Doesn't sound to me like an obvious win for solar power
It is an obvious win, because you are failing to compound the savings.
He can invest the savings on electricity each year and substantially increase his ROR.
The IRR formula does NOT account for the potential re-investment of interim cash flows.
Not to mention the the ever increasing cost of grid power. The savings given in the original IRR seem to assume a static grid power rate, which is highly unlikely.
Incorrect. Had you said you only get one port 443 per public IP, I wouldn't have an issue, but HTTP traffic is easy to "route".
I hearby declare Squid's reverse proxy mode as another form of NAT and wave my hands at it.:-)
Heh. I suppose it could be called such. In a way.
Every tool has a purpose. NAT is fine for a home, a small business, or an arbitrarily large network of strictly client computers.
I'd still provisionally disagree. NAT breaks things that homes, small businesses, and even strictly client networks might like to use (such as P2P and VOIP).
I figure, once you start a P2P application (or are the recipient of a VOIP call), you are no longer strictly a client. For homes and small businesses, port forwarding is a workable (if inelegant) solution.
But guess what, if you understand NAT, you will NEVER have to upgrade past IPv4, because you will NEVER run out of IP Addresses. NAT is just the flexible approach to the problem that alot of people don't like because they don't understand.
Meanwhile, back in reality...
In abstract, NAT treats addr+port as a 48-bit address, so you're effectively trading ports for address. That means you only get one port 80 per public IP, so forget having more than one webserver (unless you can somehow get your visitors to go to http://www.example.com:8080/ ).
Incorrect. Had you said you only get one port 443 per public IP, I wouldn't have an issue, but HTTP traffic is easy to "route".
Every P2P app, every Skype, every game server, every random application you want to post has to have a unique port number across your entire network.
Can you really not see why that sucks in comparison to IPv6 which lets every machine on your LAN listen on the whole 2^16 port range as your firewall allows?
No argument from me here.
People who don't understand NAT at all like IPv6. People who only barely understand it, like yourself, think IPv4+NAT is spiffy. People who actually understand NAT and what it implies think that it needs to be taken out back and shot.
Every tool has a purpose. NAT is fine for a home, a small business, or an arbitrarily large network of strictly client computers.
Again, why? Is it a gender stereotype issue (girl's things should be pink and have princesses), or do you have another reason for the non-car, non-robot, non-tool preference?
If it is a gender stereotype issue, what is the driver behind it for you? If not, this line of questioning is moot.
In any case, I am genuinely curious as to the reason for the original statement. Obviously, if you are disinclined to answer such personal questions on a public forum, I can certainly understand.
So, something hurts people because said something is illegal, so we should make said something legal.
Shall we do that with robbery, burglary, murder, rape, child molestation, or just crimes you like commit?
If robbery, burglary, murder, rape and/or child molestation were made LESS harmful (in aggregate and/or incident) by being legal, I'd say it would merit discussion. Since the harm they cause is not tied to the legality, but inherent in the actions involved, the comparison you draw is disjunctive.
When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?
That's certainly the most likely possibility.
On the other hand, perhaps you won't be allowed to return...
Demand that all service providers act as common carriers, or "dumb pipes", if you will. To insure access for everybody, the basic infrastructure must be managed by a publicly accountable entity, the government, just like the roads. And these "roads" must accept all kinds of traffic. No tiering, no filtering, none of that.
Where do you live that your roads have no limitations on the kinds of vehicle that can use them? Try to drive a motorized bar stool down the highway, while reflecting on how car analogies just don't work.
Such capability is very useful to network folks to predict application behavior and best management approaches in various environments. We used FreeBSD for that purpose, but the effect was the same. We injected 350ms latency in each direction, and presto - satellite communication. That is enough to cripple TCP connectivity through a sizable pipe (latency will preclude the flow from taking entire pipe). By testing various acceleration methodologies, you can see first hand which one will allow you to fully utilize the bandwidth you are paying for, all in the comfort of your lab.
I understand that from an intuitive point of view, it looks weird as it seems natural that a hummer with huge tires would get a better grip on the street than a dinky little car, but the issue of sliding is more a question of friction, and these car were designed to grip the road. Their wheels are placed "SMART"ly and the weight is "SMART"ly distributed.
I'd posit that in the example of the SMART or the Mini versus the Hummer or Jeep, it's less a function of friction (the Hummer and Jeep are going to have more tire contact and therefore more friction) but instead a matter of inertia. Less mass, therefore less inertia and less chance of overcoming what friction is available.
Once the court system starts saying, "Well, this guy may or may not be innocent, but he sure does deserve to be in prison," we're all screwed. Initially, only about half of us are screwed, (the people who voted for the other guy) but eventually we all will be.
Actually if voting for the other guy is what it takes to be put in the "screwed" category, less than a quarter of us will be screwed, since fewer than half choose to vote.
If it's the case that the Libertarian Party is essentially too uncompromising on ideals in order to function in the real world, isn't there a middle ground somewhere? Some party that says "yes, we really do love liberty, and we recognize that it requires responsibility, but here are some concessions that we recognize must be made for the real world". Who is that party?
If the substance of the provided link is true, then it is poor evidence of previous submarine collisions.
"An article on the US Navy's website posted by Captain 1st Rank (Ret.) Igor Kurdin (former XO of K-219) and Lieutenant Commander Wayne Grasdock denied any collision between K-219 and Augusta. Captain Britanov himself also denies a collision. He has stated he was not asked to be a guest speaker at Russian functions because he refuses to follow the Russian government's interpretation of the K-219 incident."
It's not just being paid off - external television antennas were part of those laws too.
The whole thing is disgusting to me though. We're not living in any semblance of a free country when your neighbors can tell you what things you can and can't have on your property simply because they don't look pretty.
It is a free enough country that you can choose to live somewhere that's not bound by association rules. It is a free enough country that some groups feel the need for additional rules and regulations. The Federal restrictions on what those rules can and can not enforce are actually limits on a citizen's freedom.
That's exactly how the fictional Trinity uses it. In a sequence that flashes on screen for a few scant seconds, the green phosphor text of Trinity's computer clearly shows Nmap being run against the IP address 10.2.2.2, and finding an open port number 22, correctly identified as the SSH service used to log into computers remotely.
"I was definitely pretty excited when I saw it," says "Fyodor," the 25-year-old author of Nmap. "I think compared to previous movies that had any kind of hacking content, you could generally assume it's going to be some kind of stupid 3D graphics show." blockquote>
Trinity didn't use nmap. Seriously, she didn't have the time. The hacking was performed by the original team sent in to do the job. She just executed a simple command on a compromised system.
Just like a manager, they did all the hard work, she took all the credit.
Hmm, at 4K DB IOPS for $719 that compares very favorably with my SAN 250K DB IOPS for ~$250K. Now for the same 7.5TB of RAID10 storage it would cost $337,050 without controllers so the SAN still wins out, but things are getting very interesting. I would expect to see drives like this make it into a high performance storage tier from SAN vendors very soon if they don't already have such an option in their lineup.
I wonder how many of today's/.'ers remember doing this. To the best of my hazy recollection, I never had a "single sided" disk fail to format both sides.
When I first heard about it, I used a second disc to mark the location and an X-acto knife to cut the slot. I recall it being several months before tools to cut the slots started showing up in computer stores.
I also recall discussions about whether spinning the disk "backwards" would dislodge dirt trapped in the liner and cause premature failure of the disk. In hindsight it sure didn't seem to.
At least on the Apple II the hole location and shape was pretty forgiving. A hole punch in about the right area would make the disk flip-able. If you missed the first time, taking another bite out would fix it. Some cellophane tape would write protect it again.
While I have had similar thoughts in the past, I can't necessarily find anything unconstitutional about this. Congress has offered immunity in the past for people who claim the Fifth Amendment while testifying, not to mention States Evidence mob trials. While I don't like it, it seems to kind of the opposite of Ex Post Facto. I am also not a constitutional scholar, and hate the idea that these guys can get off scott free, but there is precident to limitation of liability, which has seemed to be upheld in the past. Can someone please convince me constitutionally that I am wrong? I'd love to be in this case.
I am not a lawyer. This is (quite obviously) not a legal argument.
What good is The Constitution if the "rules" it defines can be mitigated by passing an amnesty law? Granting one time immunity for breaking non-constitutional laws, in exchange for testimony is nothing like passing an amendment to a law that effectively states that these telecommunications companies, in following executive order, even if it was in violation of Constitutional law, did nothing illegal and can not be punished for it.
Right, I understand that the administration does what it wants ignoring the consitution, and I want to see them jailed for it. And I understand that telecoms were complicit in that. That's about all I know about the case right now.
It seems a bit different from someone driving the getaway car for a bank heist, if nothing else in scale of the crime.
Yeah. The scale was much greater on the part of the telecoms.
Have any laws been broken by the telecos? Is there a law saying that you must obey the constitution even when ordered not to by the government?
Yes. It's called the Constitution. Said document is the supreme law of the United States. It lays the foundation for all other laws. Violating it is by definition "breaking the law".
There is a law against aiding and abetting someone who robs a bank, but I would imagine there's no law against aiding the president when he urinates on the constitution. Is it that they broke privacy laws without a proper warant?
And this is why the whole thing was allowed to pass. Ignorance. There are no privacy laws per se. Just an amendment to the Constitution which "specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court." source
It seems to me that if I were the owner of a telecom company, and some government agent or the president was telling me to turn over documents, I'd consult my lawyers, sure, but if they came back with "Uh... we really have no clue as to what you should do, there's not much precedent here..." then what?
You fire the stupid lawyers, and find some better ones. The "following orders" defense has been attempted and found to be lacking.
If this was a case of the executive branch saying "We passed this law that says you have to turn over these documents to us or you're going to jail, we don't need a warrant," what is the teleco supposed to do?
Tell the executive branch that they are not allowed to pass laws. That's what I would do...
Claim powers of judicial review, say the president is being unconstitutional, and no?
For the record, I think that complicity (cooperation, even) in violating the constitution is fairly self-explanitory as an illegal action.
If the telcos didn't do anything illegal,...
Why do they want immunity? Why object to this case?
But given the supposition that it wasn't illegal, being given explicit immunity would alleviate the telecoms from bearing the cost of the lawsuits determining that the actions were legal.
Construction zones on the interstate that slow you from 75 to 55 are a culprit. Can someone explain the logic in taking a fast speed, slowing it down to just a slightly slower but still fast speed, and making people slow down when the construction itself is over a 100 feet from the interstate, with concrete barriers blocking the interstate from the construction?
Kinetic energy rises linearly with mass, but exponentially with velocity. Plus it makes a great spot to stage a speed trap. Mix in double traffic fines in a construction zone and you've got a serious revenue generator. But I might be jaded.
Slashdot Mirror
Statistically [pedophiles] are the most likely to repeat offend.
There seems to be some contention on this point.
It is an obvious win, because you are failing to compound the savings.
He can invest the savings on electricity each year and substantially increase his ROR.
The IRR formula does NOT account for the potential re-investment of interim cash flows.
Not to mention the the ever increasing cost of grid power. The savings given in the original IRR seem to assume a static grid power rate, which is highly unlikely.
Incorrect. Had you said you only get one port 443 per public IP, I wouldn't have an issue, but HTTP traffic is easy to "route".
I hearby declare Squid's reverse proxy mode as another form of NAT and wave my hands at it. :-)
Heh. I suppose it could be called such. In a way.
Every tool has a purpose. NAT is fine for a home, a small business, or an arbitrarily large network of strictly client computers.
I'd still provisionally disagree. NAT breaks things that homes, small businesses, and even strictly client networks might like to use (such as P2P and VOIP).
I figure, once you start a P2P application (or are the recipient of a VOIP call), you are no longer strictly a client. For homes and small businesses, port forwarding is a workable (if inelegant) solution.
But guess what, if you understand NAT, you will NEVER have to upgrade past IPv4, because you will NEVER run out of IP Addresses. NAT is just the flexible approach to the problem that alot of people don't like because they don't understand.
Meanwhile, back in reality...
In abstract, NAT treats addr+port as a 48-bit address, so you're effectively trading ports for address. That means you only get one port 80 per public IP, so forget having more than one webserver (unless you can somehow get your visitors to go to http://www.example.com:8080/ ).
Incorrect. Had you said you only get one port 443 per public IP, I wouldn't have an issue, but HTTP traffic is easy to "route".
Every P2P app, every Skype, every game server, every random application you want to post has to have a unique port number across your entire network.
Can you really not see why that sucks in comparison to IPv6 which lets every machine on your LAN listen on the whole 2^16 port range as your firewall allows?
No argument from me here.
People who don't understand NAT at all like IPv6. People who only barely understand it, like yourself, think IPv4+NAT is spiffy. People who actually understand NAT and what it implies think that it needs to be taken out back and shot.
Every tool has a purpose. NAT is fine for a home, a small business, or an arbitrarily large network of strictly client computers.
Again, why? Is it a gender stereotype issue (girl's things should be pink and have princesses), or do you have another reason for the non-car, non-robot, non-tool preference?
If it is a gender stereotype issue, what is the driver behind it for you? If not, this line of questioning is moot.
In any case, I am genuinely curious as to the reason for the original statement. Obviously, if you are disinclined to answer such personal questions on a public forum, I can certainly understand.
You indicate hesitation at purchasing a Cars branded bed tent due to the fact that you have a girl child.
What branding/theme would you have preferred, and why?
So, something hurts people because said something is illegal, so we should make said something legal.
Shall we do that with robbery, burglary, murder, rape, child molestation, or just crimes you like commit?
If robbery, burglary, murder, rape and/or child molestation were made LESS harmful (in aggregate and/or incident) by being legal, I'd say it would merit discussion. Since the harm they cause is not tied to the legality, but inherent in the actions involved, the comparison you draw is disjunctive.
When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?
That's certainly the most likely possibility.
On the other hand, perhaps you won't be allowed to return...
FWIW I live in NH and all of my cars have vanity plates. Though only one of them is nerdy.
Your car looks more like a big cat...
Demand that all service providers act as common carriers, or "dumb pipes", if you will. To insure access for everybody, the basic infrastructure must be managed by a publicly accountable entity, the government, just like the roads. And these "roads" must accept all kinds of traffic. No tiering, no filtering, none of that.
Where do you live that your roads have no limitations on the kinds of vehicle that can use them? Try to drive a motorized bar stool down the highway, while reflecting on how car analogies just don't work.
Such capability is very useful to network folks to predict application behavior and best management approaches in various environments. We used FreeBSD for that purpose, but the effect was the same. We injected 350ms latency in each direction, and presto - satellite communication. That is enough to cripple TCP connectivity through a sizable pipe (latency will preclude the flow from taking entire pipe). By testing various acceleration methodologies, you can see first hand which one will allow you to fully utilize the bandwidth you are paying for, all in the comfort of your lab.
Even better, with dummynet on FreeBSD, you can add loss to the equation (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~jeffay/dirt/FAQ/comp249-001-F99/dummynet.html) to simulate a dirty satellite link (such as one in need of a re-peak). Good times...
I understand that from an intuitive point of view, it looks weird as it seems natural that a hummer with huge tires would get a better grip on the street than a dinky little car, but the issue of sliding is more a question of friction, and these car were designed to grip the road. Their wheels are placed "SMART"ly and the weight is "SMART"ly distributed.
I'd posit that in the example of the SMART or the Mini versus the Hummer or Jeep, it's less a function of friction (the Hummer and Jeep are going to have more tire contact and therefore more friction) but instead a matter of inertia. Less mass, therefore less inertia and less chance of overcoming what friction is available.
Once the court system starts saying, "Well, this guy may or may not be innocent, but he sure does deserve to be in prison," we're all screwed. Initially, only about half of us are screwed, (the people who voted for the other guy) but eventually we all will be.
Actually if voting for the other guy is what it takes to be put in the "screwed" category, less than a quarter of us will be screwed, since fewer than half choose to vote.
If it's the case that the Libertarian Party is essentially too uncompromising on ideals in order to function in the real world, isn't there a middle ground somewhere? Some party that says "yes, we really do love liberty, and we recognize that it requires responsibility, but here are some concessions that we recognize must be made for the real world". Who is that party?
Sounds like the Free State Project.
USS Agusta vs. Russian nuclear submarine: It's true, trust me
If the substance of the provided link is true, then it is poor evidence of previous submarine collisions.
"An article on the US Navy's website posted by Captain 1st Rank (Ret.) Igor Kurdin (former XO of K-219) and Lieutenant Commander Wayne Grasdock denied any collision between K-219 and Augusta. Captain Britanov himself also denies a collision. He has stated he was not asked to be a guest speaker at Russian functions because he refuses to follow the Russian government's interpretation of the K-219 incident."
It's not just being paid off - external television antennas were part of those laws too.
The whole thing is disgusting to me though. We're not living in any semblance of a free country when your neighbors can tell you what things you can and can't have on your property simply because they don't look pretty.
It is a free enough country that you can choose to live somewhere that's not bound by association rules. It is a free enough country that some groups feel the need for additional rules and regulations. The Federal restrictions on what those rules can and can not enforce are actually limits on a citizen's freedom.
*shrug*
while mostly being a steaming pile of shit compared to the original, it attempts to redeem itself by accurately using nmap in one scene
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/16/matrix_sequel_has_hacker_cred/
Trinity didn't use nmap. Seriously, she didn't have the time. The hacking was performed by the original team sent in to do the job. She just executed a simple command on a compromised system.
Just like a manager, they did all the hard work, she took all the credit.
Hmm, at 4K DB IOPS for $719 that compares very favorably with my SAN 250K DB IOPS for ~$250K. Now for the same 7.5TB of RAID10 storage it would cost $337,050 without controllers so the SAN still wins out, but things are getting very interesting. I would expect to see drives like this make it into a high performance storage tier from SAN vendors very soon if they don't already have such an option in their lineup.
You mean something like this?
Slashdot recently covered it even.
I wonder how many of today's /.'ers remember doing this. To the best of my hazy recollection, I never had a "single sided" disk fail to format both sides.
When I first heard about it, I used a second disc to mark the location and an X-acto knife to cut the slot. I recall it being several months before tools to cut the slots started showing up in computer stores.
I also recall discussions about whether spinning the disk "backwards" would dislodge dirt trapped in the liner and cause premature failure of the disk. In hindsight it sure didn't seem to.
At least on the Apple II the hole location and shape was pretty forgiving. A hole punch in about the right area would make the disk flip-able. If you missed the first time, taking another bite out would fix it. Some cellophane tape would write protect it again.
Good times.
Whatever you do, don't research Mena, AK
For what it's worth, AK is Alaska. AR is Arkansas. Seems highly relevant give the fact that Stevens "represents" AK, not AR.
While I have had similar thoughts in the past, I can't necessarily find anything unconstitutional about this. Congress has offered immunity in the past for people who claim the Fifth Amendment while testifying, not to mention States Evidence mob trials. While I don't like it, it seems to kind of the opposite of Ex Post Facto. I am also not a constitutional scholar, and hate the idea that these guys can get off scott free, but there is precident to limitation of liability, which has seemed to be upheld in the past. Can someone please convince me constitutionally that I am wrong? I'd love to be in this case.
I am not a lawyer. This is (quite obviously) not a legal argument.
What good is The Constitution if the "rules" it defines can be mitigated by passing an amnesty law? Granting one time immunity for breaking non-constitutional laws, in exchange for testimony is nothing like passing an amendment to a law that effectively states that these telecommunications companies, in following executive order, even if it was in violation of Constitutional law, did nothing illegal and can not be punished for it.
Right, I understand that the administration does what it wants ignoring the consitution, and I want to see them jailed for it. And I understand that telecoms were complicit in that. That's about all I know about the case right now.
It seems a bit different from someone driving the getaway car for a bank heist, if nothing else in scale of the crime.
Yeah. The scale was much greater on the part of the telecoms.
Have any laws been broken by the telecos? Is there a law saying that you must obey the constitution even when ordered not to by the government?
Yes. It's called the Constitution. Said document is the supreme law of the United States. It lays the foundation for all other laws. Violating it is by definition "breaking the law".
There is a law against aiding and abetting someone who robs a bank, but I would imagine there's no law against aiding the president when he urinates on the constitution. Is it that they broke privacy laws without a proper warant?
And this is why the whole thing was allowed to pass. Ignorance. There are no privacy laws per se. Just an amendment to the Constitution which "specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court." source
It seems to me that if I were the owner of a telecom company, and some government agent or the president was telling me to turn over documents, I'd consult my lawyers, sure, but if they came back with "Uh... we really have no clue as to what you should do, there's not much precedent here..." then what?
You fire the stupid lawyers, and find some better ones. The "following orders" defense has been attempted and found to be lacking.
If this was a case of the executive branch saying "We passed this law that says you have to turn over these documents to us or you're going to jail, we don't need a warrant," what is the teleco supposed to do?
Tell the executive branch that they are not allowed to pass laws. That's what I would do...
Claim powers of judicial review, say the president is being unconstitutional, and no?
Yes. That works too.
For the record, I think that complicity (cooperation, even) in violating the constitution is fairly self-explanitory as an illegal action.
If the telcos didn't do anything illegal,...
Why do they want immunity? Why object to this case?
But given the supposition that it wasn't illegal, being given explicit immunity would alleviate the telecoms from bearing the cost of the lawsuits determining that the actions were legal.
Following his death last year, a former student discovered the materials from those experiments, in labelled vials.
So the former student died, was placed in labeled vials and then made this discovery? That is simply astounding.
Construction zones on the interstate that slow you from 75 to 55 are a culprit. Can someone explain the logic in taking a fast speed, slowing it down to just a slightly slower but still fast speed, and making people slow down when the construction itself is over a 100 feet from the interstate, with concrete barriers blocking the interstate from the construction?
Kinetic energy rises linearly with mass, but exponentially with velocity. Plus it makes a great spot to stage a speed trap. Mix in double traffic fines in a construction zone and you've got a serious revenue generator. But I might be jaded.