NAT is actually solves a secondary problem: allowing individuals to have their own home network without having to register each of their computers with some sort of central authority. Almost all IPv6 advocates say that NAT won't be supported as part of the protocol, which is not such a bad thing if you see NAT simplay as a solution to solves address space issue, but it isn't if you see it as a solution allowing individuals to allocate their own addresses, without having to go through the bureaucratic process of registering each one. I feel that in missing this fact is actually a real issue and one that needs to be dealt with - if there already is a solution to this, then no one I have asked has yet provided me with one.
**You have missed the point entirely**
Forcing everyone back into the bureaucratic process is exactly what the designers want to do. Imagine how much less money would be made by cell phone companies if you could pick up any phone and it would automatically choose a phone number, then register your name with a decentralized directory so anyone who wanted to reach you could. Instead, you have to pay that $50 activation fee, plus a sizable portion of every month's cell phone bill, just for the privilege of being told when and where you can make telephone calls. That is the ideal that our IPv6 overlords are shooting for. I for one welcome them.
* Off-topic, but can someone explain to me why (at least with ISC dhcpd) I can't assign IPs on two different subnets on the same physical LAN? Can this be done with a different DHCP server? Is there any kind of limitation to the protocol that makes this impossible, or is it just an implementation problem?
How is it going to decide which subnet to put a new arrival on? What if it decides wrong and your CEO ends up on your middle management subnet and pitches a fit?
Perhaps you are not aware that prayer in schools has caused major conflict in the past. Not only between Christians supporting prayer and atheists or other-religionists opposing it, but between different Christian sects. Consider the "Battle of Philadelphia", where a dispute over which Bible should be used in school Bible readings led to rioting and the burning of two Catholic churches.
Preventing students from praying may save lives. Religious folk are not to be trusted with the general welfare; they will always overlook it as they attend to their own special welfare.
If you genuinely believe that the two cases are similar -- that the harm made possible by letting someone bring a gun to a courthouse compares to the harm made possible by letting a student bring tobacco to school -- then you deserve whatever misfortune comes your way, up to and including having a plane dropped on you.
Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU.
Please turn your brain on before posting.
The speech in question was message board comments, posted by visitors, not by the boy himself. Even if that speech was threatening, the boy is blameless. I would be supporting him in such a case; the ACLU would join me; and if you wouldn't, well, I won't threaten you for such a viewpoint but I certainly would look askance. And vocally decry your decision.
And these aren't just "theoretical" problems, I run into them every day because I know there's something "more" out there. Here's a simple query you should try to do in one line of SQL: "give me a list of all customers who bought every product in product line X". Someone who knows relational theory just thinks up the solution (you just need to create a list P of all products in product line X, and pull out the list of orders where P is a subset of the order items, then join with the list of customers). Someone who only knows SQL will immediately run for the application layer, where you can't just *declare* your problem and have the app solve it, you literally have to write loops and procedural code to solve the problem.
This is what I thought of before even reading your second sentence:
SELECT Customer.* FROM Customer C
WHERE (SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT O.ProductId)
FROM Orders O
INNER JOIN Products P1 ON O.ProductID = P.ProductID
WHERE O.CustomerID=C.CustomerID
AND P1.ProductLine = 'X')
= (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Products P2 WHERE P2.ProductLine= 'X') )
And I have never studied relational theory formally; only SQL (and, I admit, Joe Celko's posts).
Either we tar and feather every single official at the RIAA and MPAA, as well as any Senator or Congressmen who even whispers about supporting this horror...
Or we stop being "consumers", NOW. Starve the fuckers.
Don't buy any more CDs. Ever.
Don't buy any more DVDs. Ever.
Don't go to any movies in the theatres, attend any concerts, patronize iTunes or Napster, play any MP3s, watch any TV, visit ANY web sites with ANY advertising. If your favorite indie bands or filmmakers get hurt too, that's their problem.
Learn to read and have conversations. Play your own instruments. Have a lot of sex.
Voila, another anonymous coward typing even though he knows hardly anyone will see his post at 0. Such courage, calling me an idiot while hiding behind mama slashdot's skirts.
I don't give a shit about (slashdot) karma, and I never have. I post because I believe that what I have to say is interesting or funny or whatever.
In order to get the positions so that they can be "entered into a map" you have to either use a GPS or do careful measuring or both. My proposal was a way that the devices could determine their own positions. Picture an army platoon dumping a few dozen boxes haphazardly around the battlefield, with cameras; wait a few minutes, and the devices figure out where they are; now you have a perimeter surveillance system.
Oh well. It's useless to try to argue with someone who isn't there.
Authors: Mikolaj Korzynski Categories: astro-ph Comments: 5 pages, no figures
Recently a new model of galactic gravitational field, based on ordinary General Relativity, has been proposed by Cooperstock and Tieu in which no exotic dark matter is needed to fit the observed rotation curve to a reasonable ordinary matter distribution. We argue that in this model the gravitational field is generated not only by the galaxy matter, but by a thin, singular disk as well. The model should therefore be considered unphysical.
Why can't the beacon devices themselves use this method to locate themselves relative to each other? Add a protocol for exchanging this information, and whatever devices are in the neighborhood could quickly reach a consensus as to their relative positions. And if one or more of them are GPS-enabled, voila, we have automagical mapping.
They don't yet have a plant that has been turning out thousands of these a day for three years. They don't yet have a well-defined supply chain for whatever it is that these E-ink things are made of. They don't have any of the economies-of-scale that make things cheap.
$3000 is a lot to spend on a prototype. But it's cheap considering how new this is. Consider trying to buy an IBM PC motherboard and 640K of RAM in 1977. Check out the Heathkit (sob) catalogs of the era and see what new things really cost. And don't forget to adjust those prices by inflation.
How does he excuse using the Pythagorean theorem as a basic concept? As I remember, the Pythagorean theorem has to be proven first... and it uses ratios of distances, not quadrances.
Slashdot Mirror
NAT is actually solves a secondary problem: allowing individuals to have their own home network without having to register each of their computers with some sort of central authority. Almost all IPv6 advocates say that NAT won't be supported as part of the protocol, which is not such a bad thing if you see NAT simplay as a solution to solves address space issue, but it isn't if you see it as a solution allowing individuals to allocate their own addresses, without having to go through the bureaucratic process of registering each one. I feel that in missing this fact is actually a real issue and one that needs to be dealt with - if there already is a solution to this, then no one I have asked has yet provided me with one.
**You have missed the point entirely**
Forcing everyone back into the bureaucratic process is exactly what the designers want to do. Imagine how much less money would be made by cell phone companies if you could pick up any phone and it would automatically choose a phone number, then register your name with a decentralized directory so anyone who wanted to reach you could. Instead, you have to pay that $50 activation fee, plus a sizable portion of every month's cell phone bill, just for the privilege of being told when and where you can make telephone calls. That is the ideal that our IPv6 overlords are shooting for. I for one welcome them.
* Off-topic, but can someone explain to me why (at least with ISC dhcpd) I can't assign IPs on two different subnets on the same physical LAN? Can this be done with a different DHCP server? Is there any kind of limitation to the protocol that makes this impossible, or is it just an implementation problem?
How is it going to decide which subnet to put a new arrival on? What if it decides wrong and your CEO ends up on your middle management subnet and pitches a fit?
And you STILL can't spell speech .
Perhaps you are not aware that prayer in schools has caused major conflict in the past. Not only between Christians supporting prayer and atheists or other-religionists opposing it, but between different Christian sects. Consider the "Battle of Philadelphia", where a dispute over which Bible should be used in school Bible readings led to rioting and the burning of two Catholic churches.
Preventing students from praying may save lives. Religious folk are not to be trusted with the general welfare; they will always overlook it as they attend to their own special welfare.
If you genuinely believe that the two cases are similar -- that the harm made possible by letting someone bring a gun to a courthouse compares to the harm made possible by letting a student bring tobacco to school -- then you deserve whatever misfortune comes your way, up to and including having a plane dropped on you.
Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU.
Please turn your brain on before posting.
The speech in question was message board comments, posted by visitors, not by the boy himself. Even if that speech was threatening, the boy is blameless. I would be supporting him in such a case; the ACLU would join me; and if you wouldn't, well, I won't threaten you for such a viewpoint but I certainly would look askance. And vocally decry your decision.
And these aren't just "theoretical" problems, I run into them every day because I know there's something "more" out there. Here's a simple query you should try to do in one line of SQL: "give me a list of all customers who bought every product in product line X". Someone who knows relational theory just thinks up the solution (you just need to create a list P of all products in product line X, and pull out the list of orders where P is a subset of the order items, then join with the list of customers). Someone who only knows SQL will immediately run for the application layer, where you can't just *declare* your problem and have the app solve it, you literally have to write loops and procedural code to solve the problem.
This is what I thought of before even reading your second sentence:
SELECT Customer.* FROM Customer C
WHERE (SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT O.ProductId)
FROM Orders O
INNER JOIN Products P1 ON O.ProductID = P.ProductID
WHERE O.CustomerID=C.CustomerID
AND P1.ProductLine = 'X')
= (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Products P2 WHERE P2.ProductLine= 'X') )
And I have never studied relational theory formally; only SQL (and, I admit, Joe Celko's posts).
Amusingly, Nature let its SSL certificate expire.
Either we tar and feather every single official at the RIAA and MPAA, as well as any Senator or Congressmen who even whispers about supporting this horror ...
Or we stop being "consumers", NOW. Starve the fuckers.
Don't buy any more CDs. Ever.
Don't buy any more DVDs. Ever.
Don't go to any movies in the theatres, attend any concerts, patronize iTunes or Napster, play any MP3s, watch any TV, visit ANY web sites with ANY advertising. If your favorite indie bands or filmmakers get hurt too, that's their problem.
Learn to read and have conversations. Play your own instruments. Have a lot of sex.
Strike. Now.
Quality, service, price. Pick two.
And a few years after you pick, you will lose at least one.
Depending on latency requirements, perhaps most of the cluster can stay in sleep mode until it is needed.
What a Nazi-like thing to say!
When did the Navy get involved with Slashdot?
Voila, another anonymous coward typing even though he knows hardly anyone will see his post at 0. Such courage, calling me an idiot while hiding behind mama slashdot's skirts.
I don't give a shit about (slashdot) karma, and I never have. I post because I believe that what I have to say is interesting or funny or whatever.
In order to get the positions so that they can be "entered into a map" you have to either use a GPS or do careful measuring or both. My proposal was a way that the devices could determine their own positions. Picture an army platoon dumping a few dozen boxes haphazardly around the battlefield, with cameras; wait a few minutes, and the devices figure out where they are; now you have a perimeter surveillance system.
Oh well. It's useless to try to argue with someone who isn't there.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377
More to the point, NEVER LIE TO THE POLICE.
You can refuse to answer questions if you believe it is prudent. But lying is just plain stupid.
Dammit, should have used preview. Forgot to close the link. Anyway, the story appeared in 2001 and won the 2002 Hugo.
Why can't the beacon devices themselves use this method to locate themselves relative to each other? Add a protocol for exchanging this information, and whatever devices are in the neighborhood could quickly reach a consensus as to their relative positions. And if one or more of them are GPS-enabled, voila, we have automagical mapping.
This idea was used in at least one Vernor Vinge story, "Fast Times at Fairmont High". The protagonists dropped wireless routers as "breadcrumbs" and after about four were down, they could accurately identify their position (relative to the routers).
Logs structures are suceptible to termites, carpenter ants, and various forms of rot.
Even worse, when many logs are added together, the problems multiply.
In Nethack, if you are hallucinating on a level where there exists a living shopkeeper, you may hear "You hear Neiman and Marcus arguing!"
]PR#6
They don't yet have a plant that has been turning out thousands of these a day for three years. They don't yet have a well-defined supply chain for whatever it is that these E-ink things are made of. They don't have any of the economies-of-scale that make things cheap.
$3000 is a lot to spend on a prototype. But it's cheap considering how new this is. Consider trying to buy an IBM PC motherboard and 640K of RAM in 1977. Check out the Heathkit (sob) catalogs of the era and see what new things really cost. And don't forget to adjust those prices by inflation.
What if you die? Is your estate still responsible for such debts?
I'd have much more respect for Limewire if it simply disbanded. Detestable collaborationists.
How does he excuse using the Pythagorean theorem as a basic concept? As I remember, the Pythagorean theorem has to be proven first ... and it uses ratios of distances, not quadrances.