I think this is a really great idea. It forces them to be a little less biased, and it keeps well-written articles available. The natural beauty of print is that it's costly to publish, compared to digitally. This tends to force the writing to be polished, which online articles, blogs specifically, never achieve. There's just something nice about reading an article someone else has proofread before you. It's jarring to read blogs that have foregone this, as you tend to notice the little grammatical mistakes everywhere. Or worse, it's syntactically correct, but semantically rubbish.
My last farewell letter was to a university lab. We tested all sorts of internet gear. Every summer we hired about 20% of our workforce again, to replace those of us that graduated. Each year, the new kids seemed dumber and dumber. Eventually, I realized that they were just as dumb each year, and that I was actually getting smarter. (Didn't feel like it when I realized that). My farewell letter was a bunch of "cheat codes" basically. I tried to tell people what to avoid, like office politics and committees, which run rampant. I'm sure no one will take it to heart, but it felt really great getting it off my chest. I think that's what a farewell letter should be. Something that can't find you a year later saying "I wish I had said..."
Gates is just berating his top brass for sucking by pretending to be the end user. Hasn't anyone here ever had their boss rip their code apart, feigning ignorance in order to effectively critique?
How was he at fault in any way when he purchased a service stated as being without limits, and then used it as such?
I agree! Why, I have a nice little lady locked in my cellar who came over to clean my apartment once. The contract she made me sign never indicated that it was for only one visit. It'll be a sad day if she ever escapes to the courts!
Or exclude specific interfaces from the pseudo-device available in some versions (like my linux copy)
Or filter out duplicate packets (not retransmissions, but the literal same packet: I bridged two interfaces, and the pseudo-device captures both the bridge and the bridge member)
Or just add localhost to a bridge.. why I can't do this is outside my understanding (until someone gives a crafty answer)
Or even just route all traffic destined for localhost through a physical interface first (I just want to capture all my packets, including localhost and a bridge with several ethernet members, but only once!)
Ah, it's on the wishlist. For another day, perhaps...
Comcast already partially blocks NNTP. I moved in with a friend this month. We live off the same cable modem head end because I got my old IP after I moved my router in. I didnt abuse my NNTP feed and was getting 8 megabits per second, almost evenly. He pirates movies all the time, claimed to be at 400 gig for the month already. And sure enough, my NNTP feed never gets about 1.5, maybe 2.0 megabits per second. It's comtastic! And I did this because they block bittorrent.
i was gonna tell him that my imaginary daughter spilled juice on the check, and then ask for another overnighted copy. but the scammer wasn't getting any more clever, and i just got bored with it honestly.
I pay rsync.net about 6 bucks a month, educational discount at half off, for 6 gigs of space on their servers. I'm in the USA, the server is in Europe, and it's then copied to another continent (probably the USA again... somewhere not in my apartment.) Even at half off, I'm paying rsync.net a lot more than the google thing costs. And the google thing sounds expensive to most people.
Most people here think they can whip together some one-task server with a software raid to back their data up. In fact, many of us do this. But out of the set of us that can manage this, what portion of us are storing that data locally? And how many are checking that the backups are working properly? How many of us have actually restored to verify we know exactly what we're doing? I've been a linux admin for 8 years, and I could still see myself making an error that would cost me all my data. All the people who haven't ever done a backup server and think they're just going to whip together a solution some weekend are people playing a very risky game. Yeah yeah, I hear you saying, "this guy thinks I'm a moron, or thinks he's so smart"- listen, I'm just saying, until you've tested something new from scratch a couple times, you're risking your files to fate.
Now, take the google thing. Yeah, they're gonna mine it. Just for advertising eyeballs, but they're gonna do it. Do you care? Should you? That's not relevant to this. What IS relevant is that they're going to back your data up better than your home-rig will. Yeah, yours is faster and bigger. But what happens when you forget to cron the backup? Or assume a symlink got tarred? Or fat-finger the restore and lose your set? Or, heaven forbid, you have a fire? What if you lost your backups with your source in the same physical accident? Or theft?
And then you'd kick yourself for not having at least that 50 megabytes of stuff you actually can't re-download. A photo of your first girlfriend from high school. An email from an old friend that died. Stuff that had only those two copies, and you watched them both unlink from the disk before you could stop the delete command. Whoops.
Now, if you dont want them mining it, get a host like rsync.net. Nah, I dont work for them. They're awesome only in that they delivered what I paid for. They're not one of those "unlimited until we say so" shops, and the data always gets through. They're a small shop and the guys there love support. Anyways, I'm not saying they're the ones for sure- there are plenty of other places. I just wanted the rsync support. I sleep just a little easier knowing that, however stupid I end up being, some of my stuff exists somewhere smarter than I can accidentally destroy.
So there you have it. I'm no guru, just an average, run of the mill professional linux admin, who trusts a service provider that does backups for a living better than I can do myself at my own home. The end.
you can tell an answer person for real when an answer person asks a question, gets no reply, and then answers their own post with the solution a few days later.
Invariably if you ask a geek crowd what sorts of custom modifications they would employ for a new house, you get some really mundane solutions, like "Well I'd run cat 7 copper everywhere", or "wifi every floor", et cetera. These are all things you could learn in any 60 second trip to a Radio Shack.
Instead of considering what sorts of technology might create an interesting environment, focus on what you want the house to do. Will you have lots of local friends? Think of the things people do at home. Sleep, relaxing, and entertaining. Try to use available tools to facilitate these activities. Simply filling a new house as a tank to store electronics is pretty boring, and probably a waste of cash, too. Intercoms? Server racks in closets? These are well and good if you're trying to run an ISP or a galaxy class starship, but ditch them otherwise. And don't buy any 400 dollar kitchen-aid appliances just because they "look good on the kitchen counter".
Back to the local friends thing-- Set things up so you can watch some movies, sit people down, and have a nice comfortable flow between the living room and the kitchen. Entertaining friends is 50% food, 50% chat. If you still have the ability to control the layout of the kitchen, do it such that you can prepare food in front of your visitors. This lends incredibly to socializing. It reduces the rush to finish, perhaps even extending the process moreso. The best kitchens I can think of have a center island with plenty of chairs and a nice work area for the host to do all the focused work. Toss all the ranges and ovens on a back wall because they are rarely visited. I know that's not really in line with your question, but I'd personally like to hear someone reply to this particular thought with improvements as it's personally interesting to me.
In the living room, most of your guests won't care if you have the 8 thousand or 15 thousand dollar 7.1 surround. Just drop a reasonable amount of cash on yesterday's receiver, dvd players, and speakers, and get a screen just big enough that everyone can get a good look at. Best Buy and friends wouldn't have you believe that after three beers, you won't be able to tell that the 1500 you spent is roughly enjoyable (I didn't say comparable) to the rest of their stock.
If you just sit back and think things through, maybe you'll decide that some must-have item on your list doesn't actually make a lot of sense, and you'll save some cash... or find something else just as silly, but will get more use.
it'd be nice if 90% of fax machines were a fleet of teergrube/tarpit style fax machines that could receive the data at about 8bps, requiring hours and hours to receive a single fax, tying that sender's line up the entire way;)
I've been asking friends lately what they expect 10 years from now will be like for the average computer user. About ten of us have, after some long coffee breaks, decided that it'll be something like this:
No one will buy desktop PCs. in 2017 everything will be similar to what we call a laptop today. Data won't be stored on the laptops. Some people will have servers at home, but these people will be eccentric folks like us that host our own web, mail, et cetera in 2007 -- the fringe users. Everyone else will store their data online somewhere. Bandwidth will be charged by the pound instead of flat rate, but it will be very afforadable -- copying a terabyte to home won't cause more than a second of consideration. People will still have workstation caliber desktops, but those will be specialized machines much as they are today, overpowered for a certain task. By 2017, ipv6 is finally mainstream but just barely. Mobile devices will have aggregated down into a single device-- music, cell, radio, visual-- everyone will have the same typical device they carry that does everything, and it will work well. By then, everything will be aware of your biostats if you let it, so your music can follow your general mood, et cetera. They won't be psychic, just dumbly intelligent. Other than that, we decided that technology will be a lot less visible-- as it gets good/small enough to start hiding away in things, so it shall. Presentation will lose its glamour for the most part, and homes will actually look less teched out like they did before the 80s rose.
I'd love to hear other people's imagination reply to these inevitably wrong projections:)
He deserves to have someone ask him why he built the school in a video game. Let a psychologist evaluate him, and then either medicate the kid or let him go back to class.
He doesn't even deserve that! Else we all deserve an evaluation for something.
This sort of preemptive protection helps just as much as terror scanning at the borders. Using anti-germ soap just makes the germs better -- mass hysteria sucks.
There's no way the current US administration would want younger people voting in greater percentages than they have to put up with now. It's too bad the slack jawed yokels can't figure out how to vote online too -- it'd at least even the two groups out!
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a really great idea. It forces them to be a little less biased, and it keeps well-written articles available. The natural beauty of print is that it's costly to publish, compared to digitally. This tends to force the writing to be polished, which online articles, blogs specifically, never achieve. There's just something nice about reading an article someone else has proofread before you. It's jarring to read blogs that have foregone this, as you tend to notice the little grammatical mistakes everywhere. Or worse, it's syntactically correct, but semantically rubbish.
I would not enjoy knowing every homework I ever finished was turned into the teacher under a glass frame engraved with someone else's name.
If your cable service is up for.. a month and your power isn't... that sorta sucks huh?
My last farewell letter was to a university lab. We tested all sorts of internet gear. Every summer we hired about 20% of our workforce again, to replace those of us that graduated. Each year, the new kids seemed dumber and dumber. Eventually, I realized that they were just as dumb each year, and that I was actually getting smarter. (Didn't feel like it when I realized that). My farewell letter was a bunch of "cheat codes" basically. I tried to tell people what to avoid, like office politics and committees, which run rampant. I'm sure no one will take it to heart, but it felt really great getting it off my chest. I think that's what a farewell letter should be. Something that can't find you a year later saying "I wish I had said..."
Carrier grade NAT? What the hell is that? *I* used to work in a networking lab, and I don't know anyone there who ever spoke about such a thing.
It will be named PinkOS.
http://khaaan.com/
I have a better idea -- First, hold Alt. Second, press F4. Thanks!
Gates is just berating his top brass for sucking by pretending to be the end user. Hasn't anyone here ever had their boss rip their code apart, feigning ignorance in order to effectively critique?
I agree! Why, I have a nice little lady locked in my cellar who came over to clean my apartment once. The contract she made me sign never indicated that it was for only one visit. It'll be a sad day if she ever escapes to the courts!
So, is it your opinion that each of your neighbors also deserves 52% of the ISP's bandwidth?
I wish I could sniff on multiple interfaces.
Or exclude specific interfaces from the pseudo-device available in some versions (like my linux copy)
Or filter out duplicate packets (not retransmissions, but the literal same packet: I bridged two interfaces, and the pseudo-device captures both the bridge and the bridge member)
Or just add localhost to a bridge.. why I can't do this is outside my understanding (until someone gives a crafty answer)
Or even just route all traffic destined for localhost through a physical interface first (I just want to capture all my packets, including localhost and a bridge with several ethernet members, but only once!)
Ah, it's on the wishlist. For another day, perhaps...
Comcast already partially blocks NNTP. I moved in with a friend this month. We live off the same cable modem head end because I got my old IP after I moved my router in. I didnt abuse my NNTP feed and was getting 8 megabits per second, almost evenly. He pirates movies all the time, claimed to be at 400 gig for the month already. And sure enough, my NNTP feed never gets about 1.5, maybe 2.0 megabits per second. It's comtastic! And I did this because they block bittorrent.
i was gonna tell him that my imaginary daughter spilled juice on the check, and then ask for another overnighted copy. but the scammer wasn't getting any more clever, and i just got bored with it honestly.
I screwed with a craigslist scammer this week. It was sorta fun.
m l
:)
http://digitalsushi.com/goraku/fakecheck/story.ht
Getting him to mail a check made out to "Pownd Uholot" was entertaining.
I pay rsync.net about 6 bucks a month, educational discount at half off, for 6 gigs of space on their servers. I'm in the USA, the server is in Europe, and it's then copied to another continent (probably the USA again... somewhere not in my apartment.) Even at half off, I'm paying rsync.net a lot more than the google thing costs. And the google thing sounds expensive to most people.
Most people here think they can whip together some one-task server with a software raid to back their data up. In fact, many of us do this. But out of the set of us that can manage this, what portion of us are storing that data locally? And how many are checking that the backups are working properly? How many of us have actually restored to verify we know exactly what we're doing? I've been a linux admin for 8 years, and I could still see myself making an error that would cost me all my data. All the people who haven't ever done a backup server and think they're just going to whip together a solution some weekend are people playing a very risky game. Yeah yeah, I hear you saying, "this guy thinks I'm a moron, or thinks he's so smart"- listen, I'm just saying, until you've tested something new from scratch a couple times, you're risking your files to fate.
Now, take the google thing. Yeah, they're gonna mine it. Just for advertising eyeballs, but they're gonna do it. Do you care? Should you? That's not relevant to this. What IS relevant is that they're going to back your data up better than your home-rig will. Yeah, yours is faster and bigger. But what happens when you forget to cron the backup? Or assume a symlink got tarred? Or fat-finger the restore and lose your set? Or, heaven forbid, you have a fire? What if you lost your backups with your source in the same physical accident? Or theft?
And then you'd kick yourself for not having at least that 50 megabytes of stuff you actually can't re-download. A photo of your first girlfriend from high school. An email from an old friend that died. Stuff that had only those two copies, and you watched them both unlink from the disk before you could stop the delete command. Whoops.
Now, if you dont want them mining it, get a host like rsync.net. Nah, I dont work for them. They're awesome only in that they delivered what I paid for. They're not one of those "unlimited until we say so" shops, and the data always gets through. They're a small shop and the guys there love support. Anyways, I'm not saying they're the ones for sure- there are plenty of other places. I just wanted the rsync support. I sleep just a little easier knowing that, however stupid I end up being, some of my stuff exists somewhere smarter than I can accidentally destroy.
So there you have it. I'm no guru, just an average, run of the mill professional linux admin, who trusts a service provider that does backups for a living better than I can do myself at my own home. The end.
sweet, my site is your homepage >D
you can tell an answer person for real when an answer person asks a question, gets no reply, and then answers their own post with the solution a few days later.
Invariably if you ask a geek crowd what sorts of custom modifications they would employ for a new house, you get some really mundane solutions, like "Well I'd run cat 7 copper everywhere", or "wifi every floor", et cetera. These are all things you could learn in any 60 second trip to a Radio Shack.
Instead of considering what sorts of technology might create an interesting environment, focus on what you want the house to do. Will you have lots of local friends? Think of the things people do at home. Sleep, relaxing, and entertaining. Try to use available tools to facilitate these activities. Simply filling a new house as a tank to store electronics is pretty boring, and probably a waste of cash, too. Intercoms? Server racks in closets? These are well and good if you're trying to run an ISP or a galaxy class starship, but ditch them otherwise. And don't buy any 400 dollar kitchen-aid appliances just because they "look good on the kitchen counter".
Back to the local friends thing-- Set things up so you can watch some movies, sit people down, and have a nice comfortable flow between the living room and the kitchen. Entertaining friends is 50% food, 50% chat. If you still have the ability to control the layout of the kitchen, do it such that you can prepare food in front of your visitors. This lends incredibly to socializing. It reduces the rush to finish, perhaps even extending the process moreso. The best kitchens I can think of have a center island with plenty of chairs and a nice work area for the host to do all the focused work. Toss all the ranges and ovens on a back wall because they are rarely visited. I know that's not really in line with your question, but I'd personally like to hear someone reply to this particular thought with improvements as it's personally interesting to me.
In the living room, most of your guests won't care if you have the 8 thousand or 15 thousand dollar 7.1 surround. Just drop a reasonable amount of cash on yesterday's receiver, dvd players, and speakers, and get a screen just big enough that everyone can get a good look at. Best Buy and friends wouldn't have you believe that after three beers, you won't be able to tell that the 1500 you spent is roughly enjoyable (I didn't say comparable) to the rest of their stock.
If you just sit back and think things through, maybe you'll decide that some must-have item on your list doesn't actually make a lot of sense, and you'll save some cash... or find something else just as silly, but will get more use.
For 1500, I'd want a multitouch interface. Screw the keyboard. Everything should be a key.
it'd be nice if 90% of fax machines were a fleet of teergrube/tarpit style fax machines that could receive the data at about 8bps, requiring hours and hours to receive a single fax, tying that sender's line up the entire way ;)
I've been asking friends lately what they expect 10 years from now will be like for the average computer user. About ten of us have, after some long coffee breaks, decided that it'll be something like this:
:)
No one will buy desktop PCs. in 2017 everything will be similar to what we call a laptop today. Data won't be stored on the laptops. Some people will have servers at home, but these people will be eccentric folks like us that host our own web, mail, et cetera in 2007 -- the fringe users. Everyone else will store their data online somewhere. Bandwidth will be charged by the pound instead of flat rate, but it will be very afforadable -- copying a terabyte to home won't cause more than a second of consideration. People will still have workstation caliber desktops, but those will be specialized machines much as they are today, overpowered for a certain task. By 2017, ipv6 is finally mainstream but just barely. Mobile devices will have aggregated down into a single device-- music, cell, radio, visual-- everyone will have the same typical device they carry that does everything, and it will work well. By then, everything will be aware of your biostats if you let it, so your music can follow your general mood, et cetera. They won't be psychic, just dumbly intelligent. Other than that, we decided that technology will be a lot less visible-- as it gets good/small enough to start hiding away in things, so it shall. Presentation will lose its glamour for the most part, and homes will actually look less teched out like they did before the 80s rose.
I'd love to hear other people's imagination reply to these inevitably wrong projections
He doesn't even deserve that! Else we all deserve an evaluation for something.
This sort of preemptive protection helps just as much as terror scanning at the borders. Using anti-germ soap just makes the germs better -- mass hysteria sucks.
There's no way the current US administration would want younger people voting in greater percentages than they have to put up with now. It's too bad the slack jawed yokels can't figure out how to vote online too -- it'd at least even the two groups out!
it would suck sharing the highways with people who know they are soon doomed