I don't know, I mean, where I work (and we have a metric ton of network hardware) transitioning to IP6, at least as far as dealing with the rest of the world, would be pretty easy.
As far as the internal network goes it'd be a nightmare, but in that case, why switch internally at all? No real need to at this point, we could do the translation without too much trouble. Let the internal stay IP4 until all the software/hardware becomes ip6 compatible, THEN switch.
Numbers like this are always pulled out of thin air. Sure it'd be a pain in the ass if we had to up and switch today, but it wouldn't be that bad to switch in 5 years or so if we mandated compatibility today.
This is not a counterargument. This is not some information that makes ID seem more plausible. This is just more whining about how I'm not giving it a fair shot, how biased I am. On the one side, I have a real theory. On the other side, I have a theory I believe to be a pile of crap. I keep asking people who like the crap to explain to me why it's not crap, and their repeated failures to do so have only convinced me more that it is crap.
It is a common misconception in the modern world that all viewpoints are equally valid. That view is crap. When confronted with a crap theory, like intelligent design, which is not remotely new by the way, I feel no compunction to give it equal braintime with a much more robust and scientifically useful theory like evolution.
If you can prove to me that there is any merit at all to ID, I'll listen. Until then, you're wasting my time.
Heh. Fair enough, since the Rahab 'error' is just a fiddly chain-yanking error to start with. Drives some people nuts.
I'm hardly offended. I'm just impressed that, despite all that disagreeing, you still read with an open mind. I'd like to think I do that, but I fail more than I would like.
I'll be honest. I've got no problem with the idea of God. I've got no problem with the existence of God. And some things, like the big bang, I have no problem attributing to God, at this time, because I don't forsee us having any more meaningful explanation.
On the other hand, when we're talking about an area where we understand so much, and have so much evidence for perfectly natural processes being at the root of what we see, it is utter foolishness to try and insert God there. He doesn't fit, and trying to force him in is detrimental to God and to Science.
Yea, I missed the hordes of rational Evolutionists out in the streets persecuting the Christians. We evolutisionists get drunk nights and roam the streets looking for creationists to beat up.
Give it a rest, the martyr complex is amazingly annoying, especially in a thread dealing with a guy who got beaten for thinking your theory is a steaming pile of crap, which, it is. I could go on all day about what a load of crap it is. Every time I bring up an argument against it, they're NEVER refuted, they're NEVER answered, instead, I am accused of being biased and not giving it a fair shot. Of not being open minded.
Give me one rational argument that doesn't lead to a logical fallacy, and falls within the definition of science, and I may revise my opinion on the utter worthlessness of ID. I keep saying that, and it keeps not happening. And please, don't point me to an ID propaganda site like the last guy did, filled with overt creationist thought.
The Baptists are into the King James, most of them. That's the "Original" Bible (Har Har). Well in the King James, in the Book of Joshua (as a random example), there is a bit about Rahab the Harlot (tons of whores in the bible), and how she hid some of Joshua's spies in her house...
Chapter 2, verse 15, "...Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall." Italics not mine.
Well then along comes Joshua, and does his marching sonic warfare thing and knocks down the wall (chapter 6, vs 20, "...the wall fell down flat, so that all the people could..." yadda yadda rape murder etc), then in 22, Joshua sends people to the whore's house to thank her, and they bring her with 'em on the rest of the campaign (main guys in the bible like whores, don't ask). The house ON TOP of the wall that FELL DOWN FLAT.
This stuff is rife in the Bible. It's been translated so many times, it's hard to see how it could NOT be rife. But they stick to it like glue, and they flat ignore any inconsistencies. They call it Faith, I call it idolatry pointed at a book.
Christ would weep at the crap you people pull. The fact that you claim to be acting in his name is sickening to me.
No one remembers that Christ OVERTHREW the Fundmentalist church of his day. I look at these fucking Baptist mega-churches and I think of the money changers in the temple. They are a living monument to the shallow pride and arrogance that makes the modern fundamentalists great.
A bigger bunch of sinning stonethrowers is hard to even imagine.
And don't think you know me. I wish I knew Christianity as well as the average Slashdotter...If I did, then I wouldn't always feel like I'm watching the Fundamentalists murder it.
There are so many things wrong with Intelligent Design, there aren't even words for it.
Lets just take two:
1) It leads to an infinite regression. If complex things cannot come to being by themselves, then the creator can't come to be out of nothing either. And so forth. Que the infinite regress of creators.
2) As a scientific theory, it lacks all predictive power. Apply the theory of evolution to, for example, Avian Flu, and you can imagine that, during the course of it's fluish mutations it will hit upon the combination that will make it contagious among the dominant species on the planet, thats natural selection among countless flu variations.
What do you get when you apply ID to Bird Flu? The Creator is a bastard? The Creator is annoyed with us because there's too much sex on television?
I sat in a coffeeshop listening to an ID advocate committing logical error after error. He was sitting there,and reasoning backwards from any number of existing things to their inevitable nature as created things. Hilariously bad science. I have in my hand a hairbrush, it is made of a substance I will call plastic. I cannot imagine making such a thing, it is not wood, nor stone. Therefore there must be a magician involved somewhere! Oooo, look a landbridge! Could something so useful have come about by accident? No!
I sat and tried not to listen, while eating my damn lunch, and trying to imagine how any Intelligent designer could design a creature as foolish and ignorant as man.
Really, they're the same thing. In religion, moderate is in the middle, and the extremists on either end are equally crazy. Fundamentalists are technically conservative, but really all that means is that they turn to the Bible for all their teachings. Extremists reject the moderate teachings of the mainstream church, and seek to develop their own teachings...Guess what they use as their foundation? (This applies equally well to all Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions, sects, etc, just substitute Torah/Koran for Bible)
Modern Christian Fundamentalists, though technically "Conservative", make a lot of wild-assed interpretations from the Bible. They're really very liberal readers.
Frankly, and I'm pretty friendly to religion, Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians are a plague.
Not since the Spanish Inquisition and the Puritans have we seen a group of Christians who are as intolerant, self-riteous, and aggessively missionary as the modern Fundamentalists.
Until they settle down, come up with an organized canon, and stop trying to pummel everyone who doesn't agree with them, they are no better than a jumped up cult, with no more in common with mainstream Christianity than they have with the average biology professor.
You may belong to a "liberal" Fundamentalist church, meaning that your parishoners don't hunt people who object to the theory of Intelligent Design, but make no mistake, your church is sanctioning the actions of the most radical.
I always get the sense that a lot of modern Christians don't believe in the whole "Free Will" thing. Catholics came up with that one quite a while ago to explain how there could be evil. I suppose these days they pass it off with rationally inconsistent crap about the Devilll, oooh scary.
A lot of the problem comes from certain "evangelical" sects of Christianity who teach a literal read of the bible, and don't require any special course of study for their priests...That is to say, they believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and that you don't need to be taught how to preach, or how to read/interpret the bible, in order to be a priest. It's extremely anti-intellectual.
The Southern Baptists, in particular are almost post-rational when it comes to any sort of reasoned argument. It's amusing in a sad/scary sort of way.
Sure, but what if that's your only option? No statement about people holds true in all cases, but the vast majority of females don't play games to strut their virtual stuff, and a goodly number of them are turned off by that being their only choice in a female archetype.
Well, okay, since I am the sort of geek who actually has some knowledge of women, I'll enlighten those of you who don't seem to get it.
Big breasted hotties with few clothing options in games dissapoint and depress the average woman because the subtext says to them, "Hey you're a sex toy. If men could chose, this is how you'd look all the time, and you could have just as much personality as this game cariacture, and they wouldn't give a shit." It's analogous to having all portrayals of men be big dumb beasts of burden, not sports heroes.
You've got to try and get with how their minds work. If you portrayed the average guy as a big strapping half naked he-man with a foot long schlong, he'd be delighted, because we associate that with respect, as you said. Women do not see it the same way, in regards to themselves. They are subtle, they do not naturally focus on the surface factors...that stuff to them is a puzzle to be used in discerning the kind of person who exists underneath. If you force them to focus only on the surface stuff, they feel limited and threatened.
Network Solutions only allows WHOIS queries that do through their secure page, which cuts down on the automated scrapers. You can also pay a fee and they'll block everything but your name and where your information would be, they print:
As far as I know, there is no legal way, short of calling the guy up and offering to buy the name off him, to get ownership of the domain without waiting for it to expire.
It may bring none. Not all mutations are beneficial. On the other hand, it may be a measure to limit population expansion, or it may simply be an unfortunate side effect of some other process which we desperately need to survive.
That's a good point. My desktop windows box, which I use almost exclusively for games these days, has got the free version of AVG installed on it, is indifferently patched, has the windows firewall enabled, and nothing else.
If it were directly connected to the internet, I would view that machine as hopelessly insecure. Hell, if I checked my email on that machine, I would consider it hopelessly insecure.
But since I don't check my email on that box, and I don't browse the web on that box, and since it's downstream of a junk linksys hardware firewall, and a custom linux firewall with 32 flavors of auditing tools, I don't worry. Even if it did get exploited, I'd know about it pretty quickly because I don't trust the box, and monitor all traffic coming out of it.
I don't see that there would be any point in indexing it...In an index you're atomizing it down to it's individual meaningless parts. Each and every part is therefore solitary in an index, and cannot be related to any other part of the index in a meaningful way, because all the other parts are equally unrelated to anything and meaningless as well.
It would be more useful to transform the apparently random data in some way so as to make signals or discrepancies buried in it obvious. There are all kinds of funky methods you can apply to random-seeming data to pull out interesting factoids.
They're just being fadded to death by people who don't understand the technology OMG BLOGOSPHERE OMGOMG!
What it comes down to is reliable respected information sources. Some blogs are excellent, but most are crap...this is to be expected with the low barrier to entry.
Print tech reporters have had it too easy for too long...you had to be print first, which means that the tech reporter for the WSJ or the NYT has to have been in the business for quite a while, and is probably not exactly tech savvy, and certainly not hip. Now those fossils are competing with bloggers, and some of those bloggers are hip, articulate, AND extremely tech savvy, so, of course, they're getting beat down.
What's their conclusion? Is it, we need to hire people like that to do our tech column? No. It's OMG OMG BLOGS RULE BLOGOSPHERE OMG! Blah blah blah. Eventually they'll stop missing the point.
Sure, but DNS as it stands is much better in terms of scalability and redundancy. If you add a lot of authentication and double checking, the whole system becomes less efficient.
Your scenario is plausible, but if someone is in a position to execute a Man in the Middle attack, then they can just snoop your traffic by redirecting it through a proxy under their control...Why bother with a DNS redirect? Cache poisoning exploits have been around forever, but they're not all that common either.
I think the reason no one is rushing to switch over, is that things are still working pretty well as it stands.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, I mean, where I work (and we have a metric ton of network hardware) transitioning to IP6, at least as far as dealing with the rest of the world, would be pretty easy.
As far as the internal network goes it'd be a nightmare, but in that case, why switch internally at all? No real need to at this point, we could do the translation without too much trouble. Let the internal stay IP4 until all the software/hardware becomes ip6 compatible, THEN switch.
Numbers like this are always pulled out of thin air. Sure it'd be a pain in the ass if we had to up and switch today, but it wouldn't be that bad to switch in 5 years or so if we mandated compatibility today.
The current poll has only been up for two weeks! We're not due another poll until January, at the earliest.
I said nothing about all Christians. I said something about Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. Methodists, Bapstists...Maybe Pentacostals.
This is not a counterargument. This is not some information that makes ID seem more plausible. This is just more whining about how I'm not giving it a fair shot, how biased I am. On the one side, I have a real theory. On the other side, I have a theory I believe to be a pile of crap. I keep asking people who like the crap to explain to me why it's not crap, and their repeated failures to do so have only convinced me more that it is crap.
It is a common misconception in the modern world that all viewpoints are equally valid. That view is crap. When confronted with a crap theory, like intelligent design, which is not remotely new by the way, I feel no compunction to give it equal braintime with a much more robust and scientifically useful theory like evolution.
If you can prove to me that there is any merit at all to ID, I'll listen. Until then, you're wasting my time.
Note my sig. Half the arguments in favor of intelligent design reference the fact we don't know things. This does not, in any way, add validity to ID.
Heh. Fair enough, since the Rahab 'error' is just a fiddly chain-yanking error to start with. Drives some people nuts.
I'm hardly offended. I'm just impressed that, despite all that disagreeing, you still read with an open mind. I'd like to think I do that, but I fail more than I would like.
The book, sounds interesting. I'll pick it up =)
I'll be honest. I've got no problem with the idea of God. I've got no problem with the existence of God. And some things, like the big bang, I have no problem attributing to God, at this time, because I don't forsee us having any more meaningful explanation.
On the other hand, when we're talking about an area where we understand so much, and have so much evidence for perfectly natural processes being at the root of what we see, it is utter foolishness to try and insert God there. He doesn't fit, and trying to force him in is detrimental to God and to Science.
Yea, I missed the hordes of rational Evolutionists out in the streets persecuting the Christians. We evolutisionists get drunk nights and roam the streets looking for creationists to beat up.
Give it a rest, the martyr complex is amazingly annoying, especially in a thread dealing with a guy who got beaten for thinking your theory is a steaming pile of crap, which, it is. I could go on all day about what a load of crap it is. Every time I bring up an argument against it, they're NEVER refuted, they're NEVER answered, instead, I am accused of being biased and not giving it a fair shot. Of not being open minded.
Give me one rational argument that doesn't lead to a logical fallacy, and falls within the definition of science, and I may revise my opinion on the utter worthlessness of ID. I keep saying that, and it keeps not happening. And please, don't point me to an ID propaganda site like the last guy did, filled with overt creationist thought.
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!
I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!!!!!!!
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!
The Baptists are into the King James, most of them. That's the "Original" Bible (Har Har). Well in the King James, in the Book of Joshua (as a random example), there is a bit about Rahab the Harlot (tons of whores in the bible), and how she hid some of Joshua's spies in her house...
Chapter 2, verse 15, "...Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall." Italics not mine.
Well then along comes Joshua, and does his marching sonic warfare thing and knocks down the wall (chapter 6, vs 20, "...the wall fell down flat, so that all the people could..." yadda yadda rape murder etc), then in 22, Joshua sends people to the whore's house to thank her, and they bring her with 'em on the rest of the campaign (main guys in the bible like whores, don't ask). The house ON TOP of the wall that FELL DOWN FLAT.
This stuff is rife in the Bible. It's been translated so many times, it's hard to see how it could NOT be rife. But they stick to it like glue, and they flat ignore any inconsistencies. They call it Faith, I call it idolatry pointed at a book.
Christ would weep at the crap you people pull. The fact that you claim to be acting in his name is sickening to me.
No one remembers that Christ OVERTHREW the Fundmentalist church of his day. I look at these fucking Baptist mega-churches and I think of the money changers in the temple. They are a living monument to the shallow pride and arrogance that makes the modern fundamentalists great.
A bigger bunch of sinning stonethrowers is hard to even imagine.
And don't think you know me. I wish I knew Christianity as well as the average Slashdotter...If I did, then I wouldn't always feel like I'm watching the Fundamentalists murder it.
There are so many things wrong with Intelligent Design, there aren't even words for it.
Lets just take two:
1) It leads to an infinite regression. If complex things cannot come to being by themselves, then the creator can't come to be out of nothing either. And so forth. Que the infinite regress of creators.
2) As a scientific theory, it lacks all predictive power. Apply the theory of evolution to, for example, Avian Flu, and you can imagine that, during the course of it's fluish mutations it will hit upon the combination that will make it contagious among the dominant species on the planet, thats natural selection among countless flu variations.
What do you get when you apply ID to Bird Flu? The Creator is a bastard? The Creator is annoyed with us because there's too much sex on television?
I sat in a coffeeshop listening to an ID advocate committing logical error after error. He was sitting there,and reasoning backwards from any number of existing things to their inevitable nature as created things. Hilariously bad science. I have in my hand a hairbrush, it is made of a substance I will call plastic. I cannot imagine making such a thing, it is not wood, nor stone. Therefore there must be a magician involved somewhere! Oooo, look a landbridge! Could something so useful have come about by accident? No!
I sat and tried not to listen, while eating my damn lunch, and trying to imagine how any Intelligent designer could design a creature as foolish and ignorant as man.
You're right; they're both bad.
Really, they're the same thing. In religion, moderate is in the middle, and the extremists on either end are equally crazy. Fundamentalists are technically conservative, but really all that means is that they turn to the Bible for all their teachings. Extremists reject the moderate teachings of the mainstream church, and seek to develop their own teachings...Guess what they use as their foundation? (This applies equally well to all Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions, sects, etc, just substitute Torah/Koran for Bible)
Modern Christian Fundamentalists, though technically "Conservative", make a lot of wild-assed interpretations from the Bible. They're really very liberal readers.
Frankly, and I'm pretty friendly to religion, Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians are a plague.
Not since the Spanish Inquisition and the Puritans have we seen a group of Christians who are as intolerant, self-riteous, and aggessively missionary as the modern Fundamentalists.
Until they settle down, come up with an organized canon, and stop trying to pummel everyone who doesn't agree with them, they are no better than a jumped up cult, with no more in common with mainstream Christianity than they have with the average biology professor.
You may belong to a "liberal" Fundamentalist church, meaning that your parishoners don't hunt people who object to the theory of Intelligent Design, but make no mistake, your church is sanctioning the actions of the most radical.
I always get the sense that a lot of modern Christians don't believe in the whole "Free Will" thing. Catholics came up with that one quite a while ago to explain how there could be evil. I suppose these days they pass it off with rationally inconsistent crap about the Devilll, oooh scary.
A lot of the problem comes from certain "evangelical" sects of Christianity who teach a literal read of the bible, and don't require any special course of study for their priests...That is to say, they believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and that you don't need to be taught how to preach, or how to read/interpret the bible, in order to be a priest. It's extremely anti-intellectual.
The Southern Baptists, in particular are almost post-rational when it comes to any sort of reasoned argument. It's amusing in a sad/scary sort of way.
Sure, but what if that's your only option? No statement about people holds true in all cases, but the vast majority of females don't play games to strut their virtual stuff, and a goodly number of them are turned off by that being their only choice in a female archetype.
Well, okay, since I am the sort of geek who actually has some knowledge of women, I'll enlighten those of you who don't seem to get it.
Big breasted hotties with few clothing options in games dissapoint and depress the average woman because the subtext says to them, "Hey you're a sex toy. If men could chose, this is how you'd look all the time, and you could have just as much personality as this game cariacture, and they wouldn't give a shit." It's analogous to having all portrayals of men be big dumb beasts of burden, not sports heroes.
You've got to try and get with how their minds work. If you portrayed the average guy as a big strapping half naked he-man with a foot long schlong, he'd be delighted, because we associate that with respect, as you said. Women do not see it the same way, in regards to themselves. They are subtle, they do not naturally focus on the surface factors...that stuff to them is a puzzle to be used in discerning the kind of person who exists underneath. If you force them to focus only on the surface stuff, they feel limited and threatened.
Network Solutions only allows WHOIS queries that do through their secure page, which cuts down on the automated scrapers. You can also pay a fee and they'll block everything but your name and where your information would be, they print:
o m
Registrant:
Doe, John
ATTN: JohnDoe.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
Domain Name: JOHNDOE.COM
Administrative Contact :
Doe, John
vr57b9az6ac@networksolutionsprivateregistration.c
ATTN: JOHNDOE.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
Phone: 570-708-8780
Technical Contact :
Network Solutions, LLC.
customerservice@networksolutions.com
13200 Woodland Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20171-3025
US
Phone: 1-888-642-9675
Fax: 571-434-4620
Also somewhat ILLEGAL.
As far as I know, there is no legal way, short of calling the guy up and offering to buy the name off him, to get ownership of the domain without waiting for it to expire.
AnonymousCoward.com has valid registration information, including email, phone, and address.
YOUR RUSE FOOLED NO ONE!
It may bring none. Not all mutations are beneficial. On the other hand, it may be a measure to limit population expansion, or it may simply be an unfortunate side effect of some other process which we desperately need to survive.
That's a good point. My desktop windows box, which I use almost exclusively for games these days, has got the free version of AVG installed on it, is indifferently patched, has the windows firewall enabled, and nothing else.
If it were directly connected to the internet, I would view that machine as hopelessly insecure. Hell, if I checked my email on that machine, I would consider it hopelessly insecure.
But since I don't check my email on that box, and I don't browse the web on that box, and since it's downstream of a junk linksys hardware firewall, and a custom linux firewall with 32 flavors of auditing tools, I don't worry. Even if it did get exploited, I'd know about it pretty quickly because I don't trust the box, and monitor all traffic coming out of it.
I don't see that there would be any point in indexing it...In an index you're atomizing it down to it's individual meaningless parts. Each and every part is therefore solitary in an index, and cannot be related to any other part of the index in a meaningful way, because all the other parts are equally unrelated to anything and meaningless as well.
It would be more useful to transform the apparently random data in some way so as to make signals or discrepancies buried in it obvious. There are all kinds of funky methods you can apply to random-seeming data to pull out interesting factoids.
They're just being fadded to death by people who don't understand the technology OMG BLOGOSPHERE OMGOMG!
What it comes down to is reliable respected information sources. Some blogs are excellent, but most are crap...this is to be expected with the low barrier to entry.
Print tech reporters have had it too easy for too long...you had to be print first, which means that the tech reporter for the WSJ or the NYT has to have been in the business for quite a while, and is probably not exactly tech savvy, and certainly not hip. Now those fossils are competing with bloggers, and some of those bloggers are hip, articulate, AND extremely tech savvy, so, of course, they're getting beat down.
What's their conclusion? Is it, we need to hire people like that to do our tech column? No. It's OMG OMG BLOGS RULE BLOGOSPHERE OMG! Blah blah blah. Eventually they'll stop missing the point.
Sure, but DNS as it stands is much better in terms of scalability and redundancy. If you add a lot of authentication and double checking, the whole system becomes less efficient.
Your scenario is plausible, but if someone is in a position to execute a Man in the Middle attack, then they can just snoop your traffic by redirecting it through a proxy under their control...Why bother with a DNS redirect? Cache poisoning exploits have been around forever, but they're not all that common either.
I think the reason no one is rushing to switch over, is that things are still working pretty well as it stands.