For God's sake. I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I despise windows, but the fact of the matter is that security is part of an operating system. Controlling interaction with the outside world and between processes running on a machine is one of its primary functions. The EU is going off the deep end by demanding that Microsoft not include this functionality. The only reason anti-virus companies, firewall makers, anti-spyware companies, and all the rest exist is because Microsoft screwed up in the first place. Now when they go to fix it, the EU demands that they leave holes that people can drive a truck through, and so that users have to go out and buy even more software to fix holes that shouldn't be there in the first place.
Can I burn it on a DVD? Can I play it on more than one device? Does it work under whatever OS I'm using? Does it work with any movie player I want to use?
If the answers to any two of those is "no," this is a non-starter. It's dead out of the gate.
Oh, I agree. Linux is good for some things, and those things it does very well, like scientific applications, F/OSS, server applications, etc. It's supremely terrible for CAD, games, or supporting random consumer-grade hardware. I'm just impressed that when I plug in a USB drive (or my Lifedrive acting as one) Ubuntu recognizes it and mounts it. That's saying something.
Yeah you still haven't explained how it hurts you though.
Its like your all saying "But this is against our highest law!" without explaining why it was made illegal in the first place.
I think I explained it pretty well. I also think it's intuitively obvious.
If I attempt to resolve a domain that doesn't exist, I'm supposed to get an NXDOMAIN from the DNS server. When that happens, I can handle the error appropriately on my side. What Earthlink is doing is returning bogus data (i.e., their earthlink-help site). And they don't stop there. If I try to retrieve a file and the domain name is mistyped, Earthlink transparently redirects the traffic and, instead of my operation failing, it "succeeds," but transfering Earthlink's stupid page instead of the file I wanted.
I don't understand the uproar. Isn't this just an ISP-wide 404 page?
When you dial a non-existant telephone number you get an ear piercing tone, you have to hang up, and start all over again.
Maybe it's all just a matter of personal preference?
Uh, no. First off, they're hijacking what should be a NXDOMAIN response and causing it to resolve, which breaks, well, everything. Second, the 404 should come from the target web server if it does resolve, not from some other random web site that Earthlink decides it should.
Can you explain exactly how you are harmed by Earthlink's method? How does it hurt your computing experience? Why do you need an error page when an error occurs?
What is supposed to happen is the domain doesn't resolve, so the operation fails. With Earthlink's moronic solution, I get their damned bullshit page instead of an error.
I'll use an ISP that doesn't shit all over the RFCs, thanks.
Not to be a hater, but I recently started converting from Gentoo to Ubuntu. The reason is because on remote servers that I updated, about half the time the Gentoo servers would not come back up correctly. They'd silently (unless you were at the console) drop dead over some random configuration file that Portage screwed up, or worse. Ubuntu has its own problems, but those problems are almost always evident at the time of software update. In other words, with Ubuntu, the package won't even install completely if it's going to hose over. With Gentoo, it does, and then leaves it to the user to figure it out. On a home hobby system, that is almost preferable. When I have limited time and I'm remotely administering servers, it's a royal pain in the ass.
You'd think by now that people would go ahead and use WEP or WPA, but tunnel traffic over a VPN even to internal sites. That's what I do. While someone may be able to crack my WEP or WPA keys, all that gets them is the ability to access the VPN port on the router. Everything else, including traffic to internal machines, is dropped unless it comes from the VPN. And since the VPN address is on a seperate subnet, the WAP won't route the traffic if you force your IP address to be open, but appear as the VPN IP address.
Obvoiusly not foolproof. I need to get all the machines to drop the traffic unless it's routed through the router. In other words, it doesn't matter where it comes from, but the machines will only listen to traffic coming in off the VPN subnet, and then only listen to that if it's being routed by the internal router. That keeps someone from being cute somehow and confusing the network by plugging something in with an IP address that's on the VPN subnet; since it wouldn't come via the internal router (VPN server), the machines would go "Uh, WTF?"
1. The ISP goes to torrentLeech, the Pirate Bay, etc., and downloads all the torrents, caching them. 2. the ISP provides them on their local network. 3. The ISP doesn't have to pay their tier-1 provider for the bandwidth, because it's all on their local net. 4. PROFIT!
The service provider sells their service as "up to 500k/sec" or whatever. Now, if because of the capacity of the network sometimes you don't get that full bandwidth because it's saturated, that's fine unless it happens a great deal of the time. The issue here is that the ISP has no technical limitation (total bandwidth capacity) that's limiting your bandwidth. They are making the decision to intentionally not deliver that bandwidth. It isn't even that all of a sudden demand exceeds supply and they need to expand their pipes. It's that they've deliberately decided not to deliver what they led the consumer to believe that they would.
No, it has nothing to do with forcing them to support Linux users. (Yeah, there's no technological reason why not, blah blah.)
Perhaps even more ironic is the "anti-big-business" "pro-little guy" liberal media outlet is siding with Micro$oft. (Yes, I know that the liberal media outlets, just like the conservative mouthpieces, both side with business. Which is why both parties are an utter joke, with the same ultimate ends, differing only in how they want the people to think they're going to get there.)
Walmart doesn't sell the after morning pill, Preven. They do sell normal pre conception birth control pills.
So Walmart comes into town, forces the smaller pharmacies to close up shop, then refuses to sell a medication, using the excuse "If you don't like it, go to another pharmacy." I don't see how your point changes the grandparent's post at all.
Yeah, I'll be opening the "Whites-only" club next week. Any ethnic minorities and women who aren't hot don't get let inside. Let's see how long it lasts before I'm sued out the ass in the U.S.. That's precisely the problem. I agree with not descriminating based on race, sex, creed, religion, blah blah blah. But that mentality is by its very nature a slippery slope. Thus, the NYT, which is a news outlet that would doubtless blast such a place off the map is simply being hypocritical.
Open standards exist. They can use them. They choose not to. Therefore, they actively make a decision to forbid part of the market from accessing their content, which in turn undermines their credibility.
In this case, I'm suggesting that the NY Times has a moral responsibility to treat everyone THE SAME way, though! You're confusing two separate issues.
I find the irony amusing that a liberal media outlet (oh face it, they do have that bias) is descriminating against the poor who can't afford hundreds or thousands of dollars for Windows software, as well as the "intellectuals" and "academicians" who are using Linux.
And yes, I use Linux exclusively. Since Macromedia/Adobe hasn't bothered to release a working version of Flash 8 or higher, much less an AMD64-compatable version, I just consider web admins who rely on Flash utterly clueless.
A country like Iran doesn't care. They're fixated on a religious war, which supercedes any concern over political matters. These people don't care if they die, because they're convinced that they will reach a special form of heaven in the process. That makes for a very, very dangeous opponent.
Slashdot Mirror
Good God.
It's Pah is strong.
Bawahaha. Where is that host Kidd Chris these days?
...Because I assume that they were part of the Eastern Coalition and Cochrane bombed them from orbit.
If the answers to any two of those is "no," this is a non-starter. It's dead out of the gate.
Oh, I agree. Linux is good for some things, and those things it does very well, like scientific applications, F/OSS, server applications, etc. It's supremely terrible for CAD, games, or supporting random consumer-grade hardware. I'm just impressed that when I plug in a USB drive (or my Lifedrive acting as one) Ubuntu recognizes it and mounts it. That's saying something.
Head-on! Apply directly to the forehead!
Head-on! Apply directly to the forehead!
Head-on! Apply directly to the forehead!
*gunshot* *sparks fly*
I think I explained it pretty well. I also think it's intuitively obvious.
If I attempt to resolve a domain that doesn't exist, I'm supposed to get an NXDOMAIN from the DNS server. When that happens, I can handle the error appropriately on my side. What Earthlink is doing is returning bogus data (i.e., their earthlink-help site). And they don't stop there. If I try to retrieve a file and the domain name is mistyped, Earthlink transparently redirects the traffic and, instead of my operation failing, it "succeeds," but transfering Earthlink's stupid page instead of the file I wanted.
Sometimes things NEED to fail.
Fire twinklers and a full spread of light balls! Fukkkkov!
Uh, no. First off, they're hijacking what should be a NXDOMAIN response and causing it to resolve, which breaks, well, everything. Second, the 404 should come from the target web server if it does resolve, not from some other random web site that Earthlink decides it should.
Because HTTP and DNS are both used for things not related to humans browsing web pages.
Uh:
# wget http://nonexistantdomain2342134.com/file.htm
What is supposed to happen is the domain doesn't resolve, so the operation fails. With Earthlink's moronic solution, I get their damned bullshit page instead of an error.
I'll use an ISP that doesn't shit all over the RFCs, thanks.
Not to be a hater, but I recently started converting from Gentoo to Ubuntu. The reason is because on remote servers that I updated, about half the time the Gentoo servers would not come back up correctly. They'd silently (unless you were at the console) drop dead over some random configuration file that Portage screwed up, or worse. Ubuntu has its own problems, but those problems are almost always evident at the time of software update. In other words, with Ubuntu, the package won't even install completely if it's going to hose over. With Gentoo, it does, and then leaves it to the user to figure it out. On a home hobby system, that is almost preferable. When I have limited time and I'm remotely administering servers, it's a royal pain in the ass.
Obvoiusly not foolproof. I need to get all the machines to drop the traffic unless it's routed through the router. In other words, it doesn't matter where it comes from, but the machines will only listen to traffic coming in off the VPN subnet, and then only listen to that if it's being routed by the internal router. That keeps someone from being cute somehow and confusing the network by plugging something in with an IP address that's on the VPN subnet; since it wouldn't come via the internal router (VPN server), the machines would go "Uh, WTF?"
1. The ISP goes to torrentLeech, the Pirate Bay, etc., and downloads all the torrents, caching them.
2. the ISP provides them on their local network.
3. The ISP doesn't have to pay their tier-1 provider for the bandwidth, because it's all on their local net.
4. PROFIT!
The service provider sells their service as "up to 500k/sec" or whatever. Now, if because of the capacity of the network sometimes you don't get that full bandwidth because it's saturated, that's fine unless it happens a great deal of the time. The issue here is that the ISP has no technical limitation (total bandwidth capacity) that's limiting your bandwidth. They are making the decision to intentionally not deliver that bandwidth. It isn't even that all of a sudden demand exceeds supply and they need to expand their pipes. It's that they've deliberately decided not to deliver what they led the consumer to believe that they would.
And hey, they had Hoshi in revealing outfits.
Even the new Battlestar Galactica has more mythology and philosophy than any of the Star Trek series.
Or that "List of Gay Porn Stars" ranks above "List of Female Porn Stars."
Perhaps even more ironic is the "anti-big-business" "pro-little guy" liberal media outlet is siding with Micro$oft. (Yes, I know that the liberal media outlets, just like the conservative mouthpieces, both side with business. Which is why both parties are an utter joke, with the same ultimate ends, differing only in how they want the people to think they're going to get there.)
Open standards exist. They can use them. They choose not to. Therefore, they actively make a decision to forbid part of the market from accessing their content, which in turn undermines their credibility.
And yes, I use Linux exclusively. Since Macromedia/Adobe hasn't bothered to release a working version of Flash 8 or higher, much less an AMD64-compatable version, I just consider web admins who rely on Flash utterly clueless.
A country like Iran doesn't care. They're fixated on a religious war, which supercedes any concern over political matters. These people don't care if they die, because they're convinced that they will reach a special form of heaven in the process. That makes for a very, very dangeous opponent.