This system worked for nearly 100 years with phone numbers. People got used to dialing just digits--and they published directories for those who didn't know the digits. With only 10 digits, nearly every family and business in the US could have there very own, private 10-digit number. snip And in my day, we had real dials on the phone--none this fancy DTMF stuff for us. Well, in our day, we have *.e164.arpa for that;}
Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How many would a squatter be willing to buy? Of course, that would limit domain names to basically the corporate-only world, since how many private individuals would pay that much just to have their blog or family website at its own name? Ok, let me be the first to say, I am fully against the idea of selling off TLDs this way and breaking the DNS.
That said, even if it happened, I can't see the situation you refer to ever happening, and though its hard to tell with the spammers, you'll probably see some do so and some not.
But no private individual would have to pay so much. In fact, they would pay what they do now, OR LESS!
Here's how it works. I pay $250 for a.whee tld I sell.whee domains for $5/year. Once i sell just 50 of them, i broke even. After that i can either charge less to everyone, or make a profit.
those private individuals who just want to blog or have a family website will still get their cheap (if not cheaper) domains from people that became registrars.
Just like now, you can be a big boy and get a relatively expensive domain.com for $20/year or you can ask a friend for a myname.friendsdomain.com for a 12 pack of beer. This just would add one more level at the top, the really expensive tld.
www.compaq.xyz has zero value. I never even understood why.net was created either. I can understand.ORG, and maybe even.INFO, but not.NET. .net was originally reserved only for backbone providers and ISPs..com and.org you clearly know, as well as the two letter ISO country codes.
You forgot all about.edu.gov and.mil, all of which are TLDs actually run correctly (gasp, imagine that) and are limited like they all are supposed to be.
Back in the day it was intended that if you were not a registered business, you wouldnt be allowed to get a.com That didn't work well, and they decided to make.com the 'default' and leave.org restricted. They managed.org and.net fairly well for a time, as well as the country code cctlds.
Now its all about money.
Bet youll be shocked to learn, back around 1990 or so, domains were free! It was i think some time around 1992 (give or take a couple years) when netsol first introduced $100 for 2 years, then later $70 for 2 years, finally allowing $35 for 1 year. Then openSRS came along and changed everything (for the better) and we have more registrars then just netsol,
This is all about money going into the pockets of some people, and nothing about adding value to the Internet. This has been true the day ICANN took control of the DNS away from the original creators of DNS.
There are only two, and will forever be only two, TLDs which have any value associated with them whatsoever.....COM and.ORG. That's it. Everything else is reserved anyways, and you can substitute a country TLD for.COM and.ORG when appropriate. Again, you forgot.mil.gov and.edu. Just because more than.com exists confuses some people, doesnt mean the rest of us should suffer. If you want to play the pain game, just stop using DNS and go back to memorizing IPs.
Clearly the only difference between a tld that works and serves an actual useful function, are those that are well defined for a specific purpose, and actually limited to that.
You MUST be a 4 year college to get an.edu you must be a govt agency to get a.gov and you must be a military institution to get a.mil
anyone and their dog can get a.com.org or.net. Those are the three that need to stop existing, because their existence is pointless and means nothing. If icann would actually restrict.org to only registered legal non-profit companies, and restrict.net for companys with at least two ASNs and multiple/20 or larger blocks, must have at least 4 backbone peers and at least as many downstream peers (customers) and you are allowed a.net and will officially be an ISP. Then it would make sense to have a 'fall through' which would obviously remain.com
My point: Don't get rid of the whole system for not working, when in fact it works perfectly if it is just used correctly.
I'm a bit amazed at the flamebait vote I got, my intent wasn't to piss people off, just to voice my dislike, and my preference for the other "better" (imho) free licenses. GPL feels very much like DRM... a set of restrictions which mean I can't use the software. (bold added by me)
Either confusion still, or poor selection of words.
The GPL covers nothing about using the software. It grants you the right that copyright restricts, so you are allowed to make a copy into memory to run it, and all of that. And there are no restrictions at all there.
The only restrictions are when you plan to distribute GPL software, at which point there are a number of things you must do to be compliant with the license.
It's quite possible that is what you meant, and due to the restrictions placed on distributing it you can't use it in your project, but that isn't what you said:}
And with that out of the way, yes you are correct. BSD/MIT is the most free licence, as there is literally one restriction, and that is only to leave credit where its due. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, those that choose to use the GPL for their work, realize they are trading in a small number of their freedoms, in exchange for a much much larger new freedom granted that is a lot more important to them. They trade the right to do anything with it and total freedom, in exchange for knowing that legally anyone that wants to use your code, has to let you use their version of it if they change it.
And there is nothing wrong with that either, unless your plans are to go take someone elses software that they wrote, and make use of it without sharing back just the same.
You can always find a BSD licensed copy of what you want, and then won't run afoul of copyright violations, or failing that, you can code it yourself or pay a developer to do it under your terms.
No you don't. If you distribute any version of a GPLed piece of software, you must make the source available upon request to the person you distributed it to. Modification is irrelevant. Modification only matters when you modify something for your own use and do not distribute it- then you don't have to provide source because there's no one to provide it to. See, are you sure about that?
Because if so, two copyright lawyers have explained things wrong to me, and I am in violation of the GPL.
The only GPL source I have avail on my own website is the one program I modified. I use other GPL software in the whole package, however my site simply provides URLs to the authors site where the source code is available for download.
I didn't make any modifications, so fail to see how linking to the authors source (the exact copy im running) vs the url pointing to a local copy of the source on my own webserver, except for whos web host gets the bandwidth bill...
Obviously the one program I modified I have to provide changes on my own site, since the author is not interested in adding the change in upstream, and is a fairly minor change to make it better work with the whole software package. To distribute the binary, I have to make my source changes available.
But I don't see whats wrong about not personally making available the sources of the other GPL packages, since if you want the source, you can still follow the links to get it.
I could see if the author had a habit of deleting older versions and only keeping the latest one on their site, but you don't often see that in the OSS world, its more of a windows and macos shareware world thing.
Because your car requires maintenance every few months that involves opening the hood. If a Wii needed a refill on magic smoke every three months, you'd have an opening in the box so that you could get to the magic smoke tank. If they wanted to lock down the hood, and still needed to expose a very few select things (ie oil, dipstick, water) and the rest they force you to bring it to the dealer for. Not too hard.
Some printer companys managed to lock down their printers/ink carts, and they need maintenance every few months too in the form of feeding it new ink and more paper.
But, I suggest we stop now, no since in helping to design the next generation of locked drm car for them.
The vast majority of the people out there buying stuff just want to pay, plug, and play. That means standards, simplicity, and - unfortunately - lockdown. I have to call bullshit and a half on this line of reasoning.
Lets go with a famous slashdot car analogy, that happens to fit perfectly well.
My car's hood is not locked requiring a special key that only the dealer has. I personally however am not mechanically inclined enough to do much more than check fluids in my car. I *do* take it to a mechanic to have it worked on. I am like your wii's lowest common denominator except for cars.
Now, add lock down. A special key is required to open the hood. Only the dealers have these keys. Suddenly, every single person that liked tinkering under the hood is screwed. They have to resort to quasi-legal methods to do with their property as they wish. Those people know better than to call the dealer expecting a replacement when they know it was them monkeying with it that broke it.
I however am not affected by this change. My car still runs, and the procedure is basically the same, other than I have to go to the original dealer and get raped by their 10x higher prices, but since my usual mechanic wont have the key, i get screwed too in a way.
Leaving the wii unlocked to modding can't possibly effect the people who will not be modding it! It only prevents those of us who want to do with our property as we wish, from being able to do so.
Errrrr... hate to tell you this, but the journal in question is Nature. Published by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, a British company owned by a German group, for an international audience. I too hate to tell you this, but from TFA directly:
"Seventy degrees is a lovely, comfortable temperature for most people. And the same turns out to be true for all sorts of tree species."
Au contraire. If the Canadian companies are scamming US companies by using the US postal service, you can bet that the court has jurisdiction to order them to stop. Little do we realize, they didn't use the US mail system, they in actuality paid a million canadian children to follow the mail man and they put their bills in afterwards!;)
So you've updated to Vista without paying? Via Microsoft's servers? WOW. How'd u manage that? Who cares about free downgrades? Bill Gates 18 year old daughters unborn son, who will come into this world in a solid gold manger. Thats who:)
Try it with something as recent (less than 2 years) as ubuntu 6.10 and it will not work. Sounds like a suggestion for the ubuntu team! If you wish to send it in, feel free. I will send it anonymous.
There is no reason the gui upgrade tool should not have that feature.
Its very possible to do, same way as on debian at least, which is less easy for some. You cant use apt to jump past an upgrade and expect a working system (though it has been known to happen) You need to manually edit your apt.sources, and just bump it to the next major version, and dist-upgrade. Then bump up another major version, dist-upgrade, rinse and repeat until you are at the newest. The worst that should ever happen is some apps change major versions and wont be compatible with your config files, and apt wont overwrite them with the new versions templates. But you have that problem anyways upgrading apps major versions, you just generally dont have to fix everything at once.
All the GUI would have to do is hold back the kernel-image, and dist upgrade one major version at a time until the newest, and then let the newest kernel come through so you still only have to reboot once at the end. Sure, alot of steps and work, but hiding those types of things is what GUIs do best!
If everyone that accessed UseNet just switches to a pay for use news site theres no change in bandwidth... You still download it? They just save on hardware. Even worse than that, it costs them MORE bandwidth this way.
Keep in mind, most ISPs only pay the big bucks for their internet connectivity. The network between them and you (and all their customers) is MUCH cheaper, measured only in maintenance costs. The internet lines have the same maintenance cost, plus bandwidth costs, on top of base charges.
Before, they transfered all of the news articles Once, using internet bandwidth once, from their upstream new servers to their own. Customers could get these all from their news server, which can happen by any number of customers any number of times and there is no extra bandwidth fees to the ISP.
Now, all of their users will be transferring news articles from the internet to them, each one taking their share of bandwidth from the internet pipes.
Look into foxmarks [foxmarks.com] (assuming you use firefox). It works decently well, and it has firefox 3 support. I never switched to Google's thing, because foxmarks seemed better. From the URL there, it appears all foxmarks can do is sync your bookmarks.
The reason googles sync is/was better is because it not only does the one thing (everything) foxmarks does, but it also syncs your firefox cookies, saved passwords (very important one that!) and your history.
What I would like is a firefox extension that does basically what google browser sync does, except you can point it to a server of your own, and the backend software is available to install.
There are a few extensions that can sync only your bookmarks to a server you can run yourself, mostly using open standard protocols, but nothing that will sync everything, including your saved passwords and cookies.
You can get a bunch of firewire to ide bridge boards, and run scsi over firewire. Keep in mind this will be noticeably slower than native ide once you get more than a certain number of drives on a single bus, but for some applications, fast disk access isn't as important.
Technically speaking, you can use USB for this too, however there are many more downsides. Many times slower than firewire, due to the method usb uses to communicate bidirectionally. Its not that much cheaper, and also you cant use nearly as many drives per bus.
As an example, try http://www.fwdepot.com/ Their prices are a bit high i admit, but you can build a shopping list there and look around for best price.
4 BUS firewire cards. Note that a 4 -port- card is not at all the same. That will be one bus, with a 4 port hub built in. The less drives on each bus, and the more buses you have, the more bandwidth is available to each disk, and the speed up is exponential.
One bridge board per hard drive, a few hubs and some cabling, and spread them out over your few spare pcs.
Then run something like http://evms.sf.net/ to cluster the machines together and create one giant pool of storage space out of all the drives over all the machines.
It's probably as cheap as possible for getting use out of them storage wise. Any other 'better' solution will cost a lot more too.
Of course, useful for storage and just plain useful are two different metrics.
A lot of others already mentioned donating them. Just remember to hook 4 up at a time to a spare pc and run a good HD wipe app like http://dban.sf.net/
But there are many options to get rid of them to others with. Charity donations for a tax write off, local community projects in need of hardware, friends, family, stocking stuffer for the staff, make a craigslist post and offer them for free (or next to), buyer comes to get it or pays shipping, do the ebay dance, etc etc
When we start hitting physical limits to what we can do with these, how much of these supplies we can get, then we will be forced to conserve, change, or stop advancing. Those are very real threats to continued technological advancement. And they don't go away if you hide in Second Life.
Show me a Data Center built with ceramic and powered by the sun or geo-electric sources and I'll recant. But if we uploaded our minds into hardware, and let them expand, we Could in a short time do a thousand years of human research in something measured in a unit less than years.
Pulling a number out of my ass, if the expanded minds uploaded to hardware can process thoughts just 1000 times faster than a human brain, then that means the uploaded mind can either do the work of 1000 human brains in the time of 1, or, can do the work of 1 human brain for 1000 times the amount of time you let pass. Let that uploaded mind chew on a problem for just one year, and it will give us next year what would have normally taken until the year 3009.... and that is one uploaded mind, only 3 orders of magnitude faster... and we all know how fast computer technology can advance, even with our puny human resources
and that is why we can still focus on building the starts of such a thing, even before worrying about the resources it will take to maintain, because the uploaded minds will be at such a large advantage to solve that problem, its not worth us doing anything for long term.
First customers are always asking why they can't update their system while it is still running. We liken that to changing your tire while driving down the road. Oh sure, NOW you think of a debian slogan;}
i would LOVE to be in the room when you explain to your boss that his new x-hundred-thousand dollar web site doesn't work in Internet Explorer because "IE is not a web browser". What does my boss asking me to make an IE website have anything in anyway to do with the fact IE 6 is not a web browser?
If your boss says to make an IE6 page, you do so. If your boss says to make a standards compliant xhtml website, and realizes the fact 80% (or whatever percentage is IE6) won't be able to view it, you do so.
Neither of those actions changes the fact IE6 is not a web browser
By-the-way, ping (ICMP Echo request/reply) is a terrible way to measure network latency. ICMP is often a disfavored form of traffic as it crosses routers, sometimes even rate limited.
There are better tools for measuring link properties, for example there is "pchar" - http://www.kitchenlab.org/www/bmah/Software/pchar/ Ok, I've been out of network management for a couple years now, but I have never heard of pchar. Looking at the URL you gave, there is nearly zero description about the software or how it works or how to use it. In addition, i went ahead and downloaded the source hoping there might be some documentation giving a clue about this, and then i noticed:
As of pchar-1.5, this program is no longer under active development, and no further releases are planned. So, to me it seems like you are saying ICMP, which is supported by literally every single device that speaks IP, is disfavored, and the current method is to use a program that has not been worked on for 3 years and never will be again.
Like i said, ive been out of network engineering for a few years, but i still have to question this method as 'better'
So, if the ISPs do traffic shaping "to improve the service" it's bad, but we admit that on the small scale (when it affects ourselfs) there is a real need for traffic shaping! Thats interesting.... Despite the fact slashdot is not one mind, i still don't believe any sensible person here on slashdot has ever had a problem with traffic shaping.
Sure, there are a ton of people complaining about liars (IE they do traffic shaping to an extreme and lie about that fact claiming they don't, wasting hours of resources on our end tracking down a problem that is their fault), and when an ISP simply lies on their bills claiming you used more bandwidth than they sold you and is stated you will get in their ads, and we have a problem with traffic blocking, and charging different prices for one bit vs a different bit depending on the destination ip, but never QoS or traffic shaping.
>So when lightning strikes your home, and hits the power line as it enters the house, or on the pole if it happens >to be behind your back yard, nothing bad will happen?
There should be another home with totally separate power lines, and a different family living in it, in another city far away.
Redundancy, man. Of course! But that wasn't what the person I replied to was saying. Perhaps you should reply to them to let them know:)
Properly designed systems should never result in any fault to become uncontained in this manner. Everyone else expects such things as possible, so plans around them (aka redundancy), but the GP stated this is not needed because a properly designed system can handle it.
And while I am sure there are electrical systems out there that could handle the hundred of thousands of volts, and god knows how much amperage, lightning contains, a simple 3 phase 480 volt power grid is not one of these things:)
In what world is dos'ing a company which leads to someone dying equal pre-meditated murder??? Even doing something to someone which kills them, and is something that was at least likely to kill them, but you are shown to have not intended them to die is only manslaughter. Dos'ing someone which inderectly leads to someones death is nothing of the sort, there is no intent, and you can argue just as easily that who ever you dos'ed is just as responsable for allowing such a thing to lead to someones death. What situation is going to cause this anyhow, are they going to hook a router onto someones pacemaker or something? While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and that is the way things -should- be, it isn't in every case.
A few years back, i think in 1999 (give or take a couple years as im not sure) I remember reading an article where someone cracked into a hospitals blackberry management server while on the inside of the hospital network, which he accidentally broke and took down their blackberry communications for a time. He was not only charged with the normal computer trespass laws, but also with some weird form of attempted man slaughter, and a number of counts of it too, thou i'm sure they just calculated that by how many pages were placed to doctors and surgeons during that time frame, not all of which i would imagine are life threatening.
Granted, that is just one example, but it goes to show that a judge will not look kindly upon mucking with medical related things, and let the book be thrown at you.
Back on topic, you do realize hospital servers host copyrighted content as well (owned by the hospital), which by MediaDefenders logic is the exact type of people they go after, as proven by the case with rivision3 whom owned the copyright to everything they distributed. I see no error of logic in expecting MediaDefender to have no issues with DDoSing a hospital, or even burning it to the ground from their hatred of anyone that has copyrighted material, despite the owner of the copyright on it having the legal right to choose how it is distributed, not to mention the point of todays copyright is to allow one to grant limited rights to others to their own works, which MediaDefender says is also illegal sharing.
Also since you asked, I don't know of any pacemakers on a wired network (or even using wires), but they DO use RF communication for logging, and programming adjustments back to the device, and they Are hackable. In a healthy body this might just result in pain, but if you were healthy you probably wouldn't have a pacemaker installed! So simply ramping the sensitivity way up or down could very well kill a person.
Properly designed systems should never result in any fault to become uncontained in this manner. So when lightning strikes your home, and hits the power line as it enters the house, or on the pole if it happens to be behind your back yard, nothing bad will happen?
just to play devil's advocate here, you're suggesting a designer should code to standards, and let the page be broken for 80% of his visitors? i don't think many designers would keep that job very long. It's really not the developers fault here. To view a *web page*, one needs to use a *web browser* There is simply no getting around that fact.
To FTP one needs an FTP client, to email one needs an email client, etc etc
IE6 is NOT a web browser, its a custom microsoft XML parser at best.
So if 80% of the people out there don't have a web browser at all (because only IE6 is installed), then how is that the web developers fault? Clearly the blame can only rest between the end user that wont install a web browser, and/or microsoft for not including a web browser with their OS until Windows XP came around a decade after the web was made.
Before IE (and really before MS added TCPIP support in their OS) everyone had to go out and get a web browser to install to use the web. MS had a good idea, they wanted to remove that step, and thus include a web browser in the OS, back in 95. Sadly, they never did this until XP came around, before that you didnt get a web browser but IE, so its the same problem. Then they went around and did their evil, convincing people that IE was a real web browser, and that the world was broken instead of them. So I have no pity for them at all. Only the end users that dont want to mess with installing software get screwed in the whole deal.
I'm pretty sure this is a loser idea. If someone knows more than me, I'd love to learn more about this stuff, though. The only problem is that the slashdot blurb couldn't have gotten more facts wrong unless it spoke only of pink bunnies in a field and linked to the same article it does now.
This isn't related to the 25mhz band, which would as you point out be a tad useless. This is for 25mhz of spectrum out of the 2.1ghz band.
To put that in perspective, 802.11b uses 21mhz of spectrum out of the 2.4ghz band.
At 25 Mhz with a bandwidth of, what? 1 Mhz throughput will be 1 megabit per second shared with hundreds of users. Free wifi in the gigahertz range is already a joke. This system won't have the throughput for (decent) porn, encrypted or not. That makes it faster than 802.11b!
802.11b only uses 21mhz of the 2.4ghz spectrum. This auction is for 25mhz worth of the 2.1ghz spectrum, which is More bandwidth, AND in a less crowded portion of the spectrum, which should mean less interference. Ok, granted, I don't know what else uses 2.1ghz currently, but I *do* know how much crap spews out in the 2.4ghz range, and I think its a safe bet to say 2.1ghz won't be as crowded.
If 10mbps isn't fast enough for porn, perhaps you should look to DVDs or magazines instead of using the internet:P
Slashdot Mirror
snip
And in my day, we had real dials on the phone--none this fancy DTMF stuff for us. Well, in our day, we have *.e164.arpa for that
That said, even if it happened, I can't see the situation you refer to ever happening, and though its hard to tell with the spammers, you'll probably see some do so and some not.
But no private individual would have to pay so much. In fact, they would pay what they do now, OR LESS!
Here's how it works. .whee tld .whee domains for $5/year.
I pay $250 for a
I sell
Once i sell just 50 of them, i broke even. After that i can either charge less to everyone, or make a profit.
those private individuals who just want to blog or have a family website will still get their cheap (if not cheaper) domains from people that became registrars.
Just like now, you can be a big boy and get a relatively expensive domain.com for $20/year or you can ask a friend for a myname.friendsdomain.com for a 12 pack of beer.
This just would add one more level at the top, the really expensive tld.
You forgot all about .edu .gov and .mil, all of which are TLDs actually run correctly (gasp, imagine that) and are limited like they all are supposed to be.
Back in the day it was intended that if you were not a registered business, you wouldnt be allowed to get a .com .com the 'default' and leave .org restricted. .org and .net fairly well for a time, as well as the country code cctlds.
That didn't work well, and they decided to make
They managed
Now its all about money.
Bet youll be shocked to learn, back around 1990 or so, domains were free!
This is all about money going into the pockets of some people, and nothing about adding value to the Internet. This has been true the day ICANN took control of the DNS away from the original creators of DNS. There are only two, and will forever be only two, TLDs which have any value associated with them whatsoever....It was i think some time around 1992 (give or take a couple years) when netsol first introduced $100 for 2 years, then later $70 for 2 years, finally allowing $35 for 1 year.
Then openSRS came along and changed everything (for the better) and we have more registrars then just netsol,
Just because more than
If you want to play the pain game, just stop using DNS and go back to memorizing IPs.
Clearly the only difference between a tld that works and serves an actual useful function, are those that are well defined for a specific purpose, and actually limited to that.
You MUST be a 4 year college to get an .edu .gov .mil
you must be a govt agency to get a
and you must be a military institution to get a
anyone and their dog can get a .com .org or .net. .org to only registered legal non-profit companies, and restrict .net for companys with at least two ASNs and multiple /20 or larger blocks, must have at least 4 backbone peers and at least as many downstream peers (customers) and you are allowed a .net and will officially be an ISP. .com
Those are the three that need to stop existing, because their existence is pointless and means nothing.
If icann would actually restrict
Then it would make sense to have a 'fall through' which would obviously remain
My point:
Don't get rid of the whole system for not working, when in fact it works perfectly if it is just used correctly.
Either confusion still, or poor selection of words.
The GPL covers nothing about using the software. It grants you the right that copyright restricts, so you are allowed to make a copy into memory to run it, and all of that. And there are no restrictions at all there.
The only restrictions are when you plan to distribute GPL software, at which point there are a number of things you must do to be compliant with the license.
It's quite possible that is what you meant, and due to the restrictions placed on distributing it you can't use it in your project, but that isn't what you said :}
And with that out of the way, yes you are correct. BSD/MIT is the most free licence, as there is literally one restriction, and that is only to leave credit where its due.
There is nothing wrong with that.
However, those that choose to use the GPL for their work, realize they are trading in a small number of their freedoms, in exchange for a much much larger new freedom granted that is a lot more important to them.
They trade the right to do anything with it and total freedom, in exchange for knowing that legally anyone that wants to use your code, has to let you use their version of it if they change it.
And there is nothing wrong with that either, unless your plans are to go take someone elses software that they wrote, and make use of it without sharing back just the same.
You can always find a BSD licensed copy of what you want, and then won't run afoul of copyright violations, or failing that, you can code it yourself or pay a developer to do it under your terms.
Because if so, two copyright lawyers have explained things wrong to me, and I am in violation of the GPL.
The only GPL source I have avail on my own website is the one program I modified.
I use other GPL software in the whole package, however my site simply provides URLs to the authors site where the source code is available for download.
I didn't make any modifications, so fail to see how linking to the authors source (the exact copy im running) vs the url pointing to a local copy of the source on my own webserver, except for whos web host gets the bandwidth bill...
Obviously the one program I modified I have to provide changes on my own site, since the author is not interested in adding the change in upstream, and is a fairly minor change to make it better work with the whole software package. To distribute the binary, I have to make my source changes available.
But I don't see whats wrong about not personally making available the sources of the other GPL packages, since if you want the source, you can still follow the links to get it.
I could see if the author had a habit of deleting older versions and only keeping the latest one on their site, but you don't often see that in the OSS world, its more of a windows and macos shareware world thing.
Some printer companys managed to lock down their printers/ink carts, and they need maintenance every few months too in the form of feeding it new ink and more paper.
But, I suggest we stop now, no since in helping to design the next generation of locked drm car for them.
Lets go with a famous slashdot car analogy, that happens to fit perfectly well.
My car's hood is not locked requiring a special key that only the dealer has.
I personally however am not mechanically inclined enough to do much more than check fluids in my car. I *do* take it to a mechanic to have it worked on. I am like your wii's lowest common denominator except for cars.
Now, add lock down. A special key is required to open the hood. Only the dealers have these keys.
Suddenly, every single person that liked tinkering under the hood is screwed. They have to resort to quasi-legal methods to do with their property as they wish. Those people know better than to call the dealer expecting a replacement when they know it was them monkeying with it that broke it.
I however am not affected by this change. My car still runs, and the procedure is basically the same, other than I have to go to the original dealer and get raped by their 10x higher prices, but since my usual mechanic wont have the key, i get screwed too in a way.
Leaving the wii unlocked to modding can't possibly effect the people who will not be modding it!
It only prevents those of us who want to do with our property as we wish, from being able to do so.
Thats who
If you wish to send it in, feel free. I will send it anonymous.
There is no reason the gui upgrade tool should not have that feature.
Its very possible to do, same way as on debian at least, which is less easy for some.
You cant use apt to jump past an upgrade and expect a working system (though it has been known to happen)
You need to manually edit your apt.sources, and just bump it to the next major version, and dist-upgrade. Then bump up another major version, dist-upgrade, rinse and repeat until you are at the newest. The worst that should ever happen is some apps change major versions and wont be compatible with your config files, and apt wont overwrite them with the new versions templates. But you have that problem anyways upgrading apps major versions, you just generally dont have to fix everything at once.
All the GUI would have to do is hold back the kernel-image, and dist upgrade one major version at a time until the newest, and then let the newest kernel come through so you still only have to reboot once at the end.
Sure, alot of steps and work, but hiding those types of things is what GUIs do best!
They just save on hardware. Even worse than that, it costs them MORE bandwidth this way.
Keep in mind, most ISPs only pay the big bucks for their internet connectivity. The network between them and you (and all their customers) is MUCH cheaper, measured only in maintenance costs. The internet lines have the same maintenance cost, plus bandwidth costs, on top of base charges.
Before, they transfered all of the news articles Once, using internet bandwidth once, from their upstream new servers to their own.
Customers could get these all from their news server, which can happen by any number of customers any number of times and there is no extra bandwidth fees to the ISP.
Now, all of their users will be transferring news articles from the internet to them, each one taking their share of bandwidth from the internet pipes.
The reason googles sync is/was better is because it not only does the one thing (everything) foxmarks does, but it also syncs your firefox cookies, saved passwords (very important one that!) and your history.
What I would like is a firefox extension that does basically what google browser sync does, except you can point it to a server of your own, and the backend software is available to install.
There are a few extensions that can sync only your bookmarks to a server you can run yourself, mostly using open standard protocols, but nothing that will sync everything, including your saved passwords and cookies.
You can get a bunch of firewire to ide bridge boards, and run scsi over firewire.
Keep in mind this will be noticeably slower than native ide once you get more than a certain number of drives on a single bus, but for some applications, fast disk access isn't as important.
Technically speaking, you can use USB for this too, however there are many more downsides.
Many times slower than firewire, due to the method usb uses to communicate bidirectionally.
Its not that much cheaper, and also you cant use nearly as many drives per bus.
As an example, try http://www.fwdepot.com/
Their prices are a bit high i admit, but you can build a shopping list there and look around for best price.
4 BUS firewire cards. Note that a 4 -port- card is not at all the same. That will be one bus, with a 4 port hub built in. The less drives on each bus, and the more buses you have, the more bandwidth is available to each disk, and the speed up is exponential.
One bridge board per hard drive, a few hubs and some cabling, and spread them out over your few spare pcs.
Then run something like http://evms.sf.net/ to cluster the machines together and create one giant pool of storage space out of all the drives over all the machines.
It's probably as cheap as possible for getting use out of them storage wise. Any other 'better' solution will cost a lot more too.
Of course, useful for storage and just plain useful are two different metrics.
A lot of others already mentioned donating them.
Just remember to hook 4 up at a time to a spare pc and run a good HD wipe app like http://dban.sf.net/
But there are many options to get rid of them to others with.
Charity donations for a tax write off, local community projects in need of hardware, friends, family, stocking stuffer for the staff, make a craigslist post and offer them for free (or next to), buyer comes to get it or pays shipping, do the ebay dance, etc etc
Show me a Data Center built with ceramic and powered by the sun or geo-electric sources and I'll recant. But if we uploaded our minds into hardware, and let them expand, we Could in a short time do a thousand years of human research in something measured in a unit less than years.
Pulling a number out of my ass, if the expanded minds uploaded to hardware can process thoughts just 1000 times faster than a human brain, then that means the uploaded mind can either do the work of 1000 human brains in the time of 1, or, can do the work of 1 human brain for 1000 times the amount of time you let pass.
Let that uploaded mind chew on a problem for just one year, and it will give us next year what would have normally taken until the year 3009.
and that is why we can still focus on building the starts of such a thing, even before worrying about the resources it will take to maintain, because the uploaded minds will be at such a large advantage to solve that problem, its not worth us doing anything for long term.
If your boss says to make an IE6 page, you do so.
If your boss says to make a standards compliant xhtml website, and realizes the fact 80% (or whatever percentage is IE6) won't be able to view it, you do so.
Neither of those actions changes the fact IE6 is not a web browser
There are better tools for measuring link properties, for example there is "pchar" - http://www.kitchenlab.org/www/bmah/Software/pchar/ Ok, I've been out of network management for a couple years now, but I have never heard of pchar.
Looking at the URL you gave, there is nearly zero description about the software or how it works or how to use it.
In addition, i went ahead and downloaded the source hoping there might be some documentation giving a clue about this, and then i noticed: As of pchar-1.5, this program is no longer under active development, and no further releases are planned. So, to me it seems like you are saying ICMP, which is supported by literally every single device that speaks IP, is disfavored, and the current method is to use a program that has not been worked on for 3 years and never will be again.
Like i said, ive been out of network engineering for a few years, but i still have to question this method as 'better'
Sure, there are a ton of people complaining about liars (IE they do traffic shaping to an extreme and lie about that fact claiming they don't, wasting hours of resources on our end tracking down a problem that is their fault), and when an ISP simply lies on their bills claiming you used more bandwidth than they sold you and is stated you will get in their ads, and we have a problem with traffic blocking, and charging different prices for one bit vs a different bit depending on the destination ip, but never QoS or traffic shaping.
>to be behind your back yard, nothing bad will happen?
There should be another home with totally separate power lines, and a different family living in it, in another city far away.
Redundancy, man. Of course! But that wasn't what the person I replied to was saying. Perhaps you should reply to them to let them know
And while I am sure there are electrical systems out there that could handle the hundred of thousands of volts, and god knows how much amperage, lightning contains, a simple 3 phase 480 volt power grid is not one of these things
A few years back, i think in 1999 (give or take a couple years as im not sure) I remember reading an article where someone cracked into a hospitals blackberry management server while on the inside of the hospital network, which he accidentally broke and took down their blackberry communications for a time. He was not only charged with the normal computer trespass laws, but also with some weird form of attempted man slaughter, and a number of counts of it too, thou i'm sure they just calculated that by how many pages were placed to doctors and surgeons during that time frame, not all of which i would imagine are life threatening.
Granted, that is just one example, but it goes to show that a judge will not look kindly upon mucking with medical related things, and let the book be thrown at you.
Back on topic, you do realize hospital servers host copyrighted content as well (owned by the hospital), which by MediaDefenders logic is the exact type of people they go after, as proven by the case with rivision3 whom owned the copyright to everything they distributed.
I see no error of logic in expecting MediaDefender to have no issues with DDoSing a hospital, or even burning it to the ground from their hatred of anyone that has copyrighted material, despite the owner of the copyright on it having the legal right to choose how it is distributed, not to mention the point of todays copyright is to allow one to grant limited rights to others to their own works, which MediaDefender says is also illegal sharing.
Also since you asked, I don't know of any pacemakers on a wired network (or even using wires), but they DO use RF communication for logging, and programming adjustments back to the device, and they Are hackable. In a healthy body this might just result in pain, but if you were healthy you probably wouldn't have a pacemaker installed! So simply ramping the sensitivity way up or down could very well kill a person.
Wow, you're hired!
To view a *web page*, one needs to use a *web browser*
There is simply no getting around that fact.
To FTP one needs an FTP client, to email one needs an email client, etc etc
IE6 is NOT a web browser, its a custom microsoft XML parser at best.
So if 80% of the people out there don't have a web browser at all (because only IE6 is installed), then how is that the web developers fault?
Clearly the blame can only rest between the end user that wont install a web browser, and/or microsoft for not including a web browser with their OS until Windows XP came around a decade after the web was made.
Before IE (and really before MS added TCPIP support in their OS) everyone had to go out and get a web browser to install to use the web.
MS had a good idea, they wanted to remove that step, and thus include a web browser in the OS, back in 95.
Sadly, they never did this until XP came around, before that you didnt get a web browser but IE, so its the same problem.
Then they went around and did their evil, convincing people that IE was a real web browser, and that the world was broken instead of them. So I have no pity for them at all. Only the end users that dont want to mess with installing software get screwed in the whole deal.
This isn't related to the 25mhz band, which would as you point out be a tad useless.
This is for 25mhz of spectrum out of the 2.1ghz band.
To put that in perspective, 802.11b uses 21mhz of spectrum out of the 2.4ghz band.
802.11b only uses 21mhz of the 2.4ghz spectrum.
This auction is for 25mhz worth of the 2.1ghz spectrum, which is More bandwidth, AND in a less crowded portion of the spectrum, which should mean less interference. Ok, granted, I don't know what else uses 2.1ghz currently, but I *do* know how much crap spews out in the 2.4ghz range, and I think its a safe bet to say 2.1ghz won't be as crowded.
If 10mbps isn't fast enough for porn, perhaps you should look to DVDs or magazines instead of using the internet