The connection between the original source and the "pushsubhub" server really is a "push" connection, but the hub to client connection is not.
This isn't right. You can see in section 7.3 of the spec that the hub sends an HTTP POST to each client (subscriber) for each update; there's no polling.
If NetSol received a takedown for a site that they do not host, they should ignore it, not lock the domain. Unfortunately I'm having trouble figuring out definitively where Cryptome is hosted since the traceroute ends somewhere in Savvis's backbone, but the IP address is in a block assigned to NetSol.
You really don't want that. Realistically, a long FTP download should be lower-priority than voice (or even HTTP) packets.
It's hard to come up with prioritization rules that work (other than customer marking), especially now that VoIP and video are flowing over TCP and bulk BitTorrent traffic is using UDP.
Anyone have data on how these compare to x86 and Intel's latest creations? Presumably, one could write an efficient algorithm for a variety of common computing tasks and port it to the different chips to get a cross-architecture performance estimate.
A non-IBM POWER7 system would end up looking pretty much like an IBM POWER7 system, and you can bet it wouldn't be cheaper, so what's the point? If you want POWER7, buy it from IBM.
POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different...
That doesn't matter; they both address the same market (high-end Unix) and thus they are competitors.
Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.
Yeah, POWER7 can only execute... six instructions per cycle. And you might indeed say that an in-order Itanium at 1.7 GHz doesn't come close to an out-of-order POWER7 at 3+ GHz.
While its possible that POWER7 is faster, its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration...
Since no Tukwila servers have been announced, we don't even know how much they will cost.
You're not paranoid; there are people who would love to speculate in IPv4 addresses. However, technically IPv4 speculation doesn't (yet) exist because (1) you can't "own" IP addresses and therefore cannot sell them and (2) to get N IPv4 addresses you need "justification", which is something like N/2 computers.
pretty much every format universal on the Internet today, got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge.
Not really; MPEG-4 (aka "DivX") is patented and requires royalties; you just didn't notice because either someone paid the royalties for you or you're infringing the patents.
That's exactly what it is. If hypervisors got too smart you might be able to use cheaper switches, and the networking industry just can't have that. VEPA is designed to cripple hypervisors, ensuring that you'll have to keep buying enterprisey switches.
Slashdot Mirror
The connection between the original source and the "pushsubhub" server really is a "push" connection, but the hub to client connection is not.
This isn't right. You can see in section 7.3 of the spec that the hub sends an HTTP POST to each client (subscriber) for each update; there's no polling.
Some distro installers do it right and some do it wrong. Give it a few years and I'm sure it will all be sorted out.
If NetSol received a takedown for a site that they do not host, they should ignore it, not lock the domain. Unfortunately I'm having trouble figuring out definitively where Cryptome is hosted since the traceroute ends somewhere in Savvis's backbone, but the IP address is in a block assigned to NetSol.
Maybe you haven't looked at their site lately (I wouldn't blame you); NetSol has been providing hosting for years: http://www.networksolutions.com/web-hosting/index.jsp
Yes, "international" means "outside the US".
You really don't want that. Realistically, a long FTP download should be lower-priority than voice (or even HTTP) packets.
It's hard to come up with prioritization rules that work (other than customer marking), especially now that VoIP and video are flowing over TCP and bulk BitTorrent traffic is using UDP.
Hint: is not promoting some protocols over some others. It's about promoting some *providers* over the alternatives.
Says who? My definition of NN doesn't allow discrimination between protocols.
Anyone have data on how these compare to x86 and Intel's latest creations? Presumably, one could write an efficient algorithm for a variety of common computing tasks and port it to the different chips to get a cross-architecture performance estimate.
That's called SPEC CPU; here are some results: http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=107244&threadid=107238&roomid=2
A non-IBM POWER7 system would end up looking pretty much like an IBM POWER7 system, and you can bet it wouldn't be cheaper, so what's the point? If you want POWER7, buy it from IBM.
You're confusing POWER with PowerPC. They are not the same thing.
Since POWER3 in 1998 they are the same thing, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Architecture#History But don't let me stop you from showing off.
POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different...
That doesn't matter; they both address the same market (high-end Unix) and thus they are competitors.
Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.
Yeah, POWER7 can only execute... six instructions per cycle. And you might indeed say that an in-order Itanium at 1.7 GHz doesn't come close to an out-of-order POWER7 at 3+ GHz.
While its possible that POWER7 is faster, its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration...
Since no Tukwila servers have been announced, we don't even know how much they will cost.
Even better when people start using a program that for example does random searches on Google and does a request to every search result.
What if one of those results happens to be an illegal Web page? Maybe you should call this program the Auto-Incriminator.
Chaff traffic may defeat human observers, but I doubt grep will bat an eye. And your ISP will pass the costs of tracking your chaff traffic on to you.
I have a N900. Firefox's UI is definitely better and it feels a little faster.
No. He's just showing off.
Sure, you could call it LBOv4. For example, if you want 9.0.0.0/8 just buy IBM.
This HP is not the same old HP we knew from years ago.
Indeed. Perhaps I should have said "renumbering doesn't sell ink".
Yep. They won't implement proprietary codecs and they won't let you sneak in proprietary codecs through GStreamer either.
You're not paranoid; there are people who would love to speculate in IPv4 addresses. However, technically IPv4 speculation doesn't (yet) exist because (1) you can't "own" IP addresses and therefore cannot sell them and (2) to get N IPv4 addresses you need "justification", which is something like N/2 computers.
The company currently known as Hewlett-Packard also includes the remains of Compaq, DEC, Tandem, etc. Renumbering is expensive.
NAT between v4 and v6 has been deprecated.
I see you haven't been following the IETF lately. Although some people are promoting flavors of dual-stack, NAT64 is back on the table. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-08
pretty much every format universal on the Internet today, got that way because the player/viewer was offered free of charge.
Not really; MPEG-4 (aka "DivX") is patented and requires royalties; you just didn't notice because either someone paid the royalties for you or you're infringing the patents.
Mozilla is going to implement gstreamer backend for html5 video element.
That's only for Fennec; roc is dead set against enabling GStreamer for desktop Firefox.
That's exactly what it is. If hypervisors got too smart you might be able to use cheaper switches, and the networking industry just can't have that. VEPA is designed to cripple hypervisors, ensuring that you'll have to keep buying enterprisey switches.
If ISPs tried to "itemize" your bandwidth people would complain about privacy.
Since others have addressed digital cash, I'll take the second part.
why not invent identities which are themselves "just identities" in the same way?
Credentica did this (and more) but then Microsoft bought it and dropped the technology in a black hole.