I'm glad someone mentioned this, I was reading though the comments in order to make the same observation (specifically probabilistic epigenetics, cf. Gottlieb).
It is especially interesting given the similar examples in that field, such as monkeys not being afraid of snakes if they eat just fruit instead of insects.
Non-obvious causes may be just as influential as those obvious ones everyone is always on about.
I often hear that.. what's so ugly? NAT only causes problems for applications that would have a devil of a job getting through a firewall anyway - if a stateful firewall can handle it it can NAT it. But can you address it?
IPv6 will definitely help here. Also, try merging two corporate networks that use the same private (NAT, rfc1918, whatever) address space. Eek.
Change a line or two in dhcp server. Wait 24 hours (do this over the weekend). Job done.
Alternatively, if the admin didn't use dhcp... fire admin, hire new one, get him to do it. I wish it was that simple. Some things like routers, switches, etc. need to have static internal ips.
the rest of the world seems to have no problems with its much smaller usage. This part is false. China and Japan are actively adopting ipv6 right now since they are feeling squeezed by their current ipv4 allocation.
By the way, as far as current ipv4 space goes, allocation exhaustion is predicted to be March 2009.
but WHAT the heck problem was it supposed to originally solve, again? This is a sore point with ipv6 people, since many of the problems it intends to solve is doesn't solve so well, like security. But it does at least solve the address space problem.
Is NAT not going to keep us from eventually running out of IPv4 addresses, or some other workaround that sort of namespaces different subnets of the Internet? NAT is an ugly hack already. If we try to extend it, it's not going to get prettier:). NAT also causes problems for applications and general connectivity. I like to run my own mail server. If I'm doing NAT and I want to have a mail server inside the NAT'd network (I use a public address though), I can poke a hole with a port forward. What do you think will happen if the ISP is giving me a NAT'd address instead? Widescale NAT means no servers for anyone, or makes having a server of some kind very difficult.
Do sysadmins at big corporations really WANT every one of their machines to have an address that is uniquely addressable from anywhere on the Internet? Will this help to solve issues such as VPN'ing behind a firewall, etc.? IPv6 will definitely help here. Also, try merging two corporate networks that use the same private (NAT, rfc1918, whatever) address space. Eek.
This will probably be redundant by the time I end up posting, but then again, maybe not.
It seems like there are a few things that are causing confusion. Also, I want to rant about ipv6 adoption.
First of all, this looks like it's probably the printer's (or printer driver's) fault and not Microsoft's.
Second, about ipv6 in general...
It hurts me a bit to see people saying "Just disable ipv6 whenever you install vista." I think MS is doing a great thing by enabling ipv6 by default. If the instructions to support desk people, or some "best practice" becomes to disable ipv6 right away, ipv6 will take *another* 10 years to enter the mainstream.
This is pretty bad considering that ipv4 addresses are running out in the next 5 years.
It is exactly these kind of firmware/driver bugs (not having ipv6 support in a network appliance should now be considered a bug) that need to be flushed out before the internet is thrust into ipv6 adoption when the address space runs out.
IPv6 *does* solve problems, and it *will* be the primary mode of accessing the internet for consumers. Shaking out bugs by actually using ipv6 is necessary.
So, MS should *not* be berated because of this. This particular instance is not their fault, and they're doing the right thing by putting ipv6 up front in vista.
Lastly, I'd like to say that deploying ipv6 in the home is actually ridiculously easy. I have a tunnel through hurricane electric. Stateless autoconfig, which happens with ipv6 by default, assigns addresses without a dhcp server, and allows things to run right away.
IPv6 and OS support is not the problem. Application and network hardware vendors *have* to get with the program and start to support ipv6 in a very real way.
Many (most?) of the assigned ipv6 addresses will be based on the MAC of the interface connecting to the ipv6 internet. 64 bits of subnet mask, then 64 bits of host (48 bits are the MAC, plus bit extra).
Privacy addresses (which avoid broadcasting your MAC everywhere) actually *are* actually randomly assigned.
Then there are ULA addresses and so on. Very few ipv6 addresses will be contiguous.
This is why I was glad to see a new CS class get of the ground at Carnegie Mellon a few years back. CS grads from CMU will have probably gone through a low-level programming course which involves a lot of work in assembly. When I took it, we used alpha assembly code, but the concepts transfer well, even to CISC.
We had projects like, take this assembly and produce the C it came from (graded with diff), and the "bomb" which was an executable we had to trace through to figure out what number it wanted as an answer to a random int. If we guessed wrong it "exploded" (i.e. emailed the grader).
This issue is slightly different from the one in this article, but a lot of places do that now. I have never had a problem using up all of my bandwidth on whatever port I wanted, but I pay a bit extra to not use verizon, comcast, or some of the others that are famous for not wanting to give you full access. I also pay extra to get a block of static ips, and maybe that's where the difference comes in.
These are definitely not too big to be practical, and I don't just mean movies and such.
The data storage requirements for even small sized businesses can easily extend into the multi terabyte range. I last worked at a pretty small company (20 employees) which did financial modeling/forecasting. I think we had about 5 TB of data laying around (although they wanted to move the data format to XML, it's probably 18TB by now).
Re:More interesting...
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, at the right temperature and pressure, carbon will be a liquid. The only problem is that the melting point of carbon is rediculously high.
Re:So How Does Water Freeze?
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 1
I don't know, I think it depends on what you mean by hard mathematics. We have the math to explain it, but the equations end up being a lot of stuff written in dirac notation which is an astronomical pain in the ass to actually solve.
At least... this is how it seems to me from my experience studying bonding and crystaline structures (which is a humble: more than most, not as much as many).
Bad reporting?
on
How Ice Melts
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This article is too bad; there's probably an interesting result here, but it appears to be shrouded in vagueness and analogy.
It's true that the *exact* mechanism for melting has not been "seen", but the concepts really are well known. Our models are good enough that computer simulations can be very accurate. I have seen several which show features such as surface melting, for instance.
Also, it is absolutely expected that melting begin at defects, but this does not mean that "melting begins below the melting point" as the article suggests. These areas are locally amorphous and there is no reason that they should begin melting at the crystal's melting point. Really, it's all in the free energy equations.
I'm guessing that the real result has been butchered by the article.
I was going to say the same thing if no one else already had.
I think that the bad spelling and grammar in the "hacker and geek" community is not indicative of hackers and geeks being bad spellers, but rather that there are a large number of bad hackers and geeks around now.
This community is not as exclusive as it once was, and we are seeing the other parts of the natural human bell curve, as it were.
There have been a few comments about how this should be run on the ground, and it's a waste to be put on a satellite.
Well, similar systems run on the ground now; we know how to do that. Why, in science, should we be content to continue doing things we know how to do? That may sound like a joke, but we need to do this in order to progress.
This stuff, and future versions, will be essential for long range human missions, but it has to be tested now. The bugs should be worked out by running it close by.
Then when it's used for a long range mission, with humans on board, it is less likely to kill everyone because it hadn't been put through its paces.
This is right, I saw it on the webcase a little while ago. It almost looked like they forgot to turn on the balancing mechanism or something, really odd.
I was very much hoping to see this one do well, and I'm curious to hear what the actual problem was.
One thing to note is that much of the race will be off road. I would think that simply using range finders would be insufficient for desert driving where there is no artifical demarcation in the terrain.
But it really used to. This is exactly the kind of thing that slashdot was great at scooping everyone with. Either Rob would would post it himself, or a reader would submit it, and it would be accepted, all in a very short time.
Perhaps the editors have too much crap to deal with now, but things definitely used to be different.
I believe that this is just a conjecture. That is, no one knows whether or not is possible to force a draw, or whether it is possible to force a win. To really know this answer, one would have to know the game tree (or some equivalent).
Go does have a much bigger game tree, due to its much large branching factor. It was Chinese by origin.
The people responsible for this did not do it because of religion. Religion is a great motivator, especially when it is misused as it so often is. These attacks are political.
Prayer started this? Influential leaders with agendas started this.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, this (convergence to truth) is no longer a commonly held belief. (See Popper, Kuhn)
I'm glad someone mentioned this, I was reading though the comments in order to make the same observation (specifically probabilistic epigenetics, cf. Gottlieb).
It is especially interesting given the similar examples in that field, such as monkeys not being afraid of snakes if they eat just fruit instead of insects.
Non-obvious causes may be just as influential as those obvious ones everyone is always on about.
There's a squishy robot called Muu, which is actually social with other robots as well. Muu has had promising results with autistic children.
Change a line or two in dhcp server. Wait 24 hours (do this over the weekend). Job done.
Alternatively, if the admin didn't use dhcp... fire admin, hire new one, get him to do it. I wish it was that simple. Some things like routers, switches, etc. need to have static internal ips.
By the way, as far as current ipv4 space goes, allocation exhaustion is predicted to be March 2009.
This will probably be redundant by the time I end up posting, but then again, maybe not.
It seems like there are a few things that are causing confusion. Also, I want to rant about ipv6 adoption.
First of all, this looks like it's probably the printer's (or printer driver's) fault and not Microsoft's.
Second, about ipv6 in general...
It hurts me a bit to see people saying "Just disable ipv6 whenever you install vista." I think MS is doing a great thing by enabling ipv6 by default. If the instructions to support desk people, or some "best practice" becomes to disable ipv6 right away, ipv6 will take *another* 10 years to enter the mainstream.
This is pretty bad considering that ipv4 addresses are running out in the next 5 years.
It is exactly these kind of firmware/driver bugs (not having ipv6 support in a network appliance should now be considered a bug) that need to be flushed out before the internet is thrust into ipv6 adoption when the address space runs out.
IPv6 *does* solve problems, and it *will* be the primary mode of accessing the internet for consumers. Shaking out bugs by actually using ipv6 is necessary.
So, MS should *not* be berated because of this. This particular instance is not their fault, and they're doing the right thing by putting ipv6 up front in vista.
Lastly, I'd like to say that deploying ipv6 in the home is actually ridiculously easy. I have a tunnel through hurricane electric. Stateless autoconfig, which happens with ipv6 by default, assigns addresses without a dhcp server, and allows things to run right away.
IPv6 and OS support is not the problem. Application and network hardware vendors *have* to get with the program and start to support ipv6 in a very real way.
Many (most?) of the assigned ipv6 addresses will be based on the MAC of the interface connecting to the ipv6 internet. 64 bits of subnet mask, then 64 bits of host (48 bits are the MAC, plus bit extra).
Privacy addresses (which avoid broadcasting your MAC everywhere) actually *are* actually randomly assigned.
Then there are ULA addresses and so on. Very few ipv6 addresses will be contiguous.
This is why I was glad to see a new CS class get of the ground at Carnegie Mellon a few years back. CS grads from CMU will have probably gone through a low-level programming course which involves a lot of work in assembly. When I took it, we used alpha assembly code, but the concepts transfer well, even to CISC.
:)
We had projects like, take this assembly and produce the C it came from (graded with diff), and the "bomb" which was an executable we had to trace through to figure out what number it wanted as an answer to a random int. If we guessed wrong it "exploded" (i.e. emailed the grader).
Hire people from CMU.
Quite the opposite :)
Oh, it's much worse than that. Imagine if the opcode for ADD, say, would add to BX if it were after a JMP, but to AX if it were after a MOV.
Many of the features of biology are context dependent, which makes predicative analysis quite difficult.
This issue is slightly different from the one in this article, but a lot of places do that now. I have never had a problem using up all of my bandwidth on whatever port I wanted, but I pay a bit extra to not use verizon, comcast, or some of the others that are famous for not wanting to give you full access. I also pay extra to get a block of static ips, and maybe that's where the difference comes in.
That sounds like slashdot.
These are definitely not too big to be practical, and I don't just mean movies and such.
The data storage requirements for even small sized businesses can easily extend into the multi terabyte range. I last worked at a pretty small company (20 employees) which did financial modeling/forecasting. I think we had about 5 TB of data laying around (although they wanted to move the data format to XML, it's probably 18TB by now).
Indeed, at the right temperature and pressure, carbon will be a liquid. The only problem is that the melting point of carbon is rediculously high.
I don't know, I think it depends on what you mean by hard mathematics. We have the math to explain it, but the equations end up being a lot of stuff written in dirac notation which is an astronomical pain in the ass to actually solve.
At least... this is how it seems to me from my experience studying bonding and crystaline structures (which is a humble: more than most, not as much as many).
This article is too bad; there's probably an interesting result here, but it appears to be shrouded in vagueness and analogy.
It's true that the *exact* mechanism for melting has not been "seen", but the concepts really are well known. Our models are good enough that computer simulations can be very accurate. I have seen several which show features such as surface melting, for instance.
Also, it is absolutely expected that melting begin at defects, but this does not mean that "melting begins below the melting point" as the article suggests. These areas are locally amorphous and there is no reason that they should begin melting at the crystal's melting point. Really, it's all in the free energy equations.
I'm guessing that the real result has been butchered by the article.
I was going to say the same thing if no one else already had.
I think that the bad spelling and grammar in the "hacker and geek" community is not indicative of hackers and geeks being bad spellers, but rather that there are a large number of bad hackers and geeks around now.
This community is not as exclusive as it once was, and we are seeing the other parts of the natural human bell curve, as it were.
There have been a few comments about how this should be run on the ground, and it's a waste to be put on a satellite.
Well, similar systems run on the ground now; we know how to do that. Why, in science, should we be content to continue doing things we know how to do? That may sound like a joke, but we need to do this in order to progress.
This stuff, and future versions, will be essential for long range human missions, but it has to be tested now. The bugs should be worked out by running it close by.
Then when it's used for a long range mission, with humans on board, it is less likely to kill everyone because it hadn't been put through its paces.
This is right, I saw it on the webcase a little while ago. It almost looked like they forgot to turn on the balancing mechanism or something, really odd.
I was very much hoping to see this one do well, and I'm curious to hear what the actual problem was.
One thing to note is that much of the race will be off road. I would think that simply using range finders would be insufficient for desert driving where there is no artifical demarcation in the terrain.
But it really used to. This is exactly the kind of thing that slashdot was great at scooping everyone with. Either Rob would would post it himself, or a reader would submit it, and it would be accepted, all in a very short time.
Perhaps the editors have too much crap to deal with now, but things definitely used to be different.
I believe that this is just a conjecture. That is, no one knows whether or not is possible to force a draw, or whether it is possible to force a win. To really know this answer, one would have to know the game tree (or some equivalent).
Go does have a much bigger game tree, due to its much large branching factor. It was Chinese by origin.
The people responsible for this did not do it because of religion. Religion is a great motivator, especially when it is misused as it so often is. These attacks are political.
Prayer started this? Influential leaders with agendas started this.