He certainly tries to influence things the way he learned how to, however I don't think he's having that much success. Here's an excellent article on how Murdoch got Myspace wrong for example.
The BBC has a pretty good web presence. I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch. Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.
In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.
Thanks for that link. I for one knew about Naomi Oreskes' work as a historian of science, however I didn't know the specifics. I'm 16 minutes in and already I've learned that Lyndon B Johnson not only knew that the carbon dioxide composition of the atmosphere is changing, that we're responsible and that could cause AGW, but publicly said so in 1965:
This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
I'd suggest to any climate change denial to watch the video.
There should be no panel to investigate stuff, as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3's document (that is not about the science basis for AGW).
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs. What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.
I for one, if I can't download it from a torrent site, then I won't buy it. First, because gaming reviews are mostly useless, second because I don't want DRM.
Assassin's Creed 2 can be the best "game" of the decade, but it's not if it has intrusive DRM. Then it's just a waste of money.
Good for you. It is slightly annoying to read these kinds of statements though. The problem obviously doesn't affect 100% of the users, or even 50%, 20% or 10%. If it would, it would have been detected somewhere back in alpha stages.
It is absolutely silly to reply to a problem the user has with "but it works for me!". Most bugs are bugs because they do not affect all users! They occur rarely enough so that it wasn't caught before, but often enough to be a real pain in the ass. It is unhelpful to state that it works for you unless you know this to be a user created problem and can point out what the user could have done wrong.
I guess the NYT needs to attach a disclaimer to the story, because whenever a journalist tries to interview a "hacker" I can't decide to laugh or cry. Something like this would do nicely:
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
There are a lot of things that are "already possible", that are made "easier". It is known as the difficulty of a problem. I don't want to build a terrorism strawman so here is another analogy: It is already possible to perform voting fraud without electronic voting machines. All you need to do is gather your closest 100,000 conspirators and rig the counting process. Introducing a centralized software that you conveniently and mostly undetectably can modify just makes it easier.
The fact is, making some things easier make things more probable and skews "cost - benefit" comparisons towards actually doing the thing. The example you use would require a WoW account and would be limited to a few people tops. The new changes can easily allow monitoring of tens of thousands of accounts from a single ip, with a few lines of Perl.
128? The legacy address space is 57/8s, and at least 25 of that by my count is already "reclaimed" or reserved for some purpose. A good chunk of the remaining 22/8s is in use, so let's say we can get half of that reclaimed in the ideal case. That's 11/8s. We used up 13/8s last year, so it'd last us 10 months. It would take longer to reclaim that space than it would help us pushing out the due date of IPv4 exhaustion.
When IPv4 addresses were first being handed out, they were given at a rate of 5-10 Class A's a week.
Um, this is basic math. If we would have been giving out 5-10/8s per week, we would have exhausted the complete range of addresses in less than a year. I don't think that happened back in the 90s.
Note, the statement that I made and the statement about the model by the author almost a year ago, is not contradictory. I wouldn't disagree that the uncertainty is years, as there is a small chance of a more than few months' worth of swing.
Ok, let's say your former employer would have agreed. How would he assign the addresses to the buyer? How would he claim the money for the financial transaction without pissing off the $government of the country?
Reclaiming all the legacy IP addresses would buy us 6 months tops. So we delayed the problem by 6 months, during which we would be fucking up the DoD, IBM and a handful of other companies, I'm sure it'd be worth it, it's not like the military would be fighting somewhere and they could pull off a massive networking restructure in less than a year for the 8/8s they're holding on to.
It's also the point at which the market for IP addresses opens, and companies start selling subnets.
No. Repeat after me, there is no market in IPv4 addresses. The current rule is that when a RIR requests a block from IANA that would bring the IANA pool below 5/8s, then every RIR gets one last/8 from the "final five". Then IANA is done and the RIRs have whatever addresses they have left in their unused pool. For AfrNIC it'll last decades, for APNIC/ARIN it's curtains in about a year.
There is no market in IPv4. There never will be, because reclaiming addresses is too hard and routing can't handle it atm (routing too small blocks). Let's switch to IPv6 already, for fuck's sake, we'll have to do that anyway even if a miracle happens, technical problems get worked out and someone sets up an IPv4 market, about 6 months after.
No, this sums it up. If you'd bother to read this or an estimation done by someone else, then you'd know that the uncertainty is less than 3 months with high confidence. Of course the 625 days thing is bullshit, but saying 1.5 years +-3 months is probably what will happen, unless something really major changes don't start happening in the IPv4 process, which I wouldn't say is too likely based on the fact that it would require immediate global cooperation (see how well that went in Copenhagen).
Way to summarize a few decades' worth of work by hundreds of scientists. If that's your standard of proof, then I assume you wake up every morning and start your computing project with 2 tons of sand, because you just can't trust the hardware and software makers. I see that you're posting, so you must be really smart and hardworking too...
Slashdot Mirror
He certainly tries to influence things the way he learned how to, however I don't think he's having that much success. Here's an excellent article on how Murdoch got Myspace wrong for example.
The BBC has a pretty good web presence. I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch. Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.
In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.
I'd suggest to any climate change denial to watch the video.
There should be no panel to investigate stuff, as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3's document (that is not about the science basis for AGW).
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs. What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.
I for one, if I can't download it from a torrent site, then I won't buy it. First, because gaming reviews are mostly useless, second because I don't want DRM.
Assassin's Creed 2 can be the best "game" of the decade, but it's not if it has intrusive DRM. Then it's just a waste of money.
Not really. Most releasers take pride in their work and for the rest, there is always infoservers that quickly get rid of bad versions.
It's Windows. It might be a bug.
If it is filesystem cache, then it's not wasted or "maxed out". If it is application/system memory, then it is indeed a problem.
...is the superior one. If you care about quality, choose your favourite release group!
There is actually a parliament channel? Never knew. I find BBC Democracy Live to be more convenient anyway.
Good for you. It is slightly annoying to read these kinds of statements though. The problem obviously doesn't affect 100% of the users, or even 50%, 20% or 10%. If it would, it would have been detected somewhere back in alpha stages.
It is absolutely silly to reply to a problem the user has with "but it works for me!". Most bugs are bugs because they do not affect all users! They occur rarely enough so that it wasn't caught before, but often enough to be a real pain in the ass. It is unhelpful to state that it works for you unless you know this to be a user created problem and can point out what the user could have done wrong.
I guess the NYT needs to attach a disclaimer to the story, because whenever a journalist tries to interview a "hacker" I can't decide to laugh or cry. Something like this would do nicely:
As long as the Daily Mail is the only source for that, hell yeah!
There are a lot of things that are "already possible", that are made "easier". It is known as the difficulty of a problem. I don't want to build a terrorism strawman so here is another analogy: It is already possible to perform voting fraud without electronic voting machines. All you need to do is gather your closest 100,000 conspirators and rig the counting process. Introducing a centralized software that you conveniently and mostly undetectably can modify just makes it easier.
The fact is, making some things easier make things more probable and skews "cost - benefit" comparisons towards actually doing the thing. The example you use would require a WoW account and would be limited to a few people tops. The new changes can easily allow monitoring of tens of thousands of accounts from a single ip, with a few lines of Perl.
Mass Effect um, probably holds mass appeal. With the masses. It's going to be massive! And the sex scenes, oh my, some nerds are going to go to mas...
Um, this is basic math. If we would have been giving out 5-10 /8s per week, we would have exhausted the complete range of addresses in less than a year. I don't think that happened back in the 90s.
Note, the statement that I made and the statement about the model by the author almost a year ago, is not contradictory. I wouldn't disagree that the uncertainty is years, as there is a small chance of a more than few months' worth of swing.
Ok, let's say your former employer would have agreed. How would he assign the addresses to the buyer? How would he claim the money for the financial transaction without pissing off the $government of the country?
[citation needed]
Reclaiming all the legacy IP addresses would buy us 6 months tops. So we delayed the problem by 6 months, during which we would be fucking up the DoD, IBM and a handful of other companies, I'm sure it'd be worth it, it's not like the military would be fighting somewhere and they could pull off a massive networking restructure in less than a year for the 8 /8s they're holding on to.
No. Repeat after me, there is no market in IPv4 addresses. The current rule is that when a RIR requests a block from IANA that would bring the IANA pool below 5 /8s, then every RIR gets one last /8 from the "final five". Then IANA is done and the RIRs have whatever addresses they have left in their unused pool. For AfrNIC it'll last decades, for APNIC/ARIN it's curtains in about a year.
There is no market in IPv4. There never will be, because reclaiming addresses is too hard and routing can't handle it atm (routing too small blocks). Let's switch to IPv6 already, for fuck's sake, we'll have to do that anyway even if a miracle happens, technical problems get worked out and someone sets up an IPv4 market, about 6 months after.
Fuck, how did you know it was me?!
No, this sums it up. If you'd bother to read this or an estimation done by someone else, then you'd know that the uncertainty is less than 3 months with high confidence. Of course the 625 days thing is bullshit, but saying 1.5 years +-3 months is probably what will happen, unless something really major changes don't start happening in the IPv4 process, which I wouldn't say is too likely based on the fact that it would require immediate global cooperation (see how well that went in Copenhagen).
Old programmers don't die, they just use an exploit to induce an overflow in the "time left to live" counter that runs the Reaper's scheduler.
Way to summarize a few decades' worth of work by hundreds of scientists. If that's your standard of proof, then I assume you wake up every morning and start your computing project with 2 tons of sand, because you just can't trust the hardware and software makers. I see that you're posting, so you must be really smart and hardworking too...