No one wants to run a publicly available site on an IPv6 address, as that would create problems, but the client side is easy to convert, as long is there is incentive. Few customers of major consumer ISPs need real IPv4 addresses, so most ISPs can run their networks on IPv6 and require their customers to have IPv6 enabled (XP, Vista, OS X and Linux can all do this). This would free a lot of IP addresses.
Clearly the market is not embracing this solution, partly because they don't want to force their customers into a transition, but also partly because the market is based upon the cost of procurement, rather than on future availability. Procurement has been cheap up until now. It's the same reason that gas is only about $3.00 a gallon (yes, I said only), despite the anticipated future scarcity. So there are three options:
Regulate by incentive. Give tax breaks for ISPs that meet a goal (for example, roll out 100% IPv6 networks in urban areas).
Regulate by disincentive. Set a mid-2009 deadline for the above and penalties for failure to meet the goals.
Let the market decide. ISPs will willingly shift address space for IPv4 away from consumers who don't need IPv4 addresses, if there's a crisis. So we wait for a crisis to present itself, and IPv6 will start to appear. This is risky though, as TFA points out that (1) this will hit the developing world first, and (2) the crisis will seriously affect innovation in the short term, even if we solve it in the longer term.
It would also be nice to see some financially independent and influential non-profit organizations make the switch, like major Ivy League universities. They're the ones who should really be leading this because they don't have the profit motive that makes businesses shy away from what appears to be a set of risky changes.
I've seen a lot of "It's not worth the price" comments about this strategy. Actually, this could be worthwhile under the following circumstances:
You have quite a few HD-DVD discs to copy, like a whole high-def collection. (Warning: this means you are a risk-taking, bandwagon-jumping idiot.)
You already have an HD-DVD drive, so you don't need to buy that particular piece of hardware.
You wait a few months for the price of blank BD-ROMs to come down round the $10 mark or lower (bonus points if you wait for the $15 spool of 100 discs).
But yes, if you were smart enough to wait it out, it's not worth it. Then again, this post is pointless because people who were that smart have avoided this problem.
By that reasoning we should make the tax code even more complex in order to create more jobs that take advantage of that complexity. And we could also create laws requiring sites like Slashdot to maintain comment posting systems so complex that we have to hire qualified professionals to post each comment for us. Hey, it would stimulate the economy, right?
I'm not sold on the idea of the FairTax that the root post is advocating, nor of other plans to change the tax code significantly, but I'm pretty sure I don't want bureaucracy just to supply jobs to those who know how to wade through it.
Absolutely right. Remember, there were some theories in 2003 that SCO had filed the initial $1 billion suit as a ploy to get purchased by IBM. IBM could have ended it there with a purchase, which might have cost them less in the long run than paying their lawyers, and would have arguably gained them some assets. Instead they recognized the larger issues at stake and took a principled stand, fighting this out so that all the facts of the case would come to light (and the facts rarely flatter SCO).
So by all means, Mr. Norris, bankroll this train wreck. SCO has already practically lost the copyrights to the very code they've claimed was misappropriated. Let's see all their other unsubstantiated claims brought to light, settlement-free.
It's on tomorrow night and is called Lost. And while it may look like a Survivor-themed soap opera on the surface, make no mistake: it's a sci-fi show. While I'm on the topic, the creators have mostly committed to making five more episodes this season (of an original eight that were held back by the strike). Expect about month's hiatus in between the eighth finished episode and the five new ones.
Actually when I said "Of course it might be better" I wasn't assuming anything. If I had to assume something, I'd assume they'd try very hard not to spend money on anything, regardless of profits. That's been the pattern so far.
I'm not sure that traffic shaping like this violates network neutrality. It would be different if they were to throttle iTunes and favor some Comcast music service, but this is more targeted at high-bandwidth traffic that could make it hard for some subscribers (like me) to VPN into work and do some casual surfing.
Of course it might be better if they had clear bandwidth/month caps and charged a bit more for higher bandwidth usage, then used the profits from the beefed-up service plans to expand their infrastructure. But this is less bad than, say, throttling YouTube because it competes with cable programming.
Digg can be a neat site for the sheer volume of articles, but it has some serious and aggravating problems. To give one example: it was refreshing to come here this morning and find only one story about the Anonymous protests of Scientology instead of, oh, say, ten.
The Anonymous group seems to have taken a page from Ron Paul supporters: they've positively Digg-bombed the place, putting multiple (and entirely redundant) stories onto the front page, as if this will somehow raise awareness about the CoS amongst a demographic that is vulnerable to the Church's tactics. But they can't do that on Slashdot because of the editorial control here. Add to this the fact that Digg is no longer news for nerds in the way Slashdot is (sports articles now show up with alarming frequency on Digg), and that the comments on Digg absolutely stink compared with those here (yes, they're even worse than ours).
I enjoy Digg for its constant volume of new articles, but Slashdot's articles are much better presented (yes, even with the "teh" in TFA). If this site posted more frequent stories to compete with Digg's volume I'd have little reason to go to Digg. Volume is about the only advantage they have.
The first amendment says nothing of a "separation of church and state", but "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yet we interuprt that clause as such.
Further, the first amendment also notes "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble", yet we allow many exceptions to these "rights" (no yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, no "assebly" peaceably or otherwise when it interferes with public safety, etc...
Not only that, but we have also expanded this right beyond what it literally says in other ways. Consider that the phrase "Congress shall make no law" has no literal consequences for the states. In theory New York could ban publications critical of Governow Spitzer without violating the letter of the first amendment, but in practice the Supreme Court has interpreted it more broadly. (Thank goodness the so-called "strict constructionists" lost that one.)
The second amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", yet we allow for exceptions (no tanks on my block!)
It also says that this is because "a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Which some have interpreted as meaning this right only exists to allow for what today is the National Guard. It's been interpreted broadly so we can all own guns. (Which I'm not suggesting is entirely off the mark either, since the right is explicitly granted to "the people," an intentionally broad term. Still, why did the framers bother to include the militia clause, considering that our present interpretation makes it meaningless?)
What good is the damn document if in 20 or 50 years it will mean something entirely different?
Writing law more simply and clearly would make our ability to interpret it decades hence a lot easier. As it stands today the average citizen can't easily read and understand most laws. Personally my eyes glaze over, and not because the subject matter itself is boring.
I moderated your post Funny but then realized it had become overrated, since you posted your demoderating comment as AC. So that's why I've posted this reply.
Within a relatively short span of time the United States, the United Kingdom and now Canada have tried to push national identity cards that would be required for all citizens to move about and use government services. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but this feels extremely fishy. Taking off the conspiracy theory hat for a moment, perhaps this is a coincidence: the state of technology is global, and may have caused techies in three governments to reach similar, parallel conclusions about what sort of ID system is possible, causing a convergence of similar issues. Additionally, I may have heard about these three in particular because they're all English-speaking countries (apologies to the good people of Quebec) and I read sites like Slashdot.
On the other hand, putting the hat on my head very tightly, perhaps the Trilateral Commission is working with the Illuminati to reshape the balance of global power and push us to fearfully allow our governments to herd us around like RFID-tagged sheep.
Winston lived within sight of the Ministry of Truth, where he worked, not the Party headquarters. In fact it wasn't clear whether there even was a headquarters, but most of the Inner Party members lived in West London and the headquarters could easily have been in America for that matter. Airstrip One used to be known as Great Britain (i.e., the whole island), not London. London was still called London in Winston's time, and he speculated that it had probably been called that for a long time.
The novel features a nursery rhyme called Oranges and Lemons that I believe ends like this:
Here comes a National ID to light you to bed... And here comes a chopper to chop off your head.
Microsoft kept their Hotmail services on UNIX for practical reasons. When UNIX stopped answering Hotmail's HTTP requests, it was theorized that Windows Server was still only providing a front end, and the back end was running on the same platform it always used. I'd imagine you'll see no immediate change in Yahoo! services if Microsoft takes over.
Having said that, in the long run Microsoft's traditional business model involves an "Extinguish" step that they're usually faithful in executing. So in two or three years you'd probably see Live search and Yahoo! search run on a single system (Windows-based, maybe?), and Yahoo! mail could see some sort of transition as well. I'd like to think that Microsoft would do a graceful transition for Yahoo! mail to ensure they keep their valuable customer base happy. But then, this is the company that conducted careful OS marketing research and then tried to keep XP users happy by creating seven different editions of Vista, so all bets are off.
("Welcome to Microsoft Yahoo! Mail Basic Edition. Please install the Silverlight ActiveX control to continue...")
Well, not exactly my toilet seat, but the little Eepc I have sellotaped to the bottom of it, so I can my family's fecal throughput throughout the summer.
So you can $VERB your family's fecal matter?
I'm intrigued. What is the missing word? This is the best Madlibs I've seen in a while.
The word "can" is actually the verb in that sentence. He used tape on the Eepc so he could use it as a can. It's an added feature that costs a bit less than the original laptop to implement. I keep paint thinner in mine, but it's the same concept.
If you thought this is funny, you are wrong. If you thought this was troll, you are wrong. If you thought this was a flamebait, you are wrong. If you thought this was insightful, you are right.
with all due respect (and i mean it, it's an honet question...), why do you have such a crappy system?
Honest answer: because not everyone is aware of the problems. And some of those who are aware don't consider them to be major problems.
So how would we fix it? Elections in the US are run by the states, so in order to implement a consistent, well-designed system nationwide we would have to take that power from the states via a Constitutional amendment - something rather difficult to do without broad support. Or we'd need to hold the states to higher standards than the last major voting law (HAVA, the Help America Vote Act) did. But there would be heavy lobbying by voting machine companies against tightening of regulations, because that would require effort and integrity on their part.
In other words, it's a quagmire. And most of the people who recognize the problems are on the political left, largely because most of the controversies so far have related to (or were decided against, in the case of Bush v. Gore 2000) Democrats.
So wait until an elections anomaly affects the right wing: then you'll get bipartisan support for reforms. (I think you'll even hear right wingers denouncing the Electoral College, if the Republicans ever win the popular election but lose the electoral election.)
... has launched a Mac version of Dragon NaturallySpeaking... The new product is said to reach 99% accuracy after 5 minutes of training.
About that 99%... in honor of his Steveness, who tested the software while writing a recent keynote, one out of every 100 words is "Boom." But in true Mac fashion the options panels are severely minimalist, so the Boom feature cannot be disabled.
This is why I'm generally optimistic about the future: because if we can't do something in the United States, at least we've reached the point where someone, somewhere will find a way. We utterly failed to regulate the OS market by giving Microsoft little more than a slap on the wrist, but the EU seems to have its priorities straight, and has forced the company to open some of its key protocols. In the US our cars are pricey gas guzzlers because it's one of the markets that progresses the most slowly, but this Indian company has no qualms about turning the entire market upside down. Good for them.
I stand corrected, Bruce - I was unaware this was a legally viable option. But for how long a period would holders of copyrights covered by the GPL 2 be allowed to respond? Would they be allowed to make these requests until the code falls into public domain? (If that's the case the kernel developers could be responding to requests to remove and replace copyrighted code for decades.) It also seems like a truly disgruntled holder of GPL 2 code that found its way into the kernel and was redistributed under GPL 3 could find that code reused in other GPL 3 projects erroneously. I realize this is increasingly hypothetical, but I'm curious about the practicality and consequences of such a change.
I can see the court's argument, and I suppose it really isn't any different, since you're crossing a border. But what's the point? I've heard there's actually a big network that extends internationally outside the United States (an "inter-net" if you will) that makes data transfers into the US without physical hard disks fairly easy. If this is truly the case, wouldn't anything "contraband" be sent via that? (I mean, assuming it's not too difficult to get an account on this network.)
Slashdot Mirror
No one wants to run a publicly available site on an IPv6 address, as that would create problems, but the client side is easy to convert, as long is there is incentive. Few customers of major consumer ISPs need real IPv4 addresses, so most ISPs can run their networks on IPv6 and require their customers to have IPv6 enabled (XP, Vista, OS X and Linux can all do this). This would free a lot of IP addresses.
Clearly the market is not embracing this solution, partly because they don't want to force their customers into a transition, but also partly because the market is based upon the cost of procurement, rather than on future availability. Procurement has been cheap up until now. It's the same reason that gas is only about $3.00 a gallon (yes, I said only), despite the anticipated future scarcity. So there are three options:
It would also be nice to see some financially independent and influential non-profit organizations make the switch, like major Ivy League universities. They're the ones who should really be leading this because they don't have the profit motive that makes businesses shy away from what appears to be a set of risky changes.
I've seen a lot of "It's not worth the price" comments about this strategy. Actually, this could be worthwhile under the following circumstances:
But yes, if you were smart enough to wait it out, it's not worth it. Then again, this post is pointless because people who were that smart have avoided this problem.
By that reasoning we should make the tax code even more complex in order to create more jobs that take advantage of that complexity. And we could also create laws requiring sites like Slashdot to maintain comment posting systems so complex that we have to hire qualified professionals to post each comment for us. Hey, it would stimulate the economy, right?
I'm not sold on the idea of the FairTax that the root post is advocating, nor of other plans to change the tax code significantly, but I'm pretty sure I don't want bureaucracy just to supply jobs to those who know how to wade through it.
Absolutely right. Remember, there were some theories in 2003 that SCO had filed the initial $1 billion suit as a ploy to get purchased by IBM. IBM could have ended it there with a purchase, which might have cost them less in the long run than paying their lawyers, and would have arguably gained them some assets. Instead they recognized the larger issues at stake and took a principled stand, fighting this out so that all the facts of the case would come to light (and the facts rarely flatter SCO).
So by all means, Mr. Norris, bankroll this train wreck. SCO has already practically lost the copyrights to the very code they've claimed was misappropriated. Let's see all their other unsubstantiated claims brought to light, settlement-free.
It's on tomorrow night and is called Lost. And while it may look like a Survivor-themed soap opera on the surface, make no mistake: it's a sci-fi show. While I'm on the topic, the creators have mostly committed to making five more episodes this season (of an original eight that were held back by the strike). Expect about month's hiatus in between the eighth finished episode and the five new ones.
Actually when I said "Of course it might be better" I wasn't assuming anything. If I had to assume something, I'd assume they'd try very hard not to spend money on anything, regardless of profits. That's been the pattern so far.
I'm not sure that traffic shaping like this violates network neutrality. It would be different if they were to throttle iTunes and favor some Comcast music service, but this is more targeted at high-bandwidth traffic that could make it hard for some subscribers (like me) to VPN into work and do some casual surfing.
Of course it might be better if they had clear bandwidth/month caps and charged a bit more for higher bandwidth usage, then used the profits from the beefed-up service plans to expand their infrastructure. But this is less bad than, say, throttling YouTube because it competes with cable programming.
Digg can be a neat site for the sheer volume of articles, but it has some serious and aggravating problems. To give one example: it was refreshing to come here this morning and find only one story about the Anonymous protests of Scientology instead of, oh, say, ten.
The Anonymous group seems to have taken a page from Ron Paul supporters: they've positively Digg-bombed the place, putting multiple (and entirely redundant) stories onto the front page, as if this will somehow raise awareness about the CoS amongst a demographic that is vulnerable to the Church's tactics. But they can't do that on Slashdot because of the editorial control here. Add to this the fact that Digg is no longer news for nerds in the way Slashdot is (sports articles now show up with alarming frequency on Digg), and that the comments on Digg absolutely stink compared with those here (yes, they're even worse than ours).
I enjoy Digg for its constant volume of new articles, but Slashdot's articles are much better presented (yes, even with the "teh" in TFA). If this site posted more frequent stories to compete with Digg's volume I'd have little reason to go to Digg. Volume is about the only advantage they have.
Not only that, but we have also expanded this right beyond what it literally says in other ways. Consider that the phrase "Congress shall make no law" has no literal consequences for the states. In theory New York could ban publications critical of Governow Spitzer without violating the letter of the first amendment, but in practice the Supreme Court has interpreted it more broadly. (Thank goodness the so-called "strict constructionists" lost that one.)
It also says that this is because "a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Which some have interpreted as meaning this right only exists to allow for what today is the National Guard. It's been interpreted broadly so we can all own guns. (Which I'm not suggesting is entirely off the mark either, since the right is explicitly granted to "the people," an intentionally broad term. Still, why did the framers bother to include the militia clause, considering that our present interpretation makes it meaningless?)
Writing law more simply and clearly would make our ability to interpret it decades hence a lot easier. As it stands today the average citizen can't easily read and understand most laws. Personally my eyes glaze over, and not because the subject matter itself is boring.
I moderated your post Funny but then realized it had become overrated, since you posted your demoderating comment as AC. So that's why I've posted this reply.
Within a relatively short span of time the United States, the United Kingdom and now Canada have tried to push national identity cards that would be required for all citizens to move about and use government services. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but this feels extremely fishy. Taking off the conspiracy theory hat for a moment, perhaps this is a coincidence: the state of technology is global, and may have caused techies in three governments to reach similar, parallel conclusions about what sort of ID system is possible, causing a convergence of similar issues. Additionally, I may have heard about these three in particular because they're all English-speaking countries (apologies to the good people of Quebec) and I read sites like Slashdot.
On the other hand, putting the hat on my head very tightly, perhaps the Trilateral Commission is working with the Illuminati to reshape the balance of global power and push us to fearfully allow our governments to herd us around like RFID-tagged sheep.
The truth is probably in between those extremes.
... it's time to mail out some free dial-up CDs to increase market share. No wait, this is 2008: free Blu-Ray discs!
Let's be consistent: you meant Clinton and Barack.
Winston lived within sight of the Ministry of Truth, where he worked, not the Party headquarters. In fact it wasn't clear whether there even was a headquarters, but most of the Inner Party members lived in West London and the headquarters could easily have been in America for that matter. Airstrip One used to be known as Great Britain (i.e., the whole island), not London. London was still called London in Winston's time, and he speculated that it had probably been called that for a long time.
The novel features a nursery rhyme called Oranges and Lemons that I believe ends like this:
Here comes a National ID to light you to bed ... And here comes a chopper to chop off your head.
Microsoft kept their Hotmail services on UNIX for practical reasons. When UNIX stopped answering Hotmail's HTTP requests, it was theorized that Windows Server was still only providing a front end, and the back end was running on the same platform it always used. I'd imagine you'll see no immediate change in Yahoo! services if Microsoft takes over.
Having said that, in the long run Microsoft's traditional business model involves an "Extinguish" step that they're usually faithful in executing. So in two or three years you'd probably see Live search and Yahoo! search run on a single system (Windows-based, maybe?), and Yahoo! mail could see some sort of transition as well. I'd like to think that Microsoft would do a graceful transition for Yahoo! mail to ensure they keep their valuable customer base happy. But then, this is the company that conducted careful OS marketing research and then tried to keep XP users happy by creating seven different editions of Vista, so all bets are off.
("Welcome to Microsoft Yahoo! Mail Basic Edition. Please install the Silverlight ActiveX control to continue...")
Hey, you've given me an idea. How about this?
http://www.edholden.com/random/mslogo/
Slashdot is welcome to use it.
The word "can" is actually the verb in that sentence. He used tape on the Eepc so he could use it as a can. It's an added feature that costs a bit less than the original laptop to implement. I keep paint thinner in mine, but it's the same concept.
Old articles for nerds. Stuff that mattered.
The metric system is the tool of the devil. My flashlight gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Interesting. ;-)
Honest answer: because not everyone is aware of the problems. And some of those who are aware don't consider them to be major problems.
So how would we fix it? Elections in the US are run by the states, so in order to implement a consistent, well-designed system nationwide we would have to take that power from the states via a Constitutional amendment - something rather difficult to do without broad support. Or we'd need to hold the states to higher standards than the last major voting law (HAVA, the Help America Vote Act) did. But there would be heavy lobbying by voting machine companies against tightening of regulations, because that would require effort and integrity on their part.
In other words, it's a quagmire. And most of the people who recognize the problems are on the political left, largely because most of the controversies so far have related to (or were decided against, in the case of Bush v. Gore 2000) Democrats.
So wait until an elections anomaly affects the right wing: then you'll get bipartisan support for reforms. (I think you'll even hear right wingers denouncing the Electoral College, if the Republicans ever win the popular election but lose the electoral election.)
About that 99% ... in honor of his Steveness, who tested the software while writing a recent keynote, one out of every 100 words is "Boom." But in true Mac fashion the options panels are severely minimalist, so the Boom feature cannot be disabled.
This is why I'm generally optimistic about the future: because if we can't do something in the United States, at least we've reached the point where someone, somewhere will find a way. We utterly failed to regulate the OS market by giving Microsoft little more than a slap on the wrist, but the EU seems to have its priorities straight, and has forced the company to open some of its key protocols. In the US our cars are pricey gas guzzlers because it's one of the markets that progresses the most slowly, but this Indian company has no qualms about turning the entire market upside down. Good for them.
I stand corrected, Bruce - I was unaware this was a legally viable option. But for how long a period would holders of copyrights covered by the GPL 2 be allowed to respond? Would they be allowed to make these requests until the code falls into public domain? (If that's the case the kernel developers could be responding to requests to remove and replace copyrighted code for decades.) It also seems like a truly disgruntled holder of GPL 2 code that found its way into the kernel and was redistributed under GPL 3 could find that code reused in other GPL 3 projects erroneously. I realize this is increasingly hypothetical, but I'm curious about the practicality and consequences of such a change.
I can see the court's argument, and I suppose it really isn't any different, since you're crossing a border. But what's the point? I've heard there's actually a big network that extends internationally outside the United States (an "inter-net" if you will) that makes data transfers into the US without physical hard disks fairly easy. If this is truly the case, wouldn't anything "contraband" be sent via that? (I mean, assuming it's not too difficult to get an account on this network.)