IP addresses (even IPv6) are addresses, not phone numbers. The address identifies the place where the packets are supposed to go, not the person to whom they're supposed to go.

IPv6 was designed to be hierarchical to address some of the shortcomings of the IPv4 allocation process, which requires backbone routers to maintain and exchange large routing lists.

Personal subnets won't be implemented because people move around; it's not to change the global routing infrastructure every time you go to work.

Now it might be the case that broadband ISPs assign networks to their customers; this would not happen with wireless or dial-up though. It's a reasonable assumption that the customer end of a broadband connection won't move geographically.

Misdiagnosis.

It's not because people underestimate noise cancellation. It's because cell phones lack sidetone.

Telephone manufacturers have known for a century that sidetone is necessary for people to regulate their voice volume effectively.

Why is Gmail any more "professional" than Hotmail?

All either address says about you is, "I got a free email address with a web interface".

Your anti-Microsoft bias is showing through.

It's clear that most of the posters on this thread have not read it. I highly suggest that you do so regardless of your position on the issue.

The author (a lawyer, not a physicist) does not attempt to judge the science of the issue. He also specifically considers and discusses many of the arguments that have been set up as straw men elsewhere in the thread, e.g. "the earth has been subjected to cosmic rays for millions of years", "the objections are just the paranoid rantings of luddites and uneducated lunatics", etc.

Before I read the article I was of the opinion that opposition to LHC was simply paranoiac raving; after all the physicists at CERN understand the underlying physics, right? After I read the article I am actually moderately concerned and I hope that a court does hear a request for an injunction (I have no opinion whether an injunction is warranted but I want someone OUTSIDE the physics community to review the risk analysis done by CERN).

The author first does a really thorough job of describing the scientific literature around the proposed risks of the LHC and CERN's responses.

The second half of the paper addresses the issue of "if a request for an injunction against the LHC comes before a court, how is a judge to decide"?

The author considers and rejects both the testimony of expert witnesses (he discusses US Supreme Court criteria for judging the testimony of expert witnesses and notes that in this case there are two difficult (perhaps insurmountable) problems with expert witness testimony in this case- personal bias and testability of theories- pp55-58). The author also considers and rejects use of cost-benefit analysis which evidently is a common tool courts use to decide whether to grant an injunction (pp58-65). Instead the author poses 4 frameworks that courts could use to decide the matter - analyzing the theoretical grounding that the scientists involved used to assess risk (e.g. are the scientists basing risk on known knowns, known unknowns or unknown unknowns), analyzing for faulty scientific work (e.g. mathematical errors in calculating risk), analyzing for mistakes in risk assessment due to "credulity"- e.g. predisposition and/or groupthink (you can see that all over this thread), and analyzing for bias or negligence.

I found the table on p71 of the pdf (and the associated discussion) to be pretty damning for the dismissive position taking by LHC proponents. The bottom line is that CERN made its risk assessments and arguments for the safety of LHC, but that every time one of these arguments has been challenged, the argument was not defended, but rather a new argument was made. If it's safe, then the arguments that it's safe should be able to withstand some scrutiny- this is the empirical nature of science, right?

I am not saying that LHC is unsafe but rather that CERN hasn't reasonably proven that it is and that their behavior has raised my suspicious rather than lowering them.

Given the undesirability of the worst case scenario (destruction of the planet), it seems that there should be plausible arguments for the safety of the device that withstand moderately intense scrutiny. I'm not claiming that every nut job with a wacky theory should be able to derail such endeavors. However in this specific instance I believe that there are plausible concerns that have not been adequately addressed.

I'm not going to drill into further details of the paper but as of this writing, the author of the paper had addressed the arguments proposed in every concern (or dismissal) that I've read in this /. thread at +3 or higher moderation.

There. Fixed that for you.

A good old wired POTS phone will work even if the power is out at your house. No UPS necessary.

Which is a free download from Microsoft:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bb980924.aspx?wt.svl=more_downloads

Your comment is a non sequitur.

The link you provided might show that it's cheaper to build your own Mac than to buy one from Apple. However, since the same PC you built would run Windows, then it is necessarily the case that it cannot be less expensive to build a Mac; at best it costs the same.

Now the point that you are missing is that the Mac supports far less hardware than Windows supports. If there exists at least one component that is not supported by MacOS but is supported by Windows, and that component is cheaper than any comparable component suppored by MacOS, then it must be the case that it is cheaper to build a PC.

HAHAHAHAHahahaha.... oh wait, you were serious.

How did you manage to miss the entire point? And further, where did you learn logic and economics?

Getting denied access to a cost=1x device and instead being pointed to an inferior cost=10x device is not about the profit motive at all. It's about avoiding fraud. As a previous poster said, if Medicare actually approved iPhones for speech impairment, we would, overnight, see an epidemic of speech impediments in the US, orders of magnitude over what the base rate is now.

Now if Apple made an iPhone with app store, internet, voice, and iPod functionality disabled that could run this application only, then I suspect that Medicare would approve it. But Apple won't (because of the profit motive). Designing, building, and marketing devices is expensive. It's hard to bring a device to market that will only be bought and used by a small number of people, and such devices tend to be clunky (just good enough because elegant design is expensive and time consuming and you're already fighting expense) and expensive (because you can't take advantage of economies of scale). Government certification (because in the US, they often foot the bill) is also expensive.

Bad example. Comparing infant mortality rates between countries is not an apples-to-apples comparison; making such an assumption inaccurately assumes that we count the same way. We don't. In fact the way we count guarantees that we will have among the highest counts.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

Infant mortality numbers do not indicate that the US health care system is in any way inferior to anyone else'. There may be compelling arguments to support such a proposition, but infant mortality is not one of them.

BTW why are we discussing this in a copyright thread?

A far more serious issue will be sustained engineering - patches and so forth.

The AC is a retard.

NTFS reads blocks. If your hosts file is smaller than 1 block, it doesn't make a disk I/O difference HOW BIG each address is.

String parsing is fast. Perhaps it would be a reduction of a couple dozen CPU cycles to read a "0" rather than "127.0.0.1", but that actually might be offset if the code to look for 0 caused a page fault due to code bloat to support special cases. Under the covers Windows would still have to alloc a SOCKADDR so we're only talking about a difference in parsing complexity.

Plus, the AC poster obviously isn't familiar with Windows DNSClient service. It is not actually necessary to parse LMHOSTS every time a network connection is made by name; the file is only parsed when it changes.

None of these are better, as they will all be interfered with or blocked by NATs and inline IDS. The sole exception is extra ACKs, which might be caught and cause a channel reset with some IDS devices.

The payload in a retransmitted packet will be carried unaltered regardless of intervening network hardware.

Detecting retransmits can be done and statistical anomalies detected. However most router, proxy & firewall vendors will probably not want to save the extra state per-connection (last seq# transmitted + retransmit count) per active connection which is required to do the detection.

Nothing prevents the retransmit payload from being encrypted. However I suggest a more subtle strategy: copy the first X bytes of the original packet and then add encrypted payload. Anyone who happens to look at one of these packets will see the "garbled" message and assume it's a TCP stack bug on the transmitting host.

Answer: not enough information