I like C. I'm a C maven. But I'm *really* glad I didn't learn C first. My first programming courses were taught in Pascal. The good habits I learned there have saved me from writing really poor code when I graduated to more flexible languages like C.
Because the cargo is significantly heavier than the climbers, it's not coming back down, and two tethers on pulleys is a much much harder engineering problem than just one tether.
tethered to a (very heavy) base station
Weight of the base station is a solved problem: you float it at sea and fill most of it with water. The water above the waterline is weight that drags the platform down. Below the water line, the water's weight is neutral.
This would pull the elevator away from its vertical resting position, causing it to oscillate back and forth like a pendulum
Haven't we solved this problem before? Many skyscrapers have a tuned mass damper at the top to stop vibration from wind and earthquakes. The scale is different, as is the cause of the oscillation, but the engineering problem seems to be the same.
In Cogent's case... Well, they're a bottom feeder, often charging their customers less than 20% of what a comparable product from Sprint costs. Unless the customer has been living under a rock for the past five years, he should have expected this from Cogent.
On the other hand, if Cogent was dumb enough to sign SLAs with their customers despite operating this way then hell yeah, sue em. IF they signed SLAs.
The packets follow the money. If you pay me, you expect me to:
A) Transmit any packets you send me in the direction of the destination you specify B) Transmit any packets to you which I receive from anybody else with your address.
So, you pay me, and you want to talk to Joe. Joe pays Bob to connect him to the Internet, the same as you pay me.
So I say to my buddy Bob: Hey, lets run a cat-5 cable between our routers and when Joe sends you packets for JSBiff, you send them to me and when JSBiff sends me packets for Joe, I'll send them to you. That way neither one of us has to pay some third party to transmit packets between us so we both keep more of the money that JSBiff and Joe pay us.
This is PEERING. Bob doesn't pay me because I'm only sending Bob packets that you've paid me to send via Bob and I'm only accepting packets from Bob that you've paid me to accept from Bob. I won't accept packets from Bob that are intended for some generic destination on the Internet, nor will I accept packets for Bob from other networks who I pay or peer with. And vice versa.
The arrangement you have with me (you pay me) is not peering. Our arrangement is called TRANSIT.
I don't understand why both Sprint and Cogent didn't end up routing traffic through one or more third-party networks that they both peered with
Because peering doesn't do that. Peering is a simple traffic swap: my corner of the Internet to your corner of the Internet. The premise is that because either the packet's source or its destination has already paid for the packet when its at each router, its not necessary to pay again.
If you were connected via more than one ISP (not just Cogent or Sprint) then the Internet did heal itself and route around the damage. Its only if you chose to be a sole-source customer of a transit-free provider that it didn't heal.
Because both Sprint and Cogent are what's known as "transit-free" providers.
There are three types of connections:
Transit connections - where you pay someone to connect you to "the Internet" Peering connections - where you swap traffic between your particular corner of the Internet and the other guy's corner of the Internet Customer connections - where you are paid by someone to connect to "the Internet"
A transit-free provider has only the latter two connection types. They are (in theory) sufficiently well connected with peering links that they don't have to pay anyone for transit. In addition to Cogent, several of the big name providers including Verizon, AT&T and Qwest are also transit-free.
Government involvement can do a whole lot of good or a whole lot of bad.
AND. Government involvement does a whole lot of good AND a whole lot of bad. Any time there's government involvement you can pretty much count on getting both.
That lawyer doesn't seem to know what's going on. A DMCA takedown notice is when you complain (under penalty of purgery) that a page is violating your copyrights and demand that it be removed. Apple makes no such complaint here, nor can they: the discussion does not infringe Apple's copyrights.
Instead Apple complains that the discussion violates a different portion of the DMCA. That's perhaps arguable, but the appropriate form of complaint would have been a cease-and-desist notice.
I'm going to sue hellion0 for not translating his post into Chinese. Think it will get dismissed before we even hit the door?
It won't get dismissed until either:
1. You go to trial and fail to prove that hellion0 had a responsibility to translate his post into Chinese, or 2. Hellion0 files a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he had no responsibility to translate his post into Chinese and you have offered no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
And if Hellion0 doesn't show up for trial you can forge yourself an email from Hellion0 promising to translate the post into Chinese at which point you've proven your case as far as the court is concerned and shame on Hellion0 for not bothering to claim it was a forgery.
You can and probably will be sued. Your employer will perceive that you're ripping them off. That's when most lawsuits get filed. If you don't want to deal with it, stop now.
Whether your then-former employer can win a suit is another question entirely. For that you need to consult a lawyer who practices in your state.
Why is this a troll? 0x20 is in fact one of the proposals for mitigating the Kaminsky weakness.
The idea is: you take each of the letters in the query and randomize the capitalization. The response from the server should have the same randomization. If it doesn't, someone may be trying to hack you so you fall back on a slower, heavier-weight TCP-based DNS query instead. In effect, each letter adds one bit to the 16-bit query ID for the purpose of calculating cryptographic entropy. Combined with source port randomization (which adds another 16 bits of entropy) you force the attacker to spend an impractical amount of resources to briefly forge just one entry.
Minneapolis has a "Skyway." Basically, many of he buildings downtown are connected via heated walkways between the second floors. These second floors form literally miles and miles of indoor pedestrian mall. The Hilton where the conference is held is connected to it.
So basically you can go everywhere without having to ever go outdoors. And we have a gig-e Internet link for the duration of the conference. Its computer geek heaven.
I was in the meeting. As I recall, one gentleman, I'll repeat that, one gentleman from the audience of a few hundred got up and expressed the opinion that we should do nothing so as to spur DNSSEC deployment.
There was rather more consensus for the view that we should avoid making quick hacks that might obstruct DNSSEC deployment since DNSSEC is currently the only approach on the table that we're reasonably sure ends the problem.
Con: When you want to use your work on the open source software as a discussion point in a job interview, the fact that you did that work under the alias "MafiaHitman51" hurts you.
Just a reminder: it's really hard to pre-sign over copyrights to something except by being an employee of the institution in question. If these guys didn't sign a paper explicitly transferring the copyrights to the specific game then the institution doesn't own them. It might have a contract compelling them to sign the rights over. The contract might even be enforceable. But it doesn't -currently- own the copyrights.
As long as we're extending the scenario, lets keep your version right up to the point where you "don't hear back." You do hear back. I say, "Well, I don't really want to end the trade but if you insist you're welcome to drop by any time and pick up the TV." Instead you keep demanding that I ship it back to you or pay the invoice, even though you're right across the street. Then, you sue.
Do you get the TV back? Probably. Do you get any "recompense"? Nooooo.
And that's the situation with Sprint and Cogent. Sprint had the power to cut the link at any time. They waited a year. And when they finally decided to cut the link, they quickly changed their mind because it turned out their customers wouldn't stand for it.
after those three months, Cogent didn't either a) execute a new contract, or b) disconnect, where does that leave them?
It leaves them without a contract. No more and no less.
Think of it this way: You and I agree to swap 13" televisions at no cost because I like your RCA television and you like my Sony television. You pack up your 13" TV and send it to me. A 50" television arrives on your doorstep and you keep it. A month later you get a bill from me for $1000. Do you pay it?
Slashdot Mirror
I like C. I'm a C maven. But I'm *really* glad I didn't learn C first. My first programming courses were taught in Pascal. The good habits I learned there have saved me from writing really poor code when I graduated to more flexible languages like C.
Ever try to fly a two-stringed kite? That's why.
Honestly, why use climbers?
Because the cargo is significantly heavier than the climbers, it's not coming back down, and two tethers on pulleys is a much much harder engineering problem than just one tether.
tethered to a (very heavy) base station
Weight of the base station is a solved problem: you float it at sea and fill most of it with water. The water above the waterline is weight that drags the platform down. Below the water line, the water's weight is neutral.
This would pull the elevator away from its vertical resting position, causing it to oscillate back and forth like a pendulum
Haven't we solved this problem before? Many skyscrapers have a tuned mass damper at the top to stop vibration from wind and earthquakes. The scale is different, as is the cause of the oscillation, but the engineering problem seems to be the same.
In Sprint's case I agree.
In Cogent's case... Well, they're a bottom feeder, often charging their customers less than 20% of what a comparable product from Sprint costs. Unless the customer has been living under a rock for the past five years, he should have expected this from Cogent.
On the other hand, if Cogent was dumb enough to sign SLAs with their customers despite operating this way then hell yeah, sue em. IF they signed SLAs.
The packets follow the money. If you pay me, you expect me to:
A) Transmit any packets you send me in the direction of the destination you specify
B) Transmit any packets to you which I receive from anybody else with your address.
So, you pay me, and you want to talk to Joe. Joe pays Bob to connect him to the Internet, the same as you pay me.
So I say to my buddy Bob: Hey, lets run a cat-5 cable between our routers and when Joe sends you packets for JSBiff, you send them to me and when JSBiff sends me packets for Joe, I'll send them to you. That way neither one of us has to pay some third party to transmit packets between us so we both keep more of the money that JSBiff and Joe pay us.
This is PEERING. Bob doesn't pay me because I'm only sending Bob packets that you've paid me to send via Bob and I'm only accepting packets from Bob that you've paid me to accept from Bob. I won't accept packets from Bob that are intended for some generic destination on the Internet, nor will I accept packets for Bob from other networks who I pay or peer with. And vice versa.
The arrangement you have with me (you pay me) is not peering. Our arrangement is called TRANSIT.
I don't understand why both Sprint and Cogent didn't end up routing traffic through one or more third-party networks that they both peered with
Because peering doesn't do that. Peering is a simple traffic swap: my corner of the Internet to your corner of the Internet. The premise is that because either the packet's source or its destination has already paid for the packet when its at each router, its not necessary to pay again.
If you were connected via more than one ISP (not just Cogent or Sprint) then the Internet did heal itself and route around the damage. Its only if you chose to be a sole-source customer of a transit-free provider that it didn't heal.
why did traffic stop flowing?
Because both Sprint and Cogent are what's known as "transit-free" providers.
There are three types of connections:
Transit connections - where you pay someone to connect you to "the Internet"
Peering connections - where you swap traffic between your particular corner of the Internet and the other guy's corner of the Internet
Customer connections - where you are paid by someone to connect to "the Internet"
A transit-free provider has only the latter two connection types. They are (in theory) sufficiently well connected with peering links that they don't have to pay anyone for transit. In addition to Cogent, several of the big name providers including Verizon, AT&T and Qwest are also transit-free.
Government involvement can do a whole lot of good or a whole lot of bad.
AND. Government involvement does a whole lot of good AND a whole lot of bad. Any time there's government involvement you can pretty much count on getting both.
That lawyer doesn't seem to know what's going on. A DMCA takedown notice is when you complain (under penalty of purgery) that a page is violating your copyrights and demand that it be removed. Apple makes no such complaint here, nor can they: the discussion does not infringe Apple's copyrights.
Instead Apple complains that the discussion violates a different portion of the DMCA. That's perhaps arguable, but the appropriate form of complaint would have been a cease-and-desist notice.
I'm going to sue hellion0 for not translating his post into Chinese. Think it will get dismissed before we even hit the door?
It won't get dismissed until either:
1. You go to trial and fail to prove that hellion0 had a responsibility to translate his post into Chinese, or
2. Hellion0 files a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he had no responsibility to translate his post into Chinese and you have offered no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
And if Hellion0 doesn't show up for trial you can forge yourself an email from Hellion0 promising to translate the post into Chinese at which point you've proven your case as far as the court is concerned and shame on Hellion0 for not bothering to claim it was a forgery.
You can and probably will be sued. Your employer will perceive that you're ripping them off. That's when most lawsuits get filed. If you don't want to deal with it, stop now.
Whether your then-former employer can win a suit is another question entirely. For that you need to consult a lawyer who practices in your state.
Why is this a troll? 0x20 is in fact one of the proposals for mitigating the Kaminsky weakness.
The idea is: you take each of the letters in the query and randomize the capitalization. The response from the server should have the same randomization. If it doesn't, someone may be trying to hack you so you fall back on a slower, heavier-weight TCP-based DNS query instead. In effect, each letter adds one bit to the 16-bit query ID for the purpose of calculating cryptographic entropy. Combined with source port randomization (which adds another 16 bits of entropy) you force the attacker to spend an impractical amount of resources to briefly forge just one entry.
Minneapolis has a "Skyway." Basically, many of he buildings downtown are connected via heated walkways between the second floors. These second floors form literally miles and miles of indoor pedestrian mall. The Hilton where the conference is held is connected to it.
So basically you can go everywhere without having to ever go outdoors. And we have a gig-e Internet link for the duration of the conference. Its computer geek heaven.
You keep that up, I might just blow my stack.
I was in the meeting. As I recall, one gentleman, I'll repeat that, one gentleman from the audience of a few hundred got up and expressed the opinion that we should do nothing so as to spur DNSSEC deployment.
There was rather more consensus for the view that we should avoid making quick hacks that might obstruct DNSSEC deployment since DNSSEC is currently the only approach on the table that we're reasonably sure ends the problem.
Con: When you want to use your work on the open source software as a discussion point in a job interview, the fact that you did that work under the alias "MafiaHitman51" hurts you.
Pro: someone suing has to first prove the the alias is really you.
Con: If you want to assert your ownership, you have to first prove that the alias is really you.
Con: Professionals use their real names. Are you a pro or a teenager?
If they say it *is* their property, they have nothing. That's not an enforceable contract.
If they say you agree to sign it over to them, that *may* be an enforceable contract.
Just a reminder: it's really hard to pre-sign over copyrights to something except by being an employee of the institution in question. If these guys didn't sign a paper explicitly transferring the copyrights to the specific game then the institution doesn't own them. It might have a contract compelling them to sign the rights over. The contract might even be enforceable. But it doesn't -currently- own the copyrights.
The facility may be real (I'm in no position to say otherwise) but with the possible exception of the last one the "photos" look rendered.
I could be wrong. Just saying.
I will likely get some sort of recompense
As long as we're extending the scenario, lets keep your version right up to the point where you "don't hear back." You do hear back. I say, "Well, I don't really want to end the trade but if you insist you're welcome to drop by any time and pick up the TV." Instead you keep demanding that I ship it back to you or pay the invoice, even though you're right across the street. Then, you sue.
Do you get the TV back? Probably. Do you get any "recompense"? Nooooo.
And that's the situation with Sprint and Cogent. Sprint had the power to cut the link at any time. They waited a year. And when they finally decided to cut the link, they quickly changed their mind because it turned out their customers wouldn't stand for it.
I shrug my shoulders and invoice you. If you don't pay the invoice, I'll see you in court.
Where you will be entitled to the return of your TV, -NOT- payment of the invoice.
after those three months, Cogent didn't either a) execute a new contract, or b) disconnect, where does that leave them?
It leaves them without a contract. No more and no less.
Think of it this way: You and I agree to swap 13" televisions at no cost because I like your RCA television and you like my Sony television. You pack up your 13" TV and send it to me. A 50" television arrives on your doorstep and you keep it. A month later you get a bill from me for $1000. Do you pay it?