Not sure where you get this "sucking more and more in". Anything passing the event horizon would add to the mass, and make it slightly larger. A super tiny black hole such as we are talking about can't suck in much matter, or get very large.... it's not going to eat the earth. The density of the earth, compared to the density of a black hole is a HUGE difference... what I mean is, even if it falls to the core of the earth, and knid of orbits around in there for a while, it's not going to expand forever.. it will reach some kind of equilibrium. You have to add a lot of mass relatively speaking to make that thing grow... it's not exponential growth or anything.
ALso, if this would create black holes, so would normal cosmic rays hitting stuff, all the time, on a daily basis.... and the earth hasn't been swallowed yet, neither has the rest of the universe.
Let me qualify by first saying I've worked designing network equipment at a lower level, and have analyzed this stuff in detail. Of course, that doesn't make me right all the time.. I just mean, I have actually researched this stuff somewhat seriuosly, and looked at it with scopes, compared products, etcetera.
First, the switches DO matter, because despite what you might have been told, switches are NOT all capable of switching at wire speed. If you don't think the switch has an effect, get a better switch and try again, you'll see. I've done it, it's true. It was true of 10Mbps switches, and is even more true of 100Mbps switches. Switches store & forward packets, and make decisions, and that takes time. In good switches, it takes very little time. Switches also have a limited amount of backplane bandwidth...if you have a 12 port switch, and you think it can actually switch six pairs of computers at wire speed at full duplex, well, unless it has a backplane bandwidth of 1.2 gigabits per second, it's not gonna come close.
Thirdly, the reason I staretd at the TCP layer was very specific: Because people are comparing TCP related transfer speeds, like with FTP. I didn't START at the TCP layer, I FINISHED there.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that the difference in overhead between looking at what you can expect all the way down at TCP and what you can expect from the raw hardware is almost negligible.
The reason it matters is because those of us who actually do real network engineering have an understand of what all the terms mean, and how they interrelate, and we don't just think "100Mbps means I can transfer a 100 megabit file in one second".. and the same has *always* been true of the wireless protocols. We actually read up on how things work, and make our own decisions.
His card was labelled as 100Mbps because WHEN YOU PUT A FRAME ON THE NETWORK, you do it at exactly 100Mbps. The spacing between the bits is precisely.01 microseconds.And when a card receives a frame, it expects to clock the data in at.. you guessed it, 100 megabits per second,,or a bit every.01 microseconds.
The networking is called "100 megabit" because, on a busy network, if you look at the "ether" part of ethernet, you will find there are exactly 100 million bits a second in use, if it's at 100% capacity. Nobody said all thsoe bits were actual userland data, and, in fact, any decent network admin realizes they are not.
Yes, they could explain that actual speeds are different.. or anyone could, you know, LOOK IT UP.
this has nothign to do with singularities. What a black hole is to an outside observe (just an event horizon) and what's INSIDE IT (a singularity, a shell, a universe?) is irrelevenat... the area beyond an event horizon is undefined.
FOr any given energy density, there is a diameter at which there is an event horizon.
Things no more get sucked into a black hole than thigns get sucked into a star, or any other gravity well.
No... the big bang didn't just take "one particle".
It's just that if we follow the maths backwards, we end up at a point where all 4 dimensions (Or more, depending on your theory) are infininitely small, and there is no such thing as time or distance.
from all the other reasons, it's because a black hole doens't have any magic "sucking powers"
Beyond the event horizon, it acts as any other massive body.
A black hole the same size mass as the sun would be much smaller, but at our distance from it, gravity would be the same, so the earth would continue to orbit...
That kind of thing.
So would a little black hole be dangerous? Sure.. you have to have a way to keep it in place, with electric fields or whatever... but other than that... it's not really a big issue. Beyond it's event horizon, a black hole is just another massive object.
The problem is, there is no such beast as "Intellectual Property". Instead, there are various aspects of law that cover (or if you like, create) certain types of IP. Patent Copyright Trade Secrets
They are not claiming a patent infringement. They are not claiming copyright violation... and they are alluding that it is trade secret. Actually, they are being deliberately vague.
But you cannot claim trade secret about something that is not a secret.. that's the point.
If I steal the formula for coca cola, and start selling cola using it, or sell it to you, and you start selling cola with it, or even sell it to pepsi... yes, that is all illegal. You can't invalidate trade secret just like that, and all of us that are involved in giving away Coke's SECRET are in shit.
However, if coke publishes that recipe in a magazine, the cat is out of the bag. To be able to protect something with laws about trade secret, IT MUST BE A SECRET.
IF someone figures out by chance how to make coke, coke cant' sue. If someone reverse engineers coke, and figures out how to reproduce it, they can't sue.. their only avenue of protection is keeping their formula a secret.
If AT&T let the lions book out without proper NDAs and whatnot, or if they declined to enforce their rights under an NDA, knowing someone violated it, then they CANT say "anything derived or leared from that book is illegal". That's the whole point of trade secret.... if it was that easy to protect, you wouldn't need to keep stuff a secret.
So the point stil stands.. nothing about the source code to unix is a secret by any stretch of the imagination, and SCO certainly cant' clame that anything in the historic unix codebase is a proprietary secret that nobody else knows about.
If the methods used are not patented, and code was not actually stolen, SCO has almost no leg to stand on.
The inkjet printer can't duplicate ANY of the security features of a modern banknote...
Saying the printer is at fault for some bar getting a fake bill is absurd.... until that printer can reproduce the: threaded strip, watermark, 2 tone ink, and feel of the paper, it's not a threat. This is someone wanting to pimp their new technology based on a campaign of fear.
Sure, you can bleach $1 bills, and print on those... but really, this is NOT a big problem.
The funny thinga bout currency counterfeitting... as the number of fake bills caught in an area rises, people start looking more carefully.
If there are just a few here and there, it's not a threat.
None of that matters if he can show that a lot of people have had access to it for a long time and that everyone knows it.
That doens't mean they give up their copyright, I'm not saying that at all.. but you can't claim you have prorietary trade secrets, as SCO is alluding to, if your source has been out in the open on a massive scale for a decade.
Nobody is saying that you can steal... there is a difference between trade secret stuff and just "How we did that thing".
SCO is not "locking down their IP rights". THey are trying to assert IP rights they do NOT have.
You CANNOT claim to have a "trade secret" if everyone and his pet duck has had virtually unfettered access to it for TEN years. SCO did not have anything that EVERYONE did not already know, was taught in universities, etcetera.. that's the point.
This has nothing to do with RMS.
This is about asking if anyone in the past has had access, legally, to the unix source in any form where they did not have to sign NDAS, or where the NDAS were consciously overlooked by the rightsholder in the first place. Why? So they can help show that SCO is making baseless claims (which any idiot can see that they are)
Current diving training STILL trains you to use tables, not computers. They specifically tell you that computers are a nice tool, and very useful, but that you MUST know how to do things the normal way. That means: Watch, pressure guage, and dive tables. Pencil & Slate.
What these divers did was NOT indicative of how diving schools train nowadays by any means.. they pushed it, doing many things that dive schools make a BIG point of discouraging.
O2 enriched air == enriched air == nitrox == reduced nitrogen air (effectively).
The feature divers like is the reduced nitrogen, not the increased O2. You don't "breathe slower" or anyhting because of the extra O2.
So when a diver is at the surface, they generally breathe real air, not tank air, (to conserve tank air, and because it's more relaxing/takes less effort). This air counts towards your nitrogen level... if it is assumed you are still breathing nitrox between dives, the numbers will come out wrong, the error getting more severe the longer you are out. (Dive computers aern't used just for one dive, they are continuous... telling you when you can dive safely again, and for how long, at what depth, etc)
Narcosis has nothing to do with dive tables... only with depth. The rough figure is 30 meters... I think narcosis at 20 meters is rare if not impossible. All you have to do if you experience narcosis is ascend to a depth where you realize that fish can breathe water, and you can't.
When you learn to dive, you usualy do a deep dive to a) show you what depth you start to experience narcosis and b) learn what it feels like, so you can recognize it when you are diving.
Yeah.. it's not like divers are taught that you use a computer to augment your diving, and that you should still fill out your dive tables or anything.
It's not like you aren't supposed to fly on a plane within 24 hours of diving, or anything.
It's not like every diver knows that the dive computers and dive tables are approximations, and that they can vary drastically for a number of reasons.
Pushing the absolute limits of what your computer says you are allowed is dumb.
I'm not saying the company is not responsible to a degree... they absolutely had an obligation to make their gear as safe as possible, and not informing the diving world that their gear had a flaw was totally unacceptable.
There is a large element of recklessness involved in this situation.
I'm a novice diver, but the concepts are not hard to understand:
You don't fucking dive within 24 hours of taking an airplane ride.
You don't push the limits of your gear. Computers ESTIMATE the nitrogen in your blood; every person's metabolism is different, the exact same conditions can kill one person and have no effect on another.
DIVE TABLES. Many divers still use dive tables.. sure, your computer is great.. but you USE your dive tables, plan your dive, know roughly what you are going to do.
These guys pushed it, with dangerous consequences. Is the computer company at fault? Partly. But let's not forget these guys were doing unsafe stuff in the first place. The dive computer is a tool, not a God.
The article mentions "Nitrox lets you go where you can't normally go". That's BS. Nitrox is used so you can stay down LONGER, usually on shallower dives. This is compounded because Nitrox has a higher than normal oxygen content, and oxygen becomes toxic under pressure... so the depth of a nitrox dive is limited.
Freestanding units are nowhere near as effective as you'd think, or as advertised.
Even the BTU rating is misleading.. yes, they remove heat.. but then there is the hose that leads out to the window. it ends up radiating a lot of heat back into the room.
The point is, it's been basically otu in the open for decades already... so yes, you can't take it and make a product with it... copyright prevents it. But the source code to various versions of unix has been widely available to anyone who wanted it, and none of the previous copyright holders of it even really cared.
SCO cannot claim trade secret violations for somethign that has been common knowledge for well over 10 years.
Yes, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and merely taking something and publishing it doesn't make trade secret invalid.. but if I publish your trade secret stuff, and it gets re published for a full DECADE, you can't come in 10 years later and claim your "secrets" have been leaked.. it's not a secret anymore.
the basic unix source code has been out there without NDAs for DECADES. TONS of people have access to it.. have you read the OSI position paper on the matter?
Yes, obviously GETTING STUFF DONE is important, and real.
I never said someone was dumb for using windows when the software they need only works on windows.
My point is that we have many options for an oprating system.. and in and of itself, Windows does not add any value over what we can get for free. The only reason it has value is because of applications that only work in windows.
Two points.. first, what does your software mean by Kbytes (1024 or 1000, it's ambiguous)
and.. that is showing the limitations of your hardware and computer.
I regularly get speeds above 90Mbps using ftp between two hosts.
Your switch is one bottleneck, your computers and network cards are the other.
Good network cards, and good switches can easily get you up into that 90% range between two hosts.
TCP overhead doesn't count for that much.
Here we go, in bytes
Ethernet frame: 8 byte preamble 6 byte destination mac address 6 byte source mac address 2 byte type 1500 byte payload 4 byte CRC 12 byte inter-frame gap ---- 1538 bytes
Now... of that 1500 byte payload we have IP and TCP headers to deal with
Both have 20 bytes each of header information
So we have 1500 bytes of payload data, of which 40 are header, that leaves us with 1460 bytes of useful data per ethernet frame.
So
Effective size of frame: 1538 bytes or 12304 bits Effective data in frame: 1460 bytes or 11680 bits
So, in one second, or 10e6 bits, we can send 10e6/12304 = 81.274 frames.
81.274 * 11680 = 949280 bits per second.. a hair shy of 95Mbps.
For 10Mbps ethernet, the overhead is even lowe
What I'm saying is that everything up to and including TCP only accounts for 5% overhead. There is no other magic overhead as far as the network is concerned. Two hosts with good ethernet cards and a good switch can get this kind of speed with no problem.
Triple-shielding, as you put it, would make no difference; there is no magic modulation and error correction going on (there is an encoding at 200Mhz, but that's somethign else). There is room for exactly 10e6 bits per second on that wire. It's not like, say, a modem connection or DSL where some noise slows you down a bit. If you had noise on the line, ethernet would be almost useless.
The actual overhead in the wireless protocols is much higher than 5%.
So the reason noboyd complains is because the protocol still isnt' waht's misleading them, it's other factors.
In the case of wireless, it's more serious.. yuo can't get anywhere near 11Mbps out of 802.11b. You might get half of that.
Will proprietary software with real value still have commercial value? HEll yes, always.
Will proprietary software that does the same thing as free software have value? No, why should it?
Why should we be paying anyone money for something people are willing to do for free. Simple as that.
Look at.. Vmware. Good product. Solid. Makes money. Then we have FreeMware. Not so good. Not even close, really. VMWare definately has *value*, and lots of it.
Now, if VMWare sits on their product and does nothing but fix bugs, that situation won't last. Eventually, freemware, or someone else, might catch up, or surpass it. But all VMWare has to do is keep innovating and developing, and they can keep selling their great product.
The same goes for everything.... we all don't like windows because, hell, the only reasons we really use it are because we are forced to by software compatability... we don't see it as anyhing that adds real value.. only artificial value.
Free software will continue to set a baseline standard for software, which you have to beat significantly in order to actually sell software. That's where things are going. ANd that's a GOOD way for things to be. Nobody is saying focused, commercial programming efforts can't pay off bigtime.. they absolutely can.. butnot if you are going to make snakeoil.
It's 54,000,000 bits per second, which is a Megabit per second.. both under the old system AND the new one.
Yes, I realize this contradicts what you might think about a Kilobyte (now Kibi) being 1024 bits, and so on and so forth.. however data transmission speeds have ALWAYS been specified in metric units of bits per second.
A kilobit per second was always 1000 bits per second.
When someone says megabit, it always meant one million bits per second, not some strange power of two. That only comes about when you are dealing with memory.
With the internet, it got confusing because peopel started going from kilobits to kilobytes, or writing software to show upload rates without real knowledge of how thigns are technically specified, so it got muddy, and you have to guess what people mean.
However, in the case of 1.544Mbps T1, 10, 100, 1000, or 10000base ethernet, 11Mbps wireless, or 54Mbps wireless, we are talking about powers of 10
Because in 100Mbps ethernet, the raw speed is NOT much slower.... the max theoretical speed a host can transmit on 100base with ethernet, ip, and tcp overhead is still over 90Mbps.. (I think it's near 97 Mbps, haven't calculated it for a few years). This number is even closer for 10Mbps.. (close to 9.9Mbps)
Nobody ever really kicked up a fuss about this because the speeds are so damn close... but in wireless, they are very different.
He said *IF* there is a problem witht he spec, then it's the IEEE's fault, not someone elses. ANd he would be right.. if there was a problem in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure where you get this "sucking more and more in". Anything passing the event horizon would add to the mass, and make it slightly larger. A super tiny black hole such as we are talking about can't suck in much matter, or get very large.... it's not going to eat the earth. The density of the earth, compared to the density of a black hole is a HUGE difference... what I mean is, even if it falls to the core of the earth, and knid of orbits around in there for a while, it's not going to expand forever.. it will reach some kind of equilibrium. You have to add a lot of mass relatively speaking to make that thing grow... it's not exponential growth or anything.
ALso, if this would create black holes, so would normal cosmic rays hitting stuff, all the time, on a daily basis.... and the earth hasn't been swallowed yet, neither has the rest of the universe.
Let me qualify by first saying I've worked designing network equipment at a lower level, and have analyzed this stuff in detail. Of course, that doesn't make me right all the time.. I just mean, I have actually researched this stuff somewhat seriuosly, and looked at it with scopes, compared products, etcetera.
.01 microseconds.And when a card receives a frame, it expects to clock the data in at.. you guessed it, 100 megabits per second, ,or a bit every .01 microseconds.
First, the switches DO matter, because despite what you might have been told, switches are NOT all capable of switching at wire speed. If you don't think the switch has an effect, get a better switch and try again, you'll see. I've done it, it's true. It was true of 10Mbps switches, and is even more true of 100Mbps switches. Switches store & forward packets, and make decisions, and that takes time. In good switches, it takes very little time. Switches also have a limited amount of backplane bandwidth...if you have a 12 port switch, and you think it can actually switch six pairs of computers at wire speed at full duplex, well, unless it has a backplane bandwidth of 1.2 gigabits per second, it's not gonna come close.
Thirdly, the reason I staretd at the TCP layer was very specific: Because people are comparing TCP related transfer speeds, like with FTP.
I didn't START at the TCP layer, I FINISHED there.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that the difference in overhead between looking at what you can expect all the way down at TCP and what you can expect from the raw hardware is almost negligible.
The reason it matters is because those of us who actually do real network engineering have an understand of what all the terms mean, and how they interrelate, and we don't just think "100Mbps means I can transfer a 100 megabit file in one second".. and the same has *always* been true of the wireless protocols. We actually read up on how things work, and make our own decisions.
His card was labelled as 100Mbps because WHEN YOU PUT A FRAME ON THE NETWORK, you do it at exactly 100Mbps. The spacing between the bits is precisely
The networking is called "100 megabit" because, on a busy network, if you look at the "ether" part of ethernet, you will find there are exactly 100 million bits a second in use, if it's at 100% capacity. Nobody said all thsoe bits were actual userland data, and, in fact, any decent network admin realizes they are not.
Yes, they could explain that actual speeds are different.. or anyone could, you know, LOOK IT UP.
this has nothign to do with singularities. What a black hole is to an outside observe (just an event horizon) and what's INSIDE IT (a singularity, a shell, a universe?) is irrelevenat... the area beyond an event horizon is undefined.
FOr any given energy density, there is a diameter at which there is an event horizon.
Things no more get sucked into a black hole than thigns get sucked into a star, or any other gravity well.
No... the big bang didn't just take "one particle".
It's just that if we follow the maths backwards, we end up at a point where all 4 dimensions (Or more, depending on your theory) are infininitely small, and there is no such thing as time or distance.
from all the other reasons, it's because a black hole doens't have any magic "sucking powers"
Beyond the event horizon, it acts as any other massive body.
A black hole the same size mass as the sun would be much smaller, but at our distance from it, gravity would be the same, so the earth would continue to orbit...
That kind of thing.
So would a little black hole be dangerous? Sure.. you have to have a way to keep it in place, with electric fields or whatever... but other than that... it's not really a big issue.
Beyond it's event horizon, a black hole is just another massive object.
The problem is, there is no such beast as "Intellectual Property". Instead, there are various aspects of law that cover (or if you like, create) certain types of IP.
Patent
Copyright
Trade Secrets
They are not claiming a patent infringement. They are not claiming copyright violation... and they are alluding that it is trade secret. Actually, they are being deliberately vague.
But you cannot claim trade secret about something that is not a secret.. that's the point.
If I steal the formula for coca cola, and start selling cola using it, or sell it to you, and you start selling cola with it, or even sell it to pepsi... yes, that is all illegal. You can't invalidate trade secret just like that, and all of us that are involved in giving away Coke's SECRET are in shit.
However, if coke publishes that recipe in a magazine, the cat is out of the bag. To be able to protect something with laws about trade secret, IT MUST BE A SECRET.
IF someone figures out by chance how to make coke, coke cant' sue. If someone reverse engineers coke, and figures out how to reproduce it, they can't sue.. their only avenue of protection is keeping their formula a secret.
If AT&T let the lions book out without proper NDAs and whatnot, or if they declined to enforce their rights under an NDA, knowing someone violated it, then they CANT say "anything derived or leared from that book is illegal". That's the whole point of trade secret.... if it was that easy to protect, you wouldn't need to keep stuff a secret.
So the point stil stands.. nothing about the source code to unix is a secret by any stretch of the imagination, and SCO certainly cant' clame that anything in the historic unix codebase is a proprietary secret that nobody else knows about.
If the methods used are not patented, and code was not actually stolen, SCO has almost no leg to stand on.
The inkjet printer can't duplicate ANY of the security features of a modern banknote...
Saying the printer is at fault for some bar getting a fake bill is absurd.... until that printer can reproduce the: threaded strip, watermark, 2 tone ink, and feel of the paper, it's not a threat. This is someone wanting to pimp their new technology based on a campaign of fear.
Sure, you can bleach $1 bills, and print on those... but really, this is NOT a big problem.
The funny thinga bout currency counterfeitting... as the number of fake bills caught in an area rises, people start looking more carefully.
If there are just a few here and there, it's not a threat.
None of that matters if he can show that a lot of people have had access to it for a long time and that everyone knows it.
That doens't mean they give up their copyright, I'm not saying that at all.. but you can't claim you have prorietary trade secrets, as SCO is alluding to, if your source has been out in the open on a massive scale for a decade.
Where did you get that.
Nobody is saying that you can steal... there is a difference between trade secret stuff and just "How we did that thing".
SCO is not "locking down their IP rights". THey are trying to assert IP rights they do NOT have.
You CANNOT claim to have a "trade secret" if everyone and his pet duck has had virtually unfettered access to it for TEN years. SCO did not have anything that EVERYONE did not already know, was taught in universities, etcetera.. that's the point.
This has nothing to do with RMS.
This is about asking if anyone in the past has had access, legally, to the unix source in any form where they did not have to sign NDAS, or where the NDAS were consciously overlooked by the rightsholder in the first place. Why? So they can help show that SCO is making baseless claims (which any idiot can see that they are)
Current diving training STILL trains you to use tables, not computers. They specifically tell you that computers are a nice tool, and very useful, but that you MUST know how to do things the normal way. That means: Watch, pressure guage, and dive tables. Pencil & Slate.
What these divers did was NOT indicative of how diving schools train nowadays by any means.. they pushed it, doing many things that dive schools make a BIG point of discouraging.
O2 enriched air == enriched air == nitrox == reduced nitrogen air (effectively).
The feature divers like is the reduced nitrogen, not the increased O2. You don't "breathe slower" or anyhting because of the extra O2.
So when a diver is at the surface, they generally breathe real air, not tank air, (to conserve tank air, and because it's more relaxing/takes less effort). This air counts towards your nitrogen level... if it is assumed you are still breathing nitrox between dives, the numbers will come out wrong, the error getting more severe the longer you are out. (Dive computers aern't used just for one dive, they are continuous... telling you when you can dive safely again, and for how long, at what depth, etc)
Narcosis has nothing to do with dive tables... only with depth. The rough figure is 30 meters... I think narcosis at 20 meters is rare if not impossible. All you have to do if you experience narcosis is ascend to a depth where you realize that fish can breathe water, and you can't.
When you learn to dive, you usualy do a deep dive to a) show you what depth you start to experience narcosis and b) learn what it feels like, so you can recognize it when you are diving.
Yeah.. it's not like divers are taught that you use a computer to augment your diving, and that you should still fill out your dive tables or anything.
It's not like you aren't supposed to fly on a plane within 24 hours of diving, or anything.
It's not like every diver knows that the dive computers and dive tables are approximations, and that they can vary drastically for a number of reasons.
Pushing the absolute limits of what your computer says you are allowed is dumb.
I'm not saying the company is not responsible to a degree... they absolutely had an obligation to make their gear as safe as possible, and not informing the diving world that their gear had a flaw was totally unacceptable.
There is a large element of recklessness involved in this situation.
Yes companies should be responsible.
But these divers were being stupid.
I'm a novice diver, but the concepts are not hard to understand:
You don't fucking dive within 24 hours of taking an airplane ride.
You don't push the limits of your gear. Computers ESTIMATE the nitrogen in your blood; every person's metabolism is different, the exact same conditions can kill one person and have no effect on another.
DIVE TABLES. Many divers still use dive tables.. sure, your computer is great.. but you USE your dive tables, plan your dive, know roughly what you are going to do.
These guys pushed it, with dangerous consequences. Is the computer company at fault? Partly. But let's not forget these guys were doing unsafe stuff in the first place. The dive computer is a tool, not a God.
The article mentions "Nitrox lets you go where you can't normally go". That's BS. Nitrox is used so you can stay down LONGER, usually on shallower dives. This is compounded because Nitrox has a higher than normal oxygen content, and oxygen becomes toxic under pressure... so the depth of a nitrox dive is limited.
Freestanding units are nowhere near as effective as you'd think, or as advertised.
Even the BTU rating is misleading.. yes, they remove heat.. but then there is the hose that leads out to the window. it ends up radiating a lot of heat back into the room.
The point is, it's been basically otu in the open for decades already... so yes, you can't take it and make a product with it... copyright prevents it.
But the source code to various versions of unix has been widely available to anyone who wanted it, and none of the previous copyright holders of it even really cared.
SCO cannot claim trade secret violations for somethign that has been common knowledge for well over 10 years.
Yes, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and merely taking something and publishing it doesn't make trade secret invalid.. but if I publish your trade secret stuff, and it gets re published for a full DECADE, you can't come in 10 years later and claim your "secrets" have been leaked.. it's not a secret anymore.
the basic unix source code has been out there without NDAs for DECADES. TONS of people have access to it.. have you read the OSI position paper on the matter?
Yes, obviously GETTING STUFF DONE is important, and real.
I never said someone was dumb for using windows when the software they need only works on windows.
My point is that we have many options for an oprating system.. and in and of itself, Windows does not add any value over what we can get for free. The only reason it has value is because of applications that only work in windows.
Two points.. first, what does your software mean by Kbytes (1024 or 1000, it's ambiguous)
and.. that is showing the limitations of your hardware and computer.
I regularly get speeds above 90Mbps using ftp between two hosts.
Your switch is one bottleneck, your computers and network cards are the other.
Good network cards, and good switches can easily get you up into that 90% range between two hosts.
TCP overhead doesn't count for that much.
Here we go, in bytes
Ethernet frame:
8 byte preamble
6 byte destination mac address
6 byte source mac address
2 byte type
1500 byte payload
4 byte CRC
12 byte inter-frame gap
----
1538 bytes
Now... of that 1500 byte payload
we have IP and TCP headers to deal with
Both have 20 bytes each of header information
So we have 1500 bytes of payload data, of which 40 are header, that leaves us with 1460 bytes of useful data per ethernet frame.
So
Effective size of frame: 1538 bytes or 12304 bits
Effective data in frame: 1460 bytes or 11680 bits
So, in one second, or 10e6 bits, we can send
10e6/12304 = 81.274 frames.
81.274 * 11680 = 949280 bits per second.. a hair shy of 95Mbps.
For 10Mbps ethernet, the overhead is even lowe
What I'm saying is that everything up to and including TCP only accounts for 5% overhead. There is no other magic overhead as far as the network is concerned. Two hosts with good ethernet cards and a good switch can get this kind of speed with no problem.
Triple-shielding, as you put it, would make no difference; there is no magic modulation and error correction going on (there is an encoding at 200Mhz, but that's somethign else). There is room for exactly 10e6 bits per second on that wire. It's not like, say, a modem connection or DSL where some noise slows you down a bit. If you had noise on the line, ethernet would be almost useless.
The actual overhead in the wireless protocols is much higher than 5%.
So the reason noboyd complains is because the protocol still isnt' waht's misleading them, it's other factors.
In the case of wireless, it's more serious.. yuo can't get anywhere near 11Mbps out of 802.11b. You might get half of that.
Anyone recommend a java decompiler known to work on the most recent versions of java, properly?
Something that will literally give me code I can re-compile immediately?
A proper multi-pass disassembler takes care of this usually.
Data and code do not usually end up in the same segment.
IT's not about "Free shit".
Will proprietary software with real value still have commercial value? HEll yes, always.
Will proprietary software that does the same thing as free software have value? No, why should it?
Why should we be paying anyone money for something people are willing to do for free. Simple as that.
Look at.. Vmware. Good product. Solid. Makes money. Then we have FreeMware. Not so good. Not even close, really. VMWare definately has *value*, and lots of it.
Now, if VMWare sits on their product and does nothing but fix bugs, that situation won't last. Eventually, freemware, or someone else, might catch up, or surpass it. But all VMWare has to do is keep innovating and developing, and they can keep selling their great product.
The same goes for everything.... we all don't like windows because, hell, the only reasons we really use it are because we are forced to by software compatability... we don't see it as anyhing that adds real value.. only artificial value.
Free software will continue to set a baseline standard for software, which you have to beat significantly in order to actually sell software. That's where things are going. ANd that's a GOOD way for things to be. Nobody is saying focused, commercial programming efforts can't pay off bigtime.. they absolutely can.. butnot if you are going to make snakeoil.
It's 54,000,000 bits per second, which is a Megabit per second.. both under the old system AND the new one.
Yes, I realize this contradicts what you might think about a Kilobyte (now Kibi) being 1024 bits, and so on and so forth.. however data transmission speeds have ALWAYS been specified in metric units of bits per second.
A kilobit per second was always 1000 bits per second.
When someone says megabit, it always meant one million bits per second, not some strange power of two. That only comes about when you are dealing with memory.
With the internet, it got confusing because peopel started going from kilobits to kilobytes, or writing software to show upload rates without real knowledge of how thigns are technically specified, so it got muddy, and you have to guess what people mean.
However, in the case of 1.544Mbps T1, 10, 100, 1000, or 10000base ethernet, 11Mbps wireless, or 54Mbps wireless, we are talking about powers of 10
Because in 100Mbps ethernet, the raw speed is NOT much slower.... the max theoretical speed a host can transmit on 100base with ethernet, ip, and tcp overhead is still over 90Mbps.. (I think it's near 97 Mbps, haven't calculated it for a few years). This number is even closer for 10Mbps.. (close to 9.9Mbps)
Nobody ever really kicked up a fuss about this because the speeds are so damn close... but in wireless, they are very different.
He said *IF* there is a problem witht he spec, then it's the IEEE's fault, not someone elses. ANd he would be right.. if there was a problem in the first place.