That's not the only way that has been theorized, either. Popular Science ran an article sometime in the last year about time travel. While it will probably never happen, it has been theorized that if you took a black hole and twisted it, you would be able to travel through the black hole and into the past/future. I don't have anymore info on this, but I thought it was interesting all the same.
While it may be true that saddam is only one guy, It is also much harder to hide one man than a lot of in-organic, non living substances. Saddam had to be kept alive, or it would have done no good to fight the US. The WMD, on the other hand, do not have certain requirements that living beings do, like breathing, eating, sleeping and the like. The WMD's could have been berried almost anywhere in Iraq. That would lengthen the timeto find them by a long shot, now, wouldn't it?
After reading that, and seeing conceptual pictures of how these "landings" occur, I think that what makes Mars "hard" is our solutions to landing problems, and maybe even transportation. I don't know what we could do about transportation, but the landings are obviously way to stressful for delicate equipment. There has to be a better way to do it, because a landing like the one described would destroy almost anything! I don't think, therefore, that Mars itself is hard. I think it's how we access Mars that's "hard"!
How is that a stupid comment? While I do agree that a government is a monopoly, I was trying to draw a parallel between the people who are actually making the system and what rights we have to control them, namely, none. And one of the fundamental rules of leadership is that no entity is exempt from the laws of the whole, up to and including the ruling party. So, even though the government is a monopoly, taking part in activities that promote monopolies would be against the law. Have you ever seen anything that exempts the government from its own laws? I haven't, and there have been many occasions where the government has gotten in trouble for breaking its own laws! (like Watergate.)
but it goes against US law as well. This is a decidedly monopolistic move, one that will weaken a rival solution. Didn't we just have a big case of Microsoft doing the same thing?!? And anyways, the system is being developed outside of American control or influence. If this was a corporate system, we would not have the right to change it, so why should we be able to interfere now? This administration really gets on my nerves.
I don't think I have ever seen or read anything that states that p2p is not legal. Maybe I'm just way behind the times, but it was my understanding that p2p itself is legal, it's what the network is used for that is illegal.
I'm not. This is the logical conclusion (Or beginning) to the "virus age" that we've been experiencing. And I think the articale is wrong in some respects, like their thinking that the script kiddies and such are long gone. They are still here, and are having nore effect than ever as they modify already dangerous viruses, making it harder to block and stop them. And tell me, when has broad ranging legislation really helped anyone? Untill it's proven effective, I will remain wary of anything of the sort.
The problem with IPv4 does not seem to be the lack of address space, but that will be a telling factor when/if a switch is made. The major problems are, as has been mentioned, its inefficiencies and its current state. Currently the IPv4 standard is a cobbled together mess. VLSMs and NATing are late additions to the game, and are merely attempts to save an old and dying hulk. The fact remains that no matter what we add to IPv4, it will always be inefficient. In IPv6, most of these methods are inherent and relatively efficient. The mere fact that they are inherent as opposed to added on makes the standard a better one than IPv4 will ever be. Heck, IPv6 even has features that IPv4 doesn't (And probably won't). Address space, though, will play a significant part. The graphs and projections are all well and good, but I don't believe they take into account many of the factors involved. As broadband and DSL become more popular and more implemented, it is going to increase the demand for static addresses. Even though there are bad points to having a static address, there are also good points. People will want to have their own address for everything from their cell phones to their home LANs to whatever you can think of. The rush of in the early 90's is nothing compared to what's coming. We have to account for the further IPzation of all products in life, from cars to houses to coffeemakers to refrigerators. Home networks are on the spread. All these things are going to make people want more addresses, addresses that IPv4 can't provide, and even if it could, it would be inefficient, time-consuming, and slower than any thing that IPv6 would provide. This will drive a move away from IPv4. As youngsters become more and more used to the changing faces of tech, they will become more educated in its use as well. This will mean that today's techies will be tomorrow's average citizen. I, personally, don't know of any geek, techie, nerd, whatever you want to call it, who likes using a system that is old, broken, and inefficient to boot! Maybe you do, but I doubt it. These tech savvy youngsters, coupled with increasingly knowledgeable management (hey, it could happen!) would only increase the drive away from IPv4. And finally, I think that the authors forgot to take in to account the fact that most growth in certain fields happens exponentially. Most of the technologies that will drive a move away from IPv4 are new, or not old enough to be established. As soon as they age just a bit, and the bad ones are weeded out, the growth in those fields will rise by leaps and bounds. We have seen it with television, radio, cell phones, and most especially computers. To predict an almost linear line of growth is approaching on the naive! Like I said, growth states slow and rapidly increases after it reaches critical mass. With all that said, may IPv4 rest in peace. Long live IPv6!
While that all might be true, what if the point of the virus is to ruin only Linux based systems? I know this sounds far out, but there are people who would like to strike back at these "systems-savvy" users that you describe. And hey, everyone knows that most "systems-savvy" people use Linux. What would be cooler than shutting down the established leaders of the tech world? And even then, the virus could be probing for data on systems, not just wreaking havoc on a world-wide scale. Those who would be the easiest to hit in a case like this might almost be those that are most secure in their security, because it would be unexpected. And from what I have seen/heard/read, most Linux users fall within that group.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the only way that has been theorized, either. Popular Science ran an article sometime in the last year about time travel. While it will probably never happen, it has been theorized that if you took a black hole and twisted it, you would be able to travel through the black hole and into the past/future. I don't have anymore info on this, but I thought it was interesting all the same.
While it may be true that saddam is only one guy, It is also much harder to hide one man than a lot of in-organic, non living substances. Saddam had to be kept alive, or it would have done no good to fight the US. The WMD, on the other hand, do not have certain requirements that living beings do, like breathing, eating, sleeping and the like. The WMD's could have been berried almost anywhere in Iraq. That would lengthen the timeto find them by a long shot, now, wouldn't it?
After reading that, and seeing conceptual pictures of how these "landings" occur, I think that what makes Mars "hard" is our solutions to landing problems, and maybe even transportation. I don't know what we could do about transportation, but the landings are obviously way to stressful for delicate equipment. There has to be a better way to do it, because a landing like the one described would destroy almost anything! I don't think, therefore, that Mars itself is hard. I think it's how we access Mars that's "hard"!
How is that a stupid comment? While I do agree that a government is a monopoly, I was trying to draw a parallel between the people who are actually making the system and what rights we have to control them, namely, none. And one of the fundamental rules of leadership is that no entity is exempt from the laws of the whole, up to and including the ruling party. So, even though the government is a monopoly, taking part in activities that promote monopolies would be against the law. Have you ever seen anything that exempts the government from its own laws? I haven't, and there have been many occasions where the government has gotten in trouble for breaking its own laws! (like Watergate.)
but it goes against US law as well. This is a decidedly monopolistic move, one that will weaken a rival solution. Didn't we just have a big case of Microsoft doing the same thing?!? And anyways, the system is being developed outside of American control or influence. If this was a corporate system, we would not have the right to change it, so why should we be able to interfere now? This administration really gets on my nerves.
I don't think I have ever seen or read anything that states that p2p is not legal. Maybe I'm just way behind the times, but it was my understanding that p2p itself is legal, it's what the network is used for that is illegal.
I'm not. This is the logical conclusion (Or beginning) to the "virus age" that we've been experiencing. And I think the articale is wrong in some respects, like their thinking that the script kiddies and such are long gone. They are still here, and are having nore effect than ever as they modify already dangerous viruses, making it harder to block and stop them. And tell me, when has broad ranging legislation really helped anyone? Untill it's proven effective, I will remain wary of anything of the sort.
The problem with IPv4 does not seem to be the lack of address space, but that will be a telling factor when/if a switch is made.
The major problems are, as has been mentioned, its inefficiencies and its current state. Currently the IPv4 standard is a cobbled together mess. VLSMs and NATing are late additions to the game, and are merely attempts to save an old and dying hulk. The fact remains that no matter what we add to IPv4, it will always be inefficient. In IPv6, most of these methods are inherent and relatively efficient. The mere fact that they are inherent as opposed to added on makes the standard a better one than IPv4 will ever be. Heck, IPv6 even has features that IPv4 doesn't (And probably won't).
Address space, though, will play a significant part. The graphs and projections are all well and good, but I don't believe they take into account many of the factors involved. As broadband and DSL become more popular and more implemented, it is going to increase the demand for static addresses. Even though there are bad points to having a static address, there are also good points. People will want to have their own address for everything from their cell phones to their home LANs to whatever you can think of. The rush of in the early 90's is nothing compared to what's coming. We have to account for the further IPzation of all products in life, from cars to houses to coffeemakers to refrigerators. Home networks are on the spread. All these things are going to make people want more addresses, addresses that IPv4 can't provide, and even if it could, it would be inefficient, time-consuming, and slower than any thing that IPv6 would provide. This will drive a move away from IPv4. As youngsters become more and more used to the changing faces of tech, they will become more educated in its use as well. This will mean that today's techies will be tomorrow's average citizen. I, personally, don't know of any geek, techie, nerd, whatever you want to call it, who likes using a system that is old, broken, and inefficient to boot! Maybe you do, but I doubt it. These tech savvy youngsters, coupled with increasingly knowledgeable management (hey, it could happen!) would only increase the drive away from IPv4.
And finally, I think that the authors forgot to take in to account the fact that most growth in certain fields happens exponentially. Most of the technologies that will drive a move away from IPv4 are new, or not old enough to be established. As soon as they age just a bit, and the bad ones are weeded out, the growth in those fields will rise by leaps and bounds. We have seen it with television, radio, cell phones, and most especially computers. To predict an almost linear line of growth is approaching on the naive! Like I said, growth states slow and rapidly increases after it reaches critical mass.
With all that said, may IPv4 rest in peace. Long live IPv6!
What does this mean for the MS Flight Simulator Groupie?!? Are we going to be getting entire "flight rooms" now? AHHHHH!!!!
While that all might be true, what if the point of the virus is to ruin only Linux based systems? I know this sounds far out, but there are people who would like to strike back at these "systems-savvy" users that you describe. And hey, everyone knows that most "systems-savvy" people use Linux. What would be cooler than shutting down the established leaders of the tech world? And even then, the virus could be probing for data on systems, not just wreaking havoc on a world-wide scale. Those who would be the easiest to hit in a case like this might almost be those that are most secure in their security, because it would be unexpected. And from what I have seen/heard/read, most Linux users fall within that group.