I got into this business a long time ago, adn only in the more recent years have many ISPs "decided" that it is "their duty" to start filtering things.
It used to be just IP.
Okay.. some isps might filter some ports for some users, we'd do that way back when, at the users reqeusts, to help them out... or maybe temporarily do a global one to stop some worm in it's tracks... but it was temporary.
Do they actaully treat it as one node, and let mosix take care of everything.... or do they use it as a normal cluster, running different servers on different nodes, and just have mosix there for the hell of it.
This is the typical flamewar between assembly nuts and C programmers.
The C programmers point out that the compiler is very good, and that nowadays there is no need for assembly.
The assembly programmers point out that a compiled language is always constrained by the rules of the compiler, and that a human can do better.
The reality is that it depends on the applications. If you have intimate knowledge about the hardware and processor, I mean really intimate, you can probably handcraft some assembly to do any given task faster than a C equivalent... Or you can work on your compiler so that it creates the same excellent assembler for a given routine.
The argument is generally silly though; if you can do a loop faster in assembly, and you need the speed, you should do it. I don't see ayone writing anything like mozilla in assembler.
If all these copy protection mechanisms just use messed up multisession TOCs on the end of the disc to screw up multisession drives.. should it not be a simple matter for a drive to do something braindead simple, like only read session 1? I seem to recall software of old that let me pick which session I wanted to read.
That's a crock of shit. If the compiler is solid, it most certainly can be as fast as hand coded assembly.
In many cases, it is FASTER than hand coded assembly; unless the person doing the assembly knows a great deal about the exact processor, cache, how to align instructions to execute faster, etctera....
Where is compiled defined to mean "slower than assembly?"
Yes, in some cases where the hardware is fairly new and nobody has written a compiler to optimize for the right tasks, hand coded assembly is better; it's still used quite a bit.
For starters, the original term that says "Any derivitive works must include the terms of this license", and one of those terms being "absolutely no commercial use" makes it gpl incompatable anyway.
Their point is very valid; they do not want the code licensed under terms any broader than the ones they set out, and that goes for works based on their code as well.
IT does require sublicensing; the only way you can distribute modified works based on GPL code is under the terms of the GPL. (or with permission from the copyright holders, of course)
Statement 1 means that you can learn whatever you want from reading their code, and do what you want with it... however, they want to be clear that they are NOT granting you any sort of copyright license or patent license in the process.
Statement 2 is also quite common.. it basically means that if you start a patent lawsuit against anythign related to this code, they revoke your license to use it.
The first part is not an attack on the gpl; their original work is not gpl, and they want others to NOT be bound by the terms of the gpl. So if you create a derivitave work and want to distribute it, that's fine, but you cannot compel others to distribute work based on your stuff (which is based on microsoft's stuff) by any terms other than those set out in this license, or more restrictive.
First, J is not more important than the rest; it's just one of the root servers, period. All the others do not "get their info" from J. (unless I'm missing something)
When a dns lookup happens.... the querying dns server, if it doesn't know the answer, asks one of the root servers for the NS record.
Let's pick an address, like www.slashdot.org
I ping www.slashdot.org My computer's resolver asks it's specified nameserver for the A record for www.slashdot.org As I haven't looked at slashdot for a while, and my nameserver doens't have the answer cached, it doesn't know, so it then asks one of the ROOT SERVERS for the NS record for www.slashdot.org (it does not simply ask for.org).
The root server returns the closest match it has... which in this case is a list of I think 13 servers (A through M).GTLD-SERVERS.NET. that server.org.
It then sends a query to one of THOSE nameservers, asking the exact same thing... getting a better answer each time.
In each case, the server actually requests the full domain... not just a piece.. as it narrows in on the right server to get the answer from.
"True. If you want to make digital copies you need a computer inbetween."
No.. not true. I believe these copies still employ spdif... they decompress the audio and then recompress it on the other end. You can't make ad-infinitum copies of minidisc music with normal equipment without signal degradation.
Oh please. CCIE is not about configuring a single router. It's not about "knowing how to configure ciscos".
It's about being an expert at internetworking, and being able to deal with many, many different types of protocols and situations and hardware. Of course it's primarily focused on Cisco hardware, because the Internetworking business in general is primarily led by Cisco.
CCIE expert.. ist hat like an LCD Display or a CRT Tube? an ABS System? an MD Doctor or a CGA Accountant? A CEO Officer?
If you can hire a CCIE for $80k a year, more power to you.. his certification is probably fake.
Of course in time there will be less of a market; the same can be said for most technology trades. But don't mix up CCIE with normal everyday cisco adminsitrator certifications, they are very different things.
But the point is that CCIE is about general internetworking knowledge; the body of knowledge you need to pass the certification is wide and deep.
MCSE is not the same thing whatseover.
CCIEs make lots of money because there are not many peopel with their full set of skills out there in the world. In contrast, there are a bazillion and two MCSEs, and in many circles it is regarded as a worthless certification. I don't know anyone who considers CCIE to be worthless.
what they do is sell you that large, expensive software, and then have huge yearly support fees that include upgrades. IF you decide to stick with what you 'own' and not pay anymore, you get no support, no new drivers, no bugfixes, and no upgrades.
in some situations. Nothing is one size fits all unless it's made out of spandex, and even then some people would disagree. And of course, just because it fits doesn't mean you should wear it.
It may be that in the long, long run, commercial apps are cheaper... but then, that assumes you will stick with the same app and vendor year after year; it assumes that the vendor stays and the current pricing model stays. In the long term, we can see that that almost never happens. Vendors change; policies change; products are discontinued for one reason or another, or are only supported at an inflated cost.
At least if it's open you have an element of control over where things are going.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Where is "Internet" defined as this?
I got into this business a long time ago, adn only in the more recent years have many ISPs "decided" that it is "their duty" to start filtering things.
It used to be just IP.
Okay.. some isps might filter some ports for some users, we'd do that way back when, at the users reqeusts, to help them out... or maybe temporarily do a global one to stop some worm in it's tracks... but it was temporary.
I'm not trolling here, and I'm not saying "this is crap".
Can someone who knows say what this is really useful for.
As many have pointed out "it could be used for swap" is silly; more onboard ram would be faster and cheaper.
Do they actaully treat it as one node, and let mosix take care of everything....
or do they use it as a normal cluster, running different servers on different nodes, and just have mosix there for the hell of it.
What you bought was Internet access, not "filtered access with only some ports available".
It's about the principle of the thing. I want IP transit; nothing more.
We do? What kinds of things does windows use threads for that we use separate processes for?
Windows has shared memory.
Windows has copy-on-write, I'm sure.
False.
Many unix apps use threads.
Linux has had threads for ages; this is a change to the model behind the threading, not "the addition of threads" to linux.
Why do I act like it is? Where did I act like it was?
The guy said that 260 days was below moore's law, and you told him he was wrong.
He was right.
I was responding to that.
I wasn't saying anything about how relevant Moore's law was to what he was describing.
I'm not sure when we started talking about magic dust, but maybe you better quit snorting it just to be safe.
No; you are correct.
This is the typical flamewar between assembly nuts and C programmers.
The C programmers point out that the compiler is very good, and that nowadays there is no need for assembly.
The assembly programmers point out that a compiled language is always constrained by the rules of the compiler, and that a human can do better.
The reality is that it depends on the applications. If you have intimate knowledge about the hardware and processor, I mean really intimate, you can probably handcraft some assembly to do any given task faster than a C equivalent...
Or you can work on your compiler so that it creates the same excellent assembler for a given routine.
The argument is generally silly though; if you can do a loop faster in assembly, and you need the speed, you should do it.
I don't see ayone writing anything like mozilla in assembler.
If all these copy protection mechanisms just use messed up multisession TOCs on the end of the disc to screw up multisession drives.. should it not be a simple matter for a drive to do something braindead simple, like only read session 1? I seem to recall software of old that let me pick which session I wanted to read.
That's a crock of shit.
If the compiler is solid, it most certainly can be as fast as hand coded assembly.
In many cases, it is FASTER than hand coded assembly; unless the person doing the assembly knows a great deal about the exact processor, cache, how to align instructions to execute faster, etctera....
Where is compiled defined to mean "slower than assembly?"
Yes, in some cases where the hardware is fairly new and nobody has written a compiler to optimize for the right tasks, hand coded assembly is better; it's still used quite a bit.
Yup. Microkernels are better. That's why linux has been usable for 10 years, and hurd still isn't.
The license is quite clear that it covers both situations.
You cannot use it in running your business, you cannot make commercial products out of it, you cannot use it to make commercial products, etcetera.
It's definatley exactly what they had in mind. This is meant to be reference code, not "microsoft wrote it for me"
For starters, the original term that says "Any derivitive works must include the terms of this license", and one of those terms being "absolutely no commercial use" makes it gpl incompatable anyway.
Their point is very valid; they do not want the code licensed under terms any broader than the ones they set out, and that goes for works based on their code as well.
IT does require sublicensing; the only way you can distribute modified works based on GPL code is under the terms of the GPL. (or with permission from the copyright holders, of course)
Statement 1 means that you can learn whatever you want from reading their code, and do what you want with it... however, they want to be clear that they are NOT granting you any sort of copyright license or patent license in the process.
Statement 2 is also quite common.. it basically means that if you start a patent lawsuit against anythign related to this code, they revoke your license to use it.
The first part is not an attack on the gpl; their original work is not gpl, and they want others to NOT be bound by the terms of the gpl. So if you create a derivitave work and want to distribute it, that's fine, but you cannot compel others to distribute work based on your stuff (which is based on microsoft's stuff) by any terms other than those set out in this license, or more restrictive.
The patent statement is not what you think.
It's there because it HAS to be there?
They are saying that just because they are letting you at this stuff doesn't mean they are granting you rights to any patenst that MAY be involved.
What's the alternative? "Microsoft grants you all rights to all patents that it owns if you create them with things you learned from this software? "
They aren't trying to do anything; if they have patents, they still have patents whether they say so or not.
A couple of points.
.org).
.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. that server .org.
First, J is not more important than the rest; it's just one of the root servers, period. All the others do not "get their info" from J. (unless I'm missing something)
When a dns lookup happens.... the querying dns server, if it doesn't know the answer, asks one of the root servers for the NS record.
Let's pick an address, like www.slashdot.org
I ping www.slashdot.org
My computer's resolver asks it's specified nameserver for the A record for www.slashdot.org
As I haven't looked at slashdot for a while, and my nameserver doens't have the answer cached, it doesn't know, so it then asks one of the ROOT SERVERS for the NS record for www.slashdot.org
(it does not simply ask for
The root server returns the closest match it has... which in this case is a list of I think 13 servers (A through M)
It then sends a query to one of THOSE nameservers, asking the exact same thing... getting a better answer each time.
In each case, the server actually requests the full domain... not just a piece.. as it narrows in on the right server to get the answer from.
"True. If you want to make digital copies you need a computer inbetween."
No.. not true. I believe these copies still employ spdif... they decompress the audio and then recompress it on the other end. You can't make ad-infinitum copies of minidisc music with normal equipment without signal degradation.
Oh please.
CCIE is not about configuring a single router. It's not about "knowing how to configure ciscos".
It's about being an expert at internetworking, and being able to deal with many, many different types of protocols and situations and hardware. Of course it's primarily focused on Cisco hardware, because the Internetworking business in general is primarily led by Cisco.
CCIE expert.. ist hat like an LCD Display or a CRT Tube? an ABS System? an MD Doctor or a CGA Accountant? A CEO Officer?
If you can hire a CCIE for $80k a year, more power to you.. his certification is probably fake.
Of course in time there will be less of a market; the same can be said for most technology trades. But don't mix up CCIE with normal everyday cisco adminsitrator certifications, they are very different things.
But the point is that CCIE is about general internetworking knowledge; the body of knowledge you need to pass the certification is wide and deep.
MCSE is not the same thing whatseover.
CCIEs make lots of money because there are not many peopel with their full set of skills out there in the world. In contrast, there are a bazillion and two MCSEs, and in many circles it is regarded as a worthless certification.
I don't know anyone who considers CCIE to be worthless.
Hence, if it doubles in 261 days, that is indeed below the time specified in Moore's law.
What's your point?
Yes, absolutely, I agree.
I guess my point was that it doesn't matter what you call it; at that level, you need ongoing service anyway.
Because I can't do direct digital copies of the discs without expensive gear.
No, spdif to spdif is not a pure digital copy.. the data is decompressed/recompressed.
The disc is proprietary, I can't stick it in my computer.
They were out for a long time and were really expensive.
The list goes on.
what they do is sell you that large, expensive software, and then have huge yearly support fees that include upgrades.
IF you decide to stick with what you 'own' and not pay anymore, you get no support, no new drivers, no bugfixes, and no upgrades.
in some situations. Nothing is one size fits all unless it's made out of spandex, and even then some people would disagree. And of course, just because it fits doesn't mean you should wear it.
It may be that in the long, long run, commercial apps are cheaper... but then, that assumes you will stick with the same app and vendor year after year; it assumes that the vendor stays and the current pricing model stays. In the long term, we can see that that almost never happens.
Vendors change; policies change; products are discontinued for one reason or another, or are only supported at an inflated cost.
At least if it's open you have an element of control over where things are going.