On 05/04/2013 18:12, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich
without implementing anything.
That's terrible for the IETF. It completely nullifies the NomCom
random selection process; all the suggestions in RFC 3797 seem
to be blown away
On Apr 6, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's terrible for the IETF. It completely nullifies the NomCom
random selection process; all the suggestions in RFC 3797 seem
to be blown away by this.
This seems like exactly the sort of problem that Jari's
Bob,
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed
in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
packets that was sent in the future already now?
/Loa
On 2013-04-02 18:19, Bob Hinden wrote:
AB,
On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
On 5 Apr 2013 09:47, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote:
Bob,
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed
in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
packets that was sent in the future already now?
Indeed, and this tells us that
On 05/04/2013 10:03, Dave Cridland wrote:
On 5 Apr 2013 09:47, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote:
Bob,
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed
in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
packets that was sent in the future already now?
So instead of asking the community do you have an intention to implement and
deploy? we should ask have you already been going to have implemented and
deployed yet?
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are
deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started
On 2013-04-05 11:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 05/04/2013 10:03, Dave Cridland wrote:
On 5 Apr 2013 09:47, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote:
Bob,
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed
in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
Loa == Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu writes:
Loa thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are
deployed
Loa in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
Loa packets that was sent in the future already now?
I for one, have always found these
I too have always found at least one of the Crocker brothers {suspicious,
smart, funny, irrelevant, prescient, handsome, annoying, etc.}. I've never been
able to tell which is which :)
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 5, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Loa == Loa
--On Friday, April 05, 2013 10:03 +0100 Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.net wrote:
...
Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was
important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the
issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for
that matter development of the
On 4/5/2013 9:09 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
I too have always found at least one of the Crocker brothers {suspicious,
smart, funny, irrelevant, prescient, handsome, annoying, etc.}. I've never been
able to tell which is which :)
There are days when I'm really glad to be part of this community
On Apr 5, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote:
There are days when I'm really glad to be part of this community ...
Yes, but the question is, is this such a day? :)
Loa,
On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote:
Bob,
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed
in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
packets that was sent in the future already now?
See Section 5. It may be
Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich
without
implementing anything.
- Wes
On 4/5/13 5:12 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
So instead of asking the community do you have an intention to implement
and
deploy? we should ask have you already been going
On 4/5/2013 6:58 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Loa == Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu writes:
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are
deployed Loa in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have
started to receive Loapackets that was sent in the future already
now?
I for
Actually, getting rich without implementing anything seems to happen quite
often enough these days - it's called acquisition.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wbee...@cisco.comwrote:
Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich
without
At 03:59 PM 4/5/2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
Actually, getting rich without implementing anything seems to happen
quite often enough these days - it's called acquisition.
or be a Kardashian
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
mailto:wbee...@cisco.comwbee...@cisco.com wrote:
Kids! Remember, if we're not bright enough to do physics, we can always do
engineering, the slow younger brother of physics! But if engineering is too
difficult, there's always computer science, where terms like bandwidth mean
what we want them to mean. And if even that's too hard, there's
On Apr 2, 2013, at 6:41 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Kids! Remember, if we're not bright enough to do physics, we can always do
engineering, the slow younger brother of physics!
Is your point that if we do an engineering solution, that will slow things down
enough that we won't have packet
AB,
On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
RFC6921It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time
slows down.
AB I know that time slows for something when it is in speed of light,
but communication is not something moving. If the packet
-editor.org wrote:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6921
Title: Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL)
Communication
Author: R. Hinden
Status: Informational
Stream
:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6921
Title: Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL)
Communication
Author: R. Hinden
Status: Informational
Stream: Independent
The words in this message are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919.
Here are some considerations for Faster-Than-Light Communication (see
RFC 6921).
* Bring value when you send a message. Do not seek value.
Value-seeking questions such as, What are you doing tonight? make people
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6921
Title: Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL)
Communication
Author: R. Hinden
Status: Informational
Stream: Independent
24 matches
Mail list logo
