tjgq

6 ms·

1.
by tjgq 9y ago
The Javascript coercion rules, arcane as they are, are actually part of the spec and (barring any bugs) should work across browsers.
2.
by tjgq 10y ago
Is that a distinction worth making? By that standard, how many countries in the world are actually democracies?
3.
by tjgq 11y ago
> IMNAL, but my understanding is that such a law would run into rock solid, granite hard, iron clad parts of a little issue called the US Constitution. E.g., if the cops ask you a question, then you don't have to answer. The person&
4.
by tjgq 11y ago
And then they will outlaw the possession of said standard C software, as well as of computer hardware that does not comply with government-mandated eavesdropping. And then they will pass laws that force you to give up the encryption key to
5.
by tjgq 11y ago
It can be even worse than that. A significant number of routers forward IPv4 packets in hardware but fall back to a software implementation for IPv6. So it might happen that the real bottleneck is not memory but throughput. As for sticking
6.
by tjgq 11y ago
Given that worldwide Internet adoption is still growing strong, it is conceivable that sooner or later a significant number of endpoints will only have IPv6 connectivity, or that their IPv4 connectivity will be limited to a private address
7.
by tjgq 11y ago
In the absence of a firewall, you are correct that any node that gets hold of the publicly routable address assigned to one of your devices will be able to communicate with it from the outside. This is indeed a problem for most users, who w
8.
by tjgq 11y ago
I certainly did not mean to be condescending. I offer my apologies if my post came across as so.
9.
by tjgq 11y ago
What you want is called a firewall. There seems to be this common misconception that a firewall and a NAT box are the same thing, but they're not. It just happens that most NAT implementations also work as firewalls (though not the oth
10.
by tjgq 11y ago
Totally agree with you in that IPv6 and the end of NATs are great for the Internet. My honest (though possibly unpopular) opinion is that the incentive should have been given years ago through government intervention, by legally compelling
11.
by tjgq 11y ago
> Compared to a world where you can't get IPs at any price? Seems pretty obvious: you can get IPs. You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy; there are plenty of intermediate solutions between the current state of affairs and a la
12.
by tjgq 11y ago
So in what way exactly does the Internet as a whole benefit from allowing IPv4 addresses to be traded in a free market? This is a honest question. I would like to know how we avoid ending up in a world where a few large companies control al
13.
by tjgq 12y ago
I actually wasn't aware of that! Thanks for the link.
14.
by tjgq 12y ago
Then anyone would be able to trigger the autodestruct by spoofing their UA.
15.
by tjgq 12y ago
I'm not sure what the typed array limitations are, but Javascript numbers are able to exactly represent integers up to 2^53 - 1, which is quite a bit more than 32 bits.
16.
by tjgq 12y ago
Possibly the same reason why the market share of old versions of Internet Explorer is higher on workdays: slower uptake on corporate environments when compared to residential customers.
17.
by tjgq 12y ago
It declares a variable named r10 and instructs the compiler to store it in the r10 CPU register. It's a GCC extension; the farthest you can get in standards-compliant C is register long r10 = a3; but the register keyword is ad
18.
by tjgq 12y ago
At the end of the video, he does mention that it works for any digit. A more honest way to present the argument would be to start with "let x be any decimal digit..." but I suspect most non-mathematicians wouldn't be able to
19.
by tjgq 12y ago
I understand the argument for enterprise networks. Residential customers have everything to gain from using their IPv6 space, and provider-independence isn't an issue for them. It's worth noting that NPTv6 is a lot better than NAT
20.
by tjgq 12y ago
I think it's a wonderful thing that the TCP/IP model (as originally envisioned) does not preclude endpoints from implementing their own transport protocols on top of IP, irrespective of what the rest of the network uses. Unfortuna
21.
by tjgq 12y ago
> And NAT doesn't go away with IPv6. That was another belief that did not survive its first encounter with reality. If it doesn't go away, it will be only because of ISP greed (i.e., charging customers for a larger number of pu
22.
by tjgq 12y ago
> Which assumptions? Using multiple connections is pretty standard in the enterprise storage world. TCP congestion control is designed such that, under steady-state conditions, each TCP stream traversing a physical link gets an equal sha
23.
by tjgq 12y ago
SCTP would be the ideal solution, but it's essentially broken on the wide Internet since virtually no NAT boxes understand it. Using a large number of TCP connections breaks some of the assumptions behind TCP congestion control; this i
24.
by tjgq 12y ago
On the flip side, TCP forces you into a single ordered stream and head-of-line blocking. If you need a reliable yet unordered message stream, you have to reinvent the wheel on top of UDP.
25.
by tjgq 12y ago
Although I'm not really sympathetic to the OSI model, it did get some things right. For instance, witness how almost every TCP/IP protocol has to roll out its own session layer for authentication purposes...
26.
by tjgq 12y ago
Hence my inital premise: if memory hadn't gotten so cheap, we would have transitioned into IPv6 already. For all the good Moore's Law brought us, it is also the reason why we seem to be stuck in this NAT world with no end in sig
27.
by tjgq 12y ago
Deploying RFC 4193 at least would not pollute the global routing table with lots of short prefixes. Those enterprise networks would pay for that flexibility themselves instead of forcing the cost onto the whole Internet.
28.
by tjgq 12y ago
If memory wasn't so cheap, we would have transitioned to IPv6 long ago instead of coping with an ever increasing global routing table.
29.
by tjgq 12y ago
To be fair, it's not entirely the same sort of thing. Git is an open protocol. Github just happens to be one of many sites hosting git repositories. Moving a repository to another host is trivial; you already have all the data in your
30.
by tjgq 12y ago
Doesn't quantum erasure essentially invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation? (Naive question; I have a relatively shallow understanding of QM, but Copenhagen has always seemed unscientific to me due to the quasi-supernatural role of t

More ›