now Let's think about what you are asking for. you want a multiple IP address router/firewall. Do you know how firewalls work? they do not act transparent like a router. so you can not have one of them to protect multiple destination IP addresses... so now if you have 4 pc's at home you need 4 firewalls.
Wow... if the parent poster knows a "VERY tiny bit" about networking, you know absolutely nothing at all.
I agree that using a NAT is a pain if you need direct P2P connectivity, but OTOH, it's also useful as it basically works like a one-way firewall so that outsiders won't be able to get into your network so easily.
Actually NAT doesn't act like a firewall at all. Read the RFCs sometime, it doesn't actually drop any packets, it simply re-writes certain ones.
I really look forward to the day when I can (once again) have end-to-end connectivity with peers.
I don't. I don't want any AOL customers to have direct internet connections for instance.
Then keep your firewall in place. You do have one, don't you? Noone is proposing we drop firewalls with IPv6, just NAT.
Use port forwarding if you have less than roughly 60,000 machines. It works for me.
You don't use SSH or SSL or any other protocol that does host-based authentication? If not, and if you don't mind memorizing what 60,000 numeric port numbers are for since you can't use DNS, then yeah, I guess it does work for you... but not many other people.
I would *love* to have my own block of portable address space for me to do with as I please.
Try 10.*.*.*, I hear that's available.
But that's not portable - you don't actually "port" 10/8 to another ISP because that network doesn't even exist as far as the ISP is concerned.
I don't think anyone realizes how many PC's are effectively firewalled and safe thanks to the NAT routers you think we should abandoned.
NAT has nothing to do with firewalling. NAT does not drop any packets whatsoever - your firewall does. With IPv6 noone is proposing that we stop using firewalls, just that we stop using NAT. Nobody's network will be one bit less safe by dropping the NAT and keeping the firewall.
That only limits the rate at which your traffic passes through to the rest of their network. It doesn't control the speed at which you transmit onto the local cable segment.
Alcahol cause more consequences to society than anything from these attitudes.
I'd say people with fascist attitudes who wish to ram their moral beliefs down everyone else's throats cause far more consequences to society than alcohol.
As you celebrate the birth of the savior reflect on this please.
We aren't celebrating the birth of your "savior". We are celebrating the shortest day of the year and the end of the darkness (yule tide), the coming of spring and rebirth of nature (guess what the tree with color spheres all over it represents) and many other things.
Since these were primary pagan holidays, the celebration of Christ's birth was added to the mix on this day hundreds of years after his birth happened since they couldn't let all that attention being drawn to the pagan celebrations...
That has to be one of the worst cases of sentence mangling I've seen in a long time. I was arguing that companies, with a 50 BILLION dollar market cap run mysql, they are doing just fine. If you think they are stupid for it, fine, but I don't see you doing any better.
Here, let me explain it a little slower for you. Several posts ago you made this statement:
Perhaps your definition of enterprise is "a 8 person law firm". Mine, OTOH, is something like a $500M+ public company that could lose thousands of dollars a minute on downtime.
You backed this up in a reply stating that Yahoo uses mysql. I asked you if yahoo uses it for an application for which that company "could loose thousands of dollars a minute on downtime".
You replied by asking me if I can read and cited an article in which I read "Yahoo! uses the MySQL database to power many of the services on Yahoo! Finance (finance.yahoo.com)" and specificly did not read anything along the lines of "Yahoo uses MySQL to power something that will cost them thousands of dollars per minute down".
On the contrary, I read in this article that mysql at Yahoo finance replaced "homegrown flat files and Berkeley DB databases", which would definitely indicate that they are not using mysql for the caliber of application you were talking about.
Why is anyone building stand-alone applications other than video games and web browsers anymore?
Well, because it isn't even possible to do most applications as web applications. GIMP, GAIM, a terminal application, a word processor, a spreadsheet, a text editor that is more than just an html textarea...
If that's my thousands of dollars a minute, I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to only hire one person, much less some wanna be support company. Instead, I would hire a company with: a plan ( http://www.mysql.com/company/ )
If you're a 500M+ company with a mission critial database that will cost them thousands of dollars a minute if it goes down, you sure as hell aren't going to be running mysql anyway, so that "plan" is kind of moot.
But the torrent isn't illegal. If I make a torrent of illegal stuff and post it, am I breaking the law by posting the torrent, even if I never upload or download any data?
They're not distributing content (which is what copyright is all about). They're distributing the means to distribute the content.
Well, ok, that's different. You were originally saying that the people who run suprnova had no control or knowledge of what they were hosting and I'm pretty sure they did.
Wether or not the torrents themselves are legal is another issue. I'm not sure if they are or not. I've heard from other people that those who handle only the torrents may be liable/guilty of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, or some auxiliary crime like that. I'm not really sure, I'm not a lawyer.
they don't know who the terrorists are. In order to find out that you aren't a terrorist, they have to monitor your communications.
I'd rather they not assume that I'm a terrorist.
I'd rather they not assume I'm a terrorist as well, since they have a lot more guns than I do. But I'll be damned if I consent to them listening to my private conversations to ease their personal suspicions.
One more time: SuprNova wasn't breaking the law. They didn't know the content was illegal. All they knew was that someone made a.torrent of it and posted it.
They did know the content was illegal. These sites had moderators who organized and managed the content, did they not? If I spammed suprnova with 10000 bogus torrents, would they just remain there untouched, or would a site moderator delete them? If the site is moderated, then they knew what they were posting and they made a consious decision to post the torrents of copyrighted stuff.
The universe is the system. We may have only seen a small part of it, but we've seen more than enough to observe order and disorder, and to know that all that we observe tends to go from order to disorder. Evolution claims that biology does the reverse, and it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.
Actually not everything other than biology that we observe in the universe is heading towards disorder. We can observe the birth of stars an planets in nebulae, where coulds of innate matter coalesce to form ordered objects. We can observe predictable atmopheric storms on other planets. We can observe geological events on other planets, giving them complex, moutainous landscapes. And this is just the tiny piece of the universe that we can observe.
At any rate, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that the universe or even things in general tend to become disordered, it states that a specific closed system will become disordered if left alone and given enough time. I don't think we know enough about the universe to say that the universe itself is the kind of system described by the second law.
Yes, but what evidence do you have that Joe did it? I have history, archaeology, written records and changed lives that speak in concert with my beliefs.
None of those things actually proove your religion. We have history & written accounts from many religions, all of which are in conflict and don't actually proove anything.
Archaeology doesn't proove the correctness of any religion either. It simply prooves that some natural, physical human activity ocurred at a particular time and place. There's no arcaeological evidence that something supernatural ever happened.
Most people have not critically examined whether evolution is true or not - they accept it as fact in the same way that they accept that gravity works. The evidence for gravity is compelling. I submit to you that development of different kinds of creatures through mutation and time is not well supported by the evidence, and that many who hold to that view do so because of a prior commitment to the philosphy of naturalism, not because the evidence exists for it.
Well, you enumerated a number of ways in which evolution is not supported by the evidence back at the beginning of this thread, and I've provided counters to all of them. For some, such as the cambrian explosion, we may not have direct proof as to how they happened, but there are reasonable natural theories which make sense given the facts we know about biology. It makes more sense to me to believe in these natural theories which are derived from and fit in with observations and prooven facts than to believe in a supernatural theory which there is no currently observable evidence of.
If you say "there's no way it can be proven" then you're really saying, "I refuse to accept any proof."
Not so - religion can't be proven simply because that is the nature of religion. It can't be prooven, it requires faith. If it could be prooven it wouldn't be religion, it would be science and we wouldn't need to take it on faith.
Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined evolution? Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined Christianity?
What I was suggesting is that every natural system tends toward disorder - towards equilibrium. Evolution as explanation for the origin of species depends on life running against the current of the universe. It seems implausible.
I don't fully understand what "the system" is that we're discussing. If the system is the earth, then the system is not closed and the second law doesn't apply. If the sun were extinguished, then yes it would drift towards disorder. If "the system" is the universe, well, the universe may be a closed system and it may in fact be drifting on its way to disorder (we probably don't have enough information to say one way or the other). The earth's lifespan is just a tiny amount of time compared to the lifetime of the whole universe.
Even if it could, how is it reasonable to suggest that the other components of the eye would have somehow been associated with each other, in the right sequence, and would have worked in any shape or form to begin to send signals down a forming optic nerve?
Things didn't neccessarily go from no vision to human-quality vision immediately. There were slight advances, mostly random. The vast majority of those random, slight advances didn't work out. The species who by chance developed a slightly more advanced visual system dominated those that didn't.
It just makes sense to me.
I think that it is simpler to suggest that the consistency and observable patterns in the universe point to a design. Leave a garden alone for a while, and what happens? Does it demonstrate order, or disorder? Does the garden move toward elegance or chaos?
Disorder and choas as defined by the second law? Again, if the garden were sealed off from everything else, then yes it would eventually die and turn to nothing. If it were out in the open, the outside forces would influence the garden towards something other than complete molecular disorder.
If you're just referring to weeds, well, our idea of disorder differs from nature's. If the garden is exposed to nature, it becomes ordered more like nature. If exposed to a human's energy, it becomes ordered more like the human's efforts. Either way, this garden isn't truly disordered in the physical sense that we were talking about.
WRT saying that God's existance cannot be verified, what evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate to you that God does exist?
You can't provide me evidence that God exists becuase you don't have any evidence yourself. You take the existance of God on faith, not on some proof or concrete evidence that you can just show me.
You believe the world was created by someone named God who had a human son named Jesus and so on... I might say I believe the universe was created by someone named Joe who built the most basic sub-atomic particles to obey certain rules, created energy, mixed it all together and let the whole thing go on its own course with no intervention.
You can't really proove one way or the other. I believe you believe in Christianity (or whatever popular faith you follow) simply because it is popular among those around you and you were raised that way.
The point is that the cambrian explosion is.
Well you cited the cambrian explosion as an instance where a god intervened and caused things to happen that would not otherwise have happend by natural means. I'm saying there were possible natural means for the cambrian explosion to happen.
Origins, by definition, cross the boundaries of what is testable within this framework of knowledge.
Origins in general, or the ultimate origin of something, tracing back as far as possible, such as to the big bang?
As a result, something apparently supernatural (more than natural, or outside the understood bounds of nature) occurred to establish the universe as we know it.
Not neccessarily. The universe could be infinite. I've heard theories that the universe could be in an endless cycle of expansion/collapse, or that this universe could be a part of another universe... none of this scientificly established of course, but neither is the theory that a god started it all.
1. MacroEvolution (change from one type to another - as opposed to adaptation - variation within kind) requires that things move from less ordered to more ordered without something to put them in order. This seems to run contrary to the principle encapsulated within the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that things tend to move from order to disorder. If evolution is true, life moves opposite the natural tendency of the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system - it receives energy from the sun.
2. Irreduceable complexity - How can complex biological structures have been developed when individual components would not have been beneficial? Even if a human-type eye developed, it would have had to develop at the same time that the optic nerve and brain components that receive and interpret those signals. It seems unlikely to me.
Actually the brain is well known to adopt to new sensory inputs and lost sensory inputs even within the lifespan of one human. It is known that when one sense is lost, others become strengthened. Here's an odd slashdot story about an experiment providing a kind of visual input to a blind man via the tongue. It is perfectly reasonable that a brain would gradually adopt to new inputs. So for example, if a member of a species only seeing black and white developed a mutation that provided a tiny bit of color input, the brain could easily adopt and use that input. Carry this out over millions of years and some pretty advanced developments can be made.
3. Occam's razor tells me that if I find a watch on the beach, the most likely explanation is that there was a designer, manufacturer, and some cause for the manufactured item to be transported to that location, rather than the parts appearing by chance, and they fell into the correct order by chance.
I would say Occam's razor leans more towards evolution. Which explanation is simpler:
1) A process which we can currently observe a small part of has been going on for millions of years to develop life from its simplest form to its current form.
2) A supernatural being whose existance cannot be verified intervened at some point in the distant past to start the above process up midway.
4. The cambrian explosion shows a huge number of distinct species all at the same time - and no clear transitions
Actually there are a number of natural theories explaining the cambrian exlosion, ranging from chemical changes in the atmosphere (increase in oxygen levels) to an extinction prior to the cambrian era leaving "room for growth" of the remaining species, to biological explanations. This article has some information.
Since it is not observable, nor repeatable, we cannot postulate and test those postulates about origins.
It is definitely observable. Everyone knows that changes occur in genetic material as live goes on, either through reproduction or via mutations that often show up as birth defects, cancer, diseases, etc... that much is easily observable.
Usually these genetic changes don't work out very well, but sometimes a change is developed which is actually beneficial to the survival of the organism, and that genetic information is passed on to children and it becomes more widespread. That is observable too. DNA has been recovered from long extinct species. We can compare DNA from living organisms to other species or extinct species to see their relationship, their common origin and how and when the changes occurred.
Once you observe that these genetic changes naturally change life over time (going from simpler to more advanced organisms) it is logical to conclude that all life evolved from the simplest possible living thing and that species were not just plopped onto the planet one day out of the blue.
What about walking into a retail establishment that subscribes to satellite radio (retail edition) unbeknownst to you?
That person will just have to go on and be offended. Nobody cares. There's no fundamental right not to be offended in this country. We don't need to turn the country into a police state because somebody might be offended.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... if the parent poster knows a "VERY tiny bit" about networking, you know absolutely nothing at all.
Actually NAT doesn't act like a firewall at all. Read the RFCs sometime, it doesn't actually drop any packets, it simply re-writes certain ones.
Then keep your firewall in place. You do have one, don't you? Noone is proposing we drop firewalls with IPv6, just NAT.
You don't use SSH or SSL or any other protocol that does host-based authentication? If not, and if you don't mind memorizing what 60,000 numeric port numbers are for since you can't use DNS, then yeah, I guess it does work for you... but not many other people.
But that's not portable - you don't actually "port" 10/8 to another ISP because that network doesn't even exist as far as the ISP is concerned.
NAT has nothing to do with firewalling. NAT does not drop any packets whatsoever - your firewall does. With IPv6 noone is proposing that we stop using firewalls, just that we stop using NAT. Nobody's network will be one bit less safe by dropping the NAT and keeping the firewall.
Not that tobacco smokers are any more or less "legitimate" than pot smokers...
That only limits the rate at which your traffic passes through to the rest of their network. It doesn't control the speed at which you transmit onto the local cable segment.
How are the supposed to limit the rate at which you transmit by touching only the receiving end?
I'd say people with fascist attitudes who wish to ram their moral beliefs down everyone else's throats cause far more consequences to society than alcohol.
We aren't celebrating the birth of your "savior". We are celebrating the shortest day of the year and the end of the darkness (yule tide), the coming of spring and rebirth of nature (guess what the tree with color spheres all over it represents) and many other things.
Since these were primary pagan holidays, the celebration of Christ's birth was added to the mix on this day hundreds of years after his birth happened since they couldn't let all that attention being drawn to the pagan celebrations...
Sure, but does it cost them thousands of dollars a minute if it goes down?
Exactly. Now tell me if Howard Stern does something naughty on the radio, who was forced to be exposed to it?
Here, let me explain it a little slower for you. Several posts ago you made this statement:
You backed this up in a reply stating that Yahoo uses mysql. I asked you if yahoo uses it for an application for which that company "could loose thousands of dollars a minute on downtime".
You replied by asking me if I can read and cited an article in which I read "Yahoo! uses the MySQL database to power many of the services on Yahoo! Finance (finance.yahoo.com)" and specificly did not read anything along the lines of "Yahoo uses MySQL to power something that will cost them thousands of dollars per minute down".
On the contrary, I read in this article that mysql at Yahoo finance replaced "homegrown flat files and Berkeley DB databases", which would definitely indicate that they are not using mysql for the caliber of application you were talking about.
Really? Yahoo uses mysql for an application for which they loose thousands of dollars a minute if the DB goes down? Do you work for yahoo?
Well, because it isn't even possible to do most applications as web applications. GIMP, GAIM, a terminal application, a word processor, a spreadsheet, a text editor that is more than just an html textarea...
If you're a 500M+ company with a mission critial database that will cost them thousands of dollars a minute if it goes down, you sure as hell aren't going to be running mysql anyway, so that "plan" is kind of moot.
Well, ok, that's different. You were originally saying that the people who run suprnova had no control or knowledge of what they were hosting and I'm pretty sure they did.
Wether or not the torrents themselves are legal is another issue. I'm not sure if they are or not. I've heard from other people that those who handle only the torrents may be liable/guilty of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, or some auxiliary crime like that. I'm not really sure, I'm not a lawyer.
OpenVPN is great. It is my favorite VPN mechanism. It is simple and secure. Those two go hand in hand.
I'd rather they not assume I'm a terrorist as well, since they have a lot more guns than I do. But I'll be damned if I consent to them listening to my private conversations to ease their personal suspicions.
They did know the content was illegal. These sites had moderators who organized and managed the content, did they not? If I spammed suprnova with 10000 bogus torrents, would they just remain there untouched, or would a site moderator delete them? If the site is moderated, then they knew what they were posting and they made a consious decision to post the torrents of copyrighted stuff.
Actually not everything other than biology that we observe in the universe is heading towards disorder. We can observe the birth of stars an planets in nebulae, where coulds of innate matter coalesce to form ordered objects. We can observe predictable atmopheric storms on other planets. We can observe geological events on other planets, giving them complex, moutainous landscapes. And this is just the tiny piece of the universe that we can observe.
At any rate, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that the universe or even things in general tend to become disordered, it states that a specific closed system will become disordered if left alone and given enough time. I don't think we know enough about the universe to say that the universe itself is the kind of system described by the second law.
None of those things actually proove your religion. We have history & written accounts from many religions, all of which are in conflict and don't actually proove anything.
Archaeology doesn't proove the correctness of any religion either. It simply prooves that some natural, physical human activity ocurred at a particular time and place. There's no arcaeological evidence that something supernatural ever happened.
Well, you enumerated a number of ways in which evolution is not supported by the evidence back at the beginning of this thread, and I've provided counters to all of them. For some, such as the cambrian explosion, we may not have direct proof as to how they happened, but there are reasonable natural theories which make sense given the facts we know about biology. It makes more sense to me to believe in these natural theories which are derived from and fit in with observations and prooven facts than to believe in a supernatural theory which there is no currently observable evidence of.
Not so - religion can't be proven simply because that is the nature of religion. It can't be prooven, it requires faith. If it could be prooven it wouldn't be religion, it would be science and we wouldn't need to take it on faith.
Yes, I believe I am right now actually.
I don't fully understand what "the system" is that we're discussing. If the system is the earth, then the system is not closed and the second law doesn't apply. If the sun were extinguished, then yes it would drift towards disorder. If "the system" is the universe, well, the universe may be a closed system and it may in fact be drifting on its way to disorder (we probably don't have enough information to say one way or the other). The earth's lifespan is just a tiny amount of time compared to the lifetime of the whole universe.
Things didn't neccessarily go from no vision to human-quality vision immediately. There were slight advances, mostly random. The vast majority of those random, slight advances didn't work out. The species who by chance developed a slightly more advanced visual system dominated those that didn't.
It just makes sense to me.
Disorder and choas as defined by the second law? Again, if the garden were sealed off from everything else, then yes it would eventually die and turn to nothing. If it were out in the open, the outside forces would influence the garden towards something other than complete molecular disorder.
If you're just referring to weeds, well, our idea of disorder differs from nature's. If the garden is exposed to nature, it becomes ordered more like nature. If exposed to a human's energy, it becomes ordered more like the human's efforts. Either way, this garden isn't truly disordered in the physical sense that we were talking about.
You can't provide me evidence that God exists becuase you don't have any evidence yourself. You take the existance of God on faith, not on some proof or concrete evidence that you can just show me.
You believe the world was created by someone named God who had a human son named Jesus and so on... I might say I believe the universe was created by someone named Joe who built the most basic sub-atomic particles to obey certain rules, created energy, mixed it all together and let the whole thing go on its own course with no intervention.
You can't really proove one way or the other. I believe you believe in Christianity (or whatever popular faith you follow) simply because it is popular among those around you and you were raised that way.
Well you cited the cambrian explosion as an instance where a god intervened and caused things to happen that would not otherwise have happend by natural means. I'm saying there were possible natural means for the cambrian explosion to happen.
Origins in general, or the ultimate origin of something, tracing back as far as possible, such as to the big bang?
Not neccessarily. The universe could be infinite. I've heard theories that the universe could be in an endless cycle of expansion/collapse, or that this universe could be a part of another universe... none of this scientificly established of course, but neither is the theory that a god started it all.
The second law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system - it receives energy from the sun.
Actually the brain is well known to adopt to new sensory inputs and lost sensory inputs even within the lifespan of one human. It is known that when one sense is lost, others become strengthened. Here's an odd slashdot story about an experiment providing a kind of visual input to a blind man via the tongue. It is perfectly reasonable that a brain would gradually adopt to new inputs. So for example, if a member of a species only seeing black and white developed a mutation that provided a tiny bit of color input, the brain could easily adopt and use that input. Carry this out over millions of years and some pretty advanced developments can be made.
I would say Occam's razor leans more towards evolution. Which explanation is simpler:
1) A process which we can currently observe a small part of has been going on for millions of years to develop life from its simplest form to its current form.
2) A supernatural being whose existance cannot be verified intervened at some
point in the distant past to start the above process up midway.
Actually there are a number of natural theories explaining the cambrian exlosion, ranging from chemical changes in the atmosphere (increase in oxygen levels) to an extinction prior to the cambrian era leaving "room for growth" of the remaining species, to biological explanations. This article has some information.
It is definitely observable. Everyone knows that changes occur in genetic material as live goes on, either through reproduction or via mutations that often show up as birth defects, cancer, diseases, etc... that much is easily observable.
Usually these genetic changes don't work out very well, but sometimes a change is developed which is actually beneficial to the survival of the organism, and that genetic information is passed on to children and it becomes more widespread. That is observable too. DNA has been recovered from long extinct species. We can compare DNA from living organisms to other species or extinct species to see their relationship, their common origin and how and when the changes occurred.
Once you observe that these genetic changes naturally change life over time (going from simpler to more advanced organisms) it is logical to conclude that all life evolved from the simplest possible living thing and that species were not just plopped onto the planet one day out of the blue.
That person will just have to go on and be offended. Nobody cares. There's no fundamental right not to be offended in this country. We don't need to turn the country into a police state because somebody might be offended.
It was the bandwidth he was probably after. He was probably setting up a place to exchange with others.