Aside from the group defined by "those who have no faults", no group free of members with iffy agendas. Scientists, priests, teachers, politicians, or any other you care to name.
No I'm sure almost all scientists would stop for a moment to ponder those very same things. But you omitted the second half of the monologue:
"Hey, wait, if I don't do it then someone else will only I won't get the credit. And it won't get misused because the government surely won't allow that, right? So what the hell - fame here I come."
Fame? If you're after fame, science is not the field of choice. Besides, safety through ignorance is just a superset of security through obscurity, and we all know thats a bad idea.
I'm amazed at the level of distrust and bad-will expressed towards science here.
Clue Flash! Any sufficiently mature man and woman can create life.
They are creating a life. They're not Creating Life. They're going through an act that allows a pair of specialized cells (that they had no roll in creating) to do a little magic.
We're talking about creating life where there was previously no life. big difference. We're talking about taking an active part in the design of a life form.
I agree with you on the big issue here though. We should certainly learn everything we can, and that includes attempting to create life, clone and modify existing life, and theorize about the state of things before the big bang.
Last time I checked, science doesn't have a great track record on "moral" judgement either. Nuclear weapons, enviromental rape, super-bacteria created by the wide spread overuse of antibiotics (sp?), yada, yada. Oh science is DEFINATELY proven that it keeps moral implications high on their list.
Thats not a problem with morals. If i throw a drowning man a life saver and accidently clonk him on the head and kill him, it's not my morals that are at question. Science usually makes advancements with the goal of knowledge and for the benifit of mankind.
It's the politicians and leaders that take these inventions and twist them into something evil.
Yes, the Spam Fairy leaves quarters under the server to compensate ISPs for spam costs, so they don't have to pass them along to their legitimate customers.
Minimal. Besides, if an ISP wants to filter spam, thats one thing. No need to get the government involved.
If you're going to fight, fight for a legitmate cause.
Such as ridding the Net of spam-thieves.
Fine. Rid the net of spam theives. Do so when people are no longer in pain. When our youth is receiving the education it deserves. When women can feel safe walking down any street in america, day or night. When no one dies of cancer, aids, or even worse, things we already have a vaccine for. When politicians are no longer currupt, and governments no longer opress their people. Then, rid the Net of "spam-theives", because you're too lazy to filter, don't like to click 'delete' and shouldn't have to pay an extra 2 cents a month because your ISP won't filter spam unless a man with a badge tells them to. When you're done with that, fix the pothole in front of my house.
BTW, where is all the money going to come from to pass this law through congress, and where will the money come from to enforce it?
My proposed solution is old-fashioned outlawry -- get caught spamming, and the authorities will turn a blind eye to anything that is done to your system. Solves the spam problem, and gives 3133+ hacqer d00dz a place to play and a useful function.
Well this is just insane. All that will do is lead to well-secured spam boxes. And who will pay for all the bandwidth involved in letting the "leet hacker dudes" have their ways with the spam box? Who will pay for the investigation and fair trial that these spammers get before the "leet hacker dudes" are let loose? Laws cost money. They rarely save it. Its far cheaper and more respectable to Take Care Of It Yourself than to get the government to Do It For You.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
What you miss is that those are good ideas. For 99% of the users, having those ports blocked is good.
For the 1%, well, they should be smart enough to read the docs and request that those features be ignored for them
The ignorance of the general populous is no excuse. You are WILLFULLY trying to impose needless regulations on yourself. A law has to be a DAMN good idea to be a good law. Spam does not actually cause any harm to anyone. No one has died from spam. No one has suffered financial loss from spam (idiots who fall for the make-money-fast.txt crap aside). You don't like spam. Me either. Thats personal opinion though. Its not fact.
If you're going to fight, fight for a legitmate cause. Fight child abuse. Fight hunger. Fight opression. Don't fight spam, its not only a waste of your time, its a fight against personal freedom.
And, if you absolutely can't stand it... buy an unrestricted shell account somewhere and use a tunneling protocol to communicate with it without your ISP watching.
Wouldn't the shell have the same restrictions? And if not, certainly if i can do that, then a spammer can as well.
1.Block all access to other peoples SMTP ports. Force your customers to go through YOUR mailer. Red flag any account that tries to access somebody else's SMTP port.
This is the wrong answer. I pay for an internet connection. Nothing more, nothing less. Letting the ISP decide what i do and do not want/need is a start down a bad path. Maybe they should also block port 139 (winnuke/netbios) and use a forced web proxy. Hey, ICMP can only be used for evil too, right? And certainly users have no legitimate use for incoming connections.
Be responsible for your own shit. If you don't want spam, be careful not to get on lists, and if you do, learn how to filter it. Its no ones fault or responsiblity other than your own. The government has no business making decisions for me, nor do you or my isp.
Dunno about your first question, but there's a real audio decoder for windows here..Wish there was a linux or os/2 version, but not yet. I'm using it to convert the hours of slack to mp3s for easy in-car listening when pine's spiffy mp3 cd player is released..
The internet "boom" will not leave desolate virtual ghost-towns. You're comparing it to the wrong things. Compare it to electricity. Compare it to automobiles. Compare it to air travel. It will continue to "boom" for quite some time, and then maybe its rate of expansion will slow, but it will still be expansion. it will never go backwards and eventually fade away, as do conventional booms and fads. Not, at least, until there is something better. But i don't see that happening anytime soon, much as i don't see us driving around in hover cars or using magic phone booths that instantly transport us to our destinations, or using a new-fangled replacement for electricity.
Silicon vally will not experience a great exodus prompted by the public deciding "oh, that internet thing? yeah, we're done with that. check out my pokemon tho!"
Unless you're a moron, your job field is not in danger, and you don't need to decide if you want to be a farmer or a carver of wooden ducks in a shack in maine after this internet malarky is over.
thats exactly what happened. colors got worse the more inverted it got. It didn't really matter- the graphics in c64 games were dubious at best. i tweaked the 'tint' knob till it was about right and was happy to have the biggest pac-man game in the neighborhood.
I've done this years ago with a commodore 64. Used the lens from an overhead projector. I can't follow the link now, so i don't know how they propose overcoming the problem where everything ends up upside down. I took the simple aproach and turned the commodore monitor upside down. Made the picture rightside-up, but the colors got skewed. No good for general computer usage, but great for games if the colors don't go wacky on you.
ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/pccbbs/os2_ews was (and as far as i know still is) the ews repository. As of right not, i can't connect. If you search for +"tvfs" +"ews" you will probably find it mirrored somewhere.
Reread my post. It does infact create a single filestore. os2tvfs:/z:/. The path under z:/ does not determine the physical location of a file, free space and write priorities given when mounting NFS exports into Z: determine where physical files go. ost2tvfs:/z:/foo.mp3 might be on an os2 box in my living room while os2tvfs:/z:/bar.txt might be on a linux box in the basement (or alaska, if i were to incorporate stuff not on my LAN in my VFS, which i don't plan on doing). If i wanted finer control of where files ended up, i could cron a script that moves things around, which would be transparent to the z: mount.
I'll give you that it does nothing for spanning large files, but it also does not incure the problems with spanning files. If a box goes down, you only loose access to the files on that box. If you say 'stuff this' and decide you don't need the virtual FS anymore, you just stop accessing stuff through z:. your files are still there, in the native OS's FS. Things that ended up located on an OS2 box are accessable on that OS2 box, the same goes for things on the linux boxes (or fbsd boxes, win32 boxes, be boxes.. whatever. anything that can export NFS can join the VFS)
As for file availability depending on the state of the machine it is on-- of course. If you want otherwise, you will have to sacrafice storage space, which is contrary to the point.
I don't propose that this is 'generally useful'. It has the negative of sending ALL files through the tvfs box before they make it to their destination. That's not very efficient. However, as far as i can see, it does provide a basic solution to the original posters problem, assuming he would not mind sticking an os2 box in the corner.
On an aside, there is another possible tool for this kind of problem: avfs (A Virtual File System). Avfs was originally designed so you could access.tar.gz files as if they were directories (compile your kernel inside of kernel-xx.tar.gz, etc.) Recently it's gained the ability to load user-written extensions, mainly for other archive formats. I imagine it could be hacked to do the job of TVFS in my setup.
You're thinking too low-level. Let the local OS take care of the files on each box, using whatever FS it cares to use. No need for seperate partitions or seperate file space. need to free up space on one box? Just move some of the files in it's distributed FS directory to some other box's distributed FS directory.
See my post here for my admittedly iffy solution that does not have any of the problems you point out.
I've never played with software raid or the network block device.. was the network block device around in the 2.0.x kernel versions?.. I doubt i'd see any performance increase- i'm sure the bottleneck is the network & the fact that things often go back and forth more than once before ending up at their destinations.
However, i've just grabbed myself a copy of intermezzo, and it looks like it might be able to do everything i wanted and more. I hope to somehow get my 240 disc cdrom changer into the mix so it appears as a single drive instead of 2 drives and a serially controlable robot.:p From my brief look at intermezzo, i am hopeful.
I have the same problem. I've got 5 boxes running linux & os/2, and want all the "spare" space to transparently appear as a single volume on all boxes. I couldn't find anything that would do this effectivly for me, so i brewed my own. Unfortunatly (for most of you) this requires an os/2 box. Here's the details: 1) all the boxes export their spare space as nfs mounts. 2) a nifty IFS (installable file system) from IBM's EWS (employee-written software) program called Toronto Virtual File System is installed on one of the os2 boxes (we'll call this box os2tvfs) 3) os2tvfs mounts all the exported drives 4) with tvfs, all the mounted NFS drives are mounted into a tvfs drive (z: in my setup) 5) os2tvfs exports z: 6) any box that wants to access the big-virtual-volume mounts os2tvfs:/z:/
So how's it work? Lets go through an example:
box1 exports d:\, a 10 gig ide drive on an os2 system d:\ contains a bunch of stuff, for this example we'll focus on "d:\mp3s\foo.mp3"
box2 exports/s1/ a 6.4gig scsi drive on a linux system box2 has a file on it located at "/s1/mp3s/bar.mp3"
box1 then mounts os2tvfs:/z:/ as v:\ on box1, a directory listing of v:\mp3s\ contains both foo.mp3 and bar.mp3. if i copy baz.mp3 to v:\mp3s, it ends up as box2:/s1/mp3s/baz.mp3, as long as their is enough free space on box2:/bfi1/ for it, because i assigned a higher write priority to that volume when i mounted it with TVFS (it's a scsi drive- might as well use it up first). It shows up as os2tvfs:/z:/mp3s/baz.mp3.
Of course, this solution is kinda bad because it creates a ton of extra network traffic, but it was the only one i could find that did what i wanted.
[1] It seems to use the same type of shell as NT..i.e. a command shell. Because it has a [C:\] prompt? A shell is just shell, something for you to run your programs from. (Besides, i use bash on my os/2 systems.:)
[2] It seems to have a DOS-like command set. A command set is what you make of it. is "ls" intrinsically better than "dir"? why? Either way, ls is an external program. One that i have on my os/2 boxes, as well as the rest of the fileutils, binutils & textutils packages. as well as vim, gcc, make, elm, ncftp, lynx, etc etc.
[3] It has a windows like GUI..more Win95/NT like than 98 but nothing like X. I don't even know how to argue this statement. The GUI is nothing like windows. It's as far from windows as windowmaker is from amiga's GUI.
[4] does it even have remote administration ? I saw no such thing. There are packages availble. And it comes with ftpd, telnetd, etc. So yes, you can mange it remotely.
[5] Its interface leaves much to be desired (kludgy win/dos hack were the first impression i got..followed by...what the heck do these weird buttons do?) Obviously a matter of taste. But i don't think you can argue against it's superiority over any of the various windows incarnation's UIs, unless you haven't used it enough to understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
host -l -v -t any hotmail.com |less
note that this doesn't work with a (in my eyes) properly configured dns.
Aside from the group defined by "those who have no faults", no group free of members with iffy agendas. Scientists, priests, teachers, politicians, or any other you care to name.
No I'm sure almost all scientists would stop for a moment to ponder those very same things. But you omitted the second half of the monologue:
"Hey, wait, if I don't do it then someone else will only I won't get the credit. And it won't get misused because the government surely won't allow
that, right? So what the hell - fame here I come."
Fame? If you're after fame, science is not the field of choice. Besides, safety through ignorance is just a superset of security through obscurity, and we all know thats a bad idea.
I'm amazed at the level of distrust and bad-will expressed towards science here.
Clue Flash! Any sufficiently mature man and woman can create life.
They are creating a life. They're not Creating Life. They're going through an act that allows a pair of specialized cells (that they had no roll in creating) to do a little magic.
We're talking about creating life where there was previously no life. big difference. We're talking about taking an active part in the design of a life form.
I agree with you on the big issue here though. We should certainly learn everything we can, and that includes attempting to create life, clone and modify existing life, and theorize about the state of things before the big bang.
Last time I checked, science doesn't have a great track record on "moral" judgement either. Nuclear weapons, enviromental rape, super-bacteria created by the wide spread overuse of antibiotics (sp?), yada, yada. Oh science is DEFINATELY proven that it keeps moral implications high on their list.
Thats not a problem with morals. If i throw a drowning man a life saver and accidently clonk him on the head and kill him, it's not my morals that are at question. Science usually makes advancements with the goal of knowledge and for the benifit of mankind.
It's the politicians and leaders that take these inventions and twist them into something evil.
fwiw, you can also do this with squid, with the added bonus of squid's excellent caching.
Yes, the Spam Fairy leaves quarters under the server to compensate ISPs for spam costs, so they don't have to pass them along to their legitimate customers.
Minimal. Besides, if an ISP wants to filter spam, thats one thing. No need to get the government involved.
If you're going to fight, fight for a legitmate cause.
Such as ridding the Net of spam-thieves.
Fine. Rid the net of spam theives. Do so when people are no longer in pain. When our youth is receiving the education it deserves. When women can feel safe walking down any street in america, day or night. When no one dies of cancer, aids, or even worse, things we already have a vaccine for. When politicians are no longer currupt, and governments no longer opress their people. Then, rid the Net of "spam-theives", because you're too lazy to filter, don't like to click 'delete' and shouldn't have to pay an extra 2 cents a month because your ISP won't filter spam unless a man with a badge tells them to. When you're done with that, fix the pothole in front of my house.
BTW, where is all the money going to come from to pass this law through congress, and where will the money come from to enforce it?
My proposed solution is old-fashioned outlawry -- get caught spamming, and the authorities will turn a blind eye to anything that is done to your system. Solves the spam problem, and gives 3133+ hacqer d00dz a place to play and a useful function.
Well this is just insane. All that will do is lead to well-secured spam boxes. And who will pay for all the bandwidth involved in letting the "leet hacker dudes" have their ways with the spam box? Who will pay for the investigation and fair trial that these spammers get before the "leet hacker dudes" are let loose? Laws cost money. They rarely save it. Its far cheaper and more respectable to Take Care Of It Yourself than to get the government to Do It For You.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Is this sarcasm or accidental irony?
What you miss is that those are good ideas. For 99% of the users, having those ports blocked is good.
For the 1%, well, they should be smart enough to read the docs and request that those features be ignored for them
The ignorance of the general populous is no excuse. You are WILLFULLY trying to impose needless regulations on yourself. A law has to be a DAMN good idea to be a good law. Spam does not actually cause any harm to anyone. No one has died from spam. No one has suffered financial loss from spam (idiots who fall for the make-money-fast.txt crap aside). You don't like spam. Me either. Thats personal opinion though. Its not fact.
If you're going to fight, fight for a legitmate cause. Fight child abuse. Fight hunger. Fight opression. Don't fight spam, its not only a waste of your time, its a fight against personal freedom.
And, if you absolutely can't stand it... buy an unrestricted shell account somewhere and use a tunneling protocol to communicate with it without your ISP watching.
Wouldn't the shell have the same restrictions? And if not, certainly if i can do that, then a spammer can as well.
1.Block all access to other peoples SMTP ports. Force your customers to go through YOUR mailer. Red flag any account that tries to access somebody else's SMTP port.
This is the wrong answer. I pay for an internet connection. Nothing more, nothing less. Letting the ISP decide what i do and do not want/need is a start down a bad path. Maybe they should also block port 139 (winnuke/netbios) and use a forced web proxy. Hey, ICMP can only be used for evil too, right? And certainly users have no legitimate use for incoming connections.
Be responsible for your own shit. If you don't want spam, be careful not to get on lists, and if you do, learn how to filter it. Its no ones fault or responsiblity other than your own. The government has no business making decisions for me, nor do you or my isp.
If you live in the northeast, or ever travel there, be sure to check out the lightning show at the boston museum of science. they have the worlds largest van de graaff generators, with a guy in a cage that gets hit by bolts. Also, the museum is just great in general.
Dunno about your first question, but there's a real audio decoder for windows here..Wish there was a linux or os/2 version, but not yet. I'm using it to convert the hours of slack to mp3s for easy in-car listening when pine's spiffy mp3 cd player is released..
The internet "boom" will not leave desolate virtual ghost-towns. You're comparing it to the wrong things. Compare it to electricity. Compare it to automobiles. Compare it to air travel. It will continue to "boom" for quite some time, and then maybe its rate of expansion will slow, but it will still be expansion. it will never go backwards and eventually fade away, as do conventional booms and fads. Not, at least, until there is something better. But i don't see that happening anytime soon, much as i don't see us driving around in hover cars or using magic phone booths that instantly transport us to our destinations, or using a new-fangled replacement for electricity.
Silicon vally will not experience a great exodus prompted by the public deciding "oh, that internet thing? yeah, we're done with that. check out my pokemon tho!"
Unless you're a moron, your job field is not in danger, and you don't need to decide if you want to be a farmer or a carver of wooden ducks in a shack in maine after this internet malarky is over.
a 486 100 or better with *nix & mpg123 or amp will play mp3s just fine. i expect dos & dosamp would work equally well.
thats exactly what happened. colors got worse the more inverted it got. It didn't really matter- the graphics in c64 games were dubious at best. i tweaked the 'tint' knob till it was about right and was happy to have the biggest pac-man game in the neighborhood.
--Sean
I've done this years ago with a commodore 64. Used the lens from an overhead projector. I can't follow the link now, so i don't know how they propose overcoming the problem where everything ends up upside down. I took the simple aproach and turned the commodore monitor upside down. Made the picture rightside-up, but the colors got skewed. No good for general computer usage, but great for games if the colors don't go wacky on you.
--Sean
ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/pccbbs/os2_ews was (and as far as i know still is) the ews repository. As of right not, i can't connect. If you search for +"tvfs" +"ews" you will probably find it mirrored somewhere.
--sean
Reread my post. It does infact create a single filestore. os2tvfs:/z:/. The path under z:/ does not determine the physical location of a file, free space and write priorities given when mounting NFS exports into Z: determine where physical files go. ost2tvfs:/z:/foo.mp3 might be on an os2 box in my living room while os2tvfs:/z:/bar.txt might be on a linux box in the basement (or alaska, if i were to incorporate stuff not on my LAN in my VFS, which i don't plan on doing). If i wanted finer control of where files ended up, i could cron a script that moves things around, which would be transparent to the z: mount.
.tar.gz files as if they were directories (compile your kernel inside of kernel-xx.tar.gz, etc.)
I'll give you that it does nothing for spanning large files, but it also does not incure the problems with spanning files. If a box goes down, you only loose access to the files on that box. If you say 'stuff this' and decide you don't need the virtual FS anymore, you just stop accessing stuff through z:. your files are still there, in the native OS's FS. Things that ended up located on an OS2 box are accessable on that OS2 box, the same goes for things on the linux boxes (or fbsd boxes, win32 boxes, be boxes.. whatever. anything that can export NFS can join the VFS)
As for file availability depending on the state of the machine it is on-- of course. If you want otherwise, you will have to sacrafice storage space, which is contrary to the point.
I don't propose that this is 'generally useful'. It has the negative of sending ALL files through the tvfs box before they make it to their destination. That's not very efficient. However, as far as i can see, it does provide a basic solution to the original posters problem, assuming he would not mind sticking an os2 box in the corner.
On an aside, there is another possible tool for this kind of problem: avfs (A Virtual File System).
Avfs was originally designed so you could access
Recently it's gained the ability to load user-written extensions, mainly for other archive formats. I imagine it could be hacked to do the job of TVFS in my setup.
--sean
You're thinking too low-level. Let the local OS take care of the files on each box, using whatever FS it cares to use. No need for seperate partitions or seperate file space. need to free up space on one box? Just move some of the files in it's distributed FS directory to some other box's distributed FS directory.
See my post here for my admittedly iffy solution that does not have any of the problems you point out.
--sean
I've never played with software raid or the network block device.. was the network block device around in the 2.0.x kernel versions? .. I doubt i'd see any performance increase- i'm sure the bottleneck is the network & the fact that things often go back and forth more than once before ending up at their destinations.
:p From my brief look at intermezzo, i am hopeful.
However, i've just grabbed myself a copy of intermezzo, and it looks like it might be able to do everything i wanted and more. I hope to somehow get my 240 disc cdrom changer into the mix so it appears as a single drive instead of 2 drives and a serially controlable robot.
--sean
I have the same problem. I've got 5 boxes running linux & os/2, and want all the "spare" space to transparently appear as a single volume on all boxes. I couldn't find anything that would do this effectivly for me, so i brewed my own. Unfortunatly (for most of you) this requires an os/2 box.
/s1/ a 6.4gig scsi drive on a linux system
Here's the details:
1) all the boxes export their spare space as nfs mounts.
2) a nifty IFS (installable file system) from IBM's EWS (employee-written software) program called Toronto Virtual File System is installed on one of the os2 boxes (we'll call this box os2tvfs)
3) os2tvfs mounts all the exported drives
4) with tvfs, all the mounted NFS drives are mounted into a tvfs drive (z: in my setup)
5) os2tvfs exports z:
6) any box that wants to access the big-virtual-volume mounts os2tvfs:/z:/
So how's it work? Lets go through an example:
box1 exports d:\, a 10 gig ide drive on an os2 system
d:\ contains a bunch of stuff, for this example we'll focus on "d:\mp3s\foo.mp3"
box2 exports
box2 has a file on it located at "/s1/mp3s/bar.mp3"
box1 then mounts os2tvfs:/z:/ as v:\
on box1, a directory listing of v:\mp3s\ contains both foo.mp3 and bar.mp3. if i copy baz.mp3 to v:\mp3s, it ends up as box2:/s1/mp3s/baz.mp3, as long as their is enough free space on box2:/bfi1/ for it, because i assigned a higher write priority to that volume when i mounted it with TVFS (it's a scsi drive- might as well use it up first). It shows up as os2tvfs:/z:/mp3s/baz.mp3.
Of course, this solution is kinda bad because it creates a ton of extra network traffic, but it was the only one i could find that did what i wanted.
--sean
[1] It seems to use the same type of shell as NT..i.e. a command shell. :)
Because it has a [C:\] prompt? A shell is just shell, something for you to run your programs from.
(Besides, i use bash on my os/2 systems.
[2] It seems to have a DOS-like command set.
A command set is what you make of it. is "ls" intrinsically better than "dir"? why? Either way, ls is an external program. One that i have on my os/2 boxes, as well as the rest of the fileutils, binutils & textutils packages. as well as vim, gcc, make, elm, ncftp, lynx, etc etc.
[3] It has a windows like GUI..more Win95/NT like than 98 but nothing like X.
I don't even know how to argue this statement. The GUI is nothing like windows. It's as far from windows as windowmaker is from amiga's GUI.
[4] does it even have remote administration ? I saw no such thing.
There are packages availble. And it comes with ftpd, telnetd, etc. So yes, you can mange it remotely.
[5] Its interface leaves much to be desired (kludgy win/dos hack were the first impression i got..followed by...what the heck do these weird
buttons do?)
Obviously a matter of taste. But i don't think you can argue against it's superiority over any of the various windows incarnation's UIs, unless you haven't used it enough to understand it.
--sean