Dude, IPv6 address are sixteen bytes long. That's 3.4E38. When we get to the point that we have more than 3.4E38 lights and toasters, we'll have far more critical problems than finding IPv6 addresses for each of them. (Like, forming a black hole full of toasters, for example...)
OK, I'll concede the technicality of "steal" vs. "infringe", even though any 10 year-old who's spent any time attending his/her church/synagogue/temple/mosque would instantly call you on the weak, hair-spliting semantic dodge.
Another example of the growing and insidious meme "since digitial information rights are so easy to infringe (plagiarize, pirate, trespass upon...), it must be OK to do so".
What's really the difference between being able to phone a million people compared to a billion people?... You reach the point of diminishing returns even on the log scale.
This will really depend if 'value of the network' is being measured for 'you' the individual or 'you' the collective. The difference from my individual POV between 1e0*1e6 and 1e0*1e9 possibilities may less than 1000x in 'value' (I'm just as swamped by 1e6 as by 1e9), but the difference in 'value' between 1e6*1e6 and 1e9*1e9 would be a much larger, yes? Maybe not a full n^2 increase, but n*log(n) does seem conservative to me.
Would I buy a seat for everyone of my 100 engineers? Of course not. Would I buy 1 or 2 floating licenses to use when those *really* nasty, hard-to-catch bugs pop up one week before scheduled release? Yes, absolutely -- IF IT WORKS.
This is *very* intaresting^g^n^i^t^s^e^r^aersting technology.
Seriously, if this really works, the $5K/seat could well be worth it. Now, if they could convince Intel/AMD/IBM to somehow provide advanced support in the hardware...
that if the problem (if it is one) of cloaking can't be solve technically, then all the posturing and nagging and scolding in the world isn't going make it go away. Just live with it...
I work on such large projects, with code from who knows how many groups and hands, that hoping to have the entire tree in one style is futile.
Within a logical section of the code (a 'subsystem', for example) I do expect consistency, and I will adhere to the style found therein. But if given a choice (I'm creating the subsytem), I'll use the above. It's just vastly cleaner to the eye.
I can 'develop' any thing I darn well please, be it atoms or bits, regardless of infringement on any patents.
The question is, can I deploy it (sell it, give it away, whatever), without being sued? The curious kid in nothern China might not care whether the code you gave him infringes on a patent someone with deep pockets is trying to enforce, but Red Hat certainly will, Novell certainly will, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The burst has been named GRB050509b
I mean, really! How droll, how clever...
ROTFLMAO. Sexist as hell, to be sure, but funny as hell, too.
The correct response would have been, "You must new here! :)"
Jobs to Gates: "We're better than you."
Gates to Jobs: "You don't get it. It doesn't matter."
And it still doesn't...
Class of '76
sigh...
OK, I'll concede the technicality of "steal" vs. "infringe", even though any 10 year-old who's spent any time attending his/her church/synagogue/temple/mosque would instantly call you on the weak, hair-spliting semantic dodge.
Another example of the growing and insidious meme "since digitial information rights are so easy to infringe (plagiarize, pirate, trespass upon...), it must be OK to do so".
Uh, it's *still* not.
Uh, it's not.
This will really depend if 'value of the network' is being measured for 'you' the individual or 'you' the collective. The difference from my individual POV between 1e0*1e6 and 1e0*1e9 possibilities may less than 1000x in 'value' (I'm just as swamped by 1e6 as by 1e9), but the difference in 'value' between 1e6*1e6 and 1e9*1e9 would be a much larger, yes? Maybe not a full n^2 increase, but n*log(n) does seem conservative to me.
Show them how to quickly switch the browser window away from /. whenever the PHB comes by.
Seriously, if this really works, the $5K/seat could well be worth it. Now, if they could convince Intel/AMD/IBM to somehow provide advanced support in the hardware...
-k
Within a logical section of the code (a 'subsystem', for example) I do expect consistency, and I will adhere to the style found therein. But if given a choice (I'm creating the subsytem), I'll use the above. It's just vastly cleaner to the eye.
This style
{
is better by far
{
because the braces 'belong' to
the following block of code
}
not the
{
preceeding guard statement
}
}
Sincerely,
An OFP (Old Fart Progammer)
Another wonderful oxymoron! Bravo!
The question is, can I deploy it (sell it, give it away, whatever), without being sued? The curious kid in nothern China might not care whether the code you gave him infringes on a patent someone with deep pockets is trying to enforce, but Red Hat certainly will, Novell certainly will, etc.