Sure, bullet cars do capture the dreams and can pull kids towards engineering... a day-long curriculum where they get a kid or two on board and show what is the cool stuff they work on?
Hmmmm. bullet car vs 'a day-long curriculum'. Now that is a tricky one...
They also have to be able to turn that sucker around and (*ahem*) drive it back the other way so an average speed can be calculated, and that average is the 'record'. My guess is that if you had to remove the spent solid fuel rocket and replace it with a new one it could be argued that it isn't the same vehicle doing the return run... but that is just a guess...
... All places in Britain will always have the same time as France.
And there you have it, in a nut shell. It's no secret that France has long wanted the Meridian to pass through Paris, where other items that define weights and measure reside, so they can all be in one (*ahem* French *ahem*) place.
Once we don't use Greenwich Mean Time the next step will be for France to re-name Paris as "Greenwich", then they'll subtly move the meridian and the world, nay, Le Monde, will now be based on French Time... La Belle Time Francaise! Then we'll see how much use that extra hour in the evening is!
Well, that's not true. And best of all you can chose which direction to extrapolate it! Obviously, this extrapolation then says more about the extrapolator than the data, but it can still be an interesting experiment.
...The Taliban are not considered legitimate by a wide swath of the Muslim world...
I do wish more Muslims would stand up and be counted when it comes to Muslim extremists, be they Taliban or whatever. If it was my religion being desecrated in such a fashion I'd be screaming from the rooftops for them to stop committing such atrocities in the name of Islam!
Of course, maybe there are such people shouting and the press doesn't give it air-time. The press/media may have their own agenda!
Whenever the car starts, generate a random ID that's statistically certain to be unique. All the short term benefits of a unique identifier without the long term privacy risks.
OK, so if you want to follow someone without being seen, you just wait a suitable distance from the vehicle and when it starts you pick up their unique code, and voila! you have an instant "track-from-a-distance" leash.
You really don't want to offer these sorts of capabilities to those who may wish you harm.
A good friend of mine had a bit of a run-in with some blackmailers a couple of years ago. He got a 'phone call from them requesting £10000 or they'd kill his wife and kids and the usual warnings about contacting the police. He (obviously!) called the police and they were whisked off to a safe house for a few days while panic alarms, etc, were put in the house. To give you some idea of how seriously the police took it, the panic buttons raised the alarm in the local police station, AND in all the cars out on patrol, with the instructions that if it went off they would drop whatever they were doing and proceed directly, and at speed, to his house. His father in law was rather surprised to be greeted by armed police when he turned up unexpected a few days later...
Now the relevant part: There is NO WAY IN HELL my mate would have a vehicle with any means of tracking it built in because that would make it just that little bit easier for people to track him and his family.
They caught the blackmailers and they are now residing at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I'd ask can we afford not to?
The clock is ticking and at some point the Earth will be so full that undertaking such an enterprise (!) will require not feeding vast numbers of people to scrape the money together.
There are (clever) people who think that there is a window of opportunity for such a large project and that at some point the ever-growing population of the Earth will be so large that _just feeding_ everyone will take ALL the economic output of the planet. At that point, assuming we still have democracies, no Government is going to get elected if their manifesto includes such items as restricting the budget for feeding people and increasing the budget for some off-world boondoggle.
This doesn't seem unlikely to me (too be clear, it seems like a logical extension of what's happening now!). How long have we got? well interestingly, the figure of 100 years had been bandied about. That may well just be the _nice round number syndrome_, but at some point it may be too late. That would be very sad because then the human species is doomed.
We really need to be thinking about getting off this rock sooner rather than later...
(Sorry about the underscores, but italics don't seem to be working!)
Yes, just mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 using this mechanism does not make it possible for your old IPv4 host to communicate with a IPv6 host using an address outside the 4 billion address space supported by IPv4.
I was never suggesting any such thing. Those remaining glued to the old IPv4 world would be restricted to it, for the very reason you describe. As more websites became available only under IPv6 they would have a reason to upgrade and join in with IPv6, but they wouldn't have to.
So what you describe is not actually backwards compability.
The new IPv6 world could see the old IPv4 world. That sounds rather like backward compatibility to me, indeed, the very definition of.
... IPv6 has 128 bit source and destination addresses. Which means that the router would calculate the offset for the payload within the packet incorrectly.
This is sort of the kind of thing I was hinting at when I said:
all IPv6 routers, etc, would understand that one of the first IPv6 addresses meant 'route the traffic to the corresponding IPv4 address'
ie IPv6 routers, etc, would recognise an IPv6 address within the initial IPv4 range and route it accordingly. My maths is a little old, but wouldn't that just be a matter of knocking off the appropriate No. of bits from one end or the other (your endianicity may vary!) to translate one of the first 'n' IPv6 addresses into the associated IPv4 one, and pass it on to the IPv4 network?
In a nutshell, where you say "calculate the offset for the payload within the packet incorrectly" I already suggested that the various IPv6 system should do exactly the opposite - ie calculate the offset correctly - as that would be far more useful a feature for a piece of network equipment!
Anyway, IANANE (network engineer - and I can hear you all screaming "EVIDENTLY!"), it was just an idea, but 10 years too late...
This would allow the IPv6 world to talk to all of the IPv4 world but does nothing to allow the IPv4 to talk to the full IPv6 world.
How would an IPv4 user connect to a new IPv6 service that did not also have a corresponding IPv4 address? You'd have to limit the IPv6 address space size to that of IPv4 which rather defeats the object!
I guess I needed to be clearer when I said:
... As more w/s moved to IPv6 only there would be a compelling reason for more people to follow suit...
because obviously any luddites hanging onto IPv4 would be restricted to only the stuff available over IPv4, but those upgrading to IPv6 could see IPv6 (like, duh) and IPv4. The ever increasing amount of 'stuff' only available on IPv6 would be the carrot (compelling reason even) for folks to upgrade.
What I don't get is why the people who came up with IPv6 didn't make the upgrade path easier? Obviously I'm missing something, but what if (for the sake of argument) they had decided that the first 'n' IPv6 addresses would correspond to the complete set of IPv4 addresses, and all IPv6 routers, etc, would understand that one of the first IPv6 addresses meant 'route the traffic to the corresponding IPv4 address'. Could that have been done?
If so, then people could have been upgrading to IPv6 over the last 10 years as opportunities arose (ie as old equipment needed replacing they'd have replaced with the IPv6 option) and still have been able to see the IPv4 world. As more w/s moved to IPv6 only there would be a compelling reason for more people to follow suit...
Once all traffic was using IPv6 there could be an update to free up those first 'n' address for use in IPv6, though there's so many addresses that might not be required for quite some time, so the natural upgrading of equipment would see them made available over the next 5 or 10 years without needing any big splash upgrades.
Or am I completely missing something that would have made this impossible?
Underwater, though, just seems like a recipe for making the whole thing even more expensive than on the water, along with harder to monitor and maintain, and likely to be much more exciting if there is a steam leak or something. Is there some advantage that I am not seeing, or is this a case of "when you are a post-cold-war-nuclear-submarine-designer everything looks like it needs an underwater nuclear reactor"?
If you make it a boat and expect it to float, what's the worst thing that could happen? Yep. The sucker sinks! If there's rough seas, etc being on a boat is gonna suck, whereas being safely on the seabed is gonna be a cake-walk. Plus we're pretty good at making submarines...
Note also that this is the version that mentions the Greenpeace folks all claiming it was a put-up job and it was a 'fix' (hotly denied by the fixers obviously). Even so, it WAS a train and it did hit one of the 1984 style transport containers at 100MPH. Fix or no, that's pretty impressive!
My guess is that containment technology has improved since 1984.
I think the biggest stupidity with this... is the fact that 50% of the time your solar panels aren't producing energy.
Hmmmm. How about some mirrors in orbit that redirect the sunlight to the (ma-HOOO-sive) solar array in the desert. Sure, the resulting sunlight is likely to be less effective, but it would presumably be considerably more effective than none even if it does just extend the 'light' period to perhaps 3/4 of a day. Also, given we've just paved over a shed-load of desert, the reflectors don't need to be quite so accurate and as it's mostly 'uninhabited' it shouldn't annoy the locals too much. Perhaps light up a quarter or eight of the array each night rather than all of it to keep the day/night cycle for whatever wildlife is around.
Better yet, given there's likely to be a number of such arrays in similar latitudes around the glob, these mirrors could work for all such establishments.
I don't have a source. But CNN has coverage that engineers warned that the blowout preventers were going to leak, and BP ignored them. This is a corporate failure, as much as it is a technical one.
I certainly saw engineers from Transocean, or was it Halliburton, saying something like that. Luckily we can obviously trust those engineers because they (and the company they work for) has nothing to gain from saying it.
Of course, it could be argued that if those engineers, who presumably worked for Transocean (who owned and operated the rig) knew there was a problem and did nothing about it then they, and the company they work for, are left holding the smoking gun!
Unless we allow the "ve vere only following orders" defence these days!
Sorry, my bad. What I meant was.. Do you honestly think the casinos are going to be encouraging the big players to come to their casinos if they're always winning?
As we already know, anyone who always wins is politely asked to go visit some other casino.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, bullet cars do capture the dreams and can pull kids towards engineering ... a day-long curriculum where they get a kid or two on board and show what is the cool stuff they work on?
Hmmmm. bullet car vs 'a day-long curriculum'. Now that is a tricky one ...
They also have to be able to turn that sucker around and (*ahem*) drive it back the other way so an average speed can be calculated, and that average is the 'record'. My guess is that if you had to remove the spent solid fuel rocket and replace it with a new one it could be argued that it isn't the same vehicle doing the return run ... but that is just a guess ...
... what is the correct response?
Just blindly do what you're told and if the brown and slippery hits the rapidly rotating you can always use the "I was following orders" defence!
... All places in Britain will always have the same time as France.
And there you have it, in a nut shell. It's no secret that France has long wanted the Meridian to pass through Paris, where other items that define weights and measure reside, so they can all be in one (*ahem* French *ahem*) place.
Once we don't use Greenwich Mean Time the next step will be for France to re-name Paris as "Greenwich", then they'll subtly move the meridian and the world, nay, Le Monde, will now be based on French Time ... La Belle Time Francaise! Then we'll see how much use that extra hour in the evening is!
Just Say Non!
You can't extrapolate a line from one point.
Well, that's not true. And best of all you can chose which direction to extrapolate it! Obviously, this extrapolation then says more about the extrapolator than the data, but it can still be an interesting experiment.
... we really just need a small group to protect the environment and or a army that create Harmony between nations.
Sure, I'll vote for that as long as it's my army!
...The Taliban are not considered legitimate by a wide swath of the Muslim world ...
I do wish more Muslims would stand up and be counted when it comes to Muslim extremists, be they Taliban or whatever. If it was my religion being desecrated in such a fashion I'd be screaming from the rooftops for them to stop committing such atrocities in the name of Islam!
Of course, maybe there are such people shouting and the press doesn't give it air-time. The press/media may have their own agenda!
Whenever the car starts, generate a random ID that's statistically certain to be unique. All the short term benefits of a unique identifier without the long term privacy risks.
OK, so if you want to follow someone without being seen, you just wait a suitable distance from the vehicle and when it starts you pick up their unique code, and voila! you have an instant "track-from-a-distance" leash.
You really don't want to offer these sorts of capabilities to those who may wish you harm.
Unique ID is a must for anything meaningful.
A good friend of mine had a bit of a run-in with some blackmailers a couple of years ago. He got a 'phone call from them requesting £10000 or they'd kill his wife and kids and the usual warnings about contacting the police. He (obviously!) called the police and they were whisked off to a safe house for a few days while panic alarms, etc, were put in the house. To give you some idea of how seriously the police took it, the panic buttons raised the alarm in the local police station, AND in all the cars out on patrol, with the instructions that if it went off they would drop whatever they were doing and proceed directly, and at speed, to his house. His father in law was rather surprised to be greeted by armed police when he turned up unexpected a few days later ...
Now the relevant part: There is NO WAY IN HELL my mate would have a vehicle with any means of tracking it built in because that would make it just that little bit easier for people to track him and his family.
They caught the blackmailers and they are now residing at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I'd ask can we afford not to?
The clock is ticking and at some point the Earth will be so full that undertaking such an enterprise (!) will require not feeding vast numbers of people to scrape the money together.
... If we were to just wait 100 years or so ...
There are (clever) people who think that there is a window of opportunity for such a large project and that at some point the ever-growing population of the Earth will be so large that _just feeding_ everyone will take ALL the economic output of the planet. At that point, assuming we still have democracies, no Government is going to get elected if their manifesto includes such items as restricting the budget for feeding people and increasing the budget for some off-world boondoggle.
This doesn't seem unlikely to me (too be clear, it seems like a logical extension of what's happening now!). How long have we got? well interestingly, the figure of 100 years had been bandied about. That may well just be the _nice round number syndrome_, but at some point it may be too late. That would be very sad because then the human species is doomed.
We really need to be thinking about getting off this rock sooner rather than later ...
(Sorry about the underscores, but italics don't seem to be working!)
Or you could start with a small female crew, and thousands of "genetic samples". (Semen and eggs)
Why only chose the small females? Is that to save space or just weight?
Yes, just mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 using this mechanism does not make it possible for your old IPv4 host to communicate with a IPv6 host using an address outside the 4 billion address space supported by IPv4.
I was never suggesting any such thing. Those remaining glued to the old IPv4 world would be restricted to it, for the very reason you describe. As more websites became available only under IPv6 they would have a reason to upgrade and join in with IPv6, but they wouldn't have to.
So what you describe is not actually backwards compability.
The new IPv6 world could see the old IPv4 world. That sounds rather like backward compatibility to me, indeed, the very definition of.
... IPv6 has 128 bit source and destination addresses. Which means that the router would calculate the offset for the payload within the packet incorrectly.
This is sort of the kind of thing I was hinting at when I said:
all IPv6 routers, etc, would understand that one of the first IPv6 addresses meant 'route the traffic to the corresponding IPv4 address'
ie IPv6 routers, etc, would recognise an IPv6 address within the initial IPv4 range and route it accordingly. My maths is a little old, but wouldn't that just be a matter of knocking off the appropriate No. of bits from one end or the other (your endianicity may vary!) to translate one of the first 'n' IPv6 addresses into the associated IPv4 one, and pass it on to the IPv4 network?
In a nutshell, where you say "calculate the offset for the payload within the packet incorrectly" I already suggested that the various IPv6 system should do exactly the opposite - ie calculate the offset correctly - as that would be far more useful a feature for a piece of network equipment!
Anyway, IANANE (network engineer - and I can hear you all screaming "EVIDENTLY!"), it was just an idea, but 10 years too late ...
This would allow the IPv6 world to talk to all of the IPv4 world but does nothing to allow the IPv4 to talk to the full IPv6 world.
How would an IPv4 user connect to a new IPv6 service that did not also have a corresponding IPv4 address? You'd have to limit the IPv6 address space size to that of IPv4 which rather defeats the object!
I guess I needed to be clearer when I said:
... As more w/s moved to IPv6 only there would be a compelling reason for more people to follow suit ...
because obviously any luddites hanging onto IPv4 would be restricted to only the stuff available over IPv4, but those upgrading to IPv6 could see IPv6 (like, duh) and IPv4. The ever increasing amount of 'stuff' only available on IPv6 would be the carrot (compelling reason even) for folks to upgrade.
If so, then people could have been upgrading to IPv6 over the last 10 years as opportunities arose (ie as old equipment needed replacing they'd have replaced with the IPv6 option) and still have been able to see the IPv4 world. As more w/s moved to IPv6 only there would be a compelling reason for more people to follow suit
Once all traffic was using IPv6 there could be an update to free up those first 'n' address for use in IPv6, though there's so many addresses that might not be required for quite some time, so the natural upgrading of equipment would see them made available over the next 5 or 10 years without needing any big splash upgrades.
Or am I completely missing something that would have made this impossible?
Underwater, though, just seems like a recipe for making the whole thing even more expensive than on the water, along with harder to monitor and maintain, and likely to be much more exciting if there is a steam leak or something. Is there some advantage that I am not seeing, or is this a case of "when you are a post-cold-war-nuclear-submarine-designer everything looks like it needs an underwater nuclear reactor"?
If you make it a boat and expect it to float, what's the worst thing that could happen? Yep. The sucker sinks! If there's rough seas, etc being on a boat is gonna suck, whereas being safely on the seabed is gonna be a cake-walk. Plus we're pretty good at making submarines ...
... when the grand-grandson of osama bin laden will need to check his prostate.
Hopefully by then he'll be able to find someone (preferably a doctor) to check it for him.
If the truck wrecks, the odds are the case doesn't break. ...
OK, not a truck wreck, but it is from 1984, and it is a train wreck ... 100mph Nuclear Flask Train Crash Test.
Note also that this is the version that mentions the Greenpeace folks all claiming it was a put-up job and it was a 'fix' (hotly denied by the fixers obviously). Even so, it WAS a train and it did hit one of the 1984 style transport containers at 100MPH. Fix or no, that's pretty impressive!
My guess is that containment technology has improved since 1984.
I think the biggest stupidity with this ... is the fact that 50% of the time your solar panels aren't producing energy.
Hmmmm. How about some mirrors in orbit that redirect the sunlight to the (ma-HOOO-sive) solar array in the desert. Sure, the resulting sunlight is likely to be less effective, but it would presumably be considerably more effective than none even if it does just extend the 'light' period to perhaps 3/4 of a day. Also, given we've just paved over a shed-load of desert, the reflectors don't need to be quite so accurate and as it's mostly 'uninhabited' it shouldn't annoy the locals too much. Perhaps light up a quarter or eight of the array each night rather than all of it to keep the day/night cycle for whatever wildlife is around.
Better yet, given there's likely to be a number of such arrays in similar latitudes around the glob, these mirrors could work for all such establishments.
I don't have a source. But CNN has coverage that engineers warned that the blowout preventers were going to leak, and BP ignored them. This is a corporate failure, as much as it is a technical one.
I certainly saw engineers from Transocean, or was it Halliburton, saying something like that. Luckily we can obviously trust those engineers because they (and the company they work for) has nothing to gain from saying it.
Of course, it could be argued that if those engineers, who presumably worked for Transocean (who owned and operated the rig) knew there was a problem and did nothing about it then they, and the company they work for, are left holding the smoking gun!
Unless we allow the "ve vere only following orders" defence these days!
... BP were the boys in charge and when it comes down to it, it was up to them to keep Haliburton et al. in line, so it was there responsibility. ...
Fixed that for you ...
er... I meant "Blowout Preventers" for "BPs". Sorry for the confusion with British Petroleum.
Who are, of course, no longer actually called British Petroleum but just "BP", since the merger with American Oil (Amerco).
Transocean Gulf of Mexico Rig, leased to BP, lacked Alarm Systems
Do you honestly think the casinos are going to be encouraging the big players to come to their casinos if they're always winning?
As we already know, anyone who always wins is politely asked to go visit some other casino.