If it could have used UV instead of infrared, we could have energy-generating sunscreen!
Already exists. You can make electricity from the sun with titanium dioxide, probably the most common component of sunscreen. Alas, not very much power so far. Some researchers are hoping to improve that.
Did those massive amounts of land get devastated because the population in your area went up massively? Most likely not, more likely it was devastated because approximately the same amount of people wanted more resources.
Not that there is anything wrong with WANTING more resources. That is completely natural. The problem is that we as a species let people, including myself of course, GET what they want.
World population is growing at around 1.1% a year right now. If we cannot figure out how to make our farms 1.1% better each year, we deserve to die out.
You are safe from overpopulation in the developed world, but it is still a major problem for the billions in the developing world.
Try actually comparing population density though. Look at Congo, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia... Some of them could add an order of magnitude and still not be particularly densely populated.
Sure, they could have allowed him to use it, just this once.... and the dude selling candy would have been okay as well. Oh, sure, the granny selling her knitting with a similar logo... who cares...
Note that the problem only happens if they IGNORE it, not if they explicitly ALLOW it. If they explicitly tell the author that his use is allowed under such and such conditions, and perhaps even him to add "Jack Daniels likeness used by explicit written permission of Jack Daniels, inc.", no one can use that to prove that Jack Daniels does not defend its trademark.
You can do approximately the same thing if you're worried that you'll lose a right or a possession because of squatting. Give whoever it is explicit permission to do what they're doing, but put reasonable conditions on it and perhaps a time limit. This does not work in all jurisdictions, but it can save a lot of effort and money compared to a lawsuit or getting police involved.
USB sticks generally have horrible controllers which once in a while take a meditative break for a second or 5. If you are the type who enjoys occasional time-outs from your work, you will love it. However, you get about the same effect from not upgrading your RAM in the first place.
There are quality USB sticks with decent controllers, of course, and with proper OS support they apparently work quite well, but they're generally expensive.
I think that having one drivetrain (fully electric) with range extension through a traditional ICE is a better model than the "synergistic" model that is much more complicated.
Serial hybrids are not very efficient. They are fine if you use the ICE as a range extender, but if you need the ICE for everyday driving like on most current hybrids, they are not an option. Also, if you happen to have a powerful electric motor (well ok, two electric motors), you can easily make an efficient continuous variable transmission.
Once we get perhaps 200km range on pure electric from hybrids, I am sure that it will be much more common to make them serial.
Most common IPv6 implementations use privacy addresses by default, generating a new address every so often. This is of course useless, because the/64 is enough identification anyway and corresponds perfectly to the single public IP address you used to get with IPv4. NAT only hides which particular machine you are using within the subnet. When is that useful? If you're worried about the police, they will just grab every computer in the house to search for evidence if they can't pin it on a specific one. If you're worried about what you're doing being used against you somehow, again, getting the right house is generally enough for the bad guys. Both are legitimate concerns but IPv4 and IPv6 are equally bad. You can use Tor or VPN for a bit of real protection.
This bit:
with IPv6 firewalls on every machine become essential again
makes no sense and you do not even attempt to justify it, preferring instead to rant about how the IPv6 team is taking away your right to keep and bear NAT.
Exactly. The NAT router allows traffic from the outside to e.g. 192.168.1.0/24 or whatever the LAN is; firewalling is disabled. It is a surprisingly common misconfiguration. It is harmless as long as the upstream router is secure.
Those who accidentally use only NAT but no firewalling don't know they have a problem; tests and security scans will make them believe that everything is fine. Without NAT, they would likely discover their problem and fix it.
Not that firewalls are doing much good anymore. The days when you could root any random Windows box are over. Hosts are getting very good at protecting themselves, leaving printers as the only vulnerable device in many networks. Network printers in small installations should probably not be given a real IPv6 address anyway, link local + bonjour/zeroconf is perfect for them.
We can't really start deploying v6 only stuff until most of the internet has moved to dual stack
I used to think that, but not anymore. IPv6 only + some variant of NAT64 is likely to become more common than dual stack in just a couple of years. Particularly for 3G/4G services where you can do an IPv4 NAT'ed APN for legacy devices and give all the new stuff full IPv6 + NAT64.
For servers, I expect the same thing in reverse: they will go all-IPv6 with a load-balancer in front doing the translation from IPv4. That design frees you to build your network just the way you want without the addressing constraints of IPv4, and if you change things, all you need to do is update the load-balancer.
NAT acted as a pseudo-firewall because you had to explicitly forward to your box.. rather than the IPv6 approach of having to explicitly block.
This only works if the attacker cannot send packets to the internal addresses, which is a dangerous assumption. I have seen several firewalls where only NAT was keeping them from being fully open. Standard security scans won't show anything wrong, but any attacker who can get onto the outside network has complete access to the inside. Suddenly your outside modem and/or router become your security perimeter, and they often fail miserably at that task.
If 65k networks per organization turns out to be a large problem, we can move out of 2000::/3 and change the subnet size to something smaller than/64. Everyone has pretty much decided that having a deterministic non-stateful auto-assigned IP address is undesirable instead of the advantage it was thought to be, and if you give up on any one of those three properties,/96 is plenty.
I doubt it will be a problem in practice. Most organizations fit nicely in IPv4 10/8 with/24 subnets. I've worked for companies where 10/8 was a restraint, but those all had AS numbers and would have no problem acquiring a/32. 2^32 subnets ought to be enough for everyone...
Personally I believe IPv6 should have been designed for better support for/127 or/128 point-to-point-links to end hosts instead. Right now we are emulating broadcast domains over point-to-point ethernet using switches, and then with IPv6 trying to split those into multicast portions. Any switch powerful enough to do multicast (MLD) snooping is powerful enough to run proper routing anyway.
Having full routing to every host would enable many cool inventions, like keeping the same IP address on both wired and Wifi.
Nobody sane grows legumes without crop rotation. Like I said. And if you knew what you were talking about, you would also know that until fertilizer appeared, soil was overall nitrogen deficient compared to what is needed for optimal production. If your aim is to produce wheat, it makes no sense to grow peas every other year just to make the wheat production optimal in the other years. It is better to have 2 out of 3 years with decent production rather than 1 out of 2 years with excellent production. Soil that is nitrogen deficient obviously does not suddenly start leaking massive amounts of nitrogen just because you grow legumes for one year.
All this is completely unsurprising. It is also unsurprising that there are few studies of nitrogen pollution from legumes, since the areas covered by legumes are so small compared to the areas with maize or wheat. It is a non-problem today.
Once EVERY crop becomes nitrogen-fixating, this sunny state of affairs will be over.
I hadn't heard the word "legume" before, and I was not diligent enough in my quick Googling. The correct flame would be "peas ARE legumes". Fail again. And really, "its" and "grammer" in a grammar flame. Hilarious.
Anyway, see e.g. Environmental effects of ecological agriculture, particularly this bit: "The remaining system may be classified as a type of ecological farming, but not typical: On half of the area nitrogen-fixating crops are grown, and no catch-crops are grown. Consequently, this is a kind of ecological farming with extraordinary large risks of nitrate leaching. The study showes that this system has about the same nitrate leaching as normal conventional arable systems."
Yes, it's stupid to grow a nitrogen-fixating crop in such high rotation. Yet that is exactly the proposal offered by the genetically modified nitrogen-fixating crops -- just grow those and never need to fertilize. All lovely and natural and harmless.
Only a completely backwards place would be unable to provide something like 100A 240V single-phase or 32A 240V three-phase. Yes that is only 24kW, so it will still take hours to charge cars with decent batteries, but it should be enough for more than an hour of driving per hour of charging. And yes some people will need a new main panel, and likely new wiring from the main panel to the charging point, but it will cost way less than $10k.
Slashdot Mirror
If it could have used UV instead of infrared, we could have energy-generating sunscreen!
Already exists. You can make electricity from the sun with titanium dioxide, probably the most common component of sunscreen. Alas, not very much power so far. Some researchers are hoping to improve that.
Did those massive amounts of land get devastated because the population in your area went up massively? Most likely not, more likely it was devastated because approximately the same amount of people wanted more resources.
Not that there is anything wrong with WANTING more resources. That is completely natural. The problem is that we as a species let people, including myself of course, GET what they want.
The birthrate is practically there already. Growth of 1.1% a year is so close to stagnant that it really isn't worth worrying about.
Unfortunately resource consumption per capita is rising way faster than 1.1%. That is what we need to fix, not the imaginary population problem.
World population is growing at around 1.1% a year right now. If we cannot figure out how to make our farms 1.1% better each year, we deserve to die out.
Wars and disease are lousy at controlling population. Birth rates jump right up afterwards.
And no one needs to starve, there is plenty of land left which isn't being efficiently farmed.
You are safe from overpopulation in the developed world, but it is still a major problem for the billions in the developing world.
Try actually comparing population density though. Look at Congo, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia... Some of them could add an order of magnitude and still not be particularly densely populated.
First off, working 80 hours nets you 100 hours of pay via overtime.
Only if the 80 hours are on the same job.
Sure, they could have allowed him to use it, just this once.... and the dude selling candy would have been okay as well. Oh, sure, the granny selling her knitting with a similar logo... who cares...
Note that the problem only happens if they IGNORE it, not if they explicitly ALLOW it. If they explicitly tell the author that his use is allowed under such and such conditions, and perhaps even him to add "Jack Daniels likeness used by explicit written permission of Jack Daniels, inc.", no one can use that to prove that Jack Daniels does not defend its trademark.
You can do approximately the same thing if you're worried that you'll lose a right or a possession because of squatting. Give whoever it is explicit permission to do what they're doing, but put reasonable conditions on it and perhaps a time limit. This does not work in all jurisdictions, but it can save a lot of effort and money compared to a lawsuit or getting police involved.
USB3 did not solve this problem. It just increased the bandwidth.
The standard USB3 controller interface supports DMA. It is actually a relatively decent interface, unlike the horrors of its predecessors.
USB sticks generally have horrible controllers which once in a while take a meditative break for a second or 5. If you are the type who enjoys occasional time-outs from your work, you will love it. However, you get about the same effect from not upgrading your RAM in the first place.
There are quality USB sticks with decent controllers, of course, and with proper OS support they apparently work quite well, but they're generally expensive.
But who? They're all assholes when it comes to updates, except Apple who are assholes in numerous other ways.
I think that having one drivetrain (fully electric) with range extension through a traditional ICE is a better model than the "synergistic" model that is much more complicated.
Serial hybrids are not very efficient. They are fine if you use the ICE as a range extender, but if you need the ICE for everyday driving like on most current hybrids, they are not an option. Also, if you happen to have a powerful electric motor (well ok, two electric motors), you can easily make an efficient continuous variable transmission.
Once we get perhaps 200km range on pure electric from hybrids, I am sure that it will be much more common to make them serial.
Mg, not MG.
Sorry, but everything you say is wrong.
Most common IPv6 implementations use privacy addresses by default, generating a new address every so often. This is of course useless, because the /64 is enough identification anyway and corresponds perfectly to the single public IP address you used to get with IPv4. NAT only hides which particular machine you are using within the subnet. When is that useful? If you're worried about the police, they will just grab every computer in the house to search for evidence if they can't pin it on a specific one. If you're worried about what you're doing being used against you somehow, again, getting the right house is generally enough for the bad guys. Both are legitimate concerns but IPv4 and IPv6 are equally bad. You can use Tor or VPN for a bit of real protection.
This bit:
with IPv6 firewalls on every machine become essential again
makes no sense and you do not even attempt to justify it, preferring instead to rant about how the IPv6 team is taking away your right to keep and bear NAT.
Exactly. The NAT router allows traffic from the outside to e.g. 192.168.1.0/24 or whatever the LAN is; firewalling is disabled. It is a surprisingly common misconfiguration. It is harmless as long as the upstream router is secure.
Please, silicon not silicone.
Those who accidentally use only NAT but no firewalling don't know they have a problem; tests and security scans will make them believe that everything is fine. Without NAT, they would likely discover their problem and fix it.
Not that firewalls are doing much good anymore. The days when you could root any random Windows box are over. Hosts are getting very good at protecting themselves, leaving printers as the only vulnerable device in many networks. Network printers in small installations should probably not be given a real IPv6 address anyway, link local + bonjour/zeroconf is perfect for them.
We can't really start deploying v6 only stuff until most of the internet has moved to dual stack
I used to think that, but not anymore. IPv6 only + some variant of NAT64 is likely to become more common than dual stack in just a couple of years. Particularly for 3G/4G services where you can do an IPv4 NAT'ed APN for legacy devices and give all the new stuff full IPv6 + NAT64.
For servers, I expect the same thing in reverse: they will go all-IPv6 with a load-balancer in front doing the translation from IPv4. That design frees you to build your network just the way you want without the addressing constraints of IPv4, and if you change things, all you need to do is update the load-balancer.
If your router is set to drop all incoming connection requests, port scanners will never find your machines
This is true whether you NAT or not. It is completely independent of NAT.
NAT acted as a pseudo-firewall because you had to explicitly forward to your box .. rather than the IPv6 approach of having to explicitly block.
This only works if the attacker cannot send packets to the internal addresses, which is a dangerous assumption. I have seen several firewalls where only NAT was keeping them from being fully open. Standard security scans won't show anything wrong, but any attacker who can get onto the outside network has complete access to the inside. Suddenly your outside modem and/or router become your security perimeter, and they often fail miserably at that task.
If 65k networks per organization turns out to be a large problem, we can move out of 2000::/3 and change the subnet size to something smaller than /64. Everyone has pretty much decided that having a deterministic non-stateful auto-assigned IP address is undesirable instead of the advantage it was thought to be, and if you give up on any one of those three properties, /96 is plenty.
I doubt it will be a problem in practice. Most organizations fit nicely in IPv4 10/8 with /24 subnets. I've worked for companies where 10/8 was a restraint, but those all had AS numbers and would have no problem acquiring a /32. 2^32 subnets ought to be enough for everyone...
Personally I believe IPv6 should have been designed for better support for /127 or /128 point-to-point-links to end hosts instead. Right now we are emulating broadcast domains over point-to-point ethernet using switches, and then with IPv6 trying to split those into multicast portions. Any switch powerful enough to do multicast (MLD) snooping is powerful enough to run proper routing anyway.
Having full routing to every host would enable many cool inventions, like keeping the same IP address on both wired and Wifi.
Nobody sane grows legumes without crop rotation. Like I said. And if you knew what you were talking about, you would also know that until fertilizer appeared, soil was overall nitrogen deficient compared to what is needed for optimal production. If your aim is to produce wheat, it makes no sense to grow peas every other year just to make the wheat production optimal in the other years. It is better to have 2 out of 3 years with decent production rather than 1 out of 2 years with excellent production. Soil that is nitrogen deficient obviously does not suddenly start leaking massive amounts of nitrogen just because you grow legumes for one year.
All this is completely unsurprising. It is also unsurprising that there are few studies of nitrogen pollution from legumes, since the areas covered by legumes are so small compared to the areas with maize or wheat. It is a non-problem today.
Once EVERY crop becomes nitrogen-fixating, this sunny state of affairs will be over.
Environmental effects of ecological agriculture
I hadn't heard the word "legume" before, and I was not diligent enough in my quick Googling. The correct flame would be "peas ARE legumes". Fail again. And really, "its" and "grammer" in a grammar flame. Hilarious.
Anyway, see e.g. Environmental effects of ecological agriculture, particularly this bit: "The remaining system may be classified as a type of ecological farming, but not typical: On half of the area nitrogen-fixating crops are grown, and no catch-crops are grown. Consequently, this is a kind of ecological farming with extraordinary large risks of nitrate leaching. The study showes that this system has about the same nitrate leaching as normal conventional arable systems."
Yes, it's stupid to grow a nitrogen-fixating crop in such high rotation. Yet that is exactly the proposal offered by the genetically modified nitrogen-fixating crops -- just grow those and never need to fertilize. All lovely and natural and harmless.
Only a completely backwards place would be unable to provide something like 100A 240V single-phase or 32A 240V three-phase. Yes that is only 24kW, so it will still take hours to charge cars with decent batteries, but it should be enough for more than an hour of driving per hour of charging. And yes some people will need a new main panel, and likely new wiring from the main panel to the charging point, but it will cost way less than $10k.