy source greater than the energy of the petroleum we're making...
(even other fossils can replace petroleum)
But for your lifetime and that of your grandkids it is limitless, in practice. Fossil fuels are laying around in abundance, even after a century of burring them. It's not like fossil fuels will just one day be all gone. They will slowly get more and more expensive over time as the "easy" stuff gets used up, then new technology will come along (like fracking) that make production of more areas profitable, opening up larger and larger supplies. Yes, eventually their use will slow down, but there is little chance we will just wake up one day and they will be all gone.
Get over it.
No. I'm not going to submit to a life of misery.
Nuclear power + renewables can relatively easily replace petroleum in just about everything except our flying machines (helicopters, airplanes, space launch vehicles) and emergency backup generators. Improved battery technology can help replace backup generators.
You leave out the MOST important factor.. CONVERSATION, we simply must be more efferent above all else. I don't oppose any of the above, but I also don't want to artificially just up and stop using fossil fuels. It is economic suicide to unilaterally eschew fossil fuels and I see no reason to do it, unless you just want to sacrifice yourself for the rest of the world's benefit and if you don't mind the death and destruction that will surely follow..
So there it is, your "death wish" as it where. You want to commit economic suicide, which will end up killing millions of innocents though war, famine and pestilence that is held at bay though our "dependence" on Fossil fuels. Bring on the sea level rise, I much prefer it to the world running amok while we are trying to go "clean" energy..
Now when some candidate comes out and starts saying things like "environmentally responsible energy sources" and mentions that he likes fracking for natural gas because it's domestic, fairly clean and we have a lot of it, that's the politician I'm going to pay attention to.
Well, it's better than coal but worse than just about everything else.
There you go, making stuff up... Or perhaps redefining stuff? In what way is NG "worse" than just about everything else? NG is pretty clean stuff, energy efficient to transport, and apart from CO2 has pretty low emissions when properly burned.
One more data point... There are actual observed Pi to storage bandwidths to report here. The *best* transfer rate noted was about 32Mbps, when running just the storage device on the USB bus. Half of that is about 16Mbps which is something that my internet connection could easily swamp. The data is here: http://www.mikronauts.com/rasp...
This is politics at it's best, say something which everybody agrees with, even if it's not possible. Claim you have a plan! We can pass a law! Never mind that what you are promising is simply not possible.
There is no such thing as "CLEAN" energy on an industrial scale. Literally EVERYTHING has negative environmental impact. You simply cannot avoid it. Of course you can just declare that some technology is clean (i.e. "Clean Coal") if you want, but that doesn't make it so, nor does it mean you fulfilled your promise.
Now when some candidate comes out and starts saying things like "environmentally responsible energy sources" and mentions that he likes fracking for natural gas because it's domestic, fairly clean and we have a lot of it, that's the politician I'm going to pay attention to. The guy that starts talking about conservation of the energy we now use is more likely to get my vote than this nut job. They are thinking about the issue, not just dropping politically correct phrases on us.
You will effectively be limited to 1/2 of USB 2.0 speed (or less) because the Pi's network connection is via the single USB connection which is shared by that USB drive
Hi-Speed USB is nominally 480 Mbps half duplex and practically reaches half of that. If the storage shares a bus with a NIC, it could still saturate 120 Mbps. Home Internet is typically 3 to 50 Mbps down, and if you don't have a symmetric service like Verizon/Frontier FiOS, you get far less than that up.
Perhaps, but if you have this on your local network you will not be subject to the bandwidth limits of your ISP. I would usually be at home with most of my devices anyway, so I'm limited to the 802.1a/n link speed, which is going to fully push the Pi beyond it's limits. BTW, my FIOS connection is 25/25bps so, in my case I think it would be possible to nearly saturate the USB buss/CPU load of a Pi remotely, and for $10 more I could get 50/50, which would surely tax the Pi.
There is some serious bandwidth limits for the Pi though. You can loose up to 50% to overhead. The remaining 120Mbps is split between the NIC and the USB drive, so the best you can count on is about 60Mbps. The way USB works it requires a LOT of overhead processor load and the Pi is pretty limited in that area, so even a total of 120Mbps might be a stretch for it. I'm not saying it won't work, only that you might want to consider something with a bit more oomph.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now that they don't make and sell them in Mexico anymore, getting parts for that Beetle is going to get progressively more and more expensive. Where I love these cars (I've owned three in my life time), they are maintenance nightmares compared to your average auto on the show room floor today. Every 3,000 miles you simply MUST do four things... 1. Change the Oil, 2. Adjust the valves, 3. Adjust the brakes, 4. Check the timing. I had the process down to about 30 min every 2 months or so, but this is going to be a problem for most people who can't do this themselves. Valve adjustments require the engine to be totally cool, so if you don't do it yourself, you are going to leave your car with the mechanic at least overnight. Not doing valve adjustments is a sure fire way of burning a vale/seat and buying yourself some serious engine work.
For most people, this maintenance schedule is just too much.... For me, it was great when I was young, but now when getting off my back on the ground is starting to be somewhat of a question, it's not so great.
Really? You have to tell your DHCP server the MAC of every device on your network?
Unless you're using static assignments ("reservations"), then you don't need to tell the server anything at all. The "MAC" of the device can change, btw. (different NIC, wireless vs. wired, etc.) And a MAC isn't the only thing the server can use. (in fact, I'm cursing Sun for the ALOM using the serial number instead of MAC for it's client-id.)
For heaven's sake, so are we doing away with ARP tables now? Read what I wrote.. IF YOU CARE about which phone is which, then MAC's are something you will need to know at some level.
Look, in order to respond to ANY DHCP request (or pass ANY packets over layer 2 for that matter) you MUST know the MAC address of the destination (or be doing a broadcast to everybody on the segment). IPv6 doesn't mess with layer 2, you still need to know the MAC of the destination you are trying to send that packet to. If you care who's phone is who's, then you (at some level) will need to know the MAC address of each.
This is why you want internet to be a government owned and operated service, like the highways. That way if you don't like your service you can at least vote for change, unlike now where your only option more money.
Seriously now... That's NOT a viable answer to this problem.. Roads are a unique solution, and in some places the level of service they provide is horrible. (Like LA during "rush hour"). No, I don't want THAT kind of service from my ISP.
If you want to start talking about doing stuff like we did to get electricity and phones into rural America using private investment though favorable regulations, say give out tax abatements for "last mile" infrastructure owners who allow third party use of their networks at competitive rates, or forbid the owner of the "last mile" infrastructure from actually selling to retail customers, you'd be on to something...
And why should that make it acceptable to not care about the longer term consequences?
It doesn't, but it does take the urgency out of the argument, which is my point there. We are NOT running out of oil, so making the argument that *we* need to deal with this issue with urgency is wrong. No we don't, there is plenty of time to work on the technology.
In my experience (for what it's worth) it is usually plainly obvious that you are working at a place that doesn't share your morals and ethics long before you get into a situation where it's quit or agree to do something unethical. It's hard sometimes though to just up and jump ship, depending on the job market and your personal situation. My advice is to start looking around once it's obvious, because if they do unethical things to others, they will do them to you. You may not be able to leave right now, but do PLAN to leave as soon as you can.
I've had to quit but one job for this kind of thing. I did it with no place to go, a wife 9 months pregnant a local job market that looked as bleak as I can imagine. It wasn't easy at the time, but it clearly was the right thing to do in hindsight. I just wish I had planned ahead and had another option on the table before I got forced into jumping. So I understand why it's sometimes necessary to hold your nose and do what you are told, and I don't begrudge the IT worker for choosing to stay.
Yea, but what do I care? They won't send a dime of the fine to me....
- reminds me of something a previous President said - he had to violate free market principles to save the free market... And oh how you all laughed when he said it, now you borrowed his logic.
Utopia is always sold that way... And always with the same results.
You cannot throttle me, I have unlimited usage, it's in the contract! Quick, somebody turn them into the FCC for a fine or two.... Oh, you say it's just network congestion? Fat chance that's true, I want my NETFLIX to stream at the full 4K resolution or else.....
Gaming on Android? Oh my.
He did say it was for losers...
That's excellent news for those 15 users.
Surely you exaggerate a bit.... I turned in my Widows phone nearly 7 years ago now.
Surely the MAC address is still unique... IPv6 doesn't mess with layer 2 on down.... If you really care who's phone is who's, you have to set up layer 2 to be secure anyway, so you are going to need to know, in advance, who's MAC is who's. You'd need that knowledge for a DHCP server too... Nothing really changes here...
What a waste of address space... That many PUBLIC IP's? What a mess that must be.
Personally, I don't know why ANYBODY not running a server would even want an public IP and not behind a NAT. It's way too dangerous, even with a modern firewall and security settings. Yea, sure your torrent client might have issues, but what are you downloading with that anyway?
It's clear to me that the mail server at Clinton.com ate them..... Blame Hillary! (Well that and a route error)
Hey, Three Mile Island wasn't that big of an environmental issue. As it turned out, the radiation released from the plant was extremely small. It was, however, a serious economic issue for the operator.
The US produce somewhere around 19% of the world wide carbon emission. Are we taking over the world to enforce this plan? Russia and China are going to do what ever the hell they want.
We will reach out to them of course, and ask them to volunteer to comply with the emission reductions.
They will of course tell us to pound sand... Or better yet, agree to the emission caps, then hold us to ours while ignoring theirs...
Lately "clean" just means "zero carbon."
and mentions that he likes fracking for natural gas because it's domestic, fairly clean and we have a lot of it, that's the politician I'm going to pay attention to
Fracking is far from "environmentally responsible"...
How's that? Pumping stuff a few miles into the ground is somehow dangerous to the environment? Fracking isn't anymore dangerous than plain drilling.
Why are 6 billion people likely to starve due to a 35-year plan to remove fossil fuels? That sounds like a grossly unrealistic consequence at first brush.
It's called fertilizer.... MOST of it we use today come from Fossil fuel based sources...
What's the timeline you consider realistic?
Honestly 35 years to get rid of fossils doesn't seem insane to me. Except I don't have an obvious replacement in mind for airplane fuel, but that's sort of trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Just suggesting we "get rid" of fossil fuels is going to be pretty much insane. Aircraft fuel is the least of your worries, it's just kerosene and any flammable liquid can generally be used in a turbine if you refine it well enough, so pick anything else you want to burn. We just use kerosene because it has a lot of energy for it's volume and weight..
What you CANNOT replace is the generation of fertilizers which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If you don't solve this problem FIRST, you are going to kill off a substantial portion of the population though starvation when you turn off the fossil fuels.
He's unlikely to make it past the Iowa caucuses if that's what he's banking his whole campaign on.
Don't underestimate the pull of the "ethanol as motor fuel" lobby and the corn farmer of Iowa..
Do you leftists have a death wish?
No.
Oh but you do....
You can't control climate.
We aren't talking about controlling climate. We are talking about arresting a sudden impetus for rapid climate change.
You don't have poof that global warming is man made, yet you think man can stop it? And before you get all up in arms, remember "Correlation does not imply causation." And don't forget that the climate has been though some pretty large swings in the past eons, none of which where possibly caused by man.
There is no viable substitute for petroleum.
Then we are doomed because petroleum is not limitless. The cost will creep ever further from the average person's reach, then even from the rich's reach.
Unless we can manufacture more petroleum. The only way to do that, is with an energy source greater than the energy of the petroleum we're making...
(even other fossils can replace petroleum)
But for your lifetime and that of your grandkids it is limitless, in practice. Fossil fuels are laying around in abundance, even after a century of burring them. It's not like fossil fuels will just one day be all gone. They will slowly get more and more expensive over time as the "easy" stuff gets used up, then new technology will come along (like fracking) that make production of more areas profitable, opening up larger and larger supplies. Yes, eventually their use will slow down, but there is little chance we will just wake up one day and they will be all gone.
Get over it.
No. I'm not going to submit to a life of misery.
Nuclear power + renewables can relatively easily replace petroleum in just about everything except our flying machines (helicopters, airplanes, space launch vehicles) and emergency backup generators. Improved battery technology can help replace backup generators.
You leave out the MOST important factor.. CONVERSATION, we simply must be more efferent above all else. I don't oppose any of the above, but I also don't want to artificially just up and stop using fossil fuels. It is economic suicide to unilaterally eschew fossil fuels and I see no reason to do it, unless you just want to sacrifice yourself for the rest of the world's benefit and if you don't mind the death and destruction that will surely follow..
So there it is, your "death wish" as it where. You want to commit economic suicide, which will end up killing millions of innocents though war, famine and pestilence that is held at bay though our "dependence" on Fossil fuels. Bring on the sea level rise, I much prefer it to the world running amok while we are trying to go "clean" energy..
Now when some candidate comes out and starts saying things like "environmentally responsible energy sources" and mentions that he likes fracking for natural gas because it's domestic, fairly clean and we have a lot of it, that's the politician I'm going to pay attention to.
Well, it's better than coal but worse than just about everything else.
There you go, making stuff up... Or perhaps redefining stuff? In what way is NG "worse" than just about everything else? NG is pretty clean stuff, energy efficient to transport, and apart from CO2 has pretty low emissions when properly burned.
One more data point... There are actual observed Pi to storage bandwidths to report here. The *best* transfer rate noted was about 32Mbps, when running just the storage device on the USB bus. Half of that is about 16Mbps which is something that my internet connection could easily swamp. The data is here: http://www.mikronauts.com/rasp...
It should read....
The Presidential Candidate With a Plan To RUIN the US Economy by Depending On 100% Clean Energy
This is politics at it's best, say something which everybody agrees with, even if it's not possible. Claim you have a plan! We can pass a law! Never mind that what you are promising is simply not possible.
There is no such thing as "CLEAN" energy on an industrial scale. Literally EVERYTHING has negative environmental impact. You simply cannot avoid it. Of course you can just declare that some technology is clean (i.e. "Clean Coal") if you want, but that doesn't make it so, nor does it mean you fulfilled your promise.
Now when some candidate comes out and starts saying things like "environmentally responsible energy sources" and mentions that he likes fracking for natural gas because it's domestic, fairly clean and we have a lot of it, that's the politician I'm going to pay attention to. The guy that starts talking about conservation of the energy we now use is more likely to get my vote than this nut job. They are thinking about the issue, not just dropping politically correct phrases on us.
You will effectively be limited to 1/2 of USB 2.0 speed (or less) because the Pi's network connection is via the single USB connection which is shared by that USB drive
Hi-Speed USB is nominally 480 Mbps half duplex and practically reaches half of that. If the storage shares a bus with a NIC, it could still saturate 120 Mbps. Home Internet is typically 3 to 50 Mbps down, and if you don't have a symmetric service like Verizon/Frontier FiOS, you get far less than that up.
Perhaps, but if you have this on your local network you will not be subject to the bandwidth limits of your ISP. I would usually be at home with most of my devices anyway, so I'm limited to the 802.1a/n link speed, which is going to fully push the Pi beyond it's limits. BTW, my FIOS connection is 25/25bps so, in my case I think it would be possible to nearly saturate the USB buss/CPU load of a Pi remotely, and for $10 more I could get 50/50, which would surely tax the Pi.
There is some serious bandwidth limits for the Pi though. You can loose up to 50% to overhead. The remaining 120Mbps is split between the NIC and the USB drive, so the best you can count on is about 60Mbps. The way USB works it requires a LOT of overhead processor load and the Pi is pretty limited in that area, so even a total of 120Mbps might be a stretch for it. I'm not saying it won't work, only that you might want to consider something with a bit more oomph.