The problem is that we will always see ourselves as the pinnacle of intelligence. It is a combination of hubris and misunderstanding.
See, our brains aren't large enough to recognize the intelligence of species that are significantly smarter than us, so because they are unintelligible to us, we see them as unintelligent.
Although the above point is mildly tongue-in-cheek, it certainly applies to species that are less intelligent than us. If we don't "see" the intelligence, we assume that it is not there.
Intelligence is difficult enough to define to everyone's satisfaction, let alone measure, but we have made some surprising discoveries over the last century about various species' methods of communication, tool use, and social structures.
Every once in awhile, I come across a Slashdot comment that I really enjoy: something so interesting, insightful, funny, or otherwise notable that I want to save it for future enjoyment or reference. But how to save it?
Right now, you can only bookmark the comment's URL or paste the comment into a document. Either method works, but each has its limitations.
I am presently going back to school to get a Master's in Libary and Information Sciences. After having worked 15 years in various IT fields, I am looking forward to getting into a career with books.
Innovation is great, and appreciated in libraries when it serves a useful purpose. But as has been mentioned by others, technology changes quickly, and becomes obsolete just as quickly.
This prep-school library is trying something new, and I'm all for them trying. But getting rid of tried-and-proven technology in favor for the next buzz-word seems very foolish. Why not store the stacks in locking, rolling-shelf systems? This would save a great deal of space and still provide a reliable backup.
What they've done is like discarding bicycles in favor of Segways. If they want to show they have money and like new technology, fine. But when their new toys break, unexpected problems arise, or their needs change, I will be reading my books and chuckling at them.
You have higher cognitive ability, you realize how the world runs, you get depressed. Not the other way 'round.
or try http://springrts.com/
Open source RTS engine which formed around the idea of being a '3d TA' . There's a bunch of variations of TA for it and some nice other games.
A lot of old TA and SupCom players come to spring.
less polish more game.
Of course, everyone is different and I do miss out on a few 360 and PS3 exclusives, but nothing has come out for either system that has been that compelling for me.
I think when people say the Wii has "no good games", they mean it doesn't have good games like GTA, CoD, WoW, and other TLAs. But it has a ton of quick and fun, easy to learn, easy to play games that are great to play with friends, coworkers, kids, gf's, non-gamers etc.
Firewalls are capable of providing all of the positive benefits of NAT (transient traffic flow approval instead of mapping for example, blocking traffic not originated from the LAN, etc) save obfuscating the source address. Obfuscating the source address isn't particularly relevant from an attack perspective given that the entire LAN is still protected by the same Firewall process, NAT or not.
For example: you could NAT your LAN in 192.168.10.x space behind IP 1.2.3.4
Or, if you use IPv6 for your LAN, let's say you are allocated 1:2:3::/112. No need to NAT it, so you just firewall behind your gateway, let's say 1:2:3::4. You connect to shady.com port 80, sport [1:2:3::101]:2000. Firewall doesn't have to allocate a damned thing for you, but instead records the flow for [1:2:3::101]:2000 shady.com:80 as established from within the LAN and thus authorized. Shady sees all the traffic coming from [1:2:3::101]:2000, but it's not relevant since all access to 1:2:3::101 is still mediated by the firewall at gateway 1:2:3::4. Shady.com can port scan 1:2:3::101 if it likes, but won't see any open ports if you only allow LAN established traffic, or else sees your whitelisted ports for that IP only (instead of your entire LAN). Just like the IPv4/NAT scenario, keep your open ports secure.
As you can see, source IP obfuscation provides no meaningful advantage to the end user in this scenario. If anything, IPv6 users who feel like they want to use NAT could have the firewall choose random source addresses as well as random source ports out of their
Still, the major drawback to be avoided with NAT is in breaking the globally unique address space and complicating inbound connection access, which will become a growing part of popular network policy over the next few decades. One thing Bit Torrent teaches us is that "the server" will less and less frequently have resources comparable to the "client swarm", so crowdsourcing the heavy lifting (from distribution to content creation to editing to caching) becomes vital to any scaling strategy worth it's salt. The hub/spoke communication model is slowly eroding in the presence of more sophisticated, decentralized many-to-many connection models.
NAT reduces a peer to a "consumer" which can only fetch data, but never re-offer it without convoluted port forwarding messes. Entire LAN's are limited to one named service per outbound IP, unless one wishes to screw with what port they offer services on, further complicating the job for other firewalls and participants of the content network.
You'll know what I mean if you've ever tried to configure mobile SIP access. Half the time you are behind a NAT, and you'll never know in advance if it's full cone, symmetric, or just somehow pathological. Sometimes you are nested within multiple NATs which each behave differently!
Some legacy UDP protocols I've worked with need to make connections to thousands of remote IP addresses at multiple, highly transient port mappings which bring NAT mapping tables to their knees. In a firewall-only environment, it's easy to whitelist access to swaths of ports for clients and then the gateway need not maintain tables for related traffic, but can continue to protect unrelated ports unlike with SOHO DMZ.
To sum up, NAT is not only a bandaid, but it's already pulling at our short-hairs.
They probably wrote it using a combination of Emacs macros and LaTex.
Ohh, so the same way my parents created me.
Mod parent up! This is basic physics folks; I would have hoped more people on Slashdot new this. Wind resistance is the single most limiting factor in land speed records.
To illustrate, this high-powered modern steam vehicle hit 225 km/h, or 140 mph. Bruce Bursford beat this by nearly 50% on a bicycle , setting the world record of 334.6 km/h or 207.9 mph. He biked on a treadmill, with no wind resistance.
If you purchased the 32 bit version of Vista, you can go on the Microsoft website and order the 64 bit version for a little more than the cost of shipping.
Unless you bought a laptop with an OEM version in which case the only way you get 64-bit is to pay full price for it (and no, the upgrade version only upgrades a non-OEM existing copy).
That's what 'p4 diff -se' is for. It basically asks the server 'have I got any local edits that you don't know about?'. (Also '-sa' and '-sd' for local adds/deletes.)
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe