Is it really that hard to write a headline that includes enough words to make it clear? This isn't print where more words mean more space and ink or a smaller font size for the same space.
Remember how 640kB should be enough RAM for anybody? When something is in abundance it will get burned through until a scarcity is generated. We see this with hard drive partition and system RAM limits all the time. I suspect that it doesn't much matter if the IPv6 space is 128 bit or 256 bit, it will still be burned through in the same amount of time. I'm not saying that it will just be light bulbs, people will come up with ways to use or hoard the addresses. But if someone is already talking about putting them in light bulbs then it's likely that every electronic device will have one soon enough, and not just the things we have now, but the things that have yet to be invented, things that will likely be mass produced by the billions like cell phones and RFID tags, maybe more than billions. And on top of that, how are companies buying blocks of the space? One reason for the IPv4 scarcity is that a handful of companies bought up 25-50% of the addresses in large blocks before anyone realized what it would mean in the year 2011. Did/will the same happen with IPv6? I'd guess not, but I'm arguing from ignorance, presuming that some form of hoarding will occur as well as waste.
I can think of another planet with a dense CO2 atmosphere and in the goldilocks zone around its star, and that is Venus. Venus is hardly habitable. How much else about this planet do we know that isn't speculation?
Why? This sounds like a horrible idea. This would require a network connection for every lightbulb (or fixture), and for what?
And if there is an actual good reason behind it, why use IPv6? Why not use a unique, lightbulb-specific addressing system? Why rely on Wi-Fi/Ethernet to do the job? Have you ever tried putting a square peg in a round hole before?
And finally, are you *trying* to exhaust the IPv6 space as quickly as possible? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Okay, I'm going to go read the article now and see if it answers any of my questions.
Because, subjectively, the purpose of the article is to insinuate that developers are just lazy and overpaid. Companies are always looking to cut expenses and if they can find ways to make developers feel less comfortable about their positions, all the better. They can then get away with paying them less and paying for less equipment for them.
Behavior profiling is not racial profiling, nor does it even require racial profiling. The simple solution to not getting labeled racist is don't be a fucking racist. Don't racially profile. Starting with race, yeah, that makes you a racist, and it's completely irrelevant to the job.
People want to blame this whole fiasco on the oppressive, all-powerful, "political correctness" but that's a bullshit strawman. Liberals had now power when the TSA was enacted, it was an entirely Republican invention, created at the height of Bush's popularity, and Democrats cheered it along with nary a complaint. The TSA doesn't want to hire well-trained employees and would rather have McGuards in front of expensive scanners bought through cozy no-bid contracts with companies that are paying off the TSA chiefs.
Same poster as above. As a for example, why is no one complaining that the CEO of AGT is railing against anonymity? He is blatantly, but that's also taking his words out of context, and you know, he isn't Bill Clinton.
The summary also conveniently left this out, "But if it's a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever"
This whole story is flamebait. Clinton didn't make the suggestion, the interviewer did, and asked him to speculate on it. He isn't actually advocating for a ministry of truth, nor is he even in government anymore.
They are weak because none of them are seriously running. Gingrich is the worst example of the bunch. He pretends to run in every election, getting some attention for it (which is the real point) and then dropping out long before it becomes a serious contest. The rest, like Donald Trump, another serial "candidate" are doing the same thing. Probably more so than Democratic politicians, Republicans are notorious self-aggrandizers. Look at Sarah Palin's post-2008 career. She quit her job halfway through her term so she could make reality TV shows and $100,000 speaking engagements.
Funny because the article uses the gun metaphor too.
"Would gun sellers enjoy "Freedom of Press" protections if they offered catalogs demonstrating the ease of use of the Handguns being Sold for engaging in criminal activities such as robbing stores or banks. Then offering Solutions to specifically cover up your crime.
"CNET provided the "Guns", the P2P Software, and the encouragement to commit "Robbery", here, the online file sharing of known copyrighted works.
I'm not saying I agree with the guy, I absolutely do not, but it's funny that you both came up with a gun analogy and thought opposite things.
While evil, this trend poses some interesting possibilities. If Cnet has to take a hit, then maybe the RIAA/MPAA will sue the telcos next, and they'll sue each other in to bankruptcy.
I think this idea has been obvious enough that it doesn't need further research to understand, but that what the scientists found was that altruism is somewhat more universal and/or fundamental such that even artificial robotic "societies" with certain basic conditions and constraints will exhibit it.
Because the human species is basically tribal, not familial. We empathize with and show compassion for members of our tribe in a way that we don't for members of other tribes because those other members of our tribe will help to keep us alive. Even though we don't live in tribes any more we still show the same altruistic behavior for people we identify with as an extension of the same behavior. Any regular Slashdot commenter has probably observed lots of examples of the double-standard being applied, where people defend others of their own political persuasion, religion, or nation-state for behavior that they would attack mercilessly if done by others, particularly their identified enemies.
It isn't inferred at all, it's quite explicit and central to Rand's philosophy. Objectivism is primarily concerned with selfishness and altruism, not primarily freedom and force. Altruism is the greatest evil, and selfishness is the greatest ideal. So of course the objectivist will refuse to behave objectively when free not to. That is the point.
You are confusing objectivism with libertarianism, which is concerned only about freedom and force, but not selfishness or altruism.
Rand makes quite clear that selfishness - not freedom or liberty, but selfishness - is the highest ideal, and altruism, the opposite of selfishness, is the greatest sin. She attacked voluntary altruism the same as the forced kind. Maybe it's a point that is emphasized more in The Fountainhead than Atlas Shrugged, I don't know, it's been a while since I read either. But I think you're conflating objectivism with libertarianism, which is only concerned with the elimination of force.
I admit I was just trolling. I could cite instances of US obstinance such as pulling out of the Kyoto Accords, but I concede that those would be overwhelmed by the various examples of cooperation, even if one attempted to weight them. The US is quite generous and cooperative, and although among its peers in the first world it is quite stingy, this is nowhere near the level of isolation and obstinant selfishness as a country like North Korea.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really that hard to write a headline that includes enough words to make it clear? This isn't print where more words mean more space and ink or a smaller font size for the same space.
You only assume it works that way because you never see the ones that got modded to oblivion.
This problem is older than dirt. Bezos is far from the first one to point it out.
Remember how 640kB should be enough RAM for anybody? When something is in abundance it will get burned through until a scarcity is generated. We see this with hard drive partition and system RAM limits all the time. I suspect that it doesn't much matter if the IPv6 space is 128 bit or 256 bit, it will still be burned through in the same amount of time. I'm not saying that it will just be light bulbs, people will come up with ways to use or hoard the addresses. But if someone is already talking about putting them in light bulbs then it's likely that every electronic device will have one soon enough, and not just the things we have now, but the things that have yet to be invented, things that will likely be mass produced by the billions like cell phones and RFID tags, maybe more than billions. And on top of that, how are companies buying blocks of the space? One reason for the IPv4 scarcity is that a handful of companies bought up 25-50% of the addresses in large blocks before anyone realized what it would mean in the year 2011. Did/will the same happen with IPv6? I'd guess not, but I'm arguing from ignorance, presuming that some form of hoarding will occur as well as waste.
I can think of another planet with a dense CO2 atmosphere and in the goldilocks zone around its star, and that is Venus. Venus is hardly habitable. How much else about this planet do we know that isn't speculation?
Why? This sounds like a horrible idea. This would require a network connection for every lightbulb (or fixture), and for what?
And if there is an actual good reason behind it, why use IPv6? Why not use a unique, lightbulb-specific addressing system? Why rely on Wi-Fi/Ethernet to do the job? Have you ever tried putting a square peg in a round hole before?
And finally, are you *trying* to exhaust the IPv6 space as quickly as possible? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Okay, I'm going to go read the article now and see if it answers any of my questions.
Save yourself the energy and RTFA.
Because, subjectively, the purpose of the article is to insinuate that developers are just lazy and overpaid. Companies are always looking to cut expenses and if they can find ways to make developers feel less comfortable about their positions, all the better. They can then get away with paying them less and paying for less equipment for them.
Behavior profiling is not racial profiling, nor does it even require racial profiling. The simple solution to not getting labeled racist is don't be a fucking racist. Don't racially profile. Starting with race, yeah, that makes you a racist, and it's completely irrelevant to the job.
People want to blame this whole fiasco on the oppressive, all-powerful, "political correctness" but that's a bullshit strawman. Liberals had now power when the TSA was enacted, it was an entirely Republican invention, created at the height of Bush's popularity, and Democrats cheered it along with nary a complaint. The TSA doesn't want to hire well-trained employees and would rather have McGuards in front of expensive scanners bought through cozy no-bid contracts with companies that are paying off the TSA chiefs.
Same poster as above. As a for example, why is no one complaining that the CEO of AGT is railing against anonymity? He is blatantly, but that's also taking his words out of context, and you know, he isn't Bill Clinton.
The summary also conveniently left this out, "But if it's a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever"
This whole story is flamebait. Clinton didn't make the suggestion, the interviewer did, and asked him to speculate on it. He isn't actually advocating for a ministry of truth, nor is he even in government anymore.
They are weak because none of them are seriously running. Gingrich is the worst example of the bunch. He pretends to run in every election, getting some attention for it (which is the real point) and then dropping out long before it becomes a serious contest. The rest, like Donald Trump, another serial "candidate" are doing the same thing. Probably more so than Democratic politicians, Republicans are notorious self-aggrandizers. Look at Sarah Palin's post-2008 career. She quit her job halfway through her term so she could make reality TV shows and $100,000 speaking engagements.
Funny because the article uses the gun metaphor too.
"Would gun sellers enjoy "Freedom of Press" protections if they offered catalogs demonstrating the ease of use of the Handguns being Sold for engaging in criminal activities such as robbing stores or banks. Then offering Solutions to specifically cover up your crime.
"CNET provided the "Guns", the P2P Software, and the encouragement to commit "Robbery", here, the online file sharing of known copyrighted works.
I'm not saying I agree with the guy, I absolutely do not, but it's funny that you both came up with a gun analogy and thought opposite things.
While evil, this trend poses some interesting possibilities. If Cnet has to take a hit, then maybe the RIAA/MPAA will sue the telcos next, and they'll sue each other in to bankruptcy.
Of course the matter is dark, it's at the bottom of a mine shaft!
Everybody knows you never go full retard.
I think this idea has been obvious enough that it doesn't need further research to understand, but that what the scientists found was that altruism is somewhat more universal and/or fundamental such that even artificial robotic "societies" with certain basic conditions and constraints will exhibit it.
Because the human species is basically tribal, not familial. We empathize with and show compassion for members of our tribe in a way that we don't for members of other tribes because those other members of our tribe will help to keep us alive. Even though we don't live in tribes any more we still show the same altruistic behavior for people we identify with as an extension of the same behavior. Any regular Slashdot commenter has probably observed lots of examples of the double-standard being applied, where people defend others of their own political persuasion, religion, or nation-state for behavior that they would attack mercilessly if done by others, particularly their identified enemies.
Because it helps them feel good about themselves to pretend that their sociopathy means they are morally superior to the rest of us.
More likely lazy. I see a lot of confusion that suggests objectivism is synonymous with libertarianism.
It isn't inferred at all, it's quite explicit and central to Rand's philosophy. Objectivism is primarily concerned with selfishness and altruism, not primarily freedom and force. Altruism is the greatest evil, and selfishness is the greatest ideal. So of course the objectivist will refuse to behave objectively when free not to. That is the point.
You are confusing objectivism with libertarianism, which is concerned only about freedom and force, but not selfishness or altruism.
Rand makes quite clear that selfishness - not freedom or liberty, but selfishness - is the highest ideal, and altruism, the opposite of selfishness, is the greatest sin. She attacked voluntary altruism the same as the forced kind. Maybe it's a point that is emphasized more in The Fountainhead than Atlas Shrugged, I don't know, it's been a while since I read either. But I think you're conflating objectivism with libertarianism, which is only concerned with the elimination of force.
I admit I was just trolling. I could cite instances of US obstinance such as pulling out of the Kyoto Accords, but I concede that those would be overwhelmed by the various examples of cooperation, even if one attempted to weight them. The US is quite generous and cooperative, and although among its peers in the first world it is quite stingy, this is nowhere near the level of isolation and obstinant selfishness as a country like North Korea.
That depends on the nation. If you're the US or North Korea, then no. If you're anyone else, you see lots of cooperation.
The subject was supposed to contain a greater than sign, but I guess /. stripped it.