You all better stock up on canned food, because I'm going to file for a patent on pre-paid food.
A method of submitting a personal identification number and the type of food which will be authorized before allowing the injestion of said food. Personal identification number systems will vary by the financial institution used by the injester to prove and relinquish funds for said food injested by injester. The injestee shall have no say but their personal idenfication number shall also be sent to a computer to look up the current market value of said injestee.
As long as IPv6 isn't required to get everywhere, they can save money by using smaller/fewer routers to do IPv4 work.
I was unclear: as long as you can still get everywhere using IPv4, they can provide the service cheaper by supporting only IPv4.
The point where you need IPv6 to get somewhere important is where people will start to complain about not having IPv6. Until then, only a technical minority will have problems for the lack. On the same note, it only takes the buzz word to make managers adopt it.
I imagine it isn't worth the frustration to try to get the unused IPs out and reallocated when you could just be allocating IPv6 IPs and upgrading.
To answer: isn't worth it to anyone who wants/has IPs and already has hardware that/could/ handle IPv6.
Most of the networks we'd have to reduce would mean moving machines to different IPs, which is much more of a problem than it seems.
First off, you have to make sure some percentage the old cached copies of the DNS are gone. You won't want to wait long enough to get them all, so for some people it "won't work." Second, you don't know who is connecting to an IP versus who is connecting by resolving a hostname. Even when hostname goes in the protocol(i.e. http) it can be fooled by an entry in a hosts file or something equivalent. You could do some rigorous cross-checking based on DNS records, but that's a big problem in itself. Third, often you have internal depenencies based on IPs. Document the hell out of it, but you still forget to mention that there is a default deny policy on a machine. Change your IP and you lose access to it.
All in all if you move an IP in under a week with under 10 hours of paid admin work, you're tempting fate. Obviously, this frame goes up if your business depends on the machine in some way. Moving multiple machines will reduce the per/machine frame, but it's still significant.
Now, moving to IPv6 you have those same considerations, plus you need to invest the pay-hours to get the IPv6ness to all the machines. Whether this includes leaving machines in their IPv4 state and translating from IPv6 or ensuring that every machine can do IPv6, it doesn't matter. Assuming you have hardware/software capable of doing IPv6, you should see about 150% of the time it would have taken to move to another IPv4 range.
We may have a lot of completely unused IP space out there, but those IPs probably won't make much difference to the 2-10 year estimate. The problem is when you have 8 class C networks with 1-5 hosts each. Try to merge networks behind different routers and you will confound the routing space problems(huge BGP tables already), too. The final point is that once you've reclaimed all this IPv4 space you've still only delayed the inevitable shortage.
Actually, there are several species of bacteria(see archaea) and many (dare I say, "most") spores can survive 100C.
A spore is an adaptation to cope with a harsh environment: see Wikipedia: endospore.
Boiling your pillow may render some of those spores innert, but I imagine throwing it in a washing machine with detergent would do about the same amount of good.
To "kill" the spores you'd pretty much have to "kill" the cotton in the pillow, too.
They are right, this bill is trying to clearly define things that are subjective.
What happens when laws like this pass? We start making borderline games that will pass for sale to minors, but are just as bad AND large software companies will push a little cash one way or another to get their game an "okay."
They should really ban the sale of electronic games to minors. If they want them, relatives can purchase for them. Unfortunately, the idea of a game is almost as vague. "Mouse Trap" is obviously a game, and it's probably not electronic, but what about "Operation?" What about today's fancy graphing calculators?
Let's look at what the electronic violence bill hopes to do: -involve parents -prevent children from buying and playing "violent" video games that do shape their developing perspectives
As for the arguments, here are some pre-argument questions: What part of growing up requires children the ability to play games?
-look back a few generations to the people who grew up before video games existed
-think third-world children
Is it some sort of torture to disallow children access to games?
-stop thinking about third-world children
-think about children doing something that provides intellectual stimulation, like chasing each other or playing tag
-if a child is tortured by their lack of playing, couldn't we call it an addiction?
-the only time this will be torturous is if one child is allowed to play while another one watches
Do video games have any truly positive impact on the development or well-being of a child?
-so-called hand/eye co-ordination
-entertainment
-stress coping (fantasy worlds; places where they are in control of things)
-keeps kids out of trouble (mischief and even drugs)
-potential for learning something
-potential for work creating or playing games (I'm stretching)
Some negatives?
-time consumption (starting a hobby young grants the hobbyist a grand advantage)
-physical strain (hand, eye, and postural)
-artificial reality during development can lead to psychological problems/disorders (ADD, addiction, and [meh]violence)
-overload of entertainment may lead to disinterest in reality and a lack of motivation and inability to self-entertain
-reliance on external device for stress coping
I was even being pretty modest about the negatives.
As if the RFID tag is going to be the catalyst for this type of behavior. Tracking customers has been a trend since it was discovered useful( i.e. $$ ). It will blatantly continue until there is legislation against it, at which point it will go underground, but it will never go away.
So this store sells you items with RFID tags hidden inside. They associate those RFID numbers with you as a person. Okay, then use cash. If they ask for your contact information, give them something fun.
You can pick up an RFID reader/writer for your laptop/PDA for around $200. Even if you can't write over the number, you can at least see if you have any.
Finally, what is to prevent you from carrying an RFIDSD (spewing device) which randomly spits out RFID data in an attempt to mask the valid data?
Where is the line? Sure, Google is making money off an ad for Madonna, but why should Google be faced with a fee? Shouldn't the person who placed an ad with "Madonna" as a keyword be the one who has to also notify Madonna?
We can do way better than that: Night clubs: they are playing Madonna, take some of that cover charge and the alcohol profits, because they want Madonna Concerts: lots of people (besides the producer) is making money off a concert. Take some of their profits, too. Speaking tax: as long as we're going to try to fee Google for ads, we should charge people for even saying "Madonna" Listening tax: find IP in everything we hear and charge you whenever you hear music, even if you own it Candles: those little religious candles often show a picture of the Madonna, and what's that w/o Madonna's spikey tits?
Obviously, I didn't read the article start to finish, however, the wording appears to be a little dumb.
For that matter, is a song always considered a file? If so, is the radio considered a file transfer device? What about the new satellite radio style devices which probably do transfer the data in a compressed form?
I'm going to throw a quote here, because I think I see the big problem with this bill:
> California file sharers who trade songs or films > without providing an e- mail address will be > guilty of a misdemeanor, under the > first-in-the-nation measure that could make it > easier for law enforcement to track down people > who illegally download copyrighted material.
This means that it would become the government's problem to track down file sharers rather than a private problem. This means that anyone living in California (and probably any other state they buy) will be paying the government to allocate resources to finding and stopping these hooligans who share media without providing an email address. This could be a very bad bill.
The MPAA/RIAA could find offending IPs and forward those along to the authorities. They were never interested in the money they could get from lawsuits--they just want to be the only way to get media, so they can keep the prices too high. A misdermeanor is, according to wikipedia.org, a low crime comparable to petty theft. They don't want to sue kids, they want them to stop sharing files. Send the police to their house and tell their parents--soon they will be grounded if they share music.
X-Ray is a wonderful example of EM radiation that does cause cancer.
I believe they say ultraviolet, now, too, right? Increased risk of skin cancer in relation to the average amount of time spent in the sun.
I wish I had some links to research on this, but there are several studies that show people who are trusted behave in a more trustworthy manner. If you treat someone like a criminal, you'll likely get those results. There is a term in psychology for this effect.
By 'protecting' the public from this information, you will effectively be turning many of those 100s of good guys into bad guys. Many reasons for that. Some of us want to understand things. It would be that much more interesting, and that much less problem for my conscience, if the evil government were supressing the information.
Ironically enough, the people that would be most likely to feel repressed are the same people that could use the information in a bad way.
it would appear that 4.2.2.4 is the router.
that would make more sense.
steal service, as in, bandwidth. not stealing service from dns.
if they were concerned with that, they might as well turn those into local domain only servers and use something else as a private nameserver with access control.
I've given that idea quite a bit of thought, actually. You have 100 machines on a private network, using one internet ip to get what they need.
That's the idea of NAT. You get stuff with it rather than put stuff.
So, if you want to make a setup where you can provide services from behind firewalls, which would essentially reduce the required number of IPs by an exponential amount, you'd need a redirector. It would be very easy to rip up a socks style proxy to allow binding of external ports. It would also be easy to make an rpc style reference chart on a static port on the external ip.
You follow?
Machine 78 on the private network wants to open a web server. It registers that it wants an open port and that the service will be http.
When that machine was turned on and is located behind a firewall, the dns is updated to direct everyone there.
The web server on the outside poke at that machine and find that their target is sitting on port 40382 and opens the http connection.
Another possibility is to build the domain name in the requests, like in http. With such a service, you can have as many domains hosted on a server as you want, because it includes the domain in the request.
The first example is much more flexible, but also uses extra ports, which could be used up pretty quickly.
Whatever it is, it doesn't really matter, because the majority of clients are windows and microsoft wouldn't ever let that happen without putting its dirty finger in the pie.
However, most people are thinking like this and want to bleed as much as they can out of the current setup until they hit an iron wall and can't bleed any more.
I personally wouldn't want my network to drop every time I used a piece of flakey hardware. Like a cheap hub or whatever.
I'm thinking that, given 25 pieces of network hardware, you'll lose more packets due to those than you would to rogue birds.
You must got some really BIG slow birds around.
However, 3-5km is pretty impressive. Maybe I'll see about ditching my DSL and making arrangements with a local ISP. "Could I use _this_ as a colocation? Could I leave my colocation on the roof like so?"
Real Fresh Air Generator optional addon component. It's designed to _simulate_ being outside.
Real Full Spectrum Sun Generator also available for those pale pudgy gamers that want to induce a tan.
You can then play games like "Nature Walk" in which you are a character walking through nature. Nature being anything from a city like New York or a forest in Canada. Forget interacting with other people for now, though, the online version is still in development.
DigiScents already has scents put together for many popular nature walks.
Slashdot Mirror
So this is what it comes down to, hmm?
You all better stock up on canned food, because I'm going to file for a patent on pre-paid food.
A method of submitting a personal identification number and the type of food which will be authorized before allowing the injestion of said food. Personal identification number systems will vary by the financial institution used by the injester to prove and relinquish funds for said food injested by injester. The injestee shall have no say but their personal idenfication number shall also be sent to a computer to look up the current market value of said injestee.
All I have to say is, "POOP!"
I was unclear: as long as you can still get everywhere using IPv4, they can provide the service cheaper by supporting only IPv4.
The point where you need IPv6 to get somewhere important is where people will start to complain about not having IPv6. Until then, only a technical minority will have problems for the lack. On the same note, it only takes the buzz word to make managers adopt it.
Sure, the hardware /supports/ IPv6, but if you try to do both IPv4 and IPv6 on the hardware, you take the load way up.
As long as IPv6 isn't required to get everywhere, they can save money by using smaller/fewer routers to do IPv4 work.
In terms of just memory, you almost double the use by having a separate table for IPv4 and IPv6.
I imagine it isn't worth the frustration to try to get the unused IPs out and reallocated when you could just be allocating IPv6 IPs and upgrading.
/could/ handle IPv6.
To answer: isn't worth it to anyone who wants/has IPs and already has hardware that
Most of the networks we'd have to reduce would mean moving machines to different IPs, which is much more of a problem than it seems.
First off, you have to make sure some percentage the old cached copies of the DNS are gone. You won't want to wait long enough to get them all, so for some people it "won't work."
Second, you don't know who is connecting to an IP versus who is connecting by resolving a hostname. Even when hostname goes in the protocol(i.e. http) it can be fooled by an entry in a hosts file or something equivalent. You could do some rigorous cross-checking based on DNS records, but that's a big problem in itself.
Third, often you have internal depenencies based on IPs. Document the hell out of it, but you still forget to mention that there is a default deny policy on a machine. Change your IP and you lose access to it.
All in all if you move an IP in under a week with under 10 hours of paid admin work, you're tempting fate. Obviously, this frame goes up if your business depends on the machine in some way. Moving multiple machines will reduce the per/machine frame, but it's still significant.
Now, moving to IPv6 you have those same considerations, plus you need to invest the pay-hours to get the IPv6ness to all the machines. Whether this includes leaving machines in their IPv4 state and translating from IPv6 or ensuring that every machine can do IPv6, it doesn't matter. Assuming you have hardware/software capable of doing IPv6, you should see about 150% of the time it would have taken to move to another IPv4 range.
We may have a lot of completely unused IP space out there, but those IPs probably won't make much difference to the 2-10 year estimate. The problem is when you have 8 class C networks with 1-5 hosts each. Try to merge networks behind different routers and you will confound the routing space problems(huge BGP tables already), too. The final point is that once you've reclaimed all this IPv4 space you've still only delayed the inevitable shortage.
There's always the native firewall in Windows.
tee hee
Actually, there are several species of bacteria(see archaea) and many (dare I say, "most") spores can survive 100C.
A spore is an adaptation to cope with a harsh environment: see Wikipedia: endospore.
Boiling your pillow may render some of those spores innert, but I imagine throwing it in a washing machine with detergent would do about the same amount of good.
To "kill" the spores you'd pretty much have to "kill" the cotton in the pillow, too.
They are right, this bill is trying to clearly define things that are subjective.
What happens when laws like this pass? We start making borderline games that will pass for sale to minors, but are just as bad AND large software companies will push a little cash one way or another to get their game an "okay."
They should really ban the sale of electronic games to minors. If they want them, relatives can purchase for them. Unfortunately, the idea of a game is almost as vague. "Mouse Trap" is obviously a game, and it's probably not electronic, but what about "Operation?" What about today's fancy graphing calculators?
Let's look at what the electronic violence bill hopes to do:
-involve parents
-prevent children from buying and playing "violent" video games that do shape their developing perspectives
As for the arguments, here are some pre-argument questions:
What part of growing up requires children the ability to play games?
-look back a few generations to the people who grew up before video games existed
-think third-world children
Is it some sort of torture to disallow children access to games?
-stop thinking about third-world children
-think about children doing something that provides intellectual stimulation, like chasing each other or playing tag
-if a child is tortured by their lack of playing, couldn't we call it an addiction?
-the only time this will be torturous is if one child is allowed to play while another one watches
Do video games have any truly positive impact on the development or well-being of a child?
-so-called hand/eye co-ordination
-entertainment
-stress coping (fantasy worlds; places where they are in control of things)
-keeps kids out of trouble (mischief and even drugs)
-potential for learning something
-potential for work creating or playing games (I'm stretching)
Some negatives?
-time consumption (starting a hobby young grants the hobbyist a grand advantage)
-physical strain (hand, eye, and postural)
-artificial reality during development can lead to psychological problems/disorders (ADD, addiction, and [meh]violence)
-overload of entertainment may lead to disinterest in reality and a lack of motivation and inability to self-entertain
-reliance on external device for stress coping
I was even being pretty modest about the negatives.
As if the RFID tag is going to be the catalyst for this type of behavior. Tracking customers has been a trend since it was discovered useful( i.e. $$ ). It will blatantly continue until there is legislation against it, at which point it will go underground, but it will never go away.
So this store sells you items with RFID tags hidden inside. They associate those RFID numbers with you as a person. Okay, then use cash. If they ask for your contact information, give them something fun.
You can pick up an RFID reader/writer for your laptop/PDA for around $200. Even if you can't write over the number, you can at least see if you have any.
Finally, what is to prevent you from carrying an RFIDSD (spewing device) which randomly spits out RFID data in an attempt to mask the valid data?
Where is the line? Sure, Google is making money off an ad for Madonna, but why should Google be faced with a fee? Shouldn't the person who placed an ad with "Madonna" as a keyword be the one who has to also notify Madonna?
We can do way better than that:
Night clubs: they are playing Madonna, take some of that cover charge and the alcohol profits, because they want Madonna
Concerts: lots of people (besides the producer) is making money off a concert. Take some of their profits, too.
Speaking tax: as long as we're going to try to fee Google for ads, we should charge people for even saying "Madonna"
Listening tax: find IP in everything we hear and charge you whenever you hear music, even if you own it
Candles: those little religious candles often show a picture of the Madonna, and what's that w/o Madonna's spikey tits?
Those are just off the top of my head.
Obviously, I didn't read the article start to finish, however, the wording appears to be a little dumb.
For that matter, is a song always considered a file? If so, is the radio considered a file transfer device? What about the new satellite radio style devices which probably do transfer the data in a compressed form?
I'm going to throw a quote here, because I think I see the big problem with this bill:
> California file sharers who trade songs or films
> without providing an e- mail address will be
> guilty of a misdemeanor, under the
> first-in-the-nation measure that could make it
> easier for law enforcement to track down people
> who illegally download copyrighted material.
This means that it would become the government's problem to track down file sharers rather than a private problem. This means that anyone living in California (and probably any other state they buy) will be paying the government to allocate resources to finding and stopping these hooligans who share media without providing an email address. This could be a very bad bill.
The MPAA/RIAA could find offending IPs and forward those along to the authorities. They were never interested in the money they could get from lawsuits--they just want to be the only way to get media, so they can keep the prices too high. A misdermeanor is, according to wikipedia.org, a low crime comparable to petty theft. They don't want to sue kids, they want them to stop sharing files. Send the police to their house and tell their parents--soon they will be grounded if they share music.
Please insert your old boots for processing.
1. Recieve message from future self.
2. Patent Everything!
3. Profit!
4. Send message to past self.
You see, it's really not that hard to get rich.
X-Ray is a wonderful example of EM radiation that does cause cancer. I believe they say ultraviolet, now, too, right? Increased risk of skin cancer in relation to the average amount of time spent in the sun.
I wish I had some links to research on this, but there are several studies that show people who are trusted behave in a more trustworthy manner. If you treat someone like a criminal, you'll likely get those results. There is a term in psychology for this effect.
By 'protecting' the public from this information, you will effectively be turning many of those 100s of good guys into bad guys. Many reasons for that. Some of us want to understand things. It would be that much more interesting, and that much less problem for my conscience, if the evil government were supressing the information.
Ironically enough, the people that would be most likely to feel repressed are the same people that could use the information in a bad way.
it would appear that 4.2.2.4 is the router. that would make more sense. steal service, as in, bandwidth. not stealing service from dns. if they were concerned with that, they might as well turn those into local domain only servers and use something else as a private nameserver with access control.
I've given that idea quite a bit of thought, actually. You have 100 machines on a private network, using one internet ip to get what they need.
That's the idea of NAT. You get stuff with it rather than put stuff.
So, if you want to make a setup where you can provide services from behind firewalls, which would essentially reduce the required number of IPs by an exponential amount, you'd need a redirector. It would be very easy to rip up a socks style proxy to allow binding of external ports. It would also be easy to make an rpc style reference chart on a static port on the external ip.
You follow?
Machine 78 on the private network wants to open a web server. It registers that it wants an open port and that the service will be http.
When that machine was turned on and is located behind a firewall, the dns is updated to direct everyone there.
The web server on the outside poke at that machine and find that their target is sitting on port 40382 and opens the http connection.
Another possibility is to build the domain name in the requests, like in http. With such a service, you can have as many domains hosted on a server as you want, because it includes the domain in the request.
The first example is much more flexible, but also uses extra ports, which could be used up pretty quickly.
Whatever it is, it doesn't really matter, because the majority of clients are windows and microsoft wouldn't ever let that happen without putting its dirty finger in the pie.
However, most people are thinking like this and want to bleed as much as they can out of the current setup until they hit an iron wall and can't bleed any more.
The data should also be marked by the id used to get the information from the database.
In fact, there should be no way to get the data out without marking it somehow.
That way, if Joe Smith decides to sell the database to someone else and that data is recovered, his name will be all over it.
Logs at all the access points.
No modems or internet access to critical data.
Finger print or retina scan logins.
I mean, really, if it's a physically isolated machine and there's good physical security, there shouldn't be any problems like this.
It's all about the money. Joe Smith made himself some bucks.
I personally wouldn't want my network to drop every time I used a piece of flakey hardware. Like a cheap hub or whatever.
I'm thinking that, given 25 pieces of network hardware, you'll lose more packets due to those than you would to rogue birds.
You must got some really BIG slow birds around.
However, 3-5km is pretty impressive. Maybe I'll see about ditching my DSL and making arrangements with a local ISP. "Could I use _this_ as a colocation? Could I leave my colocation on the roof like so?"
Real Fresh Air Generator optional addon component. It's designed to _simulate_ being outside. Real Full Spectrum Sun Generator also available for those pale pudgy gamers that want to induce a tan. You can then play games like "Nature Walk" in which you are a character walking through nature. Nature being anything from a city like New York or a forest in Canada. Forget interacting with other people for now, though, the online version is still in development. DigiScents already has scents put together for many popular nature walks.