Wrong.
Any RR label may include an underscore, and it is a breach in etiquette and standards for any server to refuse to accept these. That behavior is left to the client, which may interpret that RR for whatever needs suit it.
RFC 2181 11. Name syntax: The DNS itself places only one restriction on
the particular labels that can be used to identify resource records.
That one restriction relates to the length of the label and the full
name. The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63
octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the
separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the
root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".".
Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the
label of any resource record. Similarly, any binary string can serve as
the value of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of
its value (SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added).
Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions on
the labels that can be used. In particular, DNS servers must not refuse
to serve a zone because it contains labels that might not be acceptable
to some DNS client programs. A DNS server may be configurable to issue
warnings when loading, or even to refuse to load, a primary zone
containing labels that might be considered questionable, however this
should not happen by default.
You're not wrong about it not being a valid hostname.
It is not invalid to use that label for any RR record. It is invalid to name a machine ipv6_1-cxl0-c088, which I'm fairly certain doesn't refer to a machine.
It is also not invalid for any client to refuse to accept that name. It is pretty ridiculous behavior for libidn2 to strip it out, though.
RFC 2181 11. Name syntax: The DNS itself places only one restriction on
the particular labels that can be used to identify resource records.
That one restriction relates to the length of the label and the full
name. The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63
octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the
separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the
root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".".
Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the
label of any resource record. Similarly, any binary string can serve as
the value of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of
its value (SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added).
Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions on
the labels that can be used. In particular, DNS servers must not refuse
to serve a zone because it contains labels that might not be acceptable
to some DNS client programs. A DNS server may be configurable to issue
warnings when loading, or even to refuse to load, a primary zone
containing labels that might be considered questionable, however this
should not happen by default.
These days, it is up to the client to validate the labels being requested in its own context, but otherwise, anything goes.
The "client" in this instance, has been forced to use a resolver that decides to validate for all clients that may be using it, which is entirely incorrect behavior.
Sigh. I hate it when I have to do this.
I celebrate the contribution women made to the war effort, but it is a downright lie to say they "by and large ran the massive industrial development necessary during WWII when the US was putting out a ship a day."
Women, at their peak, during the war, comprised 37% of the workforce. Which is awesome- and a *massive* increase from before the war. And they did it for less money. But don't rewrite history to make it prettier than it was.
You've made the same damn mistake.
I can't argue the merits of his argument whether or not minimum wage *should* account for those things. I leave that to you, you seem to have thought it through a lot more than I did. You cannot however show a graph of CPI based inflation to disprove his argument he's arguing that CPI based inflation is insufficient.
Looking back at what I responded to, I have to wonder WTH you are talking about. Sounds like I was way beyond you? In just a few sentences and a reference to a definitive graph that shows a comparison to the past, which is precisely what he was arguing, I showed he was wrong.
No, you showed that you didn't understand what he said.
He specifically argued that CPI adjusted inflation was a shitty measurement. That the minimum wage shouldn't be pegged at it as a comparison. That it should be higher than simply CPI adjusted inflation equivalent.
You then used CPI adjusted inflation to show he was wrong. You basically entirely ignored his argument, and then gave a detailed graph of his first already given data point. It's not that complicated.
He makes argument that CPI adjusted inflation as an anchor for minimum wage vs. more historical levels makes the true minimum necessary to survive far too low.
You makes argument that a graph showing CPI adjusted inflation would make the minimum wage even lower means he is wrong.
It was facepalm worthy. I'm still unsure how you don't understand.
Here's a comparison in today's money from how it was in the past - http://money.cnn.com/interacti... [cnn.com] . Face it, you're wrong. I know, I know, it's CNN and we know they lie, like hell. However this seems to be right. According to that slider, you cannot make an argument for it being any more than $10/hour.
My personal income is, and you're right- it fucking isn't.
I live in Seattle though, and 80% my money goes to fucking gas, tolls and Starbucks. Ok, I really can't bitch.
LOL- you are so flippantly full of shit.
I lived that life, friend. There aren't netflix, and playstations for all. I did have a cell phone, I'll give you that. And a car. Cost me $600 bucks, and took roughly a quarter of my income to keep running. Don't act like those people live it large. Ya, they're not third-world poverty, but they're not spending their food stamps on video games or whatever other right-wing drivel you're going to spew next. You're a twat.
It's not so bad. I did it for years. I make roughly triple that now, and I'm not entirely sure I feel much wealthier. I just have shinier shit, now.
I will say, not having had health insurance would have really, really, really changed that math.
Or just a little bad luck in general.
His argument was that the CPI isn't a great calculator for inflation, truly, as it applies to the lower classes in terms of mobility, for reasons he listed that seem reasonable. I didn't verify them, but they sound like a good opening salvo for an argument.
You then claim he's wrong by showing CPI calculated inflation.
You hurt my brain, sir.
Whether he's right or wrong, all you've done is shown you can't actually formulate an argument.
You may wish to look and see the current research being done in Chernobyl. Animals are doing quite well, surprisingly so.
Yes, I know they're doing quite well. They also have obscene levels of birth defects... I'm not saying it turns it into an un-survivable hellscape, it's just a far cry from what any person wants to live in.
I am not saying it's safe. I'm saying it's not nearly as huge a problem as people seem to think it is.
We agree... mostly. I still think that's a pretty huge problem for human habitation.
It's not the apocalypse, but I would rather try to make my living in Death Valley than Chernobyl. I've seen the geiger counters when they go through a "hot" spot. Big fucking "no thank you."
Undeniably true... However, this shouldn't be used to support an assertion that a contamination of isotopes that may persist for tens of thousands of years is somehow safe.
Those isotopes decay into isotopes with short half-lives. And those kill.
Chernobyl will not be safe for tens of thousands of years, because covering a landscape with enough relatively safe isotopes can produce a biologically important amount of short-lives isotopes on an ongoing, though slowly declining, basis.
How do you do pumped storage against gravity? Pressure? Wouldn't the loss from gravity on the draw of the storage really hurt the storage efficiency equation?
Sigh, yeah. I think the Atom/Quark combo on the Edison had tremendous potential. The Atom running Linux for the heavy lifting (yet has full access to the I/O), and the Quark for the 10% of the things that actually need to be real-time. Nice.
I really like "virtual memory mapping heavy lifting device paired with 1 or more coprocessors with predictable instruction timing and linear memory maps" model.
ARM licensees have played around with it since ye olden says (ARM9s paired with ARM7TDMIs) and TI has a part line (Sitara) that pairs a modern ARM with some proprietary coprocessors for running real-time process kernels without an OS.
Intel's Atom/Quark proc is really the best offering i've ever seen in that segment, though working with the Quark directly without signing an NDA is a complicated mess (though one can figure it out).
I am glad i bought several Edisons. Yocto may be a pile of shit, but better support will come in time, and it'll become more reasonable to roll your own OS for the Atom side, and people will figure out the Quarks, and you'll be able to do direct loads onto it without negotiating with some way-heavier-than-needed real-time OS kernel running on it.
Awesome part, but as you said- targeting it at Makers with funky Arduino adaption layers and such was pretty clueless.
I own every Intel device mentioned, and just about every other damn variant of IoT processing boards from complex devices with operating systems, down to the bare bones Atmel and PIC micro driven ones. The Intel boards are pretty damn wonderful. I never thought they'd be around for long though- the margins on those things just aren't what Intel is in the business for. The maker market is way too small for them.
That being said, the chips that power the said Intel maker boards sell in *droves* in commercial applications (Intel's IoT division has a multi-billion dollar revenue). If they did this to demo their chips to the guys who do this stuff for a living (this is how I get my hands on these things), I'd say they succeeded, because the Quark SOCs are nice as hell, and the Atom/Quark combo chips simply can't be competed against by most ARMs (With the exception of some TI parts like the Sitara with its PRUs)
Intel just isn't the right kind of company to succeed in the Maker market, but I will miss the availability of their processors on clean and cheap development boards.
Perfectly fine as long as the trees were sustainably harvested.
Technically speaking, this covers your complaints.
In practice, that probably just means rotating stands, which is obviously not enough, but at its purest literal interpretation, it means harvested sustainably, from cradle to grave, so to speak.
Extinction is a decent possibility, really... We've barely survived genetic bottlenecks before. But you're right for the most part- Humanity is likely to survive, though at a drastically reduced level of civilization.
Both of the private national party organizations are tainted as fuck. They're organizations to get their people elected, nothing more, nothing less, and at any cost.
That being said, you shouldn't paint all adherents of a party's overall ethos or platform with the brush that the organization charged with getting them elected rightfully deserves.
I get what you're saying... But in this instance, as a point of fact, the man is a self-admitted con artist. That's not calling a name. Nobody cared. They thought that equated to smooth operator, or master executive.
Glass houses my friend. Federal funds cover a whole lot more than you realize.
That was actually precisely my point- we're not disagreeing.
I was remarking on the hypocrisy of that particular group in not realizing they're in a glass house. I'm in no way against the federal programs to keep their enterprise solvent.
Yes, and you're an illiterate toolshed. My ad hominem trumps yours.
Petraeus abd Scooter Libby did far FAR less than Hillary and were both punished for crimes.
Untrue.
Patraeus leaked information to the press. Hillary transferred poorly understood classified data places it wasn't supposed to go without intent and without harm.
Scooter lied to cover up a major crime within the White House, which was the burning of an intelligence agent for political purposes. His punishment was met out for that reason, and Bush acknowledged that when he commuted his sentence, but did not pardon him.
But, of course, that seems legit to you because you were a Bernie supporter.
Again, entirely off the mark. I'm no Bernie supporter either.
There are very real fears amongst climate scientists that a 7C global average change could trigger a venus runaway.
No... that's just not possible. Our atmosphere is far too thin.
Of primarily CO2 atmospheres, on one end of the scale, we have Venus. On the other end, we have Mars.
It takes a *lot* of CO2 (by mass) to give the Earth a blanket thick enough to boil off the oceans. We don't have enough bioavailable carbon available on the planet for that. Not without first doing something very table to our carbonaceous rocks.
makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is a very small percentage. Water vapor ranges from 1-4%. Another way to say that is there is 25-100 times more water vapor that CO2.
No, this right here is why Trump won the election. You understand just enough to be dangerously ignorant.
The constituent ratio of CO2 does not matter to your argument, whatsoever. You're throwing out a known small looking number to make it seem meaningless.
You wouldn't be wrong to claim that CO2 isn't the largest driver of the Greenhouse Effect, but water vapor has negative feedbacks. Putting a bunch of the water in the atmosphere without longer-term greenhouse gasses to support it is a temporary alteration. The overall greenhouse effect will revert to its former level quickly. One of the positive feedbacks of CO2 is a systemic increase in water vapor, with an overall net positive effect, in essence amplifying the effect of CO2, and on a longer-term than water vapor could alone.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rounding error compared to water vapor and should have a negligible effect unless it somehow behaves differently than water vapor.
The amount of potassium cyanide in your blood required to end your life vs. the volume of blood would also be a rounding error. I invite you to test the logical grounds of your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Any RR label may include an underscore, and it is a breach in etiquette and standards for any server to refuse to accept these. That behavior is left to the client, which may interpret that RR for whatever needs suit it.
RFC 2181 11. Name syntax: The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels that can be used to identify resource records. That one restriction relates to the length of the label and the full name. The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any resource record. Similarly, any binary string can serve as the value of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of its value (SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added). Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions on the labels that can be used. In particular, DNS servers must not refuse to serve a zone because it contains labels that might not be acceptable to some DNS client programs. A DNS server may be configurable to issue warnings when loading, or even to refuse to load, a primary zone containing labels that might be considered questionable, however this should not happen by default.
You're not wrong about it not being a valid hostname.
It is not invalid to use that label for any RR record. It is invalid to name a machine ipv6_1-cxl0-c088, which I'm fairly certain doesn't refer to a machine.
It is also not invalid for any client to refuse to accept that name. It is pretty ridiculous behavior for libidn2 to strip it out, though.
RFC 2181 11. Name syntax: The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels that can be used to identify resource records. That one restriction relates to the length of the label and the full name. The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any resource record. Similarly, any binary string can serve as the value of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of its value (SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added). Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions on the labels that can be used. In particular, DNS servers must not refuse to serve a zone because it contains labels that might not be acceptable to some DNS client programs. A DNS server may be configurable to issue warnings when loading, or even to refuse to load, a primary zone containing labels that might be considered questionable, however this should not happen by default.
These days, it is up to the client to validate the labels being requested in its own context, but otherwise, anything goes.
The "client" in this instance, has been forced to use a resolver that decides to validate for all clients that may be using it, which is entirely incorrect behavior.
Gnome.
Sigh. I hate it when I have to do this.
I celebrate the contribution women made to the war effort, but it is a downright lie to say they "by and large ran the massive industrial development necessary during WWII when the US was putting out a ship a day."
Women, at their peak, during the war, comprised 37% of the workforce. Which is awesome- and a *massive* increase from before the war. And they did it for less money. But don't rewrite history to make it prettier than it was.
You've made the same damn mistake.
I can't argue the merits of his argument whether or not minimum wage *should* account for those things.
I leave that to you, you seem to have thought it through a lot more than I did. You cannot however show a graph of CPI based inflation to disprove his argument he's arguing that CPI based inflation is insufficient.
Looking back at what I responded to, I have to wonder WTH you are talking about. Sounds like I was way beyond you? In just a few sentences and a reference to a definitive graph that shows a comparison to the past, which is precisely what he was arguing, I showed he was wrong.
No, you showed that you didn't understand what he said.
He specifically argued that CPI adjusted inflation was a shitty measurement. That the minimum wage shouldn't be pegged at it as a comparison. That it should be higher than simply CPI adjusted inflation equivalent.
You then used CPI adjusted inflation to show he was wrong. You basically entirely ignored his argument, and then gave a detailed graph of his first already given data point. It's not that complicated.
He makes argument that CPI adjusted inflation as an anchor for minimum wage vs. more historical levels makes the true minimum necessary to survive far too low.
You makes argument that a graph showing CPI adjusted inflation would make the minimum wage even lower means he is wrong.
It was facepalm worthy. I'm still unsure how you don't understand.
Way way too high you mean.
Here's a comparison in today's money from how it was in the past - http://money.cnn.com/interacti... [cnn.com] . Face it, you're wrong. I know, I know, it's CNN and we know they lie, like hell. However this seems to be right. According to that slider, you cannot make an argument for it being any more than $10/hour.
Was a ridiculous reply!
My personal income is, and you're right- it fucking isn't.
I live in Seattle though, and 80% my money goes to fucking gas, tolls and Starbucks. Ok, I really can't bitch.
LOL- you are so flippantly full of shit.
I lived that life, friend. There aren't netflix, and playstations for all. I did have a cell phone, I'll give you that. And a car. Cost me $600 bucks, and took roughly a quarter of my income to keep running. Don't act like those people live it large. Ya, they're not third-world poverty, but they're not spending their food stamps on video games or whatever other right-wing drivel you're going to spew next. You're a twat.
It's not so bad. I did it for years. I make roughly triple that now, and I'm not entirely sure I feel much wealthier. I just have shinier shit, now.
I will say, not having had health insurance would have really, really, really changed that math.
Or just a little bad luck in general.
His argument was that the CPI isn't a great calculator for inflation, truly, as it applies to the lower classes in terms of mobility, for reasons he listed that seem reasonable. I didn't verify them, but they sound like a good opening salvo for an argument.
You then claim he's wrong by showing CPI calculated inflation.
You hurt my brain, sir.
Whether he's right or wrong, all you've done is shown you can't actually formulate an argument.
You may wish to look and see the current research being done in Chernobyl. Animals are doing quite well, surprisingly so.
Yes, I know they're doing quite well. They also have obscene levels of birth defects... I'm not saying it turns it into an un-survivable hellscape, it's just a far cry from what any person wants to live in.
I am not saying it's safe. I'm saying it's not nearly as huge a problem as people seem to think it is.
We agree... mostly. I still think that's a pretty huge problem for human habitation.
It's not the apocalypse, but I would rather try to make my living in Death Valley than Chernobyl. I've seen the geiger counters when they go through a "hot" spot. Big fucking "no thank you."
It's pretty simple particle physics.
Undeniably true... However, this shouldn't be used to support an assertion that a contamination of isotopes that may persist for tens of thousands of years is somehow safe.
Those isotopes decay into isotopes with short half-lives. And those kill.
Chernobyl will not be safe for tens of thousands of years, because covering a landscape with enough relatively safe isotopes can produce a biologically important amount of short-lives isotopes on an ongoing, though slowly declining, basis.
How do you do pumped storage against gravity? Pressure? Wouldn't the loss from gravity on the draw of the storage really hurt the storage efficiency equation?
Sigh, yeah. I think the Atom/Quark combo on the Edison had tremendous potential. The Atom running Linux for the heavy lifting (yet has full access to the I/O), and the Quark for the 10% of the things that actually need to be real-time. Nice.
I really like "virtual memory mapping heavy lifting device paired with 1 or more coprocessors with predictable instruction timing and linear memory maps" model.
ARM licensees have played around with it since ye olden says (ARM9s paired with ARM7TDMIs) and TI has a part line (Sitara) that pairs a modern ARM with some proprietary coprocessors for running real-time process kernels without an OS.
Intel's Atom/Quark proc is really the best offering i've ever seen in that segment, though working with the Quark directly without signing an NDA is a complicated mess (though one can figure it out).
I am glad i bought several Edisons. Yocto may be a pile of shit, but better support will come in time, and it'll become more reasonable to roll your own OS for the Atom side, and people will figure out the Quarks, and you'll be able to do direct loads onto it without negotiating with some way-heavier-than-needed real-time OS kernel running on it.
Awesome part, but as you said- targeting it at Makers with funky Arduino adaption layers and such was pretty clueless.
Kind right, kinda wrong.
I own every Intel device mentioned, and just about every other damn variant of IoT processing boards from complex devices with operating systems, down to the bare bones Atmel and PIC micro driven ones. The Intel boards are pretty damn wonderful. I never thought they'd be around for long though- the margins on those things just aren't what Intel is in the business for. The maker market is way too small for them.
That being said, the chips that power the said Intel maker boards sell in *droves* in commercial applications (Intel's IoT division has a multi-billion dollar revenue). If they did this to demo their chips to the guys who do this stuff for a living (this is how I get my hands on these things), I'd say they succeeded, because the Quark SOCs are nice as hell, and the Atom/Quark combo chips simply can't be competed against by most ARMs (With the exception of some TI parts like the Sitara with its PRUs)
Intel just isn't the right kind of company to succeed in the Maker market, but I will miss the availability of their processors on clean and cheap development boards.
Perfectly fine as long as the trees were sustainably harvested.
Technically speaking, this covers your complaints.
In practice, that probably just means rotating stands, which is obviously not enough, but at its purest literal interpretation, it means harvested sustainably, from cradle to grave, so to speak.
So... not bollocks.
Extinction is a decent possibility, really... We've barely survived genetic bottlenecks before. But you're right for the most part- Humanity is likely to survive, though at a drastically reduced level of civilization.
Both of the private national party organizations are tainted as fuck. They're organizations to get their people elected, nothing more, nothing less, and at any cost.
That being said, you shouldn't paint all adherents of a party's overall ethos or platform with the brush that the organization charged with getting them elected rightfully deserves.
First up, seriously, ditch the name-calling.
I get what you're saying... But in this instance, as a point of fact, the man is a self-admitted con artist. That's not calling a name. Nobody cared. They thought that equated to smooth operator, or master executive.
You need to take a step back, man.
You're wearing some really fucked up shades.
I am so goddamn glad I didn't really give a shit about either candidate this round- I wonder if I sounded as ridiculous as you do when I used to.
Stark. Raving. Mad.
You need a vacation.
Glass houses my friend. Federal funds cover a whole lot more than you realize.
That was actually precisely my point- we're not disagreeing.
I was remarking on the hypocrisy of that particular group in not realizing they're in a glass house. I'm in no way against the federal programs to keep their enterprise solvent.
Then you're a moron.
Yes, and you're an illiterate toolshed. My ad hominem trumps yours.
Petraeus abd Scooter Libby did far FAR less than Hillary and were both punished for crimes.
Untrue.
Patraeus leaked information to the press. Hillary transferred poorly understood classified data places it wasn't supposed to go without intent and without harm.
Scooter lied to cover up a major crime within the White House, which was the burning of an intelligence agent for political purposes. His punishment was met out for that reason, and Bush acknowledged that when he commuted his sentence, but did not pardon him.
But, of course, that seems legit to you because you were a Bernie supporter.
Again, entirely off the mark. I'm no Bernie supporter either.
There are very real fears amongst climate scientists that a 7C global average change could trigger a venus runaway.
No... that's just not possible. Our atmosphere is far too thin.
Of primarily CO2 atmospheres, on one end of the scale, we have Venus. On the other end, we have Mars.
It takes a *lot* of CO2 (by mass) to give the Earth a blanket thick enough to boil off the oceans. We don't have enough bioavailable carbon available on the planet for that. Not without first doing something very table to our carbonaceous rocks.
makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is a very small percentage. Water vapor ranges from 1-4%. Another way to say that is there is 25-100 times more water vapor that CO2.
No, this right here is why Trump won the election. You understand just enough to be dangerously ignorant.
The constituent ratio of CO2 does not matter to your argument, whatsoever. You're throwing out a known small looking number to make it seem meaningless.
You wouldn't be wrong to claim that CO2 isn't the largest driver of the Greenhouse Effect, but water vapor has negative feedbacks. Putting a bunch of the water in the atmosphere without longer-term greenhouse gasses to support it is a temporary alteration. The overall greenhouse effect will revert to its former level quickly. One of the positive feedbacks of CO2 is a systemic increase in water vapor, with an overall net positive effect, in essence amplifying the effect of CO2, and on a longer-term than water vapor could alone.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rounding error compared to water vapor and should have a negligible effect unless it somehow behaves differently than water vapor.
The amount of potassium cyanide in your blood required to end your life vs. the volume of blood would also be a rounding error. I invite you to test the logical grounds of your argument.