There's hardly been any updates to the game other than bugfixes, and I even though I've played this game quite a bit if you compare it to all the attention TF2 has been getting I'm a bit disappointed.
Hardly any updates, that is bullshit, there has been more than a dozen updates in 6 months time. That does not even include Valve patching gameplay problems in the pre-release demo. Finally, pile on an extra two versus campaigns, and more than a dozen survival maps to the released updates.
It ain't TF2, stop comparing the two different games.
So, I actually clicked through to RTFA, and was stunned by the article. I'm pretty sure it's a fake. Just to quote it - "There is so much nonsense on the internet about Scientology, all of which was written by anti-religion extremists in the employ of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry. Many are also being paid by certain depraved, degenerate factions within the German government. You can't believe any of it. If these scumbags had their way, all children would be psych-drugged into oblivion, most eventually becoming high school gunmen; vicious de-programmers would constantly be leaping out from shadowy corners; there would be all-night electroshock parlors on the high street of every village, town and city; and anyone who tried to live an ethical life would quickly receive an icepick lobotomy."
That scans more like Burroughs than anything else. Kind of a satirical send-up of the scientologists, you know? If it *is* real, I think this guy should write more press releases.
You left out the best part, the next sentence in that paragraph after the rant. Note, words in bold demonstrate irony, in context of the "slippery slope" argument which preceded the following sentence.
This is why it is necessary for Scientologists to try to present a balanced perspective, by showcasing all the good things about the Scientology religion, and removing all the lies.
Real companies that use Exchange for their mail server do so b/c their IT is incompetent and doesn't know how to learn a different system or actually learn what the programs their using actually do.
My company uses Exchange for about 3,000 staff members, and its not because our I.T. department is incompetent. Granted, we also have postfix servers that do all the inter-domain mailing for all staff and about 19,000 students in addition to the Exchange users. Exchange is a good fit for small and midsize companies who need a pre-configured groupware solution, and can afford to swallow the cost of Client Licenses.
I personally know smart and clever System Admins, and programmers on both sides of the Windows/Linux fence. As a counter-point I know folks that have plenty of certifications and letters after their name, again on both sides of the Windows/Linux fence, but can't seem to pull their head out of their ___. Even though some folks have credentials and training out the wazoo, they still can't change a lightbulb without somebody showing them how first. Choice of Operating System has nothing to do with competency.
You don't need to spread FUD about Windows Server and Exchange. It just makes you look as foolish as Microsoft does when they spread FUD about Unix and Linux.
I certainly would not disagree with that. My point that all of computing isn't good ol' Windows desktops. It is a little short-sighted to view the computing market this way.
Seriously, computing is about more than just desktop users.
How do various hobbyists, and I.T. professionals use Linux? It would be easier to count the niches that Linux is not filling. According to Netcraft, Apache still had over 50% web server market share, while IIS only had 30% in April 2009. I am sure there are some people running Apache on Windows, but I would venture a guess that it is not the majority.
Even webserver market share does not represent the whole server market share. Approximately 40% of all hardware in the server room where I work run Linux in some form, only 25% of all the servers run Linux. There are more than a dozen third party network appliances in this room. Third party examples I can think of are load balancers, spam firewalls, content servers, and NAS filers. I cannot think of one third party Windows Server based appliance in our server room, aside from servers. I am sure there are Windows appliances out there, just not in our server room. If it is part of Microsoft's mission to lock customers in to commodity desktop and server hardware, that is not something that really scales for vendors designing and selling specialized appliances and hardware.
How much Internet infrastructure runs on Linux? I wonder what the percentage of postfix/sendmail servers on Linux versus Exchange servers on Windows is? What is the number of external BIND DNS servers on Linux, versus external Windows DNS servers. What is the market share of Linux iptables/tc routers, load balancers, VPN gateways, or 3rd party appliance running Linux) versus Windows RRAS routers used in small and midsize offices? How many companies are using Asterisk versus the number of companies using Microsoft Office Communicator Suite (Not sure OCS qualifies as a PBX, though)? How many companies are virtualizing their data centers with VMWare ESX, Xen, or KVM, all running on Linux versus Microsoft HyperV?
How many consumer electronics devices have popped up with Linux on them, versus Windows? I can probably name 20 devices with an ARM processor, and some version of Linux running on it. Here is a short list: Linksys Wireless routers, webcams, Tivo, Roku, Netgear ReadyNas, Sony flatscreen televisions, POS terminals, etc. Windows mobile has notably made its way onto mobile phones and Wasp barcode scanners.
How about high-performance computing? How many Rocks clusters, and render farms are built on Linux versus Windows HPC servers?
Seriously who cares if Linux isn't prevalent on the desktop. Linux has filled every other niche, besides the desktop computer, six ways to Sunday. While Microsoft and Apple are laughing at a 1% desktop share, Linux is taking over every other niche which it is able to quickly evolve and adapt. World domination fast, indeed.
Itanium is still made today, but yes if you forget about the Pentium Ms and Itaniums, yes the x86_64 incompatible Intel chips are certainly 4 years or older now (5 years if you include only Xeons).
Could you clarify, please? Is Intel still making classic Itanium chips (not compatible with x86_64)? Are they making x86_64 compatible chips, which happen to still be marketed as Itanium, despite having nothing to do with the IA-64 architecture?
Additionally, Slamd64 isn't AMD-only at all. slamd64.com runs on an Athlon64 X2, but it developed on my desktop with a core 2 quad, and my laptop with a core 2 duo.
That should be expected, on a modern Intel P4 or Pentium D. The AMD64 architecture is a bit of a misnomer, nowadays. The original Intel Itanium 64-bit, IA-64 architecture, did not support backwards compatibility with the x86 architecture. The first AMD Athlon 64-bit chips, on the other hand, fully supported x86 architecture.
It did not take long for Intel to see the error of its ways. Intel came up with their own implementation to be compatible with AMD64 architecture and Intel markets it as EM64T. In a nutshell, the true AMD64 architecture on a 64-bit Athlon is compatible with a true EM64T architecture on a 64-bit P4/Pentium D/Xeon. However AMD64 architecture is NOT compatible with the original Itanium IA-64 architecture, so any chips marketed as Intel Itanium, or earlier Xeon models, will not have the proper 32-bit extensions for AMD64 compatibility. All of these x86_64 incompatible Intel chips are probably 5 years or older now.
The more common name I have observed is AMD64, especially when it comes to Linux packaging. My kernel reports x86_64 with uname though, so the inconsistencies might be confusing to some. But x86_64 is really just a vendor neutral way of labeling two different vendor implementations of the same architecture. I suppose there is good reason to still call it AMD64, since they were, in fact, the first vendor to introduce the technology.
until the Linux community agrees upon a file structure...
Oh you mean like the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard? The FHS is a file tree standard for Unix systems. Ironically, Apple's OSX is a licensed Unix system that does not conform to the FHS. On the other hand, every general-use or enterprise Linux system conforms to this standard.
...(remember United Linux?)
No, but from a quick google search, it sounds like they were not too successful. The Linux Standard Base is making headway, despite the demise of UnitedLinux, however. The LSB defines uniform packaging specifications for third party vendors. The biggest problem is getting third party vendors to conform, even loosely, to the standards.
Good point. Will the forensic expert just look at file extensions to determine what is copyrighted material, and what is personal/private info?? If so, your trick should work.
A forensic examiner worth his salt would use an indexing program to look for the mp3 file header on the hard disk image. It is likely more important to an examiner what is actually in the file, rather than what the file is actually named.
Arguably, however, it would be more honest to let the subscribers opt-in (or out) of your QoS filtering. If they opt out, then they get a certain (low) guaranteed bandwidth, and they get to do their own QoS for their own packets.
So if they opt out, you just put them in a lower capped priority queue, why that's brilliant!
As for man-in-the-middle, how do you feel about us doing transparent squid caching for our metro-e sites?
That is a completely different thing. Now I don't know what you are doing with the squid proxy other than caching, so I am not going to attempt to judge based on your statement. You could be providing a great non-invasive service for customers that improve their overall web experience. You could have some BOFH motivation, such as draconian BOFH filtering, or just simply want to keep detailed logs of usage on the customers. Like I said, there is nothing inherently wrong with a squid proxy, but you could get pretty evil with it, if you were inclined.
My problem with Comcast is that their man-in-the-middle is invasive. I may have no problem doing a speed test one minute. Then, the next minute I might have atrocious buffering issues on Youtube, or I may have problems with my Netflix player constantly stopping to buffer. Plain old QoS traffic shaping is non-invasive, everything still gets through, there may be latency introduced based on priority, but it still gets through. Comcast throttling is like having a broken firewall between you and everyone else on the Internet. They just drop a few packets at random until your stuck in a TCP limbo, where you are constantly handshaking and tearing down connections until you're Internet speed is about as swift as trying to dial-up a modem pool with a rotary phone. I swear my cable modem just went screeeeeeee-woooooooooo-bee-boo-bee-boo...
I disagree. I am a locked-in Comcast customer, and live in an area with no competition from DSL, FTTP, metro-ethernet or other non-cable broadband technology. I am constantly affected by what they call "traffic shaping". As many here know, Comcast uses a technology which artificially throttles the connection by sending RST packets to both ends of a connection, and thereby forcing TCP connections to break down. What Comcast and others are doing is not proper Quality of Service with priority queues. The so-called "traffic shaping" they have implemented boils down to a Denial of Service, and exploits and undermines the way TCP/IP protocols function. Those who actually understand the difference between the Comcast type of throttling and proper QoS traffic shaping with priority queues, likely have no problem with the latter. With QoS everything gets through, you don't break down a connection. QoS traffic shaping just slows lower priority protocols down (Bittorrent) if a higher priority protocol (VoIP, SIP, VPN) needs more speed. The Comcast throttling is a non-standard way of limiting bandwidth, which tends to break the way Internet protocols are supposed to work. More recently Comcast has taken their level of throttling ass-hattery to the next level with a more protocol agnostic approach. So not only will Comcast break your torrent seed, they'll throttle your web traffic, video streaming, VoIP, e-mail, and pretty much anything you could possibly do on a computer with any given TCP-based protocol.
I have NEVER heard any net neutrality argument against using proper QoS to manage limited bandwidth. I expect a competent Network Operations Admin at an ISP to implement some sort of priority queuing. What I should NOT expect from an ISP is for them to launch a man-in-the-middle Denial of Service against me, when I pay for a service that I expect to actually use.
I applaud your company for doing the right thing. You listened to your customers. Your company came to a reasonable compromise which made your customers happy, and made for a more efficient use of a limited resource. As a bonus, it probably bought you a good bit of loyalty from happy customers, who will spread the word about your service, never a bad thing. One of my colleagues once told a customer,
No matter how much bandwidth you guys throw in your small office, it won't keep the problem from growing. It won't keep your office users from using up the extra bandwidth you throw their way. The best thing you guys can do with a limited amount of resource is to use the bandwidth you have, but use it more efficiently.
We did a bit of Linux 'tc' shaping for that customer. After a bit of testing, and a few tweaks, their boss was much, much happier. He probably saved quite a bit of money, instead of wasting it on a bigger pipe for roughly a dozen users.
Not at all. Many modern-day American Democrats and Republicans, currently in office, are the same damn thing. The Democrat representatives tend to be slightly more social liberal, and the Republican representatives tend to be a bit more fiscally conservative. The terms "liberals" and "conservatives" are misused by many politicians, and media outlets to support their own agenda. The reality is the pot calling the kettle black.
Proof that by today's definition, both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior are Liberals?
Which leads to the question, what is a Liberal?
Labeling either of them a Liberal would need qualification of context. Do you mean social liberal, or fiscal/economic liberal. I personally would say they are both Statist, who may be slight economic liberals.
These are interesting times indeed.
Agreed.
In my opinion, there is greater political diversity in the U.S. than all left, or all right. The political spectrum just is not accurately represented. I am not trying to show my Libertarian bias here, but if I were to cite this phone survey (take it with a grain of salt, it came from a libertarian website). Of those surveyed it was found that 32% were centrist; 17% could be in multiple categories or did not fit in any one particular category; 16% were libertarians; 14% were statists/authoritarian; 13% liberal; 7% conservative. What I find even more interesting is that 31% identified themselves as left/liberal and 48% identified themselves as right/conservative, 9% as centrists, 2% as libertarians, and 0% as statists/authoritarians. So even though the political spectrum is quite varied, in reality, 79% of all those surveyed identify themselves with a two party system as a Democrat or Republican.
I find that survey interesting. The candidates we get with a two party system do not accurately represent actual voters' interests. It just seems to me that political candidates have two goals, stay in office, and serve the lobbyists. But why does our so called "democracy" have to be about what the politicians want? The survey may not be an accurate representation of the political spectrum, but neither is left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, up/down, or black/white.
I read the article, and it really is as stupid as the summary and article title. Microsoft won't vouch for Linux! OMG, it must be a Microsoft conspiracy against Linux, let's post it on Slashdot! Who seriously expects Microsoft to provide training vouchers for competing products?
In other ridiculous and pointless news...
Oracle won't vouch for SQL Server, MySQL or PostgreSQL. Red Hat won't vouch for Solaris. EMC won't vouch for Equallogic. Dell won't vouch for HP/Compaq, or IBM. Google won't vouch for Windows Live Search, or Yahoo.
In this particular case for example, I think it's essentially greed on the AP's part (and for the record I think their campaigns against Google News are IDIOTIC).
The original poster cannot read. The Associated Press is not going after Google, which is one of their customers who PAYS them for content. However I guess it became a frequently asked question by Google News users. The person pointing the finger at Google for stealing content is Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is the very old CEO and chairman of News Corp./Fox, whom I speculate is somewhat ignorant of the intarwebs in his ripe old age of 78. Furthermore, I am pretty sure he is not a spokesman for the Associated Press.
One would guess the ideas were published in a journal or as a paper, before they were classified as RFCs. Being re-formatted into an RFC would not alter the publication date.
...who has no idea what "shake like a polaroid" means? Last I knew, a polaroid was a instant camera using chemical-based films, and was not intimately connected with geological stressing.
Can someone please demonstrate what a shaking polaroid looks like so I don't feel like I'm missing out on hacker lingo.
Aside from shaking a Polaroid picture to speed up the development process, it is also a pop culture reference. Shake it like a Polaroid picture!
One day people like Stallman are going to have to realize that proprietary and licensed software is a way of life if you want a modern computing experience. Ubuntu realized it, and look at how much more popular they are now than the distro they're based upon. Debian has a very different opinion on the subject, as evidenced by IceWeasel and such.
Yes, Debian has much more complicated and strict political guidelines on free software than most distributions. However, the IceWeasel debacle is not the fault of their own free software distribution policies. They were asked by the Mozilla Foundation to either cease distributing bug and security fixes not formally blessed by the Mozilla Foundation, or cease the Mozilla trademarked branding for Firefox, and Thunderbird. From the Debian point of view, they chose to err on the side of their own security policies. From the Mozilla point of view, they had previously given Debian a license to redistribute the trademark branding with Mozilla software, even if there was a reasonable amount of modification. However, the license was revoked to distribute Debian's changes alongside Mozilla's trademark branding, when Mozilla later restated their position on this issue.
You want to create tech jobs, Mr. Government? Send back the H1B Visas to their home countries, and stop letting more in here for big corporations to hire cheaper than Americans.
The United States was built and paid for with the blood, sweat, tears, and even the lives of immigrants. Ninety-nine percent of every citizen's great grandparents, great-great grandparents etc. came to the U.S. from another country. Personally, I think we should welcome talented and hard working people in to the U.S., naturalize them, and make them pay income taxes like everyone else.
Now the thing about H-1B visa holders is that they do pay taxes, and they contribute to our nation's economy. There are countless numbers of problems in the modern-day United States. A good example is the number of people who expect a handout, and abuse the welfare system. A better example is giving hand-outs to multi-national banks and corporations. Some of these banks and companies are guilty of outright fraud; others should have known better before signing off on questionable credit lines, loans, and mortgages. Yet the worst are companies who cannot learn to compete on a global scale with Japan, North Korea, and China. Instead, our government throws away the peoples' tax dollars, giving it out to these companies whom never learned their lessons from their failures. Most of them probably have not even changed their business strategies and business models to better compete globally, it is business as usual.
You may see H-1B visa holders as a problem, but in reality, it is a step in the right direction to competing in a global market. Illegal immigrants are not really a problem either, many of them provide a service doing hard manual labor that no American would do for the same pay. The REAL problem with illegal immigrant workers is income tax and minimum wage. Do away with minimum wage and tax immigrant workers, and that problem is solved. Some on the left side of the political fence may think this cruel and unusual, but that would be a truly free market for jobs. At least illegal immigrant workers do not expect a freaking handout, because they feel entitled to an easy job with great pay and benefits.
You on the other hand, born in the U.S.A. and for some reason you feel entitled to a good paying job with great benefits. Why?
Yeah, the way I saw that deal was both companies agreeing to not step on each others toes in terms of their own Virtualization platforms. Neither Red Hat or Microsoft want to give EMC/VMWare any more of a competitive edge. It would be platform suicide for either company to explicitly not support the other company's operating system on their Virtual platform.
I don't have a clue about Red Hat's intentions, but I do know that they can't not protect its intellectual property without risk of losing rights to it. That is, they have to act to protect it in every case of infringement. They can't pick and choose who to file against.
This is certainly true of trademarks. If the owner of a trademark does not act on infringement, they may not be able to defend their rights to this trademark in court. But owners of patents can selectively choose who has to pay, and who does not have to pay, for licensing any technology covered by a patent. Now I am not a patent lawyer, but a perfectly good example is the LZW compression algorithm. Unisys did not enforce its patent on LZW compression in GIF images for 7 years. Ten years after the initial patent was filed, LZW had been in widespread use through image formats such as GIF and TIFF for 7 years. During those 10 years, Unisys had only licensed LZW to a few modem manufacturers, and Adobe for the PostScript format. Finally in 1994, Unisys announced that any code capable of reading and writing the LZW compression algorithm must be licensed. The point is, not enforcing a patent does not affect the ability to enforce licensing of said patent.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote for Bub.
http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/Day-of-the-dead-Bub-small.jpg
There's hardly been any updates to the game other than bugfixes, and I even though I've played this game quite a bit if you compare it to all the attention TF2 has been getting I'm a bit disappointed.
Hardly any updates, that is bullshit, there has been more than a dozen updates in 6 months time. That does not even include Valve patching gameplay problems in the pre-release demo. Finally, pile on an extra two versus campaigns, and more than a dozen survival maps to the released updates.
It ain't TF2, stop comparing the two different games.
So, I actually clicked through to RTFA, and was stunned by the article. I'm pretty sure it's a fake. Just to quote it - "There is so much nonsense on the internet about Scientology, all of which was written by anti-religion extremists in the employ of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry. Many are also being paid by certain depraved, degenerate factions within the German government. You can't believe any of it. If these scumbags had their way, all children would be psych-drugged into oblivion, most eventually becoming high school gunmen; vicious de-programmers would constantly be leaping out from shadowy corners; there would be all-night electroshock parlors on the high street of every village, town and city; and anyone who tried to live an ethical life would quickly receive an icepick lobotomy."
That scans more like Burroughs than anything else. Kind of a satirical send-up of the scientologists, you know? If it *is* real, I think this guy should write more press releases.
You left out the best part, the next sentence in that paragraph after the rant. Note, words in bold demonstrate irony, in context of the "slippery slope" argument which preceded the following sentence.
(\d{9}|\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4})
Real companies that use Exchange for their mail server do so b/c their IT is incompetent and doesn't know how to learn a different system or actually learn what the programs their using actually do.
My company uses Exchange for about 3,000 staff members, and its not because our I.T. department is incompetent. Granted, we also have postfix servers that do all the inter-domain mailing for all staff and about 19,000 students in addition to the Exchange users. Exchange is a good fit for small and midsize companies who need a pre-configured groupware solution, and can afford to swallow the cost of Client Licenses.
I personally know smart and clever System Admins, and programmers on both sides of the Windows/Linux fence. As a counter-point I know folks that have plenty of certifications and letters after their name, again on both sides of the Windows/Linux fence, but can't seem to pull their head out of their ___. Even though some folks have credentials and training out the wazoo, they still can't change a lightbulb without somebody showing them how first. Choice of Operating System has nothing to do with competency.
You don't need to spread FUD about Windows Server and Exchange. It just makes you look as foolish as Microsoft does when they spread FUD about Unix and Linux.
I certainly would not disagree with that. My point that all of computing isn't good ol' Windows desktops. It is a little short-sighted to view the computing market this way.
Seriously, computing is about more than just desktop users.
How do various hobbyists, and I.T. professionals use Linux? It would be easier to count the niches that Linux is not filling. According to Netcraft, Apache still had over 50% web server market share, while IIS only had 30% in April 2009. I am sure there are some people running Apache on Windows, but I would venture a guess that it is not the majority.
Even webserver market share does not represent the whole server market share. Approximately 40% of all hardware in the server room where I work run Linux in some form, only 25% of all the servers run Linux. There are more than a dozen third party network appliances in this room. Third party examples I can think of are load balancers, spam firewalls, content servers, and NAS filers. I cannot think of one third party Windows Server based appliance in our server room, aside from servers. I am sure there are Windows appliances out there, just not in our server room. If it is part of Microsoft's mission to lock customers in to commodity desktop and server hardware, that is not something that really scales for vendors designing and selling specialized appliances and hardware.
How much Internet infrastructure runs on Linux? I wonder what the percentage of postfix/sendmail servers on Linux versus Exchange servers on Windows is? What is the number of external BIND DNS servers on Linux, versus external Windows DNS servers. What is the market share of Linux iptables/tc routers, load balancers, VPN gateways, or 3rd party appliance running Linux) versus Windows RRAS routers used in small and midsize offices? How many companies are using Asterisk versus the number of companies using Microsoft Office Communicator Suite (Not sure OCS qualifies as a PBX, though)? How many companies are virtualizing their data centers with VMWare ESX, Xen, or KVM, all running on Linux versus Microsoft HyperV?
How many consumer electronics devices have popped up with Linux on them, versus Windows? I can probably name 20 devices with an ARM processor, and some version of Linux running on it. Here is a short list: Linksys Wireless routers, webcams, Tivo, Roku, Netgear ReadyNas, Sony flatscreen televisions, POS terminals, etc. Windows mobile has notably made its way onto mobile phones and Wasp barcode scanners.
How about high-performance computing? How many Rocks clusters, and render farms are built on Linux versus Windows HPC servers?
Seriously who cares if Linux isn't prevalent on the desktop. Linux has filled every other niche, besides the desktop computer, six ways to Sunday. While Microsoft and Apple are laughing at a 1% desktop share, Linux is taking over every other niche which it is able to quickly evolve and adapt. World domination fast, indeed.
Multiple CPUs has been the standard for servers for at least a decade in x86 gear.
Seriously, even Windows NT 4 had SMP support in 1997.
I don't know what year Linux first had support for SMP, but the 2.0 kernel supports SMP, apparently even on a 486. Just imagine a Beowulf made of 486 class SMP machines!
Itanium is still made today, but yes if you forget about the Pentium Ms and Itaniums, yes the x86_64 incompatible Intel chips are certainly 4 years or older now (5 years if you include only Xeons).
Could you clarify, please? Is Intel still making classic Itanium chips (not compatible with x86_64)? Are they making x86_64 compatible chips, which happen to still be marketed as Itanium, despite having nothing to do with the IA-64 architecture?
Additionally, Slamd64 isn't AMD-only at all. slamd64.com runs on an Athlon64 X2, but it developed on my desktop with a core 2 quad, and my laptop with a core 2 duo.
That should be expected, on a modern Intel P4 or Pentium D. The AMD64 architecture is a bit of a misnomer, nowadays. The original Intel Itanium 64-bit, IA-64 architecture, did not support backwards compatibility with the x86 architecture. The first AMD Athlon 64-bit chips, on the other hand, fully supported x86 architecture.
It did not take long for Intel to see the error of its ways. Intel came up with their own implementation to be compatible with AMD64 architecture and Intel markets it as EM64T. In a nutshell, the true AMD64 architecture on a 64-bit Athlon is compatible with a true EM64T architecture on a 64-bit P4/Pentium D/Xeon. However AMD64 architecture is NOT compatible with the original Itanium IA-64 architecture, so any chips marketed as Intel Itanium, or earlier Xeon models, will not have the proper 32-bit extensions for AMD64 compatibility. All of these x86_64 incompatible Intel chips are probably 5 years or older now.
The more common name I have observed is AMD64, especially when it comes to Linux packaging. My kernel reports x86_64 with uname though, so the inconsistencies might be confusing to some. But x86_64 is really just a vendor neutral way of labeling two different vendor implementations of the same architecture. I suppose there is good reason to still call it AMD64, since they were, in fact, the first vendor to introduce the technology.
AMD64 == x86_64
EM64T == x86_64
(Itanium || IA-64) != x86_64
until the Linux community agrees upon a file structure...
Oh you mean like the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard? The FHS is a file tree standard for Unix systems. Ironically, Apple's OSX is a licensed Unix system that does not conform to the FHS. On the other hand, every general-use or enterprise Linux system conforms to this standard.
...(remember United Linux?)
No, but from a quick google search, it sounds like they were not too successful. The Linux Standard Base is making headway, despite the demise of UnitedLinux, however. The LSB defines uniform packaging specifications for third party vendors. The biggest problem is getting third party vendors to conform, even loosely, to the standards.
Good point. Will the forensic expert just look at file extensions to determine what is copyrighted material, and what is personal/private info?? If so, your trick should work.
A forensic examiner worth his salt would use an indexing program to look for the mp3 file header on the hard disk image. It is likely more important to an examiner what is actually in the file, rather than what the file is actually named.
Arguably, however, it would be more honest to let the subscribers opt-in (or out) of your QoS filtering. If they opt out, then they get a certain (low) guaranteed bandwidth, and they get to do their own QoS for their own packets.
So if they opt out, you just put them in a lower capped priority queue, why that's brilliant!
As for man-in-the-middle, how do you feel about us doing transparent squid caching for our metro-e sites?
That is a completely different thing. Now I don't know what you are doing with the squid proxy other than caching, so I am not going to attempt to judge based on your statement. You could be providing a great non-invasive service for customers that improve their overall web experience. You could have some BOFH motivation, such as draconian BOFH filtering, or just simply want to keep detailed logs of usage on the customers. Like I said, there is nothing inherently wrong with a squid proxy, but you could get pretty evil with it, if you were inclined.
My problem with Comcast is that their man-in-the-middle is invasive. I may have no problem doing a speed test one minute. Then, the next minute I might have atrocious buffering issues on Youtube, or I may have problems with my Netflix player constantly stopping to buffer. Plain old QoS traffic shaping is non-invasive, everything still gets through, there may be latency introduced based on priority, but it still gets through. Comcast throttling is like having a broken firewall between you and everyone else on the Internet. They just drop a few packets at random until your stuck in a TCP limbo, where you are constantly handshaking and tearing down connections until you're Internet speed is about as swift as trying to dial-up a modem pool with a rotary phone. I swear my cable modem just went screeeeeeee-woooooooooo-bee-boo-bee-boo...
Specifically net neutrality stops GOOD QoS too.
I disagree. I am a locked-in Comcast customer, and live in an area with no competition from DSL, FTTP, metro-ethernet or other non-cable broadband technology. I am constantly affected by what they call "traffic shaping". As many here know, Comcast uses a technology which artificially throttles the connection by sending RST packets to both ends of a connection, and thereby forcing TCP connections to break down. What Comcast and others are doing is not proper Quality of Service with priority queues. The so-called "traffic shaping" they have implemented boils down to a Denial of Service, and exploits and undermines the way TCP/IP protocols function. Those who actually understand the difference between the Comcast type of throttling and proper QoS traffic shaping with priority queues, likely have no problem with the latter. With QoS everything gets through, you don't break down a connection. QoS traffic shaping just slows lower priority protocols down (Bittorrent) if a higher priority protocol (VoIP, SIP, VPN) needs more speed. The Comcast throttling is a non-standard way of limiting bandwidth, which tends to break the way Internet protocols are supposed to work. More recently Comcast has taken their level of throttling ass-hattery to the next level with a more protocol agnostic approach. So not only will Comcast break your torrent seed, they'll throttle your web traffic, video streaming, VoIP, e-mail, and pretty much anything you could possibly do on a computer with any given TCP-based protocol.
I have NEVER heard any net neutrality argument against using proper QoS to manage limited bandwidth. I expect a competent Network Operations Admin at an ISP to implement some sort of priority queuing. What I should NOT expect from an ISP is for them to launch a man-in-the-middle Denial of Service against me, when I pay for a service that I expect to actually use.
I applaud your company for doing the right thing. You listened to your customers. Your company came to a reasonable compromise which made your customers happy, and made for a more efficient use of a limited resource. As a bonus, it probably bought you a good bit of loyalty from happy customers, who will spread the word about your service, never a bad thing. One of my colleagues once told a customer,
We did a bit of Linux 'tc' shaping for that customer. After a bit of testing, and a few tweaks, their boss was much, much happier. He probably saved quite a bit of money, instead of wasting it on a bigger pipe for roughly a dozen users.
Democrats are what used to be Republican?
Not at all. Many modern-day American Democrats and Republicans, currently in office, are the same damn thing. The Democrat representatives tend to be slightly more social liberal, and the Republican representatives tend to be a bit more fiscally conservative. The terms "liberals" and "conservatives" are misused by many politicians, and media outlets to support their own agenda. The reality is the pot calling the kettle black.
Proof that by today's definition, both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior are Liberals?
Which leads to the question, what is a Liberal?
Labeling either of them a Liberal would need qualification of context. Do you mean social liberal, or fiscal/economic liberal. I personally would say they are both Statist, who may be slight economic liberals.
These are interesting times indeed.
Agreed.
In my opinion, there is greater political diversity in the U.S. than all left, or all right. The political spectrum just is not accurately represented. I am not trying to show my Libertarian bias here, but if I were to cite this phone survey (take it with a grain of salt, it came from a libertarian website). Of those surveyed it was found that 32% were centrist; 17% could be in multiple categories or did not fit in any one particular category; 16% were libertarians; 14% were statists/authoritarian; 13% liberal; 7% conservative. What I find even more interesting is that 31% identified themselves as left/liberal and 48% identified themselves as right/conservative, 9% as centrists, 2% as libertarians, and 0% as statists/authoritarians. So even though the political spectrum is quite varied, in reality, 79% of all those surveyed identify themselves with a two party system as a Democrat or Republican.
I find that survey interesting. The candidates we get with a two party system do not accurately represent actual voters' interests. It just seems to me that political candidates have two goals, stay in office, and serve the lobbyists. But why does our so called "democracy" have to be about what the politicians want? The survey may not be an accurate representation of the political spectrum, but neither is left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, up/down, or black/white.
I read the article, and it really is as stupid as the summary and article title. Microsoft won't vouch for Linux! OMG, it must be a Microsoft conspiracy against Linux, let's post it on Slashdot! Who seriously expects Microsoft to provide training vouchers for competing products?
In other ridiculous and pointless news...
Oracle won't vouch for SQL Server, MySQL or PostgreSQL.
Red Hat won't vouch for Solaris.
EMC won't vouch for Equallogic.
Dell won't vouch for HP/Compaq, or IBM.
Google won't vouch for Windows Live Search, or Yahoo.
The original poster cannot read. The Associated Press is not going after Google, which is one of their customers who PAYS them for content. However I guess it became a frequently asked question by Google News users. The person pointing the finger at Google for stealing content is Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is the very old CEO and chairman of News Corp./Fox, whom I speculate is somewhat ignorant of the intarwebs in his ripe old age of 78. Furthermore, I am pretty sure he is not a spokesman for the Associated Press.
One would guess the ideas were published in a journal or as a paper, before they were classified as RFCs. Being re-formatted into an RFC would not alter the publication date.
Aside from shaking a Polaroid picture to speed up the development process, it is also a pop culture reference. Shake it like a Polaroid picture!
I would say something about violence in Germany, but I am afraid someone might call Godwin's Law.
Yes, Debian has much more complicated and strict political guidelines on free software than most distributions. However, the IceWeasel debacle is not the fault of their own free software distribution policies. They were asked by the Mozilla Foundation to either cease distributing bug and security fixes not formally blessed by the Mozilla Foundation, or cease the Mozilla trademarked branding for Firefox, and Thunderbird. From the Debian point of view, they chose to err on the side of their own security policies. From the Mozilla point of view, they had previously given Debian a license to redistribute the trademark branding with Mozilla software, even if there was a reasonable amount of modification. However, the license was revoked to distribute Debian's changes alongside Mozilla's trademark branding, when Mozilla later restated their position on this issue.
The United States was built and paid for with the blood, sweat, tears, and even the lives of immigrants. Ninety-nine percent of every citizen's great grandparents, great-great grandparents etc. came to the U.S. from another country. Personally, I think we should welcome talented and hard working people in to the U.S., naturalize them, and make them pay income taxes like everyone else.
Now the thing about H-1B visa holders is that they do pay taxes, and they contribute to our nation's economy. There are countless numbers of problems in the modern-day United States. A good example is the number of people who expect a handout, and abuse the welfare system. A better example is giving hand-outs to multi-national banks and corporations. Some of these banks and companies are guilty of outright fraud; others should have known better before signing off on questionable credit lines, loans, and mortgages. Yet the worst are companies who cannot learn to compete on a global scale with Japan, North Korea, and China. Instead, our government throws away the peoples' tax dollars, giving it out to these companies whom never learned their lessons from their failures. Most of them probably have not even changed their business strategies and business models to better compete globally, it is business as usual.
You may see H-1B visa holders as a problem, but in reality, it is a step in the right direction to competing in a global market. Illegal immigrants are not really a problem either, many of them provide a service doing hard manual labor that no American would do for the same pay. The REAL problem with illegal immigrant workers is income tax and minimum wage. Do away with minimum wage and tax immigrant workers, and that problem is solved. Some on the left side of the political fence may think this cruel and unusual, but that would be a truly free market for jobs. At least illegal immigrant workers do not expect a freaking handout, because they feel entitled to an easy job with great pay and benefits.
You on the other hand, born in the U.S.A. and for some reason you feel entitled to a good paying job with great benefits. Why?
Yeah, the way I saw that deal was both companies agreeing to not step on each others toes in terms of their own Virtualization platforms. Neither Red Hat or Microsoft want to give EMC/VMWare any more of a competitive edge. It would be platform suicide for either company to explicitly not support the other company's operating system on their Virtual platform.
This is certainly true of trademarks. If the owner of a trademark does not act on infringement, they may not be able to defend their rights to this trademark in court. But owners of patents can selectively choose who has to pay, and who does not have to pay, for licensing any technology covered by a patent. Now I am not a patent lawyer, but a perfectly good example is the LZW compression algorithm. Unisys did not enforce its patent on LZW compression in GIF images for 7 years. Ten years after the initial patent was filed, LZW had been in widespread use through image formats such as GIF and TIFF for 7 years. During those 10 years, Unisys had only licensed LZW to a few modem manufacturers, and Adobe for the PostScript format. Finally in 1994, Unisys announced that any code capable of reading and writing the LZW compression algorithm must be licensed. The point is, not enforcing a patent does not affect the ability to enforce licensing of said patent.