Don't take the other comment as criticism - I'm just commenting on how there are already liquid problems being dealt with, and I do see you point about not adding another liquid problem is a good idea.
It's a pressure vessel full of sweating and breathing people with the outside skin temperature probably in single digits of Kelvin most of the time. Condensation is already a given. Dealing with escaped liquids (like balls of water+ethylene glycol coolant the size of someone's torso as was seen on Mir) was part of the design criteria before construction of the first module commenced.
It appears that I have to remind you that mobile phones have an IP address these days. The LTE standard includes IPv6.
The nth bit of the IP address
Sixty-four bit operations are beginning to be the normal thing now and 128 bit operations are not a big deal. Does that show you simply enough that the use-case of fixed objects is not universal and that tracking moving ones is not such a big deal as to give up on them for arbitrary historical reasons?
It's actually very simple, especially since you can throw away the hack of NAT unless you really want it (eg. for transparent web proxies or other situations where you want to do stuff with other people's data, like those insane "https accelerators" where admins/agencies/organized crime can harvest credit card numbers). What has been slowing it down is that until recently the "just keep doing the same thing as yesterday" option was easier.
That's one opinion. Another is that because many devices move that model doesn't match the actual path to those devices for very long so it doesn't fit everyone and some people would think your idea is also a terrible policy. Since plenty of routing information changes daily anyway and hardware already has to cope perhaps a lot of unique address that move between providers is not such a big deal to handle anyway.
That depends on the context - if it was about the recent prisoner of war swap and "Deals with Terrorists" then Reagan is the prime example (Iran hostage deal) and you'd just sound childish pretending that history does not matter.
constant, unending, pig-headed suggestion that because I hate (and I mean hate) Obama, I wasn't complaining about Bush when he did similar things.
I did NOT suggest that so don't take it personally when I think it's a very bad idea to stop discussion about Bush, Clinton, Johnson, whoever doing similar things.
So thinking your point is worthless and giving an example of why is "missing it"?
Somehow you managed to take that as me cheering for "my team"
A lot of US politics has devolved into cheering for one team or another hence utter rubbish like a team being "off limits" when the other one holds the executive branch. Don't take it personally when I consider such a view as being deliberately blinkered. Even when I threw you the bone of being critical of the current administration as well you took offence so I think you are taking this far too personally. I suppose I should have been either more blunt ( it's a fucking stupid idea IMHO and comparing it to a Godwin is ridiculous ) or in attempting to be gentle I should have followed through and resisted the urge to put something in there that showed what I thought about such a self-serving "team player" proposal. I really don't see how we can discuss the current state of US policy on a lot of things without bringing up Bush, Clinton or even earlier Presidents.
While what others have done before does not excuse current actions another poster here put things well about people expecting a "five second statute of limitations" for the team they are cheering for - enabling such bullshit just to save time in arguments is IMHO worthless.
Losing millions of White House emails isn't enough to stop someone becoming the CEO of a "Data Protection" company, so it would depend on who your friends are whether you have trouble or not. US politics is a depressing, incestous, almost feudal mess. If you are nothing but a Horse Judge you can still get a "heck of a job" if you know the right people.
If ideal email practices existed everywhere Microsoft Exchange would have been laughed out of the market in 1999. Instead it survived and created a culture where it became accepted that sometimes you just lost mail and sometimes backups did not work. While it's much better now there is still an expectation that it can be run by idiots, so sometimes it's misconfigured so mail gets lost and backups don't work but it's accepted that computers are somehow less perfect than they were twenty years ago (despite other places having no trouble at all). So I'd expect less than ideal server management or a braindead email policy of keeping it all on the PC.
People like Rumsfeld etc came back like zombies from previous administrations so I don't think such a way to close off arguments is a good idea. We'll be seeing ghosts of the various Bush administrations haunting things for a while - for example, one of George H. Bush's staffers very fresh out of his studies, Chris Vein, was the guy that personally fucked up the Terry Childs situation yet is now the CIO at the World Bank! If anything the current administration should face criticism for continuing some practices that fly in the face of the rule of law and it makes no sense to apply a cutoff date to a continuing situation. Don't let tribalism and cheering for your team cloud judgement.
Most of the space is typically taken up with disks but that's irrelevant, just like it was in the 1960s, the important thing is what you actually do with the data and not how much you can hoard.
Instead, it is the inter-connect and memory
While for some tasks I would really like to see direct connections between CPUs in different cases/racks and vast amounts of shared memory so a cluster can be treated as a single machine in more than an abstract sense I think I'm in the minority (look at all those VMs) and the latency tradeoffs are going to suck for other applications. If the physical distance to that other CPU is metres and you've got to handle switching to a lot of CPUs there is a price - as already seen on a small scale where the multi-way AMD and Intel CPUs are a full 1GHz or more slower than their single socket versions. So in my opinion, while such a focus would be something I'd really like to see I don't think the mainstream is going to go for it due to the tradeoffs.
Hopefully you meant CPU to CPU interconnection such as "hypertransport" and not mere node to node networking.
I'd have to be pretty slow to take that long given the lack of an attachment to reality in your posts. Even now you are still pretending that the industrial espionage I mentioned never happened and above you made light of the Supreme Court in Airbus vs Boeing as if it never happened. As for the other bit - so I'm a troll for reacting to being called paranoid and a lair? The world must be full of them then.
It's clear that you are denying reality so just give up on your trolling. You have won your petty little mass debate game, take your points and go bait someone else while the rest of us attempt to have some sort of discussion involving logic and reality.
I see this (like the insane Terry Childs situation) as yet another reason why having city police instead of just state and federal police is structurally unsound. A state police department could consider it as a request to arrest a potential lawbreaker while with city police it's an order from their boss with little or no oversight.
And he's a numb skull if he thinks arrest is going to fly with higher courts
I don't think he cares, the arrest alone is a punishment and a demonstration of "might makes right" Soviet style.
On the other hand in combination with something that drives liquid away from where you want the stuff to stick may deliver possibilities. Since it's on a microscopic scale combining the fibres that stick on the ends with fibres that wick stuff up, channels for air to flow or whatever may not be hard to do.
It will be good to get some use out of the force that makes the conventional idea of nanomachines difficult or impossible (eg. tiny little gears will stick together instead of working like gears above the micro scale so Drexler's dream isn't happening - it has to be done in a different way which will not look like conventional mechanical devices).
So your definition of a "troll" is someone that pushes a view you disagree with, for instance someone that disagrees with your "might makes right" authoritarian view of politics?
Looks like I hit a nerve. It makes sense then if you are part of this scheme that you would wish a lack of criminal penalties for people taking resources to profit from this scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't they just use distributed malware?
Don't take the other comment as criticism - I'm just commenting on how there are already liquid problems being dealt with, and I do see you point about not adding another liquid problem is a good idea.
It's a pressure vessel full of sweating and breathing people with the outside skin temperature probably in single digits of Kelvin most of the time. Condensation is already a given. Dealing with escaped liquids (like balls of water+ethylene glycol coolant the size of someone's torso as was seen on Mir) was part of the design criteria before construction of the first module commenced.
Or floats :)
I think they have spare capacity by now (but of course it does mean extra fuel).
If they sponsored any of the process then it's a bit rude to use something else.
Sixty-four bit operations are beginning to be the normal thing now and 128 bit operations are not a big deal.
Does that show you simply enough that the use-case of fixed objects is not universal and that tracking moving ones is not such a big deal as to give up on them for arbitrary historical reasons?
Maybe not - the physical embodiment of IPv7 is really scary in fiction :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain
It's actually very simple, especially since you can throw away the hack of NAT unless you really want it (eg. for transparent web proxies or other situations where you want to do stuff with other people's data, like those insane "https accelerators" where admins/agencies/organized crime can harvest credit card numbers). What has been slowing it down is that until recently the "just keep doing the same thing as yesterday" option was easier.
That's one opinion. Another is that because many devices move that model doesn't match the actual path to those devices for very long so it doesn't fit everyone and some people would think your idea is also a terrible policy. Since plenty of routing information changes daily anyway and hardware already has to cope perhaps a lot of unique address that move between providers is not such a big deal to handle anyway.
That depends on the context - if it was about the recent prisoner of war swap and "Deals with Terrorists" then Reagan is the prime example (Iran hostage deal) and you'd just sound childish pretending that history does not matter.
I did NOT suggest that so don't take it personally when I think it's a very bad idea to stop discussion about Bush, Clinton, Johnson, whoever doing similar things.
So thinking your point is worthless and giving an example of why is "missing it"?
A lot of US politics has devolved into cheering for one team or another hence utter rubbish like a team being "off limits" when the other one holds the executive branch. Don't take it personally when I consider such a view as being deliberately blinkered. Even when I threw you the bone of being critical of the current administration as well you took offence so I think you are taking this far too personally.
I suppose I should have been either more blunt ( it's a fucking stupid idea IMHO and comparing it to a Godwin is ridiculous ) or in attempting to be gentle I should have followed through and resisted the urge to put something in there that showed what I thought about such a self-serving "team player" proposal. I really don't see how we can discuss the current state of US policy on a lot of things without bringing up Bush, Clinton or even earlier Presidents.
While what others have done before does not excuse current actions another poster here put things well about people expecting a "five second statute of limitations" for the team they are cheering for - enabling such bullshit just to save time in arguments is IMHO worthless.
Losing millions of White House emails isn't enough to stop someone becoming the CEO of a "Data Protection" company, so it would depend on who your friends are whether you have trouble or not.
US politics is a depressing, incestous, almost feudal mess. If you are nothing but a Horse Judge you can still get a "heck of a job" if you know the right people.
The government was very heavily lobbied by Microsoft so it's unlikely to be anything else.
If ideal email practices existed everywhere Microsoft Exchange would have been laughed out of the market in 1999. Instead it survived and created a culture where it became accepted that sometimes you just lost mail and sometimes backups did not work. While it's much better now there is still an expectation that it can be run by idiots, so sometimes it's misconfigured so mail gets lost and backups don't work but it's accepted that computers are somehow less perfect than they were twenty years ago (despite other places having no trouble at all).
So I'd expect less than ideal server management or a braindead email policy of keeping it all on the PC.
People like Rumsfeld etc came back like zombies from previous administrations so I don't think such a way to close off arguments is a good idea. We'll be seeing ghosts of the various Bush administrations haunting things for a while - for example, one of George H. Bush's staffers very fresh out of his studies, Chris Vein, was the guy that personally fucked up the Terry Childs situation yet is now the CIO at the World Bank!
If anything the current administration should face criticism for continuing some practices that fly in the face of the rule of law and it makes no sense to apply a cutoff date to a continuing situation. Don't let tribalism and cheering for your team cloud judgement.
Most of the space is typically taken up with disks but that's irrelevant, just like it was in the 1960s, the important thing is what you actually do with the data and not how much you can hoard.
While for some tasks I would really like to see direct connections between CPUs in different cases/racks and vast amounts of shared memory so a cluster can be treated as a single machine in more than an abstract sense I think I'm in the minority (look at all those VMs) and the latency tradeoffs are going to suck for other applications. If the physical distance to that other CPU is metres and you've got to handle switching to a lot of CPUs there is a price - as already seen on a small scale where the multi-way AMD and Intel CPUs are a full 1GHz or more slower than their single socket versions.
So in my opinion, while such a focus would be something I'd really like to see I don't think the mainstream is going to go for it due to the tradeoffs.
Hopefully you meant CPU to CPU interconnection such as "hypertransport" and not mere node to node networking.
I'd have to be pretty slow to take that long given the lack of an attachment to reality in your posts. Even now you are still pretending that the industrial espionage I mentioned never happened and above you made light of the Supreme Court in Airbus vs Boeing as if it never happened.
As for the other bit - so I'm a troll for reacting to being called paranoid and a lair? The world must be full of them then.
Shown to be correct when you admitted that you just come here to troll.
It's clear that you are denying reality so just give up on your trolling. You have won your petty little mass debate game, take your points and go bait someone else while the rest of us attempt to have some sort of discussion involving logic and reality.
I don't think he cares, the arrest alone is a punishment and a demonstration of "might makes right" Soviet style.
On the other hand in combination with something that drives liquid away from where you want the stuff to stick may deliver possibilities. Since it's on a microscopic scale combining the fibres that stick on the ends with fibres that wick stuff up, channels for air to flow or whatever may not be hard to do.
It will be good to get some use out of the force that makes the conventional idea of nanomachines difficult or impossible (eg. tiny little gears will stick together instead of working like gears above the micro scale so Drexler's dream isn't happening - it has to be done in a different way which will not look like conventional mechanical devices).
So your definition of a "troll" is someone that pushes a view you disagree with, for instance someone that disagrees with your "might makes right" authoritarian view of politics?
Looks like I hit a nerve. It makes sense then if you are part of this scheme that you would wish a lack of criminal penalties for people taking resources to profit from this scheme.