Re:DocBook - like HTML 1.0, only dumber
on
DocBook 5
·
· Score: 1
When writing documentation in word or open office I don't need to read an entire book in how to do it. That's why this bloated design by committee xml language is a complete waste of time. You analogy fails because it's not even slightly related and doesn't at all translate to real life. When typing this comment is wasn't constantly referring to a dictionary.
Only by people that don't know what they're talking about and isn't something I would expect to hear from someone whose JOB is to do with networking. It's also not something you want to hear from someone using the term as to why IPv6 isn't any good when in actual fact they're just spreading lies due to their own lack of knowledge. So go cry me a river if I'm hurting your feelings.
It's like calling the Internet a series of tubes and using it as an argument as to why we don't need network neutrality. Would you start crying when I point out the flaws in that too?
It's not a religious taboo, it's just you not knowing what the hell you're talking about (and this happens every damn time an IPv6 story on slashdot shows up).
evil use of NAT (N-to-1 mapping) being taken into consideration
but takes away too much for me to consider using it for myself or my customers at the moment.
You should not be doing any job involving networking with your current level of knowledge. If you don't even understand how current technology works how can you determine what is or isn't better for your customers.
Re:DocBook - like HTML 1.0, only dumber
on
DocBook 5
·
· Score: 1
Not only that, it sounds like a horrible format if you need documentation to write in the documentation language. Just looking at their What is DocBook page leaves me wondering what the hell it really is...
It's not a corporate perspective. This article is coming from someone who has built up years of experience with ipv4 hacks, is now slowly waking up to the fact that they're redundant and is trying to do anything they can to stop it.
The hand waving in the summary alone is ridiculous... "No killer app?", because getting rid of NAT isn't killer enough? "No clear benefits?", unlimited supply of IPv6 addresses, giving each customer their own IP simplifying logging, storage and troubleshooting customer problems, etc. That was off the top of my head with no thought put into the answers..
This is pretty cool and something I've never considered getting into before however I don't think your linked site goes far enough.
Imagine a site that not only allowed you to collaborate on interactive stories but also added inventory, hit points, etc. Basically pre-recorded D&D in text form. Anything out there similar to that?
Since when have the publishers of shows available on cable TV been using BitTorrent? And since when does BitTorrent work for live sports or live news?
Let me introduce you to GoalBit. Not only a bit Torrent based streaming application however they also have a service available for TV networks to publish their content to customers while minimizing distribution costs.
You raise an interesting point. How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position. If the government went through with this how could they possibly fine any monopoly in the future for abuse when they've done it themselves.
In Thailand, pornography, dildos, etc are illegal. If you're caught with pornography you can get arrested or fined. So, basically this film would never make it here.
There is no difference and I find it funny how the horde of Google bashers and privacy nuts don't appear until there are certain keywords in a summary.
More then that. From the video he says when answering a direct question that he (or GNU) is starting this project however how about throwing out a URL to those that want to get involved?
After reading more about this case I'd say that's the one thing they're not guilty of. The admin downloaded the GPL server or something similar and ran it. They could easily deny that claim.
You'd be better off arguing that they connect to the server using the client. What annoys me about this types of cases is that it's never clear where the legal line is with server emulators?
Is it ok to run a third party server with none of the original WoW data? It should be, even if Blizzard doesn't like it.
ScapeGaming may have used Blizzard's other data server side but arguing that they're guilty of copyright infringement on the client side is silly. In that situation they're only guilty of having a port open that the client can connect to.
If that kind of thinking was popular you could take anyone to court for trademark / copyright infringement because app xyz can connect to your apache box via port 80. Totally stupid line of thinking and no I don't think them making money off it makes them guilty, using Blizzard's data serverside makes them guilty. Duplicating NPC, quest, item data makes them guilty.
Making money and clients connecting to their address doesn't make them guilty.
Doesn't the UO emulators have their own GPL 3D client too?
So basically EA would be suing people for running their own server / client which has nothing to do with EA or UO.. uhh.. how exactly are they suppose to do that?
Downloading the client from Blizzard's site is legitimately getting the game. In respect to the GPs post he's still correct and it is the client runners that are breaking Blizzard's EULA, etc which the server operators have no involvement in.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice to see useless idiots still arguing over the bikeshed..
When writing documentation in word or open office I don't need to read an entire book in how to do it. That's why this bloated design by committee xml language is a complete waste of time. You analogy fails because it's not even slightly related and doesn't at all translate to real life. When typing this comment is wasn't constantly referring to a dictionary.
Only by people that don't know what they're talking about and isn't something I would expect to hear from someone whose JOB is to do with networking. It's also not something you want to hear from someone using the term as to why IPv6 isn't any good when in actual fact they're just spreading lies due to their own lack of knowledge. So go cry me a river if I'm hurting your feelings.
It's like calling the Internet a series of tubes and using it as an argument as to why we don't need network neutrality. Would you start crying when I point out the flaws in that too?
It's not a religious taboo, it's just you not knowing what the hell you're talking about (and this happens every damn time an IPv6 story on slashdot shows up).
Except NAT doesn't do that. PAT does that.
Except NAT doesn't do that. A firewall does that.
You should not be doing any job involving networking with your current level of knowledge. If you don't even understand how current technology works how can you determine what is or isn't better for your customers.
Not only that, it sounds like a horrible format if you need documentation to write in the documentation language. Just looking at their What is DocBook page leaves me wondering what the hell it really is...
It's not a corporate perspective. This article is coming from someone who has built up years of experience with ipv4 hacks, is now slowly waking up to the fact that they're redundant and is trying to do anything they can to stop it.
The hand waving in the summary alone is ridiculous... "No killer app?", because getting rid of NAT isn't killer enough? "No clear benefits?", unlimited supply of IPv6 addresses, giving each customer their own IP simplifying logging, storage and troubleshooting customer problems, etc. That was off the top of my head with no thought put into the answers..
Oh sure, no benefits at all.. lol..
So for anyone else wanting to know what the hell Wayland is here is the link that I spent 20 minutes googling... http://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server
What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?!
This is pretty cool and something I've never considered getting into before however I don't think your linked site goes far enough.
Imagine a site that not only allowed you to collaborate on interactive stories but also added inventory, hit points, etc. Basically pre-recorded D&D in text form. Anything out there similar to that?
What's the problem? If you're not doing anything wrong then you got nothing to hide.
Problem with what you wrote is that in this case the government wouldn't be creating a monopoly or giving a company a monopoly.
In this case the government are the monopoly and they're mis-using and abusing the monopoly they've been granted by the American people.
If you buy a samsung TV you can simply reflash the firmware, get root and forget about having an extra box attached to it.
It's not that we have a hard time. It's just that we're not bums that like spending our time rummaging around in other people's garbage/rubbish.
Let me introduce you to GoalBit. Not only a bit Torrent based streaming application however they also have a service available for TV networks to publish their content to customers while minimizing distribution costs.
You raise an interesting point. How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position. If the government went through with this how could they possibly fine any monopoly in the future for abuse when they've done it themselves.
Surely this is illegal to begin with.
That's all I can really say.
In Thailand, pornography, dildos, etc are illegal. If you're caught with pornography you can get arrested or fined. So, basically this film would never make it here.
If you put a + at the end of a bit.ly url you can see the statistics and where it links to like so..
http://bit.ly/9KFubG+
In this case it's going to: http://blog.amahi.org/2010/08/11/amahi-for-the-marvell-plug-computer-released-get-yours-free/
There is no difference and I find it funny how the horde of Google bashers and privacy nuts don't appear until there are certain keywords in a summary.
More then that. From the video he says when answering a direct question that he (or GNU) is starting this project however how about throwing out a URL to those that want to get involved?
Which if you watched the talk is exactly what he says....
After reading more about this case I'd say that's the one thing they're not guilty of. The admin downloaded the GPL server or something similar and ran it. They could easily deny that claim.
You'd be better off arguing that they connect to the server using the client. What annoys me about this types of cases is that it's never clear where the legal line is with server emulators?
Is it ok to run a third party server with none of the original WoW data? It should be, even if Blizzard doesn't like it.
ScapeGaming may have used Blizzard's other data server side but arguing that they're guilty of copyright infringement on the client side is silly. In that situation they're only guilty of having a port open that the client can connect to.
If that kind of thinking was popular you could take anyone to court for trademark / copyright infringement because app xyz can connect to your apache box via port 80. Totally stupid line of thinking and no I don't think them making money off it makes them guilty, using Blizzard's data serverside makes them guilty. Duplicating NPC, quest, item data makes them guilty.
Making money and clients connecting to their address doesn't make them guilty.
Doesn't the UO emulators have their own GPL 3D client too?
So basically EA would be suing people for running their own server / client which has nothing to do with EA or UO.. uhh.. how exactly are they suppose to do that?
Downloading the client from Blizzard's site is legitimately getting the game. In respect to the GPs post he's still correct and it is the client runners that are breaking Blizzard's EULA, etc which the server operators have no involvement in.