Computer Hope
Other => Other => Topic started by: Geek-9pm on November 02, 2010, 01:19:36 PM
-
U.S. running out of IP addresses, White House issues advisory
(Google it...)
Many experts agree that we are running out of IP addresses but no one is sure how long we have until it becomes a serious problem. Some have said it could happen as soon as 2010. Is there anything that can be done to keep us from running out of IP addresses? Indeed there is. There is no need to panic as people did when Y2K was looming, but action should be taken.
The most obvious option to prevent running out of IP addresses is switching to a different formula. The good news is that there is already a similar one available, known as IPv6. Using a combination of six integers allows trillions of new numbers to be created, which will help keep us from running out of IP addresses.
http://www.wisegeek.com/are-we-really-running-out-of-ip-addresses.htm
Here is another one:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-23/tech/internet.addresses_1_internet-numbers-ip-addresses-ipv6?_s=PM:TECH
Gag me with a spoon!
and another:
http://www.bizreport.com/2010/09/us-running-out-of-ip-addresses-white-house-issues-advisory.html#
I will believe it when I see it.
-
Is this supposed to be news?
-
60% of new addys are created by spambots...
-
upgrading their systems to IPv6, or "Next Generation Internet" as it's widely known, from the current IPv4 protocol.
I don't think I've ever heard the term "Next Generation Internet". It's always IPv6. Unless I've been living under a rock. ???
Also, (just noticed your title) we are actually running out of IPv4 addresses. That's why there's such a big push for IPv6. But I haven't heard anyone else say that it would be as soon as 2011.
-
I don't think I've ever heard the term "Next Generation Internet". It's always IPv6. Unless I've been living under a rock. ???
You haven't been living under a rock. That's just junk "gee-whiz" writing from a lazy journalist. If this was Digg I'd digg down the OP.
-
I heard something about Internet 2 being developed some time ago at Stanford but very little has come out recently.
-
INTERNET 2!
You seed nth magic word! Enjoy the video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkeXJ11geas ;D
-
I have a nice cache of IPv4 addresses in a storeroom. You see, It's basic supply and demand, if we do run out of IPv4 addresses, I can come in and save the day and sell the stock of IPv4 addresses that I have. At a nice markup, of course.
Let's do the math here ppl
we've got 4 quadrants of 8 bits each; that's 32-bits of space; which, directly, would be about 4.3 billion IP addresses or so.
of course, the 4 quadrants also mean different things; for the most part, we've got the network part and the machine part.
As far as the internet itself is concerned, of course all that will be "counted" in the total would be internet facing addresses. An Internet Facing address is given to a consumer via DHCP by their ISP, from a range of IP addresses that the ISP "owns".
Generally, an ISP often purchases a number of network IPs equal to the expected number of consumers; the 65536 IPs available when they purchase a single network IP (the first part) is often enough for the medium sized companies. and they usually just get a number of them if necessary.
In any case, the entire thing is blown way out of proportion. The actions being taken are no different then when we were "running out of phone numbers" in some cases; most phone numbers are a 3 letter prefix followed by a 4-letter designator; in total, this give you only 10^7 (or 10,000,000) different phone numbers. Clearly, 10 million doesn't even come close to what is done now; so when that "limit" was being approached (and possibly long before it ) they devised the concept of area codes- simply tack on another set of digits in front of the 7 digits, call it an area code and be done with it. This meant that there were 10 million phone numbers for every possible area code; so far, this has proven more then sufficient; the total sum is 10^10, or 10 trillion different phone numbers, which will serve us just fine for the foreseeable future.
That's simply the way any industry like that works; you have an initial launch that has a limitation, but at the time it seems like it will never be reached- 10 million people using phones? bah, impossible. a program that needs more then 640K of memory? ridiculous. unfathomable. The same goes for BIOS limitations regarding hard drive size; at it's core, the limitation isn't with the technology, but rather the way we represent numbers using that technology. Take LBA and hard drives; basically, a hard drive says "hey, I have this many Logical Blocks" using a defined standard; the limitation here is the size of the number that the hard drive can give back; through the years this has gotten larger and larger, and everytime people figure "well, that's done, we'll never need to make it any bigger" but of course, they do. What it boils down to is us trying to create an infinite number space and store it within a finite space. It's not possible, so we make compromises.
As far as IPv4 is concerned- will we run out? You betcha, of course we will- it's simply the way things go. As long as we continue to reason out stuff like "well, golly gee, that's like the same number of atoms in the universe, we'll never use them all" and then you have companies literally buying out huge chunks of that seemingly limitless space making it so the number is approached. (this is practically what happened to Ipv4) IPv6 seems limitless- Why would we need that many? I don't know. That's probably what people said when they wondered wether the 4.3 Billion different addresses with IPv4 was enough. At the time it was conceived the internet was hardly the popular everybody uses it all the time thing it is today, so 4.3 billion seemed like a huge, almost unreachable number; something that we would never approach ever. Maybe something new will come along that gobbles up a million IP addresses or something, I don't know, it's unforeseeable.
Lastly, as I've touched on, there is a difference between "used" addresses and "allocated" addresses. Most of the otherwise usable IP addresses were purchased by corporations early on- those count as unallocated, but are unused.
Also, I find this "source" interesting:
http://www.bizreport.com/2010/09/us-running-out-of-ip-addresses-white-house-issues-advisory.html#
truly, all the various sources on this often say that the "proliferation of blackberries, laptops, and so forth" are causing this loss of free internet addresses, while ignoring the fact that such devices get their IP addresses from local LAN networks, most likely a wireless router, and therefore are not using up "any more" IPs- the router is still the only internet facing device.
This in addition to saying that IPv6 is "widely known" as something that almost nobody has heard of, which sort of goes against the meaning of "widely known".
In an interesting twist, all of the news articles and specifically the "white house urging"- basically, if one was to translate it to dialog, their method of solving the problem is this:
WH: Oh no. we're running out of IP addresses. Don't worry, we know how to fix it! ISPS!
ISPS: yes?
WH: Use IPv6!
ISPS: we've been working on integrating that into our systems for years, it's an ongoing project...
WH: Well, do it faster! Whew, now that we've averted that crisis, what else is on the agenda?
Anyway, it reminded me of this (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2010/11/02/10084450.aspx) blog post; specifically, the quote from a seventh grader when asked how they would address the nation if they became president:
Something must be done, and I will make it happen.
The whole situation with news networks and such is equally interesting; basically, they "report" that this is news once every few months, and oddly the proximity to this "limit" never changes. Why just last year I'm quite certain there were reports that the US was within 1% of running out of addresses. Do they just make up random numbers or something?
-
Gag me with a spoon!
You sound just like this :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnVE3UTIgEM
just kidding
-
Yes, I started this post to show how silly this myth is. It's amazing how the condoms who think they are technical writers are able to fluff up this issue way beyond reality.
There is no shortage of IP addresses in any practical sense. Above BC programmer noted that there are enough available IP addresses in the four byte structure to provide one IP address for every three or four people living on this planet. It is quite normal for several workstations and users to share a single IP address on the Internet. Typically a server might assign 64 different users to one IP address. And even servers sometimes low volume servers share IP addresses, depending on the traffic and the needs of the companies involved.
Somehow the myth got started that every single workstation server user and device has to have their own unique address on the web. That's not true.
If anybody has questions about this, there are some members of the forum that can explain this in greater detail than I could. But the point is that there is no real need to expand the IP address structure at this time. Maybe someday.
-
Yes, I started this post to show how silly this myth is. It's amazing how the condoms who think they are technical writers are able to fluff up this issue way beyond reality.
Amazing, yes, but not that surprising, when you think about it.
But the point is that there is no real need to expand the IP address structure at this time. Maybe someday.
Exactly; ipv6 should be something that should be integrated more slowly; if they try to switch as fast as these so-called technical writers seem to encourage, All we'll end up with is a buggy and useless implementation of something that doesn't really add any features to the previous version. Thankfully, software, hardware, and networking companies aren't run by technical writers, so they actually know what the situation is.
-
I'm just curious where you guys get your ideas about IPv4 not being used up in the near future..... I mean all of the companies that are looked to as network authorities are pushing IPv6. This is actually the first time I've heard about anyone questioning the exhaustion of IPv4. If anyone's got any real evidence, I'd like to hear about it, but so far, I think it's just speculation.
www.iana.org
www.arin.net, https://www.arin.net/knowledge/v4-v6.html
www.cisco.com
-
michaewlewis,
Should I have to offer proofs that the issue of IP for saturation is an exaggeration? No, rather those for radical change to should offer convincing working models that prove change will be beneficial for all. They cannot. Because not all will benefit.
This should remain a technical issue and not be elevated to a political issue. Technically speaking the IP4 and IP6 are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible. It is very irresponsible of journalist to elevate this question to the level of a crisis situation. There is no easy solution. Well, really there is, but nobody seems to like it or accept it. Let me say it in purple.
At the present time there are, in effect, to global networks in place. One is the network that we all enjoy, and the other is a private network used by large corporations and they use IP6 or whatever they want to send large amounts of data in one place to another.
There are many, many different references you can find on the subject. The danger here is that individuals will have little experience in networking and take something out of context and elevated to a global issue without understanding the impact that their words may have on others. I have lived in Third World countries and I am very sensitive to any changes in technology that puts the developing countries at a disadvantage. A massive overhaul of the Internet to a new low level layer would be a great burden to all the Internet providers and the developing countries. They would effectively have to buy new equipment.
But can the problem be solved at the software level? Yes, and it already has. The present standards used on the World Wide Web provide for different protocols in different layers. What we're talking about here in this context is a protocol in the lower level. It is not necessary to change lower-level protocol. The issues can be resolved at upper levels. At a small loss in performance.
I have been trying to think of an illustration to explain this, but there are none. That is because the public packet switching network is one of the most sophisticated and advanced data transport system that mankind has ever developed for wide global use.. It did not come about by just some hit and miss guesses. It required considerable study and research by brilliant man who had a firm grasp of the technical issues involved. The present system works, and works very well. Saturation of the IP4 address space can be resolved at the upper levels. And that is how it is currently being done.
Theoretically, there could be a performance increase for companies that have large amounts of data to transfer. Let them continue establish their own networks at their own expense. And leave the existing public packet switching system for the rest of us.
If you need references as to why this is true. There are many, many of them out there. But to understand the issues you first have to have an understanding that we not really talking about just a single protocol. Or talking about a component as part of an entire system. The system works as it is. Changing the one low-level component puts a tremendous burden on everybody that already has invested in routers and servers and similar equipment. Anyone who wants to do more research in this is just a do a Google search on the keywords and come up with lots of articles that delve into the both the technical and social implications of making a radical change at this time.
By the way, I am no longer active in the industry and stay at home because I have both my old age and very serious visual handicap. So I dictate through speech recognition and that accounts for some of the strange syntax you may see. Regardless of my poor writing skills, I do understand the topic. I just wish that people who had good writing skills would spend more time trying to understand the subject before they make recommendations to others.
End of rant. For now at least. :)
-
There is no shortage of IP addresses in any practical sense.
As of October 2010 predictions of exhaustion date of the unallocated IANA pool seem to converge to between January 2011 and January 2012. After the IANA pool exhaustion, each RIR will be able to supply from their last assigned addresses for another 8 months after IANA exhaustion, when at least one of the RIRs is expected to be depleted. At this point hosts will appear on the Internet that are only addressable by IPv6.
-
As of October 2010 predictions of exhaustion date of the unallocated IANA pool seem to converge to between January 2011 and January 2012.
Couldn't they say December 2012 and give the doomsayers a bit more to work with? ;D
-
As of October 2010 predictions of exhaustion date of the unallocated IANA pool seem to converge to between January 2011 and January 2012. After the IANA pool exhaustion, each RIR will be able to supply from their last assigned addresses for another 8 months after IANA exhaustion, when at least one of the RIRs is expected to be depleted. At this point hosts will appear on the Internet that are only addressable by IPv6.
No. Not true.
-
No. Not true.
Evidence (not opinion) please.
-
No, you produce the evidence.
This system is working NOW!
Prove that it will fail before the fact!
You can't.
The system does not depend of the size of the IP.
Come racial interests are promoting the hysterical myth that we need more addresses space.
It it was a fact, telecoms engineers would not argue about nit.
It is not about what we need. It is about what they want.
Here is a video in favor of ip6. Note that the deployment is not simple
http://www.informit.com/podcasts/episode.aspx?e=841A4201-8E6A-4798-AA83-F7A8C555AB5E
Also Note that the moderator ask s him "Why?"
Listen carefully to the answer.
-
That video is on a subscription-only site. Note for other readers... The issue of ipv4 address exhaustion has been a well-known reality for a number of years. I am not sure why Geek-9pm is posting this stuff. I fear it is a little eccentric.
-
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (September 2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address
-
So Geek is sidestepping the challenge to provide evidence for the assertions that HE initially made, and has linked to an article that actually casts doubt on what he asserts...
IPv4 address exhaustion
The IP version 4 address space is rapidly nearing exhaustion of available and assignable address blocks. As of October 2010 predictions of an exhaustion date for the unallocated IANA pool converge to the middle of 2011
This is what I said about 6 posts ago. This is what the experts say. But Geek with his SpeakWriter knows better... Or is he recanting? Hard to tell exactly what he means sometimes.
-
My point is the sky is not falling.
Read the whole thing again. The article also explains :
1.) How the present system does keep on working. That is a fact.
2.) Why the system is considered to be poor in scalability. That is an evaluation.
As I said said, this is not about we we need, its about what they want.
I never said the four byte space would never be filled.
I said it is not an issue.
To say "We are running out of (blank)" denotes a crisis, promoting hysteria.
To say "There is no more (blank)" states a fact.
My point is a near full IP map is not something to use as a political hot potato.
Now if Crisco whats to give everybody a free replacement -
for all their old routers that are stuck on IP4!
Hey, Intel did that when the found the Pentium -
could not do double precision division correctly.
But if not -
Cisco and others would benefit at our expense.
It is what they want, not what we need.
My cable provider wants to control every TV set I own. -- I don't need that.
My Telephone carrier wants my family to have 7 cells phones. -- I don't need that
The Utility companies want IP address for
- my electric Wat meter,
- my water meter,
- natural gas meter,
- lock on my front gate and
- two for the garbage can. (one for the lid, one for the can.)
-- I don't need that!
The alternative is to ask everybody not to wast IP assignments . Way is that so hard?
Or does your garbage can need two IP address?
-
Or does your garbage can need two IP address?
We don't have "garbage cans" where I live; we use rubbish bins.
You come over like one of those American libertarian types. Is that an accurate assessment?
-
Like:
Bill Bixby,
Clint Eastwood,
Barry Goldwater?
No, I am note like them.
-
You have IP addys for your garbage cans ? ?
-
You have IP addys for your garbage cans ? ?
Not if I can stop it!
Would you want your cans on Face-book? :o
-
The Utility companies want IP address for
- my electric Wat meter,
- my water meter,
- natural gas meter,
- lock on my front gate and
- two for the garbage can. (one for the lid, one for the can.)
-- I don't need that!
um.... where are you getting that idea from?
The alternative is to ask everybody not to wast IP assignments . Way is that so hard?
nobody can unintentionally "waste" IP assignments; if your household has two IPs, it means you are paying for them both (why you would need two I cannot guess). the extra devices, including Dustbins/Rubbish bins/garbage cans/garbage "holders"/whatever, would use IPs, but only on the local network.
Basically, while it didn't seem like it in my posts, I don't necessarily disagree that we are running out of space, I disagree with the reasons given (that "everybody" has ipods and other networked devices that "take up IP addresses" since that's obvious bunk.
-
As far as the assumption that all ISP would have to replace their hardware to migrate to IPv6, that is really just nonsense and a lack of knowledge of IPv6. Cisco, and I would assume many other router vendors, has been including support for IPv6 in even their simple managed switches (not to mention, actual routers) for at least ten years. If memory serves correctly, I believe even Windows 98 had IPv6 drivers available (maybe even built in). It's very hard for me to believe that even third world countries would not have IPv6 capabilities.
Geek-9pm, I would be interested to know what your definition of upper and lower level protocols are and how they would solve this issue. IP is a lower level protocol itself (network layer in OSI model) and internet/network authorities have already addressed why NAT is not the solution (If I can find the link again, I'll post it).
Out of curiosity, can anyone positively verify that phones don't grab public ip addresses when they connect to the internet via their cell provider? BTW, private IP ranges are always 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, or 192.168.0.0/16. If your phone does not have an address in those ranges, it is using a public ip address. It seems like there are all sorts of differing opinions on whether cell phones have ip addresses and since I don't have a web capable phone, I can't check for myself.
-
BTW, private IP ranges are always 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, or 192.168.0.0/16.
No they aren't. Private IPs can use any subnet mask. That's sort of why that's an option in the Router config, so you can change it.
-
Okay. Let me rephrase that. "Legal/authorized" private IPs are in those IP ranges. Of course you can change you own private ip range to whatever you want. You can even change your own router's internal ip address to be the same as Google's, but no one in their right mind would do that. Same goes for cell carriers and ISPs. They will only use "private" ip addresses in those ranges.
-
That you for your responses
Apparently many think this issue is a hard nut to crack. No easy solution.
Here is just one of many IT advertisements:
Start planning for IPv6 today!
The transition from an existing IPv4 network to IPv6 requires careful planning and design. A plethora of transition strategies has been defined within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to facilitate co-existence and migration to IPv6. But which approach is best?
Download our free IPv6 Address Management Guide, which includes:
* NEW! IPv4-to-IPv6 Transition Strategies white paper - provides an introduction to the variety of IPv4-IPv6 transition technologies and provides sample migration scenarios.
* IPv6 Addressing and Management Challenges white paper - provides an overview of IPAM-related IPv6 technologies, challenges and solutions
* Best Practices for IP Address Management white paper - recommends best practices for next-generation IP management
-- The BT Diamond IP Team
http://btdiamondip.com/software/offers/ipv6.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=IPv6&keyword=IPv4&ad=6123439987&type=Search&site=&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&keyword=IPv4&ad=6123439987&type=Search&site=&gclid=CPLJy9n4kaUCFQlubAodzQECPA
As for my option, I have lived in developing countries. I have seen that any change is hard for them to handle. My opinion is that a quick transition to IPv6 will hinder their progress. And and would like to be wrong.
Yes, some parts of the third world and going ahead with the deployment IPv6.
Mostly Asia.
-
The problem with a lot of your research projects is you ony subscribe to whatever you read from whatever source...
Then it's posted here and you are not objective to the replies that are garnered...
Then it turns into a 4 page Post arguing semantics...and frequently going awry.
Just a personal observation...
-
I have lived in developing countries. I have seen that any change is hard for them to handle.
This is such a ridiculous argument.
Basically, you're saying we should slow down so they can keep up with the more developed countries. That's a load of tosh. The developing countries have more important things to worry about then what IP version they will be using for their network backbones- and in almost all cases those are at least related to why they are developing countries in the first place. You're entire reasoning is basically that "developing countries will have trouble keeping up with the changes" As if it's some huge revelation. They also have trouble with civil war, disease, proper sanitation, and any number of things (although that depends on which "developing" country we're talking about). It's stupid to artificially hinder the advancement of new technologies simply as some sort of artificial handicap so that developing nations will be able to keep up. They can integrate the technology when they please, there isn't going to be some huge complete switchover from ipv4 to ipv6, when IPv4 no longer has any to allocate, then new allocations will be made with IPv6, without a correspondent IPv4 address. Yes, those new IPs will be pretty much inaccessible unless there is a network backbone that supports IPv6, but I highly doubt that the main concern of those in developing countries is wether they will be able to visit websites.
The problem with a lot of your research projects is you ony subscribe to whatever you read from whatever source...
Yep, quite a lot of Ad Hoc hypotheses, reverse ad populum, Apophenia, and arguments to ignorance. That's not to mention confirmation bias.
-
IPv6 is not some money-grab from the corporations trying to keep the people down, actually it's quite the opposite. The networking companies would like nothing better than to sell lots of carrier-grade NAT boxes to deal with the IPv4 address space crunch. The media companies would love to have every user behind NAT, because it kills P2P file sharing and restricts content hosting to those with the means to procure public IPs. An IPv4-only Internet will inevitably evolve into a client/server crap heap, where the users can run a web browser, and not much else.
There's nothing magic about IPv6; it's fundamentally just IPv4 with 96 extra bits. The IPv4 crunch gives ISPs a completely-legitimate reason to restrict your freedom, and IPv6 deployment is a clear way around that. Arguing against it is just shooting yourself in the foot.
Even if you don't care about upgrading your own IPv4-only equipment anytime soon, you should still want your ISP to be ready, so that when you find that you need a public IP (or a few billion billion of them), you'll have options available.
And places like Africa will arguably benefit the most from IPv6, because they have so few IPv4 addresses to work with, and their network deployment is just getting started.
-
An IPv4-only Internet will inevitably evolve into a client/server crap heap, where the users can run a web browser, and not much else.
Which works out great, because a vast majority of users run a web browser and not much else.
-
Hey, As long as we use a system of numbering, and have to put a degree of uniformality to it, like only having 10 didgets in a phone number, the posible combonations of phone numberes run out.
If you just tack on a 3 didget code in front of it, like they did with phone numbers, it should last us another while longer. Am i right people??
-
Hey, As long as we use a system of numbering, and have to put a degree of uniformality to it, like only having 10 didgets in a phone number, the posible combonations of phone numberes run out.
If you just tack on a 3 didget code in front of it, like they did with phone numbers, it should last us another while longer. Am i right people??
zeroburn, you sure are reviving some old threads!
-
Old thread? Yes. Do the majority or even a large number of visitors understand what this is about? The internet is working. It is not going to come to a halt.
The problem is economic forces that want to alter the technology to advance new products. That is a nice way to say "fear and greed" are pushing the change.
Until people understand that, the purpose of the thread has not been realized. I have tried to explain this and we get responses from posters that believe we have to believe whatever the big commercial interests say.
The fact is, thee are enough IP address available to let every man woman and child on this planet to have there own computer and be on the internet ALL at the same time.
Does anybody want to know why? Every time we start to talk about this, some body says "But IPv4 only has 32 bits." That does not matter. The internet URL resolution is not limited by limitations of a 32 bit address to function.
How can I make this simple? We don't have to have IPv6. Many interests want IPv6. Why? because they don't like IPv4.
BTW. Insiders call the preset system IP5. That is not official. But it conveys the idea that the system is not IPv4 limited.
-
The fact is, thee are enough IP address available to let every man woman and child on this planet to have there own computer and be on the internet ALL at the same time.
But that isn't enough! Firstly the world's population is increasing, secondly, the importance of data connectivity is growing at a dizzying rate. It's not just every man woman and child having a "computer", it's their car, tv, radio, phone, fridge, heating boiler, alarm clock, electricity and gas and water meters, the house itself will need a lot for all the doors and windows and heating system, and also everything like that at work or school and every part of every office, hospital, bus, train, plane, ship, whatever. It's going to grow amazingly. Look how we kept running out of phone numbers as telephones, faxes, modems etc got more widespread in the 20th Century. The digital future is going to be much more massively widespread and ubiquitous. Even I can see this, and I am an old fogey.
-
The problem is economic forces that want to alter the technology to advance new products. That is a nice way to say "fear and greed" are pushing the change.
Exactly what economic forces stand to profit from this ? ?
-
Thank you for your responses, Patio and Salmon Trout.
Here are some additional remarks about the new Internet protocol that is commonly called IPv6.
One of my contentions is that the chief beneficiary of the new protocol will be large information technology companies that wish to introduce new technologies and attract new customers. Making money is not bad, per se, but if it is done at the expense of existing customers it is a matter of concern.
In any discussion of this topic it comes down to "more bits is better". The problem is administration and design. Not how many bits you put in a low level protocol. If you waste 32 bits, you can waste 128 as well.
Is there really an need to go further into this? Who is ready for higher prices for the same service? Earlier I said the refuse company wants to put two IPs on my garbage can. One for the can, the other for the lid. That was meant to be a Joke. But IPv6 is the real joke. But I am not laughing. I will have to pay more for something I don't need. I know where my garbage can is at all times. Don't you?
-
One of my contentions is that the chief beneficiary of the new protocol will be large information technology companies that wish to introduce new technologies and attract new customers. Making money is not bad, per se, but if it is done at the expense of existing customers it is a matter of concern.
You really have no clue do you?
The chief beneficiary of just about every single new advance in just about anything is the companies that spend the money on research and development. If they didn't think they could make money off of it they wouldn't spend the money to figure out how to make it or make it better. Sure the consumers usually gain some benefit from it but believe me most companies don't do this stuff with just the customer in mind.
-
You really have no clue do you?
The chief beneficiary of just about every single new advance in just about anything is the companies that spend the money on research and development. If they didn't think they could make money off of it they wouldn't spend the money to figure out how to make it or make it better. Sure the consumers usually gain some benefit from it but believe me most companies don't do this stuff with just the customer in mind.
Is it just too naive to hope that new advances will come without making us dependent servants of some great new thing? Do we need to watch the new season of Hawaii 50 on an i Phone or an Android? While driving in out car that uses a GPS to keep us from sealing into the guard rail?
-
Is it just too naive to hope that new advances will come without making us dependent servants of some great new thing?
We are the ones that make our selves dependent on these new advances. No body makes you run out and buy the latest and greatest thing on the market. There are plenty of people in the world that manage to get up every morning and live a happy life with out even the basic need of electricity so if you find yourself dependent on some gadget or another (this excludes medical devices) then don't blame the companies that make them. You should be blaming yourself.
I congratulate all the people that can develop a product and then convince the masses that they can't live with out said product. With out these type people we would all still be living in caves as hunter gatherers.
-
Is it just too naive to hope that new advances will come without making us dependent servants of some great new thing? Do we need to watch the new season of Hawaii 50 on an i Phone or an Android? While driving in out car that uses a GPS to keep us from sealing into the guard rail?
Several things:
1. New advances are our servants, not the other way around. If the people don't want something, or don't need something, then nobody makes it. That's why you don't find any combination bathtubs/toasters.
2. Hawaii 5-0 was cancelled over 20 years ago. Sure you can pretend the new one is the same show but it's not, that's why any and all "remakes" of old shows fail.
3. Not sure what the iPhone has to do with any of this. Nor what googles OS has to do with it either. (although knowing you you're probably talking about robotic androids).
4. If the car had a GPS that prevented you from hitting the guard rail, what is the purpose of the guard rail? Why not have this GPS prevent you from going off a sheer rock cliff, and save the money on the guardrail. On fact, if the GPS is doing that, then you aren't driving the car to begin with, are you?
I congratulate all the people that can develop a product and then convince the masses that they can't live with out said product. With out these type people we would all still be living in caves as hunter gatherers.
heh... you made me imagine a cave to cave salesman trying to sell the wheel...
-
Adding new ip addresses isn't the only benefit of moving everyone to IPv6. There is a very important security feature that is built-in to the protocol: IPSec. I have been considering moving the network I manage over to IPv6 just for that alone. Basically, IPSec adds encryption and authentication to every packet between two hosts or networks. What does this mean? You can be guaranteed that the who you're talking to is who you think you're talking to. Hackers will have a lot tougher time redirecting websites or spoofing anything.
heh... you made me imagine a cave to cave salesman trying to sell the wheel...
Why would you need a wheel, when a rope is just as effective? I've been using rope for years and it is still worth what it was. I see no benefit for using this new tech. It's just some conspiracy by someone trying to make money. ::)
-
Why would you need a wheel, when a rope is just as effective? I've been using rope for years and it is still worth what it was. I see no benefit for using this new tech. It's just some conspiracy by someone trying to make money. ::)
Are you crazy? Any body who is any body has a wheel!! Rope is so yesterday!!! I think I will just go ahead and shun you for not wanting a wheel. Now get out of my cave before I club you, you peasant!!!!!
;)
-
2. Hawaii 5-0 was cancelled over 20 years ago. Sure you can pretend the new one is the same show but it's not, that's why any and all "remakes" of old shows fail.
Do American versions of British shows count? The success of The Office has greatly surpassed that of the original British version (although I admittedly still prefer the original). The same can be said for Three's Company, Sanford And Son, All In The Family, Life On Mars, and several others.
Also, V seems to be doing pretty well for itself and I seem to recall the Battlestar Galactica remake being quite popular for a time (and it has already had a spin-off). Although I think it is an atrocity, the new 90210 is already doing far better than I expected. V and 90210 are bound to end eventually, but anything that makes it to a second season is typically doing something right.
And I know this one is pushing it a bit, but revivals of The Outer Limits and Doctor Who weren't exactly flops.
I agree with your sentiments regarding remakes, but there are always some exceptions.
-
Exactly what economic forces stand to profit from this ? ?
This still went unanswered...
As far as remakes i'll leave that alone for off Topic.
-
Do American versions of British shows count?
for the most part, no. I was thinking more along the lines of remakes, as in, the original that they are remaking was cancelled years before. most american duplicates of British shows are made while the british one is still being aired. Additionally, as far as many people are concerned, the "remake" is an "original" in that in many cases the foreign version never aired in North America.
The success of The Office has greatly surpassed that of the original British version (although I admittedly still prefer the original).
I haven't seen the british version. I thought the other one was pretty stupid TBH.
The same can be said for Three's Company, Sanford And Son, All In The Family, Life On Mars, and several others.
I didn't even know they remade any of those.
but anything that makes it to a second season is typically doing something right.
On the other hand, survivor and the various "copies" of it have been around for more then a single season. That's about the time I lost all faith in the television viewing public.
As far as remakes i'll leave that alone for off Topic.
You mean a remake of this topic? ;D
-
Good morning again. Going to talk about Apple, Microsoft and IPv6 as it applies to the current situation.
As to the economic benefits and forces regarding the new Internet protocol IPv6.
The principal economic factor pushing IPv6 appears to be the desire to give mobile devices a persistent IP address. The concept of a persistent IP address would require a much larger address space. The current Internet protocol does not require that every device that could be connected to the system have its own unique IP address. In the present structure IP addresses can be either unique or can be shared. A large block, or blocks, of IP addresses are held in reserve. Apparently they are not used. Or if they are used for the use is not known by the rest of us. These large blocks are what prevents us from making full use of the existing 4 billion object address space. In any case, having unique IP addresses for everything that might ever be connected to the Internet certainly does exhaust the existing scheme of things. However, it is theoretically possible to serve as countless billions of objects using only a 4 billion object address space. But that is a hypothetical academic consideration and is not were talking about here.
Both Apple and Microsoft are major economic players in the current trend to adopt new technologies. The key word here is mortal. I'll say it again. Mobile. This is what Gross tried in the new technology at the present time. Having a unique IP address for every cell phone, Eye-Pie, Bluetooth or whatever the objects-with-reasons that people carry with them, will certainly exhaust the existing address space.
Why is a persistent IP address needed? Is needed for mobile devices. The device it stays mostly in one region or area does not have to have unique IP address. With today's transportation systems, specifically in our airlines, a mobile device can be on the other side of the world in the mud in a matter of hours. If the device has an unique IP address then it will remain functional while it is traveling across several time zones or geographical regions.
Yes, I was making references to the iPhone or its competition which is based on android. I don't mean the operating system itself, but rather mobile devices other than the ones produced by Apple Corp.
now that were considering the idea of persistent IP address, or actually become more apparent what is really going on here and why you keep telling us for running out of address space. It's not the address space we need for ordinary type of communication to always done. It has to do with providing a unique IP address for every Mobile drive device that anybody not pass or might purchase in the future. Also, in the new technology GPS will be a built-in feature of every mobile device. With persistence IP and GPS at any instant in time you will know where every mobile device is on this planet and you will be able to make it instantly with that device. This means you could be watching a streaming video on your iPhone while traveling across the Atlantic at 35,000 feet at the same time participating in a videoconference with corporate headquarters over in Hong Kong. And I suppose somebody will think I'm making a joke to know, that is exactly the sort of thing that is being planned for our future.
Do forgive me for not doublechecking spelink lists or going over the grammar. This is give me a headache and I have been reading through dozens and dozens of documents, some several years old, and all this the stuff they talk about is causing me to lose sleep.
Oh yes, Security. Right. Now security is required. Everybody has to wear cloths.
AppleInsider | Apple's secret "Back to My Mac" push behind IPv6 Aug 19, 2008 ...
Apple enabled IPv6 by default in Mac OS X 10.3 Panther in 2003, and it is now
enabled by default in Windows Vista, too. ...
Apple's IPv6 fix favours IPv4 - Going backwards | TechEye
Nov 12, 2010 ... While the rest of the world waits for the internet to move to IPv6,
Apple appears to have made a leap backwards with its latest Snow Leopard ...
http://www.techeye.net/hardware/apples-ipv6-fix-favours-ipv4
-
Good morning again. Going to talk about Apple, Microsoft and IPv6 as it applies to the current situation.
I think thats the problem. Most of what you've talked about is just opinion.
Debate is alot easier when you use fact.
-
Debate is alot easier when you use fact.
I disagree. Can you prove your assertion?
Fact: Most Internet connections presently require more than the four byte IP4 thing. A fully qualified URL is required unless the object has an uniqure IP address. But it is not lawful to advertise your IP as the way to find your site. You must use a domain name.
Want examples?
I have given that fact in the above debate and people keep saying with we running out out of IP address. Without explaining when they mean. Who is running out? How is it running out? Why is it running out? Where is it running out? Who has the facts? How many are needed? How many are there? What happens when 'we' run out? Facts please.
Recently somebody 'found' a huge chink of unused IP address and turned them over to the authorities. Somehow that fact did not stop the head in the mud median for repeating the slogan. "We are running out... We are running out." Facts don't help at all.
-
I disagree. Can you prove your assertion?
Fact: Most Internet connections presently require more than the four byte IP4 thing.
What?
A fully qualified URL is required unless the object has an uniqure IP address.
Wrong- a fully qualified URL simply maps to an IP address.
But it is not lawful to advertise your IP as the way to find your site.
It's perfectly legal to do so- it's no less legal then using a Domain name. It's probably a bad idea to be hosting on a home machine to begin with anyways.
I have given that fact in the above debate and people keep saying with we running out out of IP address.
It's not a fact. It's not even opinion. You just made it up right now, and you've never mentioned it in this thread that I can see.
Recently somebody 'found' a huge chink of unused IP address and turned them over to the authorities. Somehow that fact did not stop the head in the mud median for repeating the slogan. "We are running out... We are running out." Facts don't help at all.
Racial slurs, tssk tssk. you don't "find" huge chunks of IP addresses. They aren't exactly something you find in treasure chests or anything. Neither has anybody "turned over" any, nor would they have turned them over to the "authorities". (what authorities? How to do turn them over?)
-
Why is a persistent IP address needed? Is needed for mobile devices. The device it stays mostly in one region or area does not have to have unique IP address. With today's transportation systems, specifically in our airlines, a mobile device can be on the other side of the world in the mud in a matter of hours. If the device has an unique IP address then it will remain functional while it is traveling across several time zones or geographical regions.
You must not fly very often. Wifi is starting to be available on flights so there goes the need for every device to have their own IP while traveling to remain functional.
Plus I drive across several different time zones on a frequent basis in the U.S. and have no problem with my iPhone not being functional so I don't see what a time zone has to do with any thing.
Also, in the new technology GPS will be a built-in feature of every mobile device. With persistence IP and GPS at any instant in time you will know where every mobile device is on this planet and you will be able to make it instantly with that device.
What does GPS have to do with IP addresses? You do know how GPS works right?
This means you could be watching a streaming video on your iPhone while traveling across the Atlantic at 35,000 feet at the same time participating in a videoconference with corporate headquarters over in Hong Kong.
See my comment above about wifi being offfered on flights. If your phone has the ability to watch a video and do a video conference at the same time then you can already do this.
-
If your phone has the ability to watch a video and do a video conference at the same time then you can already do this.
Actually, that very functionality was being demonstrated in the mid-80's on an episode of computer chronicles I saw. I distinctly recall some sort of screen that was mounted in some airliners that was shown to allow business people (this was in first class no doubt) to perform conference calls with several people simultaneously while in the air. Warranted it was a tad jerky but the concept is hardly something of fiction or whimsy, nor did it even involve IP addresses, so I'm not even able to figure out how it's even remotely related.
-
a huge chink of unused IP address
I'm not even going to go there
-
Warranted it was a tad jerky but the concept is hardly something of fiction or whimsy, nor did it even involve IP addresses, so I'm not even able to figure out how it's even remotely related.
There are a lot of this in Geek's post that have nothing to do with IP addresses.
-
I disagree. Can you prove your assertion?
It seems like EVERYBODY is proving these....assertions.......i am mearly stating what i see. You make a post..........4 or 5 people prove you wrong......then you just carry on. Seems a bit weird to me. I've made a few mistakes on this forum, but soon as i'm 'enlightened' to my mistake i will research then apologise. As you can see by the replies by BC_P, mroilfield and Salmon Trout, they all seem to disagree with quite a few of your points. Yet you seem to march on forward reguardless.
I suggest a big slice of humble pie.
-
Yet you seem to march on forward reguardless.
Clearly, this is not a forum thread, but rather it's Geek-9pm's blog, and we are mere commenters on that blog.
-
Clearly, this is not a forum thread, but rather it's Geek-9pm's blog, and we are mere commenters on that blog.
That's my observation too
Quick question, can you get the ingredients for humble pie in the good ol' U.S of A?
-
That's my observation too
Quick question, can you get the ingredients for humble pie in the good ol' U.S of A?
Sure you can as I have ate it plenty of times. Although now that I think of it it may have been imported humble pie and not actually made in the U.S.. I do believe the ingredients are available I just think we forgot how to put it together.
-
I bake some, slice it and keep it frozen for when needed..........it may not be as good when fresh, but at least i know when to eat it! ;)
-
Clearly, this is not a forum thread, but rather it's Geek-9pm's blog, and we are mere commenters on that blog.
See Post #31...
-
See Post #31...
I will apologize for my apparent lack of ability communicate clearly. There is not excuse. Went I make a statement I should present it in a logical and clear grammatical expression. I failed.
I thank you all for your patience with me. If you wish, please close this thread. If there is poor to be said on this subject, I will let others continue and I shall refrain from comments that and not transparent. My wish was to clarify the issue, not bury in tin verbiage that does not make sense.
Again, thank you for you participation in this nthread. I regret my remarks did not clarify the noriginal question.
-
for the most part, no. I was thinking more along the lines of remakes, as in, the original that they are remaking was cancelled years before.
Most of the British shows I mentioned had already been canceled before being remade in America, which is why I asked. Of course, I suppose it doesn't matter because many of them would likely be considered "reimaginings" although I feel that's what most remakes are anyway.
I haven't seen the british version. I thought the other one was pretty stupid TBH.
That's pretty much the point of The Office. I didn't like it for a while, but then it suddenly clicked and became funny. I still prefer the original, though. I liked the awkward silence.
I didn't even know they remade any of those.
What I meant was that Three's Company, Sanford And Son, Life On Mars, etc. are remakes of old British television shows. Or, at the very least, they took the core plot/idea and Americanized it for US audiences. I suppose in that sense, they are only very loosely considered remakes.
Quick question, can you get the ingredients for humble pie in the good ol' U.S of A?
The recipe's around here somewhere, but it's not used often. Most of us prefer apple.
-
That's pretty much the point of The Office. I didn't like it for a while, but then it suddenly clicked and became funny. I still prefer the original, though. I liked the awkward silence.
OK, when I said "I thought it was pretty stupid" I sorta meant it in a "I won't change the channel if it comes on this channel (to avoid it), but I also won't change the channel if it comes on (on another channel).
Of course, since I quite literally haven't watched TV for anything more then about 15 minutes in over 5 years I'm hardly qualified to talk about it anyway.But that's never stopped me before! ;D
As far as remakes go, there is always a sure recipe for disaster- and that is trying to make a movie based on a game. I think maybe one out of every thousand actually make back what they cost. I know it's not really a "remake" but it tries to get people to watch it based on a similar nostalgia type thing.
-
The recipe's around here somewhere, but it's not used often. Most of us prefer apple.
Dang it man!! Now you have me wanting some good warm apple pie with some vanilla ice cream on the side.
I wonder if the cook at the staff house know how to make apple pie??
-
The recipe's around here somewhere, but it's not used often. Most of us prefer apple.
lol, like it.
Most of the people i know prefer blackberry.
-
lol, like it.
Most of the people i know prefer blackberry.
Ok so now I want blackberry pie too or a good blackberry cobbler.
-
lol, like it.
Most of the people i know prefer blackberry.
I like apple pie more, but my favorite is pumpkin :D
-
pumpkin there go the gadget references. :P
-
Would you like to deactivate notification on this topic?
Yes
-
pumpkin there go the gadget references. :P
Any food reference with android into wouldn't sound right.
-
This isn't the off topic forum. We're close to closing time here.
-
This isn't the off topic forum. We're close to closing time here.
To be honest I think we were at closing time about 30 or 40 post ago.
-
You know what? I think you're right. Better late than never :)
Topic (such as it is) is now closed.