schon, I think it's more about decreasing the average latency of every DNS lookup on the entire internet for any client and any service making an internet transaction.
When you think about the numbers, that's a lot of saved time.
Even if you only save 100 ms for each request (due to talking to a collocated server), multiply that by the billions to trillions of internet requests made every day and you get:
1 billion * 100 milliseconds = 3.16887646 years
That's 3 years of people time saved each day.
P.S. My first two sentences were facetious. (not to be taken literally)
The part starting at "***** ******" is meant to be taken literally.
Slashdot, your text formatting sucks.
I heard that the ACTA Treaty has already passed and ISPs have conspired to encode everyone's personal information into the IP addresses they give you.
This means your IP address likely has your credit card information, your social security number, and your mother's maiden name, along with your bank account balances encoded into all 4 bytes!
-- ***** ******, you're all a bunch of ****tards.
The proposed addition to the DNS spec doesn't give anybody any new information that you aren't already giving them. The only logical difference between the old standard and the proposed standard is a lower average latency (meaning higher average speed) for EVERYONE on the entire internet when they visit ANY website, not just Google. This reduces the need for HTTP redirects or complicated server-side logic to forward your requests to collocated servers. "Collocated" means closer-to-you, it means faster internet, it means less waiting for pages to load, it means less wasted time for everyone, and it means more money for everyone that does commerce online. It means reduced engineering effort for EVERY internet business that hires software engineers, because they don't have to think about solving this problem because the DNS backbone of the internet will already solve it for them.
I frankly find it baffling that 80% of the commenters are appalled that a website that they willingly visit might know who they are. Just as in real life, when you make transactions, when you interact with others, you put yourself out there and you reveal who you are. It's a fact of life. If you are appalled, don't use the internet, but don't be so ignorant that you **** up the internet for everyone else that's okay with using it.
Silly rabbit. Human rights are for kids!
Humans have evolved to value their brethren for various reasons. Economically, specialization and trade is an efficient strategy for survival. Different people have different skill sets and you cannot (in general) predict what skills someone will eventually develop (it is a combination of genetics and circumstances). Thus, we tend to widely grant socially constructed value to everyone, including yet-to-develop fetuses, infants, children, and even our declining elderly and mentally handicapped, because (despite the fact that we'd like to be able to) we cannot predict the future. Also, less skilled and less capable people still hold a valuable role within society. Even though the minority (people of high intelligence) have an absolute advantage in performing the vast array of tasks society requires to run, they only have a comparative advantage in the more difficult areas. They do not have time to do everything. This means they have a higher opportunity cost if they DON'T become lawyers, doctors, researchers, scientists, teachers, so they tend to specialize in so called "more difficult" areas of life. The majority (average to low intelligence) still play a valuable role in performing everything else that needs to be done, and trust me, there is a LOT to do.
So:
a) People of high intelligence who wish to play God and redefine the social construction of human rights to be based solely on present levels of intelligence are obviously acting in their own exclusive interest, and against the interest of society. They are also failing to consider that until that unborn fetus develops, we CANNOT know what value that human being will become to society, perhaps because they have delusions of omniscience, thus I conclude they are not as intelligent as they think they are.
b) Even if you aren't intelligent, you are valuable to society because all us intelligent people are so busy developing new technology, writing creative inspirational novels, developing sound business models, and investing in the future of society, that we cannot also perform every other task that society requires to run. This is beauty of specialization and trade. We all benefit if everybody does what they are best at, intelligent or not.
So, I think we can conclude from this that society benefits from the social construct of human rights the way it is, and if you pick on people who are less capable than you in one specific area without realizing that they might be better than you in another area, thus they are just as valuable to society as you are, then you're an idiot and an asshole.
As far as animal rights, animals are not humans so society generally doesn't see them as members of society, so the social construct of human rights does not apply to them...
God is physics. You are God. I am God. Math is God. Existence is God.
(I'm not trying to offend you if you don't believe in God. I'm not even sure I believe in God. I'm just trying to mix some more creativity into the point of view of this discussion. Perhaps God is what allows physics to work. God is the calculation between the iterations of the unfolding of this universe. That would make Him fit the popular belief that He is all-knowing and all-powerful, but perhaps not benevolent. This universe can be quite harsh sometimes. Or yet again, maybe the fact that "unfit organisms" are allowed to die, and therefore rest in eternal peace, makes Him benevolent.)
P.S. Does anyone else find Mathematics intriguing, yet disturbing at the same time? How in the hell is it possible for us simple beings to extrapolate the kinds of information we get from Mathematics using mere conceptual manipulation. I think the answer to that question sheds some light upon the whole God vs. No-God debate. You Mathematicians and your black arts!:D Just kidding. I love math.
To evolve is to change.
In a biological context, to evolve is to change by means of reproduction and mutation.
In an industrial sense, to evolve is to change through design.
Words have different meanings in different contexts.
All this argumentation about specific meanings of words, such as "to evolve," is useless semantics.
Slashdot Mirror
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+settings+manager
That's 1000 people years saved each year!
schon, I think it's more about decreasing the average latency of every DNS lookup on the entire internet for any client and any service making an internet transaction. When you think about the numbers, that's a lot of saved time. Even if you only save 100 ms for each request (due to talking to a collocated server), multiply that by the billions to trillions of internet requests made every day and you get: 1 billion * 100 milliseconds = 3.16887646 years That's 3 years of people time saved each day.
P.S. My first two sentences were facetious. (not to be taken literally) The part starting at "***** ******" is meant to be taken literally. Slashdot, your text formatting sucks.
I heard that the ACTA Treaty has already passed and ISPs have conspired to encode everyone's personal information into the IP addresses they give you. This means your IP address likely has your credit card information, your social security number, and your mother's maiden name, along with your bank account balances encoded into all 4 bytes! -- ***** ******, you're all a bunch of ****tards. The proposed addition to the DNS spec doesn't give anybody any new information that you aren't already giving them. The only logical difference between the old standard and the proposed standard is a lower average latency (meaning higher average speed) for EVERYONE on the entire internet when they visit ANY website, not just Google. This reduces the need for HTTP redirects or complicated server-side logic to forward your requests to collocated servers. "Collocated" means closer-to-you, it means faster internet, it means less waiting for pages to load, it means less wasted time for everyone, and it means more money for everyone that does commerce online. It means reduced engineering effort for EVERY internet business that hires software engineers, because they don't have to think about solving this problem because the DNS backbone of the internet will already solve it for them. I frankly find it baffling that 80% of the commenters are appalled that a website that they willingly visit might know who they are. Just as in real life, when you make transactions, when you interact with others, you put yourself out there and you reveal who you are. It's a fact of life. If you are appalled, don't use the internet, but don't be so ignorant that you **** up the internet for everyone else that's okay with using it.
So LEDs precede thought? No wonder people always draw light bulbs over people's heads when they get an idea.
Silly rabbit. Human rights are for kids! Humans have evolved to value their brethren for various reasons. Economically, specialization and trade is an efficient strategy for survival. Different people have different skill sets and you cannot (in general) predict what skills someone will eventually develop (it is a combination of genetics and circumstances). Thus, we tend to widely grant socially constructed value to everyone, including yet-to-develop fetuses, infants, children, and even our declining elderly and mentally handicapped, because (despite the fact that we'd like to be able to) we cannot predict the future. Also, less skilled and less capable people still hold a valuable role within society. Even though the minority (people of high intelligence) have an absolute advantage in performing the vast array of tasks society requires to run, they only have a comparative advantage in the more difficult areas. They do not have time to do everything. This means they have a higher opportunity cost if they DON'T become lawyers, doctors, researchers, scientists, teachers, so they tend to specialize in so called "more difficult" areas of life. The majority (average to low intelligence) still play a valuable role in performing everything else that needs to be done, and trust me, there is a LOT to do. So: a) People of high intelligence who wish to play God and redefine the social construction of human rights to be based solely on present levels of intelligence are obviously acting in their own exclusive interest, and against the interest of society. They are also failing to consider that until that unborn fetus develops, we CANNOT know what value that human being will become to society, perhaps because they have delusions of omniscience, thus I conclude they are not as intelligent as they think they are. b) Even if you aren't intelligent, you are valuable to society because all us intelligent people are so busy developing new technology, writing creative inspirational novels, developing sound business models, and investing in the future of society, that we cannot also perform every other task that society requires to run. This is beauty of specialization and trade. We all benefit if everybody does what they are best at, intelligent or not. So, I think we can conclude from this that society benefits from the social construct of human rights the way it is, and if you pick on people who are less capable than you in one specific area without realizing that they might be better than you in another area, thus they are just as valuable to society as you are, then you're an idiot and an asshole. As far as animal rights, animals are not humans so society generally doesn't see them as members of society, so the social construct of human rights does not apply to them...
I like your little thought.
God is physics. You are God. I am God. Math is God. Existence is God. (I'm not trying to offend you if you don't believe in God. I'm not even sure I believe in God. I'm just trying to mix some more creativity into the point of view of this discussion. Perhaps God is what allows physics to work. God is the calculation between the iterations of the unfolding of this universe. That would make Him fit the popular belief that He is all-knowing and all-powerful, but perhaps not benevolent. This universe can be quite harsh sometimes. Or yet again, maybe the fact that "unfit organisms" are allowed to die, and therefore rest in eternal peace, makes Him benevolent.) P.S. Does anyone else find Mathematics intriguing, yet disturbing at the same time? How in the hell is it possible for us simple beings to extrapolate the kinds of information we get from Mathematics using mere conceptual manipulation. I think the answer to that question sheds some light upon the whole God vs. No-God debate. You Mathematicians and your black arts! :D Just kidding. I love math.
Different words mean different things to different people. It's a problem sometimes.
You're an idiot.
To evolve is to change. In a biological context, to evolve is to change by means of reproduction and mutation. In an industrial sense, to evolve is to change through design. Words have different meanings in different contexts. All this argumentation about specific meanings of words, such as "to evolve," is useless semantics.
Well said, Morky.