Maybe I wasn't perfectly clear about what I was asking, but I'm sure the O'Reilly book has the answers. Anyway, what I meant, is that my local DNS and my/etc/hosts or NetInfo database will hold the addresses for virtually everywhere I want to go for months on end. Those numbers don't change, and I can't believe that a call is made to a root server every time someone in the world resolves any name to an IP number. How often do calls to the "root server" get made? Is it only when someone emails me something about hampsterdance.com and I'm the first person in my office to follow the link before our DNS has cached that value? I'm asking how important the "Root Server" is, not how important the concept of name resolution is.
"The Internet" would function just fine for extended periods of time if name services were more distributed and locally defined. "Root Server" != "The Internet"
The U.S. Interstate Highway System is an engineering marvel and a national asset. Its value lies in its connectivity and capacity, not so much in the green signs with white letters. Most people on it know where they are going already.
Can someone please explain how it is that "Name Service" has become synonymous with "The Internet?" Am I mistaken that all these root servers do is propagate name service information down to other machines until my office DNS can tell met that yahoo.com has address 66.218.71.198?
The routers themselves deal in numerical IP space, right? Why is name service so dang important?
The NYT website front page, arbiter of all that is good and important, is touting the splendor and Oscar success of "Lost in Translation," so I can't imagine that any film could have done better than that one. You'd better check your facts.
Yeah, I read the headline and waxed nostalgic for my first worksation in my grad student office: a 75MHz SparcStation 5, which ran my codes at about 160% the speed of my home Pentium 100. Then I saw this story was about an UltraSparc and almost skipped it completely.
That's certainly a lot more secret than the "secret" jaguar-fur chess pieces that you select from a non-secret drop-down list in the preferences dialog.
You sound like someone who has never used portable mass storage.
I don't have an iPod, but I do have a PowerBook with iTunes.
I have put ALL my CD collection on it, and I still have a fully functional laptop.
My PowerBook has a 60GB drive, 20GB of which is music.
I have gotten used to having ALL my music with me at almost all times.
As I think about getting a (more) portable MP3 player, I realize that:
I want nothing less than the capacity to carry ALL my music.
Yes, that means that I balk at the 10 and 15GB iPods, and I'd rather have nothing at all until the price on something with 20GB or more falls within my budget.
Sorry if this sounds snobbish; it's just that the utility of having your whole collection with you is more than four times the utility of having a quarter of your collection with you.
making the dock affect the actual item makes it dangerously powerful.
Not to mention the fact that if the critics were to succeed and actually strike down the Dock, it would become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Redundancy as a concept would be flawed if losing a single item out of an ensemble rendered the system usless.
If you read what I said, I was talking about the chance of having at least one functioning computer. By adding computers, you do make it less likely that all of them will fail, and therefore you make it more likely that at least one will work.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently there are still some Pentium 1 machines in service at Microsoft.
But wasn't it released already?
M&M Mars has a monopoly on Snickers Bars.
Maybe I wasn't perfectly clear about what I was asking, but I'm sure the O'Reilly book has the answers. Anyway, what I meant, is that my local DNS and my /etc/hosts or NetInfo database will hold the addresses for virtually everywhere I want to go for months on end. Those numbers don't change, and I can't believe that a call is made to a root server every time someone in the world resolves any name to an IP number. How often do calls to the "root server" get made? Is it only when someone emails me something about hampsterdance.com and I'm the first person in my office to follow the link before our DNS has cached that value? I'm asking how important the "Root Server" is, not how important the concept of name resolution is.
"The Internet" would function just fine for extended periods of time if name services were more distributed and locally defined. "Root Server" != "The Internet"
The U.S. Interstate Highway System is an engineering marvel and a national asset. Its value lies in its connectivity and capacity, not so much in the green signs with white letters. Most people on it know where they are going already.
The routers themselves deal in numerical IP space, right? Why is name service so dang important?
- This is driven by profit motive
- It's not fair
So therefore, we must make it illegal.</leftie>
Not since realizing that you get what you pay for.
The NYT website front page, arbiter of all that is good and important, is touting the splendor and Oscar success of "Lost in Translation," so I can't imagine that any film could have done better than that one. You'd better check your facts.
Go easy on him. He did say he starts hitting the Wild Turkey early in the morning.
You forgot the Edelbrock intake and dual Holley four barrel carbs.
Whippersnappers.
So that's why you hire someone trustworthy, like a lawyer, to.... Oh. Wait a minute...
As long as "coverage" means photoshopped mouse testicles in 0.38g, then, yes, Fark does have coverage of this story.
That's certainly a lot more secret than the "secret" jaguar-fur chess pieces that you select from a non-secret drop-down list in the preferences dialog.
- I don't have an iPod, but I do have a PowerBook with iTunes.
- I have put ALL my CD collection on it, and I still have a fully functional laptop.
- My PowerBook has a 60GB drive, 20GB of which is music.
- I have gotten used to having ALL my music with me at almost all times.
As I think about getting a (more) portable MP3 player, I realize that:- I want nothing less than the capacity to carry ALL my music.
Yes, that means that I balk at the 10 and 15GB iPods, and I'd rather have nothing at all until the price on something with 20GB or more falls within my budget.Sorry if this sounds snobbish; it's just that the utility of having your whole collection with you is more than four times the utility of having a quarter of your collection with you.
With built in UPS, you don't need roadies. It ships itself!
Mmmmmm.... Money printed on meat....
Ah, yes. The Welsh-centric fork of Cygwin.
Not to mention the fact that if the critics were to succeed and actually strike down the Dock, it would become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
The Mods will BE BACK.
Because 50 does not exceed 60.
...and a team of linguists could take a decade to parse.
And next year, we're going to do 3-D calculations.
If you read what I said, I was talking about the chance of having at least one functioning computer. By adding computers, you do make it less likely that all of them will fail, and therefore you make it more likely that at least one will work.