Are they going to change their name to multicast when IPv6 comes along? Seems to me that unicast is kinda bad name for such a bandwidth hogging application.
What do you mean "control"? What could they possibly do? Take down the PDFs with the specs for the standard from their website? Even if they change the specs significantly in some bad way (which i can't really imagine), other companies will stick with the older working version. If its royalty free, its royalty free.
I understand that they can coexist, but to reach this so called "critical mass" which i assume to mean a significant portion of the internet using IPv6 means that a significant portion will replace its hardware. And any IP level equipment cant just be software upgraded, in fact, even if they could, IPv6 will require more processing power for the same task so they will need to be replaced anyway.
"I think that 2005 is a reasonable prediction for V6 reaching critical mass."
Do you realize that that isn't even economically feasible? That would require such a huge amount of switches and other network equipment to be replaced in the course of a year that the costs would be unimaginable. I imagine that half the internet (I dont know what you consider "critical mass" to be) will not be using IPv6 before 2007.
What the hell are you talking about?!? "armor" "weapons" This isn't designed for anything close to war and I doubt it ever will be. A Mech is a horrible waste of resources in war. With all the advanced technology that a real fighting one would require, you could build something useful like a missile. I feel stupid just responding to this stupidity... I knew people who read/. had a clouded view of the world, but jeez...
In the early days (the really early ones), manipulating text easily was a challenge for computers. Then images and sound were the next hurdle. Compression schemes were not standard and memory limitations limited the kind of things that could be done and prevented realtime editing. I have long been wondering when video will reach the stage that sound and image are in now. I didnt think it was any time soon, but apparently DVDs/mpeg2 allow some semblance of this realtime, free-form editing possible for the other medias.
Now what really interests me is, what is next for computers to conquer (and yes i know video is hardly conquered yet)? 3d video? (and i dont mean stereo, i mean 3d recordings of entire rooms or people ie scifi "holo" displays) or is there something even more amazing that i cant think of...
I agree that the problem is in relativity. While if you heard two side by side recordings, as im sure Anonymous Coward was imagining, it isn't terribly difficult to tell unless it is very very high bitrate, but in most cases you cannot tell when just listening to the encoded piece itself. I also agree about piano and symphonic music in general, once you have heard it live, nothing sounds even close. Maybe those 5.1 channel DVD-Audio discs......
Why do people insist on things like this... I would really like to find the person who could honestly tell me that they enjoy a 192+ kbps encoded (mp3pro, aac, wma) any less than the cd. Can anyone really hear any loss during regular use? People just like to _know_ that they are listening to a completely, totally, 100% original even though they would probably never know. And like the others who responded to this comment, what's the point when these files are generally being encoded directly from masters which yields _better_ results than what you want (a 100% copy of the cd)
So what you're saying is if i could just attach some sorta generator to the earth, we should be able to get 40 years worth of energy per second lost? Sounds like a fair trade
While I agree that the WikiMedia Foundation needs some sort of steady income and that the quality of the project deserves donations from everyone who uses it, I think charging for use would sort of go against the whole idea of the project. The project is meant to be as free and open as possible. They believe that through such freedom to use it, the best and most abundant content will be created. And from the looks of things (i checked the page yesterday before the/. posting, they had about 4k:) they can just post on/. whenever they need money, so everything is fine.
you know what else is a good idea? Well, you're going to be in the woods for a while so during that time, im sure you can figure out how to create fusion power using hydrogen you extract from your farts. That way, you can have power on long, frozen, dark Alaskan nights, as long as you can fart. Im sure it isnt to hard and your only goal in life is to get power for this house, so that should be absurdly hard and complex enough a solution for you.
Ergo they stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all viewers accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, quality scientific programming or what eventually was called "Reality TV". While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise crappy TV anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the channel, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster. Ergo, a new Channel had to be created.
Geek: This is about the Cable Science Network isn't it?
Well this article was essentially trying to prove that the transmeta's did have a high processing power for their heat output. It would seem you'd be right at first, thats what makes this idea interesting.
actually i was more just jumping at the oppurtuninty at posting at a virgin (read no comments) story. I didnt really think, just wanted that first spot. Shit, i have been on/. too long....
But what do you mean, how is that not user demand?
Most of the posters have jumped to the conclusion that the UN will be responsible for censoring the internet. It did not say that at all. I understand that this will make it easier for individual countries to censor, but that is not the same thing.
Im not for the UN controlling the internet for the previously mentioned reasons, but I just dont understand where everyone got this information from.
why is everyone going with the baseless assumption that the current curve will continue? What about the entire new classes of devices that are getting IPs? Even if the curve does continue, thats a relatively small piece of data to extrapolate that far from.
Slashdot Mirror
ObviousGuy is defenitley a good name for him. It really really seems like he has never ever ever read /. O well, he is right...
Are they going to change their name to multicast when IPv6 comes along? Seems to me that unicast is kinda bad name for such a bandwidth hogging application.
What do you mean "control"? What could they possibly do? Take down the PDFs with the specs for the standard from their website? Even if they change the specs significantly in some bad way (which i can't really imagine), other companies will stick with the older working version. If its royalty free, its royalty free.
"...the ability to reload the source view"
Great! Now it's so much easier to read slashdot the Hardcore Way
I understand that they can coexist, but to reach this so called "critical mass" which i assume to mean a significant portion of the internet using IPv6 means that a significant portion will replace its hardware. And any IP level equipment cant just be software upgraded, in fact, even if they could, IPv6 will require more processing power for the same task so they will need to be replaced anyway.
"I think that 2005 is a reasonable prediction for V6 reaching critical mass." Do you realize that that isn't even economically feasible? That would require such a huge amount of switches and other network equipment to be replaced in the course of a year that the costs would be unimaginable. I imagine that half the internet (I dont know what you consider "critical mass" to be) will not be using IPv6 before 2007.
What the hell are you talking about?!? "armor" "weapons" This isn't designed for anything close to war and I doubt it ever will be. A Mech is a horrible waste of resources in war. With all the advanced technology that a real fighting one would require, you could build something useful like a missile. I feel stupid just responding to this stupidity... I knew people who read /. had a clouded view of the world, but jeez...
That was exactly what the ExplosiveLabs post said.
In the early days (the really early ones), manipulating text easily was a challenge for computers. Then images and sound were the next hurdle. Compression schemes were not standard and memory limitations limited the kind of things that could be done and prevented realtime editing. I have long been wondering when video will reach the stage that sound and image are in now. I didnt think it was any time soon, but apparently DVDs/mpeg2 allow some semblance of this realtime, free-form editing possible for the other medias. Now what really interests me is, what is next for computers to conquer (and yes i know video is hardly conquered yet)? 3d video? (and i dont mean stereo, i mean 3d recordings of entire rooms or people ie scifi "holo" displays) or is there something even more amazing that i cant think of...
I agree that the problem is in relativity. While if you heard two side by side recordings, as im sure Anonymous Coward was imagining, it isn't terribly difficult to tell unless it is very very high bitrate, but in most cases you cannot tell when just listening to the encoded piece itself. I also agree about piano and symphonic music in general, once you have heard it live, nothing sounds even close. Maybe those 5.1 channel DVD-Audio discs......
Why do people insist on things like this... I would really like to find the person who could honestly tell me that they enjoy a 192+ kbps encoded (mp3pro, aac, wma) any less than the cd. Can anyone really hear any loss during regular use? People just like to _know_ that they are listening to a completely, totally, 100% original even though they would probably never know. And like the others who responded to this comment, what's the point when these files are generally being encoded directly from masters which yields _better_ results than what you want (a 100% copy of the cd)
So what you're saying is if i could just attach some sorta generator to the earth, we should be able to get 40 years worth of energy per second lost? Sounds like a fair trade
While I agree that the WikiMedia Foundation needs some sort of steady income and that the quality of the project deserves donations from everyone who uses it, I think charging for use would sort of go against the whole idea of the project. The project is meant to be as free and open as possible. They believe that through such freedom to use it, the best and most abundant content will be created. And from the looks of things (i checked the page yesterday before the /. posting, they had about 4k :) they can just post on /. whenever they need money, so everything is fine.
you know what else is a good idea? Well, you're going to be in the woods for a while so during that time, im sure you can figure out how to create fusion power using hydrogen you extract from your farts. That way, you can have power on long, frozen, dark Alaskan nights, as long as you can fart. Im sure it isnt to hard and your only goal in life is to get power for this house, so that should be absurdly hard and complex enough a solution for you.
He, for one, welcome's his new robot overlords...
Ergo they stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all viewers accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, quality scientific programming or what eventually was called "Reality TV". While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise crappy TV anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the channel, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster. Ergo, a new Channel had to be created. Geek: This is about the Cable Science Network isn't it?
I know plenty of lower income families who shop at Walmart and haven't heard of Asians.
Shareaza doesnt connect to FastTrack. It does conenct to ed2k/g2/g1/bittorrent though. Neither is it ad-driven. It's a pretty good program in fact.
i think it deserves an informative just for you moosesocks
Well this article was essentially trying to prove that the transmeta's did have a high processing power for their heat output. It would seem you'd be right at first, thats what makes this idea interesting.
actually i was more just jumping at the oppurtuninty at posting at a virgin (read no comments) story. I didnt really think, just wanted that first spot. Shit, i have been on /. too long....
But what do you mean, how is that not user demand?
finally they have responded to user demand. This is a great show and I'm glad to see it might just be coming back.
Most of the posters have jumped to the conclusion that the UN will be responsible for censoring the internet. It did not say that at all. I understand that this will make it easier for individual countries to censor, but that is not the same thing. Im not for the UN controlling the internet for the previously mentioned reasons, but I just dont understand where everyone got this information from.
why is everyone going with the baseless assumption that the current curve will continue? What about the entire new classes of devices that are getting IPs? Even if the curve does continue, thats a relatively small piece of data to extrapolate that far from.
can somone give me a link for "the web"?