|
|
You are funny trying to play the I'm older and wiser card. You are likely to lose that one too.
And all you prove with your 198.6.1.3 example is what I said in my original posting: there have been waves or centralization (such as that one) and waves of decentralization and back again (e.g. Google DNS).
It is clear you do not know what Google DNS is. It is not the DNS that serves the "google network" but a global provider of DNS services for all and people are encouraged to use it instead of their local DNS. This makes your comment
That this is a sudden and startling discovery to you indicates nobody should listen to you
rather ironic.
That's always been relatively common. Especially if you have only one or two peers, dynamically learning the entire Internet routing table was a massive waste of resources.
I'm talking AS level organizations including internal routers as well as border routers.
but DNS is just as distributed as always
Google DNS is centralized.
BGP *is* somewhat centralized, as it always was
The change is that now many organizations drop centrally computed routing tables on the routers as opposed to the OSPF+manual tweaks that used to dominate before.
Mathematics at work and using math is not the same as mathematics. Just like the fact that I can describe said video in English doesn't mean it is English.
ut if the history of Internet networking has taught us anything, we should expect somebody to come up with a more clever distributed algorithm
The internet has moved from centralized to decentralized to centralized again. It is not the case that it has moved one-directionally towards a distributed system. Currently big parts of the internet are centrally managed (e.g. SuperDNS/GoogleDNS, IBGP, MPLS routing, most of network provisioning).
Current view is that centralizing BGP would be a "good thing" (TM).
Videos on Youtube are pure math
Just re-read that will you. "A video is pure math"... It is not art, not a form of expression between humans, not humorous or sad or cheesy. It is "pure math".
Ok. Got it. Any other pronouncements you want to make?
And reasoanble people can understand that Mythbusters is near the bottom.
They do repeat experiments under weak controls. There are many much lower ranks, including uncontrolled experiments, anecdotes, friend of a friend, folklore, legends, etc.
Let me put it another way, Mythbusters is the most scientific-method TV program that is widely watched. That is how far it is from the bottom.
well over the insipid
Three of my friends independently had a "drink and blow" party. All of them reported that the "insipid 0.8 B.A.C." was the drunkest they had ever been since back in the days in college. In fact (warranted or not) one of their take home conclusions "if you feel fine, don't worry at all about blowing past
Right, because if it is not peer reviewed and published by Elsevier then it's completely garbage. There are no degrees in between. Either it's the "truth" (TM) or it has absolutely no scientific evidentiary value.
Glad you understand so well how data collection works.
If I were him I would post the original, and the post-production images side by side. It would be very easy for him to do.
You mean like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunthert/8485283411/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Your English is pretty good, but you need to learn a new phrase:
Oh, I guess I was wrong. Goes to show.
You should try it sometime.
One more reason not to use Bing.
On a related note, in an effort to be hip Bing employees will now wear bell bottoms to the office.
Or maybe we all become a bit weary of Malthusian we-are-all-going-to-die predictions many of which have not panned out the way they were forecast to (admittedly in many cases because of the rather efficient response to said dire predictions).
I got use to the ribbon, but I still hate it and it is still way less productive than the file menu.
Ditto. Like most other people I'm unsettled by relearning an environment but usually adapt rather well after a short amount of time. However I still hate the ribbon. It is not intuitive or useful and as many have pointed out, it robs you of space in the direction you need it most.
Back in the day of copper wire communications this could be done by recording the analog signal. You would be surprised how little space it consumes, though decoding is a b*tch.
I'm not sure how feasible this is in the day and age of fiber optics, but he could well be telling the truth
NEWARK has been REZONED!! DES MOINES has been REZONED!!