Yes, but practically it means on average once every x years as the darned things just die off. X is a known statistic for every ISP. It's how they budget equipment replacement costs. Over the span of a decade, it happens to just about everyone.
It's not going to happen. The US military is going to cut off any ISP that doesn't support IPv6 by, at latest 2011. Military paid for contracts to AT&T, Comcast et al are going to ensure that their off base officers are going to get IPv6. Once you've rolled that out engineering-wise, there's no way that people will stand for it being a military only facility. It just won't fly.
Aw, poor babies don't have a sufficient buffer in their wetware to manage an IPv6 address. They're going to have to write them down.
Cry me a river.
The requirement to remember IPv6 addresses is just going to make for geeks that can do more math in their heads. I don't necessarily see that as a negative.
I'm in an Indiana suburb of Chicago and I've got 3 residential options, not counting satellite. AT&T, Comcast, and Airbaud, a local point to point radio provider.
The demographers are busy adjusting population growth estimates downward. There is no population bomb. We're very much more likely to hit a problem of birth dearth. Japan, Russia, China, these guys are in huge trouble.
So I should come over to, say, Ireland with my Romanian passport and expect to be able to land a job without a special work permit? The BBC had a story earlier this year on labor mobility restrictions that exist even inside the EU (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513889.stm)
Welfare limits are being eroded by legislatures across the country. It no longer makes sense to talk about monolithic limits. They vary widely by state.
The government crowds out private solutions. It always has. Once it has crowded those private solutions out, statists announce that only government can do that function. In fact, human ingenuity has found private solutions to problems that in the past were deemed only solvable by the government. The area where government is the only solution should shrink over time as we don't forget past solutions and each generation has its own geniuses who find new private solutions for problem. But it seems like government tends to grow over time. I wonder why that is?
No, we couldn't pay for healthcare because the proposals up for consideration right now are a sinkhole for funds. No amount of money will make them work as they will goose medical inflation just as medicare did.
Social Security and Medicare are somewhat monolithic. The DoD is not. You can be a hawk and want to cut certain items out of the DoD. Look at SecDef Rumsfeld and his quest to kill off the Crusader artillery system
K-12 education is generally not subject to a lot of updates and thus would be a better field, I think than college texts. But we don't pay for those textbooks directly, the costs are buried in our property tax bill in the US (where 1/3 of the whole bill often goes to primary/secondary education, the largest single chunk). That doesn't mean that we aren't paying, every year, for the textbook mafia's current stranglehold.
Open source can have meaning in the matter of textbooks though it's not clear from what I've read so far that actual open source is what they're doing. If you have a chart, for instance, an open source textbook will make available the underlying table of figures used to create that chart. A public domain textbook probably won't. A public domain textbook might be scanned from the original paper or might just be paper but an open source textbook will include the source files needed to build the author intended rendering of the book and will allow for superior use by the disabled for instance. I'm not entirely sure how you'd have an open source printed textbook. It would seem to be somewhat useless.
Stop trying to rehabilitate a bloody, failed ideology. The economics of abundance (sharing on the net where copying costs are virtually zero) are not the same as socialism because, like capitalism, socialism is an attempt to manage the economics of scarcity, a task at which it fails miserably. Capitalism does much better at managing the economics of scarcity and has a few interesting things to say about the economics of abundance but we really are in poorly charted waters. Abundance is simply not that common a condition so there's a lot of work that needs to be done to extend what we know about economics to this heretofore uncommon state (take a look at ESR's discussion of potlatch societies in the Pacific NW for an old style abundance society).
It's much more productive to take Adam Smith's concepts of benevolence, generosity, and charity (see his Theory of Moral Sentiments) as a starting point for abundance economics, not least because it lets you create a wider view of functional economics both on the scarcity and abundance sides.
Here's something, the Lancet offers two levels of peer review, normal and expedited. There is no warning about expedited peer review papers (I've got a marketing email from the Lancet on how much faster they are willing to push through papers through review than any other journal out there) so far as I can tell. So when you read the Lancet, you don't know if you're reading something that went through traditional peer review or this expedited peer review light.
I would think that this should be a terrible reputational hit for the Lancet. So far as I can tell, it's not.
What you are describing is a bad academic program that needs to be reformed or terminated. Setting up undergrads in this sort of a bind is simply not good pedagogy.
"Science" does not have one system. The UK requires publicly funded science to give up all data on request. The US does not have this rule. Australia (from a comment above) seems to be in the process of following the UK's lead. The US should too.
Another issue is when somebody starts talking about juicing stuff in order to move the politicians along (see Stephen Schneider) that guy needs to get seriously smacked professionally. Scientists need to stay away from being propagandists. It shouldn't be tolerated.
data sharing and retention policies could use some reform. If someone wants your data to check and make sure you did the math right, you don't dance around releasing it forever, you give the data, right away.
Any objection? There are apparently a bunch of climate scientists that don't like that standard.
Here's a sensible requirement. If you submit a paper, you submit your data and sufficient information that anybody can rerun your stuff. The whole MBH 98 idiocy was largely about how climate scientists would dance around releasing their data and methods. In the UK, if you take the public's money, you can't do that. In the US you can. The US should follow the UK on this one.
You may want to look at the attempts to reign in Fannie and Freddie after the profits scandals early in the Bush years. It was Republicans, with both Bush and McCain in the lead trying to reform the housing loan market in sensible ways and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and mostly other Democrats (with a few bought and paid for Republicans) voting against it.
If you have a bit of strategic vision, you'd see how valuable a free Iraq is and will be. Israeli pretensions to automatic US support because they are the only democracy are on their last legs (if the Iraqis can keep their republic), iran is discomfited because a free Shiite nation with equal religious standing is right next door. The Saudis have already made greater progress towards sensible regime reform since we invaded Iraq than they had in the 7 decades prior. The dividends (if we don't screw it up now) are good and are going to keep on giving in the form of a detoxified muslim and arab world which dries up the crazy jihadi recruiting pool.
That's actually more valuable than Bin Laden's head on a stick.
All money bills must originate in the House. Who controls those? Democrats. Who gets to control what bills get on the floor of the Senate? The majority leader, Harry Reid, does. He's a Democrat too. All the Republicans had was a more limited veto than the President already had. A Presidential veto needs a 67 vote override in the Senate as well as 2/3rds of the House. Congressional Republicans could have been overridden by 60 votes. This is hardly control.
The problem isn't the cheating, but the tolerance for lax process in the checking system. We don't have anywhere near 1% of scientists getting caught at fraud. There's something broken with the publishing system if so many can cheat and not get caught.
Human frailty will always exist. How good you are at catching it is a significant variable that can be controlled. We aren't doing so well.
The post war Saudi Arabia adjustments on liberty and modernization provoked by the Iraq war (the Kingdom's answer to the question "if the Iraqis can vote, why can't we") likely also preserves the KSA fields under a geopolitically reasonable regime. We've paid the piper already and are just starting to reap the benefits, if we don't sabotage the current success in a snit (like Congress' refusal to give air support and fund S. Vietnam's munitions needs in 1974-5).
If you trust Wikipedia on controversial political matters, you're naive beyond belief. But just for fun, the Saddam launched Iran-Iraq war killed 1.3 million (using high estimates and adding both sides casualties just like the high counts do to the US in this conflict). That's twice the unbelievably high and already discredited Lancet figures. So believe Lancet or not but apples to apples please.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but practically it means on average once every x years as the darned things just die off. X is a known statistic for every ISP. It's how they budget equipment replacement costs. Over the span of a decade, it happens to just about everyone.
It's not going to happen. The US military is going to cut off any ISP that doesn't support IPv6 by, at latest 2011. Military paid for contracts to AT&T, Comcast et al are going to ensure that their off base officers are going to get IPv6. Once you've rolled that out engineering-wise, there's no way that people will stand for it being a military only facility. It just won't fly.
Aw, poor babies don't have a sufficient buffer in their wetware to manage an IPv6 address. They're going to have to write them down.
Cry me a river.
The requirement to remember IPv6 addresses is just going to make for geeks that can do more math in their heads. I don't necessarily see that as a negative.
I'm in an Indiana suburb of Chicago and I've got 3 residential options, not counting satellite. AT&T, Comcast, and Airbaud, a local point to point radio provider.
Actually, the free market means that you hear about this sort of thing and then you never, ever use verizon and laugh at the people who do.
The demographers are busy adjusting population growth estimates downward. There is no population bomb. We're very much more likely to hit a problem of birth dearth. Japan, Russia, China, these guys are in huge trouble.
So I should come over to, say, Ireland with my Romanian passport and expect to be able to land a job without a special work permit? The BBC had a story earlier this year on labor mobility restrictions that exist even inside the EU (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513889.stm)
Welfare limits are being eroded by legislatures across the country. It no longer makes sense to talk about monolithic limits. They vary widely by state.
The government crowds out private solutions. It always has. Once it has crowded those private solutions out, statists announce that only government can do that function. In fact, human ingenuity has found private solutions to problems that in the past were deemed only solvable by the government. The area where government is the only solution should shrink over time as we don't forget past solutions and each generation has its own geniuses who find new private solutions for problem. But it seems like government tends to grow over time. I wonder why that is?
No, we couldn't pay for healthcare because the proposals up for consideration right now are a sinkhole for funds. No amount of money will make them work as they will goose medical inflation just as medicare did.
Social Security and Medicare are somewhat monolithic. The DoD is not. You can be a hawk and want to cut certain items out of the DoD. Look at SecDef Rumsfeld and his quest to kill off the Crusader artillery system
All the more reason to create applications clearly illustrating exactly how screwed they are.
K-12 education is generally not subject to a lot of updates and thus would be a better field, I think than college texts. But we don't pay for those textbooks directly, the costs are buried in our property tax bill in the US (where 1/3 of the whole bill often goes to primary/secondary education, the largest single chunk). That doesn't mean that we aren't paying, every year, for the textbook mafia's current stranglehold.
Open source can have meaning in the matter of textbooks though it's not clear from what I've read so far that actual open source is what they're doing. If you have a chart, for instance, an open source textbook will make available the underlying table of figures used to create that chart. A public domain textbook probably won't. A public domain textbook might be scanned from the original paper or might just be paper but an open source textbook will include the source files needed to build the author intended rendering of the book and will allow for superior use by the disabled for instance. I'm not entirely sure how you'd have an open source printed textbook. It would seem to be somewhat useless.
Stop trying to rehabilitate a bloody, failed ideology. The economics of abundance (sharing on the net where copying costs are virtually zero) are not the same as socialism because, like capitalism, socialism is an attempt to manage the economics of scarcity, a task at which it fails miserably. Capitalism does much better at managing the economics of scarcity and has a few interesting things to say about the economics of abundance but we really are in poorly charted waters. Abundance is simply not that common a condition so there's a lot of work that needs to be done to extend what we know about economics to this heretofore uncommon state (take a look at ESR's discussion of potlatch societies in the Pacific NW for an old style abundance society).
It's much more productive to take Adam Smith's concepts of benevolence, generosity, and charity (see his Theory of Moral Sentiments) as a starting point for abundance economics, not least because it lets you create a wider view of functional economics both on the scarcity and abundance sides.
Here's something, the Lancet offers two levels of peer review, normal and expedited. There is no warning about expedited peer review papers (I've got a marketing email from the Lancet on how much faster they are willing to push through papers through review than any other journal out there) so far as I can tell. So when you read the Lancet, you don't know if you're reading something that went through traditional peer review or this expedited peer review light.
I would think that this should be a terrible reputational hit for the Lancet. So far as I can tell, it's not.
What you are describing is a bad academic program that needs to be reformed or terminated. Setting up undergrads in this sort of a bind is simply not good pedagogy.
"Science" does not have one system. The UK requires publicly funded science to give up all data on request. The US does not have this rule. Australia (from a comment above) seems to be in the process of following the UK's lead. The US should too.
Another issue is when somebody starts talking about juicing stuff in order to move the politicians along (see Stephen Schneider) that guy needs to get seriously smacked professionally. Scientists need to stay away from being propagandists. It shouldn't be tolerated.
data sharing and retention policies could use some reform. If someone wants your data to check and make sure you did the math right, you don't dance around releasing it forever, you give the data, right away.
Any objection? There are apparently a bunch of climate scientists that don't like that standard.
Here's a sensible requirement. If you submit a paper, you submit your data and sufficient information that anybody can rerun your stuff. The whole MBH 98 idiocy was largely about how climate scientists would dance around releasing their data and methods. In the UK, if you take the public's money, you can't do that. In the US you can. The US should follow the UK on this one.
You may want to look at the attempts to reign in Fannie and Freddie after the profits scandals early in the Bush years. It was Republicans, with both Bush and McCain in the lead trying to reform the housing loan market in sensible ways and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and mostly other Democrats (with a few bought and paid for Republicans) voting against it.
If you have a bit of strategic vision, you'd see how valuable a free Iraq is and will be. Israeli pretensions to automatic US support because they are the only democracy are on their last legs (if the Iraqis can keep their republic), iran is discomfited because a free Shiite nation with equal religious standing is right next door. The Saudis have already made greater progress towards sensible regime reform since we invaded Iraq than they had in the 7 decades prior. The dividends (if we don't screw it up now) are good and are going to keep on giving in the form of a detoxified muslim and arab world which dries up the crazy jihadi recruiting pool.
That's actually more valuable than Bin Laden's head on a stick.
All money bills must originate in the House. Who controls those? Democrats. Who gets to control what bills get on the floor of the Senate? The majority leader, Harry Reid, does. He's a Democrat too. All the Republicans had was a more limited veto than the President already had. A Presidential veto needs a 67 vote override in the Senate as well as 2/3rds of the House. Congressional Republicans could have been overridden by 60 votes. This is hardly control.
The problem isn't the cheating, but the tolerance for lax process in the checking system. We don't have anywhere near 1% of scientists getting caught at fraud. There's something broken with the publishing system if so many can cheat and not get caught.
Human frailty will always exist. How good you are at catching it is a significant variable that can be controlled. We aren't doing so well.
The post war Saudi Arabia adjustments on liberty and modernization provoked by the Iraq war (the Kingdom's answer to the question "if the Iraqis can vote, why can't we") likely also preserves the KSA fields under a geopolitically reasonable regime. We've paid the piper already and are just starting to reap the benefits, if we don't sabotage the current success in a snit (like Congress' refusal to give air support and fund S. Vietnam's munitions needs in 1974-5).
Without the Korean war, there might not even be a DPRK so some poor korean kid starving to death today can be laid on the Rosenberg's doorstep.
If you trust Wikipedia on controversial political matters, you're naive beyond belief. But just for fun, the Saddam launched Iran-Iraq war killed 1.3 million (using high estimates and adding both sides casualties just like the high counts do to the US in this conflict). That's twice the unbelievably high and already discredited Lancet figures. So believe Lancet or not but apples to apples please.