2.4Ghz is a cesspool used by WAY WAY too many competing technologies.
That's pretty much it. I set up WiFi for a nationwide retailer (over 500 stores nationwide) and interference from other 2.4 Ghz devices was a big problem - as big as and in some cases bigger than physical barriers. Nearly every store had 2.4 Ghz cordless phones (among other things). They had to either scrap them, or give up on inventory. Not a choice they liked to make.
Get those changes in on time, or its off to the eastern front for you.
Some kidding aside, one chief reason (among others) to have facilities on the other side of the planet is just that - overnight labor capable of delivering a PM customer change request that can be delivered the next morning AM.
Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them,... "fill the earth and subdue it."" If that isn't a command to perform scientific discovery, I don't know what else is.
No that looks like a command to subdue a planet.
Genesis 2:20 has an example of God facilitating Adam in naming all the creatures of the world; blatant scientific observation and categorization.
No, a blatant example of a story about a guy naming things he can see around him. No evidence of scientific observation there, nor categorization.
Laptops given to end users need a 'user eject' speech recognition feature. When the laptop hears the user say anything like "Is the network slowing down?" or "Is everything okay everywhere?" or "Is there something wrong?", or any other similar ambiguous question, the laptop self destructs with enough explosive force so as to remove the user. That would solve lots of problems.
>>Science is a method, it requires no faith. In fact it is a method through which provides it's own falsifiable test of itself.
Slow down there, cowboy. Nothing proves itself -- you always start with a certain set of axioms.
The parent didn't really imply that science proves itself. The parent stated that science provides a way to disprove itself. Those are two very different things.
If the parent meant to differentiate between articles of faith and axioms, that is correct to do so. Axioms are not articles of religious faith. You can tell this, in part, because articles of faith almost never qualify as axioms. Axioms allow for the construction of logical arguments and systems; articles of religious faith rarely if ever do. Just look at religious systems. They inevitably derive more articles of faith from an initial article of faith, and often not in a way that exhibits systemic consistency. This is not to belittle faith by any means; faith can and often does confer emotional comfort and subsequent stability that has real world benefits. It is also often a vehicle for social support as well - not an inconsequential thing at all.
It cannot say anything about anything outside of its sphere of influence (empirical observations of the natural world)
Is seems to me that science says a lot about empirical observations of the natural world. Doesn't it address the nature of those it addresses? Aren't those often starting points for formulations of theories which attempt to explain the observations, or am I missing your point?
From the looks of Anagran's description of their 'flow' based routing, routers analyze individual TCP flows very closely and rate them according to behavior in order to predict future needs of each flow, and then make adjustments on the fly by various means (closely timed discard of TCP segments to force endpoint TCP adjustments, QOS-like throttling of flows that look like they may be coming from slow endpoints, etc.)
All of this looks to be enhancements and accelerations to QOS. It could be really cool, or highly evil as well, since these boxes would be perfect for retarding P2P traffic without actually blocking it on backbone links. It looks to be the same "steal from peter to feed paul" way of dealing with bandwidth congestion without investing in network infrastructure.
Getting telecoms away from corporate welfare and into genuine market competition will go much farther to address bandwidth problems.
Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist.
Promote science and useful arts, indeed. Any system that lets - no make that encourages - someone buy someone else's idea then do exactly nothing at all with it except to sue others in order to leech off legitimate efforts at actually doing something useful is functionally broken, and doesn't make sense in terms of economics either. What kind of software industry will we get with patent trolling allowed to run amok? Just a bunch of companies holding patents waiting for someone else to invest the resources in development and promotion.
computing was supposed to automate. supposed to make everyones lives easier by helping the person. now look at it. walk into any corporate office and you'll see countless people (myself included) clicking on this and that to satisfy what the computer wants out of you. it feels like you are there to help the computer achieve uptimes, or defragged disks, getting rid of viruses, blocking ports, unblocking ports...
am i there to help the computer do it's job? or is the computer there to help me do mine?
In a sense, you're quite right. It seems as though you're thinking of other things we use in our lives that help us do what we want - phones, pliers, cars, washing machines, lighting fixtures, drills, blenders, stoves, refrigerators - the list could go on and on. If I'm getting where you're coming from, these may be the kinds of things you have in mind as a sort of a reference.
The computer differs from all of those things in one particularly significant way - its highly multipurpose much more so than the aforementioned things. This makes it complex on a scale that nearly all other things we use by more than a longshot.
And, for that matter, while cron seems simple (and it is), those jobs it automates for you have to be put together as well which may not be simple. Also, what if the report cron cranks out needs to be different one day? You're back to the task of servicing the computer so it can service you.
I ran a linux box with 22 open just to see what would happen about 2 years ago. Within a week someone was trying to brute force their way in (auth.log showed thousands of attempts using simple usenames).
When Roberts whipped out the "It wasn't designed for watching television" statement, that was the first thing I thought of. I used to run TCP/IP over X.25, and in all honesty, VCs have their virtues from a packet switching point of view and its interesting that early on some people argued that they were better for streaming video and such (this must be what Roberts is echoing). Still, now that TCP|UDP/IP has become a rather large network and often delivers video, its worked out marginally better that the VC advocates said it would.
I think address space, bandwidth, and net neutrality are the chief issues facing the overall structure of the Internet, and other issues go protocol-by-protocol and application-by-application. It kind of sounds to me like Roberts is pining for X.25.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty much it. I set up WiFi for a nationwide retailer (over 500 stores nationwide) and interference from other 2.4 Ghz devices was a big problem - as big as and in some cases bigger than physical barriers. Nearly every store had 2.4 Ghz cordless phones (among other things). They had to either scrap them, or give up on inventory. Not a choice they liked to make.
Get those changes in on time, or its off to the eastern front for you.
Some kidding aside, one chief reason (among others) to have facilities on the other side of the planet is just that - overnight labor capable of delivering a PM customer change request that can be delivered the next morning AM.
Familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy?
No that looks like a command to subdue a planet.
No, a blatant example of a story about a guy naming things he can see around him. No evidence of scientific observation there, nor categorization.
Laptops given to end users need a 'user eject' speech recognition feature. When the laptop hears the user say anything like "Is the network slowing down?" or "Is everything okay everywhere?" or "Is there something wrong?", or any other similar ambiguous question, the laptop self destructs with enough explosive force so as to remove the user. That would solve lots of problems.
The followup might be goobers, which the adolescent at google (and possibly microsoft) will transpose as boogers.
They need stock options as an incentive if new hires are called 'nooglers' :-)
A machine that takes shit from people. Cool.
Speak for your self...
Okay, I can understand water into wine, but the other way around?
Imitation is the sincerest form of ripp off.
The best weapons against fascism are choices, voices, and education.
Journalism
Ubuntu with Linux? What's so bad about that? Oh wait - you meant Ubuntu for lefties - that's just wrong.
This isn't really a problem with the scientific method. Its a problem with human society.
"Certainly the Buddhist belief that the world has eternally existed is troubled by the fact that"
Interestingly, the budhha was known never to have addressed that question.
The parent didn't really imply that science proves itself. The parent stated that science provides a way to disprove itself. Those are two very different things.
If the parent meant to differentiate between articles of faith and axioms, that is correct to do so. Axioms are not articles of religious faith. You can tell this, in part, because articles of faith almost never qualify as axioms. Axioms allow for the construction of logical arguments and systems; articles of religious faith rarely if ever do. Just look at religious systems. They inevitably derive more articles of faith from an initial article of faith, and often not in a way that exhibits systemic consistency. This is not to belittle faith by any means; faith can and often does confer emotional comfort and subsequent stability that has real world benefits. It is also often a vehicle for social support as well - not an inconsequential thing at all.
Is seems to me that science says a lot about empirical observations of the natural world. Doesn't it address the nature of those it addresses? Aren't those often starting points for formulations of theories which attempt to explain the observations, or am I missing your point?
From the looks of Anagran's description of their 'flow' based routing, routers analyze individual TCP flows very closely and rate them according to behavior in order to predict future needs of each flow, and then make adjustments on the fly by various means (closely timed discard of TCP segments to force endpoint TCP adjustments, QOS-like throttling of flows that look like they may be coming from slow endpoints, etc.)
All of this looks to be enhancements and accelerations to QOS. It could be really cool, or highly evil as well, since these boxes would be perfect for retarding P2P traffic without actually blocking it on backbone links. It looks to be the same "steal from peter to feed paul" way of dealing with bandwidth congestion without investing in network infrastructure.
Getting telecoms away from corporate welfare and into genuine market competition will go much farther to address bandwidth problems.
Like sunny southern california, for example.
That the patent office is now hiring people that can read?
Promote science and useful arts, indeed. Any system that lets - no make that encourages - someone buy someone else's idea then do exactly nothing at all with it except to sue others in order to leech off legitimate efforts at actually doing something useful is functionally broken, and doesn't make sense in terms of economics either. What kind of software industry will we get with patent trolling allowed to run amok? Just a bunch of companies holding patents waiting for someone else to invest the resources in development and promotion.
In a sense, you're quite right. It seems as though you're thinking of other things we use in our lives that help us do what we want - phones, pliers, cars, washing machines, lighting fixtures, drills, blenders, stoves, refrigerators - the list could go on and on. If I'm getting where you're coming from, these may be the kinds of things you have in mind as a sort of a reference.
The computer differs from all of those things in one particularly significant way - its highly multipurpose much more so than the aforementioned things. This makes it complex on a scale that nearly all other things we use by more than a longshot.
And, for that matter, while cron seems simple (and it is), those jobs it automates for you have to be put together as well which may not be simple. Also, what if the report cron cranks out needs to be different one day? You're back to the task of servicing the computer so it can service you.
Well, I didn't check it right away. It was basically a honeypot.
Ye gods.
I ran a linux box with 22 open just to see what would happen about 2 years ago. Within a week someone was trying to brute force their way in (auth.log showed thousands of attempts using simple usenames).
*sigh*
When Roberts whipped out the "It wasn't designed for watching television" statement, that was the first thing I thought of. I used to run TCP/IP over X.25, and in all honesty, VCs have their virtues from a packet switching point of view and its interesting that early on some people argued that they were better for streaming video and such (this must be what Roberts is echoing). Still, now that TCP|UDP/IP has become a rather large network and often delivers video, its worked out marginally better that the VC advocates said it would.
I think address space, bandwidth, and net neutrality are the chief issues facing the overall structure of the Internet, and other issues go protocol-by-protocol and application-by-application. It kind of sounds to me like Roberts is pining for X.25.