Slashdot has been crying wolf since they are a geek site and geeks seem to like that kind of thing and also like new technology, no matter the cost and issues.

However there have been actual depletions of IPv4 space of various kinds. First it was that all available networks were allocated to regional registrars. Now some of those regional registrars are allocating all their remaining addresses.

That doesn't mean doomsday, of course, it means that for any additional allocation to go on, something would have to be reclaimed. That has happened in the past, organizations have given back part of their allocations so they could be reassigned. It may lead to IPs being worth more. Company A might want some IPs and Company B could cut their usage with renumbering, NAT, etc so they'll agree to sell them.

Since IPs aren't used up in the sens of being destroyed, there'll never be some doomsday where we just "run out" but as time goes on the available space vs demand will make things more difficult. As that difficulty increases, IPv6 makes more sense and we'll see more of it.

We are already getting there in many ways. You see a lot of US ISPs preparing to roll it out, despite having large IPv4 allocations themselves, because they are seeing the need for it.

Either states will decide you don't need insurance if you have a self driving car, or a company will spring up that will insure self driving cars for a lot less money.

It is one area where capitalism can work. Lets say all the existing insurance underwriters charge $100/month for normal insurance based on human drivers. At that rate they can cover the rate of claims and make a nice profit. Say $20/month ends up being net profit after their operations costs and payout are factored in, and operations are another $20/month.

Well lets say that self driving cars then have a 0.01% accident rate compared to human drivers (it may end up being lower than that). That will drop their payouts by a similar amount, so from $60/person/month to $0.60/person/month. Ok but they decide to keep the price the same, just make more money.

Thing is, they'd still be really profitable at $41/month, instead of $100. Someone else will realize that, and work to steal their business. They might not go that low, maybe $80/month, but it'll happen. Then they'll try to get it back and so on and so forth.

Remember that your costs aren't just based on your specifically, they are based on actuary data of accident likeness. Sure you've had no accidents, but there is a statistical probability that you will. You are in the lowest risk group likely, but it is there. If self driving cars are much lower, rates can again be much lower.

Also, have you checked around? My rates haven't gone up in a long time. Maybe your company is just screwing you because they can, and you'd save if you took your business elsewhere.

For comparison purposes I pay about $350/6 months for $200k/$500k liability insurance on an old, cheap, car.

For serious use, I think 10GB would be better.

But even if it started out at 10 x the cost of NAND, a 150GB unit for my databases would definitely be worth it.

Nice try, but no. You're comparing the feel of apples to the smell of oranges.

In anything like a real-world outdoor scenario (see the other post on this page about Mexico City), CO2 levels aren't going to vary enough to have much of an affect on anything locally.

So lumping it together with "pollutants" that do makes no sense at all.

Utter nonsense. Even if you assume that CO2 is a "pollutant" (and that's a pretty huge assumption not backed by actual science), it wouldn't have any effect locally unless large areas were covered with hundreds of thousands of PPM. And then it would be easy to tell, because -- the only serious local effect possible -- people and animals would be keeling over en masse.

Rain, on the other hand, has immediate and very local effects.

And as for

... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen.

Bullshit. I repeat: I was speaking of POLITICIANS, not of parties.

That's the third time I've said basically the same thing. Has it sunk in yet?

The only reason I used the word "butthurt" is because that's the way you've acted.

It must have been relatively recent, then. Even so, I repeat that I doubt the "usual rules" apply here.

Having said that, FAA would seem the logical organization, given that its mandate is about interstate commerce.

That's hilarious. Data is data.

It doesn't matter where you apply your math or methodoloy, if you're doing them in an obviously incorrect way. A point which you keep seeming to miss. Scientists are not gods, they deal in the real world with real data just like so many others do.

You don't seem to know what irony means either, Mr. Coward. Do you think I am not (or never have been) a scientist? On what do you base that assumption?

Since it has been clearly explained to you many times that I am not any of those things, no they're not.

The only logical way to put those statements together is that you claim I am those things. It's not just an implication, or your final sentence would make no sense.

But making potentially damaging false claims about people in public, when you know (or reasonably should) that they are not true, is called libel. You know that, too.

So no, the tables aren't turned. They're right where they were before you made that ridiculous libelous comment. If anything, you have locked the tables firmly in place. That was a real dumbass thing to do.

I have to wonder why you keep doing it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, person-who-doesn't-know-bigotry-from-economics.

As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.

I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".

Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.

I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate* this paper appears to be, have a look here.

No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)

Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.

I didn't bring politics into it. I was only talking about certain politicians. And I clearly stated Hillary wasn't the only one; I only used her as an example because she's an easy example.

So... usually I would tell you to take your questions about my votes elsewhere, but I don't mind saying: no, I did not vote for George Bush.

Now take your butthurt party politics and go away.

I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.

Even so: given the known design of the craft, how could he possibly NOT know that unlocking the tail section prematurely was dangerous? I mean, seriously. "Oh, sure, let's just let it flap in the breeze at a few thousand miles per hour. No big deal."

Sheesh.

If you don't think the U.S. is suffering mightily from BOTH, you aren't paying attention.

Just as an example (because she's the easiest, I'm not claiming she's the worst) is Hillary Clinton. She has NO real accomplishments to her name, and scandal has followed her everywhere she went. (I rather think a more descriptive phrase would be to say she "led" scandal wherever she went.)

Back during the investigation of Richard Nixon, one of her supervisors accused her of being too dishonest of an attorney to participate. (YES, a staunch Democrat said that.) He said she "... conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House ... and the rules of confidentiality." She ALSO made important documents "disappear" during that period. Surprise, surprise.

Yep. Even back then. Nothing seems to have changed. If you think that's just "incompetence", I suggest you start re-thinking before elections come around.

No, that's a false statement. If he had any realistic expectation of being treated like a citizen rather than a terrorist, and get a real "trial by his peers", he wouldn't have had to go to Russia. (Remember: he didn't go there first, the U.S. chased him there.)

Realistic thinking says he has almost no chance of a real trial. He would be treated as a terrorist. Government has said so more than once.

So no, he's not hiding from his actions. He's hiding from ridiculous OVERREaction on the part of government. This is the reality:

He had no realistic means of coming forth with the information from within the United States.

He didn't want to go to Russia, and did not at first. That was a last resort.

Government has (yes, really) called him a terrorist and strongly indicated he would be treated as such.

So no. As long as government is being crooked and dishonest, he's not refusing to take responsibility for his actions. He's evading unconstitutionally harsh treatment from his own government.