It was my understanding that Congress is capable of reversing the FTC decision if they care enough about it, so i'd rather see it AFTER the decisions. Better that then a pretense of complaint before the decision and then forgetting about the whole issue afterwards.
I didn't say it was likely, i said it was _possible_.
I was thinking earlier that the overpass system here in LA would be a great place to hide caches. Incidentally, you could cause a great deal of damage by plowing up the supports during rush hour traffic. I don't think it's likely that anyone will try that, and i don't think it's a sufficiently valid reason to place restrictions on geocaching, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
Right. And therefore, you're not actually _at_ infinity.
Yes, you are. You're at a countably infinite number. I don't pretend to understand exactly how it works, but it is an accepted definition by mathematicians.
The argument that the answer isn't zero doesn't hold water under the common sense idea of dividing by infinity, and it doesn't make sense under a strict mathematical view either. Everyone making this criticism can only do so by putting together some strange hodge-podge of saying it's a limit function when it really isn't and/or the number isn't infinite when it really is.
The limit of 6/n as n approaches 2 is 3. That does not mean that 6/2 isn't 3 because it's just "approaching" 3.
From the article: "said Stevens, who once found a geocache under a condiment stand at the Metrodome."
I don't think the other guy's point is really valid, especially in this context where parks are considering banning the sport, but saying that a bomb couldn't be effectively hidden as a geocache in a high traffic area just isn't true.
See the above discussion, 2 is the only even prime number. There are an infinite number of prime numbers. Therefore the percentage of even numbers in the prime number set is 1/infinity, which is 0.
Note that the "it's only approaching zero as you approach infinity" argument is bogus, as we're not doing limits and we're not approaching infinity, we're already at infinity.
Wrong. The correct mathematical statement is that as the denominator _approaches_ infinity, the result _approaches_ zero. If the denominator is already _at_ infinity and not approaching it, then the result is _at_ zero.
I didn't say that everyone who had the vaguest idea what it meant was a _large_ group. Just that there are a few of us left who still remember. Why don't you go and pick on someone who disagrees with you? =P
A few other choices would be: ascendancy, dominance, domination, preponderancy, preponderation, or mastery.
Speaking of arrogance...
It's entirely possible to be arrogant about something that's true, although the military isn't the only thing America is arrogant about, and not all of those things are true.
I know you're a troll, but i just have to say, you'd have to get through me first, and everyone else who has even the vaguest idea of the the United States of America's Bill of Rights says and what it means.
I somewhat agree with you, however it's true of all consoles. It might be the whole loss of childhood innocence type thing, the nostalgia value placed on old games. Or maybe Nintendo has lost it's touch, but if so, it's a touch that Sony and Microsoft don't have either. Or maybe games have gotten too complex, the most addictive games are always things like Tetris after all. Or maybe it's just the fact that now that i'm an adult and have a job i don't have the ability to immerse myself in games the same way as i used to. If i could sit around playing games all day like i used to maybe that feeling would come back.
Anyone want to donate a few million dollars to me so i can be independently wealthy and test that hypothesis out?:)
Why do you say their E3 presentation was lousy? I think i spent more time in their booth than any other. Mario Kart was great, F-Zero was pretty good, FF: Crystal Quest was intriguing, although i'd have liked to have seen the single player mode. Lots of cool stuff as far as i could tell.
In some ways i feel worse about animals getting hurt/killed than i do about people. Not that people getting hurt or killed is _good_, but at least we have the intelect to understand what's going on and try to deal with it in some manner.
The 6-cylinder vehicle usually weighs more however, and therefore it _does_ hurt the road more.
At least i presume you meant 6-cylinder vehicle and not 6-cylinder roads. If not, i'm interested to hear where you're from such that the roads have engines installed in them:)
However they're doing 100+ times the damage to the road. If SUV owners were to be taxed proportionatly to the damage they cause, they should be paying 100 times as much, not 3 times as much. Therefore the drivers of smaller cars are subsidizing the drivers of larger cars to a certain degree.
When i do look for friends or girlfriends online, i'm looking for geeks.
I'm looking for people who like anime, who play RPGs, who read Science Fiction and/or Fantasy, who play video games.
That stuff isn't _that_ easy to fake since they involve specific knowledge of relatively unusual subjects, but more importantly, who would _WANT_ to fake that? The type of people who want to lie to impress other people aren't going to lie about being geeks.
Another thing that saves me is more than half the people i meet online is through friends who i know well and trust introducing me to people they know in person.
This will probably never get seen at the bottom of 800 some odd posts, and may very well have been mentioned already, however...
I have seen pretty much the same argument "successfully" used to argue that the human race is about to go extinct, it may even have been here on Slashdot.
Basically, given the exponential growth of human population, the claim is made that the vast majority of the people throughout history are born in a relatively small segement (time-wise) at the end of the curve. Thus, if the human race were to continue for another hundred years, it would be very likely for us to have been born in that time rather than this time. Therefore, since we're alive now, rather than then, it's very likely (they claimed) that the world is going to end very soon, within 20 years or so.
This argument has a _lot_ of flaws in it. The most basic problem is that you can apply the same rationale to any time in human history. 200 years ago someone could have made the exact same argument and come to the same conclusion that this person had.
Similarly, looking forward, the people who are theoretically running the matrix we are in in the future could make the same argument about themselves, at least given the theoretically infinite increase in computational power the author expects. Likewise the people running _that_ theoretical matrix could make the same argument again, ad infinitum. Obviously not _everyone_ can be in the matrix.
Another flaw is the extremely limited set of data points, namely, just one. Theoretically being alive now rather than later may be unlikely, but _someone_ had to be alive now, why not us? It's not as if we can look into the future to see all the people who were "luckier" and ended up in a "more probable" time. We can however dig up the bones of people who were obviously alive in the past, and by probability were even more unlikely to have ended up in their time than we were to end up in ours, yet there they are/were.
Both arguments are also making big assumptions about the future. One, that exponential growth will continue forever, the other that the technology to simulate that many people will develop and be used.
Why does Seiken Densetu 3 have a similar problem? I thought Secret of Mana and Legends of Mana got a much better reception in the US then the SaGa series. For that matter, they could always rerelease Secret of Mana along with FF3, although i'd prefer to see Seiken Densetsu 3 of course, it's a wonderful game.
Eh, it was a pretty good show, but you wouldn't know that from looking at the list.
I'm into RPGs and strategy games, so the first eight categories meant very little to me, and even then they missed out on things like FF: Crystal Quest, and the new Defender of the Crown was really cool. Oh, and the mini-robots battle games (of which there were two, but both were cool =)
If we need to develop other protocols to handle specific cases (say, nanobots) then obviously IPV6 wouldn't have more than we could ever need, would it?
Sorry, i miswrote "Solar System" instead of "Galaxy" the math is still correct.
Stephen Hawking has stated that time travel may be a theoretical possibility, and you think traveling across the galaxy is going to be forever out of our reach?
For a FREAKIN' argument sakes that such technology existed. However, IF IT DID, a crappy problem like IPV6 would not even EXIST!!! This would ALSO apply to any civilization that can created 100 trillion nanobots, you idiot!
Are you regressing in age as we watch? Here is the simple, logical argument. You say IPV6 will have all the IP numbers we'll ever need. If there is a point in the future where more IP addresses are needed than IPV6 can provide, then your statement is false, even if at that point in time IPV6 is not being used.
Burning wood can not provide humans with all the energy we need at the present time. The fact that at the present time we have means of aquiring energy other than burning wood does not negate the statement.
And yes, i know how big a number 2^128 is. Enough to index ever cell of every human if there were 10,000 billion humans per planet in 300 galaxies with 1 billion planets per galaxy. (I don't expect there to be 10,000 billion humans per planet, just 10 billion and the rest taken up by industrial and telecomunication issues, but apparently you aren't capable of understanding more subtle arguments)
Did you even read my comment? Obviously not given the complete lack of thought on your part.
Each person could have 100 trillion nanobots with a unique IP address in them just by themselves. I suspect the number of nanobots out performing other tasks would be even larger. So if each planet had only 10 billion people, that would be 1x10^24 addresses. I'd guess maybe 1000 times as many nanobots would be scattered across the rest of the planet and within the solar system, perfoming manufacturing tasks, transmiting data, being used for research, controlling the weather, whatever. That's 1x10^27 addresses per planet/solar system.
Say there are a billion planets per solar system as you say. (And are you too dumb to know about research into wormholes and other potential methods of circumventing the speed of light?) so the whole galaxy would use up 1x10^36 addresses.
That would mean that 300 fully developed galaxies would exhaust the number of IP addresses, even if they were perfectly allocated. In reality I expect you'd start seeing shortages at a much smaller number than that.
As for whether or not we're still using IPV6 in 1000 years or 10,000 or however many years is required is really beside the point. You're making the claim that we won't ever run out with that many IP addresses, i'm claiming that running out is indeed possible. If we were to never run out, why would we bother upgrading from IPV6 anyways?
No, you sound like the ignorant idiot. If the problems we were going to run into were easily foreseable, no one would ever be foolish enough to say "640k is enough for anyone" or "we'll never need IP addresses larger than 128 bits."
The most obvious possibility for running out of IPV6 addreses as has already been mentioned is the development of nanobots. Those could start eating into the number of available addresses pretty seriously.
A lot of your fellow posters seem to be under the misaprehension that we only need to consider earth. I'd really like to think that we'll make it off this planet someday. If we do, we might evntually end up colonizing billions of planets, and have who knows how many various devices scattered about in the space betweem planets. (Pleanty of room there for a _lot_ of nanobots)
And as someone else also mentioned, mismanagement can also "lose" a large number of addresses, although that probably wouldn't be any larger than a factor of 10 or so at most.
1000 years from now the Slashdot of the times could be posting a story that Galaxy 169 is running out of IPV6 addresses because Galaxy 1 was allocated 50% of all the possible addreses.
THINK before you post... THINK before you post... Keep repeating that yourself... IDIOT!
Wow, no one _ever_ had that idea. That's why it only takes an hour to go four miles if you get off the freeway rather than a half hour in the freeway traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
It was my understanding that Congress is capable of reversing the FTC decision if they care enough about it, so i'd rather see it AFTER the decisions. Better that then a pretense of complaint before the decision and then forgetting about the whole issue afterwards.
I was thinking earlier that the overpass system here in LA would be a great place to hide caches. Incidentally, you could cause a great deal of damage by plowing up the supports during rush hour traffic. I don't think it's likely that anyone will try that, and i don't think it's a sufficiently valid reason to place restrictions on geocaching, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
Yes, you are. You're at a countably infinite number. I don't pretend to understand exactly how it works, but it is an accepted definition by mathematicians.
The argument that the answer isn't zero doesn't hold water under the common sense idea of dividing by infinity, and it doesn't make sense under a strict mathematical view either. Everyone making this criticism can only do so by putting together some strange hodge-podge of saying it's a limit function when it really isn't and/or the number isn't infinite when it really is.
The limit of 6/n as n approaches 2 is 3. That does not mean that 6/2 isn't 3 because it's just "approaching" 3.
I don't think the other guy's point is really valid, especially in this context where parks are considering banning the sport, but saying that a bomb couldn't be effectively hidden as a geocache in a high traffic area just isn't true.
Note that the "it's only approaching zero as you approach infinity" argument is bogus, as we're not doing limits and we're not approaching infinity, we're already at infinity.
Wrong. The correct mathematical statement is that as the denominator _approaches_ infinity, the result _approaches_ zero. If the denominator is already _at_ infinity and not approaching it, then the result is _at_ zero.
I didn't say that everyone who had the vaguest idea what it meant was a _large_ group. Just that there are a few of us left who still remember. Why don't you go and pick on someone who disagrees with you? =P
A few other choices would be: ascendancy, dominance, domination, preponderancy, preponderation, or mastery.
Speaking of arrogance...
It's entirely possible to be arrogant about something that's true, although the military isn't the only thing America is arrogant about, and not all of those things are true.
I know you're a troll, but i just have to say, you'd have to get through me first, and everyone else who has even the vaguest idea of the the United States of America's Bill of Rights says and what it means.
Anyone want to donate a few million dollars to me so i can be independently wealthy and test that hypothesis out? :)
Why do you say their E3 presentation was lousy? I think i spent more time in their booth than any other. Mario Kart was great, F-Zero was pretty good, FF: Crystal Quest was intriguing, although i'd have liked to have seen the single player mode. Lots of cool stuff as far as i could tell.
And you are an annoying flamer, your point?
Yeah, i'm strange.
At least i presume you meant 6-cylinder vehicle and not 6-cylinder roads. If not, i'm interested to hear where you're from such that the roads have engines installed in them :)
However they're doing 100+ times the damage to the road. If SUV owners were to be taxed proportionatly to the damage they cause, they should be paying 100 times as much, not 3 times as much. Therefore the drivers of smaller cars are subsidizing the drivers of larger cars to a certain degree.
I'm looking for people who like anime, who play RPGs, who read Science Fiction and/or Fantasy, who play video games.
That stuff isn't _that_ easy to fake since they involve specific knowledge of relatively unusual subjects, but more importantly, who would _WANT_ to fake that? The type of people who want to lie to impress other people aren't going to lie about being geeks.
Another thing that saves me is more than half the people i meet online is through friends who i know well and trust introducing me to people they know in person.
I have seen pretty much the same argument "successfully" used to argue that the human race is about to go extinct, it may even have been here on Slashdot.
Basically, given the exponential growth of human population, the claim is made that the vast majority of the people throughout history are born in a relatively small segement (time-wise) at the end of the curve. Thus, if the human race were to continue for another hundred years, it would be very likely for us to have been born in that time rather than this time. Therefore, since we're alive now, rather than then, it's very likely (they claimed) that the world is going to end very soon, within 20 years or so.
This argument has a _lot_ of flaws in it. The most basic problem is that you can apply the same rationale to any time in human history. 200 years ago someone could have made the exact same argument and come to the same conclusion that this person had.
Similarly, looking forward, the people who are theoretically running the matrix we are in in the future could make the same argument about themselves, at least given the theoretically infinite increase in computational power the author expects. Likewise the people running _that_ theoretical matrix could make the same argument again, ad infinitum. Obviously not _everyone_ can be in the matrix.
Another flaw is the extremely limited set of data points, namely, just one. Theoretically being alive now rather than later may be unlikely, but _someone_ had to be alive now, why not us? It's not as if we can look into the future to see all the people who were "luckier" and ended up in a "more probable" time. We can however dig up the bones of people who were obviously alive in the past, and by probability were even more unlikely to have ended up in their time than we were to end up in ours, yet there they are/were.
Both arguments are also making big assumptions about the future. One, that exponential growth will continue forever, the other that the technology to simulate that many people will develop and be used.
Why does Seiken Densetu 3 have a similar problem? I thought Secret of Mana and Legends of Mana got a much better reception in the US then the SaGa series. For that matter, they could always rerelease Secret of Mana along with FF3, although i'd prefer to see Seiken Densetsu 3 of course, it's a wonderful game.
You wuss!
Back in my day we had to bang big rocks together in order to tell the characters what to do, and we liked it! And in the snow even!
I'm into RPGs and strategy games, so the first eight categories meant very little to me, and even then they missed out on things like FF: Crystal Quest, and the new Defender of the Crown was really cool. Oh, and the mini-robots battle games (of which there were two, but both were cool =)
If we need to develop other protocols to handle specific cases (say, nanobots) then obviously IPV6 wouldn't have more than we could ever need, would it?
Stephen Hawking has stated that time travel may be a theoretical possibility, and you think traveling across the galaxy is going to be forever out of our reach?
For a FREAKIN' argument sakes that such technology existed. However, IF IT DID, a crappy problem like IPV6 would not even EXIST!!! This would ALSO apply to any civilization that can created 100 trillion nanobots, you idiot!
Are you regressing in age as we watch? Here is the simple, logical argument. You say IPV6 will have all the IP numbers we'll ever need. If there is a point in the future where more IP addresses are needed than IPV6 can provide, then your statement is false, even if at that point in time IPV6 is not being used.
Burning wood can not provide humans with all the energy we need at the present time. The fact that at the present time we have means of aquiring energy other than burning wood does not negate the statement.
And yes, i know how big a number 2^128 is. Enough to index ever cell of every human if there were 10,000 billion humans per planet in 300 galaxies with 1 billion planets per galaxy. (I don't expect there to be 10,000 billion humans per planet, just 10 billion and the rest taken up by industrial and telecomunication issues, but apparently you aren't capable of understanding more subtle arguments)
Each person could have 100 trillion nanobots with a unique IP address in them just by themselves. I suspect the number of nanobots out performing other tasks would be even larger. So if each planet had only 10 billion people, that would be 1x10^24 addresses. I'd guess maybe 1000 times as many nanobots would be scattered across the rest of the planet and within the solar system, perfoming manufacturing tasks, transmiting data, being used for research, controlling the weather, whatever. That's 1x10^27 addresses per planet/solar system.
Say there are a billion planets per solar system as you say. (And are you too dumb to know about research into wormholes and other potential methods of circumventing the speed of light?) so the whole galaxy would use up 1x10^36 addresses.
That would mean that 300 fully developed galaxies would exhaust the number of IP addresses, even if they were perfectly allocated. In reality I expect you'd start seeing shortages at a much smaller number than that.
As for whether or not we're still using IPV6 in 1000 years or 10,000 or however many years is required is really beside the point. You're making the claim that we won't ever run out with that many IP addresses, i'm claiming that running out is indeed possible. If we were to never run out, why would we bother upgrading from IPV6 anyways?
The most obvious possibility for running out of IPV6 addreses as has already been mentioned is the development of nanobots. Those could start eating into the number of available addresses pretty seriously.
A lot of your fellow posters seem to be under the misaprehension that we only need to consider earth. I'd really like to think that we'll make it off this planet someday. If we do, we might evntually end up colonizing billions of planets, and have who knows how many various devices scattered about in the space betweem planets. (Pleanty of room there for a _lot_ of nanobots)
And as someone else also mentioned, mismanagement can also "lose" a large number of addresses, although that probably wouldn't be any larger than a factor of 10 or so at most.
1000 years from now the Slashdot of the times could be posting a story that Galaxy 169 is running out of IPV6 addresses because Galaxy 1 was allocated 50% of all the possible addreses.
THINK before you post... THINK before you post... Keep repeating that yourself... IDIOT!
Wow, no one _ever_ had that idea. That's why it only takes an hour to go four miles if you get off the freeway rather than a half hour in the freeway traffic.