...another financial crisis. Because that's the reason there was a slump in allocation rates. The current best projection for IANA pool exhaustion is Sep/Oct 2011. Without the financial crisis that would have been end of 2010. The IANA guys would have been dead on, if not for a once in a 100 years financial event.
The tone of the submission is really silly. There wasn't 4.3B allocatable addresses in the first place. Out of the 256 "/8s" only 219.914/8 is theoretically usable, even before subtracting the legacy allocations. The summary makes it sound like it was a doom-and-gloom prediction that didn't happen to be true, but that's not the case.
Also, it's "not the next 2 or 3 years", based on the available number of addresses 1.5 years for the IANA pool and 2,5 years are hard bars until RIRs (regional internet registries) run out.
I know, I've been asked if I'm feeling okay by colleagues when seemingly all I did was to stare into the empty space, at the window or someplace else. In reality, I was working more efficiently than most of them, preferring to think about a problem before I try to implement a solution for it. Probably 90% of the work I do is designing a good architecture, making sure it's fast, scalable, robust, flexible and maintainable enough. This requires weighting dozens of different factors and thinking about a lot of "action at a distance" kind of problems.
I love my job. I would do it even if I wouldn't receive financial compensation for it. One drawback is that you can't really work office hours with it, it's hard to switch off iterating a problem in the back of your mind (resulting in several House-esque moments of some totally unrelated thing reminding me to a neat concept that helps me implement an elegant solution).
I guess the point is, different people work differently. Yeah, if someone's browsing for porn or looking at bash.org, they are probably not doing anything useful, but taking a break or if someone looks like he's idling, it's not always the case that they are not doing anything productive.
Fantastic methodology there! We won't actually study the person, we'll just ask them! What an awesome popularity contest.
They didn't just merely ask them, they asked identical twins and used the twins as controls of what the other had said. What they basically determined is that for a phenomena that is supposed to be a sensory experience - an orgasm inducing spot - the identical twins couldn't agree (from the cases where both of them said they have a g-spot) where that spot actually is, supporting the notion that it doesn't exist in the first place.
This $1 Billion number being thrown around is a PR number. I'd guess Monty's gotten 10's of thousands of dollars for closing the deal. Other than that his payout won't come.
"Due to selling MySQL to Sun, Widenius earned about 16.6 million EUR in capital gains in 2008 (16.8 million EUR total income), making the top 10 of highest earners in Finland that year. (wp)"
16.6M EUR is a tad more than tens of thousands of dollars.
Rights are something that it is harder to take away than to add.
You've got to be fucking kidding with me. Do I really need to point out how easy is it to lose hard-fought rights?
How many more freedoms do we have now that Obama is president? Zero.
You didn't read my original post carefully enough. I intended to convey that Obama is not a messiah which can restore things to a pre-Bush era. Closing gitmo, restructuring DHS and the defense policy of the USA takes time. In some ways nasty compromises are made, like the Telco Immunity bill.
How many freedoms have been taken away? Lets see here... Obama wants to eliminate economic freedom of choice in the health care plan (I should have the right to choose my health care plan, be it an expensive plan, or I also have the right to have no health care)
You also have a right not to pay taxes, so the next time you need police assistance you'll just write a $6,000 cheque. Oh wait, no. Healthcare doesn't just concern you. It concerns others, if you don't get cured of an infectious disease and when they have to pick up the medical bills of your emergency care after you couldn't afford cancer treatment and spent the medical insurance money on hookers and blow. You are of course, free to choose a more expensive plan, but a basic one is mandatory for these reasons.
eliminate various freedoms when traveling
What are you referring to? Source?
and now this and other stories which seek to eliminate freedom of expression
You are, of course aware, that the TSA grew into the current monstrosity that currently is under the Bush years and that Obama can't just attack it head on without risking him being branded a friend of terr'rists by simpleminded critics. Change takes time, personally as a European I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama, he might not succeed in changing some specific things for the better, but at least based on his first year, he's not changing things for the worse. I'll see whether that changes in the future, personally I'm more interested in seeing what he accomplishes in his first term and then judging based on that.
When they stop you at the security checkpoint, go boom. It'll only have to happen a few times before air flight is completely stopped indefinitely.
Or we finally get the media to drop the "zomg terrorism" stuff and let terrorism become another statistic like automobile accidents. I do not wish any attacks to happen that results in deaths, but if they would happen like every 1-2 months, that would probably result in an overall improvement of affairs because people would just carry on.
Bush's years were a slow slide into an insecure, financially teetering country. Why do you expect the climb out of that mess to be quick and be dependent on one man? Electing Obama was a precondition of improving on things, not a magical wand to roll back the clock before Bush.
Obama is also held back by the democrats, the "lesser evil" party. It is an extreme outcome of the first past the post electoral system that the system tends to converge on two parties and the two parties remain similar in a lot of respects, eliminating voter choice. Sure you're free to vote for a third party, but the third party faces a very steep uphill fight to gain any traction at all.
in fact, what happened is that a small set of large crania were taken from a much larger sample of varied crania, and given the name, "Boskopoid." This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural associations -- any old, large skull was a "Boskop". Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations.
Instead, the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features, within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples. Singer ends his paper thusly:
It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958.
That is pretty much where matters have stood ever since. "Boskopoid" is used only in this historical sense; it is has not been an active unit of analysis since the 1950's. By 1963, Brothwell could claim that Boskop itself was nothing more than a large skull of Khoisan type, leaving the concept of a "Boskop race" far behind.
So there you have it. There wasn't an extinct hominid with an IQ of 150, it was just the fallacy of selection bias exhibited by some anthropologists more than 70 years ago.
Actually, Patrick Stewart got the knighthood for the voiceover work in Oblivion. Without that hundreds of thousands of people would have gone crazy listening to "stop right there, criminal scum!".
Alas, too many people who call themselves scientists are more interested in proving their pet theory true than in finding out what's actually going on.
It's just a result of how science is performed. Science doesn't have low hanging fruits anymore, consequently any problem that someone investigates takes dedication, because it's intellectually hard or takes lots of effort or both. Most people aren't going to be motivated enough to put that much effort into it without already having an axe to grind, a point to prove, a pet theory to push into the limelight.
Also, in a lot of cases you don't know there is something interesting in the area you're looking at. I think what separates bad scientists from good scientists is how you realize when something doesn't match up to your preconceived notions and how you recover from conflicting data.
About cancer research: I believe the total NIH budget is somewhere around $30B, which makes up rougly 25-30% of the total biomedical research done in the US, so let's say there is about $100-150B per year spent on biomedical research in the US. Specifically for cancer, the NCI has a budget of about $5B and assuming the 1:4 ratio of public:private investment holds true, the US spends $20-25B per year on cancer research.
This is a pitifully small change compared to waging wars, "war on terror", or just the defense budget of the USA. From the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, funding for cancer research could have been tripled for the next 30 years!
Number of people dead from an airplane incident this year: 0
Number of people dead from car accidents this year: tens of thousands
Number of people dead from cancer this year: hundreds of thousands
Number of people inconvenienced because of stupid airline regulations: millions
Number of people losing their livelihood due to reduced tourism to the USA: probably tens of thousands
Number of people dieing as an indirect cause of airline regulations: probably more than the victims of terrorism this year
Number of people failing to comprehend basic statistics: hundreds of millions
Seriously, enough of this madness. It was a foiled bombing attempt that came with the usual Al Quaeda franchise branding. I certainly don't care about the original news more than a few brief lines about it on some buried page on the BBC's website, however it's pissing me off in a major way that a lot of people seem to think this is a big deal. It's not!
We won't run out. It's like peak oil - we won't just have one random guy scrape and hit rock bottom and suddenly the world panics. It'll become gradually harder and harder to find and prices will slowly go up, reducing consumption. Essentially, we'll never use 100% of our oil until it is completely superseded by newer technologies. Same with IPv4 addresses. They'll become more and more valuable, universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up, and we'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system. IPv6 will come in slowly.
I'm sorry, but you're simply uninformed. This is exactly like global warming and I made the analogy before in reverse.
In both cases, the experts say it's happening and it's a problem, while layman continue to have a flawed and incomplete picture. For example, you're stating that "it'll be harder and harder to find", however there is no market in IPv4 addresses, they are not sold or bought at the ISP level, but rather they are supplied on demand by the registrars. Market analogies do not apply. It is a finite resource with extremely low elasticity in supply. Partitioning IPv4 addresses to small chunks and coming up with a procedure to reclaim them would be extremely hard, for routing reasons. Even if you'd attempt to set up a market for IPv4 addresses, you'd need global agreement (the Copenhagen Climate Summit showed recently how well that works out) and you'd risk fracturing the Internet due to conflicts of interests when it turns out that you can't get IPv4 addresses anymore unless you pay for them. The question who gets the money is a big open question. To put it simply, you just can't apply market schemes to a finite addressing scheme. It does not work.
Oh, and just to lay the "universities with large address spaces" argument to rest, even if we'd reclaim the legacy spaces, we'd extend exhaustion by 3-5 months. No, an IPv4 address market is not viable, is not going to happen and we're better off focusing on migrating to IPv6 instead of picking the "do nothing" option and waiting for a panic solution when the IPv4 addresses run out in 2011 (IANA pool)/2012 (RIRs). Besides, why meddle with temporary solutions? Data shows that IPv4 address space consumption is accelerating. We simply need IPv6 to provide for the increasing addressing demands.
No matter what enterprise level thing you use, you're still going to bump into the limit. With NAT, you're trading ports for ip addresses. The number of ports is finite and nowadays there are things like http keepalive, ajax calls, skype, IMAP, and other programs, so you're ending up with hundreds of open connections per computer. When the NAT translating box runs out of ports, it's game over.
IPv6 is actually the anti-Y2K. This is a problem mainly ignored by mainstream media that has the potential to affect the global economy, while Y2K was a relatively minor issue compared to this, which got overhyped by the media.
IPv6 has been "the next generation of TCP/IP protocols" for so long that you can be forgiven for thinking that it will never be useful.
IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful. The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy, feature-laden things that consumers actually want.
Both the Internet and the vast majority of American and European business users elected to stay with the legacy IPv4 network.
Users didn't opt for opting out of IPv6. Large telcos didn't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.
To get around the much-predicted Internet IPv4 address famine, people turned to network address translation (NAT) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). With this combination, thousands of corporate PCs can have their own internal IPv4 addresses while using up only a single IP address, as far as the Internet is concerned.
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true. The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet. NAT breaks so many things...
By the time Windows XP and Windows 2003 rolled out, IPv6 was built into the operating systems.
This sentence might give you the impression that you can run IPv6 with Windows XP. That's not the case, it misses DNS resolution through IPv6 and DHCPv6, so while it supports some things, the IPv6 support is far from complete.
Windows 7, when used with Server 2008 R2, may finally give enterprise network administrators a reason to deploy IPv6.
No, when the technical people at large telcos are given the money and mandate to deploy IPv6 that's when it'll happen. When the head honchos who held back the upgrade for financial reasons and the lack of government regulation in a classic example of the tragedy of the commons realise that IPv4 blocks will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries, they'll panic and start throwing money, excuses and horrible stopgap solutions at the problem, which could have been avoided to head for this bloody showdown we're going to see in the next couple of years as everyone will a. try to grab as many addresses as possible to keep telco projects in the pipeline from sinking b. franctically scramble to upgrade.
This is BS. Most proper standards define a way to extend the standard with "proprietary" extensions in a way that they are put forth by a company, added to a register and implemented to that "proprietary standard". For example OpenGL has a lot of these and it's an excellent breading ground for the "glacially slow" standard standards.
HTML is a biased example because of it's history. The process has been subverted and it's broken, thanks to the early "web", large part in Microsoft and Netscape.
Most innovations happen on a way higher level than document format standards, but if the need arises proprietary extensions can be defined for a document format, then that can slowly be worked into a new version of the main standard. I see absolutely no issues here with requiring openness. It doesn't stifle innovation one bit.
Sites like cpan.org already do the opposite. They take an author's _publicly visible_ email address and try to find a gravatar for it to publicly display if one's available.
Yes, I linked the graph without context. But in the simplest possible view, doesn't it immediately suggest a question if a data set is being modified in a consistently progressive fashion?
Anyone who ever worked with larger amounts of data or statistics knows that there is often some normalization required. Astronomers do the same for example. What you did was include a picture without context and said
When I (thanks to the internet) can pull up the raw paleoclimatological data from NOAA, and ask "hey, Mr. Scientist, why is it that your data doesn't match what I see?" and I get a lot of bullshit, handwaving, and a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors - I become somewhat skeptical.
...when the picture you linked is from a paper listing and referencing the reasons for the corrections to the raw data in the first place!
- And yes, I did change topics there from USA to Australia. One might contend that they are topically relevant, as they both point to deliberate skewing of the data, and even reinforce it by showing that it's being done at many places in the discussion, not just for a single region, etc. But I'm sorry about changing topics so (apparently) confusingly; next time I'll wave a FLAG.
You linked to a picture showing the extent of the adjustments, from a paper that explains the adjustments applied to the raw data, without linking to the paper and then you're attempting to use it as proof to say that they are deliberately skewing (as in manipulating) data? Whoa. Btw, there is no need to be hostile I'm about as much trying to convince you that you've been had than to counter your arguments.
- Yes, he mentions that there are 9 stations that cover the whole period. But as you can see he uses their raw data, then he plots the same curve adding in all the stations that come to the present date (regardless of start), and then again adds in ALL the stations, regardless of start/end dates...the (raw) curves ALL LOOK PRETTY NEARLY THE SAME. (And all look strikingly different from the IPCC 'result'.)
So, you're saying that the raw data matches the raw data, but doesn't match the cleaned up data? How shocking! The only thing that you should be concerned about whether the adjustments are warranted or not. The guys detailed the extent of the adjustments in the paper you didn't link to and gave a bunch of references to the papers underpinning the assumptions about why they are doing that in the first place, so the course of action would be to:
1. take the raw data
2. take a look at the adjustments as described in the paper and either apply them or explain why they shouldnt be applied
3. produce a final graph with the adjustments and see what that shows.
The Darwin Zero blogpost seems to be about showing incredulity that someone could take raw data and apply well defined filters and normalization techiques to it to make the quality better.
you might want to look at the folks who BY THEIR OWN LEAKED WORDS admit to manipulating the data, hiding their methods, lying, attacking critics, gaming the peer-review system, and destroying (whups!) THE ORIGINAL DATA.
They didn't admit to manipulating data, they described a "trick" to mean clever method about tree ring proxies, this has been explained already a few dozen times. Hiding their methods is laughable when there are peer reviewed papers with "METHODOLOGY" sections in them. They didn't game the peer-review system either, they, as peers, suggested some papers shouldn't be published because they are full of shit. The paper in question was found out to be ghostwritten by the American Petroleum Institute later and about half of the journal's editorial board resigned in protest after the paper was published anyway! They also didn't destroy any data that mattered. Some data was lost 20+ years ago when they moved to a different building. There is no "THE" original data. Climate science is a large subject and thus multiple independent lines of data are available to arrive on some conclusion.
You didn't actually read the linked website, did you?
Ironic, considering you're complaining that I took the graph out of context.
The picture you linked is about the sum of the 5 data normalization/homogenization corrections that were applied to the UNITED STATES HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK while the "Darwin Zero" article is a weather station in Australia. I fail to see the common ground between the two. The fact is that you threw that graph out there without no explanation about it's context and asserted that it looks shady.
TLDR on the linked website: a layman goes into the raw data for Northern Australia, and dissects it down to the station level to try to explain why the IPCC report for that region is so different from the raw temp graphs from the GHCN 'homogenized' data - a swing of nearly 2.5 deg C per century, and a complete opposite trend.
I did read the article and the guy mentions that there are "9 stations in Australia that cover the 1900-2000 period". That might be technically correct if you require a station to continuously operate for the 100 years, however that criteria discounts the vast majority of the stations that did not operate continously for the whole 100 years. Here is a list. There is no reason to consider the longest running stations the best (I'd think the best would be the ones running for a few decades) or to consider unadjusted raw data better than the adjusted data.
They are not adjusting things randomly or based on a preconceived bias as the guy in the blogpost seems to suggest, but based on the reasons listed in the paper I linked to in GP. The guy is suggesting that the raw data is better, without even bothering to look at what the adjustments are! Adjusting for the urban heat island effect, for the time of day changes, for station moves, for temperature sensor changes etc. make sense and they do clean up the results. The guy doesn't even bother criticizing the methods adjusting the data! Seriously, it's not funny. This took me less than half an hour to look up and there is no excuse why the guy didn't or couldn't do the same. He's either very political about it or lies.
Slashdot Mirror
...another financial crisis. Because that's the reason there was a slump in allocation rates. The current best projection for IANA pool exhaustion is Sep/Oct 2011. Without the financial crisis that would have been end of 2010. The IANA guys would have been dead on, if not for a once in a 100 years financial event.
/8 is theoretically usable, even before subtracting the legacy allocations. The summary makes it sound like it was a doom-and-gloom prediction that didn't happen to be true, but that's not the case.
The tone of the submission is really silly. There wasn't 4.3B allocatable addresses in the first place. Out of the 256 "/8s" only 219.914
Also, it's "not the next 2 or 3 years", based on the available number of addresses 1.5 years for the IANA pool and 2,5 years are hard bars until RIRs (regional internet registries) run out.
I know, I've been asked if I'm feeling okay by colleagues when seemingly all I did was to stare into the empty space, at the window or someplace else. In reality, I was working more efficiently than most of them, preferring to think about a problem before I try to implement a solution for it. Probably 90% of the work I do is designing a good architecture, making sure it's fast, scalable, robust, flexible and maintainable enough. This requires weighting dozens of different factors and thinking about a lot of "action at a distance" kind of problems.
I love my job. I would do it even if I wouldn't receive financial compensation for it. One drawback is that you can't really work office hours with it, it's hard to switch off iterating a problem in the back of your mind (resulting in several House-esque moments of some totally unrelated thing reminding me to a neat concept that helps me implement an elegant solution).
I guess the point is, different people work differently. Yeah, if someone's browsing for porn or looking at bash.org, they are probably not doing anything useful, but taking a break or if someone looks like he's idling, it's not always the case that they are not doing anything productive.
They didn't just merely ask them, they asked identical twins and used the twins as controls of what the other had said. What they basically determined is that for a phenomena that is supposed to be a sensory experience - an orgasm inducing spot - the identical twins couldn't agree (from the cases where both of them said they have a g-spot) where that spot actually is, supporting the notion that it doesn't exist in the first place.
"Due to selling MySQL to Sun, Widenius earned about 16.6 million EUR in capital gains in 2008 (16.8 million EUR total income), making the top 10 of highest earners in Finland that year. (wp)"
16.6M EUR is a tad more than tens of thousands of dollars.
It's called PostgreSQL. It's fast, what's even more important, it's correct and it's tried and tested. Get it here.
You've got to be fucking kidding with me. Do I really need to point out how easy is it to lose hard-fought rights?
You didn't read my original post carefully enough. I intended to convey that Obama is not a messiah which can restore things to a pre-Bush era. Closing gitmo, restructuring DHS and the defense policy of the USA takes time. In some ways nasty compromises are made, like the Telco Immunity bill.
You also have a right not to pay taxes, so the next time you need police assistance you'll just write a $6,000 cheque. Oh wait, no. Healthcare doesn't just concern you. It concerns others, if you don't get cured of an infectious disease and when they have to pick up the medical bills of your emergency care after you couldn't afford cancer treatment and spent the medical insurance money on hookers and blow. You are of course, free to choose a more expensive plan, but a basic one is mandatory for these reasons.
What are you referring to? Source?
You are, of course aware, that the TSA grew into the current monstrosity that currently is under the Bush years and that Obama can't just attack it head on without risking him being branded a friend of terr'rists by simpleminded critics. Change takes time, personally as a European I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama, he might not succeed in changing some specific things for the better, but at least based on his first year, he's not changing things for the worse. I'll see whether that changes in the future, personally I'm more interested in seeing what he accomplishes in his first term and then judging based on that.
Or we finally get the media to drop the "zomg terrorism" stuff and let terrorism become another statistic like automobile accidents. I do not wish any attacks to happen that results in deaths, but if they would happen like every 1-2 months, that would probably result in an overall improvement of affairs because people would just carry on.
Bush's years were a slow slide into an insecure, financially teetering country. Why do you expect the climb out of that mess to be quick and be dependent on one man? Electing Obama was a precondition of improving on things, not a magical wand to roll back the clock before Bush.
Obama is also held back by the democrats, the "lesser evil" party. It is an extreme outcome of the first past the post electoral system that the system tends to converge on two parties and the two parties remain similar in a lot of respects, eliminating voter choice. Sure you're free to vote for a third party, but the third party faces a very steep uphill fight to gain any traction at all.
So there you have it. There wasn't an extinct hominid with an IQ of 150, it was just the fallacy of selection bias exhibited by some anthropologists more than 70 years ago.
Actually, Patrick Stewart got the knighthood for the voiceover work in Oblivion. Without that hundreds of thousands of people would have gone crazy listening to "stop right there, criminal scum!".
It's just a result of how science is performed. Science doesn't have low hanging fruits anymore, consequently any problem that someone investigates takes dedication, because it's intellectually hard or takes lots of effort or both. Most people aren't going to be motivated enough to put that much effort into it without already having an axe to grind, a point to prove, a pet theory to push into the limelight.
Also, in a lot of cases you don't know there is something interesting in the area you're looking at. I think what separates bad scientists from good scientists is how you realize when something doesn't match up to your preconceived notions and how you recover from conflicting data.
I think the parent post is a brilliant example of what happens when someone perfects trolling to a science.
Not to mention no DHCPv6 on Windows XP either...
Hey, your sig made you mod you up! It works!
/>
<foot
About cancer research: I believe the total NIH budget is somewhere around $30B, which makes up rougly 25-30% of the total biomedical research done in the US, so let's say there is about $100-150B per year spent on biomedical research in the US. Specifically for cancer, the NCI has a budget of about $5B and assuming the 1:4 ratio of public:private investment holds true, the US spends $20-25B per year on cancer research.
This is a pitifully small change compared to waging wars, "war on terror", or just the defense budget of the USA. From the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, funding for cancer research could have been tripled for the next 30 years!
Number of people dead from an airplane incident this year: 0
Number of people dead from car accidents this year: tens of thousands
Number of people dead from cancer this year: hundreds of thousands
Number of people inconvenienced because of stupid airline regulations: millions
Number of people losing their livelihood due to reduced tourism to the USA: probably tens of thousands
Number of people dieing as an indirect cause of airline regulations: probably more than the victims of terrorism this year
Number of people failing to comprehend basic statistics: hundreds of millions
Seriously, enough of this madness. It was a foiled bombing attempt that came with the usual Al Quaeda franchise branding. I certainly don't care about the original news more than a few brief lines about it on some buried page on the BBC's website, however it's pissing me off in a major way that a lot of people seem to think this is a big deal. It's not!
I'm sorry, but you're simply uninformed. This is exactly like global warming and I made the analogy before in reverse.
In both cases, the experts say it's happening and it's a problem, while layman continue to have a flawed and incomplete picture. For example, you're stating that "it'll be harder and harder to find", however there is no market in IPv4 addresses, they are not sold or bought at the ISP level, but rather they are supplied on demand by the registrars. Market analogies do not apply. It is a finite resource with extremely low elasticity in supply. Partitioning IPv4 addresses to small chunks and coming up with a procedure to reclaim them would be extremely hard, for routing reasons. Even if you'd attempt to set up a market for IPv4 addresses, you'd need global agreement (the Copenhagen Climate Summit showed recently how well that works out) and you'd risk fracturing the Internet due to conflicts of interests when it turns out that you can't get IPv4 addresses anymore unless you pay for them. The question who gets the money is a big open question. To put it simply, you just can't apply market schemes to a finite addressing scheme. It does not work.
Oh, and just to lay the "universities with large address spaces" argument to rest, even if we'd reclaim the legacy spaces, we'd extend exhaustion by 3-5 months. No, an IPv4 address market is not viable, is not going to happen and we're better off focusing on migrating to IPv6 instead of picking the "do nothing" option and waiting for a panic solution when the IPv4 addresses run out in 2011 (IANA pool)/2012 (RIRs). Besides, why meddle with temporary solutions? Data shows that IPv4 address space consumption is accelerating. We simply need IPv6 to provide for the increasing addressing demands.
No matter what enterprise level thing you use, you're still going to bump into the limit. With NAT, you're trading ports for ip addresses. The number of ports is finite and nowadays there are things like http keepalive, ajax calls, skype, IMAP, and other programs, so you're ending up with hundreds of open connections per computer. When the NAT translating box runs out of ports, it's game over.
IPv6 is actually the anti-Y2K. This is a problem mainly ignored by mainstream media that has the potential to affect the global economy, while Y2K was a relatively minor issue compared to this, which got overhyped by the media.
IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful. The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy, feature-laden things that consumers actually want.
Users didn't opt for opting out of IPv6. Large telcos didn't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true. The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet. NAT breaks so many things...
This sentence might give you the impression that you can run IPv6 with Windows XP. That's not the case, it misses DNS resolution through IPv6 and DHCPv6, so while it supports some things, the IPv6 support is far from complete.
No, when the technical people at large telcos are given the money and mandate to deploy IPv6 that's when it'll happen. When the head honchos who held back the upgrade for financial reasons and the lack of government regulation in a classic example of the tragedy of the commons realise that IPv4 blocks will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries, they'll panic and start throwing money, excuses and horrible stopgap solutions at the problem, which could have been avoided to head for this bloody showdown we're going to see in the next couple of years as everyone will a. try to grab as many addresses as possible to keep telco projects in the pipeline from sinking b. franctically scramble to upgrade.
This is BS. Most proper standards define a way to extend the standard with "proprietary" extensions in a way that they are put forth by a company, added to a register and implemented to that "proprietary standard". For example OpenGL has a lot of these and it's an excellent breading ground for the "glacially slow" standard standards.
HTML is a biased example because of it's history. The process has been subverted and it's broken, thanks to the early "web", large part in Microsoft and Netscape.
Most innovations happen on a way higher level than document format standards, but if the need arises proprietary extensions can be defined for a document format, then that can slowly be worked into a new version of the main standard. I see absolutely no issues here with requiring openness. It doesn't stifle innovation one bit.
I see that you're advocating violence. The Blackwatch squad has been dispatched to your current location. Please remain stationary.
Sites like cpan.org already do the opposite. They take an author's _publicly visible_ email address and try to find a gravatar for it to publicly display if one's available.
Anyone who ever worked with larger amounts of data or statistics knows that there is often some normalization required. Astronomers do the same for example. What you did was include a picture without context and said
You linked to a picture showing the extent of the adjustments, from a paper that explains the adjustments applied to the raw data, without linking to the paper and then you're attempting to use it as proof to say that they are deliberately skewing (as in manipulating) data? Whoa. Btw, there is no need to be hostile I'm about as much trying to convince you that you've been had than to counter your arguments.
So, you're saying that the raw data matches the raw data, but doesn't match the cleaned up data? How shocking! The only thing that you should be concerned about whether the adjustments are warranted or not. The guys detailed the extent of the adjustments in the paper you didn't link to and gave a bunch of references to the papers underpinning the assumptions about why they are doing that in the first place, so the course of action would be to:
1. take the raw data
2. take a look at the adjustments as described in the paper and either apply them or explain why they shouldnt be applied
3. produce a final graph with the adjustments and see what that shows.
The Darwin Zero blogpost seems to be about showing incredulity that someone could take raw data and apply well defined filters and normalization techiques to it to make the quality better.
They didn't admit to manipulating data, they described a "trick" to mean clever method about tree ring proxies, this has been explained already a few dozen times. Hiding their methods is laughable when there are peer reviewed papers with "METHODOLOGY" sections in them. They didn't game the peer-review system either, they, as peers, suggested some papers shouldn't be published because they are full of shit. The paper in question was found out to be ghostwritten by the American Petroleum Institute later and about half of the journal's editorial board resigned in protest after the paper was published anyway! They also didn't destroy any data that mattered. Some data was lost 20+ years ago when they moved to a different building. There is no "THE" original data. Climate science is a large subject and thus multiple independent lines of data are available to arrive on some conclusion.
The picture you linked is about the sum of the 5 data normalization/homogenization corrections that were applied to the UNITED STATES HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK while the "Darwin Zero" article is a weather station in Australia. I fail to see the common ground between the two. The fact is that you threw that graph out there without no explanation about it's context and asserted that it looks shady.
I did read the article and the guy mentions that there are "9 stations in Australia that cover the 1900-2000 period". That might be technically correct if you require a station to continuously operate for the 100 years, however that criteria discounts the vast majority of the stations that did not operate continously for the whole 100 years. Here is a list. There is no reason to consider the longest running stations the best (I'd think the best would be the ones running for a few decades) or to consider unadjusted raw data better than the adjusted data.
They are not adjusting things randomly or based on a preconceived bias as the guy in the blogpost seems to suggest, but based on the reasons listed in the paper I linked to in GP. The guy is suggesting that the raw data is better, without even bothering to look at what the adjustments are! Adjusting for the urban heat island effect, for the time of day changes, for station moves, for temperature sensor changes etc. make sense and they do clean up the results. The guy doesn't even bother criticizing the methods adjusting the data! Seriously, it's not funny. This took me less than half an hour to look up and there is no excuse why the guy didn't or couldn't do the same. He's either very political about it or lies.