But actually, the users of those services pay more to avoid converting the infrastructure. (Although, rather than a direct monetary cost, it often comes in the form of things like bugs or missing features that could've been developed/fixed if developer time wasn't being spent dealing with NAT.)
That is the theory, but there is nothing to actually support that. A just as likely scenario would be those developers are simply laid off as their services are no longer needed.
carrier grade NAT double NAT, etc. is a lot more complex than an IPv6 network. the only real complexity in and ipv6 environment (excluding bugs in firmware, but that isn't TOO bad these days) is having to maintain dual stack until the laggards wake the fuck up and upgrade.
That may be true, but carrier grade NAT, double NAT, etc. run on today's infrastructure.
Just a guess, but maybe widespread adoption of Carrier Grade NAT might have given IPv4 a bit of a longer shelf life. It's either that or the kind of fun and games that I once read that Hutchison (Orange) was doing on their mobile network, with no less than seven separate instances of the 10/8 network being juggled around at once.
Still, even ARIN is now starting to tighten the screws on the size of netblocks they are assigning out, so I suspect providers are being a lot more careful about how they subnet and assign out IP addresses than they used to be. I suspect that just moving stuff like DB servers and other backend infrastructure onto private IP space instead of just dumping them in the DMZ for convenience has helped a bit too, not too mention being a better security practice.
The real question to be answered, though, is whether or not everybody's toaster needs to be connected to the internet in the first place? Railroads and highways are based on certain widths because of what the Romans did 2000 years ago. Could things be better, transportation wise, if a different standard had been in place? Probably. Is it worth the cost to convert today's transportation infrastructure to a different standard, particularly if it is incompatible with the old standard? Probably not.
Likewise, the same questions need to be answered about IPv4 and v6. Maybe it is time to fix IPv6 so that it adequately cope with the transition from IPv4. It would be far better to do it now, before it is wide spread than to have to replace all of the existing infrastructure. The problem with ivory tower solutions, like IPv6, is they don't take into account the real world economics. If IPv6 had been around from the beginning, we wouldn't have a problem today. However, it wasn't and the cost to change over infrastructure is enormous and will remain a hindrance to adoption. IPv6 should have taken that into consideration.
When that particular comment was made, the ubiquity of the home router dolling out DHCP addresses probably wasn't considered.
The report was in Feb 2011. Home routers have been doing this for 10 years. The reality is that home routers doing this is actually part of the problem. It's a real hassle for game developers, file sharers, Tor users, media servers,...
None of those examples seem to be critical in the big scheme of things. Almost all of the burdens fall on the developer end. Would the users of such services be willing to pay more each month to convert the infrastructure so as to ease the burden on the developers? Probably not.
BTW, if it is a problem that home routers do this, wouldn't it also be a problem for all of the business routers doing the same thing? Why blame the home users?
Being horrified by NAT is all well and good, but the fact is, ISPs look at the horrible bandaids that work 80% of the time and say, "Good enough. Now I don't have to rebuild my entire infrastructure for IPv6." You may want something that works 100% of the time, but the people who own the equipment don't want to *pay* for something that works 100% of the time.
More importantly, the consumers, whether individuals or businesses, don't want to pay for the replacement of that infrastructure, when for the most part, things work as they are.
From what I've heard the 'physics limits' haven't been reached.
Then you have heard wrong, at least for the practical real world physics involved, particularly those that involve cost/benefit. Li+ battery technology has peaked and it is unlikely for any new breakthroughs to occur that would increase the energy density provided. That's probably why most new research is being funded for other matrices than Li+.
Could a more efficient Li+ battery still be produced? Yes. Could it be produced at a price point that would make it a viable power source? No. The same could be said for lead-acid and carbon batteries. As long as there are chemical bonds still intact, there is energy to be derived. That's not the issue. It's how costly is it to eek out that additional energy? And, that is the physics that is at its limits for Li+ technology.
No. Why? We've had WMDs for ages and everyone knows it, but it ain't a war crime.
It's only a crime if you want some to defend against being browbeat into submission.
I was actually being sarcastic, but the reasoning goes: If climate change is happening and if climate change is a WMD, then whoever released that WMD is responsible. People have been charged with war crimes, or at least terrorism if it isn't a declared war, for releasing WMDs on a much smaller scale than climate change.
For the US leadership to call climate change a WMD is ironic, since most fingers point back the US and its policies as a major cause of climate change.
If climate change is now a weapon of mass destruction and the US and the West are the predominate causes of it, does that mean they are guilty of war crimes (related to the WMDs)?
Can't really redo the view, the early observing sites are all in heavily light polluted areas
Also, using modern optics are probably not going to give the same view as the technology of the time produced, even if there wasn't the light pollution. Even in modern telescopes, for any given aperture, it is the quality of the lens and/or mirrors that dictate the view.
But just how this gadget evolved in the nascent days of astronomy is poorly known. That uncertainty has inspired a group of researchers to compile the most extensive database of early refracting telescopes to date.
If poorly known, then with what did they create the database from? It would appear that the information was already known and available and they digitized it into a database.
Every source I've been able to find estimates a 2-3x increase in Lion capacity in the last 25 years.
Oddly, 12 hours is about 3 times longer than 4 hours;)
You'll find that new laptops (and cell phones) will still run their batteries down very fast when actually under load, but when doing normal desktop tasks all of the advanced power saving features on the silicon are vastly cutting down laptop power consumption. Lion capacity has very little to do with it.
Nope, my laptop lasts about 6 hours even under very heavy load, I would have been lucky to get 1 hour, let alone 2 hours out of a laptop a decade ago.
You may think you are proving a point, but the previous poster is correct. Li+ battery technology peaked in the 1990s. It is limited by the actual physcis involved. Most likely, what you are seeing is improvements in CPUs such as scalable frequencies, more efficient HDs or even SSDs, and changes to screen technology. Of course, it's also possible that with the shrinking of electronics and the increased size of laptops (17" screens), there is simply more room inside the case for larger battery packs.
Li+ is still highly used, but most research has moved beyond it to more advanced technologies, if for no other reason than we are running out of lithium.
Canonical is within its right to require licenses for people wanting to make derivatives of its intellectual property. FOSS and the GPL doesn't prohibit that. The kicker is, though, what parts of Ubuntu's stack are actually IP of Canonical? Things like their software center would be and other parts they've developed, but the vast majority would not be. Likewise for the name and other branding. If you want to advertize that you are an Ubuntu derivative, then, you probably need to license it.
So, if you want to make a derivative of Ubuntu and not have to license it, then just leave out the Canonical specific stuff. OTOH, if you find that those things are important to your distro, then register for the license.
If the government is going to allow for basically a single regulated entity to control the majority of cable and internet service in the US, maybe they should just nationalize it and cut out the middle man. After all, what is the difference between a single provider that the government says what it can and cannot do and the government just doing it? Didn't the US learn enough with the "too big to fail" model? This merger has disaster written all over it. If anything, instead of consolidations, they should be breaking up these megacorporations to have more competition, not less.
are coming-up with. Considering their religion says aliens don't exist, why are so many of those people claiming they do and that they constructed this rock? They already proved themselves liars with the huge number of them that claim to have been abducted by aliens. Those people are nuts, and it is sickening how they try to make everything about politics.
Religion makes no statement as to the existence of aliens or not. If you are talking about texts related to Jews, Christians and Muslims, their books are about the relationship between their God and humans. No more and no less.
As for them being nuts and trying to inject politics into everything -- you were the one who interjected politics and religion into an otherwise neutral subject.
Re:Check Buckminster Fuller on "Productive Work"
on
Star Trek Economics
·
· Score: 1
And here I thought we created jobs because people needed the means to pay for goods and services that they couldn't produce themself. As for the 10% providing the goods and services for the other 90%, are those 10% free to choose to be part of the 90% or are they forced to be the 10% working class? If they aren't free, isn't the post-scarcity society just a nice way to say slave-state?
In addition Gene Roddenberry never had to explain how the world got from its present day economics to the future. Even in TOS, there was a lot of inequality and social unrest. Then somehow 300 years later, all of the conflict was resolved. That's the beauty of fiction, you can make things the way you want them to be without having to deal with how they could ever really get that way.
Maybe they are referring to the West, but in many parts of the world, it would be hard to argue that we are shifting from to a post scarcity society. Even in the US there are millions that do without, so it isn't just a 2nd or 3rd world issue. Of course that is typical of those with plenty, they only see the world as it impacts them instead of how they choices they make impacts the world (or others).
Please explain why the most successful countries when it comes to education and international comparison tests have "socialized" education systems.
Education and your chance to it must depend on what's in your brain, not what's in your wallet!
The problem is that it takes more than what's in your brain. Even the brightest child, will not do well later in education if they don't have the basics available. Likewise, an average child, given the right upbringing will succeed quite well. It's not all nature, nurture has a lot to do with it, too.
In all the time I've spent in America I don't believe I've ever seen anyone really check the signature against the card.. always amazed me how lax and open to fraud that system was. In the UK we switched to chip and pin about 10 years ago.. and we were generally lagging the rest of the EU on that matter.
But why would the US move to chip and pin when it could leapfrog ahead to biometrics.. you're already seeing fingerprint scanners and suchlike appear in mainland Europe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21085738) and surely enough of the initial results are in to guide the decision making there.
That is because it is cheaper to insure against fraud than prevent it. Same thing at the banks. They only verify signatures above a certain threshold on checks (usually either $5,000 or $10,000 depending on the bank). With credit cards, if a fraudulent charge is made the credit card company isn't out the money, the retailer is. Since the chances of the fraudulent card happening at their local establishment is rare, security is lax.
PINs have nothing to with microprocessor enabled credit cards. Debit cards in the US have had them for years. What the microprocessor enabled card does is make it more difficult for thieves to steal the card by having a bogus card reader that records the swipe.
It's a marketing campaign. First and foremost, you would hope they know marketing. They can always have technical staff for the details. I'm pretty sure movie directors don't have the technical skills involved with the subject matter they are making a movie about.
Maybe it's a good thing to have somebody who isn't "in the field" trying to spark the interest of others. After all, most of the coders I know would not be good spokespersons to entice others to the field.
If they could point to it, then it wouldn't be "secret science." Duh.
Just take it on faith, like WMD in Iraq (a "slam dunk").
I'm not suggesting they point to the secret science, like you said, it wouldn't be secret if they could. I'm asking if they can point to any regulations that were issued based on secret science.
Slashdot Mirror
But actually, the users of those services pay more to avoid converting the infrastructure. (Although, rather than a direct monetary cost, it often comes in the form of things like bugs or missing features that could've been developed/fixed if developer time wasn't being spent dealing with NAT.)
That is the theory, but there is nothing to actually support that. A just as likely scenario would be those developers are simply laid off as their services are no longer needed.
carrier grade NAT double NAT, etc. is a lot more complex than an IPv6 network. the only real complexity in and ipv6 environment (excluding bugs in firmware, but that isn't TOO bad these days) is having to maintain dual stack until the laggards wake the fuck up and upgrade.
That may be true, but carrier grade NAT, double NAT, etc. run on today's infrastructure.
Just a guess, but maybe widespread adoption of Carrier Grade NAT might have given IPv4 a bit of a longer shelf life. It's either that or the kind of fun and games that I once read that Hutchison (Orange) was doing on their mobile network, with no less than seven separate instances of the 10/8 network being juggled around at once.
Still, even ARIN is now starting to tighten the screws on the size of netblocks they are assigning out, so I suspect providers are being a lot more careful about how they subnet and assign out IP addresses than they used to be. I suspect that just moving stuff like DB servers and other backend infrastructure onto private IP space instead of just dumping them in the DMZ for convenience has helped a bit too, not too mention being a better security practice.
The real question to be answered, though, is whether or not everybody's toaster needs to be connected to the internet in the first place? Railroads and highways are based on certain widths because of what the Romans did 2000 years ago. Could things be better, transportation wise, if a different standard had been in place? Probably. Is it worth the cost to convert today's transportation infrastructure to a different standard, particularly if it is incompatible with the old standard? Probably not.
Likewise, the same questions need to be answered about IPv4 and v6. Maybe it is time to fix IPv6 so that it adequately cope with the transition from IPv4. It would be far better to do it now, before it is wide spread than to have to replace all of the existing infrastructure. The problem with ivory tower solutions, like IPv6, is they don't take into account the real world economics. If IPv6 had been around from the beginning, we wouldn't have a problem today. However, it wasn't and the cost to change over infrastructure is enormous and will remain a hindrance to adoption. IPv6 should have taken that into consideration.
When that particular comment was made, the ubiquity of the home router dolling out DHCP addresses probably wasn't considered.
The report was in Feb 2011. Home routers have been doing this for 10 years. The reality is that home routers doing this is actually part of the problem. It's a real hassle for game developers, file sharers, Tor users, media servers, ...
None of those examples seem to be critical in the big scheme of things. Almost all of the burdens fall on the developer end. Would the users of such services be willing to pay more each month to convert the infrastructure so as to ease the burden on the developers? Probably not.
BTW, if it is a problem that home routers do this, wouldn't it also be a problem for all of the business routers doing the same thing? Why blame the home users?
Being horrified by NAT is all well and good, but the fact is, ISPs look at the horrible bandaids that work 80% of the time and say, "Good enough. Now I don't have to rebuild my entire infrastructure for IPv6." You may want something that works 100% of the time, but the people who own the equipment don't want to *pay* for something that works 100% of the time.
More importantly, the consumers, whether individuals or businesses, don't want to pay for the replacement of that infrastructure, when for the most part, things work as they are.
From what I've heard the 'physics limits' haven't been reached.
Then you have heard wrong, at least for the practical real world physics involved, particularly those that involve cost/benefit. Li+ battery technology has peaked and it is unlikely for any new breakthroughs to occur that would increase the energy density provided. That's probably why most new research is being funded for other matrices than Li+.
Could a more efficient Li+ battery still be produced? Yes. Could it be produced at a price point that would make it a viable power source? No. The same could be said for lead-acid and carbon batteries. As long as there are chemical bonds still intact, there is energy to be derived. That's not the issue. It's how costly is it to eek out that additional energy? And, that is the physics that is at its limits for Li+ technology.
No. Why? We've had WMDs for ages and everyone knows it, but it ain't a war crime.
It's only a crime if you want some to defend against being browbeat into submission.
I was actually being sarcastic, but the reasoning goes: If climate change is happening and if climate change is a WMD, then whoever released that WMD is responsible. People have been charged with war crimes, or at least terrorism if it isn't a declared war, for releasing WMDs on a much smaller scale than climate change.
For the US leadership to call climate change a WMD is ironic, since most fingers point back the US and its policies as a major cause of climate change.
If climate change is now a weapon of mass destruction and the US and the West are the predominate causes of it, does that mean they are guilty of war crimes (related to the WMDs)?
Can't really redo the view, the early observing sites are all in heavily light polluted areas
Also, using modern optics are probably not going to give the same view as the technology of the time produced, even if there wasn't the light pollution. Even in modern telescopes, for any given aperture, it is the quality of the lens and/or mirrors that dictate the view.
But just how this gadget evolved in the nascent days of astronomy is poorly known. That uncertainty has inspired a group of researchers to compile the most extensive database of early refracting telescopes to date.
If poorly known, then with what did they create the database from? It would appear that the information was already known and available and they digitized it into a database.
Every source I've been able to find estimates a 2-3x increase in Lion capacity in the last 25 years.
Oddly, 12 hours is about 3 times longer than 4 hours ;)
You'll find that new laptops (and cell phones) will still run their batteries down very fast when actually under load, but when doing normal desktop tasks all of the advanced power saving features on the silicon are vastly cutting down laptop power consumption. Lion capacity has very little to do with it.
Nope, my laptop lasts about 6 hours even under very heavy load, I would have been lucky to get 1 hour, let alone 2 hours out of a laptop a decade ago.
You may think you are proving a point, but the previous poster is correct. Li+ battery technology peaked in the 1990s. It is limited by the actual physcis involved. Most likely, what you are seeing is improvements in CPUs such as scalable frequencies, more efficient HDs or even SSDs, and changes to screen technology. Of course, it's also possible that with the shrinking of electronics and the increased size of laptops (17" screens), there is simply more room inside the case for larger battery packs.
Li+ is still highly used, but most research has moved beyond it to more advanced technologies, if for no other reason than we are running out of lithium.
Cable is regulated?
Yes.
Canonical is within its right to require licenses for people wanting to make derivatives of its intellectual property. FOSS and the GPL doesn't prohibit that. The kicker is, though, what parts of Ubuntu's stack are actually IP of Canonical? Things like their software center would be and other parts they've developed, but the vast majority would not be. Likewise for the name and other branding. If you want to advertize that you are an Ubuntu derivative, then, you probably need to license it.
So, if you want to make a derivative of Ubuntu and not have to license it, then just leave out the Canonical specific stuff. OTOH, if you find that those things are important to your distro, then register for the license.
If the government is going to allow for basically a single regulated entity to control the majority of cable and internet service in the US, maybe they should just nationalize it and cut out the middle man. After all, what is the difference between a single provider that the government says what it can and cannot do and the government just doing it? Didn't the US learn enough with the "too big to fail" model? This merger has disaster written all over it. If anything, instead of consolidations, they should be breaking up these megacorporations to have more competition, not less.
are coming-up with. Considering their religion says aliens don't exist, why are so many of those people claiming they do and that they constructed this rock? They already proved themselves liars with the huge number of them that claim to have been abducted by aliens. Those people are nuts, and it is sickening how they try to make everything about politics.
Religion makes no statement as to the existence of aliens or not. If you are talking about texts related to Jews, Christians and Muslims, their books are about the relationship between their God and humans. No more and no less.
As for them being nuts and trying to inject politics into everything -- you were the one who interjected politics and religion into an otherwise neutral subject.
And here I thought we created jobs because people needed the means to pay for goods and services that they couldn't produce themself. As for the 10% providing the goods and services for the other 90%, are those 10% free to choose to be part of the 90% or are they forced to be the 10% working class? If they aren't free, isn't the post-scarcity society just a nice way to say slave-state?
In addition Gene Roddenberry never had to explain how the world got from its present day economics to the future. Even in TOS, there was a lot of inequality and social unrest. Then somehow 300 years later, all of the conflict was resolved. That's the beauty of fiction, you can make things the way you want them to be without having to deal with how they could ever really get that way.
Maybe they are referring to the West, but in many parts of the world, it would be hard to argue that we are shifting from to a post scarcity society. Even in the US there are millions that do without, so it isn't just a 2nd or 3rd world issue. Of course that is typical of those with plenty, they only see the world as it impacts them instead of how they choices they make impacts the world (or others).
Please explain why the most successful countries when it comes to education and international comparison tests have "socialized" education systems.
Education and your chance to it must depend on what's in your brain, not what's in your wallet!
The problem is that it takes more than what's in your brain. Even the brightest child, will not do well later in education if they don't have the basics available. Likewise, an average child, given the right upbringing will succeed quite well. It's not all nature, nurture has a lot to do with it, too.
More importantly, how do you tell your boss that the consultant is an idiot!?
Wouldn't that be oldest unknown star in the universe discovered? One would think that if it was already known, it wouldn't be much of a discovery!
In all the time I've spent in America I don't believe I've ever seen anyone really check the signature against the card.. always amazed me how lax and open to fraud that system was. In the UK we switched to chip and pin about 10 years ago.. and we were generally lagging the rest of the EU on that matter.
But why would the US move to chip and pin when it could leapfrog ahead to biometrics.. you're already seeing fingerprint scanners and suchlike appear in mainland Europe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21085738) and surely enough of the initial results are in to guide the decision making there.
That is because it is cheaper to insure against fraud than prevent it. Same thing at the banks. They only verify signatures above a certain threshold on checks (usually either $5,000 or $10,000 depending on the bank). With credit cards, if a fraudulent charge is made the credit card company isn't out the money, the retailer is. Since the chances of the fraudulent card happening at their local establishment is rare, security is lax.
PINs have nothing to with microprocessor enabled credit cards. Debit cards in the US have had them for years. What the microprocessor enabled card does is make it more difficult for thieves to steal the card by having a bogus card reader that records the swipe.
It's a marketing campaign. First and foremost, you would hope they know marketing. They can always have technical staff for the details. I'm pretty sure movie directors don't have the technical skills involved with the subject matter they are making a movie about.
Maybe it's a good thing to have somebody who isn't "in the field" trying to spark the interest of others. After all, most of the coders I know would not be good spokespersons to entice others to the field.
If they could point to it, then it wouldn't be "secret science." Duh.
Just take it on faith, like WMD in Iraq (a "slam dunk").
I'm not suggesting they point to the secret science, like you said, it wouldn't be secret if they could. I'm asking if they can point to any regulations that were issued based on secret science.