The big mover that has guaranteed that we'll get IPv6 by the end of the decade is that the US Army unilaterally decreed that anybody who wants to bid on IP provisioning contracts with them has to provide IPv6 in the 2009-2011 timeframe or they'll no longer get the business. In a segmented Internet, IPv6 would get deployed nationally as each nation gets its own big user that forced the ISPs to spend the money to deploy. This means that we'd have a much slower rate of deployment and having to deal with packet translation from 6-to-4 and back much longer than we will have with global Internet.
At the end of the day, everybody's connected to everybody else's networks. So why is the EU looking to fork the Internet and make that connectivity harder? What's the benefit, other than pissing off the US? Is "piss off the US" to be added as an Internet goal?
The oil for food estimated diversions go as high as $20+B. I think 2-3B is just what they've got the full paperwork on. The investigation is ongoing.
The oil for food kickbacks went, in large measure, into buying up the support of member governments on the Security Council. Sure, they were going to cut off their own illegal funds. Right.
Up to now, the US has behaved well with regard to the DNS system. We don't fool around with North Korea's IP blocks, etc. even if we don't like them. What the "reformers" want to do is to take a proven system that's already working and create a politically mandated fork in the Internet absent any actual reason other than they don't like the historical accident that the US figured this stuff out and supported it until everybody found the network agreements useful and signed on to it.
It isn't that simple because an awful lot of very useful bodies are now part of the UN. If the US were to withdraw, it would need to extract the useful bits out of the UN, like the ITU, and take them to an alternate, more functional body.
If you think that France, the UK, or Germany does not put similar conditions on its aid, you're in for a rude awakening. The system exists. It's a bit rich to complain only at some of the players in that system.
Hmm... The Kossovo mission... How did those UN people get into Kossovo anyway? Could it be they walked in after US flag forces cleared the way for them? The US funds an awful lot of those Bangledeshi troops and they run their military forces under their own flag in a great many UN coordinated operations. By your method of counting, we didn't have anything to do with Tsunami relief either after the massive Indian Ocean wave.
The US runs its military operations under its own flag instead of UN command because we like to get our soldiers back alive and we like to be effective when we send them out. Blue helmet combat rules are awful and lead to bunkered up, tiny, blue helmeted forces watching as bad actors act with impunity. The US wants no part of the shame so we keep out of the UN command structure.
The fundamental problem is that the UN has a huge for sale sign on it and you simply cannot trust that policy will not be sold to the highest bidder. The oil for palaces scandal isn't even cool yet and the UN thinks that it has some sort of moral voice?
I can see some sort of international consortium running the root server system if you could trust that the censor queens would not have a voice in it. The UN is not that body. The UN will never be that body.
Oh why not feed the trolls. France is a very new country. It's Constitution post dates WW II. Germany isn't much older. As far as countries go, the US is actually one of the older ones. Now if you want to talk about nations...
Essentially, the UN countries committing to this course have decided to fork the Internet by issuing new nameservers. They cannot force the US to release the IPs of the current root servers. They're in exactly the same boat that every other alternative root servers has ever been in. They have to get everybody to start using their roots instead of the traditional ones. Manufacturers of hardware and software who preset the current roots are going to have to spend money making new versions, some with one set of roots preset, some with another, or the end user is going to have to get used to doing it himself.
This is a great deal of pain spread out over the entire Internet community. What is the gain, pray tell?
If there is a problem with indie producers not getting paid, it seems to me that there needs to be an indie business model revamp so that producers don't have that problem. There also needs to be an increase in the number of producers, maybe by working with foreign talent?
I don't buy the idea of production plants being effective at refusing business because of under the table payments. There are an awful lot of people who professionally produce disks who don't normally deal in the music market. It's a cutthroat business and they'd love to have yours. The major music plants know that they are vulnerable to new entrants and can't afford to attract new competitors into their market.
While shelf space is expensive, kiosks that can burn 1,000,000 otherwise uncarried indie tunes and pop out the appropriate liner notes are a pretty good bet if the label lawyers don't have anything to say about how the kiosks are run. It's a way of getting the long tail into the stores. And if the record stores won't carry them, the book stores, the coffee shops, and the convenience stores will. Distribution doesn't have to be through the same old tired channels.
Actually, I don't believe that any artist pays for bandwidtth, nor do the record companies. Apple pays for it and takes all the risk on its shoulders. The cost of the good is not zero, though. There is a small cost attached to transferring the tune to the iTMS. The gross margin is therefore something less than 100%, call it 99.975%.
Nuclear power is more expensive than renewables because the regulatory regime it operates under *makes it* more expensive. If you could cut out the political red tape and strictly enforce the engineering red tape (inspections and otherwise verifying the work's done right), you'd end up with much cheaper plants that were much safer.
Actually lunar/orbital solar is an option but you've got to drop launch costs by a factor of 100 before we get there. If we ever get a space elevator up, that's exactly the effect it'll have on launch costs. You beam power down via microwaves and convert the resulting power to hydrogen as a useful middleware solution.
If you use Fischer-Tropsch methods, you go straight to diesel for about $1/gal. What's the point of methanol if it's using the same feedstock and is more expensive?
Since reproduction rates are crashing all over the world, we're not going to be overpopulated anyway. The developed world is largely below replacement rate right now and the developing world is falling in right behind us. It's quite likely that depopulation is going to be a big problem in the next few decades. It's already showing up in the US Plains and in Europe.
The quality will reach Apple's standards because Apple will continue to cherry pick the best, picking winners and upgrading the code of projects like KHTML and giving back their changes while they repackage for the OS X platform.
Apple doesn't want to be on general PC hardware. They want to sell you the general stuff themselves. What they *do* want is a healthcare oriented shop that is going to crack the tablet market for doctors for them. They want somebody who is going to make gargantuan, massively parallel systems with an overhead structure that can sell those systems at a profit. They want a hundred licensees that each can tweak what they're used to and license OS X while giving Apple a fat check.
That's the real game that's afoot. Everything else will be unsupported and aggressively unsupported at that.
They did that sort of OS license deal with independent manufacturers already and it bled Apple dry. If Apple ever does go in that direction again, it'll be done very differently. It's likely that they'll be getting a deal where Apple is compensated a great deal more for its IP than during the previous round of clones, making the only viable model, something innovative like a tablet mac or some other form factor which Apple can't make a profit on because they have some sort of inability to either sell to that small a niche or their culture just can't handle the verticals that need that type of machine. Big players probably won't do the deal.
Actually, it's not freeloading because Apple has provided a large number of patches to existing projects like KHTML from the work they did on Safari and they have contributed entirely new projects to the OSS ecosphere. That's what a healthy symbiosis with a corporate partner looks like, Mr. Cranky.
It's highly unlikely that Apple will actually sell Mac OS X on j random piece of shite stuff. You'll be able to buy the OS, stick the disk in, and when you run into trouble, Apple will refer you to one of their growing line of certified consultancy partners to sort it out because it's unsupported hardware. Applecare won't cover uncertified hardware either.
The point is that we're not supposed to expect that Mac OS X will have a wide variety of hardware support. The price difference in most instances will be low enough that it's worth it to spend the extra hundred or two and buy from Apple.
I have a hunch that Steve Jobs knows. Apple goes to Intel during the 2006-2007 time frame because of their low power consumption chips out there on their roadmap. Now Intel is launching low power consumption chips. I would be shocked if Apple didn't have access to early chips as a condition for switching architectures.
There are feature flags that the chip reports when queried. The code should check if a code extension is present. If the chip reports that it's there, then the optimized path should be used. No "brand check" should determine code paths.
It's very simple. If I were a programmer buying Intel compilers (I mostly do administrator work) would I have been reasonably led astray by their advertising to think that what Intel was selling was an X86 compiler that didn't play favorites? There's an enormous class action waiting out there for programmers who thought they were getting something (an honest x86 compiler) but werent and had to deal with user complaints from customers who suffered. There's a similar end user class action just waiting for an enterprising lawyer to set up.
End users and programmers have no interest in supporting Intel processor dominance but were tricked into that by Intel's underhanded dealing.
You can wipe out the negative mark yourself by disputing it and noting that a judgment has been entered against the company for falsely blackening your credit score. The $1000 is a bonus above that for your troubles.
Slashdot Mirror
The big mover that has guaranteed that we'll get IPv6 by the end of the decade is that the US Army unilaterally decreed that anybody who wants to bid on IP provisioning contracts with them has to provide IPv6 in the 2009-2011 timeframe or they'll no longer get the business. In a segmented Internet, IPv6 would get deployed nationally as each nation gets its own big user that forced the ISPs to spend the money to deploy. This means that we'd have a much slower rate of deployment and having to deal with packet translation from 6-to-4 and back much longer than we will have with global Internet.
This would be a bad thing, a very bad thing.
At the end of the day, everybody's connected to everybody else's networks. So why is the EU looking to fork the Internet and make that connectivity harder? What's the benefit, other than pissing off the US? Is "piss off the US" to be added as an Internet goal?
The oil for food estimated diversions go as high as $20+B. I think 2-3B is just what they've got the full paperwork on. The investigation is ongoing.
The oil for food kickbacks went, in large measure, into buying up the support of member governments on the Security Council. Sure, they were going to cut off their own illegal funds. Right.
Up to now, the US has behaved well with regard to the DNS system. We don't fool around with North Korea's IP blocks, etc. even if we don't like them. What the "reformers" want to do is to take a proven system that's already working and create a politically mandated fork in the Internet absent any actual reason other than they don't like the historical accident that the US figured this stuff out and supported it until everybody found the network agreements useful and signed on to it.
It isn't that simple because an awful lot of very useful bodies are now part of the UN. If the US were to withdraw, it would need to extract the useful bits out of the UN, like the ITU, and take them to an alternate, more functional body.
If you think that France, the UK, or Germany does not put similar conditions on its aid, you're in for a rude awakening. The system exists. It's a bit rich to complain only at some of the players in that system.
Hmm... The Kossovo mission... How did those UN people get into Kossovo anyway? Could it be they walked in after US flag forces cleared the way for them? The US funds an awful lot of those Bangledeshi troops and they run their military forces under their own flag in a great many UN coordinated operations. By your method of counting, we didn't have anything to do with Tsunami relief either after the massive Indian Ocean wave.
The US runs its military operations under its own flag instead of UN command because we like to get our soldiers back alive and we like to be effective when we send them out. Blue helmet combat rules are awful and lead to bunkered up, tiny, blue helmeted forces watching as bad actors act with impunity. The US wants no part of the shame so we keep out of the UN command structure.
The fundamental problem is that the UN has a huge for sale sign on it and you simply cannot trust that policy will not be sold to the highest bidder. The oil for palaces scandal isn't even cool yet and the UN thinks that it has some sort of moral voice?
I can see some sort of international consortium running the root server system if you could trust that the censor queens would not have a voice in it. The UN is not that body. The UN will never be that body.
Oh why not feed the trolls. France is a very new country. It's Constitution post dates WW II. Germany isn't much older. As far as countries go, the US is actually one of the older ones. Now if you want to talk about nations...
Essentially, the UN countries committing to this course have decided to fork the Internet by issuing new nameservers. They cannot force the US to release the IPs of the current root servers. They're in exactly the same boat that every other alternative root servers has ever been in. They have to get everybody to start using their roots instead of the traditional ones. Manufacturers of hardware and software who preset the current roots are going to have to spend money making new versions, some with one set of roots preset, some with another, or the end user is going to have to get used to doing it himself.
This is a great deal of pain spread out over the entire Internet community. What is the gain, pray tell?
If there is a problem with indie producers not getting paid, it seems to me that there needs to be an indie business model revamp so that producers don't have that problem. There also needs to be an increase in the number of producers, maybe by working with foreign talent?
I don't buy the idea of production plants being effective at refusing business because of under the table payments. There are an awful lot of people who professionally produce disks who don't normally deal in the music market. It's a cutthroat business and they'd love to have yours. The major music plants know that they are vulnerable to new entrants and can't afford to attract new competitors into their market.
While shelf space is expensive, kiosks that can burn 1,000,000 otherwise uncarried indie tunes and pop out the appropriate liner notes are a pretty good bet if the label lawyers don't have anything to say about how the kiosks are run. It's a way of getting the long tail into the stores. And if the record stores won't carry them, the book stores, the coffee shops, and the convenience stores will. Distribution doesn't have to be through the same old tired channels.
Actually, I don't believe that any artist pays for bandwidtth, nor do the record companies. Apple pays for it and takes all the risk on its shoulders. The cost of the good is not zero, though. There is a small cost attached to transferring the tune to the iTMS. The gross margin is therefore something less than 100%, call it 99.975%.
Nuclear power is more expensive than renewables because the regulatory regime it operates under *makes it* more expensive. If you could cut out the political red tape and strictly enforce the engineering red tape (inspections and otherwise verifying the work's done right), you'd end up with much cheaper plants that were much safer.
Actually lunar/orbital solar is an option but you've got to drop launch costs by a factor of 100 before we get there. If we ever get a space elevator up, that's exactly the effect it'll have on launch costs. You beam power down via microwaves and convert the resulting power to hydrogen as a useful middleware solution.
If you use Fischer-Tropsch methods, you go straight to diesel for about $1/gal. What's the point of methanol if it's using the same feedstock and is more expensive?
Since reproduction rates are crashing all over the world, we're not going to be overpopulated anyway. The developed world is largely below replacement rate right now and the developing world is falling in right behind us. It's quite likely that depopulation is going to be a big problem in the next few decades. It's already showing up in the US Plains and in Europe.
The quality will reach Apple's standards because Apple will continue to cherry pick the best, picking winners and upgrading the code of projects like KHTML and giving back their changes while they repackage for the OS X platform.
Apple doesn't want to be on general PC hardware. They want to sell you the general stuff themselves. What they *do* want is a healthcare oriented shop that is going to crack the tablet market for doctors for them. They want somebody who is going to make gargantuan, massively parallel systems with an overhead structure that can sell those systems at a profit. They want a hundred licensees that each can tweak what they're used to and license OS X while giving Apple a fat check.
That's the real game that's afoot. Everything else will be unsupported and aggressively unsupported at that.
They did that sort of OS license deal with independent manufacturers already and it bled Apple dry. If Apple ever does go in that direction again, it'll be done very differently. It's likely that they'll be getting a deal where Apple is compensated a great deal more for its IP than during the previous round of clones, making the only viable model, something innovative like a tablet mac or some other form factor which Apple can't make a profit on because they have some sort of inability to either sell to that small a niche or their culture just can't handle the verticals that need that type of machine. Big players probably won't do the deal.
Actually, it's not freeloading because Apple has provided a large number of patches to existing projects like KHTML from the work they did on Safari and they have contributed entirely new projects to the OSS ecosphere. That's what a healthy symbiosis with a corporate partner looks like, Mr. Cranky.
Point taken but your examples don't quite work. Apple does, in fact, sell the OS separately.
It's highly unlikely that Apple will actually sell Mac OS X on j random piece of shite stuff. You'll be able to buy the OS, stick the disk in, and when you run into trouble, Apple will refer you to one of their growing line of certified consultancy partners to sort it out because it's unsupported hardware. Applecare won't cover uncertified hardware either.
The point is that we're not supposed to expect that Mac OS X will have a wide variety of hardware support. The price difference in most instances will be low enough that it's worth it to spend the extra hundred or two and buy from Apple.
I have a hunch that Steve Jobs knows. Apple goes to Intel during the 2006-2007 time frame because of their low power consumption chips out there on their roadmap. Now Intel is launching low power consumption chips. I would be shocked if Apple didn't have access to early chips as a condition for switching architectures.
There are feature flags that the chip reports when queried. The code should check if a code extension is present. If the chip reports that it's there, then the optimized path should be used. No "brand check" should determine code paths.
It's very simple. If I were a programmer buying Intel compilers (I mostly do administrator work) would I have been reasonably led astray by their advertising to think that what Intel was selling was an X86 compiler that didn't play favorites? There's an enormous class action waiting out there for programmers who thought they were getting something (an honest x86 compiler) but werent and had to deal with user complaints from customers who suffered. There's a similar end user class action just waiting for an enterprising lawyer to set up.
End users and programmers have no interest in supporting Intel processor dominance but were tricked into that by Intel's underhanded dealing.
You can wipe out the negative mark yourself by disputing it and noting that a judgment has been entered against the company for falsely blackening your credit score. The $1000 is a bonus above that for your troubles.