> You mean like WMWare [vmware.com]? Why would this require a hardware solution?
No, not like VMware, like a CPU.
VMware will not pass most hardware through to the guest system. It generally emulates hardware no less (NIC, sound, graphics) and thus if you cannot support vmwares hardware, or need to use hardware not in vmwares list, you are screwed.
> What is so inaccurate about this statement? It is placed on your computer > without your explicit authorization and it does transmit the information back, > although passively.
Its not so much that the statement is not true, but it is very misleading. I mean, every time you go to any webpage at all, the web server is putting all sorts of content on your computer without your explicit authorization, including every last graphic displayed, the HTML itself, any java or javascript, every single thing sent from the webserver is not 'explicity authorized' and is no different what so ever from a cookie.
Just like downloading the HTML or rendering an image, cookies also are part of the HTTP 1.1 spec, so all are equally 'standard' If you dont want to view webpages with the HTTP standard, your best bet is to never open a web browser, more so than complain about one part being evil bad and the rest being normal and acceptable.
Also you have the option of using a web browser that doesnt follow the standard and rejects cookies (or any other aspect about the page, even so far as to not load images until you instruct the browser to do so)
The statement, while true, ignores all of these other statements which make it pretty clear cookies arnt evil, they are just a part of the spec to be used. Cookies can be used for evil, but so can images (think goatse.cx)
> Does anyone seriously use anything other than an Award BIOS anyway? I must have > built dozens of systems for the past few years and seen very few Pheonix BIOSes > in that time [snip]
Phoneix owns award. They are the same company.
There are only two companys that make BIOS software that dont also make hardware. These companys are phoneix (makes award) and AMI
There are other BIOS software makers, but they are companys like IBM and Compaq who also make their own hardware. And for all I know, they may licence their BIOS from one of the other two companys as well. (I know IBM does their own, but thats all im sure on there)
> Of course you trade your time and knowledge for a paycheck. Your boss doesn't > just give you money.
Yea, and you pay taxes in exchange for the right to live in the country and for the country to protect you from other countrys. (Ok, ideally, but still)
> Taxpayers are forced to pay. It's thier institution, thier bandwidth
You are not forced to pay. You are free to not be a citizen. Of course to not pay any government you would have to not live under one.
Living in the backwoods of some forest that isnt claimed sounds like a sucky way to live to me.. to each their own of course (And there are people that do just that)
Either way, in both cases (paycheck and taxes) you are paying for something.
> > The university owns the bandwith, they can block it, scan it, whatever. > > Try again. The taxpayers of Florida own that bandwidth.
Just like your boss owns your house and car and everything else you bought with the money paid to you from him.
The taxpayers give money to the school for it to do with as it wishes. What the school spends it on is a seperate issue.
'paycheck' or 'govt grant' it doesnt matter. money has exchanged hands and it is no longer the taxpayers once the school gets it. Thus, anything the school buys with it is NOT owned by the tax payers.
If it was any other way, I would loan everyone I know a dollar, and later claim that whatever big thing they did in their life resulted directly due to that dollar i gave them, thus i deserve credit/profit/etc for it.
> What if Verisign ignores this just like they ignored everything else? They are > in a position to seariously mess up the DNS system.
ICANN can always instruct the root DNS servers to point elsewhere for com. and net. instead of verisigns gTLD servers. That would effectivly remove verisign from the game totally.
At this point verisign is legally bound to hand over their database of customer info so that the new registrar can pickup where they left off, and verisign would be held accountable for all damages caused if they dont (Which would easily be in the tens of millions a day)
ICANN being the primary board, if anyone at verisign said 'no' they most likely would be held personally accountable. Its like if the admin of a company gets put on another project and refuses to give his boss the root passwords. He will be personally held responsible. And one way or another, the problem will get fixed.
> So, when the DVD ships it will be region free since the studio released it world > wide on the same day, right? Isn't that the only justification the DVDCCA uses > for region codes?
Of course it wont be region free. This system has already been justified, they dont need to obide by those rules now that its in place and illegal to get around using technical (or common sense) means.
> But if I'm letting other people use my software, it'd damn well better behave the > way I say it should or I should be able to be held accountable.
This is exactly the point.
Windows does not fail to do a single thing they claim it will do.
They never claimed Windows was secure and would not have these exact problems.
Or let me put this another way, programmer to programmer.
How do you suggest I do garentee that my program will act exactly 100% as I intended it to act, when I am not in control of 100% of the hardware in the world that it could be running on, and without 100% of the software in the world that it may interact with?
If i include a warning that this software is not under any warentee and comes as-is, why should it be my fault some moron used it anyway?
While you are correct, imagine you told whomever is asking that the image file was copied before the real cart/board/rom was damaged. And stress how it was a really good thing that you made a backup so you can continue to enjoy it!
Granted that is a lie, but unless they can prove otherwise, its a legal description of your actions. Just have to hope they can't prove you bought it damaged.
> Actually, its labled option I think. I have my microsoft usb keyboard plugged > into my mac, and the alt key is recognized as option. The windows key is > recognized as the command key.
Actually you are totally correct. My mistake.
I use the apple usb keyboard on a winXP machine myself. Don;t know why I remembered those keys backwards like that heh
You can get a basic stamp cpu for anywhere between $30 and $60, with maybe $10 more in parts (speaker, battery, a board to put them all together on, etc) and maybe an hour learning to code its DTMF commands, and you can build one yourself.
I dunno if close to $100 is cheap or not for ya though.
> I mapped it to something like ``xset s activate'' on my Linux box. I kinda laugh > every time I hit it just because I think it's funny that I mapped my lock to a > key combination that ``can't be trapped by an application.''
I dont see why you think its funny, since its still not trapped by an application at all:)
The kernel traps it. It sends a signal to init to let it know the 3 keys have been hit. init then runs a program.
Not once in that process of events does 'xset' ever trap the key combo. The kernel is trapping it, and passing it on. To prove my point, disable that in the kernel and see how far you get when init doesnt ever get told control-alt-del has been hit.
Its sorta like saying you are allowed free access to my house, after I let you stay there one night in the past. Never forget its still me letting you, not you doing so on your own. Same with the kernel.
> Yeah, but who made the Mac shortcut? They have two: > > Command-Option-Escape is Force Quit... > Control-Command-Power is Restart
Those are actually left over from the Apple// days.
The apple//'s had two 'alternate' keys, open-apple and closed-apple (Pictures of either an apples outlike, or a solid apple) There was also a hardware reset button. There was no alt, but there was control and shift (standard ASCII practice at the time)
The reset key was hard wired into the interupt controller, but it performed a soft-reset used alone, and by default the jump register was not set so the key didnt do anything. In the// and//+ i believe this was used by the basic addon card (Each machine came with one ver of basic in it, and the other version on an addon card, depending which modal you got. the//+ had more ram too)
Technically speaking, the two apple keys were not handled by the keyboard controller, but by the joystick controller. As a matter of fact, open apple and closed apple were button 1 and 2 on the first joystick. So technically one could reboot with a joystick-button, control, reset as well;)
Just open-apple and reset caused a soft-reset signal to the cpu. this signal told the cpu to simply jump to a memory location ($FFFD if memory serves) and not to reset any other states or registers. This was used to 'break' programs run that didnt want to give it up easily and trapped control-C and the like. In the three bytes there you had a jump command, and the next two bytes are the address where.
Then they added the 3rd key, control, which is actually the only key of the three that comes through the keyboard controller. So there is one direct interpt key (reset), an apple key (joystick), and control key (keyboard) that all three caused the cpu to reset the counters and registers so the chip would have to reboot from scratch.
Later, closed apple was removed, and open-apple was renamed 'command' and given a stupid clover looking icon. Nowadays open-apple/command is also labeled as 'alt', and in USB keyboards actually sends the same keyboard code.
The open-apple,control,escape was actually from the Apple//GS. That key combo was added to get into the systems control panel (There generally wasnt an OS)
On the apple// it was a hardware reason. the//gs just wanted something similar and familiar but different (escape vs reset), and the macs just continued using them because apple users were used to it.
(Ahh the wasted brain memory I have used up on that subject heh)
> Now that there are people strongly enforcing the GPL a lot of companies will be > afraid to use it. Good job guys at magnifying Microsoft Concerns on the GPL.
Good.
Let Cisco/Linksys take WinCE and use it and not pay MS a dime and ignore that licence. Then you can go pitch your same exact complaint to MS when they sue for piracy and demand money for it.
GPL software does have a cost. Its not money, its to have the changes given back.
If you dont pay the cost of the licence of the software, you are pirating software and voilating copyright. (Or as the less bright of slashdot call it in RIAA/MPAA articles, you are stealing.)
> This is kinda like claiming improper search and seizure for drug cases.
But the RIAA is not law enforcement. Actually its more like claiming improper search and seizure -by the guy that lives two doors down that is not a cop or has anything to do with law enforcement-
In real life this would be called breaking and entering, and tresspass.
If it was law enforcement that connected to kazaa to do this, kazaa could not make such claims, just as in the drug cases where cops perform the bust.
Also they have the benifit that kazaa and/or sharmen networks is NOT the target of any lawsuits from the RIAA. So its not like kazaa is doing anything wrong. Only kazaa's users are. This is seconded by the fact that only kazaa's users are the target of the lawsuits.
So with that, its more like the guy down the street breaking into your house because he suspects one of the many people you usually have over for family cookouts used/bought/etc drugs.
Its more like you suing guy down the street for breaking into your house because you have some relation with a 3rd person that does drugs.
I think kazaa has a chance on this one. Heres to hoping anyways.
The website linked in your post has been down for the better part of the last 12 hours. Do you have the name of that product or something I can google for and maybe find it elsewhere?
I have been looking for just such a device and $250 sounds like a good deal, if only i could see more details:)
> Hardware RAID is much more reliable. You can't boot off software RAID. If > software RAID was that good, then no one would buy 3ware cards. If I'm setting > up a 1 TB+ array, I'm going to spend a few hundred on a good RAID controller.
Well, its always a tradeoff, but thats not a reason to dismiss software raid totally.
Hardware raid is easier. You can also boot off raid levels other than just mirroring.
With harware raid, you slap in many disks, and the card lets the system see one disk (the array) Software raid of course doesnt let you do this, but is much much much more flexible, both in setup design as well as after the array is online.
With software raid and lvm, I can tell the system to remove disk 4 from array B and move that to array D so it can be disk #7, and I can do it without unmounting any array file systems or rebooting the system. Users will not notice this is happening behind the scenes.
Good luck finding a hardware raid solution under a 5 digit pricetag that can do all of that for you.
However, if you only need to set the array up once and not touch it again until you replace the system it is attached to, or you only want ONE array, and dont want it to be a mirror, and need to boot from it, then yes hardware raid is the only real option.
My last system i built uses two arrays, a hardware raid mirror for the root fs to boot from, and a software raid/lvm for the disk array that i store data on (it is a file server)
This gives me the protection of raid on my boot device (which will never change or really need to grow at all) plus the ease of redesigning arrays live and mounted using software raid, all at the same time.
My point was taking two things (the digits 2) you can add them together. I cant add google.com plus google.com:) Well, i guess i can.. either google.comgoogle.com or ggooooggllee..ccoomm or something.. but generally math is reserved for numbers and not letters or companys or services
> Having been unfortunate enough to be assigned an IP block from a previous > spammer and having gone through the subsequent ass-kissing I had to do to a > black list maintainer that absolutely refused to remove us from the the list, I > say the less blacklists there are, the better.
Thanks for taking away my choice of what I do with my own network and computers.
I just hope you remember this the day someone steps in and forces it upon you what you can and cant do with your system. As you make this statement now, im sure you will be just as happy to allow others to make that same statement aginst you. Oh, wait, yea, you only want to tell me what i cant do with my systems, you dont seem to like it much when others do the same thing to you.
When I use a blacklist, it is me that is choosing to not just block who they say are spammers, but it is me choosing to live with the fact they may list people that arnt, or be slow in removing the same listing. Why cant you understand that this is MY CHOICE and not yours?!
If ISPs were so damn upset at having people listed that shouldnt be, dont you think they would stop using the list, as in everything else in life that works this way?
If a customer of an isp didnt like the blocking, wouldnt they go switch to an isp that didnt have broken email (from their point of view)?
If you only had one cable ISP and they didnt even HAVE an email server, would you bitch that you had no choices and just not use email? No, you would find another way.
Both people that want to get your email, and those that want to send it, can do so VERY easily with no problems at all from blacklists, if you just choose to not deal with blacklists.
Advice to you, dont use an ISP that allows spammers on its network and attempts to hide those spammers by claiming they may be in the IP space you have from the same ISP. Then you wont get blocked at all. If you choose to use an ISP that uses slimy tactics like this to hide their spammers, then you need to deal with the fact the world will not want to get email from ANYONE on that ISP.
> If the web is the only way you have been searching for local businesses [snip]
Of course its not.
The article is about _google_ and it was claimed that the yellow pages do the same exact thing as what googles new tool does. It doesnt. That was the extent of the point I had to make.
So lets see, back on topic... As you said: > I'd like to be the first to tell you that there are a lot of companies that > don't have web sites yet.
Ok. I agree. So, how would googles website location tool help you find companys without a webpage? It cant. Why are you even trying to claim it will? Why are you pointing out something else that can, when it has nothing to do with what this article is about?
> Yellow Pages finds these shops. A web search engine won't.
Ok, and a car will let you drive places, google wont. A gun lets you shoot things, google wont. I can add 2 and 2 to get 4, but I cant do that with google.
These are all equally as nonrelivant as 'yahoo yellow pages are a phone book and google isnt!'
Sorry to sound like im attacking you here, i'm really trying not to, but I dont know how else to make my point.
Slashdot Mirror
> You mean like WMWare [vmware.com]? Why would this require a hardware solution?
No, not like VMware, like a CPU.
VMware will not pass most hardware through to the guest system. It generally emulates hardware no less (NIC, sound, graphics) and thus if you cannot support vmwares hardware, or need to use hardware not in vmwares list, you are screwed.
A real CPU will not have these problems.
> DeCSS is only ~240 lines of code.
And there is a perl version that is under 10 lines.
> What is so inaccurate about this statement? It is placed on your computer
> without your explicit authorization and it does transmit the information back,
> although passively.
Its not so much that the statement is not true, but it is very misleading.
I mean, every time you go to any webpage at all, the web server is putting all sorts of content on your computer without your explicit authorization, including every last graphic displayed, the HTML itself, any java or javascript, every single thing sent from the webserver is not 'explicity authorized' and is no different what so ever from a cookie.
Just like downloading the HTML or rendering an image, cookies also are part of the HTTP 1.1 spec, so all are equally 'standard'
If you dont want to view webpages with the HTTP standard, your best bet is to never open a web browser, more so than complain about one part being evil bad and the rest being normal and acceptable.
Also you have the option of using a web browser that doesnt follow the standard and rejects cookies (or any other aspect about the page, even so far as to not load images until you instruct the browser to do so)
The statement, while true, ignores all of these other statements which make it pretty clear cookies arnt evil, they are just a part of the spec to be used.
Cookies can be used for evil, but so can images (think goatse.cx)
> Does anyone seriously use anything other than an Award BIOS anyway? I must have
> built dozens of systems for the past few years and seen very few Pheonix BIOSes
> in that time [snip]
Phoneix owns award. They are the same company.
There are only two companys that make BIOS software that dont also make hardware.
These companys are phoneix (makes award) and AMI
There are other BIOS software makers, but they are companys like IBM and Compaq who also make their own hardware. And for all I know, they may licence their BIOS from one of the other two companys as well. (I know IBM does their own, but thats all im sure on there)
> Of course you trade your time and knowledge for a paycheck. Your boss doesn't
> just give you money.
Yea, and you pay taxes in exchange for the right to live in the country and for the country to protect you from other countrys.
(Ok, ideally, but still)
> Taxpayers are forced to pay. It's thier institution, thier bandwidth
You are not forced to pay. You are free to not be a citizen.
Of course to not pay any government you would have to not live under one.
Living in the backwoods of some forest that isnt claimed sounds like a sucky way to live to me.. to each their own of course (And there are people that do just that)
Either way, in both cases (paycheck and taxes) you are paying for something.
> > The university owns the bandwith, they can block it, scan it, whatever.
>
> Try again. The taxpayers of Florida own that bandwidth.
Just like your boss owns your house and car and everything else you bought with the money paid to you from him.
The taxpayers give money to the school for it to do with as it wishes.
What the school spends it on is a seperate issue.
'paycheck' or 'govt grant' it doesnt matter. money has exchanged hands and it is no longer the taxpayers once the school gets it. Thus, anything the school buys with it is NOT owned by the tax payers.
If it was any other way, I would loan everyone I know a dollar, and later claim that whatever big thing they did in their life resulted directly due to that dollar i gave them, thus i deserve credit/profit/etc for it.
Doesnt quite work like that.
> What if Verisign ignores this just like they ignored everything else? They are
> in a position to seariously mess up the DNS system.
ICANN can always instruct the root DNS servers to point elsewhere for com. and net. instead of verisigns gTLD servers. That would effectivly remove verisign from the game totally.
At this point verisign is legally bound to hand over their database of customer info so that the new registrar can pickup where they left off, and verisign would be held accountable for all damages caused if they dont (Which would easily be in the tens of millions a day)
ICANN being the primary board, if anyone at verisign said 'no' they most likely would be held personally accountable.
Its like if the admin of a company gets put on another project and refuses to give his boss the root passwords. He will be personally held responsible. And one way or another, the problem will get fixed.
> So, when the DVD ships it will be region free since the studio released it world
> wide on the same day, right? Isn't that the only justification the DVDCCA uses
> for region codes?
Of course it wont be region free.
This system has already been justified, they dont need to obide by those rules now that its in place and illegal to get around using technical (or common sense) means.
> But if I'm letting other people use my software, it'd damn well better behave the
> way I say it should or I should be able to be held accountable.
This is exactly the point.
Windows does not fail to do a single thing they claim it will do.
They never claimed Windows was secure and would not have these exact problems.
Or let me put this another way, programmer to programmer.
How do you suggest I do garentee that my program will act exactly 100% as I intended it to act, when I am not in control of 100% of the hardware in the world that it could be running on, and without 100% of the software in the world that it may interact with?
If i include a warning that this software is not under any warentee and comes as-is, why should it be my fault some moron used it anyway?
> Strictly speaking, that's not legal.
While you are correct, imagine you told whomever is asking that the image file was copied before the real cart/board/rom was damaged. And stress how it was a really good thing that you made a backup so you can continue to enjoy it!
Granted that is a lie, but unless they can prove otherwise, its a legal description of your actions. Just have to hope they can't prove you bought it damaged.
> Actually, its labled option I think. I have my microsoft usb keyboard plugged
> into my mac, and the alt key is recognized as option. The windows key is
> recognized as the command key.
Actually you are totally correct. My mistake.
I use the apple usb keyboard on a winXP machine myself. Don;t know why I remembered those keys backwards like that heh
Define cheap.
You can get a basic stamp cpu for anywhere between $30 and $60, with maybe $10 more in parts (speaker, battery, a board to put them all together on, etc) and maybe an hour learning to code its DTMF commands, and you can build one yourself.
I dunno if close to $100 is cheap or not for ya though.
> I mapped it to something like ``xset s activate'' on my Linux box. I kinda laugh
:)
> every time I hit it just because I think it's funny that I mapped my lock to a
> key combination that ``can't be trapped by an application.''
I dont see why you think its funny, since its still not trapped by an application at all
The kernel traps it. It sends a signal to init to let it know the 3 keys have been hit. init then runs a program.
Not once in that process of events does 'xset' ever trap the key combo.
The kernel is trapping it, and passing it on. To prove my point, disable that in the kernel and see how far you get when init doesnt ever get told control-alt-del has been hit.
Its sorta like saying you are allowed free access to my house, after I let you stay there one night in the past. Never forget its still me letting you, not you doing so on your own. Same with the kernel.
> Yeah, but who made the Mac shortcut? They have two:
// days.
// and //+ i believe this was used by the basic addon card (Each machine came with one ver of basic in it, and the other version on an addon card, depending which modal you got. the //+ had more ram too)
;)
//GS. That key combo was added to get into the systems control panel (There generally wasnt an OS)
//gs just wanted something similar and familiar but different (escape vs reset), and the macs just continued using them because apple users were used to it.
>
> Command-Option-Escape is Force Quit...
> Control-Command-Power is Restart
Those are actually left over from the Apple
The apple//'s had two 'alternate' keys, open-apple and closed-apple (Pictures of either an apples outlike, or a solid apple)
There was also a hardware reset button.
There was no alt, but there was control and shift (standard ASCII practice at the time)
The reset key was hard wired into the interupt controller, but it performed a soft-reset used alone, and by default the jump register was not set so the key didnt do anything.
In the
Technically speaking, the two apple keys were not handled by the keyboard controller, but by the joystick controller.
As a matter of fact, open apple and closed apple were button 1 and 2 on the first joystick. So technically one could reboot with a joystick-button, control, reset as well
Just open-apple and reset caused a soft-reset signal to the cpu. this signal told the cpu to simply jump to a memory location ($FFFD if memory serves) and not to reset any other states or registers. This was used to 'break' programs run that didnt want to give it up easily and trapped control-C and the like.
In the three bytes there you had a jump command, and the next two bytes are the address where.
Then they added the 3rd key, control, which is actually the only key of the three that comes through the keyboard controller.
So there is one direct interpt key (reset), an apple key (joystick), and control key (keyboard) that all three caused the cpu to reset the counters and registers so the chip would have to reboot from scratch.
Later, closed apple was removed, and open-apple was renamed 'command' and given a stupid clover looking icon. Nowadays open-apple/command is also labeled as 'alt', and in USB keyboards actually sends the same keyboard code.
The open-apple,control,escape was actually from the Apple
On the apple// it was a hardware reason. the
(Ahh the wasted brain memory I have used up on that subject heh)
> Now that there are people strongly enforcing the GPL a lot of companies will be
> afraid to use it. Good job guys at magnifying Microsoft Concerns on the GPL.
Good.
Let Cisco/Linksys take WinCE and use it and not pay MS a dime and ignore that licence. Then you can go pitch your same exact complaint to MS when they sue for piracy and demand money for it.
GPL software does have a cost. Its not money, its to have the changes given back.
If you dont pay the cost of the licence of the software, you are pirating software and voilating copyright. (Or as the less bright of slashdot call it in RIAA/MPAA articles, you are stealing.)
What he's saying is, its the users fault, not the computers.
Its like distroying a gun because its user murdered someone with it.
> Then anything, any "industry" that generates jobs is a GoodThing? Even if ~1/2
:)
> the population of the country does not agree?
That is exactly the point I was thinking of.
So lets see, drug dealing is now legal and govt protected.
As is selling your services as a hit man.
Hey, whore-house on every corner!
How can those jobs be bad if they put food on someones table, after all
> yes. and in real life downloading copyrighted works without a valid license
> would be called theft.
Ok, call it whatever you want, but Kazaa is not doing the crime, only kazaa's users have the ability to do that.
And the RIAA agrees from the looks of their lawsuits aginst not kazaa but the users of kazaa pirating music.
> This is kinda like claiming improper search and seizure for drug cases.
But the RIAA is not law enforcement.
Actually its more like claiming improper search and seizure -by the guy that lives two doors down that is not a cop or has anything to do with law enforcement-
In real life this would be called breaking and entering, and tresspass.
If it was law enforcement that connected to kazaa to do this, kazaa could not make such claims, just as in the drug cases where cops perform the bust.
Also they have the benifit that kazaa and/or sharmen networks is NOT the target of any lawsuits from the RIAA. So its not like kazaa is doing anything wrong.
Only kazaa's users are. This is seconded by the fact that only kazaa's users are the target of the lawsuits.
So with that, its more like the guy down the street breaking into your house because he suspects one of the many people you usually have over for family cookouts used/bought/etc drugs.
Its more like you suing guy down the street for breaking into your house because you have some relation with a 3rd person that does drugs.
I think kazaa has a chance on this one. Heres to hoping anyways.
The website linked in your post has been down for the better part of the last 12 hours. Do you have the name of that product or something I can google for and maybe find it elsewhere?
:)
I have been looking for just such a device and $250 sounds like a good deal, if only i could see more details
Thanks
> Hardware RAID is much more reliable. You can't boot off software RAID. If
> software RAID was that good, then no one would buy 3ware cards. If I'm setting
> up a 1 TB+ array, I'm going to spend a few hundred on a good RAID controller.
Well, its always a tradeoff, but thats not a reason to dismiss software raid totally.
Hardware raid is easier. You can also boot off raid levels other than just mirroring.
With harware raid, you slap in many disks, and the card lets the system see one disk (the array)
Software raid of course doesnt let you do this, but is much much much more flexible, both in setup design as well as after the array is online.
With software raid and lvm, I can tell the system to remove disk 4 from array B and move that to array D so it can be disk #7, and I can do it without unmounting any array file systems or rebooting the system. Users will not notice this is happening behind the scenes.
Good luck finding a hardware raid solution under a 5 digit pricetag that can do all of that for you.
However, if you only need to set the array up once and not touch it again until you replace the system it is attached to, or you only want ONE array, and dont want it to be a mirror, and need to boot from it, then yes hardware raid is the only real option.
My last system i built uses two arrays, a hardware raid mirror for the root fs to boot from, and a software raid/lvm for the disk array that i store data on (it is a file server)
This gives me the protection of raid on my boot device (which will never change or really need to grow at all) plus the ease of redesigning arrays live and mounted using software raid, all at the same time.
> Kazaa can be ran in Linux or MacOSX using WINE too, you know. There's a tutorial
> on kazaalite.tk
MacOSX is not available for x86 based computers, so can not run wine.
I also see no mention of this tutorial on the website you listed.
One would have to make their mac emulate a pc first, but then you are running windows, and so kazaa is still not running on the mac.
heh cute
:)
My point was taking two things (the digits 2) you can add them together.
I cant add google.com plus google.com
Well, i guess i can.. either google.comgoogle.com or ggooooggllee..ccoomm or something.. but generally math is reserved for numbers and not letters or companys or services
> Having been unfortunate enough to be assigned an IP block from a previous
> spammer and having gone through the subsequent ass-kissing I had to do to a
> black list maintainer that absolutely refused to remove us from the the list, I
> say the less blacklists there are, the better.
Thanks for taking away my choice of what I do with my own network and computers.
I just hope you remember this the day someone steps in and forces it upon you what you can and cant do with your system. As you make this statement now, im sure you will be just as happy to allow others to make that same statement aginst you.
Oh, wait, yea, you only want to tell me what i cant do with my systems, you dont seem to like it much when others do the same thing to you.
When I use a blacklist, it is me that is choosing to not just block who they say are spammers, but it is me choosing to live with the fact they may list people that arnt, or be slow in removing the same listing.
Why cant you understand that this is MY CHOICE and not yours?!
If ISPs were so damn upset at having people listed that shouldnt be, dont you think they would stop using the list, as in everything else in life that works this way?
If a customer of an isp didnt like the blocking, wouldnt they go switch to an isp that didnt have broken email (from their point of view)?
If you only had one cable ISP and they didnt even HAVE an email server, would you bitch that you had no choices and just not use email? No, you would find another way.
Both people that want to get your email, and those that want to send it, can do so VERY easily with no problems at all from blacklists, if you just choose to not deal with blacklists.
Advice to you, dont use an ISP that allows spammers on its network and attempts to hide those spammers by claiming they may be in the IP space you have from the same ISP. Then you wont get blocked at all.
If you choose to use an ISP that uses slimy tactics like this to hide their spammers, then you need to deal with the fact the world will not want to get email from ANYONE on that ISP.
> If the web is the only way you have been searching for local businesses [snip]
Of course its not.
The article is about _google_ and it was claimed that the yellow pages do the same exact thing as what googles new tool does. It doesnt. That was the extent of the point I had to make.
So lets see, back on topic... As you said:
> I'd like to be the first to tell you that there are a lot of companies that
> don't have web sites yet.
Ok. I agree. So, how would googles website location tool help you find companys without a webpage?
It cant. Why are you even trying to claim it will?
Why are you pointing out something else that can, when it has nothing to do with what this article is about?
> Yellow Pages finds these shops. A web search engine won't.
Ok, and a car will let you drive places, google wont. A gun lets you shoot things, google wont. I can add 2 and 2 to get 4, but I cant do that with google.
These are all equally as nonrelivant as 'yahoo yellow pages are a phone book and google isnt!'
Sorry to sound like im attacking you here, i'm really trying not to, but I dont know how else to make my point.