I2ANAL, but this might vary from state to state. Here's a real life example:
I was walking out of Fry's with a bag of stuff I bought. Their normal procedure is to check the bags and make sure it matches what's on the receipt, marking the receipt afterwards.
In this one instance, there was a long queue to get out, so I decided to bypass it as I would normally do. This one Fry's 'associate' demaded (ie, asked in a polite but demanding tone) I stop to have my bag checked. I decided to make an issue of this; the conversation went something like this:
"Excuse me sir, I need to check your bag." (No please).
"I refuse, sorry." (Smiles and keeps walking).
(Getting in the way). "I'm sorry, I do need to check your bag before you leave."
"Well, I'm sorry too, but under law, you have no right to check my bag without probable cause."
By this stage, we've got the attention of a supervisor, who came up to us, waited a moment to get the gist of the convesation, then guestured to me "Move along sir... sorry for the trouble".
A friend of mine had a similar experience, but, weirdly, the supervisor had said "Have we demanded that we search your bags, sir?"
"No."
"Then have a nice day, thank you."
In this case, I think the supervisor was worried that my friend might have complained that they were demanding to search bags. If anyone cares to notice, a lot of the signs saying that bags will be searched are worded in such a way that its not a demand, but a request. In California, at least:)
A method of encryption whereas, for each symbol or byte contained within the datastream, two transformations are applied in sequence. The order of the two transformations is determined by a random heuristic. Ie, either transformation A, then B, is applied, or transformation B, then A, is applied.
They're allowed to demand to search your bags if and only if they have reason to suspect there are stolen goods in there: Its 'probable cause'.
Folks will note that there are a lot of stores out there that say they'd like to search your bags, but the wording is very carefully structured not to actually say they have a right to, because they know they don't.
I usually let them look at my bags and check my receipt (Fry's and Costco are generally the ones that do this), just to keep them happy. It's no skin off my nose. Unless, of course, there's a huge line in which case I'll just bypass the line; noone ever stops me.
Perhaps this is what they mean...
on
High-Speed Greed
·
· Score: 1
Okay... I really cant see AT&T (which, ironically, printed out a telephone directory on my old 2400bps modem) implementing the ridiculous plan they describe; they can't possibly hope to monitor all the user-to-merchant connections out there. But, perhaps the article wasn't complete enough and they have a different plan up their sleeves...
Someone mentioned that AT&T have a special service for their telephone-surfer users, where merchants pay (either a flat fee, or a commission of sales) in exchange for primary listings. Perhaps AT&T intend to extend this pricing plan to the Web instead...
Consider this. AT&T offer to colcate a merchant's web site at their facilities. Nice and fast (one would hope). AT&T do not charge any colocation fees at all, but, charge a very small commission on any sales from that site. (Part of the agreement would be that the merchant use AT&Ts web shopping facilities, sorta like Telstra's SureLink (which absolutely sucks, btw)). Being AT&T, they'd be able to get a phenomanally good merchant rate for their credit card transations, and they can use the margin on that to get their profits up. If the margin isn't enough, then they can sting the merchant for a small amount, but the merchant is still happy as they've had no outgoings for their web site, and get primary listings in front of AT&T's broadband customers.
I think something like that would work, and isn't too far from what the article was saying.
I still think it sucks, though. If I was to get a service from AT&T, I would want it to be generic... and not a 'AOL flavoured' style service.
The problem with SMS (and the digital extentions to the existing mobile phone service in the USA) is that unless you're in the receiption area, you dont get your messages.
If you're in Australia (who's GSM coverage is excellent), or one of the european countries, etc. then getting a GSM mobile with the paging service makes sense; you'd be hard pushed to find an area that GSM doesn't cover. Unfortunately, in the USA (to where I just moved), digital coverage via GSM or CDMA Is pretty woeful. And... you dont get your paging service when you're in a analogue receiving area.
I worked for a company that produced a network appliance of sorts that could run on either Linux or Solaris, but in either case, ran on x86 boxes for economy.
Our tests showed that on almost any parameter you could name (memory consumption, context switch time, IO performance, reboot performance), Solaris was generally a factor of TWO slower.
About the only thing solaris was quick at was shutting down:)
The server has to re-send the SYN/ACK wether you're using syn-cookies or not. I can't see the interoperability issue here...
In the normal TCP case (without syn-cookies or some other sort of security), the server will timeout in the 'SYN_RCVD' state and re-send the SYN/ACK. In the cookies case, it.... still just resends the SYN/ACK. The client is going to respond to a security-enabled SYN/ACK in just the same way as a non-security-enabled SYN/ACK. That's the beauty of it; the client is 'fooled' into sending back the necessary information to continue the conversation!
Let me get this straight... rather than letting sysadmins who care about their own machines upgrade their systems with software, you'd rather have them upgrade their hardware?
Remember, only the servers need to be changed. Therefore, only the servers where the sysadmin gives a hoot need to be changed.
However, having a smart NIC would be kinda cute, but its a BIG jump from the existing NICs. The existing hardware does not know anything about the IP layer currently.
It'll work just fine. IF the client doesnt get the SYN/ACK back, it'll just send another SYN, just like it does now. Ie, the client doesnt know the difference between the initial SYN being dropped on the way to the server, or the SYN/ACK being dropped on the way back to the client, so, the only thing it can do is send another SYN.
I absolutely disagree with this statment. To my eyes, the most annoying thing about mpeg compression is not the blockiness that some complain about, it's the poor color gradients, especially in skin tones and sky shots. The sky goes from deep blue to light blue. Ideally, it should look like that when compressed, but mpeg2 color is only 24 bits deep (I think), so what you end up with is stripes of similar, but distinctly different colors. Very annoying, especially if you're viewing on a progressive scan monitor.
What you're seeing is not a lack of colour - distinguishing colours in a 24-bit colour space is exceptionally difficult - but instead yet another compression artifact. The algorithm is deciding for you not to give you a continuous colour gradient as the colours aren't different enough.
So... dropping the colour space of the display really isn't going to have that much effect; 16-bit colour space is still pretty smooth.
Hmm, MIPS R7000 256MB of RAM, 2MB Cache, that'd make a pretty decent web server, too bad that it cost 5 times more than an X86 that's twice as fast.
You have to be joking... a R7000 running at 262MHz would kick a PII/600MHz's ass any day and twice on Sundays. Not to mention they run cool (less than 50W... you dont see heat-sinks on those babys)
However, the whole box as a whole is way expensive. But... the Cisco hardware is specifically designed to operate as a platform for their own software, which is really what you're paying the $$ for. Think of the hardware as a huge dongle for the software.
They're not the only company that operates like that, either:)
Actually, that's not quite right. One can at least push the rock back up the hill again, but getting information back into the box is a whole different ball game.
But, the lawyers are trying... trying their sweet little hearts out. But we can all see where this is going: there are laws upon laws upon laws being drafted and approved and upheld and ignored,etcetc. Does this remind anyone of spaghetti code? Thought so:)
So... do we continue to patch the spaghetti code, or do we convince the lawyers that their design is incorrect?
The claim 'Information wants to be free' is not trying to anthropomorphise information. All the little 1s and 0s are not jumping up and down with placards demanding freedom.
What it's saying is that the quiescent state of information is free (as in speech). Information locked up has to be kept locked tight; once it gets out in the open it can never be locked back up again. Ie, having information out in the open is the only stable state for information.
Information wants to be free in exactly the same way as a rock at a top of a hill wants to be at the bottom of a hill.
By that distinction, I mean that CPUs are merely getting faster, not better in any radical way.
I take exception to that. I think they're getting way better... but we don't seem to be using these 'better' CPUs as they're not x86 compatible. The x86 design is old, and outdated. There are much better alternatives out there (for example, power-PC and MIPS), but we don't seem to be using them very much. Why? Because there's a large bottleneck in getting these much better CPU's running with, for example, our linux systems.
As soon as a large hardware manufacturer decides to up the ante and design a MB and CPU-slot combination that allows us to chop-and-change our CPU types, thus commoditizing the CPU, then we're gonna see some real improvements.
Of course, Intel and AMD are going to try and stop this, as it reduces the value of their product... which would explain the frivilous CPU-slot changes we've been seeing in the past couple of weeks.
That's just trying to justify the software by pointing at the hardware. I agree that they were created for different tasks.
1. Linux wont run well on SMP sparc machines.
2. Solaris has lots of extra goodies that Linux doesnt have (such as support for hot-swap hardware, and some really nice volume management).
If you, as a user, need those things, plus the myriad others, then you're going to need to use a 'high-end' OS. But... I really cant see it justifying Solaris' poor performance on the low end machines. Sure, that might just mean that's not where Sunsoft's focus is, but that doesn't make it right.
If Sunsoft decided to put more effort into the nitty-gritty performance issues (like quite a few Linux folk seem to be doing now), then perhaps, yes, Solaris might be able to make a sizable dent in the Linux market by pushing it out for free. But right now, it's got no hope.
Its/possible/ for someone at the other end of the wire to send packets to you with a destination-IP of 127.0.0.1, and your box will happily accept them. Sure, this is a long-shot, and there's no way the hacker at the central-office will get a response, but there are a lot of attacks that dont need responses.
Firewalling is what you want, either on that box, or a separate one.
A cable modem isnt going to be pushing more than around 384k, with full-sized ethernet packets, 1500bytes = 12k-bits, you'll be pushing around 30 or 40 packets a second, 60 to 80 for bidirectonal... and a 486dx2-66 is going to be able to act as a router for that just fine.
Just because the results were executed in a rather clandestine fashion, it doesnt mean its wrong. Sure, I'd love to see some truely impartial tests done over as many DBMSs as possible, each test done both through the ODBC drivers and native drivers, so we can all see where the weaknesses and strengths lie. However...
The PostgreSQL folk have done a lot of work for version 7, both in terms of speed improvements and a really kick-ass transaction system (yes, you should be using transactions). Perhaps some of you folk should consider giving it another look, rather than saying MySQL is better just because it has been in the past.
I think you'd be very well off using a Dig camera with USB, and a small laptop (such as a sony Vaio or Toshiba Libretto).
Sure, its not raid, but unless you're intending doing aerobatics in the aircraft, the laptops will survive. (you/are/ keeping the aircraft in balance, aren't you??:)
Slashdot Mirror
I was walking out of Fry's with a bag of stuff I bought. Their normal procedure is to check the bags and make sure it matches what's on the receipt, marking the receipt afterwards.
In this one instance, there was a long queue to get out, so I decided to bypass it as I would normally do. This one Fry's 'associate' demaded (ie, asked in a polite but demanding tone) I stop to have my bag checked. I decided to make an issue of this; the conversation went something like this:
"Excuse me sir, I need to check your bag." (No please).
"I refuse, sorry." (Smiles and keeps walking).
(Getting in the way). "I'm sorry, I do need to check your bag before you leave."
"Well, I'm sorry too, but under law, you have no right to check my bag without probable cause."
By this stage, we've got the attention of a supervisor, who came up to us, waited a moment to get the gist of the convesation, then guestured to me "Move along sir... sorry for the trouble".
A friend of mine had a similar experience, but, weirdly, the supervisor had said "Have we demanded that we search your bags, sir?" :)
"No."
"Then have a nice day, thank you."
In this case, I think the supervisor was worried that my friend might have complained that they were demanding to search bags. If anyone cares to notice, a lot of the signs saying that bags will be searched are worded in such a way that its not a demand, but a request. In California, at least
Transformation A: Add one.
Transformation B: Subtract one.
Folks will note that there are a lot of stores out there that say they'd like to search your bags, but the wording is very carefully structured not to actually say they have a right to, because they know they don't.
I usually let them look at my bags and check my receipt (Fry's and Costco are generally the ones that do this), just to keep them happy. It's no skin off my nose. Unless, of course, there's a huge line in which case I'll just bypass the line; noone ever stops me.
Someone mentioned that AT&T have a special service for their telephone-surfer users, where merchants pay (either a flat fee, or a commission of sales) in exchange for primary listings. Perhaps AT&T intend to extend this pricing plan to the Web instead...
Consider this. AT&T offer to colcate a merchant's web site at their facilities. Nice and fast (one would hope). AT&T do not charge any colocation fees at all, but, charge a very small commission on any sales from that site. (Part of the agreement would be that the merchant use AT&Ts web shopping facilities, sorta like Telstra's SureLink (which absolutely sucks, btw)). Being AT&T, they'd be able to get a phenomanally good merchant rate for their credit card transations, and they can use the margin on that to get their profits up. If the margin isn't enough, then they can sting the merchant for a small amount, but the merchant is still happy as they've had no outgoings for their web site, and get primary listings in front of AT&T's broadband customers.
I think something like that would work, and isn't too far from what the article was saying.
I still think it sucks, though. If I was to get a service from AT&T, I would want it to be generic... and not a 'AOL flavoured' style service.
If you're in Australia (who's GSM coverage is excellent), or one of the european countries, etc. then getting a GSM mobile with the paging service makes sense; you'd be hard pushed to find an area that GSM doesn't cover. Unfortunately, in the USA (to where I just moved), digital coverage via GSM or CDMA Is pretty woeful. And... you dont get your paging service when you're in a analogue receiving area.
HOWEVER... you get skytel just about anywhere.
Our tests showed that on almost any parameter you could name (memory consumption, context switch time, IO performance, reboot performance), Solaris was generally a factor of TWO slower.
About the only thing solaris was quick at was shutting down :)
The lineo version was one that ran in kernel space. Nifty in that it intelligently split out input from the keyboard and input from the CueCat.
In the normal TCP case (without syn-cookies or some other sort of security), the server will timeout in the 'SYN_RCVD' state and re-send the SYN/ACK. In the cookies case, it.... still just resends the SYN/ACK. The client is going to respond to a security-enabled SYN/ACK in just the same way as a non-security-enabled SYN/ACK. That's the beauty of it; the client is 'fooled' into sending back the necessary information to continue the conversation!
Remember, only the servers need to be changed. Therefore, only the servers where the sysadmin gives a hoot need to be changed.
However, having a smart NIC would be kinda cute, but its a BIG jump from the existing NICs. The existing hardware does not know anything about the IP layer currently.
It'll work just fine. IF the client doesnt get the SYN/ACK back, it'll just send another SYN, just like it does now. Ie, the client doesnt know the difference between the initial SYN being dropped on the way to the server, or the SYN/ACK being dropped on the way back to the client, so, the only thing it can do is send another SYN.
But... isnt 'unix' the singular of 'multix' ??
Yes. RPM 4 is supposed to include many features that apt-get supplied. RPM 4 should effectively do away with 3rd-party applications (such as autorpm).
For all we know, Salcedo could just be a script kiddie... hiring him would be more than useless.
What you're seeing is not a lack of colour - distinguishing colours in a 24-bit colour space is exceptionally difficult - but instead yet another compression artifact. The algorithm is deciding for you not to give you a continuous colour gradient as the colours aren't different enough.
So... dropping the colour space of the display really isn't going to have that much effect; 16-bit colour space is still pretty smooth.
You have to be joking... a R7000 running at 262MHz would kick a PII/600MHz's ass any day and twice on Sundays. Not to mention they run cool (less than 50W... you dont see heat-sinks on those babys)
However, the whole box as a whole is way expensive. But... the Cisco hardware is specifically designed to operate as a platform for their own software, which is really what you're paying the $$ for. Think of the hardware as a huge dongle for the software.
They're not the only company that operates like that, either :)
But, the lawyers are trying... trying their sweet little hearts out. But we can all see where this is going: there are laws upon laws upon laws being drafted and approved and upheld and ignored,etcetc. Does this remind anyone of spaghetti code? Thought so
So... do we continue to patch the spaghetti code, or do we convince the lawyers that their design is incorrect?
What it's saying is that the quiescent state of information is free (as in speech). Information locked up has to be kept locked tight; once it gets out in the open it can never be locked back up again. Ie, having information out in the open is the only stable state for information.
Information wants to be free in exactly the same way as a rock at a top of a hill wants to be at the bottom of a hill.
I'd say they probably have, and this is just a 'broadcast' for those they might have missed to speak up.
I take exception to that. I think they're getting way better... but we don't seem to be using these 'better' CPUs as they're not x86 compatible. The x86 design is old, and outdated. There are much better alternatives out there (for example, power-PC and MIPS), but we don't seem to be using them very much. Why? Because there's a large bottleneck in getting these much better CPU's running with, for example, our linux systems.
As soon as a large hardware manufacturer decides to up the ante and design a MB and CPU-slot combination that allows us to chop-and-change our CPU types, thus commoditizing the CPU, then we're gonna see some real improvements.
Of course, Intel and AMD are going to try and stop this, as it reduces the value of their product... which would explain the frivilous CPU-slot changes we've been seeing in the past couple of weeks.
Word Perfect was the first word processor to automatically line-number documents, which are required for the legal profession.
That's just trying to justify the software by pointing at the hardware. I agree that they were created for different tasks.
1. Linux wont run well on SMP sparc machines.
2. Solaris has lots of extra goodies that Linux doesnt have (such as support for hot-swap hardware, and some really nice volume management).
If you, as a user, need those things, plus the myriad others, then you're going to need to use a 'high-end' OS. But... I really cant see it justifying Solaris' poor performance on the low end machines. Sure, that might just mean that's not where Sunsoft's focus is, but that doesn't make it right.
If Sunsoft decided to put more effort into the nitty-gritty performance issues (like quite a few Linux folk seem to be doing now), then perhaps, yes, Solaris might be able to make a sizable dent in the Linux market by pushing it out for free. But right now, it's got no hope.
That's not a very good solution.
/possible/ for someone at the other end of the wire to send packets to you with a destination-IP of 127.0.0.1, and your box will happily accept them. Sure, this is a long-shot, and there's no way the hacker at the central-office will get a response, but there are a lot of attacks that dont need responses.
Its
Firewalling is what you want, either on that box, or a separate one.
A cable modem isnt going to be pushing more than around 384k, with full-sized ethernet packets, 1500bytes = 12k-bits, you'll be pushing around 30 or 40 packets a second, 60 to 80 for bidirectonal... and a 486dx2-66 is going to be able to act as a router for that just fine.
Whoa! Lookit all the pro-MySQL comments!
Just because the results were executed in a rather clandestine fashion, it doesnt mean its wrong. Sure, I'd love to see some truely impartial tests done over as many DBMSs as possible, each test done both through the ODBC drivers and native drivers, so we can all see where the weaknesses and strengths lie. However...
The PostgreSQL folk have done a lot of work for version 7, both in terms of speed improvements and a really kick-ass transaction system (yes, you should be using transactions). Perhaps some of you folk should consider giving it another look, rather than saying MySQL is better just because it has been in the past.
I think you'd be very well off using a Dig camera with USB, and a small laptop (such as a sony Vaio or Toshiba Libretto).
/are/ keeping the aircraft in balance, aren't you?? :)
Sure, its not raid, but unless you're intending doing aerobatics in the aircraft, the laptops will survive. (you