Your guess is as good as mine, as usual, someone who had no previous clus about nvp will google it and make a +5 informative post, so just wait for that.
Also reserved are the TLDs:.test.example.invalid.localhost
I don't know if it's been updated since, but they don't mention the common "localhost.localdomain" that I see a lot. I guess it really doesn't matter too much, except for trash traffic to the root name servers if someone messes it up.
Under the current schemes you usually have to create a virtual interface that refers to the trunked interfaces, this would be as simple as setting up a single interface.
Some software won't handle the virtual trunked interfaces well. One example is some software we were running on IRIX. We shelled out tons of money for a 4 port 100Mbit card for our Origin 2000 a few years ago, and once we got the trunking turned on, we found that a lot of our software didn't want to work with it. We wound up shelling a lot more out for a fiber Gigabit interface. A hardware trunking solution wouldn't have these problems, the OS would just think it was a very fast single interface.
You don't want a car to withstand a front end collision. Even if cars could be made indestructible, they wouldn't be. Havn't you ever heard of a crumple zone? You want the car to decelerate as slowly as possible, which mean crushing as much as possible.
I'll stand by the argument that more people will have better jobs if corporations obey the law; if some companies have to be punitively destroyed, so be it.
I agree, for the most part.
I think it is more useful to argue for something like better FTC enforcement and peanalties, however. The FTC frequently only slaps companies on the wrist for major infractions. I see no need to pervert the intent of tort law, to accomplish goals that really should be addressed through other channels, like criminal ones.
When case precedents get set, they apply equally to all companies that wind up in a substancially similar situation. For example, the insane tobacco rulings that have alleviated people from personal responsibility in their choices have now opened the doors for suing fast food companies for serving products that people want that are unhealthy for them.
Everyone loses when our justice system works in a way that allows tort law to change in a way that eliminates personal responsibility in the use of voluntarily purchased products.
While this isn't exactly the same case as the situation at hand with the telecoms, which were comitting outright fraud, allowing juries to set abnormally high punative damages carries over into other areas as well.
Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but it's a slope we are already sliding down, not just some speculation.
This $27 million dollar figure isn't enough. In order to deter this sort of practice - to make sure companies don't do it - you need a ridiculous fine.
No, you don't. You need a appropriate fine. If they made something like $27 million off the scammy practices, then punish them for twice the amount, not some huge number just because you can.
Tobacco is a good example. Juries have no concept of a million dollars, much less a billion. Judgements have been awarded in cases where the punative damages were orders of magnitude higher than actual damages. This is just stupid.
People are all for huge settlements until it's their employer that is getting sued. Maybe you don't realize that these companies are real employers, trying to provide real services. Their management may be sleezy, but an excessive award is not the cure for that.
What if you were being sued because someone slipped on the sidewalk in front of your small shop? Would you want the jury to award the plaintiff 100 times actual damages? Maybe you really were negligent, maybe you didn't fix the steps even though you knew they were cracked, does that justify an unreasonable award?
I figure there's no reason why we can't figure out something more complex, like a 1-wire reference.
I think more pairs would be an interesting way to go, and still preserve the EFI immunity that TP offers. Just imagine a 50Gbit link made up of 5 cables running at 10Gbit, all transparent from software, implemented on the hardware level.
Of course we have other hurdles to go before we need to worry about that, the PCI bus is running out of steam even for regular Gbit ethernet. 64bit PCI is backward compatible, but 64bit 66Mhz is not, and even then you are still only getting a 4X speed increase.
Maybe someone will come out with an AGP network card, since that port is probably the highest bandwidth expansion interface a lot of computers have these days, and there is no need for a server to have a 3D card in it.
Also your post is ignorant in other ways, you think we can only encode one bit per cycle? This is analog we are talking about here, things like QAM let you get several bits per cycle.
I think I should clarify this before someone comes along and blast me for bad phrasing. I mean that nothing is preventing us from using QAM or similar more advanced line codes in an analog fashion for ethernet applications. In fact several line codes are being developed for copper 10 Gbit.
My point is that we aren't limited to one bit per cycle.
Although, I suppose it should be theoretically possible to create a standard that uses just one universal ground wire for a 600x7 = 4.2Gbps rate...
Uh, last I checked, Ethernet is a balanced signal, there is no ground. This eliminates problems with ground potentials between two distantly seperated devices.
It's basically like this Pair: TX+ TX-
Pair: RX+ RX-
High signal might be +5 and -5 on the other, in relation to some certain ground. There is no single point of reference per se, it's just the difference between the voltages. The same signal may appear to be +7 and -3 at the other side, but it doesn't matter that the ground potential is different, since the difference is the same.
I think GB ethernet does something slightly more complex, but I believe that is a balanced system too. Coax is unbalanced, there is a ground on the sheath, hence you use a Bal-Un (Balun) (balanced to unbalanced) to convert between the two.
Also your post is ignorant in other ways, you think we can only encode one bit per cycle? This is analog we are talking about here, things like QAM let you get several bits per cycle.
Actually since photos are something like the equivalent to 3600 DPI, you are losing much more definition than that.
What about a small projector in the phone then. Running a projection bulb off a cell phone battery could be a challenge though. Maybe it could do something clever with the Sun as a backlight for the projection. On the plus side you could start small fires by focusing the sun through your cell phone with a setup like that:)
Computers are extremely complex machines. Most people can't comprehend a million of something, much less a billion or a trillion.
But that's no problem, as long as what people want computers to do is simple. Like an ATM, it has (basically) one function, and a very easy to use interface.
But people don't want to do one thing, they want to do large numbers of different complex things, and they want to do them without learning anything new. That just doesn't happen.
So maybe if it's anyone's fault, it's marketing, since they have sold people on something that doesn't really exist. There is no easy way to do a large number of extremely complex things, and put that into a UI, and have people just know how to use it without learning anything.
First, the idea was to write in ASM to squeeze every drop of performance from the hardware. Then, the idea was to write in a high-level language, but always be careful about performance. Then, the idea was to develop apps quickly, then profile to optimize the important parts. Now, screw optimization, let the user buy more hardware!
First, the hardware has very very expensive. Then, the hardware was less expensive, but still neck and neck with labor. Then, hardware became an order of magnitude cheaper than the labor.
What you're seeing is just the result of the ratio between programmer time cost and hardware cost. People and companies are just doing things in the most cost efficient way possible.
I should call it Gigs's law:
Code bloat = labor cost / hardware cost.
Think I'll be as famous as Moore? I'm sure someone has proposed this before.
Slashdot Mirror
"Network Voice Protocol"
Your guess is as good as mine, as usual, someone who had no previous clus about nvp will google it and make a +5 informative post, so just wait for that.
As far as blocking it in ipchains,
-A input -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -p 11 -j DROP
Is it just growing, or exploding? A reasonable rate of growth is expected as a country moves into an industrialized society.
My point is, once the desperation of having more kids so you can get more people to do farm work is past, populations usually stops growing so fast.
Except that population is not growing at all in any civilized countries.
It's only in breeder infested third world countries where you are still seeing a population explosion.
I'm not trolling, it's true.
Note to self: Always remember to close HREF tags.
I think it's the owner of someone (at) somewhere.com posts to bugtraq.
.test .example .invalid .localhost
example.com
example.net
example.org
Are the RFC 2606 eserved domains you should use in examples, such as the parent post.
Also reserved are the TLDs:
I don't know if it's been updated since, but they don't mention the common "localhost.localdomain" that I see a lot. I guess it really doesn't matter too much, except for trash traffic to the root name servers if someone messes it up.
RTF'n FAQ
You've been a member as long as I have, so you have no excuse.
Platform independence, software transparency.
Under the current schemes you usually have to create a virtual interface that refers to the trunked interfaces, this would be as simple as setting up a single interface.
Some software won't handle the virtual trunked interfaces well. One example is some software we were running on IRIX. We shelled out tons of money for a 4 port 100Mbit card for our Origin 2000 a few years ago, and once we got the trunking turned on, we found that a lot of our software didn't want to work with it. We wound up shelling a lot more out for a fiber Gigabit interface. A hardware trunking solution wouldn't have these problems, the OS would just think it was a very fast single interface.
Also, you're rental company sounds like a bunch of idiots who don't understand english or how to write
Oh, the irony. Slick one.
Causing intentional interference is always illegal in the US. Do 5 minutes research next time.
You don't want a car to withstand a front end collision. Even if cars could be made indestructible, they wouldn't be. Havn't you ever heard of a crumple zone? You want the car to decelerate as slowly as possible, which mean crushing as much as possible.
They actually call teflon tipped bullets cop killers. They aren't particularly pointy, more more than any other bullet.
I'll stand by the argument that more people will have better jobs if corporations obey the law; if some companies have to be punitively destroyed, so be it.
I agree, for the most part.
I think it is more useful to argue for something like better FTC enforcement and peanalties, however. The FTC frequently only slaps companies on the wrist for major infractions. I see no need to pervert the intent of tort law, to accomplish goals that really should be addressed through other channels, like criminal ones.
When case precedents get set, they apply equally to all companies that wind up in a substancially similar situation. For example, the insane tobacco rulings that have alleviated people from personal responsibility in their choices have now opened the doors for suing fast food companies for serving products that people want that are unhealthy for them.
Everyone loses when our justice system works in a way that allows tort law to change in a way that eliminates personal responsibility in the use of voluntarily purchased products.
While this isn't exactly the same case as the situation at hand with the telecoms, which were comitting outright fraud, allowing juries to set abnormally high punative damages carries over into other areas as well.
Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but it's a slope we are already sliding down, not just some speculation.
This $27 million dollar figure isn't enough. In order to deter this sort of practice - to make sure companies don't do it - you need a ridiculous fine.
No, you don't. You need a appropriate fine. If they made something like $27 million off the scammy practices, then punish them for twice the amount, not some huge number just because you can.
Tobacco is a good example. Juries have no concept of a million dollars, much less a billion. Judgements have been awarded in cases where the punative damages were orders of magnitude higher than actual damages. This is just stupid.
People are all for huge settlements until it's their employer that is getting sued. Maybe you don't realize that these companies are real employers, trying to provide real services. Their management may be sleezy, but an excessive award is not the cure for that.
What if you were being sued because someone slipped on the sidewalk in front of your small shop? Would you want the jury to award the plaintiff 100 times actual damages? Maybe you really were negligent, maybe you didn't fix the steps even though you knew they were cracked, does that justify an unreasonable award?
I figure there's no reason why we can't figure out something more complex, like a 1-wire reference.
I think more pairs would be an interesting way to go, and still preserve the EFI immunity that TP offers. Just imagine a 50Gbit link made up of 5 cables running at 10Gbit, all transparent from software, implemented on the hardware level.
Of course we have other hurdles to go before we need to worry about that, the PCI bus is running out of steam even for regular Gbit ethernet. 64bit PCI is backward compatible, but 64bit 66Mhz is not, and even then you are still only getting a 4X speed increase.
Maybe someone will come out with an AGP network card, since that port is probably the highest bandwidth expansion interface a lot of computers have these days, and there is no need for a server to have a 3D card in it.
Also your post is ignorant in other ways, you think we can only encode one bit per cycle? This is analog we are talking about here, things like QAM let you get several bits per cycle.
I think I should clarify this before someone comes along and blast me for bad phrasing. I mean that nothing is preventing us from using QAM or similar more advanced line codes in an analog fashion for ethernet applications. In fact several line codes are being developed for copper 10 Gbit.
My point is that we aren't limited to one bit per cycle.
Although, I suppose it should be theoretically possible to create a standard that uses just one universal ground wire for a 600x7 = 4.2Gbps rate...
Uh, last I checked, Ethernet is a balanced signal, there is no ground. This eliminates problems with ground potentials between two distantly seperated devices.
It's basically like this
Pair:
TX+
TX-
Pair:
RX+
RX-
High signal might be +5 and -5 on the other, in relation to some certain ground. There is no single point of reference per se, it's just the difference between the voltages. The same signal may appear to be +7 and -3 at the other side, but it doesn't matter that the ground potential is different, since the difference is the same.
I think GB ethernet does something slightly more complex, but I believe that is a balanced system too. Coax is unbalanced, there is a ground on the sheath, hence you use a Bal-Un (Balun) (balanced to unbalanced) to convert between the two.
Also your post is ignorant in other ways, you think we can only encode one bit per cycle? This is analog we are talking about here, things like QAM let you get several bits per cycle.
It reads like a Slashdot troll wrote it:
'Harry doesn't know how long it will take to wash the sticky cream cake off his face,' the book begins.
'He lies in the high-quality china bathtub, keeps wiping his face, and thinks about Dali's face, which is as fat as the bottom of Aunt Penny.'
So, naked Harry Potter with sticky cream on his face... I bet on the back of the book in tiny letters it says "Trolled by Chinese!"
'Harry Potter And Leoard Walk Up To Dragon.'
In other news, the fake versions of the sixth and seventh book will be titled "Harry Potter Slay Dragon", and "Harry Potter Steal Dragon Treasure".
The manuscripts were discovered when buyers found that each only contained 2 pages of text, and a lot of blank pages.
entreapaneurs
Is that someone who engages in entrapment?
Anyway, what possible profit motivation would any private company have for going to mars?
Freeze dried vodka
I think I've quoted resolution when scanning the film itself for minimal loss of data. Oh well, you still get my point.
Actually since photos are something like the equivalent to 3600 DPI, you are losing much more definition than that.
:)
What about a small projector in the phone then. Running a projection bulb off a cell phone battery could be a challenge though. Maybe it could do something clever with the Sun as a backlight for the projection. On the plus side you could start small fires by focusing the sun through your cell phone with a setup like that
Computers are extremely complex machines. Most people can't comprehend a million of something, much less a billion or a trillion.
But that's no problem, as long as what people want computers to do is simple. Like an ATM, it has (basically) one function, and a very easy to use interface.
But people don't want to do one thing, they want to do large numbers of different complex things, and they want to do them without learning anything new. That just doesn't happen.
So maybe if it's anyone's fault, it's marketing, since they have sold people on something that doesn't really exist. There is no easy way to do a large number of extremely complex things, and put that into a UI, and have people just know how to use it without learning anything.
First, the idea was to write in ASM to squeeze every drop of performance from the hardware.
Then, the idea was to write in a high-level language, but always be careful about performance.
Then, the idea was to develop apps quickly, then profile to optimize the important parts.
Now, screw optimization, let the user buy more hardware!
First, the hardware has very very expensive.
Then, the hardware was less expensive, but still neck and neck with labor.
Then, hardware became an order of magnitude cheaper than the labor.
What you're seeing is just the result of the ratio between programmer time cost and hardware cost. People and companies are just doing things in the most cost efficient way possible.
I should call it Gigs's law:
Code bloat = labor cost / hardware cost.
Think I'll be as famous as Moore? I'm sure someone has proposed this before.
Me:
think SCSI is more reliable due to supersitions and tech mythology.
You:
It would be wiser if you didn't expound your ignorance so loudly. (You then talk about how SCSI is technologically superior)
It would be wiser if you would pay attention. I said at the beginning of my post that SCSI was a superior technology.