The question has no meaning. By using a static spacetime diagram, there is no before or after. Time is merely a spacial dimension in this type of analysis.

Furthermore, "you" have no defined meaning in either of my two scenarios. In the first, simpler, framework, "you" can be either the individual particles in the body, the body as a collective whole, the instantaneous logical state of the brain, the collective logical state over a defined unit of time, or any combination thereof.

The Greek Ship paradox only occurs because you reuse the same label for utterly different aspects of a construct that is simultaneously logical and physical. By using a generic label, you can persuade yourself of almost anything. You must use specifics. And, yes, that means distinguishing object state from object dynamics from object encapsulation.

This is what I mean about uneducated. You lack the understanding necessary to comprehend my first post, you will doubtless fail to understand this one, and you cannot even be bothered to do the basic legwork to comprehend spacetime static waves (far simpler than m-theory, which I guarantee is as complex a model of existence as anyone has managed to achieve).

It is with nonsensical replies such as yours that I end up wondering if eugenics was such a bad concept. I still firmly believe better schooling would fix most examples of stupidity (I think 9 hours/day, compulsory between the ages of 3 and 23, narrow-band streaming per subject should suffice).

Science is not done by straw poll, so the views of most (uneducated, I might add) people is unimportant. What matters is that physicists and mathematicians take the possibility seriously and have published papers on how simulation affects QM.

Something "exists" IFF there is a defined energy matrix superimposed on a defined probability matrix where said matrices cover non-zero, finite space, and non-zero, finite time, and interact with other such matrices of equal or higher number of dimensions.

The universe can be described also as a single object, static in 5D, with all possibilities as branches, that lies at the intersection of two membranes.

The cost of sequencing is negligible these days (around $10k for a full genome). Buying a machine isn't cheap - I looked at the cost of one a year or so ago, and they were still multi-million dollar devices. (Why? Bcause I'm a geek! Having a sequencer of my own would be bloody amazing! Useless, but amazing!) Buying a slot at a lab that can run a full sequence - dirt cheap.

This would, however, mean using REAL data and not the 7-12 markers they currently use for criminology. (NB: Genetic genealogists looking to see if two people are closely related would need to perform in excess of 100 STRs and a dozen or so SNPs - if both are male, PLUS a whole load of markers off the autosomnal region, PLUS a full mitochondrial sequencing. And even then, accuracy isn't great and falls off sharply. Nobody in genetics, even those who are experts in the criminology aspect, takes current DNA testing by police seriously. The probability of coincidental matches is too high.)

Easy. Move to a system that focuses more on rehabilitation, retraining and (when an external element is a factor) removal of external factors contributing to the criminality. You still isolate from society (the sole benefit of prison) but with reduced or eliminated punitive element, there is no risk of punishing an innocent person who happens to be cojoined to someone who is guilty.

Even in the case of identical twins, the genome differs by many hundreds of markers.

The sequencing of the entire genome would cost around $10,000 (USD) each. That, by my calculation, makes $30,000 (one per guy and one for the DNA sample). The cost of finding the closest match is the cost of writing about 15 lines of C code.

I am trying to figure out where the rest of the money goes.

Look, this is very simple. We don't even know if THIS universe is a computer simulation. (See arXiv for constraints.) If this universe is a simulation, it is by definition a cyberspace. If cyberspace does not exist, then no law governing anything within this universe is possible.

Since laws governing this universe are possible, one of the statements in that chain must be false. The one most likely to be false is that cyberspace does not exist.

If cyberspace is true, then it is just as possible to establish laws in cyberspace.

However, and this is the incredibly annoying part, the assumption by the original article was that you couldn't have cyberlaws AND laws within nations. The cables have a physical location AND a logical location, and therefore must be subject to laws in both.

True, but it doesn't matter what the company is like. When people look at your resume in the future, be it on paper or on LinkedIn, they notice the names. Having Big Names on your resume is significant, and anyone applying for a job involving Linux is applying for a job at a company that knows Red Hat and probably uses their enterprise products.

In the end, a resume is all smoke and mirrors anyway. Accurate, yes. Truthful, yes. But market-speak just the same. It has no relationship to your ability to do things in the future, all it can ever do is summarize in hyper-compressed form what you have done in the past, in a context your future employers probably don't have, where the hyper-compression necessarily takes out much of the essential information as to what the starting point was and how the end point was achieved from there.

The employer knows this just as well as you do. So employers pay a lot of attention to brand names, in the hope that vendors with a good reputation to uphold will have hired and/or kept on employees who help maintain that reputation.

Again, this goes back to Marketing 101 - it doesn't matter what you know, it matters only who you know. (Which is why industry is such a mess.)

I do not, will not, customize a resume for Red Hat. The Starship Enterprise could be flying over and hiring, but they would get standard and that is that.

Those who have spent any serious time applying for jobs know that numbers matter. It is ALL a numbers game. There may be ten thousand, or maybe a hundred thousand, people who will apply for the position who technically qualify. The job market is overflowing with programmers who have "mad skillz" (and maybe even spelling skills). The odds of getting the job are very very slim and you will have taken 8 hours to customize the resume, format it perfectly, etc. It takes about 2 minutes to fire off the appropriate standard resume (I assume you've three or four standard resumes) and a marginally modified cover letter.

Assuming the probability of getting a specific job is about the same, you do the maths on which is the more productive approach.

Sure, Red Hat is a major prize, but so is the lottery. And you know how that is a really crappy investment.

First, look up the research and don't base your arguments on Anecdotal Evidence (even your own). The peer-reviewed research says they are stupid and wrong, therefore they are stupid and wrong until there is sufficient evidence to reject that hypothesis. Given your use of Anecdotal Evidence, it is clear that such a rejection may take a while.

Second, I am old enough to be tired of the utter ignorance of the world around me. I've been deep into science for longer than most Slashdotters have been alive. Hell, I've been on Slashdot longer than most Slashdotters have been alive. But not once has that science been particularly difficult or challenging. I've seen more challenging recipes for marshmallow candy. There is simply no reason for anyone to be ignorant. It isn't justifiable on the grounds of difficulty of material (much of which boils down to 1+1=2, when you get right down to it), or difficulty of access (the interwebs aren't just for lolcats, although I'm beginning to think lolcat caption writers put more effort into their work than most Slashdotters). If there's no rational justification for ignorance, then there is only one option left - you're all either mad or stupid.

IPv4 is intrinsically incapable of being secured. So, if you want to design a secure IP protocol, you cannot have one that is backwards-compatible.

IPv4 is also necessarily fragmented - there is no correlation between IP address and location within the network, leading to bloat in router tables, inefficient routing decisions, excessive latency and greater vulnerability to MitM attacks via router poisoning.

IPv4 requires manual configuration, whereas IPv6 is autoconfigurable by design.

IPv4 has support for IP Mobility and Network Mobility, via kludgy message forwarders, whereas IPv6 can support these using transitional IP addresses and backbone redirects.

IPv6 does indeed require very little to upgrade.

This is the sum total of what users actually need to do: NOTHING.

This is the sum total of what network administrators need to do: Activate autoconfigure on the router and have dynamic DNS pick up allocations from there.

That's it. That is all. NOTHING MORE.

By doing NOTHING more than the above, you would be able to pick up a laptop and migrate from wireless access point to wireless access point seamlessly - any changes in IP address and routing would be handled for you. Yes, that means you could move from the library to a cafe to your home without dropping a single packet and all connections remaining intact.

You demonstrate the real reason IPv6 isn't mainstream at this point - you've bought into the ignorant naysayers' arguments and know nothing about what IPv6 does, how to use it, or what it offers.

TLS vulnerability on Slashdot frontpage today.

SSH is of dubious value as it encrypts only select channels, whereas the remaining channels may contain sufficient information to pose a significant vulnerability.

Give me something that WORKS, for Pete's sake, and not this backyard crap.

Most of the vulnerabilities we live with are stupid and are only there because humans are incapable of assessing risk. (Those times I refer to myself as an elf, it is because I completely disavow any association with such monstrous stupidity and there are no existent homo sapien subspecies recognized that I could otherwise label myself as. As it is, I am debating whether to lobby the scientific establishment on nomenclature because there's bugger all evidence of any wisdom amongst the humans I've encountered.)

You understand that the US and British Government have lost both civilian and military laptops, unencrypted, not because enabling encryption would have been hard but because the bloody plebs in said establishments were too bloody lazy! They did not comprehend that risk existed, assuming that a computer that wasn't online was guaranteed safe. That each and every e-commerce site that puts a database of credit card details plus names and addresses on the SAME BLOODY MACHINE as the web server is not doing so because typing in "192.168.0.2" is so much harder than "127.0.0.1", but because e-commerce companies have a god complex and thus risk is what other people face.

"According to some of the other posters...." Sorry, Anecdotal Evidence is not acceptable. Please re-watch Dilbert and try again. I have never had a problem implementing DNSSEC, it took me about 45 minutes to get IPv6 up and running the first time in 1996 (including time to compile kernel, establish tunnels, configure the router, register with the 6Bone, etc) and about 45 seconds to get IPv6 up and running the other day (99.9% of everything has already been done). I absolutely refuse to accept such wimpy excuses, especially in a tech/geek forum. If the CEOs want to go play with their Barby dolls, that's fine, but I don't accept whining from those who should know better.

There are few reports of people flying planes into office blocks. People changed behavior, not because there was a reason, but because it was highly visible.

There are many reports of drunk driving fatalities every day. (More die in road accidents per day than have died in terrorist attacks in the past decade.) Nobody changes their behavior because these deaths are NOT highly visible.

People don't give a shit about risk assessment (and aren't capable of it anyway), people only care about the emotional, visible things in life.

This is why cybersecurity will never get implemented sensibly - nobody bar the most hardcore geek gets emotionally attached to the functioning of a device, and visibility is near-zero.

Corporations lose billions each year due to computer fraud. How often do you see such attacks in the news? How many of those attacks were caused by DNS poisoning? (My guess is that nobody knows the figure because most companies who admit being attacked don't say how, and most companies attacked don't admit to having been broken into. No data, so nothing to base any figures on.)

We have to assume that as long as computer fraud is taking place with no indication of how it is taking place that all open vectors are suspect. Some are more likely than others, so you should definitely be closing high priority ones in the absence of information, but closing very low maintenance vectors early is also a good idea - those will be things most often forgotten about and/or assumed to have already been dealt with. Putting the DNS fix in before you forget to is wiser than forgetting to ever put the fix in at all.

2-sided authentication was mandated in the early IPv6 specs by the IPSec mechanism. Sun offered an alternative, SKIP.

Since then, both have been ported to IPv4.

IPSec is occasionally used by VPN clients, but that's about it. Most VPN clients are run on laptops or other portable devices, often over a wireless link. This is where Sun SKIP was stronger than IPSec, which is ideal for a wired network but gets noisy when you've links that aren't guaranteed stable and error-free.

Regardless, neither is used for meaningful network-to-network or host-to-host 2-sided authentication on the wired Internet.

As for solving the wrong problem, again with IPv6, I'll point to the UK's solution which is to use carrier NAT. Which breaks just about everything. (Which is frustrating a hell. I was one of the pioneers on IPv6 in the UK, and indeed had the first registered node on the 6Bone At that time, the most recent Linux kernel was 2.0.20 and you had to use a special patchset to get the IPv6 support.)

What this boils down to is that there is no desire AT ALL in industry to use correct solutions, good solutions or even workable hacks. The industry wants things that are fundamentally broken to stay broken because repairs hurt profits and profits are god to them. (Which is clearly irrational, Linus made it quite clear HE was God.)

In a pure or semi-pure market economy, profitable defects are superior to costly integrity. The market is incapable of addressing this because the market isn't designed to consider intangibles like security, reliability, robustness, etc. It's designed to keep shareholders and directors happy and stuff the plebs actually using the products.