"Military stronger" makes not much sense in the age of hydrogen bombs. There is just no hiding from them. And the U.S. and also Russia have enough of them to knock out civilization. China enough to take out all major U.S. cities.
So... what is the main advantage of the "other countries"? It's that thay have less civilization (i.e. cities), but more citizens. Look at china. Several big cities, but most of the population still lives on flat land. And the first thing nukes would hit would be the cities. Soldiers need a supply chain. The supply chain could very easily be cut in highly civilized countries using WMD, especially nuclear weapons. The US, Europe, Russia and all the countries with most of their population living in big cities are especially vulnerable to nuclear attacks. And sometimes it seems that this scares the hell out of many of the western political leaders. Not that they would be scared by nuclear attacks on their country in principle. I'm sure many are cynical enough to provoke a nuclear war to gain power, at least they would not care for their population. But number of civilists means military power means general power. And this can easily be lost.
IMHO, cache efficiency only goes way up if your code size shrinks by the usage of a more expressive instruction set. But it is not said that CISC instruction sets are more expressive than RISC ones, despite their name. Look for example (no highperf. computing, I know, I know, but anyway) at the ARMThumb. That's 16bit/instruction. Clearly RISC.
Then... if you know what your problems are (i.e. no IPV6 in MeshAP) and you need it, why don't you fix it? I mean... it's certainly harder to get a new routing algorithm (i.e. a considerable piece of rather complex software) working than change the packet type from IPV4 to IPV6...
No, it's not THAT disinformative. Although RISC/CISC doesn't say everything about processors, there are a few things to consider:
- RISC needs smaller die sizes. The free space can be used for more pipelining etc. => more speed! - Compiler's perform way better on RISC. If you do not code in assembler => more speed!
In IPV4, you can't allocate space for WiFi meshes anymore. ACK.
But this is not true for IPV6. In IPV6 you can allocate big classless spaces and use these for your mesh networks. A 10 million city with one IP per PC, washing mashine, toaster... no problem.
What you describe at the most important problem in todays IP world is not the basic protocol, i.e. IP. You are criticizing the routing protocols, they do not match well with fluctuating mesh networks. Indeed. They are designed for wired networks. But most of the internet traffic still runs over wires, and this will probably stay so even with competion from wifi. You can't really put all that bandwidth through wifi.
There are solutions that work on top of IP, in a very clean way, and these solutions work well in the lab. In the field, there are not yet enough studies which support this research. The proposed new network architectures consist mainly of new routing protocols adapted to mesh networks. I see no problem with IP as the underlying protocol. It works, it's relatively reliable and it's already there. And the research groups (Are you professionally working on this topic? - I'm not. But this doesn't invalidate my arguments, I think...) are using IP on the lower level...
For more information, try google for "manet". There is already much information out there.
I can't really talk about you routing algorithm because I haven't seen it in simulation or reality. To state that a particular routing algorithm is good by just drawing it onto paper is a good start, but not a proof of concept. Maybe it works, maybe not. But try it out and build devices which connect to a mesh network (Mesh networking is one of the things I consider to play around with next in my freetime) and show the world that it works. But I'm sure that the underlying packets can IPV6 instead of your custom protocol without any functional penalty.
> D. Make the lives of idiots living hells. Don't suffer fools gladly. Be sure to use sarcasm to belittle them, and lower their "self-esteem." Hopefully, they'll fail to attract mates, and then eventually the suck will be bred out of humanity.
Yes, and hasn't one economist pointed out (I think he got the nobel prize) that today's markets only work because there is inequality of information? And, for someone who sells music, it is in their best interest to make the situation stable and make it as inconvenient/hidden as possible to use the radio or download mp3s.
What if there would be an OSS program of good quality that would listen to the radio (by soundcard), automatically determine the song's name, artist etc. and would save the radio stream as a nicely formatted mp3?
RIAA & Co. would probably try hard to suppress this program.
The problem is not that they essentially own the market for music now and set monpoly prices. The problem is that they even decide how their market works by changing the law as it fits their needs!
ACK. But I wonder if the outcome will really be a digital divide (compsumers and computers) or a mix of many different levels of "freedom" in the computers. While most of us strongly oppose hardware DRM, the actual situation will get quite interesting in the next time, I think:
What, for example, about FPGAs? Field programmable gate arrays are per definitionem not restrictable by "DRM", because they just represent a sea of gates from which one can build almost any digital hardware. That includes computers. General purpose ones. Will FPGAs be outlawed?
There are many many devices now that have to be DRM enabled to get the whole thing to work, and I can't really imagine how the microcontroller for a washing mashine can be DRM enabled.
Let's oppose and fight TCPA, but apocalyptic scenarious are wrong.
Thanks for pointing out that this is spam! I also get these "referers".
The sad thing is, that it is nowadays half-criminal to do a ping/traceroute to a certain host (Considered preparing an attack) but these spammers can generate their high volume(!) traffic, out of every RFC borders, and don't get problems at all.
> They mentioned one of the reasons in the article: concern that a competitor might be able to use the infrastructure.
Sentences like this make me believe that there is some flaw in the way this cable market works. Cables cut to deny the competitors them are wasted resources, damn!
Admitted, but I think that's not 100% true. I did some mapping myself (filtering the output of various traceroutes) and there were cycles in my graph. But this is some time ago.
Has anyone noticed that nearly all of the maps have a more or less tree-shaped structure? This means concentration of power. So, the real, failure-tolerant internet is gone, at least it seems to be.
Your phone already contains that much software, so it is not unlikely to fail in an emergency. Phone systems seen as a whole are also not failure-free. If you are using mobile phones, it gets even worse. I do NOT want to rely on a mobile for an emergency call (at least not at home, for other locations, it can be life-saving, of course).
The world is changing and you can't really support a phone system which is only there for emergency calls. You have to integrate the emergency calls into the internet somehow. Yes, internet protocols and things like H.323 add much additional complexity. But we already rely on the internet more and more daily things, and we will rely on it also for emergency calls in the future. There, governmental regulation should come in. Require big ISPs which have monpolies in certain areas to provide a guaranteed minimum data rate (by backup lines or other means) for each household.
With "guaranteed" being functional 99.999% of the time or something like that.
And, further thought, regulation is not the same thing as standardisation. Standardisation processes and organisations should sometimes be regulated, but standards itself should not.
(The word "regulation" here is meant as a government regulation)
You are assuming that the ones in power (be that RIAA, the US government, the EU, a banana republic's dictator, whatever) just CAN'T regulate the internet, because they have not enough power.
But look at the RIAA raids. Look at the echelon scanning of emails.
But they have the power. It is dangerous to assume that they have not. This lets you live in a condition of "ahh, well, they can't touch MY free internet" happiness. The internet with it's MUDs is NOT the world, it is just a tiny subset.
I wonder what that means for the end user. It seems clear to me that they want to regulate VoIP, because it's the same application, only the transmission medium changed.
BUT... what does that mean to the consumer(*)? Am I allowed to run my VoIP applications or are they willing to control that also (like in panama, see http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/11/04/0252201. shtml ?tid=95 ).
This can get just another privacy issue. Because the enforcement of thus regulations needs control of the traffic.
Are the traditional phone companies like AT&T losing? I don't think so. They are also providing internet services. They change become more an more ISPs. They *are* ISPs. There has always been competition. Now the internet is stirring up the market a bit. So where is their problem?
Sometimes it seems that artificial problems are built up to get the public in favour of internet control (and the public is certainly there, now). Maybe not the population, but the ones that should decide for us. Maybe it's well-crafted lobbying.
(*) - Starting to hate that word. I am not only a "consumer".
> Luckily it's only a microorganism. Hmm, aren't microorganisms eating iron and surviving in ovens are harder to extinct than some cm long creatures with hands and feet?
Slashdot Mirror
> hurt European exports
Umm, germany where I live exports the most goods per citizen. So, yes export is important.
But: 30% of the exports are non-EU. So it doesn't matter that much.
"Military stronger" makes not much sense in the age of hydrogen bombs. There is just no hiding from them. And the U.S. and also Russia have enough of them to knock out civilization. China enough to take out all major U.S. cities.
So... what is the main advantage of the "other countries"? It's that thay have less civilization (i.e. cities), but more citizens. Look at china. Several big cities, but most of the population still lives on flat land. And the first thing nukes would hit would be the cities. Soldiers need a supply chain. The supply chain could very easily be cut in highly civilized countries using WMD, especially nuclear weapons.
The US, Europe, Russia and all the countries with most of their population living in big cities are especially vulnerable to nuclear attacks. And sometimes it seems that this scares the hell out of many of the western political leaders. Not that they would be scared by nuclear attacks on their country in principle. I'm sure many are cynical enough to provoke a nuclear war to gain power, at least they would not care for their population. But number of civilists means military power means general power. And this can easily be lost.
IMHO, cache efficiency only goes way up if your code size shrinks by the usage of a more expressive instruction set. But it is not said that
CISC instruction sets are more expressive than RISC ones, despite their name. Look for example (no highperf. computing, I know, I know, but anyway) at the ARMThumb. That's 16bit/instruction. Clearly RISC.
Then... if you know what your problems are (i.e. no IPV6 in MeshAP) and you need it, why don't you fix it?
I mean... it's certainly harder to get a new routing algorithm (i.e. a considerable piece of rather complex software) working than change the packet type from IPV4 to IPV6...
No, it's not THAT disinformative. Although RISC/CISC doesn't say everything about processors, there are a few things to consider:
- RISC needs smaller die sizes. The free space can be used for more pipelining etc. => more speed!
- Compiler's perform way better on RISC. If you do not code in assembler => more speed!
In IPV4, you can't allocate space for WiFi meshes anymore. ACK.
But this is not true for IPV6. In IPV6 you can allocate big classless spaces and use these for your mesh networks. A 10 million city with one IP per PC, washing mashine, toaster... no problem.
What you describe at the most important problem in todays IP world is not the basic protocol, i.e. IP. You are criticizing the routing protocols, they do not match well with fluctuating mesh networks. Indeed. They are designed for wired networks. But most of the internet traffic still runs over wires, and this will probably stay so even with competion from wifi. You can't really put all that bandwidth through wifi.
There are solutions that work on top of IP, in a very clean way, and these solutions work well in the lab. In the field, there are not yet enough studies which support this research.
The proposed new network architectures consist mainly of new routing protocols adapted to mesh networks. I see no problem with IP as the underlying protocol. It works, it's relatively reliable and it's already there. And the research groups (Are you professionally working on this topic? - I'm not. But this doesn't invalidate my arguments, I think...) are using IP on the lower level...
For more information, try google for "manet". There is already much information out there.
I can't really talk about you routing algorithm because I haven't seen it in simulation or reality. To state that a particular routing algorithm is good by just drawing it onto paper is a good start, but not a proof of concept. Maybe it works, maybe not. But try it out and build devices which connect to a mesh network (Mesh networking is one of the things I consider to play around with next in my freetime) and show the world that it works. But I'm sure that the underlying packets can IPV6 instead of your custom protocol without any functional penalty.
> D. Make the lives of idiots living hells. Don't suffer fools gladly. Be sure to use sarcasm to belittle them, and lower their "self-esteem." Hopefully, they'll fail to attract mates, and then eventually the suck will be bred out of humanity.
That is just plain social darwinism.
Yes, and hasn't one economist pointed out (I think he got the nobel prize) that today's markets only work because there is inequality of information?
And, for someone who sells music, it is in their best interest to make the situation stable and make it as inconvenient/hidden as possible to use the radio or download mp3s.
What if there would be an OSS program of good quality that would listen to the radio (by soundcard), automatically determine the song's name, artist etc. and would save the radio stream as a nicely formatted mp3?
RIAA & Co. would probably try hard to suppress this program.
The problem is not that they essentially own the market for music now and set monpoly prices.
The problem is that they even decide how their market works by changing the law as it fits their needs!
ACK. But I wonder if the outcome will really be a digital divide (compsumers and computers) or a mix of many different levels of "freedom" in the computers. While most of us strongly oppose hardware DRM, the actual situation will get quite interesting in the next time, I think:
What, for example, about FPGAs? Field programmable gate arrays are per definitionem not restrictable by "DRM", because they just represent a sea of gates from which one can build almost any digital hardware. That includes computers. General purpose ones. Will FPGAs be outlawed?
There are many many devices now that have to be DRM enabled to get the whole thing to work, and I can't really imagine how the microcontroller for a washing mashine can be DRM enabled.
Let's oppose and fight TCPA, but apocalyptic scenarious are wrong.
Thanks for pointing out that this is spam!
I also get these "referers".
The sad thing is, that it is nowadays half-criminal to do a ping/traceroute to a certain host (Considered preparing an attack) but these spammers can generate their high volume(!) traffic, out of every RFC borders, and don't get problems at all.
> They mentioned one of the reasons in the article: concern that a competitor might be able to use the infrastructure.
Sentences like this make me believe that there is
some flaw in the way this cable market works.
Cables cut to deny the competitors them are wasted
resources, damn!
Yes, and that's not only the US, in europe (at least germany), it's the same. Really. Annoying and also sad.
Admitted, but I think that's not 100% true. I did some mapping myself (filtering the output of various traceroutes) and there were cycles in my graph. But this is some time ago.
I don't see *any* cycles in his map.
Has anyone noticed that nearly all of the maps have a more or less tree-shaped structure?
This means concentration of power. So, the real, failure-tolerant internet is gone, at least it seems to be.
Yes, and I have an idea for that:
Your phone already contains that much software, so it is not unlikely to fail in an emergency. Phone systems seen as a whole are also not failure-free. If you are using mobile phones, it gets even worse. I do NOT want to rely on a mobile for an emergency call (at least not at home, for other locations, it can be life-saving, of course).
The world is changing and you can't really support a phone system which is only there for emergency calls. You have to integrate the emergency calls into the internet somehow. Yes, internet protocols and things like H.323 add much additional complexity. But we already rely on the internet more and more daily things, and we will rely on it also for emergency calls in the future.
There, governmental regulation should come in. Require big ISPs which have monpolies in certain areas to provide a guaranteed minimum data rate (by backup lines or other means) for each household.
With "guaranteed" being functional 99.999% of the time or something like that.
Just my 0.02EUR.
Call it U.S.A. 0.0.31pre3. This is slashdot.
And, further thought, regulation is not the same thing as standardisation. Standardisation processes and organisations should sometimes be regulated, but standards itself should not.
(The word "regulation" here is meant as a government regulation)
You are assuming that the ones in power (be that RIAA, the US government, the EU, a banana republic's dictator, whatever) just CAN'T regulate the internet, because they have not enough power.
But look at the RIAA raids. Look at the echelon scanning of emails.
But they have the power. It is dangerous to assume that they have not. This lets you live in a condition of "ahh, well, they can't touch MY free internet" happiness. The internet with it's MUDs is NOT the world, it is just a tiny subset.
I wonder what that means for the end user.
. shtml ?tid=95 ).
It seems clear to me that they want to regulate VoIP, because it's the same application, only the transmission medium changed.
BUT... what does that mean to the consumer(*)? Am I allowed to run my VoIP applications or are they willing to control that also (like in panama, see
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/11/04/0252201
This can get just another privacy issue. Because the enforcement of thus regulations needs control of the traffic.
Are the traditional phone companies like AT&T losing? I don't think so. They are also providing internet services. They change become more an more
ISPs. They *are* ISPs. There has always been competition. Now the internet is stirring up the market a bit. So where is their problem?
Sometimes it seems that artificial problems are built up to get the public in favour of internet control (and the public is certainly there, now). Maybe not the population, but the ones that should decide for us. Maybe it's well-crafted lobbying.
(*) - Starting to hate that word. I am not only a "consumer".
Yes, and also consider the fact that many people are still in education. Makes the numbers even better.
After all, I would just say:
The Republicans are no Democrats.
This of course applies only to those funded by Diebold & co.
Here, from germany:
http://www.euronaut.com/
They are marine engineers, as it seems, so they know what they're doing...
> Luckily it's only a microorganism.
Hmm, aren't microorganisms eating iron and surviving in ovens are harder to extinct than some cm long creatures with hands and feet?
Actually, I found this a long time ago and think it is somewhat related... a movie of an exploding power transformer:
g
http://205.243.100.155/frames/mpg/XfrmBlast1.mp
(from www.teslamania.com)
Yes, and match that on the other slashdot article of today, about NUKES...
IMHO that's another problem which is ignored.