Many have made the suggestion of using the country codes, and letting each country assign its own addresses to its own names within those codes. But there's an underlying limitation to that strategy, which is a shortage of 4-byte IP addresses to go with those names. Who decides how many of these addresses each country gets?
The technical answer, I think, is we need more addresses, so each enitity of control can have its own reserved range. IPV6 could solve the problem nicely, but we need a strategy for making the transition smoothly. Getting everyone to agree on that strategy is a problem.
Yes, as another poster pointed out the writer is fond of the thesaurus in this article. I think it was meant to sound like some of the formal 18th century prose which the founders of our country, and perhaps some of the authors of the federalist papers often used. That kind of language evokes an atmosphere of nobly defending freedom and principle. I don't think it was too bad of a job, personally, although there were some errors. For example :
[1]. While it is difficult for many to reasonably argue that the children of this country should be excluded from partaking in adult material...
I'm sure this says the opposite of what the author intended.
But the punch line comes at the end of the article, where the inflated language is dropped. It adds to the effect. If you didn't read all the way to the end, you missed the payoff.
Maybe we need to look forward to IPV6... Assign one byte pair to the current, US controlled internet, and the last four bytes represent all current IP addresses. Other countries get control of a byte-pair each, and they name them however they wish.
It wasn't my intention to trivialize the suffering of anyone. But we should be just as willing to look at ourselves and how we do things. After all, as a participant in the democracy of the United States, (I am a US citizen) my major responsibility is to understand what might be improved in my own country. And since I live here, conditions here often dominate my thinking.
My main point is not that things are currently the same in practice, or as bad in practice, but that if the underlying undemocratic tendancies are left to go unchecked, they might have a similar outcome as what we see in China today.
The link to the Amnesty International 2004 China page is
here.
The equivalent link regarding the United States is
here .
Thanks for the reference. I found the essay online here and read a bit of it, it seems profoundly on topic so I wanted to get the link up before the main post gets old.
One philosphical thought I had that may not have been covered in the 19th century western thinking (because its an Eastern concept) is the fact that in a competitive market, what helps the perceived interest of one entity will often harm the perceived interest of another. Help and harm here being entirely subjective, unless you apply the crude metric of next quarter's short-term profits.
If we accept the fact that any action or communication with potency will help some and harm others, then forbid harmful communication, we have to forbid all communication that has any potency or effect of any kind.
Both China and the United States are actively trying to "control information" on the internet. Its interesting to me to look at the differences and similarities to see what that says about who has the real power in each country.
In China, what is forbidden is anything that might threaten the obvious power structure of governmnet. In the United States, forbidden information is anything that hurts the profits of a large corporation. Even honest commentary that names the company responsible is effectively impossible here, unless you can afford to fight the charges of slander or trademark infringement in court. The DMCA is another example that's been covered exhaustively elsewhere.
I've heard it said by someone else, and someone please tell me who if you know, that in America we have free speech only as long as it doesn't make any difference to anyone. As soon as what we say has an impact on someone's life or a company's bottom line, then we can't say it anymore. Is that really freedom?
That's what you'd think. But when I saw the development schedule for the Nano, I understood how something like this could have happened. I think it was months, not years they've been working on this. Less than a year is not enough time to do a lot of development, not to mention field testing. Its an amazing accomplishment to get a high volume product to market that fast, and things like this screen problem are the price you pay for taking that risk.
I've noticed in my time on this planet that aging organizations and software both show an unavoidable tendancy to bloat over time until they can no longer function and must be replaced.
I'm not just harping on one company here, I'm thinking organizations in general.
Just as individuals have a natural birth, aging, and death cycle, the same seems to hold true with other phenomena. Organizations become victims of their own success. They get larger and more unwieldy, and the presence of excess resources seems to create its own economy of waste. Internal empires form. Departments carve up the pie, and defend turf. As waste increases, the survival of the organization tends to trump whatever purpose it originally formed to serve. With hundreds or thousands of individuals depending on the status quo, or at least the continued existence of the organization, there is a convergence that takes place that makes one soul-less organization or government look much like the others after a while.
Software bloat we all know about. Features get added by divergent interests who don't fully understand the limits of the paradigm, until the structure starts to sag and/or crumble under the weight. Loose ends and bugs multiply and begin to take on a life of their own, like cancer cells multiplying out of control.
Sometimes organizations or programs can be "born again" and rise from their own ashes in a completely different form. But sooner or later, some kind of major destruction is inevitable, and maybe necessary.
I think you're right. The top level post has everyone all confused because they used the phrase "multiple channel" instead of multiple paths. I replied to the original post to that effect, but a lot of people are still missing it.
Since the net effect of the technology is to create a higher gain antenna system, via electronic phased array, it is actually a less interfering signal than normal.
I'm not certain, but I think the word channel may be misleading here. I think that MIMO is actually using the same bandwidth, just combining multiple RF paths to enhance the signal to noise ratio. Another MIMO link is here.
That being said it also needs to be aknowlaged that there have to be some checks and balances in the system that allow companies to protect information that if released early could damage the company.
Yes, balances are lacking in a lot of ways. The other side of the coin is that in this industry, everything is under NDA. When I accept employment, I have to sign a paper that says basically my employer owns everything that crosses my mind, and I can't talk to anyone about anything that the company owns. Ergo I violate the NDA whenever I communicate with anyone.
One thing to keep in mind when considering this is the huge difference between a fixed high-gain antenna and a mobile device. I did some work for a company that deployed MANs via 30Ghz point-to-multipoint systems using a proprietary QPSK physical layer. It had very similar performance to what WiMax seems to be talking about, but when you think wireless these days, you think of toting your laptop around anywhere and getting connected. Although our system was a very different protocol and modulation method, the laws of physics dictate that your reliable speed is going to depend on the energy per bit transmitted and the combined gain of the two antenna systems. In other words, a mobile device isn't going to have the kind of range and speed people are hearing about WRT WiMax.
Slashdot Mirror
The technical answer, I think, is we need more addresses, so each enitity of control can have its own reserved range. IPV6 could solve the problem nicely, but we need a strategy for making the transition smoothly. Getting everyone to agree on that strategy is a problem.
But the punch line comes at the end of the article, where the inflated language is dropped. It adds to the effect. If you didn't read all the way to the end, you missed the payoff.
Maybe we need to look forward to IPV6... Assign one byte pair to the current, US controlled internet, and the last four bytes represent all current IP addresses. Other countries get control of a byte-pair each, and they name them however they wish.
My main point is not that things are currently the same in practice, or as bad in practice, but that if the underlying undemocratic tendancies are left to go unchecked, they might have a similar outcome as what we see in China today.
The link to the Amnesty International 2004 China page is here .
The equivalent link regarding the United States is here .
One philosphical thought I had that may not have been covered in the 19th century western thinking (because its an Eastern concept) is the fact that in a competitive market, what helps the perceived interest of one entity will often harm the perceived interest of another. Help and harm here being entirely subjective, unless you apply the crude metric of next quarter's short-term profits.
If we accept the fact that any action or communication with potency will help some and harm others, then forbid harmful communication, we have to forbid all communication that has any potency or effect of any kind.
In China, what is forbidden is anything that might threaten the obvious power structure of governmnet. In the United States, forbidden information is anything that hurts the profits of a large corporation. Even honest commentary that names the company responsible is effectively impossible here, unless you can afford to fight the charges of slander or trademark infringement in court. The DMCA is another example that's been covered exhaustively elsewhere.
I've heard it said by someone else, and someone please tell me who if you know, that in America we have free speech only as long as it doesn't make any difference to anyone. As soon as what we say has an impact on someone's life or a company's bottom line, then we can't say it anymore. Is that really freedom?
That's what you'd think. But when I saw the development schedule for the Nano, I understood how something like this could have happened. I think it was months, not years they've been working on this. Less than a year is not enough time to do a lot of development, not to mention field testing. Its an amazing accomplishment to get a high volume product to market that fast, and things like this screen problem are the price you pay for taking that risk.
I'm not just harping on one company here, I'm thinking organizations in general. Just as individuals have a natural birth, aging, and death cycle, the same seems to hold true with other phenomena. Organizations become victims of their own success. They get larger and more unwieldy, and the presence of excess resources seems to create its own economy of waste. Internal empires form. Departments carve up the pie, and defend turf. As waste increases, the survival of the organization tends to trump whatever purpose it originally formed to serve. With hundreds or thousands of individuals depending on the status quo, or at least the continued existence of the organization, there is a convergence that takes place that makes one soul-less organization or government look much like the others after a while.
Software bloat we all know about. Features get added by divergent interests who don't fully understand the limits of the paradigm, until the structure starts to sag and/or crumble under the weight. Loose ends and bugs multiply and begin to take on a life of their own, like cancer cells multiplying out of control.
Sometimes organizations or programs can be "born again" and rise from their own ashes in a completely different form. But sooner or later, some kind of major destruction is inevitable, and maybe necessary.
Since the net effect of the technology is to create a higher gain antenna system, via electronic phased array, it is actually a less interfering signal than normal.
I'm not certain, but I think the word channel may be misleading here. I think that MIMO is actually using the same bandwidth, just combining multiple RF paths to enhance the signal to noise ratio. Another MIMO link is here.
One thing to keep in mind when considering this is the huge difference between a fixed high-gain antenna and a mobile device. I did some work for a company that deployed MANs via 30Ghz point-to-multipoint systems using a proprietary QPSK physical layer. It had very similar performance to what WiMax seems to be talking about, but when you think wireless these days, you think of toting your laptop around anywhere and getting connected. Although our system was a very different protocol and modulation method, the laws of physics dictate that your reliable speed is going to depend on the energy per bit transmitted and the combined gain of the two antenna systems. In other words, a mobile device isn't going to have the kind of range and speed people are hearing about WRT WiMax.