Not to flame anyone (anything but that) but as a Linux user for three years no Linux distribution is even remotely close to being the OS that Vista is, or XP. It's more like Windows 95 without all the great software that has enriched my life over the past 23 years of my life. But who needs spiffy programs and a decent GUI...
On the topic though, it's not the computer's fault the solvers can't set up the boards correctly:)
Oh, never mind. I found the queue to play the AI. I may never get to, but it's there.
I've been telling people for years that the Machines are taking over, but they don't believe me. First checkers, next White House politics. THE END IS NEAR!!!
They went so far as to create a system that can always win checkers but didn't go all the way and implement an AI to play against me? Does anyone think this is a little sad?
Why have I got to do all the work to get beat a checkers when the AI would be so simple to implement from this point on?
First of all, to those neo-conservative fascists who want to flame this article, I have nothing to say. I just happen to love liberty and freedom. If that makes me a terrorist sympathizer in your eyes, then so were Washington and Lincoln.
This act in my opinion employs Bush's favorite tactic, broad spectrum language that could cover any one with the right spin on the story. After all, speaking out against the War in Iraq could easily be construed as threatening stability in Iraq. What happens to those of us who protest this illegal and amoral war in the first place?
What's really wrong here is that Bush has again circumvented the natural system of checks and balances that keep this country fair and accountable in order to create a short cut for his administration that could be abused for years to come by any power hungry mongrel who might get elected. The truth is that this president and his administration are so concerned with finding a quick way to get things done that they have no time for things like freedoms, checks and balances, or something silly like the Bill of Rights. But you neo-conservatives probably don't think that people in Iraq deserve the freedoms we Americans enjoy, like due process under the law and no unwarranted search and ceasure. Becuase we're liberators, not conquerers, so we can do what ever we please...
I think the phrase "Great Satan" is fully applicable in this situation.
I have to agree with a previous poster. If Comcast cared about its customers, they could easily afford programmers who can support Firefox. As it stands they don't, and I'm next to calling for a boycott of Comcast over the issue.
As the subject implies, fast-flux networks are not proxies. They HAVE proxies.
The basic difference is that a proxy redirects incoming and outgoing traffic through a server or router some where else, thus "spoofing" your IP address. Fast-flux networks certainly use proxies, but there's one big difference; fast-flux networks allow you to host content this way.
To host your own website (short of technical mastery) you used to need a static IP address that runs directly to one or more servers, making it very easy to catch you if you use a domain name for illegal purposes and even easier to shut you down. Fast-flux networks allow you to use many IP addresses to host content from one central server or set of servers. The IP's on the front end are disposable and more can be generated quickly. It also provides the web site administrator a proxy level to protect his identity while hosting just like the one Tor proxy provides me while surfing.
In other words, the difference between fast-flux networks and proxies is that fast-flux networks can be used to host from one computer to many different IP addresses, in part by using proxies. A proxy just doesn't let you do that.
Thanks for reading a rather long post. I'm a student and a paper on fast-flux networks just happened to be distributed where I do research for the summer:)
Slashdot Mirror
Not to flame anyone (anything but that) but as a Linux user for three years no Linux distribution is even remotely close to being the OS that Vista is, or XP. It's more like Windows 95 without all the great software that has enriched my life over the past 23 years of my life. But who needs spiffy programs and a decent GUI...
On the topic though, it's not the computer's fault the solvers can't set up the boards correctly:)
Oh, never mind. I found the queue to play the AI. I may never get to, but it's there. I've been telling people for years that the Machines are taking over, but they don't believe me. First checkers, next White House politics. THE END IS NEAR!!!
They went so far as to create a system that can always win checkers but didn't go all the way and implement an AI to play against me? Does anyone think this is a little sad?
Why have I got to do all the work to get beat a checkers when the AI would be so simple to implement from this point on?
First of all, to those neo-conservative fascists who want to flame this article, I have nothing to say. I just happen to love liberty and freedom. If that makes me a terrorist sympathizer in your eyes, then so were Washington and Lincoln.
This act in my opinion employs Bush's favorite tactic, broad spectrum language that could cover any one with the right spin on the story. After all, speaking out against the War in Iraq could easily be construed as threatening stability in Iraq. What happens to those of us who protest this illegal and amoral war in the first place?
What's really wrong here is that Bush has again circumvented the natural system of checks and balances that keep this country fair and accountable in order to create a short cut for his administration that could be abused for years to come by any power hungry mongrel who might get elected. The truth is that this president and his administration are so concerned with finding a quick way to get things done that they have no time for things like freedoms, checks and balances, or something silly like the Bill of Rights. But you neo-conservatives probably don't think that people in Iraq deserve the freedoms we Americans enjoy, like due process under the law and no unwarranted search and ceasure. Becuase we're liberators, not conquerers, so we can do what ever we please...
I think the phrase "Great Satan" is fully applicable in this situation.
I have to agree with a previous poster. If Comcast cared about its customers, they could easily afford programmers who can support Firefox. As it stands they don't, and I'm next to calling for a boycott of Comcast over the issue.
I also like the phrase "Capitalist Pig."
As the subject implies, fast-flux networks are not proxies. They HAVE proxies. The basic difference is that a proxy redirects incoming and outgoing traffic through a server or router some where else, thus "spoofing" your IP address. Fast-flux networks certainly use proxies, but there's one big difference; fast-flux networks allow you to host content this way. To host your own website (short of technical mastery) you used to need a static IP address that runs directly to one or more servers, making it very easy to catch you if you use a domain name for illegal purposes and even easier to shut you down. Fast-flux networks allow you to use many IP addresses to host content from one central server or set of servers. The IP's on the front end are disposable and more can be generated quickly. It also provides the web site administrator a proxy level to protect his identity while hosting just like the one Tor proxy provides me while surfing. In other words, the difference between fast-flux networks and proxies is that fast-flux networks can be used to host from one computer to many different IP addresses, in part by using proxies. A proxy just doesn't let you do that. Thanks for reading a rather long post. I'm a student and a paper on fast-flux networks just happened to be distributed where I do research for the summer:)