The above is what happens when people are allowed to escape out of school without ever having to take any course in basic economics.
Your crazy nonsense can't work. If you let people trade IPs you will end up with insanely complex routing tables. Your Internet would just fall apart. It's like me setting up a stock exchange to trade a few square inches in the middle of my living room that no-one could get to anyway.
You are suggesting setting up some complex system to con stupid people out of money. Enron tried that and failed, learn from their mistakes.
And ISPs giving IPv6 addresses mean little if customers have no equipment that handles it.
Why don't most CPE support it? Most makers don't write the full software suite. They tweak what the chipset providers write. Complain to Broadcom and others.
If I complain to Broadcom they will ignore me. We need to get their customers, the ISPs, to complain to Broadcom.
You are right though. I was amazed that my super-cool do-everything fritz!box doesn't seem to do IPv6.
I keep seeing this fear of the IPv4 address pool disappearing, but I thought there was no such things as shortages in a free market? So then what's going on here? Clearly the IANA is refusing to allow the prices (and therefore costs) of IPv4 addresses to rise to reflect the true scarcity of them. I think the ANIPC goes as far to say you don't own your IP address to sell. Prices aren't just arbitrary things, they reflect information about scarcity, and if IPv6 addresses were cheaper to adopt than IPv4 addresses, certainly it could only help spread adoption, while still letting the people who most urgently demand IPv4 addresses get one.
The last blocks ought to be auctioned or raffled off right now, and traded between the owners, with the regional registries only registering who owns an IP address range, no different than what happens on a stock exchange floor.
IPs don't correspond with any physical good or product and have an inherent value of zero dollars. You can't own numbers. Therefore you are crazy and have been sipping Enron's cool-aid.
We know already. Just about everyone on slashdot has setup IPv6 at home, and most likely given up on it later as there is little to access on it.
Until we pressure the ISP's to give everyone native IPv6 this thing isn't going to go anywhere. If the ISP's lead the big retailers will follow, other sites will follow them. The very last thing anyone wants is ISP level NAT but that is exactly what we are going to see if we don't fix the current mess.
"...if your salary weren't way above what us cheapskates are willing to pay!"
Unfortunately, people who are skilled in IT are lacking in salary negotiating skills. The end result is that some of them go to the dark side.
No doubt there is some truth is that. However the smart guys work for the challenge not the money. I know plenty of rich crap people and plenty of smart non-so-rich people.
It's not a matter of whether the hacker's skills are formidable, it's a matter of whether Lush's IT team's aren't.
Exactly. I'll bet the lush IT team consists of a few guys who might be reasonably smart but they just can't cover the amount of work they are meant to be doing. Management interference and other distractions most likely mean they could not keep track of all the work they should be doing.
Unless they took the Microsoft route that is. Then they most likely employed a bunch of MCSE's who don't really understand technology, spent a fortune on windows servers and another fortune on active directory servers, and still got cracked endlessly.
Yet Gartner is allowable to wikipedia or any uninformed computer magazine that slashdot would laugh at. Shows how great wikipedia is really, their rules are nonsense.
Supose I create a wiki entry with info about an old and obscure game from the 80s. As Wikipedia is not primary source I add references from an obscure forum. Let say 5 years from now the forum is dead and no other info can be found. What you would do with my entry? would you preserve it because is actual info (althought unconfirmable)? would you delete it?
They would delete it right away as forums are not considered reliable due to lack of editorical oversight. Wikipedia gives really biased information for anything that isn't mainstream and well documented elsewhere.
Also their rules on what is and what is not notable are arbitary so you may well fall on the wrong side of that.
There are no expert editors who can check and corroborate the information.
There are some. The really sad thing is that an expert with a PhD who has written countless well respected books has less say in an article in his field of expertise than someone with no real knowledge but more free time.
I'll bet real experts don't contribute because it's pretty sickening to see someone with little idea but good intentions trashing your hard work.
This has to be a mistake. This is so far out of Microsoft's area that it can only be a case of the patent office putting down the wrong name as assignee.
Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.
Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...
Spoken like a Wikipedia administrator.. Strange how WP:no personal attacks never applies to them.
I have no agenda. I tend to do something more productive when my perfectly valid edits get revoked. The people who spend the most time pushing normally get what they want. That creates bias.
Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject.
I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.
Sure. 90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research. If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia? Sure it's great on subjects You know nothing about because any knowledge will be an improvement.
I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.
What's stopping you from fixing it?
Edit wars and editors pushing an agenda. Administrators who go off the deep end at anything they perceive as a 'personal attack'. And spelling and grammer nazi's who revert entire passages for one misspelling. And a lack of time and frankly interest in dealing with their bureaucracy.
Did I mention administrators who delete new pages without even trying to read or improve them?
And the assumption that if you don't react to something within a few minutes you agree with it.
Updating even small details can become a huge time drain.
May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.
The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them. This would go some way to getting rid of the most-popular-is-correct bias of the thing.
Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject. I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.
It's a good source of reference just double check important facts elsewhere.
The parent didn't say it was for life advice and some people (even highly skeptical ones) will go to psychics of all sorts simply because it can be entertaining and because a good psychic is also a decent listener and may have some good life advice simply from having talked to lots of people. Kind of like of psychologist, but likely cheaper.
Giving money to the deceitful is socially destructive. Doing it willingly is doubly so.
This is a joke right? You don't honestly believe that someone with a government-furnished cell phone should be charged with embezzlement if they use the phone for personal use do you?
If they stay within their provided number of minutes whats the problem?
It is embezzlement as well as tax fraud as consumer callers are taxed differently. But it's such a low level of theft most employers will ignore it. It's like taking stationary home. If you take one sheet of paper it's OK, if you take 10 reams it's not. There is no real guidance on where you draw the line.
I've used countless Microsoft OS's. Please look up inductive reasoning.
I did have a windows phone. It kept crashing so I binned it. Now I'm very happy with a cheap Nokia that just keeps working and has fantastic battery life.
Slashdot Mirror
The above is what happens when people are allowed to escape out of school without ever having to take any course in basic economics.
Your crazy nonsense can't work. If you let people trade IPs you will end up with insanely complex routing tables. Your Internet would just fall apart. It's like me setting up a stock exchange to trade a few square inches in the middle of my living room that no-one could get to anyway.
You are suggesting setting up some complex system to con stupid people out of money. Enron tried that and failed, learn from their mistakes.
And ISPs giving IPv6 addresses mean little if customers have no equipment that handles it.
Why don't most CPE support it? Most makers don't write the full software suite. They tweak what the chipset providers write. Complain to Broadcom and others.
If I complain to Broadcom they will ignore me. We need to get their customers, the ISPs, to complain to Broadcom.
You are right though. I was amazed that my super-cool do-everything fritz!box doesn't seem to do IPv6.
I keep seeing this fear of the IPv4 address pool disappearing, but I thought there was no such things as shortages in a free market? So then what's going on here? Clearly the IANA is refusing to allow the prices (and therefore costs) of IPv4 addresses to rise to reflect the true scarcity of them. I think the ANIPC goes as far to say you don't own your IP address to sell. Prices aren't just arbitrary things, they reflect information about scarcity, and if IPv6 addresses were cheaper to adopt than IPv4 addresses, certainly it could only help spread adoption, while still letting the people who most urgently demand IPv4 addresses get one.
The last blocks ought to be auctioned or raffled off right now, and traded between the owners, with the regional registries only registering who owns an IP address range, no different than what happens on a stock exchange floor.
IPs don't correspond with any physical good or product and have an inherent value of zero dollars. You can't own numbers. Therefore you are crazy and have been sipping Enron's cool-aid.
We know already. Just about everyone on slashdot has setup IPv6 at home, and most likely given up on it later as there is little to access on it.
Until we pressure the ISP's to give everyone native IPv6 this thing isn't going to go anywhere. If the ISP's lead the big retailers will follow, other sites will follow them. The very last thing anyone wants is ISP level NAT but that is exactly what we are going to see if we don't fix the current mess.
It's PHP Apache if you look.
PHP. The free alternative to visual basic.
"...if your salary weren't way above what us cheapskates are willing to pay!"
Unfortunately, people who are skilled in IT are lacking in salary negotiating skills. The end result is that some of them go to the dark side.
No doubt there is some truth is that. However the smart guys work for the challenge not the money. I know plenty of rich crap people and plenty of smart non-so-rich people.
It's not a matter of whether the hacker's skills are formidable, it's a matter of whether Lush's IT team's aren't.
Exactly. I'll bet the lush IT team consists of a few guys who might be reasonably smart but they just can't cover the amount of work they are meant to be doing. Management interference and other distractions most likely mean they could not keep track of all the work they should be doing.
Unless they took the Microsoft route that is. Then they most likely employed a bunch of MCSE's who don't really understand technology, spent a fortune on windows servers and another fortune on active directory servers, and still got cracked endlessly.
Forums are not reputable sources
Yet Gartner is allowable to wikipedia or any uninformed computer magazine that slashdot would laugh at. Shows how great wikipedia is really, their rules are nonsense.
Supose I create a wiki entry with info about an old and obscure game from the 80s. As Wikipedia is not primary source I add references from an obscure forum. Let say 5 years from now the forum is dead and no other info can be found. What you would do with my entry? would you preserve it because is actual info (althought unconfirmable)? would you delete it?
They would delete it right away as forums are not considered reliable due to lack of editorical oversight. Wikipedia gives really biased information for anything that isn't mainstream and well documented elsewhere.
Also their rules on what is and what is not notable are arbitary so you may well fall on the wrong side of that.
There are no expert editors who can check and corroborate the information.
There are some. The really sad thing is that an expert with a PhD who has written countless well respected books has less say in an article in his field of expertise than someone with no real knowledge but more free time.
I'll bet real experts don't contribute because it's pretty sickening to see someone with little idea but good intentions trashing your hard work.
BBC iplayer?
This has to be a mistake. This is so far out of Microsoft's area that it can only be a case of the patent office putting down the wrong name as assignee.
Due to recent edits on wikipedia, wikipedia is today, in fact, having it's 250th anniversary.
That was ten minutes ago. It's on its 8 billionth birthday now.
Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.
Perhaps it's **you** who have an agenda... Who knows...
Spoken like a Wikipedia administrator.. Strange how WP:no personal attacks never applies to them.
I have no agenda. I tend to do something more productive when my perfectly valid edits get revoked. The people who spend the most time pushing normally get what they want. That creates bias.
Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject.
I've seen plenty of articles that contained correct information. That said, it would be absurdly difficult for you to find a book/website that is 100% correct in every way.
Sure. 90% correct would do fine but you can't be sure if any article really is 10% or 100% correct without doing a whole load of research. If I'm doing that kind of research anyway what use is wikipedia? Sure it's great on subjects You know nothing about because any knowledge will be an improvement.
I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.
What's stopping you from fixing it?
Edit wars and editors pushing an agenda. Administrators who go off the deep end at anything they perceive as a 'personal attack'.
And spelling and grammer nazi's who revert entire passages for one misspelling. And a lack of time and frankly interest in dealing with their bureaucracy.
Did I mention administrators who delete new pages without even trying to read or improve them?
And the assumption that if you don't react to something within a few minutes you agree with it.
Updating even small details can become a huge time drain.
Right after seeing these issues, you clicked the Edit button and corrected them, yes?
Not every time. I'm not interesting in getting into an edit war with someone trying to push an agenda.
May the next decade see it turn into something perceived as valuable to humanity as Facebook.
The best thing wikipedia could do is list subjects and the people or organizations that are considered useful sources of information on them. This would go some way to getting rid of the most-popular-is-correct bias of the thing.
Wikipedia may be an important source but it's rarely 100% correct on any given subject. I've seen shocking bias, inconsistancy, and lawyering on wikipedia and would not fully trust it for anything.
It's a good source of reference just double check important facts elsewhere.
The parent didn't say it was for life advice and some people (even highly skeptical ones) will go to psychics of all sorts simply because it can be entertaining and because a good psychic is also a decent listener and may have some good life advice simply from having talked to lots of people. Kind of like of psychologist, but likely cheaper.
Giving money to the deceitful is socially destructive. Doing it willingly is doubly so.
I happen to have paid for astrological readings many times
Paying for nonsense is irrational. Do the world a favor and give this money to a charity or the homeless.
Why make fun out of the stupid and ignorant who believe in this nonsense? It doesn't seem like much fun to me.
By now we all know that people on the whole are easily fooled and easily lead. Making fun of them for it is redundant.
The answer is "No, not unless you give us a share of the company you greedy, fat, management pig."
This is a joke right? You don't honestly believe that someone with a government-furnished cell phone should be charged with embezzlement if they use the phone for personal use do you?
If they stay within their provided number of minutes whats the problem?
It is embezzlement as well as tax fraud as consumer callers are taxed differently. But it's such a low level of theft most employers will ignore it. It's like taking stationary home. If you take one sheet of paper it's OK, if you take 10 reams it's not. There is no real guidance on where you draw the line.
I've used countless Microsoft OS's. Please look up inductive reasoning.
I did have a windows phone. It kept crashing so I binned it. Now I'm very happy with a cheap Nokia that just keeps working and has fantastic battery life.
Are you suggesting targeting niche markets isn't a valid business strategy?
If you target a niche market but someone else is targeting the same market with better stuff you are going to lose.
Windows phones are the zune of phones, they are just a catch up exercise and MS can't catch up fast enough.