"I believe you're making a mistake here by talking about "integers" instead of naturals. Gödel's theorem is about Peano arithmetic [wikipedia.org], which defines the natural numbers starting from zero, addition and multiplication. "
Backwards compatibility would have allowed smooth transition between two states: 'nobody supports IPv6' and 'all support IPv6'. As it is, this is impossible.
Yes, you'd still need to upgrade everything. But you could have done do this in stages.
Fairly easy. First, layer of IP datagrams won't be changed much from existing IPv6/4 dual stacks. Most changes would go into TCP (and UDP).
1) You're an IPv6/4 host connecting to IPv6 address. Easy, just proceed with IPv6.
2) You're IPv6/4 host connecting to IPv4 address which may be IPv6-compatible. In this case you just set a 'want IPv6' flag in the header and if your peer sends back 'ok to use IPv6' you proceed with IPv6 (using IPv4 addresses transparently transformed into IPv6 for endpoints).
3) You're IPv6 host connecting to IPv4 address. In this case you just send IPv6 packets to wrapped IPv4 address. If your peer supports IPv6 then it will talk to you using your IPv6 address. And if your peer doesn't support IPv6 then you won't get answer and connection will fail.
"But at some point, when you have created your theory that alllows you to express statements, results, etc. you want your theory to be expressive enough to actually solve meaningful problems"
Theory of real numbers solves quite a lot of meaningful problems. As does Euclidian geometry (it's also Goedel-complete).
"This _theory_ of real numbers you are talking about will among other things fail to assert useful things about natural numbers (like their primality, and, I suspect, worse, their being actually natural or rational (I don't know, just guessing)), which are a part of the numbers it 'supports'."
Nope. Theory of real numbers works with _real_ numbers, not with integers. To define integers you need to introduce more axioms which will make the resulting theory more powerful (and incomplete).
But it was possible to design it to be _backwards_ _compatible_ with IPv4, like we did it with MX records for SMTP. It would have allowed us a smooth transition, without requiring a flag day for the whole Internet.
Let's see, IPv6 autoconfiguration is nice, but DHCP is working fairly well by now. So no need for a new protocol here. No checksums for mutable header IP fields? Nice, but does it require a whole new protocol?
What else? Multihoming? Nope, IPv6 doesn't help here. Mobile IPv6? That's just a result of a large address space, so nothing new here.
So, why do we need a replacement protocol if not because of a larger address space?
Basically translation is: "Authentic Buran lying in a junk heap. That's a shame, because no one cares about what had been a symbol of country's space might".
Really. QNX is many, many years BEHIND Linux right now.
Yeah, they have a microkernel with hard-realtime support and good maximum latency (which Linux can't match just yet).
However, if you look closely - it's not so great. Unix subsytem, filesystem and network stack all run inside one big process. So if it crashes it's almost as bad as kernel crash in Linux.
QNX's support for massive SMP (more than 8-16 CPUs) is bad, its scheduler is not quite good enough.
Various elements of QNX stack are hindered by microkernel approach as well. For example, you can forget about things like receive packet steering ( http://lwn.net/Articles/362339/ ).
QNX's support for 'transparent distributed processing' is just a joke. It's not usable in practice at all, because of overhead of message passing (which is usually assumed by applications to be extremely cheap).
"As far as the economy goes, Keynes himself was smarter than most people who use his name to describe themselves - it's not surprising that the Obama Administration tried to fix Bush's massive economic damage by borrowing and spending lots of money"
Unfortunately, Obama has not used _enough_ of stimulus. There was enough spending to arrest the slide into Depression, but not enough to compensate for rising unemployment.
"The edited video removes a lot of the imagery of armed individuals"
Which ones?
"and makes a big deal about which individuals are reporters and their cameras. It then replays the part where vehicles run over bodies and troops chuckle."
So? The problem is exactly in the attitude of the US military. We all know that shit happens, especially in the war zone.
However, with the attitude of people there such mistakes are inevitable. So they cease to be 'mistakes' and rapidly become 'crimes'.
"Exactly. That's the propaganda part. The edited video reads in a lot of what was going on and ignores other things that doesn't fit with the anti-US / anti-war message."
Which 'other things'? The video clearly shows crimes committed by US military. Pure and simple.
And no, you can't whitewash murder by saying that "it's a part of larger picture". Or by saying that "they have not killed anyone in 30 minutes of video before the accident".
That's why this piece of video has this effect. It requires whitewashers to stretch reality to the point of breaking, and then beyond.
"And with that, you've done a great job at making my point. The same treatment was done with the video."
Nope, wrong. Only irrelevant parts were cut from the video, while my argument is just that - interpretation. It can't change the facts.
"Having said that... what we got to see was a nicely edited piece of propaganda. Yes, sure... there's also raw video. However, the edited version is just as much a part of the record and involves plenty of interpretations of what's going on while it glazes over other issues. I've always thought the leaking of this video was important but unfortunately overshadowed by the way it was turned in to a propaganda piece."
So what? It IS a propaganda. It shows that US routinely commits criminal acts and then covers it up. So it's a good propaganda.
As for interpretations... Well, let's say that we can also 'interpret' 9/11. Like, saying that it's a valid act of war, and not terrorism. You see, twin towers were economically significant buildings. So it was OK to bomb them. See?
"Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes."
However, increasing the base ocean level greatly increases erosion. The height of waves is something like Gaussian distribution, and increasing the level greatly increases the number of high waves in the 'long tail'.
Slashdot Mirror
"The laws of physics are complex enough"
Are they?
"I believe you're making a mistake here by talking about "integers" instead of naturals. Gödel's theorem is about Peano arithmetic [wikipedia.org], which defines the natural numbers starting from zero, addition and multiplication. "
This changes exactly nothing.
You don't get it.
Backwards compatibility would have allowed smooth transition between two states: 'nobody supports IPv6' and 'all support IPv6'. As it is, this is impossible.
Yes, you'd still need to upgrade everything. But you could have done do this in stages.
See: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1804354&cid=33753930 for details.
Fairly easy. First, layer of IP datagrams won't be changed much from existing IPv6/4 dual stacks. Most changes would go into TCP (and UDP).
1) You're an IPv6/4 host connecting to IPv6 address. Easy, just proceed with IPv6.
2) You're IPv6/4 host connecting to IPv4 address which may be IPv6-compatible. In this case you just set a 'want IPv6' flag in the header and if your peer sends back 'ok to use IPv6' you proceed with IPv6 (using IPv4 addresses transparently transformed into IPv6 for endpoints).
3) You're IPv6 host connecting to IPv4 address. In this case you just send IPv6 packets to wrapped IPv4 address. If your peer supports IPv6 then it will talk to you using your IPv6 address. And if your peer doesn't support IPv6 then you won't get answer and connection will fail.
"But at some point, when you have created your theory that alllows you to express statements, results, etc. you want your theory to be expressive enough to actually solve meaningful problems"
Theory of real numbers solves quite a lot of meaningful problems. As does Euclidian geometry (it's also Goedel-complete).
"This _theory_ of real numbers you are talking about will among other things fail to assert useful things about natural numbers (like their primality, and, I suspect, worse, their being actually natural or rational (I don't know, just guessing)), which are a part of the numbers it 'supports'."
Nope. Theory of real numbers works with _real_ numbers, not with integers. To define integers you need to introduce more axioms which will make the resulting theory more powerful (and incomplete).
Sure.
But it was possible to design it to be _backwards_ _compatible_ with IPv4, like we did it with MX records for SMTP. It would have allowed us a smooth transition, without requiring a flag day for the whole Internet.
That's the point that DJB makes.
No. I mean _theory_ of real numbers. I.e. any statement that you can make using axioms of real numbers will be decidable.
Counterintuitive, but true.
You forget important addition to Goedel's theorem. Namely: "all philosophical consequences of Godel's theorem are bunk" (including this one).
Regarding your comment: there ARE complete and consistent formal systems. For example, real number theory is complete.
You can't have consistent, complete system if it's _complex_ _enough_ to describe integers.
And they have not gone far enough. For example, PMTU is a big ugly mess. Ports are still limited to 16 bits. Etc.
In any case, the biggest reason for IPv6 is not a protocol switch for the sake of better protocol. The main reason is much larger address space.
So why do we need entire replacement protocol?
Let's see, IPv6 autoconfiguration is nice, but DHCP is working fairly well by now. So no need for a new protocol here. No checksums for mutable header IP fields? Nice, but does it require a whole new protocol?
What else? Multihoming? Nope, IPv6 doesn't help here. Mobile IPv6? That's just a result of a large address space, so nothing new here.
So, why do we need a replacement protocol if not because of a larger address space?
"First off, what is a unix subsystem?"
devc-pty, pipe, mqueue, etc. I.e. everything which is POSIX and not implemented in procnt.
About filesystem and network - I'm talking about fast NFS, it had to be implemented as a statically compiled combination io-net and fs-nfs2.
Basically translation is: "Authentic Buran lying in a junk heap. That's a shame, because no one cares about what had been a symbol of country's space might".
Grandparent claimed that QNX is architecturally more advanced than Linux. I was replying to that claim.
Really. QNX is many, many years BEHIND Linux right now.
Yeah, they have a microkernel with hard-realtime support and good maximum latency (which Linux can't match just yet).
However, if you look closely - it's not so great. Unix subsytem, filesystem and network stack all run inside one big process. So if it crashes it's almost as bad as kernel crash in Linux.
QNX's support for massive SMP (more than 8-16 CPUs) is bad, its scheduler is not quite good enough.
Various elements of QNX stack are hindered by microkernel approach as well. For example, you can forget about things like receive packet steering ( http://lwn.net/Articles/362339/ ).
QNX's support for 'transparent distributed processing' is just a joke. It's not usable in practice at all, because of overhead of message passing (which is usually assumed by applications to be extremely cheap).
I think it's a stretch to make an assertion that Bush has traveled 1500 years back in time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr
"As far as the economy goes, Keynes himself was smarter than most people who use his name to describe themselves - it's not surprising that the Obama Administration tried to fix Bush's massive economic damage by borrowing and spending lots of money"
Unfortunately, Obama has not used _enough_ of stimulus. There was enough spending to arrest the slide into Depression, but not enough to compensate for rising unemployment.
Basic Keynesian analysis shows that.
"ONE HUNDRED or more times more code and development time?"
One hundred? Quite possible. Legacy OpenGL stuff is quite complex and has a lot of nastiness.
Ten times - absolutely.
"No guerilla force will survive for a week under those conditions"
WWII partisans beg to differ.
You can't even imagine what they suffered when they were detected.
"The edited video removes a lot of the imagery of armed individuals"
Which ones?
"and makes a big deal about which individuals are reporters and their cameras. It then replays the part where vehicles run over bodies and troops chuckle."
So? The problem is exactly in the attitude of the US military. We all know that shit happens, especially in the war zone.
However, with the attitude of people there such mistakes are inevitable. So they cease to be 'mistakes' and rapidly become 'crimes'.
"Exactly. That's the propaganda part. The edited video reads in a lot of what was going on and ignores other things that doesn't fit with the anti-US / anti-war message."
Which 'other things'? The video clearly shows crimes committed by US military. Pure and simple.
And no, you can't whitewash murder by saying that "it's a part of larger picture". Or by saying that "they have not killed anyone in 30 minutes of video before the accident".
That's why this piece of video has this effect. It requires whitewashers to stretch reality to the point of breaking, and then beyond.
"And with that, you've done a great job at making my point. The same treatment was done with the video."
Nope, wrong. Only irrelevant parts were cut from the video, while my argument is just that - interpretation. It can't change the facts.
"Having said that... what we got to see was a nicely edited piece of propaganda. Yes, sure... there's also raw video. However, the edited version is just as much a part of the record and involves plenty of interpretations of what's going on while it glazes over other issues. I've always thought the leaking of this video was important but unfortunately overshadowed by the way it was turned in to a propaganda piece."
So what? It IS a propaganda. It shows that US routinely commits criminal acts and then covers it up. So it's a good propaganda.
As for interpretations... Well, let's say that we can also 'interpret' 9/11. Like, saying that it's a valid act of war, and not terrorism. You see, twin towers were economically significant buildings. So it was OK to bomb them. See?
"Man... you are like my right wing friends when I tell them Palin is a mistake."
It takes one to know one. You're as big mistake as she is.
"AGW might just be bullshit."
[citation needed]
"Now you all put your eggs in one basket with AGW. As the AGW hypothesis is shown to be flawed.... "
Now you put your head up your ass. As your ass has been shown (repeatedly) to be deep enough - you can't see the light.
"Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes."
However, increasing the base ocean level greatly increases erosion. The height of waves is something like Gaussian distribution, and increasing the level greatly increases the number of high waves in the 'long tail'.
I know.
There was a lot of laugh on Russian-speaking news sites when this news was announced.