This piece is by the New York Times editorial board, not a politician. Would you propose no one talk about the power of money in politics, just because it affects both parties? I, for one, would prefer that people talk about the corrupting influence of money on the political process whenever it occurs, so that, maybe some day, enough people will be fed up with it to do something about it.
That doesn't mean I support a politician with big money backers using the fact that his opponent accepts campaign contributions as a cheap ad hominem, however, but that's not what this is.
I don't think that is a good technical solution. First of all, after everyone decides how best to change to protocol to use extended addresses, you still have the same problem of having to upgrade existing equipment. You say that is is just a "trivial mod," but it's not like implementing IPv6 is particularly difficult---rolling out any modification whatsoever will be about as hard as switching to IPv6. However, with your suggestion, the situation is must less predicatable for users during the transition phase. As it stands, if two hosts have routed IPv6 addresses, they can talk to each other over IPv6, assuming someone hasn't made a serious error. With the "extended address" scheme you propose, if I have an extended address and I try to talk to another host, how do I know if I should be able to? Does the other host support extended addresses? Does every piece of routing equipment between me and them support extended addresses? How would I know these things, and what's to stop the routing table from changing and breaking a previously working path?
You are wrong. The Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund, for example, which is a very basic fund that does nothing but track the S&P 500 index, has had an average return of 11% since its inception in 1976.
IPv6 is designed with such a large address space specifically to make BGP tables smaller. One of the factors causing IPv4 tables to grow is that, since addresses are scarce, people are getting clever with how they allocate blocks, divvying things up very finely so as not to waste. Since BGP entries are by block, this creates many blocks that need routing. The IPv6 designers went with 128 bits of address not because they think they need room for 2^128 hosts, but because there will be enough room to divide blocks hierarchically and logically, "wasting" addresses all along the way. This will allow global routing tables to more accurately reflect the structure there is between ISPs, shrinking their size.
The GPL was a major model for software licensing long before the App Store existed. The burden is on Apply to ensure compatibility, but they clearly don't have any interest in doing so.
Agreed. I'm sick of comments like the GP in this sort of discussion. No one is asking whether they are legally obligated to keep hosting it, so why are so many people so quick to point out that they're not?
How would you like Slashdot to cover this? It's clearly within their scope, and they never claimed to have original journalism for these sorts of things, so they're left linking to other people's coverage. What Slashdot brings to the table is gathering these sorts of stories in one place and (more importantly) the comment section.
Power companies would consider that a win. The price shoots up because demand exceeds available supply. Encouraging this sort of behavior is exactly why they have the pricing structure they do.
No, he's not correct. If he wants to go into more detail about safety than the NHTSA does, or make claims on his own, that's fine. He might (possibly) even know more about car safety than they do. What he's doing though, it pointing to the NHTSA as an authority that's made a specific claim. The NHTSA isn't willing to stand by that claim, however, so he's being misleading at best, and lying at worst.
Irrelevant. You claim that the people in Guantanamo are soldiers in a defensive war against American aggression. The American agression continues, and there are still people defending against it. If we are treating the prisoners in Guantanamo as prisoners of war, we should hold them until the war is over.
Treating this as a war, and the prisoners in Guantanamo as POWs, is your characterization, not mine. I don't like Guantanamo because I don't think the framework of war and POWs applies nicely to this situation. For the most part, the prisoners at Guantanamo aren't fighting on behalf of a government, so there is no one to negotiate for their conditions and for their release. Furthermore, the "war" is ill-defined in many cases; it is especially unclear when it will be "over," because much of the fighting isn't against any government we can negotiate a treaty with.
Wait, so you're conceding that they're legitimate enemy combatants, but still have a problem with Guantanamo??? What do you think we should do with enemy soldiers captured on the field of battle? Per you, they haven't committed crimes, so a trial doesn't make sense. Should we just release people who are, per you, enemy soldiers?
I don't personally like Guantanamo, but you've chosen the wrong rhetoric...
So please! Keep kai-yai-yaiing about shills and bubbles. Your tears are delicious.
So has said every participant in every bubble ever. One of the hallmarks of a bubble is that no one knows how long it will last. Bubble or not, your reasoning is unconvincing.
Oh no, there's a scandal going on, so the president absolutely shouldn't do anything else until the scandal is completely resolved! And if it's something you like, that's even more sinister!
Say whatever you want about how much they may be in the same camp or agree philosophically, but Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence. The NSA is led by General Keith Alexander, the Director of the NSA, who reports to the Director of National Intelligence. If you're going to complain about who reports to who, at least know who reports to who...
Reading the article, they have a (human-created) statistical model for the specific words people will find funny in this one, exact type of joke. The only thing the "AI" is doing is analyzing word frequencies against this model. I suggest calling these "statistically-generated" jokes, or similar.
Slashdot Mirror
This piece is by the New York Times editorial board, not a politician. Would you propose no one talk about the power of money in politics, just because it affects both parties? I, for one, would prefer that people talk about the corrupting influence of money on the political process whenever it occurs, so that, maybe some day, enough people will be fed up with it to do something about it.
That doesn't mean I support a politician with big money backers using the fact that his opponent accepts campaign contributions as a cheap ad hominem, however, but that's not what this is.
I don't think that is a good technical solution. First of all, after everyone decides how best to change to protocol to use extended addresses, you still have the same problem of having to upgrade existing equipment. You say that is is just a "trivial mod," but it's not like implementing IPv6 is particularly difficult---rolling out any modification whatsoever will be about as hard as switching to IPv6. However, with your suggestion, the situation is must less predicatable for users during the transition phase. As it stands, if two hosts have routed IPv6 addresses, they can talk to each other over IPv6, assuming someone hasn't made a serious error. With the "extended address" scheme you propose, if I have an extended address and I try to talk to another host, how do I know if I should be able to? Does the other host support extended addresses? Does every piece of routing equipment between me and them support extended addresses? How would I know these things, and what's to stop the routing table from changing and breaking a previously working path?
This is not suitable for water safety, since you can't just drink alcohol to hydrate...
You are wrong. The Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund, for example, which is a very basic fund that does nothing but track the S&P 500 index, has had an average return of 11% since its inception in 1976.
IPv6 is designed with such a large address space specifically to make BGP tables smaller. One of the factors causing IPv4 tables to grow is that, since addresses are scarce, people are getting clever with how they allocate blocks, divvying things up very finely so as not to waste. Since BGP entries are by block, this creates many blocks that need routing. The IPv6 designers went with 128 bits of address not because they think they need room for 2^128 hosts, but because there will be enough room to divide blocks hierarchically and logically, "wasting" addresses all along the way. This will allow global routing tables to more accurately reflect the structure there is between ISPs, shrinking their size.
The GPL was a major model for software licensing long before the App Store existed. The burden is on Apply to ensure compatibility, but they clearly don't have any interest in doing so.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Let's not dilute the word by using it for other bad things.
Apparently a lot, since it's currently modded "Insightful."
Uncertain information, that's what's with it. Next question?
Agreed. I'm sick of comments like the GP in this sort of discussion. No one is asking whether they are legally obligated to keep hosting it, so why are so many people so quick to point out that they're not?
How would you like Slashdot to cover this? It's clearly within their scope, and they never claimed to have original journalism for these sorts of things, so they're left linking to other people's coverage. What Slashdot brings to the table is gathering these sorts of stories in one place and (more importantly) the comment section.
There are more efficient ways to transfer power around. They're called "wires."
Power companies would consider that a win. The price shoots up because demand exceeds available supply. Encouraging this sort of behavior is exactly why they have the pricing structure they do.
No, he's not correct. If he wants to go into more detail about safety than the NHTSA does, or make claims on his own, that's fine. He might (possibly) even know more about car safety than they do. What he's doing though, it pointing to the NHTSA as an authority that's made a specific claim. The NHTSA isn't willing to stand by that claim, however, so he's being misleading at best, and lying at worst.
Irrelevant. You claim that the people in Guantanamo are soldiers in a defensive war against American aggression. The American agression continues, and there are still people defending against it. If we are treating the prisoners in Guantanamo as prisoners of war, we should hold them until the war is over.
Treating this as a war, and the prisoners in Guantanamo as POWs, is your characterization, not mine. I don't like Guantanamo because I don't think the framework of war and POWs applies nicely to this situation. For the most part, the prisoners at Guantanamo aren't fighting on behalf of a government, so there is no one to negotiate for their conditions and for their release. Furthermore, the "war" is ill-defined in many cases; it is especially unclear when it will be "over," because much of the fighting isn't against any government we can negotiate a treaty with.
Presumably they would have access to much better funding at that point.
Private lotteries are illegal in (almost?) all US states.
Wait, so you're conceding that they're legitimate enemy combatants, but still have a problem with Guantanamo??? What do you think we should do with enemy soldiers captured on the field of battle? Per you, they haven't committed crimes, so a trial doesn't make sense. Should we just release people who are, per you, enemy soldiers?
I don't personally like Guantanamo, but you've chosen the wrong rhetoric...
...OVERALL TREND has been up...
...
So please! Keep kai-yai-yaiing about shills and bubbles. Your tears are delicious.
So has said every participant in every bubble ever. One of the hallmarks of a bubble is that no one knows how long it will last. Bubble or not, your reasoning is unconvincing.
No, what it is is too much real money. $20 per serial? For a 50-year old show? Seriously?
Oh no, there's a scandal going on, so the president absolutely shouldn't do anything else until the scandal is completely resolved! And if it's something you like, that's even more sinister!
Say whatever you want about how much they may be in the same camp or agree philosophically, but Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence. The NSA is led by General Keith Alexander, the Director of the NSA, who reports to the Director of National Intelligence. If you're going to complain about who reports to who, at least know who reports to who...
What? She's certainly just reading jokes some person wrote, not making them up.
Reading the article, they have a (human-created) statistical model for the specific words people will find funny in this one, exact type of joke. The only thing the "AI" is doing is analyzing word frequencies against this model. I suggest calling these "statistically-generated" jokes, or similar.
It can be what you want it to be (cheap sci-fi) and still be other things, too. It's not like half the air time would be dedicated to the topic...