Its different because yellow pages list phone numbers and addresses. You can pay for an ad and put a URL in it, but not without the phonenumber as well.
Google holds web pages.
Phone number.. web page.. phone number.. webpage.. See the difference now?
By the way, if the yellow pages is the only way you have been searching for webpages, I'd like to be the first to tell you that there is alot of web sites out there that you may find interesting that im sure you dont know about yet.
Give google a try, or any web search engine. I think you will like what you see.
> I don't understand where the bandwidth costs are coming from for an ISP. The > cables have been laid down right? How does it cost the ISP more to run them at > max?
I used to run an ISP (dialup, but still) so can provide some authoritive numbers for you.
To get a carrier class T1 line (carrier class meaning you can push traffic 24/7 at the lines max, as well as do things such as BGP which are needed to be more than just a leaf on the internet) you get 1.54mbit/sec up and down for anywhere between $1200 and $3000 per month.
Also, you need at LEAST two T1's for redundancy alone.
So, we had 3 T1's at one point and total were paying around $6000/month for our connectivity to three different ISPs. This gave us three links of 1.54mbit/sec, which no single TCP connection would be able to exceed, but multiple TCP connections, or UDP/ICMP packets will take whichever route is best at the time, so may appear to be 4.5mbit/sec.
So we pay $6000/mo. Dialup accounts are $15/mo. This requires 400 dialup accounts just to pay for the bandwidth (let alone any other costs such as servers, staff, electricity, rent, etc.)
Now with dialup, you know all 400 wont be on at once, and if they tried alot will end up with busy signals. Cable and DSL work a touch different, as they are 'always on'. With a dialup who cant possibly exceed the hardware limits of a 56k modem, 400 modem users transfering data will only be about half of your total bandwidth, so your all OK.
But with broadband, you generally get more than 56k down, its usually closer to 1000k/sec or more.
So lets do some happy fun math with madeup numbers to see if this can be a little more clear.
Broadband user pays, oh lets say, $40/month (Ive seen $35 and $50, $40 seems a happy medium to me) I dont have prices on T3's handy, so will stick with T1's, even though I can assure you a cable/dsl company would not do this if they had a customer base over one digit.
3 T1's cost $6000/mo and provide (for the most part) 4.5mbit/sec in both directions.
At $40/mo to the end user, you would need 150 customers just to pay for bandwidth. 150 cable customers at 1mbit each is 150mbit/sec.
So there is a huge problem here. Either you charge $40/mo and all those users cant have full bandwidth because it simply isnt there, OR they raise the price to $1500/month to the end customer. At $1500/mo to you, they only need 4 customers to pay back the $6000/mo, and 4 customers can share the 4.5mbit (assuming 1mbit each customer) and have not step on eachothers toes.
So really you can take your pick. You can have cheap service at $40/mo and share it with a TON of other people and mostly not get your 'fair' share, or you can get garenteed service but pay $1500/mo.
BTW, an end usage T1 (IE for a home or business) will be at or under $1000/month. THen you are given a contract that states how much bandwidth you are garenteed, and if the ISP fails that, they credit your account.
My T1 at home is a touch over $400/month total. I get a Class-C of IPs (253 usable for machines) and can get more IPs by requesting, I can do anything with it that isnt illegal, and I am garenteed 1.54mbit/sec both ways.
Yes its 10 times what broadband users pay, but I get what I pay for and can enjoy it, instead of getting what you pay for and realize its almost nothing and then bitch about it on slashdot:P
Oh yea, and about your "The cables have been laid down right?" comment... The ISPs dont own the cables that have been laid down, so no they can not do anything at all with them without 'renting' them from the phone co. That part is called the loop, and is usually the cheapest part of the line. I can get a T1 loop for around $200 (Price is based on distance from the CO in miles, added to a base fee.) Its the port charge (ISP charge at the other end) that is generally $1000 or more.
> And on another issue, where's the button in Windows Update that says, "I don't > want to add this patch ever, so stop bothering me!"?
On the windows update page after it scans for files to download, on the left hand side is a link called "Personalize windows update" In there it lists all patches not yet installed but listed. Turn off the checkbox for any of them you dont want to see.
Hmm.. I do know there was a period where it was $50/year. I paid $100 to register and $50 twice for two renewals before they lowered their price, at which time i paid $35 on the next statement.
Maybe they were adjusting it and i missed the 35/yr w/ 30 setup. I didnt register alot of domains myself, but I worked at an ISP from 1995 till 2002 and never once heard of the pricing plan you outline. Doesnt mean it didnt happen and you arnt correct, I just find it strange no customer complained about it (As they did for each other time they changed their pricing)
> Frankly I think ICANN should formally seperate the registrars and the root DNS registry.
I think i know what you are saying, but you are using the wrong terms which makes your post a tad confusing for those of us that deal with DNS alot.
This isnt a comment on the content of your post, which i aggree with and is a good idea. I just wanted to let you know for future comments.
The registars and root servers ARE seperate right now (Thus the main point of confusion of your post)
Verisign doesnt run the root servers at all nor can make changes to them. Each root server is run by a company (Thou most arnt companys but groups that just do it. MIT i believe runs one, as does a lot of.edu sites. ISC runs one too which is the group that makes Bind)
Root servers list the TLDs like com, net, org, us, uk, etc. The root servers are pointing com. and net. to the gTLD servers (global top level domain) which for com and net happen to be verisigns gTLD servers.
The root servers are doing nothing wrong, and havent changed for quite some time, as they only deal with top levels.
Verisign (and all the registrars) run gTLD or ccTLD (global or country-code TLD) servers. Its these servers we are having the problem with.
If one replaces root-servers with gtld-servers in your post, it makes sense. Just wanted to point that out before you got flamed for it;)
> Well, that's just a side-effect of the broking "no MX record, use the A record" rule.
Or what would be even better is if verisign would setup a wildcard MX to work the same as their wildcard A record, but return 127.0.0.1 as the only mail server. Then your own mail server can reject it.
I'm not sure what the standard operation is if the IP returned by an MX is invalid, but I would suspect that some mail clients would fall back to using the A record instead of failing, so setting the MX to 0.0.0.0 or something may not be a solution.
Your own mail server however should reject mail sent to a domain it doesnt handle.
The error returned in the bounce will be confusing (I dont know what this domain is, vs this domain doesnt exist) but its technically true, as the domain now does exist.
> I have to register each misspelling. Verisign should have to do the same.
That isnt true at all.
You can create as many sub domains as you would like in any zone you have control over.
For example, if you register moo.com, you can create ANYTHING you like under moo.com. This includes one.moo.com oen.moo.com and any other misspellings of one that you may like. You can even setup a wildcard for *.moo.com to resolve to an IP, and it will match anything not listed. So one.moo.com would resolve to what you set it up to, as will oen and all, but anything else will resolve to the wildcard. Hell, you can even make just moo.com with no subdomain resolve!
NetSol is doing nothing different. they run com. and net. They could even make just 'com' resolve to an IP!
Your complaint is much like me complaining because i cant have cow.moo.com but you get it for 'free'. The detail is, moo.com is yours to do with as you please. 'com' is NetSols. Not quite to do with as they please, but mostly so. And the only things they cant do with it are dictated by ICANN.. Which is the point of why this article was posted:)
> > Also verisign makes it money by selling domain names. Recall that they used to > > be free at one point.
> Assuming you're young enough to buy into a theory calling government services > "free."
Why assume that? Its free as in $0/year. When you were done with a domain, you sent in a form to deactivate it. Same form you sent in to register it in the first place.
I cant remember when this change over happened exactly, but it was the early 90's. (I want to say 1993 but my memory is very shaky there.. shouldnt be hard to look up if you care)
Then they started charging $50/year until the late 90's when they lowered that price to $35/year.
They also for the longest time, starting when they first charged money for domains, that a domain must be paid for atleast for 2 years. I think NetSol may still do this (I havent used them in forever)
It was the alternate registration services that first started allowing 1 year registrations.
Oh by the way. All of this was from InterNIC, who was appointed after the ArpaNet became the Internet, so it had very little (Read: none at all) to do with a government service at this point.
Even the government service on arpanet before DNS was free. You simply emailed the guys with the master internet-hosts file. They add your records (host to IP) Then you wait about a week for everyone on the internet to download the new file and update their machines with it (Yes it was a totally manual process)
> What companies would you suggest? IBM comes to mind as having the resources
IBM is a good one. Personally I would also suggest Google.
On the community side, we know they have the resources both computer and network wise to do it, and I can see google coming up with a test bed to attempt to improve the system as well. I also trust google to not just do something, but get community input and support, as well as asking whos above them (ICANN) for contravertial things. (I picture a system with one or two 'gateway' IPs into the network, then those contact one of a few thousand machines in their google array to do the request, spreading out CPU/mem/[all but network] load to their other servers.
On the selfish side, it would be a great way for google to get sponcering for more bandwidth as well to help the network side of the gtld server plus google itself.
If ICANN would set down a very strict rules base for what can be done, and explicitly state anything not on the list CANT be done without approval from ICANN, then I wouldnt mind a few other companys with large network resources in on the mix, such as Microsoft and maybe even providers like UUnet GlobalCenter and Sprint etc (Or pick the biggest and currently most stable 3 backbones in the US.)
It would also be nice to say there must be atleast X companys (IE say one company can run two gTLD servers at most, assuming they have the network resources to have two servers located in different parts of the network, otherwise just one server) and there has to be atleast so many servers (IE 14, thus at least 7 companys)
ICANN is suppost to work for us, and they are suppost to oversee NetworkSolutions which they have failed to do a great job of. (I am honestly surprised they reacted to this issue as well) If there were 7 NetworkSolutions, this can bring the vote back to the community as long as those companys listen to us. Its much more likely that a majority of the 7 will vs the majority of the single one we have now. If there was a policy that say ICANNs vote counts for 3 votes or something, we can finally get a board of companys that can actually induce change for the better, and seemingly with community feedback that will work.
Then if one gTLD server decides not to sync with the others for some reason, it can be delisted in the root servers. New company appointed. No problem for everyone else.
This is the way it should have been setup from the start. Now that I think of it, this is what DNS was designed to do. This is also how it was intended to start. The com/net/org/edu NIC used to be 'one of us' before they got turned over to a corp (NetSol) to make money.
> Who cares? Sendmail is obsolete. > > qmail [cr.yp.to] > postfix [postfix.org] > exim [exim.org]
Why, dont use any of those, those are all unix mail servers. You need to use Windows! After all, Windows is good enough for me, so its good enough for you too!
What do you mean? Your opinion on my needs which you know nothing of _does_ matter, but my opinion on your needs which i know nothing of _doesnt_???
I hope the point is taken.
Until any of those programs do what sendmail can do, they are not replacements at all in any useful way. Kindly stop telling me what my needs are and thus what is a good sendmail replacement. Thanks bunches.
> But on the plus side, Microsoft Word would be infringed upon by Vi.
I think you have that backwards. Vi has been around alot longer than Microsoft Word. Ed, what vi is based off of, has been around alot longer then MicroSoft Inc.
I do know that about 2 out of 5 systems I have ran accrost in the past three or four years has come in plastic cases with no metal shielding what so ever as part of the case.
While I can't say anything useful on your origonal question, I can say that its been around as a potential problem for many many more years than case modding has been main stream.
BTW, i've never heard any complaints about the plastic cases being made in the past few years, so I'd guess not much interfearance happens, or not enough to report to anyone.
I would also guess a modded case that is mostly metal is still better at blocking signals than a normal plastic case, and of course more than a modded plastic case, even if not as well as an unmodded metal case.
I personally have only modded one metal case, and I did not cut the metal in any way to do it. I've also run systems with no case what so ever for long periods of time (My 3rd BBS was a motherboard hung on my wall) and never noticed any problems that could be from RF interfearance.
> "Hey! That's great! Lights on my RAM! Oh, hey, scientists: CANCER! AIDS! Let's > put the blinkenlights on the RAM on the backburner and try to eradicate cancer > and AIDS first!"
Why would an engineer who knows about either memory integrated circuit design, or LED physics, know jack all about anything bio or medical?
Matter of fact, I'd prefer the chip designers to stay the hell away from my body thank you. If i wanted my body mucked with, I'd go to a doctor who knows what the hell he is doing with it (Ideally)
> and they said that the guy using the first prototype of the modern cell phone > (early 80s, according to my fuzzy memory of the show) didn't fare so well.
Yea but thats sorta like saying the first computers (that took multiple _entire_ floors of research buildings) were somehow bad, thus todays computers are possibly equally as bad.
While it _may_ be true, one has to remember ALOT has changed between now and then.
It may not have been the radiation coming from the antenna, but somewhere in the phone. If that was the case (And is almost obviously so) the problem is now gone as they have found different ways to make phones.
I say obviously so because noone using a phone made in the last 5 years has developed a tumor after 2-3 hours of use.
I fully admit there may still be problems, and it could still be signal from the antenna, but we have no real proof one way or another yet for long term conditions, simply because the current technology hasnt been around for a long term to test it. Short term effects have been proven to not exist related to radiation damage to the human body.
The main problem is studys like these generally take a number of years to do. By that point, the technology being studied is no longer in use, and what is now in use is totally different and needs a new study. 20 goto 10.
Ideally the next form of this technology will be tested before being released. But as the public demands things to be released sooner and sooner, and that is what makes companys money, I cant see that as happening beyond what the law requires from them.:(
An amish friend once told me, he concidered there were (at least) three groups of amish. All this is his opinion, and possibly some of it is corupted from my relaying of it (And it was a few years ago) so keep that in mind.
He said some amish reject all technology, which is usually defined as something they cant put together themselfs and isnt obvious.
I told him that even building a house with 'advanced' features isnt obvious, and he said i was correct, they concidered that a learning experence and they can use it. I came back to tell him that technology in general is a learning experence. He said he knows, and thats why he wasnt part of this group:)
The other group believes in technology and even using it, but feel that technology should be 'under' them, not equal or above. Computers are generally out, because it appears more often than not that we do more for these machines than they do for us. Not all have that opinion though. This is the group that may get the opinion that cell phnes are OK. Never a garentee thou.
The last group is those born and raised amish, but decided to change later.
Just like someone that is born and raised catholic and chooses to convert, alot of their life is still governed by how they were raised, and alot of old chatholic things still remain out of habbit.
Personally I think its silly and doesnt make logical sense. My Amish friend aggreed. Thats about all the insight i have on the subject.
Yea, thats just one of many technical problems our method had. It was also for a business, not a home. We would never invite anyone in, but between 9am-7pm we were open and thus the door was open/unlocked to the public. There was a buzzer on the door for when it opened, and one of us would come out of our office to the front area to greet whomever it may be.
I would always start out by seeing if they are carring in crap (Youd be surprised how many people carry around paintings/pictures for walls, and things of that nature) and if so stating right out "If you are selling anything, we arnt interested, please leave."
Those specifically were who i was referring to. The people that come in selling long distance for an example, you had to wait till they spoke to tell why they are there. We would of course ask them to leave after the fact.
Being a business, its not at all tresspass until After you ask them to leave plus they refused.
Like i said, im almost 100% positive that most of the time we had no legal leg to stand on. Which is why I would love to have one for future reference:) I no longer work for that small company, but have since moved to an office envirnment (With fully staffed lobby and all) so its a moot point.
I was just interested in legal ways to scare the crap out of them that i didnt make up or arnt correct (like the tresspassing threat);}
> and a followup from the local gendarmes asking about their permit (which they > almost never have) to solicit.
Hmm, I never knew you had to have a permit to sell things door to door. Can you provide more info on this? I would LOVE to use this aginst these people.
We not only have a no soliciting sign, but are very rude to people that come in, even a couple times so far as to take the things they were peddling and treating them very unkindly right in front of the sales person, and if they make any motions of complaint we claim they are clearly tresspassing so as far as we are concerned this is not their property anymore, but obviously the legality of that is still questionable..
I would love to turn the tables and bring under question their own legality in being there.
> This will give sleezy creepy $8/hour 'security guards' an excuse to take female > customers into back rooms and strip search them in lieu of threats, detainment, > or arrest.
This is in reply to just this point, and thus is now off topic, and nothing to do with the thread.. but:
Those security guards.. or anyone that works at the store.. They are NOT allowed to physically touch you or force you to do anything legally. They may be able to attempt to prevent you from leaving the store by, say, holding the door shut or something. But then ONLY to call a police officer to the scene.
If an alarm goes off at a store, they can NOT search you, touch you, etc. They can legally request that you leave, and thus making your presence into tresspass, and they can also request that you stay, although only if they plan to press charges (usually only if they DO press charges.. if they ask you to stay aginst your will, you do, and they press no charges, that opens them up to a wrongful acusation lawsuit)
If you are ever requested or forced to strip for a search, refuse and _demand_ an officer do so. There will always be atleast two present, and one the same gender as the subject who will be doing the search.
If someone touches you (to do a search, or to lead you into another room by the arm/sholder/etc), the law classifies this as assult. Not only can you press charges for it, but if you feel threatened (IE forcing you into a back room to be stripped is pretty damn threatening IMHO) you are legally allowed to use like force to defend yourself. If they grab you, you can use the same force to get free. If they attempt to hit you or hold you, you are allowed to hit back. If they pull a weapon on you (which will almost NEVER happen) you are legally allowed to pull and use the same class of weapon on them.
This is the reason staff at the store are instructed to never physically stop a thief. If someone triggers an alarm at the door, and they start to run out, you can not legally stop them if you are not a cop. If you try to stop them by physical force, the person can beat you pretty bad to get away and the law will side with them. If you pull a knife or gun on a thief, you have just legally allowed them to stab/shoot you for defense.
This is what security cameras are used for, so the cops can find them after the fact. Doesnt work all the time for obvious reasons, but it is still legal 100% of the time, and better than doing nothing.
> Have you renouced your citizenship and left the country every time your > government did something you disagreed with?
Thats the best example I have seen yet.
To answer you, no i dont (Thou we all keep talking about it jokingly)
HOWEVER
I would also totally understand if another country went to war with the US and their goal was to literally nuke the country, government, millitary, and joe blow nobodys like me.
Its not MY fault the government is doing what its doing, and I too have no say so in the matter. But I live here. And just like SCO workers that arnt execs, i realize my choice of NOT leaving the country MAY result in my death BECAUSE of the actions of my country. Yet i still choose to live here.
SCO workers may very well still choose to work there for whatever reasons, but that very choice will ruin their future in the eyes of alot of people and companys now. They need to deal with the rammifications of thier choice however.
Well, how bout this. You go hire that previous SCO programmer, and _YOU_ have fun with all the lawsuits from SCO about tainted code in your work, which by the way SCO will claim they own now and try to extort money from your customers, thus ruining your business name, and dragging you through an expensive court case as well.
Then, atleast have the decency to not claim you had no clue it would ever happen, and then give us your insight on which line of action is more stupid.
Damage may be publicly stating their actions in not the best way, but any legal department would give the exact same advice... Which is what will be happening at any other company that deals with IP, just quietly, which is how it really Should be handled.
And if you want to rule out working for a company because they have made a childish or stupid comment in public, well, i think that rules out 90% of the companys out there in this country:)
> Who would WANT to work for a company where the person who is interviewing you is > mainly concerned with nothing to do with your job?
Your totally missing the point.
If they are hiring a programmer, working for SCO means you _can't_ do your job. You can no longer program for any company in the US (Atleast until SCO is removed from the face of the planet)
If any company hired a SCO worker, _especially_ an 'average coder', that worker will taint your code the instant he speaks to any of your corders about anything what so ever related to programming, and SCO can(Will) sue for it.
The SCO execs fucked their workers over big time by doing this. No one else.
SCO has all but said outright "If you use any code that may be ours, we will sue."
I say it would be a firable offence to the interviewer if he/she knowingly and willingly hired someone from a company that stated they plan to sue anyone that uses that workers code or knowledge.
Its fucked up of SCO to do this to all of their workers, but atleast point the blame where it belongs... Not at the companys that simply dont want garenteed lawsuits pressed aginst them, but at SCO for ruining all of their workers futures by doing this.
> If my network neighbor spams you, how the fuck is it my fault?
It isnt. And no one said it was. (Or if they did, they are wrong.)
> How is my ISP being a dork about it my fault?
Again, it isnt. Nor is anyone claiming it is. You are not being blocked. Your ISP is being blocked, and rightfully so.
9 times out of 10, the ISP (be it local or backbone) is willingly and knowingly faking records to show that the spam came from your ISPs space, or another of their customers IP blocks. That is why ISPs like UUnet do not allocate IP space correctly (SWIP it with arin.) Its because if they SWIPed some space but not others, then we could easily block UUnets spammers by rejecting mail from non SWIPed IPs. But UUnet will purposly not SWIP your ISPs block, or your block, to you. This way they can hide spamemrs in their IP space and no one but UUnet can tell who is doing it.
When a backbone or ISP does this, they become listed by SPEWs. Fuck you and any ISP that willingly hides spammers amongs innocent customers.
And as a final note, you dont need to contact SPEWs admins EVER. Why would you? What do you plan to say? YOU are not listed, thus YOU can not be removed. Your ISP, or their ISP is listed. Only they can be removed.
Atleast as of now, it is still totally legal to boycott any company you choose to, and they are not suppost to be able to pass a law to FORCE you into buying a companys products you dont want.
SPEWs is a boycott of email. You bitching about how your spam loving backbone is having an adverse effect on you is just like the RIAA bitching about people not buying their CDs so they pass laws to get their money anyway.
If your ISP hosted 95% kiddie porn, would you be as quick to bitch that the world blocks them (and thus you), and still insist that they are 'ok guys' and you shouldnt be blocked?
> What about running wine on a version of linux that's already been ported to mac? > I'm not trying to be contradictory-I'm rather curious as to whether this would > work.
No, windows software is compiled to run on the Intel 80386 and above chips (IE 486, 586, 686, etc)
Macs use PowerPC processors and now G[3,4,5] processors.
386 executables will not run on a g4 chip.
To do this you would need an emulator, in this case a program made for the G4 chip that pretends to do what a 386 CPU does.
And once you do that, you have a PC for all intents and purposes. Install a real copy of windows, and run your software there. No need to use WINE in a windows running PC.
> I build all my own PC's and I've never used Pheonix bios, usually AMI or Award.
Um.. Hate to break it to you, but Award _is_ Pheonix.
> You make it sound like there is there is no alternative to DRM hardware in PC land.
With this article, that is fairly correct for all intents and purposes. There are only two main BIOS companys, which happen to be AMI and Pheonix. Those are the only two that make BIOS code and not motherboards.
The only other BIOS makers out there are companys such as IBM and Compaq and the like, but those BIOS's only work with their own hardware.
So if you do build your own hardware, you are getting the BIOS from one of two companys, both of which use DRM (AMI has for awhile now, but award bios's were touted as better because phoenix wouldnt DRM them.. ah well.)
Apple is not the ONLY option, but you will most likely not be buying a motherboard that didnt come with a preconfigured and built PC any more without DRM already in it.
> I'll keep my additional $2,000 and my freedom to choose the hardware that goes > into my machines thankyouverymuch.
Well, that $2,000 that isnt going to apple will need to go to IBM or Dell or Compaq instead.. which means you get no freedom to choose whats in your machine outside of 'CDROM or DVDROM' and '128mb ram or 256mb ram' etc.
And in all honesty, I dont know any longer which 'big builder' still makes their own BIOS and which ones buy from AMI/Phoenix. So even some of the above companys may have DRM now..
> I'm sure there are a million other guys out there with a thousand dollar a month > T1 that is completely worthless for emailing customers thanks to these > blocklists.
What you are wrong about is its not thanks to the blocklists, its thanks to the ISPs that have willingly chosen to use the blocklists, and share the same opinion as the people that run the blocklist, who do not want you to email them.
Do you think its only you that knows SPEWS blocks UUnet ? The ISPs that use SPEWS know this too. They still use SPEWS. They do not want email to enter their network that comes from you! Yes, even through about 4 levels of indirection, the networks you are trying to send email to have chosen to not want your emails.
Why are you blaming the blacklists for this?
You bitch and moan that it isnt fair to you to have your IPs blocked by those that want them blocked. You sound just like a spammer with that logic.
You may be happy to see SPEWS packeted until they are shut down, but what about my right to choose that I want to block email from people who spam, and people just like you, who use ISPs indirectly that support spam?
Are you so much more importaint than I that my right to choose not to recieve your email is less importaint than your right to force your emails upon me aginst my will?
Slashdot Mirror
> How is this different from Yahoo Yellow Pages
Its different because yellow pages list phone numbers and addresses.
You can pay for an ad and put a URL in it, but not without the phonenumber as well.
Google holds web pages.
Phone number.. web page.. phone number.. webpage..
See the difference now?
By the way, if the yellow pages is the only way you have been searching for webpages, I'd like to be the first to tell you that there is alot of web sites out there that you may find interesting that im sure you dont know about yet.
Give google a try, or any web search engine. I think you will like what you see.
> I don't understand where the bandwidth costs are coming from for an ISP. The
/month for our connectivity to three different ISPs. This gave us three links of 1.54mbit/sec, which no single TCP connection would be able to exceed, but multiple TCP connections, or UDP/ICMP packets will take whichever route is best at the time, so may appear to be 4.5mbit/sec.
/month. THen you are given a contract that states how much bandwidth you are garenteed, and if the ISP fails that, they credit your account.
:P
> cables have been laid down right? How does it cost the ISP more to run them at
> max?
I used to run an ISP (dialup, but still) so can provide some authoritive numbers for you.
To get a carrier class T1 line (carrier class meaning you can push traffic 24/7 at the lines max, as well as do things such as BGP which are needed to be more than just a leaf on the internet) you get 1.54mbit/sec up and down for anywhere between $1200 and $3000 per month.
Also, you need at LEAST two T1's for redundancy alone.
So, we had 3 T1's at one point and total were paying around $6000
So we pay $6000/mo.
Dialup accounts are $15/mo.
This requires 400 dialup accounts just to pay for the bandwidth (let alone any other costs such as servers, staff, electricity, rent, etc.)
Now with dialup, you know all 400 wont be on at once, and if they tried alot will end up with busy signals.
Cable and DSL work a touch different, as they are 'always on'.
With a dialup who cant possibly exceed the hardware limits of a 56k modem, 400 modem users transfering data will only be about half of your total bandwidth, so your all OK.
But with broadband, you generally get more than 56k down, its usually closer to 1000k/sec or more.
So lets do some happy fun math with madeup numbers to see if this can be a little more clear.
Broadband user pays, oh lets say, $40/month (Ive seen $35 and $50, $40 seems a happy medium to me)
I dont have prices on T3's handy, so will stick with T1's, even though I can assure you a cable/dsl company would not do this if they had a customer base over one digit.
3 T1's cost $6000/mo and provide (for the most part) 4.5mbit/sec in both directions.
At $40/mo to the end user, you would need 150 customers just to pay for bandwidth.
150 cable customers at 1mbit each is 150mbit/sec.
So there is a huge problem here.
Either you charge $40/mo and all those users cant have full bandwidth because it simply isnt there, OR they raise the price to $1500/month to the end customer.
At $1500/mo to you, they only need 4 customers to pay back the $6000/mo, and 4 customers can share the 4.5mbit (assuming 1mbit each customer) and have not step on eachothers toes.
So really you can take your pick.
You can have cheap service at $40/mo and share it with a TON of other people and mostly not get your 'fair' share, or you can get garenteed service but pay $1500/mo.
BTW, an end usage T1 (IE for a home or business) will be at or under $1000
My T1 at home is a touch over $400/month total.
I get a Class-C of IPs (253 usable for machines) and can get more IPs by requesting, I can do anything with it that isnt illegal, and I am garenteed 1.54mbit/sec both ways.
Yes its 10 times what broadband users pay, but I get what I pay for and can enjoy it, instead of getting what you pay for and realize its almost nothing and then bitch about it on slashdot
Oh yea, and about your "The cables have been laid down right?" comment...
The ISPs dont own the cables that have been laid down, so no they can not do anything at all with them without 'renting' them from the phone co.
That part is called the loop, and is usually the cheapest part of the line.
I can get a T1 loop for around $200 (Price is based on distance from the CO in miles, added to a base fee.) Its the port charge (ISP charge at the other end) that is generally $1000 or more.
> And on another issue, where's the button in Windows Update that says, "I don't
> want to add this patch ever, so stop bothering me!"?
On the windows update page after it scans for files to download, on the left hand side is a link called "Personalize windows update"
In there it lists all patches not yet installed but listed.
Turn off the checkbox for any of them you dont want to see.
Have fun.
Hmm.. I do know there was a period where it was $50/year.
I paid $100 to register and $50 twice for two renewals before they lowered their price, at which time i paid $35 on the next statement.
Maybe they were adjusting it and i missed the 35/yr w/ 30 setup.
I didnt register alot of domains myself, but I worked at an ISP from 1995 till 2002 and never once heard of the pricing plan you outline.
Doesnt mean it didnt happen and you arnt correct, I just find it strange no customer complained about it (As they did for each other time they changed their pricing)
> Frankly I think ICANN should formally seperate the registrars and the root DNS registry.
.edu sites. ISC runs one too which is the group that makes Bind)
;)
I think i know what you are saying, but you are using the wrong terms which makes your post a tad confusing for those of us that deal with DNS alot.
This isnt a comment on the content of your post, which i aggree with and is a good idea. I just wanted to let you know for future comments.
The registars and root servers ARE seperate right now (Thus the main point of confusion of your post)
Verisign doesnt run the root servers at all nor can make changes to them. Each root server is run by a company (Thou most arnt companys but groups that just do it. MIT i believe runs one, as does a lot of
Root servers list the TLDs like com, net, org, us, uk, etc.
The root servers are pointing com. and net. to the gTLD servers (global top level domain) which for com and net happen to be verisigns gTLD servers.
The root servers are doing nothing wrong, and havent changed for quite some time, as they only deal with top levels.
Verisign (and all the registrars) run gTLD or ccTLD (global or country-code TLD) servers. Its these servers we are having the problem with.
If one replaces root-servers with gtld-servers in your post, it makes sense.
Just wanted to point that out before you got flamed for it
> Well, that's just a side-effect of the broking "no MX record, use the A record" rule.
Or what would be even better is if verisign would setup a wildcard MX to work the same as their wildcard A record, but return 127.0.0.1 as the only mail server.
Then your own mail server can reject it.
I'm not sure what the standard operation is if the IP returned by an MX is invalid, but I would suspect that some mail clients would fall back to using the A record instead of failing, so setting the MX to 0.0.0.0 or something may not be a solution.
Your own mail server however should reject mail sent to a domain it doesnt handle.
The error returned in the bounce will be confusing (I dont know what this domain is, vs this domain doesnt exist) but its technically true, as the domain now does exist.
> I have to register each misspelling. Verisign should have to do the same.
:)
That isnt true at all.
You can create as many sub domains as you would like in any zone you have control over.
For example, if you register moo.com, you can create ANYTHING you like under moo.com. This includes one.moo.com oen.moo.com and any other misspellings of one that you may like.
You can even setup a wildcard for *.moo.com to resolve to an IP, and it will match anything not listed. So one.moo.com would resolve to what you set it up to, as will oen and all, but anything else will resolve to the wildcard.
Hell, you can even make just moo.com with no subdomain resolve!
NetSol is doing nothing different. they run com. and net.
They could even make just 'com' resolve to an IP!
Your complaint is much like me complaining because i cant have cow.moo.com but you get it for 'free'.
The detail is, moo.com is yours to do with as you please.
'com' is NetSols. Not quite to do with as they please, but mostly so.
And the only things they cant do with it are dictated by ICANN.. Which is the point of why this article was posted
> > Also verisign makes it money by selling domain names. Recall that they used to
/year.
> > be free at one point.
> Assuming you're young enough to buy into a theory calling government services
> "free."
Why assume that?
Its free as in $0
When you were done with a domain, you sent in a form to deactivate it. Same form you sent in to register it in the first place.
I cant remember when this change over happened exactly, but it was the early 90's.
(I want to say 1993 but my memory is very shaky there.. shouldnt be hard to look up if you care)
Then they started charging $50/year until the late 90's when they lowered that price to $35/year.
They also for the longest time, starting when they first charged money for domains, that a domain must be paid for atleast for 2 years.
I think NetSol may still do this (I havent used them in forever)
It was the alternate registration services that first started allowing 1 year registrations.
Oh by the way. All of this was from InterNIC, who was appointed after the ArpaNet became the Internet, so it had very little (Read: none at all) to do with a government service at this point.
Even the government service on arpanet before DNS was free.
You simply emailed the guys with the master internet-hosts file.
They add your records (host to IP)
Then you wait about a week for everyone on the internet to download the new file and update their machines with it (Yes it was a totally manual process)
> What companies would you suggest? IBM comes to mind as having the resources
IBM is a good one.
Personally I would also suggest Google.
On the community side, we know they have the resources both computer and network wise to do it, and I can see google coming up with a test bed to attempt to improve the system as well. I also trust google to not just do something, but get community input and support, as well as asking whos above them (ICANN) for contravertial things.
(I picture a system with one or two 'gateway' IPs into the network, then those contact one of a few thousand machines in their google array to do the request, spreading out CPU/mem/[all but network] load to their other servers.
On the selfish side, it would be a great way for google to get sponcering for more bandwidth as well to help the network side of the gtld server plus google itself.
If ICANN would set down a very strict rules base for what can be done, and explicitly state anything not on the list CANT be done without approval from ICANN, then I wouldnt mind a few other companys with large network resources in on the mix, such as Microsoft and maybe even providers like UUnet GlobalCenter and Sprint etc (Or pick the biggest and currently most stable 3 backbones in the US.)
It would also be nice to say there must be atleast X companys (IE say one company can run two gTLD servers at most, assuming they have the network resources to have two servers located in different parts of the network, otherwise just one server) and there has to be atleast so many servers (IE 14, thus at least 7 companys)
ICANN is suppost to work for us, and they are suppost to oversee NetworkSolutions which they have failed to do a great job of. (I am honestly surprised they reacted to this issue as well)
If there were 7 NetworkSolutions, this can bring the vote back to the community as long as those companys listen to us. Its much more likely that a majority of the 7 will vs the majority of the single one we have now.
If there was a policy that say ICANNs vote counts for 3 votes or something, we can finally get a board of companys that can actually induce change for the better, and seemingly with community feedback that will work.
Then if one gTLD server decides not to sync with the others for some reason, it can be delisted in the root servers. New company appointed. No problem for everyone else.
This is the way it should have been setup from the start.
Now that I think of it, this is what DNS was designed to do.
This is also how it was intended to start. The com/net/org/edu NIC used to be 'one of us' before they got turned over to a corp (NetSol) to make money.
> Who cares? Sendmail is obsolete.
>
> qmail [cr.yp.to]
> postfix [postfix.org]
> exim [exim.org]
Why, dont use any of those, those are all unix mail servers. You need to use Windows! After all, Windows is good enough for me, so its good enough for you too!
What do you mean? Your opinion on my needs which you know nothing of _does_ matter, but my opinion on your needs which i know nothing of _doesnt_???
I hope the point is taken.
Until any of those programs do what sendmail can do, they are not replacements at all in any useful way. Kindly stop telling me what my needs are and thus what is a good sendmail replacement. Thanks bunches.
> But on the plus side, Microsoft Word would be infringed upon by Vi.
I think you have that backwards. Vi has been around alot longer than Microsoft Word. Ed, what vi is based off of, has been around alot longer then MicroSoft Inc.
I do know that about 2 out of 5 systems I have ran accrost in the past three or four years has come in plastic cases with no metal shielding what so ever as part of the case.
While I can't say anything useful on your origonal question, I can say that its been around as a potential problem for many many more years than case modding has been main stream.
BTW, i've never heard any complaints about the plastic cases being made in the past few years, so I'd guess not much interfearance happens, or not enough to report to anyone.
I would also guess a modded case that is mostly metal is still better at blocking signals than a normal plastic case, and of course more than a modded plastic case, even if not as well as an unmodded metal case.
I personally have only modded one metal case, and I did not cut the metal in any way to do it.
I've also run systems with no case what so ever for long periods of time (My 3rd BBS was a motherboard hung on my wall) and never noticed any problems that could be from RF interfearance.
> "Hey! That's great! Lights on my RAM! Oh, hey, scientists: CANCER! AIDS! Let's
> put the blinkenlights on the RAM on the backburner and try to eradicate cancer
> and AIDS first!"
Why would an engineer who knows about either memory integrated circuit design, or LED physics, know jack all about anything bio or medical?
Matter of fact, I'd prefer the chip designers to stay the hell away from my body thank you. If i wanted my body mucked with, I'd go to a doctor who knows what the hell he is doing with it (Ideally)
> and they said that the guy using the first prototype of the modern cell phone
:(
> (early 80s, according to my fuzzy memory of the show) didn't fare so well.
Yea but thats sorta like saying the first computers (that took multiple _entire_ floors of research buildings) were somehow bad, thus todays computers are possibly equally as bad.
While it _may_ be true, one has to remember ALOT has changed between now and then.
It may not have been the radiation coming from the antenna, but somewhere in the phone. If that was the case (And is almost obviously so) the problem is now gone as they have found different ways to make phones.
I say obviously so because noone using a phone made in the last 5 years has developed a tumor after 2-3 hours of use.
I fully admit there may still be problems, and it could still be signal from the antenna, but we have no real proof one way or another yet for long term conditions, simply because the current technology hasnt been around for a long term to test it.
Short term effects have been proven to not exist related to radiation damage to the human body.
The main problem is studys like these generally take a number of years to do. By that point, the technology being studied is no longer in use, and what is now in use is totally different and needs a new study. 20 goto 10.
Ideally the next form of this technology will be tested before being released. But as the public demands things to be released sooner and sooner, and that is what makes companys money, I cant see that as happening beyond what the law requires from them.
An amish friend once told me, he concidered there were (at least) three groups of amish. All this is his opinion, and possibly some of it is corupted from my relaying of it (And it was a few years ago) so keep that in mind.
:)
He said some amish reject all technology, which is usually defined as something they cant put together themselfs and isnt obvious.
I told him that even building a house with 'advanced' features isnt obvious, and he said i was correct, they concidered that a learning experence and they can use it. I came back to tell him that technology in general is a learning experence. He said he knows, and thats why he wasnt part of this group
The other group believes in technology and even using it, but feel that technology should be 'under' them, not equal or above.
Computers are generally out, because it appears more often than not that we do more for these machines than they do for us. Not all have that opinion though.
This is the group that may get the opinion that cell phnes are OK. Never a garentee thou.
The last group is those born and raised amish, but decided to change later.
Just like someone that is born and raised catholic and chooses to convert, alot of their life is still governed by how they were raised, and alot of old chatholic things still remain out of habbit.
Personally I think its silly and doesnt make logical sense. My Amish friend aggreed. Thats about all the insight i have on the subject.
Yea, thats just one of many technical problems our method had.
:)
;}
It was also for a business, not a home.
We would never invite anyone in, but between 9am-7pm we were open and thus the door was open/unlocked to the public.
There was a buzzer on the door for when it opened, and one of us would come out of our office to the front area to greet whomever it may be.
I would always start out by seeing if they are carring in crap (Youd be surprised how many people carry around paintings/pictures for walls, and things of that nature) and if so stating right out "If you are selling anything, we arnt interested, please leave."
Those specifically were who i was referring to. The people that come in selling long distance for an example, you had to wait till they spoke to tell why they are there. We would of course ask them to leave after the fact.
Being a business, its not at all tresspass until After you ask them to leave plus they refused.
Like i said, im almost 100% positive that most of the time we had no legal leg to stand on. Which is why I would love to have one for future reference
I no longer work for that small company, but have since moved to an office envirnment (With fully staffed lobby and all) so its a moot point.
I was just interested in legal ways to scare the crap out of them that i didnt make up or arnt correct (like the tresspassing threat)
> and a followup from the local gendarmes asking about their permit (which they
> almost never have) to solicit.
Hmm, I never knew you had to have a permit to sell things door to door.
Can you provide more info on this? I would LOVE to use this aginst these people.
We not only have a no soliciting sign, but are very rude to people that come in, even a couple times so far as to take the things they were peddling and treating them very unkindly right in front of the sales person, and if they make any motions of complaint we claim they are clearly tresspassing so as far as we are concerned this is not their property anymore, but obviously the legality of that is still questionable..
I would love to turn the tables and bring under question their own legality in being there.
> This will give sleezy creepy $8/hour 'security guards' an excuse to take female
> customers into back rooms and strip search them in lieu of threats, detainment,
> or arrest.
This is in reply to just this point, and thus is now off topic, and nothing to do with the thread.. but:
Those security guards.. or anyone that works at the store.. They are NOT allowed to physically touch you or force you to do anything legally.
They may be able to attempt to prevent you from leaving the store by, say, holding the door shut or something. But then ONLY to call a police officer to the scene.
If an alarm goes off at a store, they can NOT search you, touch you, etc.
They can legally request that you leave, and thus making your presence into tresspass, and they can also request that you stay, although only if they plan to press charges (usually only if they DO press charges.. if they ask you to stay aginst your will, you do, and they press no charges, that opens them up to a wrongful acusation lawsuit)
If you are ever requested or forced to strip for a search, refuse and _demand_ an officer do so. There will always be atleast two present, and one the same gender as the subject who will be doing the search.
If someone touches you (to do a search, or to lead you into another room by the arm/sholder/etc), the law classifies this as assult.
Not only can you press charges for it, but if you feel threatened (IE forcing you into a back room to be stripped is pretty damn threatening IMHO) you are legally allowed to use like force to defend yourself.
If they grab you, you can use the same force to get free. If they attempt to hit you or hold you, you are allowed to hit back. If they pull a weapon on you (which will almost NEVER happen) you are legally allowed to pull and use the same class of weapon on them.
This is the reason staff at the store are instructed to never physically stop a thief.
If someone triggers an alarm at the door, and they start to run out, you can not legally stop them if you are not a cop.
If you try to stop them by physical force, the person can beat you pretty bad to get away and the law will side with them.
If you pull a knife or gun on a thief, you have just legally allowed them to stab/shoot you for defense.
This is what security cameras are used for, so the cops can find them after the fact. Doesnt work all the time for obvious reasons, but it is still legal 100% of the time, and better than doing nothing.
> Have you renouced your citizenship and left the country every time your
> government did something you disagreed with?
Thats the best example I have seen yet.
To answer you, no i dont (Thou we all keep talking about it jokingly)
HOWEVER
I would also totally understand if another country went to war with the US and their goal was to literally nuke the country, government, millitary, and joe blow nobodys like me.
Its not MY fault the government is doing what its doing, and I too have no say so in the matter. But I live here. And just like SCO workers that arnt execs, i realize my choice of NOT leaving the country MAY result in my death BECAUSE of the actions of my country. Yet i still choose to live here.
SCO workers may very well still choose to work there for whatever reasons, but that very choice will ruin their future in the eyes of alot of people and companys now.
They need to deal with the rammifications of thier choice however.
Well, how bout this. You go hire that previous SCO programmer, and _YOU_ have fun with all the lawsuits from SCO about tainted code in your work, which by the way SCO will claim they own now and try to extort money from your customers, thus ruining your business name, and dragging you through an expensive court case as well.
:)
Then, atleast have the decency to not claim you had no clue it would ever happen, and then give us your insight on which line of action is more stupid.
Damage may be publicly stating their actions in not the best way, but any legal department would give the exact same advice... Which is what will be happening at any other company that deals with IP, just quietly, which is how it really Should be handled.
And if you want to rule out working for a company because they have made a childish or stupid comment in public, well, i think that rules out 90% of the companys out there in this country
> Who would WANT to work for a company where the person who is interviewing you is
> mainly concerned with nothing to do with your job?
Your totally missing the point.
If they are hiring a programmer, working for SCO means you _can't_ do your job.
You can no longer program for any company in the US (Atleast until SCO is removed from the face of the planet)
If any company hired a SCO worker, _especially_ an 'average coder', that worker will taint your code the instant he speaks to any of your corders about anything what so ever related to programming, and SCO can(Will) sue for it.
The SCO execs fucked their workers over big time by doing this. No one else.
SCO has all but said outright "If you use any code that may be ours, we will sue."
I say it would be a firable offence to the interviewer if he/she knowingly and willingly hired someone from a company that stated they plan to sue anyone that uses that workers code or knowledge.
Its fucked up of SCO to do this to all of their workers, but atleast point the blame where it belongs... Not at the companys that simply dont want garenteed lawsuits pressed aginst them, but at SCO for ruining all of their workers futures by doing this.
> If my network neighbor spams you, how the fuck is it my fault?
It isnt. And no one said it was. (Or if they did, they are wrong.)
> How is my ISP being a dork about it my fault?
Again, it isnt. Nor is anyone claiming it is.
You are not being blocked.
Your ISP is being blocked, and rightfully so.
9 times out of 10, the ISP (be it local or backbone) is willingly and knowingly faking records to show that the spam came from your ISPs space, or another of their customers IP blocks. That is why ISPs like UUnet do not allocate IP space correctly (SWIP it with arin.) Its because if they SWIPed some space but not others, then we could easily block UUnets spammers by rejecting mail from non SWIPed IPs.
But UUnet will purposly not SWIP your ISPs block, or your block, to you. This way they can hide spamemrs in their IP space and no one but UUnet can tell who is doing it.
When a backbone or ISP does this, they become listed by SPEWs.
Fuck you and any ISP that willingly hides spammers amongs innocent customers.
And as a final note, you dont need to contact SPEWs admins EVER.
Why would you? What do you plan to say?
YOU are not listed, thus YOU can not be removed.
Your ISP, or their ISP is listed. Only they can be removed.
Atleast as of now, it is still totally legal to boycott any company you choose to, and they are not suppost to be able to pass a law to FORCE you into buying a companys products you dont want.
SPEWs is a boycott of email.
You bitching about how your spam loving backbone is having an adverse effect on you is just like the RIAA bitching about people not buying their CDs so they pass laws to get their money anyway.
If your ISP hosted 95% kiddie porn, would you be as quick to bitch that the world blocks them (and thus you), and still insist that they are 'ok guys' and you shouldnt be blocked?
> What about running wine on a version of linux that's already been ported to mac?
> I'm not trying to be contradictory-I'm rather curious as to whether this would
> work.
No, windows software is compiled to run on the Intel 80386 and above chips (IE 486, 586, 686, etc)
Macs use PowerPC processors and now G[3,4,5] processors.
386 executables will not run on a g4 chip.
To do this you would need an emulator, in this case a program made for the G4 chip that pretends to do what a 386 CPU does.
And once you do that, you have a PC for all intents and purposes. Install a real copy of windows, and run your software there. No need to use WINE in a windows running PC.
> I build all my own PC's and I've never used Pheonix bios, usually AMI or Award.
Um.. Hate to break it to you, but Award _is_ Pheonix.
> You make it sound like there is there is no alternative to DRM hardware in PC land.
With this article, that is fairly correct for all intents and purposes.
There are only two main BIOS companys, which happen to be AMI and Pheonix.
Those are the only two that make BIOS code and not motherboards.
The only other BIOS makers out there are companys such as IBM and Compaq and the like, but those BIOS's only work with their own hardware.
So if you do build your own hardware, you are getting the BIOS from one of two companys, both of which use DRM (AMI has for awhile now, but award bios's were touted as better because phoenix wouldnt DRM them.. ah well.)
Apple is not the ONLY option, but you will most likely not be buying a motherboard that didnt come with a preconfigured and built PC any more without DRM already in it.
> I'll keep my additional $2,000 and my freedom to choose the hardware that goes
> into my machines thankyouverymuch.
Well, that $2,000 that isnt going to apple will need to go to IBM or Dell or Compaq instead.. which means you get no freedom to choose whats in your machine outside of 'CDROM or DVDROM' and '128mb ram or 256mb ram' etc.
And in all honesty, I dont know any longer which 'big builder' still makes their own BIOS and which ones buy from AMI/Phoenix. So even some of the above companys may have DRM now..
> I'm sure there are a million other guys out there with a thousand dollar a month
> T1 that is completely worthless for emailing customers thanks to these
> blocklists.
What you are wrong about is its not thanks to the blocklists, its thanks to the ISPs that have willingly chosen to use the blocklists, and share the same opinion as the people that run the blocklist, who do not want you to email them.
Do you think its only you that knows SPEWS blocks UUnet ?
The ISPs that use SPEWS know this too. They still use SPEWS. They do not want email to enter their network that comes from you!
Yes, even through about 4 levels of indirection, the networks you are trying to send email to have chosen to not want your emails.
Why are you blaming the blacklists for this?
You bitch and moan that it isnt fair to you to have your IPs blocked by those that want them blocked. You sound just like a spammer with that logic.
You may be happy to see SPEWS packeted until they are shut down, but what about my right to choose that I want to block email from people who spam, and people just like you, who use ISPs indirectly that support spam?
Are you so much more importaint than I that my right to choose not to recieve your email is less importaint than your right to force your emails upon me aginst my will?