I've never used it but I had to look at it once. Price drove us away for our relatively small project but from what I remember it was very flexible and powerful. I'm sure plenty of people out here have had experience with it, good or bad.
How about just rejecting messages with HTML content. Even the ones sent to me from family members I could chalk up as spam. Or atleast anything containing an IMG tag.
I'm just waiting for my boss to see some of the porno spam that comes in, complete with tags.
They're apparently going after any large entity that is an enabler of copyright infringement against them, so where will they stop? They've gone after indexing services, now they're going to internet providers. Isn't the RIAA already working on something against any portable MP3 players?
Who's next, PC manufacturers. After all, if we didn't have fast machines, then it would take to long to encode an MP3, and therefore make it easier on them.
As far as Gnutella, why doesn't everyone just change their settings to the same network speed. Everybody say they're a 56k user until this is over. I wouldn't think they could get away with singling out several users without going after all of them.
I vaguely remember this. The warez sites have disclaimers stating this. But even if this loophole existed, it would probably only be for sites that allow users to upload without verification. I don't think it would apply to file sharing utils since the users know what the files they're sharing are.
Good idea turning it down. I would think that following requests like that could get a person into some legal problems.
However, I'd see no problem performing such tasks if it was proposed by the court itself, and not the legal teams. I could see it being used for traffic cases mostly, just because the physics of a car ramming another is more predictable than somebody stabbing another person and running away.
This could also be used in aircraft crash simulations to show how close another aircraft must have been:)
Hello, this isn't new technology folks. This method of internet communication has been available as long as computer networking has. Has anybody stopped to ask why this hasn't been used before? Well, the answer is that isn't not the best solution.
You're working at a company with 100 workstations. You aren't going to setup a peer-peer network, you're going to setup a central server because that's the best solution.
It's the best solution for performance and maintenance. The only factor where the central server model isn't better, is in cost. In the business arena, cost isn't that big of an issue. Companies understand it will be cheaper in the long run for them to have a central server than try to maintain several workstations that all require each other to be operational %100 of the time.
Also please note that my examples are for mid to large sized companies. I know most small offices will use a peer-peer setup. Those offices also only have a small number of workstations, say about 5. Noticing any similarities to Gnutella problems yet?
Peer to peer has it's place. The Napster model is pretty good. It has a central server for queries, but the actual data is served from a peer connection. This doesn't address any reliability issues but it is a good midpoint for the performance/maintenance/cost factors.
Lets all face it, peer to peer could possibly be perfect down the road. The only problem is increasing the speed/capacity/bandwidth of the current peers.
That brings about another point, peer means something equal. A workstation connecting to a server uses the same TCP protocol as one connecting to another workstation, however we don't define them as peers. Peer to peer MUST hold true to it's definition for it to be useful. Servers talking to servers are peer to peer. 56k user - 56k users are peers. 14k users to DSL users are not peers.
Widespread usefullness of peer to peer is a ways off. It's still evolving. It wasn't that long ago that we all used ANSI BBSes on 2400 baud modems. We evolved from that, and are still continuing to. Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's the solution for everything right now.
Everybody seems to be thinking along technical guidelines as far as patents go. Especially everybody on/. that works in a high tech field. We usually like our answers in x = y + 1 format. Well that can't exist when you're judging the obviousness of something new. There's no reference point.
Everybody seems to be attempting to find a single flaw in this idea and implementation of a patent system but there are many flaws. Patents have existing for over a century and the process has really not been updated since creation. We have a hundred year old process being used to regulate an environment that changes daily. We also have corporations that abuse the flaws in this outdated system and lawyers that encourage them.
The idea of a patent is really something that will protect an idea, which in itself is a vague summary of a process that has not been implemented. For a patent to be granted, you should be required to provide an implementation to demonstrate the actual end result. Then the end results should be included in the evaluation of its worthiness of a patent as well as the enforcement of the patent. You can't evaluate a process if you can't see how that process will and can be used.
For demonstration purposes, read the following patent claim. Take a step back and pretend you are not a computer guru. Would you be able to evaluate this as obvious. If I put myself in "impartial mode", I wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about. If I come back to reality, what they are talking about could be something like a complex encryption mechanism that will only allow certain machines to access certain parts of a file. Or, it could be something as simple as an XML file with tag attributes indicating whether or not end users should be provided with the enclosed information. If there were an actual demonstration of their intentions and implementation of this, then it's validity could easily be judged.
They sold a trip to Mir, that was the agreement. They owned Mir. They don't own the ISS. It is being planned, manufactured, and financed by several different countries. The truth is, Russia isn't shouldering an equal share of the cost.
I'm sure this situation was never planned for during the initial discussions with other countries before they committed to building the station. Since it was never planned for, it should not be allowed. All countries involved should remain in full compliance with their initial plans for construction, in the name of cooperation. To me this is Russia's problem to deal with. They sold something they could not provide in the end. They should refund the money.
The RIAA should just drop the Napster lawsuit and get into biotechnology. That way they can replace our ears with digital devices that will automatically bill our credit card whenever we hear one of their copyrighted songs. Then it doesn't matter if you overheard somebody's radio on the street, the poverty stricken RIAA gets their fair share.
What happens when you turn your head 90 degrees so you can look next to yourself in a game. Sounds pretty limiting for gaming, unless you have a nice 4 monitor setup.
The alignment process can't be too comfortable if you have something attached to your head. You can't move around in your chair.
I'd much rather have something that can watch my eyeballs, but then again, while I'm reading a webpage, my mouse would continually be hovering over the text I'm reading.
I read that MS is going to release a patch for this problem, that basically turns on the certificate revocation checking in IE. However, they say it'll take a week to get ready. Obviously they are doing some other stuff in there if it's going to take a week. That flag is only a simple registry setting. What they could be doing, I don't know.
Just wondering, would they do this if somebody else's certificate got stolen, or would they make it easy for another 3rd-party to accomplish whatever they are going to put in this patch? Is this strictly a priviledge of owning the OS and the browser?
Isn't this what America is all about right now, convenience = money?
You can still get the updates for free. It's like buying a Mandrake distro at Wal-Mart. You could download it for free (not including broadband costs), or your could spend $25 to get it right away.
Don't use HREF tags AT ALL. Instead of posting Slashdot, post http://www.slashdot.org. See the diff between an HREF tag and plain text. Sorry if "plain text" is too complicated of a topic for you.
How bout you guys stop posting actual HTML links and just put the URL in clear text. That should take care of half the people that would be too lazy to cut and paste.
Another small site gets/.ed again. How bout' a new poll:
Average number of articles per day that you cannot discuss because the referenced site has been taken down?
1
2
3
CowboyNeal
OR how bout:
Average time it takes to post a message because/. is so overloaded?
30 seconds
1-4 minutes
5+ minutes
Never been able to actually get a post to go through
CowboyNeal
In any case, my opinions are ignored anyways. Gotta love that moderation system. Only allow the Karma whores to moderate. That's akin to putting an oil cartel in charge of the EPA.
Re:Cool, but not trivial
on
Inside XML
·
· Score: 2
I'm sure you could print a ream of paper about ANSI. Does that make it complex? No.
The following are the only reasons I can think of about why somebody would have even one 2" binder on XML.
They are writing a parser and want it to adhere to the specs.
They are anal-retentive and absolutely have to know everything about everything or they feel they now nothing.
They feel they're more professional if they have large binders full of "specs" to make them seem more intelligent to clients/PHBs/co-workers.
They truly don't understand the simplicity of a given subject and make it more complex than it is.
Sadly, it's the last bunch that seems to have the most influence and usually end up bastardizing everything they touch into something it should have never been.
Let's get one thing straight. XML is nothing more than a fucking file format! If you need anything more than a basic structure of the format then you are stupid. If you need a book to tell you absolutely every way to use the format in every language, then you are also the laziest person on the planet. You want to parse an XML file in Perl, spend 3 minutes glancing over the XML::Parser mod. You want to do it for Windows, spend 10 minutes browsing the DOM reference on MSDN. Its so basic, don't try to turn it into something complex so you can impress others.
If you can't understand it, then you must be a VB programmer probably on your way to upper management. If you would spend the time looking up how "&" is treated and discussing it in newsgroups instead of just putting one in an XML file and parsing it, then you already ARE upper management. Don't forget to mark on your time card, just exactly how much time you spent on research of a single character.
Just what the world needed... ...something so simple, idiots can understand it well enough to make themselves look smarter to other idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never used it but I had to look at it once. Price drove us away for our relatively small project but from what I remember it was very flexible and powerful. I'm sure plenty of people out here have had experience with it, good or bad.
How about just rejecting messages with HTML content. Even the ones sent to me from family members I could chalk up as spam. Or atleast anything containing an IMG tag.
I'm just waiting for my boss to see some of the porno spam that comes in, complete with tags.
They're apparently going after any large entity that is an enabler of copyright infringement against them, so where will they stop? They've gone after indexing services, now they're going to internet providers. Isn't the RIAA already working on something against any portable MP3 players?
Who's next, PC manufacturers. After all, if we didn't have fast machines, then it would take to long to encode an MP3, and therefore make it easier on them.
As far as Gnutella, why doesn't everyone just change their settings to the same network speed. Everybody say they're a 56k user until this is over. I wouldn't think they could get away with singling out several users without going after all of them.
I vaguely remember this. The warez sites have disclaimers stating this. But even if this loophole existed, it would probably only be for sites that allow users to upload without verification. I don't think it would apply to file sharing utils since the users know what the files they're sharing are.
That way we could all flame the ICANN members.
Oh, I forgot. The makers of SlashCode don't even bother to read the responses to the articles they post.
I speculate that anybody that speculates about something technological changing everything doesn't learn from the past.
The motto is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters". The motto isn't prefixed with "Recent"
No fraudulent advertising here. Move along now citizens.
Good idea turning it down. I would think that following requests like that could get a person into some legal problems.
:)
However, I'd see no problem performing such tasks if it was proposed by the court itself, and not the legal teams. I could see it being used for traffic cases mostly, just because the physics of a car ramming another is more predictable than somebody stabbing another person and running away.
This could also be used in aircraft crash simulations to show how close another aircraft must have been
Dear CmdrTaco's Butt:
Hello, this isn't new technology folks. This method of internet communication has been available as long as computer networking has. Has anybody stopped to ask why this hasn't been used before? Well, the answer is that isn't not the best solution.
You're working at a company with 100 workstations. You aren't going to setup a peer-peer network, you're going to setup a central server because that's the best solution.
It's the best solution for performance and maintenance. The only factor where the central server model isn't better, is in cost. In the business arena, cost isn't that big of an issue. Companies understand it will be cheaper in the long run for them to have a central server than try to maintain several workstations that all require each other to be operational %100 of the time.
Also please note that my examples are for mid to large sized companies. I know most small offices will use a peer-peer setup. Those offices also only have a small number of workstations, say about 5. Noticing any similarities to Gnutella problems yet?
Peer to peer has it's place. The Napster model is pretty good. It has a central server for queries, but the actual data is served from a peer connection. This doesn't address any reliability issues but it is a good midpoint for the performance/maintenance/cost factors.
Lets all face it, peer to peer could possibly be perfect down the road. The only problem is increasing the speed/capacity/bandwidth of the current peers.
That brings about another point, peer means something equal. A workstation connecting to a server uses the same TCP protocol as one connecting to another workstation, however we don't define them as peers. Peer to peer MUST hold true to it's definition for it to be useful. Servers talking to servers are peer to peer. 56k user - 56k users are peers. 14k users to DSL users are not peers.
Widespread usefullness of peer to peer is a ways off. It's still evolving. It wasn't that long ago that we all used ANSI BBSes on 2400 baud modems. We evolved from that, and are still continuing to. Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's the solution for everything right now.
I really hate it when a site gets /.ed, but in this case it sounds like they deserve it. Of course, only the DB was /.ed, the site still remains.
That's actually pretty good. And I thought all the ASCII artist have perished. Too bad you can't do ANSI in a browser.
Everybody seems to be thinking along technical guidelines as far as patents go. Especially everybody on /. that works in a high tech field. We usually like our answers in x = y + 1 format. Well that can't exist when you're judging the obviousness of something new. There's no reference point.
Everybody seems to be attempting to find a single flaw in this idea and implementation of a patent system but there are many flaws. Patents have existing for over a century and the process has really not been updated since creation. We have a hundred year old process being used to regulate an environment that changes daily. We also have corporations that abuse the flaws in this outdated system and lawyers that encourage them.
The idea of a patent is really something that will protect an idea, which in itself is a vague summary of a process that has not been implemented. For a patent to be granted, you should be required to provide an implementation to demonstrate the actual end result. Then the end results should be included in the evaluation of its worthiness of a patent as well as the enforcement of the patent. You can't evaluate a process if you can't see how that process will and can be used.
For demonstration purposes, read the following patent claim. Take a step back and pretend you are not a computer guru. Would you be able to evaluate this as obvious. If I put myself in "impartial mode", I wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about. If I come back to reality, what they are talking about could be something like a complex encryption mechanism that will only allow certain machines to access certain parts of a file. Or, it could be something as simple as an XML file with tag attributes indicating whether or not end users should be provided with the enclosed information. If there were an actual demonstration of their intentions and implementation of this, then it's validity could easily be judged.
They sold a trip to Mir, that was the agreement. They owned Mir. They don't own the ISS. It is being planned, manufactured, and financed by several different countries. The truth is, Russia isn't shouldering an equal share of the cost.
I'm sure this situation was never planned for during the initial discussions with other countries before they committed to building the station. Since it was never planned for, it should not be allowed. All countries involved should remain in full compliance with their initial plans for construction, in the name of cooperation. To me this is Russia's problem to deal with. They sold something they could not provide in the end. They should refund the money.
The RIAA should just drop the Napster lawsuit and get into biotechnology. That way they can replace our ears with digital devices that will automatically bill our credit card whenever we hear one of their copyrighted songs. Then it doesn't matter if you overheard somebody's radio on the street, the poverty stricken RIAA gets their fair share.
What happens when you turn your head 90 degrees so you can look next to yourself in a game. Sounds pretty limiting for gaming, unless you have a nice 4 monitor setup.
The alignment process can't be too comfortable if you have something attached to your head. You can't move around in your chair.
I'd much rather have something that can watch my eyeballs, but then again, while I'm reading a webpage, my mouse would continually be hovering over the text I'm reading.
I read that MS is going to release a patch for this problem, that basically turns on the certificate revocation checking in IE. However, they say it'll take a week to get ready. Obviously they are doing some other stuff in there if it's going to take a week. That flag is only a simple registry setting. What they could be doing, I don't know.
Just wondering, would they do this if somebody else's certificate got stolen, or would they make it easy for another 3rd-party to accomplish whatever they are going to put in this patch? Is this strictly a priviledge of owning the OS and the browser?
Uh, you use VB. You deserve what you get.
Did you forget this Mr. Taco.
Isn't this what America is all about right now, convenience = money?
You can still get the updates for free. It's like buying a Mandrake distro at Wal-Mart. You could download it for free (not including broadband costs), or your could spend $25 to get it right away.
The point was to keep click-happy people from slashdotting sites.
I meant:
Don't use HREF tags AT ALL. Instead of posting Slashdot, post http://www.slashdot.org. See the diff between an HREF tag and plain text. Sorry if "plain text" is too complicated of a topic for you.
No, not servers, this message.
How bout you guys stop posting actual HTML links and just put the URL in clear text. That should take care of half the people that would be too lazy to cut and paste.
You're right.
/.
I'm going to start taking anger management classes. I feel I need more than 2048 characters to vent my frustrations with
Average number of articles per day that you cannot discuss because the referenced site has been taken down?
1
2
3
CowboyNeal
/. is so overloaded?
OR how bout:
Average time it takes to post a message because
30 seconds
1-4 minutes
5+ minutes
Never been able to actually get a post to go through
CowboyNeal
In any case, my opinions are ignored anyways. Gotta love that moderation system. Only allow the Karma whores to moderate. That's akin to putting an oil cartel in charge of the EPA.
The following are the only reasons I can think of about why somebody would have even one 2" binder on XML.
They are writing a parser and want it to adhere to the specs.
They are anal-retentive and absolutely have to know everything about everything or they feel they now nothing.
They feel they're more professional if they have large binders full of "specs" to make them seem more intelligent to clients/PHBs/co-workers.
They truly don't understand the simplicity of a given subject and make it more complex than it is.
Sadly, it's the last bunch that seems to have the most influence and usually end up bastardizing everything they touch into something it should have never been.
Let's get one thing straight. XML is nothing more than a fucking file format! If you need anything more than a basic structure of the format then you are stupid. If you need a book to tell you absolutely every way to use the format in every language, then you are also the laziest person on the planet. You want to parse an XML file in Perl, spend 3 minutes glancing over the XML::Parser mod. You want to do it for Windows, spend 10 minutes browsing the DOM reference on MSDN. Its so basic, don't try to turn it into something complex so you can impress others.
If you can't understand it, then you must be a VB programmer probably on your way to upper management. If you would spend the time looking up how "&" is treated and discussing it in newsgroups instead of just putting one in an XML file and parsing it, then you already ARE upper management. Don't forget to mark on your time card, just exactly how much time you spent on research of a single character.
Just what the world needed...
...something so simple, idiots can understand it well enough to make themselves look smarter to other idiots.