"You've reached the maximum number of times you can access users.pl: 201 accesses over 4 hours."
Well, I'm pretty sure I haven't. Lose it, or at least check the hostname of the client with a pattern like/(cache)|(proxy)/i and not apply limits if matches.
While these are good conceptual ideas, once a packet filter is implemented on a router, it consumes a huge amount of processing power and memory to then process every individual packet through that filter. This will lower an ISPs throughput significantly as each packet hits the filter.
Umm, how so? All packets are already routed based on the destination address, this would simply be routing based on origin address. And it would be really simple too, the routing table is very small since ISPs usually have large address blocks, plus there are just two possible routing options (destinations): kill and don't kill.
I've done that with butane from a lighter. The only problem was that plastic nozzle started to melt (and then burn) after a few seconds. It's not too unsafe because the gas in the reservoir is mostly butane, not enough oxygen for an explosion to happen (not much gas either, it would propably be a very small explosion in any case).
File and partion sizes are measured in 'real' kilo/mega/giga bytes, but the medium in which they are stored is measured in marketing gigabytes. You can store only 128 one-gigabyte files on a 144GB HD.
Not very logical IMHO (and I think the thousands of newbies asking where the 2 gigs from their new 30 gig HD went will agree)
I know at least F-Secure makes a Linux-version of their anti-virus software, and if I'm not completely mistaken, they have for years. http://www.f-secure.com/products/anti-virus/
It really is surprising that not everyone port their AV-software, as the most important part of package is the scanning engine (plus defs) which should be 100% computation (=portable). A Linux version shouldn't need a memory resident part or anything else highly OS-specific, just a simple command line-program that scans a file.
It looks like Vidomi are trying to remove themselves from this while still allowing the code to be used with their closed source product. -- The header files describing the libraries had to be used to produce the application linked (dynamically) to it and so their application forms a derivative work. This is why GPL shared libraries are not linked against elsewhere and is why the LGPL was produced.
But isn't this exactly how binary-only (=closed source) kernel modules are created?
We* use distributions that come with literally thousands of programs. We complain when Microsoft adds a couple to their new OS/Distro.
We call Windows bloated at 400MB, but when someone points out that distro X takes 7 CD's, we defend that distro
We're happy to use software that updates several times a month, some update daily. When Apple releases two patches in one month, we say their forcing people to update against their will or something.
*Yes, I know this doesn't apply to every single reader.
I don't think the problem is the unauthorised use of these songs, but the unauthorised sale of them. If I want a new ringtone and don't want to make it myself, I can download one for a fee (about $1). There are companies whose only income is the selling pieces of other peoples copyrighted matarial without giving the copyright holders any provisions. Not right if you ask me.
At least here in Finland where everyone has a cellphone. You can still find a payphone or two in large shopping malls etc, but nobody ever uses them. And with the advent of the Euro, coin-op phones will be totally gone next year. Even roadside emergency phones are being removed.
People have been living in MIR for 15 years, if there were some deadly bacteria in there you'd think we would have noticed it by now. Not to mention that things get REALLY HOT during re-entry, killing any microbs onboard.
So basically you are making brute force decryption ten times more CPU expensive. Why not just add four bits more precision to your key and make brute force attack 16 times harder? Or better yet, add EIGHT bits and make it 256 times harder. Or 16b - no wait, 32 bits and...
Netscape + Linux will show a question mark in place of '. I don't know why it does that, but it bugs the shit out of me everytime I'm using NS+Linux (which is not often, thankfully).
IBM and Motorola poured tons of money into X-Ray lithography a few years back, but already optical lithography has surpassed all expectations and it's showing no signs of stopping. Will X-Ray lithography ever be used?
> So would you only like one OS provider, for greater interoperability (at cost of service, performance, and capability)
No, I would like to have all the OS providers define a set of standard APIs that they all agree to support. If need for a new API should arise, they define one together and all support it. Having one standard doesn't mean there is only manufacturer or provider who follows that standard. That's the whole point of standars, let others implement it too but not break compatibility.
> The price of competition, incompatibility, is balanced by the value of competition, which is each of the 5 standards trying to outdo each other, on the ground of price, performance, capability, reliability, useability, etc.
Which country has the shittiest and most expensive to use wireless phone networks in the world? The U.S. Because there a severel competing, incompatible "standards".
> If there were only 1 standard, why would you think we'd get any improvement or innovation?
Gee, maybe because the need for better technology drives people and companies to create new, even better standards? Like DVD over CD, or 100Mbit ethernet over 10Mbit ethernet. I'm SURE you can think of more examples.
I'd rather have an obsolete standardized system, than have 5 competing incompatible systems. And you just know that each of these systems will have an upgrade in capacity every couple of years that requires new hardware. And of course, since they are all propietaty, none of these technologies will really take off and we will still be using 650MB CD-RW ten years from now. Just try agree on a (re)writable DVD standard and forget this double-no-triple-no-quad density CD crap.
I would definately go. There is one problem however, a lot of the visitor would likely be geeks. Geeks with cell phones, camcorders, PDAs, hacked Talkin-Bass gizmos and whatnot. And then there are the non-geeks who have the same stuff, but don't know how to turn it off. This is exactly what they are trying to avoid by choosing a remote location.
If by freedom, you mean the ability to affect change as a private citizen, then I think the U.S. is still far and away the most 'free' country on the planet.
The U.S isn't more free than most other countries, it is just the most succesfull in creating and marketing the illusion of freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm pretty sure I haven't. Lose it, or at least check the hostname of the client with a pattern like /(cache)|(proxy)/i and not apply limits if matches.
Umm, how so? All packets are already routed based on the destination address, this would simply be routing based on origin address. And it would be really simple too, the routing table is very small since ISPs usually have large address blocks, plus there are just two possible routing options (destinations): kill and don't kill.
--
--
Not very logical IMHO (and I think the thousands of newbies asking where the 2 gigs from their new 30 gig HD went will agree)
--
http://www.f-secure.com/products/anti-virus/
It really is surprising that not everyone port their AV-software, as the most important part of package is the scanning engine (plus defs) which should be 100% computation (=portable). A Linux version shouldn't need a memory resident part or anything else highly OS-specific, just a simple command line-program that scans a file.
--
But isn't this exactly how binary-only (=closed source) kernel modules are created?
--
We call Windows bloated at 400MB, but when someone points out that distro X takes 7 CD's, we defend that distro
We're happy to use software that updates several times a month, some update daily. When Apple releases two patches in one month, we say their forcing people to update against their will or something.
*Yes, I know this doesn't apply to every single reader.
--
--
Also, do a search for "porn". Ads.
--
--
--
What do you like most/least working at Microsoft?
--
--
--
--
Netscape + Linux will show a question mark in place of '. I don't know why it does that, but it bugs the shit out of me everytime I'm using NS+Linux (which is not often, thankfully).
--
--
Segfault.org has the the answer.
--
--
Just wondering...
--
--
No, I would like to have all the OS providers define a set of standard APIs that they all agree to support. If need for a new API should arise, they define one together and all support it. Having one standard doesn't mean there is only manufacturer or provider who follows that standard. That's the whole point of standars, let others implement it too but not break compatibility.
> The price of competition, incompatibility, is balanced by the value of competition, which is each of the 5 standards trying to outdo each other, on the ground of price, performance, capability, reliability, useability, etc.
Which country has the shittiest and most expensive to use wireless phone networks in the world? The U.S. Because there a severel competing, incompatible "standards".
> If there were only 1 standard, why would you think we'd get any improvement or innovation?
Gee, maybe because the need for better technology drives people and companies to create new, even better standards? Like DVD over CD, or 100Mbit ethernet over 10Mbit ethernet. I'm SURE you can think of more examples.
--
--
--
The U.S isn't more free than most other countries, it is just the most succesfull in creating and marketing the illusion of freedom.
--