Actually, it would be xenophia if you didn't like to use a cashier lane staffed by a foreigner. If you were afraid of the machines, it would be technophobia.
You've fallen into a false dichotomy: it was both an opinion and flamebait. In fact, if you think about it, most flamebait comments are opinions, particularly contentious opinions.
I agree about Pepsi. I prefer Coke to Pepsi partly because it tastes less sweet to me, though I don't drink either one very often. I think I'd like a Coke with less sugar even better. Why don't they sell a variant with reduced sugar, rather than replacing the good stuff with nasty aspartame or sucralose? I usually drink coffee, which I can brew and sweeten to my own taste, water, and fruit juices.
Many bottled waters are just "tap water," though hopefully from a better area than where I live. I just run my tap water through a filter pitcher and it tastes great. All the materials and energy expended to transport the bottled water to those with money to burn can't be good.
Not only are both sucrose and fructose simple sugars, but fructose and glucose (which honey also contains) are simpler than sucrose. Honey may have valuable nutrients other than the sugars in small amounts, which might be why some say it's healthier to eat than super-refined sucrose. I prefer raw cane sugar because I think it has more flavor than the pure white stuff, but I have no idea if it has other valuable nutrients.
I understand not wanting to support what you see as an exploitive system in a third world country, but do the workers there do when they lose that work? Should they come to North America where labor is more fairly regulated? It seems a lot of people are complaining about that too.
Yeah, asking for money is a sure sign of shady business practices. And with a super-duper proprietary and closed protocol, you know it has to be secure.
Yeah, you're probably right that an application that doesn't need reliable message delivery would get unnecessary overhead with SCTP and should probably stick with UDP.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, though you gave some more details. TCP SYN cookies are limited because they are not an official part of the protocol, but a hack added in implementations. As you say, SCTP's cookies are more advanced, but must be at least partly inspired by TCP SYN cookies.
If you read section 5.1.3 of RFC 2960 (SCTP), you'll see that not only is the server not required to remember anything about a received INIT, but that, "After sending the INIT ACK with the State Cookie parameter, the sender SHOULD delete the TCB and any other local resource related to the new association, so as to prevent resource attacks."
That means that just like when the server is using SYN cookies with TCP, an attacker would have to fully open a connection/association to attempt a DOS attack. An invalid cookie sent with in a COOKIE ECHO is simply ignored.
Read about SYN Cookies. This is a method of avoiding SYN DOS attacks that has already been implemented in Linux (and probably elsewhere) for a while. I think SCTP just integrates the same concept into the official protocol specification. Once the SCTP server sends the INIT-ACK, it doesn't have to keep track of that association until the client sends a COOKIE-ECHO.
It sounds to me like SCTP was designed to allow the same capabilities as both TCP and UDP within the same protocol. The designers had the benefit of seeing the advantages and disadvantages of both protocols over the many years of application implementation. Using SCTP won't necessarily make any particular application better than it could be done with either TCP or UDP or a combination of two, but it will probably make the implementation simpler and easier, especially when you would otherwise need to use both TCP and UDP in the same application or when you need failover.
Yes, I think you did miss something. Why would hearbeat require a bigger routing table? Perhaps you're confusing multi-homing with multicasting. And who's this Youd character?
Cool'n Quiet is basically CPU frequency scaling. It works quite well on my desktop machine. I just use Linux's ondemand cpu governor and the CPU stays at 1GHz most of time. Whenever it needs it, it bumps itself up to 2GHz. The motherboard can keep the CPU fan spinning more slowly (because the CPU is cooler) and I never notice the difference in performance.
C'mon, let me just suck in the whole band from 88-108MHz and separate the stations in software.
You mean like with GNU Radio? It sounds like it would take some real DIY (or expensive) hardware and probably not insignificant CPU cycles, but it would be cool.
I think you're exactly right. The issue isn't who gets the file in the end, it's whose network does the heavy lifting. When I connect to a torrent, I typically download the whole file in less than an hour, but stay connected for at least several hours until I've uploaded more than I downloaded. If I wasn't so generous, I could disconnect as soon as I had the whole file. I don't think the private tracker people care who gets the file in the end, just if people are leeching like that.
Have you ever seen Nova? You'd be hard-pressed to find a more consistently interesting and informative show. Sure there's lots of boring or crappy stuff on PBS, but which network is all good?
So what exactly was your point? Were you just trying to say that there have been instances of organizations (though not the US government) removing certain objectionable books from certain locations within the US? I agree that many of those removals seem silly or harmful, but I don't think it has much to do with the question of patents.
As for patents, I'm not even sure that algorithms should be patentable. That seems a significant departure from the concept of patentable things originally implemented by the USPTO. However, I haven't studied the law or specific examples enough to make up my mind yet.
By referring to the "the US' banned books list," you imply that the Federal government has a master list of books that are disallowed in the the United States. However, it's really a list of books that have been removed in very specific, local contexts, usually school libraries. If the US patents on storylines were enforced, it would be much more repressive than any current banning.
It may be stupid to reply to an AC, but yes, it is legal to associate with anyone (even this hypothetical "Al Quida" person) as long as you're not committing specific crimes or conspiring to commit such crimes. The big congressional Communist witch hunts in the 1950's are a good example of an attack on free association. There were Communists with schemes to subvert the US government, but simply knowing some pinkos doesn't make one a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably not healthy for either your car or body to ingest isopropyl. Ethanol in moderate amounts is unlikely to be harmful to either.
Actually, it would be xenophia if you didn't like to use a cashier lane staffed by a foreigner. If you were afraid of the machines, it would be technophobia.
Wikipedia seems to think so.
I'm almost positive my mother hasn't seen it.
You've fallen into a false dichotomy: it was both an opinion and flamebait. In fact, if you think about it, most flamebait comments are opinions, particularly contentious opinions.
I agree about Pepsi. I prefer Coke to Pepsi partly because it tastes less sweet to me, though I don't drink either one very often. I think I'd like a Coke with less sugar even better. Why don't they sell a variant with reduced sugar, rather than replacing the good stuff with nasty aspartame or sucralose? I usually drink coffee, which I can brew and sweeten to my own taste, water, and fruit juices.
Many bottled waters are just "tap water," though hopefully from a better area than where I live. I just run my tap water through a filter pitcher and it tastes great. All the materials and energy expended to transport the bottled water to those with money to burn can't be good.
Not only are both sucrose and fructose simple sugars, but fructose and glucose (which honey also contains) are simpler than sucrose. Honey may have valuable nutrients other than the sugars in small amounts, which might be why some say it's healthier to eat than super-refined sucrose. I prefer raw cane sugar because I think it has more flavor than the pure white stuff, but I have no idea if it has other valuable nutrients.
I understand not wanting to support what you see as an exploitive system in a third world country, but do the workers there do when they lose that work? Should they come to North America where labor is more fairly regulated? It seems a lot of people are complaining about that too.
Yeah, asking for money is a sure sign of shady business practices. And with a super-duper proprietary and closed protocol, you know it has to be secure.
Yeah, you're probably right that an application that doesn't need reliable message delivery would get unnecessary overhead with SCTP and should probably stick with UDP.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, though you gave some more details. TCP SYN cookies are limited because they are not an official part of the protocol, but a hack added in implementations. As you say, SCTP's cookies are more advanced, but must be at least partly inspired by TCP SYN cookies.
The fair use principle applies to copyright, not reverse engineering.
If you read section 5.1.3 of RFC 2960 (SCTP), you'll see that not only is the server not required to remember anything about a received INIT, but that, "After sending the INIT ACK with the State Cookie parameter, the sender SHOULD delete the TCB and any other local resource related to the new association, so as to prevent resource attacks."
That means that just like when the server is using SYN cookies with TCP, an attacker would have to fully open a connection/association to attempt a DOS attack. An invalid cookie sent with in a COOKIE ECHO is simply ignored.
Read about SYN Cookies. This is a method of avoiding SYN DOS attacks that has already been implemented in Linux (and probably elsewhere) for a while. I think SCTP just integrates the same concept into the official protocol specification. Once the SCTP server sends the INIT-ACK, it doesn't have to keep track of that association until the client sends a COOKIE-ECHO.
It sounds to me like SCTP was designed to allow the same capabilities as both TCP and UDP within the same protocol. The designers had the benefit of seeing the advantages and disadvantages of both protocols over the many years of application implementation. Using SCTP won't necessarily make any particular application better than it could be done with either TCP or UDP or a combination of two, but it will probably make the implementation simpler and easier, especially when you would otherwise need to use both TCP and UDP in the same application or when you need failover.
Yes, I think you did miss something. Why would hearbeat require a bigger routing table? Perhaps you're confusing multi-homing with multicasting. And who's this Youd character?
Cool'n Quiet is basically CPU frequency scaling. It works quite well on my desktop machine. I just use Linux's ondemand cpu governor and the CPU stays at 1GHz most of time. Whenever it needs it, it bumps itself up to 2GHz. The motherboard can keep the CPU fan spinning more slowly (because the CPU is cooler) and I never notice the difference in performance.
You mean, like an OpenMosix cluster of MythTV workstations?
You mean like with GNU Radio? It sounds like it would take some real DIY (or expensive) hardware and probably not insignificant CPU cycles, but it would be cool.
I think you're exactly right. The issue isn't who gets the file in the end, it's whose network does the heavy lifting. When I connect to a torrent, I typically download the whole file in less than an hour, but stay connected for at least several hours until I've uploaded more than I downloaded. If I wasn't so generous, I could disconnect as soon as I had the whole file. I don't think the private tracker people care who gets the file in the end, just if people are leeching like that.
Have you ever seen Nova? You'd be hard-pressed to find a more consistently interesting and informative show. Sure there's lots of boring or crappy stuff on PBS, but which network is all good?
So what exactly was your point? Were you just trying to say that there have been instances of organizations (though not the US government) removing certain objectionable books from certain locations within the US? I agree that many of those removals seem silly or harmful, but I don't think it has much to do with the question of patents.
As for patents, I'm not even sure that algorithms should be patentable. That seems a significant departure from the concept of patentable things originally implemented by the USPTO. However, I haven't studied the law or specific examples enough to make up my mind yet.
By referring to the "the US' banned books list," you imply that the Federal government has a master list of books that are disallowed in the the United States. However, it's really a list of books that have been removed in very specific, local contexts, usually school libraries. If the US patents on storylines were enforced, it would be much more repressive than any current banning.
It may be stupid to reply to an AC, but yes, it is legal to associate with anyone (even this hypothetical "Al Quida" person) as long as you're not committing specific crimes or conspiring to commit such crimes. The big congressional Communist witch hunts in the 1950's are a good example of an attack on free association. There were Communists with schemes to subvert the US government, but simply knowing some pinkos doesn't make one a criminal.