Net neutrality does not specify how devices or bandwidth use are licensed. Net neutrality only deals with the potential gatekeeping abuses by providers and peering points. Providers are still free to segment the market for accessing the Internet in any way they see fit . . . obviously within the general constraints of market forces.
One of the early advantages of NAT is that providers charged for individual addresses. Having only a single address prevented providers from charging per device. I bet that within a year of IPv6 going mainstream providers will then have a means of counting devices on private networks and start charging accordingly again.
You don't need to map a second web server to port 8080. Just use another public IP address! Just because you need two web servers does not mean that every toaster and doorknob needs to be publicly addressable.
In reality it sounds like you have an issue with your home network and are not thinking at an enterprise level. There are still some valid uses of NAT and why there are provisions for NAT in IPv6.
Outstanding! Now that that it has been settled that roads are for bikes and not cars, I expect that everybody gets out of my way when I ride my bike around town.
"Quite frankly, government subsidies for these are a waste until the fundamentals line up."
Are you suggesting that the government should only be subsidizing mature industries?
I am not a fan of any subsidies . . . especially for mature industries. If the economics do not line up for a mature industry then the industry creates a net economic drag on the economy and should not be subsidized.
The entire point of a subsidy should be to test and support the viability of new ideas that have the potential to create large economic benefits in the future. Instead what we have is a 100 years of subsidies for a handful of companies while pointing the finger at peanuts that should fundamentally change the world if allowed to compete on a level playing field.
Typically a company has to undergo an assessment to qualify for the insurance and then periodically reassess annually. At least that has been the case for every information security insurance policy with which I have been involved. Where companies can veer off track is if they are not consistent in their application of the assessment. For example a new system or process goes on line and a senior manager just wants it done, NOW! The new system or process may never be considered under that annual assessment because the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. In another example an IT manager runs everything by the seat of his/her pants and forgets to consider the insurance requirements when deploying new systems or processes, or allows staff to "fix problems" in production without evaluating the fixes against the original requirements.
I am betting that the feature will manage speed based on destination and charging. Many people either over or under estimate how speed affects range. By integrating speed/range calculations into driving, a Tesla should be able to manage max speed for the driver without the driver having to constantly guess.
For bonus point the software update would be able to incorporate other range affecting factors into the calculations such as traffic, speedlimits, elevation changes, weather and driver habits.
Fair enough. As I say I was not sure what your point was. That could be on me, but even after rereading your post I am still not sure. Your follow-up provides some clarity.
I agree that the market will have to evolve. Currently most electric cars can only travel 70ish miles per charge. This limits ownership to people who can charge at home. Incidentally approximately 60% of adults in the U.S. live in a home where they could charge a car. I don't think that home charging is limiting the market. Range is likely the limiting factor.
I expect that as we see affordable pure electric cars with ranges of 150 ~ 200 miles that market will explode from the current 1% to 5%~10% all still comfortably within the home charging footprint of the market. Outside of the reduction of range anxioty the economics of electric cars becomes increasingly compelling with increased miles driven.
But to your point regarding the need to increase public charging on the scale of gas stations, I just do not see that happening or even important. I think that there are more incentives for appartment property owners to outfit premium electric car spot and charge a small fee than to have gas station like charging.
I cannot tell if you are stuck thinking in a traditional gas station paradigm or are making my point for me. You are correct that there needs to be many more places to charge electric cars. But you seem to be mixing home charging with public charging. You should never have to wait in line at home unless you have two electric cars and only one outlet. By the way, it can cost as little as $150 to add an outlet. Of the approximately 600 times I have charged my car I have only plugged into public stations three times, and none of those times was absolutely necessary.
Yes, however you very rarely need to go to a public charge station. Most charging is done at home while you sleep or for some people while they work. I understand that this is not practical for apartment dwellers, but keep in mind that any standard outlet can recharge the typical driving range over night; no charge station needed.
A more important metric might be how many public charge stations are necessary compared to gas stations.
I think you missed the point of my post and maybe even the article.
You are absolutely correct that a language is a tool. But the point of a tool is to solve a problem. I was not advocating the use of C for general purpose business coding or even calling C an equivalent to Java. I was making a point by analogy being C has many obvious constructs that serve the language more than the problem being soled. There are also many constructs in Java that although not as heavy as having to manage your own memory off-sets are nonetheless equally superfluous to solving the actual business problem.
Java is a great language for many things, but as the article accurately notes, the language has its own layer of cruft that only services the purpose of the language. This becomes a bigger problem as Java developers push Java into more niches where it is likely not the most appropriate language.
While you, my friend, may be an experienced practitioner who selects another language when the problem is not appropriate for Java, there are many who simply force Java into the project. So regardless of your superior professional judgment regarding the selection of languages, the premise of my statements and the article stand.
I think they are referring to thing such as malloc calls in C. Although the call is necessary, its purpose is to serve the programming language and not necessarily the purpose of the program. The point is that the most appropriate language should be abstracted sufficiently so that the programmer can focus as much as possible on solving the problem and not servicing the needs of the language.
What happens if someone else creates an identicly perfect robotic player and joins the table? If, as the researches claim, winning limit Texas Hold'em is a directly solvable problem then anybody else who tries to solve the problem will come up with the exact same solution.
If these two robots played each other wouldn't the winner be determined by pure luck?
More to the point, why is it even possible for a third party app to access this much informaiton?
I have an unpatched test system which has the Bash flaw and I cannot get your example to work. Maybe the flaw isn't as pervasive as you claim.