Do it. Fire up wireshark, and observe a request to slashdot. Your packets leave your system with slashdot server IPs on the destination IP header field. The mac frames will be addressed to your gateway, which is also probably your NAT box. The gateway will grab the ethernet frame, observe the IP packet inside, and change the *source* address before forwarding the packet. When a returning packet from slashdot is received, the NAT box will rewrite the destination packet and return it to you.
My point: if you observe all packets originating from any given computer on your NATed private network, you will observe the real-world destinations of those packets. When your computer tries to connect to the outside world, it doesn't need to know it is NATed.
Surely if these two machines are on the same network with internal addresses, there's a NAT box somewhere stripping any evidence of the global outside destination in the original IP header.
Please go read up on NAT. Of course the destination IP is there. Nat is supposed to be transparent for the computers involved.
...unlike IE, which is free and doesn't generate any revenue...
Firefox gathers revenue from the default search engine setting (google). If I remember correctly, MSIE has the exact same search interface, default set to MSN. It does generate revenue, even if it is not accounted for by Microsoft.
There are other internal revenue streams. It's just that this one is in your face; perfectly identical to FF's.
It also works the other way around. If it randomly disappears, people won't die because of a missing appendix. It is reasonable to assume it will randomly disappear, in the distant future. How distant? I don't know...
No, you are incorrect.......... It's not enought for you to just believe it to be true, it actually has to be true.
I am sure. Article 2, paragraph 1 (translated): This code applies to traffic on public domain roads, managed by the central government, autonomic regional governments or by municipalities.
They did not. Tivo is abidng by the GPL V2 which was in effect when they wrote and distributed the Tivo software. They have done nothing wrong.
They abided by the letter of GPL2, not by its spirit. GPL is a hacker license. It basically grants any end user the license to hack. It is flawed because it has no provisions for software being distributed as part of a more complex hardware product. GPLv3 fixes these holes. So,...
Tivo is not fucked by GPL V3.
Tivo is fucked by GPLv3, inasmuch as their business model is based on a closed platform built by open software contributions. I couldn't care less that their business model got screwed.
(yes, technically, they could fork every GPLv2 project and maintain all these projects themselves. Won't happen.)
Oh, analogies. Always wrong by just that bit. I'll dismantle these
Don't be ridiculous. Just because you bought something doesn't mean you have unlimited rights to do as you wish to it. Would you consider a book that you bought now exclusively yours, then copy it and redistribute it? Of course not.
What about dismantling the book and using it to light a fire? The physical good is mine. I want to do anything to it. I should be allowed to.
What about your house? You own your house so does that give you the right to modify your water, gas and electrical hookups to bypass the meters? No.
Go read the utility contracts. You don't own the pipes and lines until after the meter.
Your car? Do you have the right to drive your property you bought however you feel like? No - there are rules you must abide by.
I can drive my car in my property using my feet only, while drinking, smoking and talking on the cell phone if I want to. The critical part in your sentence is the shared driving space, with shared rules, naturally.
Tivo has a right to do what they want to their products.
No. They forfeited that right when they leveraged GPL software. Now they must abide by the GPL.
If you buy it and attempt to take it apart, well then that's fine and your right, but they also have a right to put mechanisms in place to deny you further service if you do.
GPL is all about granting the end user the right to tinker, take apart and reuse. GPL2 was not so clear on hardware based distribution. GPL3 sets it straight, and fucks TiVo. Tough luck. Play by the book and let people tinker, or write your own software (or pick BSD, for christ's sake).
It is. On a moderate notebook, it takes a couple of days to compile the software on my world file. That, and it does involve more work than, say, Ubuntu. However, the rolling upgrade means there are no more installs, ever, for the life of the hardware. That's worth a lot.
It really depends on the algorithm. Encryption algorithms spread the information around -- i.e. the information contained in the first byte is spread across a number of bytes on the encrypted data. Ideally, this spread should be 100% efficient -- the first byte would be spread out through the whole encrypted data. In practice, it is not, namely because encryption is done in limited size blocks. Some algorithms, like DES are noticeably poor at "randomizing" the output, while others, like RSA are very good. So, with some algorithms there is a noticeable quality gain in doing multiple passes, while for others its neglectable.
It is a pain in the ass to get going, but once you're there you are there and will stay there until the machine dies.
Best description of Gentoo, ever. It *is* a pain to install, but my laptop's installation is almost four years old. The laptop will die before the install does.
The problem is not that Apache is slow, it's that it uses huge amounts of memory. If your database is running slow for some reason - say, during backups - requests will start to queue up, Apache will start more and more threads to handle those requests, and things will spiral rapidly out of control.
Don't set MaxClients so high that you'll run out of memory. Apache can queue requests at the ip stack level, before launching a new process to handle them.
Personally I feel Lighttpd is just too light, but I agree, Apache is too heavy. I would love to find a happy medium but I am yet to find a httpd server which even approaches Apache and its popularity shows that an awful lot of people agree with this.
Exactly my feeling. I've settled with a frontend Apache, running an event MPM, along with a backend apache with a prefork MPM. The frontend handles URL-rewriting, keepalive connections and mod_deflate filtering, then serves all static content. Non-static content is proxied to the backend apache, without keepalive (connections are local, so I don't want processes 'hung' on keepalives because of memory consumption) and with mod_cache. The backend apache contains the modules needed to serve dynamic content, namely mod_php -- the largest memory hog.
Sure, but how's that relevant now? There are FCGI implementations that are ready to use. FCGI seem to be maintained right now. So what makes FCGI a bad choice *today*?
FCGI doesn't seem maintained. mod_fastcgi has no releases after 2004: http://www.fastcgi.com/dist/
and mod_cgid always suffered from instability under serious loads, which was never solved. There is no fastcgi module from the ASF...
Lighttpd is awful for any serious use. Until it has a decent URL rewriting module, it's a toy.
Apache with an event MPM is on par with lighttpd on speed and memory usage -- ie. it's a bit larger than lighty, but does contain more features.
It is a well known fact in science that depriving yourself of calories (1200-1400 a day for a sedentary lifestyle instead of 2000)
If you're a male, I'd be surprised if your metabolic consumption wasn't at lest 2300 calories per day. 1200 calories per day amounts to starving in a few months (how many depends on how much fat you have to start with).
Diet Soda, it has been found in a European study (German?) to fuck with your blood sugar level - the body thinks it's getting sugar, pumps you with insulin, and it turns out you aren't getting any.
Rubbish. If it were so, people would faint left and right after drinking light sodas, because of the drop in blood sugar levels.
Yeah, the first variable timing engines I recall were the VTECs from Honda, back in the 80s. As for BMW, I recall a special series of the M5 with solenoid valves. By removing the camshaft, they moved the redline of their 5L block from almost 9krpm to over 13krpm. That thing probably sounds like an F1:-)
Well, Audi had the most expensive small car (the A2), which consistently gets top scores in reliability and was available in a 75 mpg version. Too few buyers, though - not many people are willing to spend 15kEu on a small car, so they stopped manufacturing it.
Audi once lent me one A2 while my A3 was in maintenance. It was a diesel 1.4Tdi. It has to be the most rough diesel engine I've ever heard and felt. Four cylinder diesel blocks are already noisy and rough-edged. A three cylinder diesel block should have been killed in the blueprint stage. I won't drive a city car that sounds like a pickup just to get 75mpg (as oposed to 60mpg in the 1.9tdi block).
That, and the absolute worst visibility I've ever experienced in a car. And, mind you, I'm used to the A3, which has thick A-pillars and humongous C-pillars.
Oh, my god. Americans are so out of touch with reality that you don't even recognize how efficient cars can be. I own a Audi A3, 1600cc, 100hp (weights about 1100kg). On highway at 160km/h, the car uses about 7l/100km (google says it's about 33mpg). At 90km/h, gas usage goes below 6l/100km (over 40mpg). Current diesel engines from Volkswagen/Audi can go as low as 3l/100km (78mpg).
Why the heck do you need 230hp??? My car can get from 0 to 100km/h in 10s and tops out at about 200km/h. I really don't *need* it to go any faster (except that any car that can do 0-100 in less than 6s can give me my daily adrenaline boost).
'I state that the higher learning provided by universities isn't hollow. It has a purpose, which is to add value to the students.'
Certainly and I agree with this statement entirely. A University is a hardware store. As a student I go to the University to get a tool knowledge (a wrench). My grade should reflect the quality of the wrench (the knowledge gained in a class). Now I might tell the hardware store that I am working on a certain project and want them to give me the right set of tools, I might not. Once I have the right set of tools I have more capabilities and am therefore more valuable, both to myself and others. I may choose to sell that value to someone else, utilize it for myself, or use my tools to devise and craft yet more tools. What I plan to do with my tools might define which tools I get but it doesn't have any impact on the quality of the individual tools (again, my grade in an individual class).
My bad. I should have said "It has a purpose, which is to add market value to the students.". You see, western civilizations are capitalist. Most of what we do as a society is driven by the market. Universities are no exception, much as you'd like it to be otherwise.
Is it hollow and unfulfilling? Not if you keep a balance. You are leaning towards a far-left-wing view of the world as much as your father leant towards a far-right perspective.
As any lyric, or left-wing intellectual, you assume you hold the truth (i.e. you know, absolutely, how things should be). You forget three important factors:
You probably don't hold the truth. This isn't an attack. I probably don't hold the absolute truth either...
Your proposition ("let's all follow my universal view of the truth, pursue abstract knowledge as the ultimate goal") is what is called in engineering a null-feedback system. It provides no correction mechanisms. Null feedback systems, like old gasoline engines, tend to require regular tune-ups under penalty of degraded performance.
Market driven systems are exceptional at auto-correction. Markets provide an excellent feedback mechanism with great survival of the fittest cutoffs
When I state that Universities align themselves with the goals of students, it's a view of this market-driven mechanism in actions.
Anyhow, your view of how things should be is, in practice, irrelevant. I could discuss the theory endlessly, defending the need for a market in high-level teaching. In reality, universities are economical institutions, driven by market principles, and pursuing market goals. Hence, my conclusion is valid. Grades should reflect the overall goal of the university: add market value to its students.
This thread has gone long enough. Let's agree to disagree. I completely understand your position. I believe you are wrong, but can't for the life of me make you see another perspective. I come from a family of teachers, know several universities, both public and private, from the inside. I have taught in one for a few years. Believe me when I say the economic stand is prevalent among universities -- at least in Europe.
The economic stand invalidates lyric positions. The lyric position, the one you defend, does exist. It has its proponents. Universities which followed a lyric view in its market positioning have lost the competitive edge. Having failed to attract top students and investigators, they invariably fall in quality level. Top universities know they must attract top students, so adapt themselves to that requisite.
Last but not least, please re-read M.W. definition of university against my texts. I never state an University isn't an institute of higher learning. I state that the higher learning provided by universities isn't hollow. It has a purpose, which is to add value to the students. That is not the sole purpose, but our discussion was centered in what is measured by a grade in an university course so that's what I focused.
That may be the reason the students have chosen to benefit themselves...
Not 'may be'. That is the reason, for the majority of students, if only because of the pressure created by university fees.
... but what has motivated the students is irrelevant.
Far from irrelevant, it's the drive that sends students to the universities, which is important, because:
None of that changes the purpose of the institution. The institution exists to TEACH the students information.
You leap unfounded to this conclusion out of personal belief. The students motive challenges this affirmation. Universities without students make no sense, so the objective of the university is aligned with that of the students, under penalty of an empty, and thus bankrupt, university. Again, if the objective of the university is to increase productivity, the system output (grades) is correlated to the final objective.
It's simple logic which you have never contradicted, relying instead in faith to support your point. Faith is a poor logic fellow.
False, the purpose of education is to benefit oneself.
Oh, the lyric view... Ask yourself: How many of medical school students don't plan on recovering the 180k tuition fees applying the knowledge gained in school? The purpose of the majority of courses is to increase productivity of students. If that's the purpose, the grade should reflect students' score in the course purpose.
The rest of your logic is flawed by this false premise.
Slashdot Mirror
Do it. Fire up wireshark, and observe a request to slashdot. Your packets leave your system with slashdot server IPs on the destination IP header field. The mac frames will be addressed to your gateway, which is also probably your NAT box. The gateway will grab the ethernet frame, observe the IP packet inside, and change the *source* address before forwarding the packet. When a returning packet from slashdot is received, the NAT box will rewrite the destination packet and return it to you.
My point: if you observe all packets originating from any given computer on your NATed private network, you will observe the real-world destinations of those packets. When your computer tries to connect to the outside world, it doesn't need to know it is NATed.
Firefox gathers revenue from the default search engine setting (google). If I remember correctly, MSIE has the exact same search interface, default set to MSN. It does generate revenue, even if it is not accounted for by Microsoft.
There are other internal revenue streams. It's just that this one is in your face; perfectly identical to FF's.
It also works the other way around. If it randomly disappears, people won't die because of a missing appendix. It is reasonable to assume it will randomly disappear, in the distant future. How distant? I don't know...
Tivo is fucked by GPLv3, inasmuch as their business model is based on a closed platform built by open software contributions. I couldn't care less that their business model got screwed.
(yes, technically, they could fork every GPLv2 project and maintain all these projects themselves. Won't happen.)It really depends on the algorithm. Encryption algorithms spread the information around -- i.e. the information contained in the first byte is spread across a number of bytes on the encrypted data. Ideally, this spread should be 100% efficient -- the first byte would be spread out through the whole encrypted data. In practice, it is not, namely because encryption is done in limited size blocks. Some algorithms, like DES are noticeably poor at "randomizing" the output, while others, like RSA are very good. So, with some algorithms there is a noticeable quality gain in doing multiple passes, while for others its neglectable.
http://www.fastcgi.com/dist/
and mod_cgid always suffered from instability under serious loads, which was never solved. There is no fastcgi module from the ASF...
Lighttpd is awful for any serious use. Until it has a decent URL rewriting module, it's a toy. Apache with an event MPM is on par with lighttpd on speed and memory usage -- ie. it's a bit larger than lighty, but does contain more features.
Bah, you see a pretty face and start drooling. Here, have fun:
http://amadeo.blog.com/repository/2/1998456.png
Yeah, the first variable timing engines I recall were the VTECs from Honda, back in the 80s. As for BMW, I recall a special series of the M5 with solenoid valves. By removing the camshaft, they moved the redline of their 5L block from almost 9krpm to over 13krpm. That thing probably sounds like an F1 :-)
Audi once lent me one A2 while my A3 was in maintenance. It was a diesel 1.4Tdi. It has to be the most rough diesel engine I've ever heard and felt. Four cylinder diesel blocks are already noisy and rough-edged. A three cylinder diesel block should have been killed in the blueprint stage. I won't drive a city car that sounds like a pickup just to get 75mpg (as oposed to 60mpg in the 1.9tdi block).
That, and the absolute worst visibility I've ever experienced in a car. And, mind you, I'm used to the A3, which has thick A-pillars and humongous C-pillars.
Oh, my god. Americans are so out of touch with reality that you don't even recognize how efficient cars can be. I own a Audi A3, 1600cc, 100hp (weights about 1100kg). On highway at 160km/h, the car uses about 7l/100km (google says it's about 33mpg). At 90km/h, gas usage goes below 6l/100km (over 40mpg). Current diesel engines from Volkswagen/Audi can go as low as 3l/100km (78mpg).
Why the heck do you need 230hp??? My car can get from 0 to 100km/h in 10s and tops out at about 200km/h. I really don't *need* it to go any faster (except that any car that can do 0-100 in less than 6s can give me my daily adrenaline boost).
My bad. I should have said "It has a purpose, which is to add market value to the students.". You see, western civilizations are capitalist. Most of what we do as a society is driven by the market. Universities are no exception, much as you'd like it to be otherwise.
Is it hollow and unfulfilling? Not if you keep a balance. You are leaning towards a far-left-wing view of the world as much as your father leant towards a far-right perspective.
As any lyric, or left-wing intellectual, you assume you hold the truth (i.e. you know, absolutely, how things should be). You forget three important factors:
When I state that Universities align themselves with the goals of students, it's a view of this market-driven mechanism in actions.
Anyhow, your view of how things should be is, in practice, irrelevant. I could discuss the theory endlessly, defending the need for a market in high-level teaching. In reality, universities are economical institutions, driven by market principles, and pursuing market goals. Hence, my conclusion is valid. Grades should reflect the overall goal of the university: add market value to its students.
This thread has gone long enough. Let's agree to disagree. I completely understand your position. I believe you are wrong, but can't for the life of me make you see another perspective. I come from a family of teachers, know several universities, both public and private, from the inside. I have taught in one for a few years. Believe me when I say the economic stand is prevalent among universities -- at least in Europe.
The economic stand invalidates lyric positions. The lyric position, the one you defend, does exist. It has its proponents. Universities which followed a lyric view in its market positioning have lost the competitive edge. Having failed to attract top students and investigators, they invariably fall in quality level. Top universities know they must attract top students, so adapt themselves to that requisite.
Last but not least, please re-read M.W. definition of university against my texts. I never state an University isn't an institute of higher learning. I state that the higher learning provided by universities isn't hollow. It has a purpose, which is to add value to the students. That is not the sole purpose, but our discussion was centered in what is measured by a grade in an university course so that's what I focused.
You leap unfounded to this conclusion out of personal belief. The students motive challenges this affirmation. Universities without students make no sense, so the objective of the university is aligned with that of the students, under penalty of an empty, and thus bankrupt, university. Again, if the objective of the university is to increase productivity, the system output (grades) is correlated to the final objective.
It's simple logic which you have never contradicted, relying instead in faith to support your point. Faith is a poor logic fellow.
Oh, the lyric view... Ask yourself: How many of medical school students don't plan on recovering the 180k tuition fees applying the knowledge gained in school? The purpose of the majority of courses is to increase productivity of students. If that's the purpose, the grade should reflect students' score in the course purpose.
The rest of your logic is flawed by this false premise.