[KLUG Advocacy] re: TCP/IP Protocol is ideal for traffic management
knightperson at zuzax.com
Thu Aug 5 19:06:31 EDT 2004
>From: Rusty Yonkers <therustycook at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [KLUG Advocacy] re: TCP/IP Protocol is ideal for traffic
>To: Pros and cons of different software <advocacy at kalamazoolinux.org>
>Message-ID: <20040804220341.42679.qmail at web21203.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>> I don't know that it's that scary an analogy. I saw the same
>>> article (I
>>> think), and they were mostly talking about TCP/IP addresses as a
>>> heirarchical namespace. I can also come up with scary scenarios if
>The libertarian part of me sees huge civil liberty and privacy issues
>with this. Now the government and whoever gets access to the
>databases would know exactly where everyone travels and who they
>visit! Hmmmm, talk about big brother!
Well, depends entirely on how much data is associated with the moving
cars. Granted if "Reverend Ashcroft" had a hand in the development of
this, there would probably be all sorts of information that shouldn't be
there. However, most of the personally-identifiable stuff doesn't need
to be transmitted; you just need things like # of people in the car,
weight of the car, where it has to stop, how fast it's going, etc etc.
>From: Adam Tauno Williams <adam at morrison-ind.com>
>> >Subject: [KLUG Advocacy] "TCP/IP Protocol is ideal for traffic
>> > management"
>Ok, so the rail would be like the media, let's say CAT5.
>The source and destination would be like nodes on the media.
>The transport would be like a packet.
>I'd hate to think about packed fragmentation!
Yes, THAT's why thinking of the cars as TCP/IP packets isn't going to
work. Heiarchical addressing like TCP/IP is good. Fragmenting the
"packets" and reassembling them coherently at the far end only works
when Scotty's running the Transporter.
More information about the Advocacy