They did more than teach spatial orientation. I had a forklift. It taught about gearboxes, rack and pinion steering and a bunch of other stuff.
IIRC, I _couldn't_ _build_ the forklift the first time. It just had too much going on. When I actually DID sucessfully build it (without glossing over or simplifying any) it brought a GREAT sence of achievement.
(And you could build a boxer egine out of the kit. (at least the crank shaft and the pistons) Verra Verra cool.)
"Every time a new car is built do they reinvent the wheel? "
Nope, but they change the way the chassis is built, and they reduce the wires used (serial line comminucation protocol), and they move to a fly-by-wire throttle to reduce mechanical complexity. And, well, Yes. They DO reinvent the wheel (runflats, forged vs. stamped wheels) But that's not the point.
"You don't WANT a class A because you can't imagine what kinds of technologies you could use if you and everyone else did have one. "
You're right. I can't! I also don't think much of the population can either. To what end do you need an outside device initiating a conversation with your fridge? Not ALL network applications require two-way communication. The example cited (that of a networked house) would work _just_fine_ in a NAT environment. The MP3 streamer can talk to the AC3 decoder, the Microwave can talk to the fridge, the fridge can initiate an order for milk [shudder]
Why I'd WANT them to is anybody's guess.
Between my cellphone, pda, digital camera, watch, and X10 home controller, I'm a) suffering from featureitis, and b)have about 10,000 features in these doo-dads I'll never use....and I'm a certifyable geek!
Just because you CAN network something, doesn't mean you should, or that the feature will be used.
Hmm, what about instant messaging? A technology that:
1. works behind NAT
2. allows two-way communication
3. conveniently solves all those hairy location and p2p issues.
I believe the APPLICATIONS will become smarter, bypassing the limitations of the network they're running on. In exactly the same way that games programmers overcame inherent limitations in the hardware by clever programming.
"it's not outrageous that MIT and similar institutions have class-A networks - it's outrageous that *you* don't. IPv6 can fix that. "
I don't NEED a Class A address. I don't WANT a Class A address. I want a single way of reaching me. That doesn't have to be the IP address!
That's where something like Mono/Passport is a good solution. Who you are is resolvable and reachable from ANYWHERE.
A group migration to IPv6 may never be necessary. With NAT now being pervasive, There only needs to be one or very few IP addresses per company.
The original quote (around 1989) was: "My god! At this rate, we'll be out of addresses by [1992]"
That obviously hasn't happened now, has it?
When ALL of an ISP's web clients can function on a single IP address at port 80 using header redirection, I don't thenk we're going to need the additional address space for a long time.
(IP addressing by latitude and longitude, while a cool idea, always seemed to be a solution looking for a problem.)
I'm not sure most of the big ISP's would even notice the traffic. @home had a BIG deal about multiple users in a household - sign up, get a second IP address, we'll charge you an add'l $5 (US) a month.
Since the hardware guys started selling cheap firewall/NAT devices, @Home relaxed the multiple use rules. Most likely as it would take more effort to police that it was worth.
Slashdot Mirror
They did more than teach spatial orientation. I had a forklift. It taught about gearboxes, rack and pinion steering and a bunch of other stuff.
IIRC, I _couldn't_ _build_ the forklift the first time. It just had too much going on. When I actually DID sucessfully build it (without glossing over or simplifying any) it brought a GREAT sence of achievement.
(And you could build a boxer egine out of the kit. (at least the crank shaft and the pistons) Verra Verra cool.)
"Every time a new car is built do they reinvent the wheel? "
Nope, but they change the way the chassis is built, and they reduce the wires used (serial line comminucation protocol), and they move to a fly-by-wire throttle to reduce mechanical complexity. And, well, Yes. They DO reinvent the wheel (runflats, forged vs. stamped wheels) But that's not the point.
"You don't WANT a class A because you can't imagine what kinds of technologies you could use if you and everyone else did have one. "
You're right. I can't! I also don't think much of the population can either. To what end do you need an outside device initiating a conversation with your fridge? Not ALL network applications require two-way communication. The example cited (that of a networked house) would work _just_fine_ in a NAT environment. The MP3 streamer can talk to the AC3 decoder, the Microwave can talk to the fridge, the fridge can initiate an order for milk [shudder]
Why I'd WANT them to is anybody's guess.
Between my cellphone, pda, digital camera, watch, and X10 home controller, I'm a) suffering from featureitis, and b)have about 10,000 features in these doo-dads I'll never use....and I'm a certifyable geek!
Just because you CAN network something, doesn't mean you should, or that the feature will be used.
Hmm, what about instant messaging? A technology that:
1. works behind NAT
2. allows two-way communication
3. conveniently solves all those hairy location and p2p issues.
I believe the APPLICATIONS will become smarter, bypassing the limitations of the network they're running on. In exactly the same way that games programmers overcame inherent limitations in the hardware by clever programming.
"it's not outrageous that MIT and similar institutions have class-A networks - it's outrageous that *you* don't. IPv6 can fix that. "
I don't NEED a Class A address. I don't WANT a Class A address. I want a single way of reaching me. That doesn't have to be the IP address!
That's where something like Mono/Passport is a good solution. Who you are is resolvable and reachable from ANYWHERE.
Sounds like a limitation in napster. After all, there are 65535 ways (ports) to talk to any given IP address.
Yeah, it's a band-aid to a problem, but it IS a solution.
A group migration to IPv6 may never be necessary. With NAT now being pervasive, There only needs to be one or very few IP addresses per company.
The original quote (around 1989) was: "My god! At this rate, we'll be out of addresses by [1992]"
That obviously hasn't happened now, has it?
When ALL of an ISP's web clients can function on a single IP address at port 80 using header redirection, I don't thenk we're going to need the additional address space for a long time.
(IP addressing by latitude and longitude, while a cool idea, always seemed to be a solution looking for a problem.)
I'm not sure most of the big ISP's would even notice the traffic. @home had a BIG deal about multiple users in a household - sign up, get a second IP address, we'll charge you an add'l $5 (US) a month.
Since the hardware guys started selling cheap firewall/NAT devices, @Home relaxed the multiple use rules. Most likely as it would take more effort to police that it was worth.