So the people that actually use it don't care that the amount of [whatever] it buys varies wildly? I think you are wrong. I think the people that use t care greatly about how much of [whatever] they can buy with it.
The authoritarian Nazis are pushing for "states rights" unless the states decide something they don't like, in which case they introduce DOMA. They claim to be for states rights, until they aren't.
Because your family is dumb? There's no answer I could give. If I gave a correct and satisfactory answer, you could just move the goalposts. That's what always happens before, where the zealots support an unsupportable position.
Remember, Democrats are never responsible for anything...
Like how Nancy Pelosi was responsibly for everything bad that happened while Bush was in office? I remember there being a long list of problems with Clinton, at the time. Democrats have never done anything right, according to the Religious Conservatives.
Ah yes, no true Scotsman. Republicans are authoritarian thugs. You can't tell them the Teabaggers are Libertarian, or Democrat. They want to authoritatively tell people how to live, and enforce that with law. The Libertarians in the US are anti-democracy and for big government.
And I'd see "shadow DNS" as being DNS hosted by registrars and ISPs. I don't see why there'd be such a problem if the US was removed from the Internet. example.co.uk would still survive on the (presumably) UK-based nameserver of authority for that domain. Or do all the domains in the world get served from the US and only the US?
If I BGP peered with my ISP (and they did no verification of ownership of IPs, or other basic security), and I advertised 12.32.111.0/24, and nobody else was advertising that/24 then what would happen?
Everyone selling IoT I've seen doesn't use Internet connected devices. They are all private networks, secured and firewalled off. This helps them charge for people administering the devices they've already bought.
And you are assuming real-time updates. As you note, DNS isn't today (because caching). For most cases, it would work like today. My home router doesn't know how to get to the Internet, but doesn't need to. It knows its next hop, and that hop knows the next, until someone finally knows the whole thing. It isn't me, and I don't need to know. That's how DNS works today. I don't ask the authoritative server every time. I don't want that, and they don't want that.
So why are you assuming a replacement that ignores decades of learning and does it in the worst possible manner?
You can't manage it. I was on The Early Internet. You'd be surprised how many people advertised blocks they didn't own, and got away with it because there were so many to choose from, you'd probably not accidentally step on one in use. The locks on advertising addresses to ensure ownership and such came after. With IPv6 and no authority, we'd see people randomly use addresses, without allocation. And it would work pretty well, given the V6 address space.
Anyone who complains is a terrorist pirate, and the DHS doesn't need a warrant to tap your Internet and arrest you for downloading. Even if they don't get the charge to stick, anything you own that's electrically powered will never be returned.
Sony, claiming to be Guardians of Peace, posted the threats themselves to make the hackers look like terrorists, and generate more interest in a really bad movie.
I cheated in believing that the "terrorists" is Sony trying to discredit hackers and so seeing the movie supports Sony, and not seeing it supports Sony. So I'm going to pirate it to support Sony without supporting Sony.
Yeah, like those vigilantes that threw that tea in the sea because the target (the Crown) was unpopular. Too bad some Benedict Arnold wasn't around to try to bring them to Justice.
Thankfully these two were quickly closed as suicides, with little media attention, but suicide is high in black men that date white women.
I'm so glad I moved out of the US. I don't have to worry about my friends or neighbors being lynched here.
And lets take out the BS regarding the DPRK launching a massive attack on the US. If you spent a few minutes contemplating the logistics you would see that this is not valid.
Like reality matters. When I lived in the US, I kept advocating abolishing the military. We don't need it. And people explained how China would invade the day we made that declaration. But none explained how China could get people to the US and secure a beach-head to invade. A few hunters could keep China at bay, given their ability to project strength outside China. But nobody ever thought about the invasion. "What if China teleported 10,000,000 soldiers into the Capital? What would you do then?" As if Chinamen in D.C. was the problem, and teleportation wasn't. If they could do that, why not just teleport a nuke into the capitol building during a joint-session presidential address? It's more important to fear China than have a strong economy.
So we don't know who the hackers are, but we've verified that they were the ones to threaten the theater? Sounds more likely like a false-flag move by Sony to drive up demand for the movie.
You deserve the woosh. If you picked Russia and Vanuatu, if Russia wanted their way, they'd be able to bully Vanuatu into doing it.
Doesn't really matter WHICH two you pick as long as they meet the above requirements.
That is simply wrong. Pick China and Fiji. They have no current bed interests. But if China didn't like Fiji's choices, China could make life very difficult for Fiji. So they would be in bed shortly after the choice is made. So you'd want two places that are +- 10% of population and +-50% GDP. China/Russia would be a better combination than China/Fiji, or Russia/Seychelles, despite China and Russia being in bed for some things (and at war for others). Because you need countries that can't physically bully each other, in addition to the other requirements.
Speed bumps have only one proven effect. Slower emergency response. There are also more pedestrian fatalities on roads with speed bumps, but that wasn't statistically significant. But proving speed bumps "Bad" isn't politically correct, so nobody will fund follow-ups. Traffic calming doesn't work, but is a psychological tool to reduce complaints.
Slashdot Mirror
So the people that actually use it don't care that the amount of [whatever] it buys varies wildly? I think you are wrong. I think the people that use t care greatly about how much of [whatever] they can buy with it.
The authoritarian Nazis are pushing for "states rights" unless the states decide something they don't like, in which case they introduce DOMA. They claim to be for states rights, until they aren't.
Because your family is dumb? There's no answer I could give. If I gave a correct and satisfactory answer, you could just move the goalposts. That's what always happens before, where the zealots support an unsupportable position.
Remember, Democrats are never responsible for anything...
Like how Nancy Pelosi was responsibly for everything bad that happened while Bush was in office? I remember there being a long list of problems with Clinton, at the time. Democrats have never done anything right, according to the Religious Conservatives.
There's the conservative, state's rights, tea party wing that is in the minority.
Is that the "states rights" wing pushing to ban gay marriage on the national level to remove the rights for states?
Ah yes, no true Scotsman. Republicans are authoritarian thugs. You can't tell them the Teabaggers are Libertarian, or Democrat. They want to authoritatively tell people how to live, and enforce that with law. The Libertarians in the US are anti-democracy and for big government.
Hosts would work today.
And I'd see "shadow DNS" as being DNS hosted by registrars and ISPs. I don't see why there'd be such a problem if the US was removed from the Internet. example.co.uk would still survive on the (presumably) UK-based nameserver of authority for that domain. Or do all the domains in the world get served from the US and only the US?
If I BGP peered with my ISP (and they did no verification of ownership of IPs, or other basic security), and I advertised 12.32.111.0/24, and nobody else was advertising that /24 then what would happen?
What, so when the hotrodder hits 70 mph, the child magnet turns on?
Can we script a takedown of all of the members of the MPAA?
Everyone selling IoT I've seen doesn't use Internet connected devices. They are all private networks, secured and firewalled off. This helps them charge for people administering the devices they've already bought.
And you are assuming real-time updates. As you note, DNS isn't today (because caching). For most cases, it would work like today. My home router doesn't know how to get to the Internet, but doesn't need to. It knows its next hop, and that hop knows the next, until someone finally knows the whole thing. It isn't me, and I don't need to know. That's how DNS works today. I don't ask the authoritative server every time. I don't want that, and they don't want that.
So why are you assuming a replacement that ignores decades of learning and does it in the worst possible manner?
The only "crash" is on the side of idiot speculators who trade it for fiat currency.
So the price has been stable against gold, but fluctuating wildly against fiat currency? Or are you just no true scotsmaning the crashes?
You can't manage it. I was on The Early Internet. You'd be surprised how many people advertised blocks they didn't own, and got away with it because there were so many to choose from, you'd probably not accidentally step on one in use. The locks on advertising addresses to ensure ownership and such came after. With IPv6 and no authority, we'd see people randomly use addresses, without allocation. And it would work pretty well, given the V6 address space.
Anyone who complains is a terrorist pirate, and the DHS doesn't need a warrant to tap your Internet and arrest you for downloading. Even if they don't get the charge to stick, anything you own that's electrically powered will never be returned.
Sony, claiming to be Guardians of Peace, posted the threats themselves to make the hackers look like terrorists, and generate more interest in a really bad movie.
Isn't that what you meant?
I cheated in believing that the "terrorists" is Sony trying to discredit hackers and so seeing the movie supports Sony, and not seeing it supports Sony. So I'm going to pirate it to support Sony without supporting Sony.
Yeah, like those vigilantes that threw that tea in the sea because the target (the Crown) was unpopular. Too bad some Benedict Arnold wasn't around to try to bring them to Justice.
MPAA's asshattery does not justify cyber-vigilantism (best case), cyber-terrorism (worst case), and threats of physical violence.
You left out the possibility that it was Sony calling the threats in on itself to discredit the hackers and boost interest in a bad movie.
Do you believe that vigilantism is always wrong?
Vigilantism is necessary, so long as black men date white women.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12...
http://www.lipstickalley.com/s...
Thankfully these two were quickly closed as suicides, with little media attention, but suicide is high in black men that date white women.
I'm so glad I moved out of the US. I don't have to worry about my friends or neighbors being lynched here.
And lets take out the BS regarding the DPRK launching a massive attack on the US. If you spent a few minutes contemplating the logistics you would see that this is not valid.
Like reality matters. When I lived in the US, I kept advocating abolishing the military. We don't need it. And people explained how China would invade the day we made that declaration. But none explained how China could get people to the US and secure a beach-head to invade. A few hunters could keep China at bay, given their ability to project strength outside China. But nobody ever thought about the invasion. "What if China teleported 10,000,000 soldiers into the Capital? What would you do then?" As if Chinamen in D.C. was the problem, and teleportation wasn't. If they could do that, why not just teleport a nuke into the capitol building during a joint-session presidential address? It's more important to fear China than have a strong economy.
How does that drum up support for the movie?
You've stated that the threats changed you from not seeing it to seeing it. Or are you unique, just like everyone else?
And even if it doesn't help the box office numbers, it certainly is increasing the interest in it.
I'm not sure Hollywood listens to people who can't spell Bale.
So we don't know who the hackers are, but we've verified that they were the ones to threaten the theater? Sounds more likely like a false-flag move by Sony to drive up demand for the movie.
Doesn't really matter WHICH two you pick as long as they meet the above requirements.
That is simply wrong. Pick China and Fiji. They have no current bed interests. But if China didn't like Fiji's choices, China could make life very difficult for Fiji. So they would be in bed shortly after the choice is made. So you'd want two places that are +- 10% of population and +-50% GDP. China/Russia would be a better combination than China/Fiji, or Russia/Seychelles, despite China and Russia being in bed for some things (and at war for others). Because you need countries that can't physically bully each other, in addition to the other requirements.
Speed bumps have only one proven effect. Slower emergency response. There are also more pedestrian fatalities on roads with speed bumps, but that wasn't statistically significant. But proving speed bumps "Bad" isn't politically correct, so nobody will fund follow-ups. Traffic calming doesn't work, but is a psychological tool to reduce complaints.
How long do we need to wait for CA to nuke itself so we can start over?