Id be interested in a camera that samples at 24+ megapixels but records at 12. The math suggests that you could eliminate some of the sampling artifacts that way.
MD6 by Rivest and Skein by Schneier et. al. seem to be getting a lot of attention, but another celebrity cryptographer, Dan J. Bernstein, also has a hash in this race, called "CubeHash."
DJB continued his tradition of offering cash rewards for people to find security problems with his code, giving out (so far) monthly prizes of 100 Euros to the most interesting cryptanalysis of CubeHash.
So far, the primary criticism of CubeHash is that it's slow, running some 10 to 20 times slower than many of the others in the competition. Dan brushes off this criticism by stating on his site: "for most applications of hash functions, speed simply doesn't matter."
To be honest, when compared efforts like MD6 and Skein, with their mathematic proofs of security, VHDL and other in-hardware reference implementations, and their amazing optimizations in both speed and efficiency (Skein can process half a GByte of data per second on modern hardware, and consumes only 100 bytes) -- entries like CubeHash seem to have that longshot underdog appeal, like a New Zealand soccer World Cup team.
Truecrypt is fast. I have it on all my computers and backup devices that handle sensitive information, and there is zero slowdown visible to the user, even for IO-intensive operations.
Steve Gibson from the "security now" podcast did his own benchmark where he created a drive image and timed how long it took to defrag the drive, then restored the bits from the image, encrypted with TC, then timed the defrag again. He then repeated the process three times because he didnt believe the results -- the encrypted filesystem ran FASTER.
Take the anecdote for what it is, but the principle seems to hold true in my experience too. TrueCrypt is damn fast. It chews a few % of your CPU time when in use, but it doesnt slow things down.
No one else seems to be pointing to the fact that the notes are just a condensed version of the lectures. And if the students learn the material better by reading the notes from someone who was able to understand the teacher rather than by listening to the teacher herself, then the teacher needs to change something about the way she lectures. Maybe she should pass out some students' notes perhaps.
Does it remove, or add, more control of my machine?
Your machine is still yours, I'm afraid. Sorry to dash any hopes of another conspiracy. Note that running as a non-root user restricts some functionality (which is the whole point), but that functionality can be regained using privilege elevation (i.e. UAC).
If it adds to my current XP2 configuration, fine, I'll CONSIDER it as a replacement on this machine when XP finally goes belly up.
"Adds to my current XP2 configuration". I'm not even sure whether that's a coherent thought. If you're asking whether it still runs your old win32 programs, then the answer is yes. If you're asking whether it retains all of XP's configuration mechanisms, then the answer is no. The UI appears much more like Vista than XP.
If it REMOVES any control of my machine, in any way, then it is just another Vista, in my mind.
It sounds like you believe everything you read on Slashdot. Multi-user operating systems protect the integrity of the environment by restricting the behavior of user-installed programs to a narrowly-defined API. Welcome to Computer Science. If you want absolute control of your machine, install DOS. Vista and 7 have increased protection in comparison to XP to guard against modification of the OS itself (root kits). Ideally, though, these enhancements increase the safety of the environment without degrading user experience.
I keep seeing benchmarking, eye-candy comparisons, etc, etc, but no real discussion of embedded DRM schemes, hidden processes, etc.
DRM restricts access to content. Operating systems restrict access to devices. The system ships with programs capable of playing DRM-protected content, but that's not an OS function. The vast majority of what an OS does occurs in "hidden processes" if you want to call it that. This fact is not interesting.
It is the stuff that I cannot see on my monitor that concerns me the most when considering a OS.
The only important consideration when picking an operating system is whether it will do what you want it to do, and if so then how well. If it can't do something critical to your own workflow, then pick a system that can. If more than one can, then pick the system that does it best.
Windows 7 is largely regarded as "better" than XP and Vista because it does more of what people want than previous systems, and it does those thing better than previous systems.
Using Java avoids most of the nastiness of Linux while preserving a solid code base.
What's the "nastiness of Linux"? After years of development, the only difficult thing I've found in Linux (POSIX) development in comparison to Win32 is the fact that you can't wait on both mutexes and file handles in the same call.
If you want to keep from fubar-ing your G1 by typing in the wrong stuff accidentally, just type "cat [enter]" first thing when you power on the device, and it will be defused from then on. All input will be harmlessly filed away to stdout.
I have two identical laptops, one running windows fill-time and one that runs the latest linux distros. And while my linux machine is indespensible for many types of work, linux support for laptop features is still frustrating. That's not to say that windows is inherently wonderful, but the fact that hardware makers sink almost all their effort into improving the experience under windows really shows.
Id recommend linux if and only if you are willing to put a lot of time and effort into making the user experience fit your expectations.
I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool, it's the private pilot who wants to be able to fly somewhere and not have to worry about ground transportation at the receiving end.
If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.
It is this exactly.
Even though I'm a pilot, and even though I have access to relatively inexpensive aircraft for short to medium distance travel, I still find myself driving instead when I could fly because I'll need the car when I get there. In the end, driving only adds a few extra hours each way, reduces safety only slightly, and the cost is comparable. So I might as well drive and not have to worry about whether I'll be able to find a reasonable car at the other airport.
A "road-worthy" aircraft would be a welcome improvement if you didn't have to sacrifice too much to get it. Some of the details of this project make it sound like more of a proof-of-concept solution than something I would actually use, however.
Note that if by "flying car" one is referring to a "personal" aircraft for use by ordinary people with no more training or certification than you get with the standard driver's license, then you ought to forget such delusions right away. The technology is not the problem. We have the technology already.
But technology fails. No matter how fail-safe you engineer it, some instance of the design will eventually break. And when an aircraft fails, you NEED a qualified pilot at the controls prevent disaster.
The article uses images encrypted with in ECB mode (a well-known insecurity) as a visual analogy to the backup-file problem.
The backup-file problem is that when you have two volumes encrypted with the same key (not the same password, the same internal encryption key), the difference between those two volumes can reveal some information about the encrypted data. Perhaps all you can determine is what parts of the volume have changed, but that's more than nothing, and therefore unacceptable.
The is a "backup-file" problem because you NEVER have two volumes encrypted with the same internal key unless one starts out as a "backup" copy of the other.
The product mentioned in the article "fixes" this problem by providing an explicit "backup" function. This function creates a new volume containing the same data as the original, but which is encrypted using a different internal key. The hope is that because such an option exists, users will be dissuaded from simply storing bit-for-bit backups of their encrypted volume.
Nothing about this is ground-breaking or even novel, but the concepts at play are important for consumers of encryption products, so the attention is worthwhile.
The "ID" is just a hash -- in order to verify a hash, you re-generate it. So anyone who can verify your ID can also forge it.
So then, how is this any better than "claiming" some element by just writing your name on it? It doesn't seem to do anything more substantial than just that.
The three who voted agaisnt this are: Jeff Flake [R] Edward Royce [R] and Ronald Paul [R]
I don't know about the others, but Jeff Flake (a real "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" kind of guy) is on a crusade to end--or at least make public--pork-barrel spending and congressional earmarks.
If you read the bill carefully, I guarantee you'll find a clause about giving someone a few hundred million dollars to study their own navel.
As someone who regularly uses both iPhone and blackberry for SSH, I can at least can speak from experience.
While both are better than nothing in a pinch, the iPhone keyboard is so bad that even a multi-tap keyboard (like the pearl) is better than the iPhone for SSH. I prefer to borrow my wife's blackberry for SSH than use the iPhone keyboard. Even though the iPhone terminal is far superior, and even though the blackberry screen makes the text nearly impossible to read, tactile feedback in the keyboard makes all the difference. You don't realize just how big a deal it is till you get used to using both side-by-side for a while.
The nice thing about the arduino environment is that once I come up with a design for some device, the core system only costs about $4 to replicate, plus any additional application-specific hardware. Plus, all the tools (even the vendor-supplied developer environment) are free. As far as barriers to entry are concerned, it doesn't get much lower.
Obviously more complexity means more expensive, but how does this system compare, as far as what you get for what you pay, to the best of what's already out there?
The problem is that the big bang doesn't tell 6-year-olds where trees came from. We've got a pretty decent picture from first few milliseconds of existence up through the general formation of stars and planets. Also we've got a very detailed understanding of the formation and differentiation of species.
But there's a bit of a space between "earth cools to form solid land" and "survival of the fittest" that we largely dismiss as inevitable given low enough entropy. Unfortunately, its this murkey area, full of as-yet unverifiable speculation, where the interesting questions are answered.
when sally asks, "where do trees come from," we're really left with three possible answers. There's the unverifiable (though apparently satisfying) creation myth of your own choice. There are a few preferred theories of the origin of life--creation myths in their own right, though they have the advantage of being powered by statistical inevitability rather than by external influence; less satisfying than deity-driven myths due to the intregal role of random chance, though more consist with scientific observations.
And then there's the absurdly unsatisfying truth: nobody knows for sure. So when sally asks where trees come from, after exhausting the obvious answers ("from other trees"), hopefully the science-conscious parent will tell the truth: "We don't know." Nobody knows. Science doesn't tell us. And despite the vastness of human comprehension, we probably never will know for certain. An unsatisfying answer for sure, but the only one that's grounded on solid fact.
The gmail revenue stream depends on targeted advertising, which means they need to have a daemon read your mail. If they supported encryption as standard, they'd be cutting off some not-insignificant portion of that revenue...
Not really.
Webmail systems have to decrypt everything server-side before they can display it. All mail readers need to be able to decrypt messages before displaying them-- here, the mail reader is Google's server, not your browser. This should be obvious with even the most basic understanding of these technologies.
If you want the message to be encrypted all the way to your computer, then you need a client-side mail reader (which you're free to use with Gmail and PGP--think IMAP).
In other words, Gmail does support PGP to the extent that is possible without requiring you to divulge your private keys.
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --...
"Keep and bear arms"-If they did mean specifically "citizens" or "individuals"
The fact that a "well regulated militia" referred to "citizens" and "individuals" is beyond question. At no point has the definition of militia ever been otherwise. That's actually the difference between a "militia" and an "army".
militia -noun
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Make no mistake--the second amendment refers very specifically to arming the general public. Farmers with guns. That's what they're talking about.
This might be not seem obvious today the statement makes reference to the purpose of a militia: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...."
Today, a well regulated militia isn't necessary to the security of a free State; but back then, it was. Today, a militia does little if anything to add to the security of the State, and arguably is a hindrance. But back in the 1700's and 1800's, a state-run military was far from adequate in repelling foreign invasion. It was the farmers with guns, the citizens who were "already there" at the battle front, who won the war for independence, and they remained the country's only hope for maintaining that independence. Limits on communication, transportation, and military capability made it impossible to defend the State without the help of local civilians. The second amendment was put in place specifically (and explicitly) to protect that resource.
The question isn't, "what was the intention of the amendment." The context leaves absolutely no confusion on that front. The real question is, "what happens if the stated premise behind the amendment is no longer true?" Does the amendment automatically sunset if the the explicitly stated purpose is no longer relevant? The generally accepted answer is "no", but the ACLU believes it is "yes".
The right to use weapons "for lawful police and military purposes" is not addressed in the Bill of Rights because "police" and "military" are State entities, and therefore such use is State-sponsored. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people from infringement by the State. The State's right to make its own rules to govern itself are not relevant because they are not at risk.
All of the following companies have a full 16.7 Million addresses assigned to them. Level 3 might use theirs, (they actually have 2 blocks), but Halliburton? DEC? Amateur Radio Digital Communications? Do they all really need more than 16 million IP addresses?
This short list accounts for 654 million IP addresses -- over 15% of the address space.
003/8 General Electric Company 004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 006/8 Army Information Systems Center 008/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 009/8 IBM 011/8 DoD Intel Information Systems 012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories 013/8 Xerox Corporation 015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 017/8 Apple Computer Inc. 018/8 MIT 019/8 Ford Motor Company 020/8 Computer Sciences Corporation 021/8 DDN-RVN 022/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 025/8 UK Ministry of Defence 026/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 028/8 DSI-North 029/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 030/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 032/8 AT&T Global Network Services 033/8 DLA Systems Automation Center 034/8 Halliburton Company 035/8 MERIT Computer Network 038/8 Performance Systems International 040/8 Eli Lily & Company 043/8 Japan Inet 044/8 Amateur Radio Digital Communications 045/8 Interop Show Network 047/8 Bell-Northern Research 048/8 Prudential Securities Inc. 051/8 Deparment of Social Security of UK 052/8 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 053/8 Cap Debis CCS 054/8 Merck and Co., Inc. 055/8 DoD Network Information Center 056/8 US Postal Service 057/8 SITA
Schools aren't required to teach about the dangers of ozone depletion, nuclear fallout, or mercury poisoning -- what exactly is it that elevates this particular environmental catastrophe to the point of being required curriculum in primary education?
Slashdot Mirror
If you spend more time assigning blame than you do describing the problem, then clearly you don't have anything insightful to say.
Id be interested in a camera that samples at 24+ megapixels but records at 12. The math suggests that you could eliminate some of the sampling artifacts that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate
MD6 by Rivest and Skein by Schneier et. al. seem to be getting a lot of attention, but another celebrity cryptographer, Dan J. Bernstein, also has a hash in this race, called "CubeHash."
DJB continued his tradition of offering cash rewards for people to find security problems with his code, giving out (so far) monthly prizes of 100 Euros to the most interesting cryptanalysis of CubeHash.
So far, the primary criticism of CubeHash is that it's slow, running some 10 to 20 times slower than many of the others in the competition. Dan brushes off this criticism by stating on his site: "for most applications of hash functions, speed simply doesn't matter."
To be honest, when compared efforts like MD6 and Skein, with their mathematic proofs of security, VHDL and other in-hardware reference implementations, and their amazing optimizations in both speed and efficiency (Skein can process half a GByte of data per second on modern hardware, and consumes only 100 bytes) -- entries like CubeHash seem to have that longshot underdog appeal, like a New Zealand soccer World Cup team.
Truecrypt is fast. I have it on all my computers and backup devices that handle sensitive information, and there is zero slowdown visible to the user, even for IO-intensive operations. Steve Gibson from the "security now" podcast did his own benchmark where he created a drive image and timed how long it took to defrag the drive, then restored the bits from the image, encrypted with TC, then timed the defrag again. He then repeated the process three times because he didnt believe the results -- the encrypted filesystem ran FASTER. Take the anecdote for what it is, but the principle seems to hold true in my experience too. TrueCrypt is damn fast. It chews a few % of your CPU time when in use, but it doesnt slow things down.
No one else seems to be pointing to the fact that the notes are just a condensed version of the lectures. And if the students learn the material better by reading the notes from someone who was able to understand the teacher rather than by listening to the teacher herself, then the teacher needs to change something about the way she lectures. Maybe she should pass out some students' notes perhaps.
Does it remove, or add, more control of my machine?
Your machine is still yours, I'm afraid. Sorry to dash any hopes of another conspiracy. Note that running as a non-root user restricts some functionality (which is the whole point), but that functionality can be regained using privilege elevation (i.e. UAC).
If it adds to my current XP2 configuration, fine, I'll CONSIDER it as a replacement on this machine when XP finally goes belly up.
"Adds to my current XP2 configuration". I'm not even sure whether that's a coherent thought. If you're asking whether it still runs your old win32 programs, then the answer is yes. If you're asking whether it retains all of XP's configuration mechanisms, then the answer is no. The UI appears much more like Vista than XP.
If it REMOVES any control of my machine, in any way, then it is just another Vista, in my mind.
It sounds like you believe everything you read on Slashdot. Multi-user operating systems protect the integrity of the environment by restricting the behavior of user-installed programs to a narrowly-defined API. Welcome to Computer Science. If you want absolute control of your machine, install DOS. Vista and 7 have increased protection in comparison to XP to guard against modification of the OS itself (root kits). Ideally, though, these enhancements increase the safety of the environment without degrading user experience.
I keep seeing benchmarking, eye-candy comparisons, etc, etc, but no real discussion of embedded DRM schemes, hidden processes, etc.
DRM restricts access to content. Operating systems restrict access to devices. The system ships with programs capable of playing DRM-protected content, but that's not an OS function. The vast majority of what an OS does occurs in "hidden processes" if you want to call it that. This fact is not interesting.
It is the stuff that I cannot see on my monitor that concerns me the most when considering a OS.
The only important consideration when picking an operating system is whether it will do what you want it to do, and if so then how well. If it can't do something critical to your own workflow, then pick a system that can. If more than one can, then pick the system that does it best.
Windows 7 is largely regarded as "better" than XP and Vista because it does more of what people want than previous systems, and it does those thing better than previous systems.
Using Java avoids most of the nastiness of Linux while preserving a solid code base.
What's the "nastiness of Linux"? After years of development, the only difficult thing I've found in Linux (POSIX) development in comparison to Win32 is the fact that you can't wait on both mutexes and file handles in the same call.
Translation: They were being unintentional racists.
Almost. Actually they intended to be racist, but due to some unfortunate misinformation, they were simply buffoons.
You mean defused until you type Control-z, Control-d or Control-c, right?
Nope. I really do mean from then on. Read the various write-ups to understand why.
And for bonus points, see if you can find your phone's "control" key.
If you want to keep from fubar-ing your G1 by typing in the wrong stuff accidentally, just type "cat [enter]" first thing when you power on the device, and it will be defused from then on. All input will be harmlessly filed away to stdout.
Verified this still works on the latest OTA update, RC29.
Id recommend linux if and only if you are willing to put a lot of time and effort into making the user experience fit your expectations.
I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool, it's the private pilot who wants to be able to fly somewhere and not have to worry about ground transportation at the receiving end.
If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.
It is this exactly.
Even though I'm a pilot, and even though I have access to relatively inexpensive aircraft for short to medium distance travel, I still find myself driving instead when I could fly because I'll need the car when I get there. In the end, driving only adds a few extra hours each way, reduces safety only slightly, and the cost is comparable. So I might as well drive and not have to worry about whether I'll be able to find a reasonable car at the other airport.
A "road-worthy" aircraft would be a welcome improvement if you didn't have to sacrifice too much to get it. Some of the details of this project make it sound like more of a proof-of-concept solution than something I would actually use, however.
Note that if by "flying car" one is referring to a "personal" aircraft for use by ordinary people with no more training or certification than you get with the standard driver's license, then you ought to forget such delusions right away. The technology is not the problem. We have the technology already.
But technology fails. No matter how fail-safe you engineer it, some instance of the design will eventually break. And when an aircraft fails, you NEED a qualified pilot at the controls prevent disaster.
The article uses images encrypted with in ECB mode (a well-known insecurity) as a visual analogy to the backup-file problem.
The backup-file problem is that when you have two volumes encrypted with the same key (not the same password, the same internal encryption key), the difference between those two volumes can reveal some information about the encrypted data. Perhaps all you can determine is what parts of the volume have changed, but that's more than nothing, and therefore unacceptable.
The is a "backup-file" problem because you NEVER have two volumes encrypted with the same internal key unless one starts out as a "backup" copy of the other.
The product mentioned in the article "fixes" this problem by providing an explicit "backup" function. This function creates a new volume containing the same data as the original, but which is encrypted using a different internal key. The hope is that because such an option exists, users will be dissuaded from simply storing bit-for-bit backups of their encrypted volume.
Nothing about this is ground-breaking or even novel, but the concepts at play are important for consumers of encryption products, so the attention is worthwhile.
Still confused as to how this is useful --
The "ID" is just a hash -- in order to verify a hash, you re-generate it. So anyone who can verify your ID can also forge it.
So then, how is this any better than "claiming" some element by just writing your name on it? It doesn't seem to do anything more substantial than just that.
I don't know about the others, but Jeff Flake (a real "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" kind of guy) is on a crusade to end--or at least make public--pork-barrel spending and congressional earmarks.
If you read the bill carefully, I guarantee you'll find a clause about giving someone a few hundred million dollars to study their own navel.
While both are better than nothing in a pinch, the iPhone keyboard is so bad that even a multi-tap keyboard (like the pearl) is better than the iPhone for SSH. I prefer to borrow my wife's blackberry for SSH than use the iPhone keyboard. Even though the iPhone terminal is far superior, and even though the blackberry screen makes the text nearly impossible to read, tactile feedback in the keyboard makes all the difference. You don't realize just how big a deal it is till you get used to using both side-by-side for a while.
Obviously more complexity means more expensive, but how does this system compare, as far as what you get for what you pay, to the best of what's already out there?
But there's a bit of a space between "earth cools to form solid land" and "survival of the fittest" that we largely dismiss as inevitable given low enough entropy. Unfortunately, its this murkey area, full of as-yet unverifiable speculation, where the interesting questions are answered.
when sally asks, "where do trees come from," we're really left with three possible answers. There's the unverifiable (though apparently satisfying) creation myth of your own choice. There are a few preferred theories of the origin of life--creation myths in their own right, though they have the advantage of being powered by statistical inevitability rather than by external influence; less satisfying than deity-driven myths due to the intregal role of random chance, though more consist with scientific observations.
And then there's the absurdly unsatisfying truth: nobody knows for sure. So when sally asks where trees come from, after exhausting the obvious answers ("from other trees"), hopefully the science-conscious parent will tell the truth: "We don't know." Nobody knows. Science doesn't tell us. And despite the vastness of human comprehension, we probably never will know for certain. An unsatisfying answer for sure, but the only one that's grounded on solid fact.
It should... since that's what it is. Apparently they've improved the recipe to get a better yield from specific materials.
News, but not new.
Not really.
Webmail systems have to decrypt everything server-side before they can display it. All mail readers need to be able to decrypt messages before displaying them-- here, the mail reader is Google's server, not your browser. This should be obvious with even the most basic understanding of these technologies.
If you want the message to be encrypted all the way to your computer, then you need a client-side mail reader (which you're free to use with Gmail and PGP--think IMAP).
In other words, Gmail does support PGP to the extent that is possible without requiring you to divulge your private keys.
Now run along and quit spreading FUD.
Take that, anonymous elephant!
The fact that a "well regulated militia" referred to "citizens" and "individuals" is beyond question. At no point has the definition of militia ever been otherwise. That's actually the difference between a "militia" and an "army".
Make no mistake--the second amendment refers very specifically to arming the general public. Farmers with guns. That's what they're talking about.
This might be not seem obvious today the statement makes reference to the purpose of a militia: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...."
Today, a well regulated militia isn't necessary to the security of a free State; but back then, it was. Today, a militia does little if anything to add to the security of the State, and arguably is a hindrance. But back in the 1700's and 1800's, a state-run military was far from adequate in repelling foreign invasion. It was the farmers with guns, the citizens who were "already there" at the battle front, who won the war for independence, and they remained the country's only hope for maintaining that independence. Limits on communication, transportation, and military capability made it impossible to defend the State without the help of local civilians. The second amendment was put in place specifically (and explicitly) to protect that resource.
The question isn't, "what was the intention of the amendment." The context leaves absolutely no confusion on that front. The real question is, "what happens if the stated premise behind the amendment is no longer true?" Does the amendment automatically sunset if the the explicitly stated purpose is no longer relevant? The generally accepted answer is "no", but the ACLU believes it is "yes".
The right to use weapons "for lawful police and military purposes" is not addressed in the Bill of Rights because "police" and "military" are State entities, and therefore such use is State-sponsored. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people from infringement by the State. The State's right to make its own rules to govern itself are not relevant because they are not at risk.
First of all, break up the "LEGACY" Class-A allocations. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space. That'll free up a bunch.
All of the following companies have a full 16.7 Million addresses assigned to them. Level 3 might use theirs, (they actually have 2 blocks), but Halliburton? DEC? Amateur Radio Digital Communications? Do they all really need more than 16 million IP addresses?
This short list accounts for 654 million IP addresses -- over 15% of the address space.
Schools aren't required to teach about the dangers of ozone depletion, nuclear fallout, or mercury poisoning -- what exactly is it that elevates this particular environmental catastrophe to the point of being required curriculum in primary education?
Something doesn't seem right about it.