Of course, it was absolutely GENIOUS to do this as opposed to, say, making a folder called "pre-delete" and just doing a mv file/pre-delete. Somebody has to spell it out and alias that command to rm for them...
Even with the assumption that FTP takes more proc time than HTTP, proc time is not going to be the limiting factor, at least not between protocl types. If you're hitting your proc limit on an FTP server before your bandwidth limit, you either have a really big pipe or a really shitty server.
Quote: At a maintainable given speed, it is possible to serve more files on a server via HTTP that via FTP. FTP works for maintaining that given speed. You're missing the point of that. Bandwidth isn't unlimited, and it's about speed and time of download... FTP's userlimiting function is meant to keep the bandwidth from being divided up too much to be of great use; ANDI've managed sites that take millions of hits a day and servers with tens of thousands of individual web sites.:-P I don't care. You're focusing entirely on small files where initial connection overhead is the big factor. I'm making this as a general point.
And on a personal note, you can kiss my ass for the whole LART thing at the beginning. That was stupid and a great display of being a complete jerk-off. I read the post, and I'm not stupid or in need of a change of mind frame because I disagree with you, and I can use technical information to backup my disagreement. Thank you.
Umm... https != http. https is http in an SSL layer... so I maintain that http auth sucks, and the security is given by SSL, just as I mentioned above.
Within Windows, yes. There are parts of the hard disk that the user can't access... namely places meant for things other than files. This isn't actually a restiction of Windows, but rather a lack of the facilities to do it. However, if software can reach it, the user can reach it with software. `dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda` has no limits, and will get anything.
HTTP auth isn't all that secure either. Frankly, HTTP's upload mechanism is rather sucky as well. And FTP user/pass exchanges can certainly be dropped into an encrypted layer, the same way HTTP works with SSL.
"Sorry, but I live behind various firewalls and am sick to death of FTP. The sooner it dies, the better." Maybe your firewall is stupid, or is intentionally denying it?
For the record, that is a naive, and possibly flat stupid comment. Limiting FTP connections is preventing an equivalent/.ing. Most FTP sites hold large amounts of files, or just plain large files. It's a way for the admin to keep things under control and guarantee the server doesn't fall apart as it would with HTTP. Just wait 'til you get an HTTP site that gets maxed on traffic - HTTP server too busy messages really suck... sometimes you don't even get the connection.
The theory to it works like this: everybody should be able to download at a minimum of speed $X. Any slower and it's not very usable, or takes too long. We have $Y bandwidth. $Y / $X = number of connections. Add on a few connections for idle or slower sets, and there you have it. Wonder why they limit it...
I have broadband. I legally generate much more than 1 gig per day, and within the terms of my provider. Streaming radio from Digitally Imported for more than a few hours helps out quite a bit, software packages for remote servers, moving images around, and looking at stuff on photo.net. Not to mention my 400 e-mail per day traffic. Add onto that the use of 2 other machines in the house by other people, and you've got your gig a day. We pay for something advertised as providing a certain speed, and expect exactly that. Frankly, I'm unhappy with the fact that my connection is asymetrical. One way or another, bandwidth is to be sold as just that: the capacity of the pipe per second. Bursting is another issue, but I'm not up for that debate right now.
I'm sure you can imagine what happens when I do publishing work. Uploading and downloading a single page of a yearbook to be printed is a number of megs.
Actually, I'd like to clarify this a bit: letters of marque and reprisal are noted in the Constitution saying the government may issue them. This article references them and explains things decently enough. Unknown to the author's article, the Declaration of Paris was signed by the United States, and in short nullifies our ability to issues letters of marque and reprisal. However, this was all in reference to maritime war law... nothing was noted that could be construed to offer protection, except perhaps against civilian networks.
Civilian involvement? Letters of marque and reprisal have been banned by international treaty, but those traditionally apply to physical battle. Will the script kiddies rain on Iraq?
I want the CD... I want to go into a store and purchase the music of a good artist, and I want to hear other music of their's - I just don't want to pay $15-$22 for every one of them! It just might be the idea of "make me 15 tracks, 2 of which are good," that turns people off from buying CDs. I'm a customer, I'm speaking - LEARN!
Anything from mid-level management or the marketing department would immediately be marked as spam and trashed. Maybe not very important in the first place, but you'd at least need to be able to say "yeah, I saw the memo on the TPS reports."
Copy the actual DB file perhaps? Granted if you're only trying to do individual tables then you'll need to modify that idea a little bit, but that's something...
Because it's very standard. Nothing special in that file, and it can be manipulated as if it were text. If you don't like the efficiency (I don't when it come to large dumps), pipe it to bzip2 or something. Efficient!
Notice that on their site the graph indicates that the page was linked on Slashdot at around 1:30 AM. Their actual peak traffic wasn't until 8 hours later. So instead of being truly hammered by the/. effect, they were able to watch it trail off through the day, probably with a lower number of hits than they would have had if, say, the referring article were posted mid-day. I suspect that if the refering link was posted in/.'s front page during a peak traffic time things would have been far heavier. Basically, as far as Slashdotting is concerned, this was probably a best-case scenario. How many people actually scroll down more than a fold's worth when reading/.? They probably missed out on a huge Slashdotting because of that. Lucky them.
Yeah, but they either changed and became crappy, or the world changed around them and made them crappy. Google won't become less popular unless somebody can 2-up 'em (1 isn't enough), or the do the same thing and fuck up - neither of which I expect to see happening.
For those of us who work directly with film enlargers, there is a saying: "Into every life some grain must fall." A decent, fine grained film will beat out the current capacity of any scanner that currently exists for purchase, but film does have a close approximation to what we know as "pixelization." Take some higher speed film and blow it up to 8x10. Grain should be appearing under close examination at this point for any 800 speed film, 400 speed films with exposure off by more than a stop or 2, or worse. And of course, this all depends on the films emulsion. If you still don't see grain at 8x10, make it a larger print. Also note that you probably won't be able to tell on Wal-Mart paper - that whole crystal thing with their paper actually reduces the clarity of the image giving them more lattitude to correct your exposure mistakes in shooting the picture.
One thing to note though is that 35mm is not all that exists for film, unlike some people seem to believe. 120, 220 (known as roll films), 4x5 (inches!) and larger sizes with matching cameras are around for the pro photographer. Look into Hasselblad to get an idea of the top of the line. As another saying goes, there's nothing wrong with 35mm that 4x5 can't fix. Digital photography is coming to the point where it is better for sports photography with an SLR camera, and for most things 8x10 or something you want quickly. Higher quality images can still be taken with 35mm film, and neither of these formats can can match with roll film right now.
Seems kinda stupid to ask, but you know... it's like somebody asking which peddle is the gas and which is the brake, you can't REALLY be sure they're serious if you don't know them unless you ask again...
I hope it's sarcastic. If it's not sarcastic, you're failing to consider a lot of important issues that this country was founded upon.
An article similar to this was posted sometime over a year ago I'm certain where we discovered all sorts of interesting tidbits of humor within the kernel (mostly of words with expletives). It'd be easy to find if I could look back through all the comments I've posted (thanks/.), but I can't turn anything up via either Slashdot's search engine or Google... Anybody know what article this is?
Slashdot Mirror
...at the discretion of the school. Most of the school are pretty reluctant to let that happen as they become responsible for the cost of the machine.
Of course, it was absolutely GENIOUS to do this as opposed to, say, making a folder called "pre-delete" and just doing a mv file /pre-delete . Somebody has to spell it out and alias that command to rm for them...
GFCI - Ground Fault Circuit Interruptor.
Quote: At a maintainable given speed, it is possible to serve more files on a server via HTTP that via FTP. FTP works for maintaining that given speed. You're missing the point of that. Bandwidth isn't unlimited, and it's about speed and time of download... FTP's userlimiting function is meant to keep the bandwidth from being divided up too much to be of great use; AND I've managed sites that take millions of hits a day and servers with tens of thousands of individual web sites. :-P I don't care. You're focusing entirely on small files where initial connection overhead is the big factor. I'm making this as a general point.
And on a personal note, you can kiss my ass for the whole LART thing at the beginning. That was stupid and a great display of being a complete jerk-off. I read the post, and I'm not stupid or in need of a change of mind frame because I disagree with you, and I can use technical information to backup my disagreement. Thank you.
Umm... https != http. https is http in an SSL layer... so I maintain that http auth sucks, and the security is given by SSL, just as I mentioned above.
Within Windows, yes. There are parts of the hard disk that the user can't access... namely places meant for things other than files. This isn't actually a restiction of Windows, but rather a lack of the facilities to do it. However, if software can reach it, the user can reach it with software. `dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda` has no limits, and will get anything.
"Sorry, but I live behind various firewalls and am sick to death of FTP. The sooner it dies, the better." Maybe your firewall is stupid, or is intentionally denying it?
The theory to it works like this: everybody should be able to download at a minimum of speed $X. Any slower and it's not very usable, or takes too long. We have $Y bandwidth. $Y / $X = number of connections. Add on a few connections for idle or slower sets, and there you have it. Wonder why they limit it...
For hourly workers. Skilled salaried workers are in a different boat...
I'm sure you can imagine what happens when I do publishing work. Uploading and downloading a single page of a yearbook to be printed is a number of megs.
Actually, I'd like to clarify this a bit: letters of marque and reprisal are noted in the Constitution saying the government may issue them. This article references them and explains things decently enough. Unknown to the author's article, the Declaration of Paris was signed by the United States, and in short nullifies our ability to issues letters of marque and reprisal. However, this was all in reference to maritime war law... nothing was noted that could be construed to offer protection, except perhaps against civilian networks.
Civilian involvement? Letters of marque and reprisal have been banned by international treaty, but those traditionally apply to physical battle. Will the script kiddies rain on Iraq?
Well, umm, according to the post, he quit in 2000. At least 700 days ago - certainly long enough for the nickname to expire.
I want the CD... I want to go into a store and purchase the music of a good artist, and I want to hear other music of their's - I just don't want to pay $15-$22 for every one of them! It just might be the idea of "make me 15 tracks, 2 of which are good," that turns people off from buying CDs. I'm a customer, I'm speaking - LEARN!
Anything from mid-level management or the marketing department would immediately be marked as spam and trashed. Maybe not very important in the first place, but you'd at least need to be able to say "yeah, I saw the memo on the TPS reports."
Copy the actual DB file perhaps? Granted if you're only trying to do individual tables then you'll need to modify that idea a little bit, but that's something...
Because it's very standard. Nothing special in that file, and it can be manipulated as if it were text. If you don't like the efficiency (I don't when it come to large dumps), pipe it to bzip2 or something. Efficient!
The left hand washes the right hand, but only because it doesn't know what the right hand has been doing...
Notice that on their site the graph indicates that the page was linked on Slashdot at around 1:30 AM. Their actual peak traffic wasn't until 8 hours later. So instead of being truly hammered by the /. effect, they were able to watch it trail off through the day, probably with a lower number of hits than they would have had if, say, the referring article were posted mid-day. I suspect that if the refering link was posted in /.'s front page during a peak traffic time things would have been far heavier. Basically, as far as Slashdotting is concerned, this was probably a best-case scenario. How many people actually scroll down more than a fold's worth when reading /.? They probably missed out on a huge Slashdotting because of that. Lucky them.
Yeah, but they either changed and became crappy, or the world changed around them and made them crappy. Google won't become less popular unless somebody can 2-up 'em (1 isn't enough), or the do the same thing and fuck up - neither of which I expect to see happening.
Modem?
One thing to note though is that 35mm is not all that exists for film, unlike some people seem to believe. 120, 220 (known as roll films), 4x5 (inches!) and larger sizes with matching cameras are around for the pro photographer. Look into Hasselblad to get an idea of the top of the line. As another saying goes, there's nothing wrong with 35mm that 4x5 can't fix. Digital photography is coming to the point where it is better for sports photography with an SLR camera, and for most things 8x10 or something you want quickly. Higher quality images can still be taken with 35mm film, and neither of these formats can can match with roll film right now.
I hope it's sarcastic. If it's not sarcastic, you're failing to consider a lot of important issues that this country was founded upon.
No, it was one of the discussions here on /. - around the time that 2.4 came out, IIRC.
An article similar to this was posted sometime over a year ago I'm certain where we discovered all sorts of interesting tidbits of humor within the kernel (mostly of words with expletives). It'd be easy to find if I could look back through all the comments I've posted (thanks /.), but I can't turn anything up via either Slashdot's search engine or Google... Anybody know what article this is?