Not only have you publicly paid 7 bucks for an over-sugared cup of burnt coffee, but you managed to do so in a way that let you flaunt your pimped iPhone!
And, clearly in no way shape or form would someone with a Blackberry ever do this... after all, it doesn't say right in TFS that this will also work on Blackberry's. And, they'd never be in the process of doing this for an Android phone either, as they would make no sense. What self respecting person with an Android would ever do this, what with all of the web servers they're running and neck-beards they're growing to show how anti-cool (and therefore cooler) they are?
Clearly, the only people ever doing this will be using iPhones and dressed in the requisite black turtle-neck, and the rest of the world will have to stand in line like chumps and pay with old fashioned money.
Oh, wait... no... Starbucks wants this available on every major smartphone so they can sell as much coffee as they can.
Regardless of your phone platform of choice... pretentious wankers of all stripes will soon be paying "7 bucks for an over-sugared cup of burnt coffee" via their phone.
Vent your spleen at Starbucks and its patrons, not the iPhone. I bet as many Blackberry's and Androids go in as iPhones.
There is no need for residential. mobile and small-office subscribers to use NAT for IPv6.
OK, but if I'm sitting behind my firewall/router, like I have for almost 10 years... I will still be NAT'ed to the outside world, won't I?
I better be. Because I can't imagine that an "upside" of IPv6 is that I'm hanging my ass out on the internet without being behind a firewall. Same goes for larger organizations. So, you're pretty much gonna be NAT'ed no matter what, no?.
Right now on my private network, my local address isn't routable to the rest of the internet, and nothing can come in. Surely I won't use the same address on my own network as I will on the internet.
What does the topology look like in IPv6 that NAT won't apply? And, for that matter, can I still run IPv4 inside my router behind an IPv6 address and still have everything be hunky dory (assuming the router can get an IPv6 address from the WAN)? Or do I need to move all of my machines to be IPv6?
Trust me -- if I don't get how this works, you can bet your ass that Joe User won't have clue.
As much as geeks may think it is a cluttered mess (and I personally use search.yahoo.com instead) for the average Joe it is the home page by a HUGE margin.
Wow. I had no idea it was still that widespread.
I'd assumed it had faded mostly into obscurity by now.:-P
*laugh* If only "something which already does this" was the discrimination to grant a patent or not... if you can patent "something we've been doing for hundreds of years, but with a computer", I fear this would be no deterrent.
Look, all I said is that I'm not personally aware of any offering from Yahoo that people still use besides Flickr... not that since I don't use it, it must be irrelevant. I don't use Facebook either, but it's clearly not irrelevant.
I'd happily accept the second half of your post and say "gee, thanks for the info, I didn't know that".
Why haven't we thought of taking advantage of this abundant, renewable and FREE resource before????
I believe we've been thinking of it for decades... but, apparently, it's hard to actually do on a large scale and affordably. At least, that's kinda the impression I've gotten over the years.
I've been doing 6to4 tunneling on a years old WRT54GL. If you have to buy a new router, blame the vendor of the old one for not providing a firmware update, because the hardware is certainly capable of it.
Oh, I'm in favor of it if you can do it in such a way that every home user doesn't find themselves with a broken network connection and no idea of what went wrong.
It just seems like it's been one of those things that has sat there for a very long time.
Not being a networking guy... I can't figure out if it's just because people are lazy, don't care, or if they would be negatively impacted/incur costs as a result of this.
It seems like IPv6 has been coming 'real soon now' for about as long as we've been expecting the Year of the Linux Desktop.:-P
So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?
No, but if they changed their infrastructure to no longer be compatible with your existing (and working) plumbing and expected you to pay to upgrade, you'd be mad, right?
One of the problems with IPv6 is everybody already has networking equipment that they've paid for and that works... I can't see much motivation for most people/organizations to switch to IPv6, especially if it means it breaks what they've already got. I can also see making everyday things like ping and telnet much more cumbersome.
All of the people with home routers and the like (and older operating systems) don't want to pay to upgrade for something which they don't understand what benefit it is supposed to give them. I must confess, except for a bigger address space, I'm not sure what benefit IPv6 has for *me* -- which is why IPv6 has been languishing in the "don't care pile" for seemingly forever.
If my ISP needs to change all of their cable-modems to support this, you can bet I'm gonna have to pay out of pocket.
Will Yahoo still have 1M users by year-end to shut out?
Notice it does say 'potential'.:-P
And, yes, I have to ask the same thing... I've not used Yahoo's search in over a decade (do they have one anymore?), and except for Flickr, I'm not aware of a single thing from Yahoo I might use.
I don't think that at all... I'm just surprised at how easy it is to sidestep the export restrictions.
"OK, we'll give you this super secret stuff, but you have to promise never to push this button, or it becomes dangerous and we aren't allowed to give you something dangerous."
What next, as long as you mark it as "gift" you can send them weapons?:-P
US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions
So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?
This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?
Even if God is not a useful concept in scientific reasoning, it nonetheless can be argued to have a place in other spheres of human reasoning such as ethics or metaphysics.
Which, oddly enough, aren't science and try to cover the same sphere as religion largely does -- though, often by focusing on being secular.
In this case, the poster was asking why the scientific default is atheism -- because god doesn't bring any additional information when you're trying to explain the physical world. So it doesn't get factored in.
Pay musicians their fair share so they will make music with originality, creativity, and integrity featuring talented musicians using actual instruments without autotuning bad vocals.
There are actual musicians out there who still do that, and entire record labels as well. In some cases it may still be electronic instruments, but that's what the band does.
Just because the pop-radio stuff is dreck doesn't mean that there aren't artists and labels out there who actually make good music. In fact, from what I've seen, there's far more good music out there that will never get radio play under the Clear Channel model than most people realize.
It all depends on your musical tastes and where you look. In this case, if you're willing to buy CDs from some of these lesser known labels, you WILL be paying musicians their fair share.
I don't listen to music on the radio. I buy CDs (new and used) and rip them to MP3 to play. I've probably bought 300+ CDs in the last 5 years, maybe more.
Now, I'm not buying the stuff that is current pop-radio singles, but I do pretty much only listen to music that I originally got on CD.
We don't need god to explain any of our science, so it's a needless term to the equation, and therefore you presume it to be irrelevant.
Nothing in science requires (or benefits) from including god, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion in purely scientific terms. So, trying to account for it gives you no net benefit.
If the scientific data suggested that we can't have even a rudimentary explanation of the world without god, the null hypothesis would be invalidated, and we would have discarded it by now.
Which is why science, at this point in time, takes the non-existence of god as a starting point -- because there is no evidence whatsoever that we need to account for it in scientific disciplines.
And vice-versa: =>The people who don't want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
Other than the circular argument that since we exist, someone must have made it so... what actual science supports the notion of a creator?
"Too complex to have happened on its own" is a cop out, and isn't science. It's untestable hokum. It essentially says "my theory is true because my theory says it is". The notion that something is "irreducibly complex" and therefore had to be created wholly intact is gibberish.
People who advocate Intelligent Design and Creationism couch voodoo in science terms and tell the rest of us it's our job to falsify your claims. Provide some evidence that supports your claim... I'm willing to listen.
To believe that science explains everything and that to believe in God is somehow ignorant is a terribly arrogant position....or ignorant.
You're not understanding what I've said.
I said the universe and reality exist as they are, and we can investigate them with science. I'm also saying that if religion summarily rejects science, then it's patently wrong.
Not only do I agree that science doesn't (and can't) speak to the "whys" and what is "good"... I'm saying it shouldn't try. I certainly don't believe science has (or ever will have) all of the answers.
I just think it's important to understand that they're answering what are largely different problem domains, and to be aware of which is which.
I most specifically am NOT saying belief in god is ignorant... I'm saying an ignorant belief in god which trumps science is ignorant, and trying to squish whatever that god might be into our limited understanding of things is arrogant on our behalf. People who claim to speak on behalf of god, or who constrain the possibility of him to their limited understanding of the physical world are the ones who are being arrogant.
Any being which could create the vast universe we live in isn't constrained by US.
For the most part, I agree... except that I would also argue that if a creator is outside of our science (and yet created our science), then our science is not the highest authority
From the perspective of science, if we can't see it, can't measure it, and don't know what it would be... we just ignore it, it simply doesn't add to the understanding.
Generally, I'd argue that science without God has some issues at it's foundation - why science works in the first place, aside from "because that's how it has always worked"
For the same reason that if you ask scientists what happened before the big bang, they'll shrug and say "we have no idea". Assuming that the physics only works because god made it so doesn't add anything to your understanding of the science. It just is... why it is can't be answered, so why try? At that point, it's a philosophical/religious question.
Science doesn't need to start with god as a starting point. And, if we completely exhaust knowing about everything else within the universe, then we can turn our attention to what might be outside. For now, we've got a lot of work to do with the bits we can measure.:-P
I disagree with your position. In my opinion, there are plenty of profoundly religious people that embrace science, art and theology as faces of the same truth
I won't refute that... they answer different questions on different facets of it, but I agree with what you say.
The problem is when theology claims scientific results and scientists make theological assumptions.
That's kind of what I was getting at... I don't believe science can definitely say anything about religion unless religion is saying wrong stuff about science. If 'god' made the universe, he made gravity and quantum physics and the whole shebang.
But, if religion goes around saying science isn't true because it conflicts with their world view... well, that's where I say religion needs to reconcile itself with science. Science can, and largely should, distance itself from the discussions on god until or unless we get any experimental data that lets us actually say anything on the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
And, clearly in no way shape or form would someone with a Blackberry ever do this ... after all, it doesn't say right in TFS that this will also work on Blackberry's. And, they'd never be in the process of doing this for an Android phone either, as they would make no sense. What self respecting person with an Android would ever do this, what with all of the web servers they're running and neck-beards they're growing to show how anti-cool (and therefore cooler) they are?
Clearly, the only people ever doing this will be using iPhones and dressed in the requisite black turtle-neck, and the rest of the world will have to stand in line like chumps and pay with old fashioned money.
Oh, wait ... no ... Starbucks wants this available on every major smartphone so they can sell as much coffee as they can.
Regardless of your phone platform of choice ... pretentious wankers of all stripes will soon be paying "7 bucks for an over-sugared cup of burnt coffee" via their phone.
Vent your spleen at Starbucks and its patrons, not the iPhone. I bet as many Blackberry's and Androids go in as iPhones.
OK, but if I'm sitting behind my firewall/router, like I have for almost 10 years ... I will still be NAT'ed to the outside world, won't I?
I better be. Because I can't imagine that an "upside" of IPv6 is that I'm hanging my ass out on the internet without being behind a firewall. Same goes for larger organizations. So, you're pretty much gonna be NAT'ed no matter what, no?.
Right now on my private network, my local address isn't routable to the rest of the internet, and nothing can come in. Surely I won't use the same address on my own network as I will on the internet.
What does the topology look like in IPv6 that NAT won't apply? And, for that matter, can I still run IPv4 inside my router behind an IPv6 address and still have everything be hunky dory (assuming the router can get an IPv6 address from the WAN)? Or do I need to move all of my machines to be IPv6?
Trust me -- if I don't get how this works, you can bet your ass that Joe User won't have clue.
Wow. I had no idea it was still that widespread.
I'd assumed it had faded mostly into obscurity by now. :-P
Cheers
*laugh* If only "something which already does this" was the discrimination to grant a patent or not ... if you can patent "something we've been doing for hundreds of years, but with a computer", I fear this would be no deterrent.
Why would VPN go away?
I'm pretty sure companies won't want to stop having a separate, encrypted network connection.
I don't understand why IPv6 obviates the VPN.
We've been using coal for thousands of years for various purposes.
It may have become more prevalent, but fossil fuels have been in use for a long time.
No more than you're an asshole.
Look, all I said is that I'm not personally aware of any offering from Yahoo that people still use besides Flickr ... not that since I don't use it, it must be irrelevant. I don't use Facebook either, but it's clearly not irrelevant.
I'd happily accept the second half of your post and say "gee, thanks for the info, I didn't know that".
Yeah, we should probably just stop trying. After all, we'd stop being disappointed that way.
"You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'."
He could be acutely aware of that, and still have a valid question.
Since gardening doesn't prevent patenting what's described in TFA, he's perfectly correct.
I believe we've been thinking of it for decades ... but, apparently, it's hard to actually do on a large scale and affordably. At least, that's kinda the impression I've gotten over the years.
Oh, I'm in favor of it if you can do it in such a way that every home user doesn't find themselves with a broken network connection and no idea of what went wrong.
It just seems like it's been one of those things that has sat there for a very long time.
Not being a networking guy ... I can't figure out if it's just because people are lazy, don't care, or if they would be negatively impacted/incur costs as a result of this.
It seems like IPv6 has been coming 'real soon now' for about as long as we've been expecting the Year of the Linux Desktop. :-P
No, but if they changed their infrastructure to no longer be compatible with your existing (and working) plumbing and expected you to pay to upgrade, you'd be mad, right?
One of the problems with IPv6 is everybody already has networking equipment that they've paid for and that works ... I can't see much motivation for most people/organizations to switch to IPv6, especially if it means it breaks what they've already got. I can also see making everyday things like ping and telnet much more cumbersome.
All of the people with home routers and the like (and older operating systems) don't want to pay to upgrade for something which they don't understand what benefit it is supposed to give them. I must confess, except for a bigger address space, I'm not sure what benefit IPv6 has for *me* -- which is why IPv6 has been languishing in the "don't care pile" for seemingly forever.
If my ISP needs to change all of their cable-modems to support this, you can bet I'm gonna have to pay out of pocket.
Do not point hookah at one remaining eye. :-P
Notice it does say 'potential'. :-P
And, yes, I have to ask the same thing ... I've not used Yahoo's search in over a decade (do they have one anymore?), and except for Flickr, I'm not aware of a single thing from Yahoo I might use.
I see it at least once a week here on Slashdot.
Decide for yourself what that means. :-P
I don't think that at all ... I'm just surprised at how easy it is to sidestep the export restrictions.
"OK, we'll give you this super secret stuff, but you have to promise never to push this button, or it becomes dangerous and we aren't allowed to give you something dangerous."
What next, as long as you mark it as "gift" you can send them weapons? :-P
So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?
This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?
Which, oddly enough, aren't science and try to cover the same sphere as religion largely does -- though, often by focusing on being secular.
In this case, the poster was asking why the scientific default is atheism -- because god doesn't bring any additional information when you're trying to explain the physical world. So it doesn't get factored in.
There are actual musicians out there who still do that, and entire record labels as well. In some cases it may still be electronic instruments, but that's what the band does.
Just because the pop-radio stuff is dreck doesn't mean that there aren't artists and labels out there who actually make good music. In fact, from what I've seen, there's far more good music out there that will never get radio play under the Clear Channel model than most people realize.
It all depends on your musical tastes and where you look. In this case, if you're willing to buy CDs from some of these lesser known labels, you WILL be paying musicians their fair share.
Some of us still do.
I don't listen to music on the radio. I buy CDs (new and used) and rip them to MP3 to play. I've probably bought 300+ CDs in the last 5 years, maybe more.
Now, I'm not buying the stuff that is current pop-radio singles, but I do pretty much only listen to music that I originally got on CD.
For some of us, having the CD is important.
Because that's what a null hypothesis means.
We don't need god to explain any of our science, so it's a needless term to the equation, and therefore you presume it to be irrelevant.
Nothing in science requires (or benefits) from including god, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion in purely scientific terms. So, trying to account for it gives you no net benefit.
If the scientific data suggested that we can't have even a rudimentary explanation of the world without god, the null hypothesis would be invalidated, and we would have discarded it by now.
Which is why science, at this point in time, takes the non-existence of god as a starting point -- because there is no evidence whatsoever that we need to account for it in scientific disciplines.
Other than the circular argument that since we exist, someone must have made it so ... what actual science supports the notion of a creator?
"Too complex to have happened on its own" is a cop out, and isn't science. It's untestable hokum. It essentially says "my theory is true because my theory says it is". The notion that something is "irreducibly complex" and therefore had to be created wholly intact is gibberish.
People who advocate Intelligent Design and Creationism couch voodoo in science terms and tell the rest of us it's our job to falsify your claims. Provide some evidence that supports your claim ... I'm willing to listen.
You're not understanding what I've said.
I said the universe and reality exist as they are, and we can investigate them with science. I'm also saying that if religion summarily rejects science, then it's patently wrong.
Not only do I agree that science doesn't (and can't) speak to the "whys" and what is "good" ... I'm saying it shouldn't try. I certainly don't believe science has (or ever will have) all of the answers.
I just think it's important to understand that they're answering what are largely different problem domains, and to be aware of which is which.
I most specifically am NOT saying belief in god is ignorant ... I'm saying an ignorant belief in god which trumps science is ignorant, and trying to squish whatever that god might be into our limited understanding of things is arrogant on our behalf. People who claim to speak on behalf of god, or who constrain the possibility of him to their limited understanding of the physical world are the ones who are being arrogant.
Any being which could create the vast universe we live in isn't constrained by US.
From the perspective of science, if we can't see it, can't measure it, and don't know what it would be ... we just ignore it, it simply doesn't add to the understanding.
For the same reason that if you ask scientists what happened before the big bang, they'll shrug and say "we have no idea". Assuming that the physics only works because god made it so doesn't add anything to your understanding of the science. It just is ... why it is can't be answered, so why try? At that point, it's a philosophical/religious question.
Science doesn't need to start with god as a starting point. And, if we completely exhaust knowing about everything else within the universe, then we can turn our attention to what might be outside. For now, we've got a lot of work to do with the bits we can measure. :-P
Cheers
I won't refute that ... they answer different questions on different facets of it, but I agree with what you say.
That's kind of what I was getting at ... I don't believe science can definitely say anything about religion unless religion is saying wrong stuff about science. If 'god' made the universe, he made gravity and quantum physics and the whole shebang.
But, if religion goes around saying science isn't true because it conflicts with their world view ... well, that's where I say religion needs to reconcile itself with science. Science can, and largely should, distance itself from the discussions on god until or unless we get any experimental data that lets us actually say anything on the topic.