It sure does bring back memories. I was on LambdaMOO for a while, also worked with Pavel Curtis much later at a different job. Did my years on MUCKs and MUSHes, too. It's amazing how much this stuff is both ancient history and recent history all at the same time.
Under a competent administration, it likely would not be a terrible idea. Under this administration, and under these circumstances, however, it's nothing more than a distraction.
I am an adherent of Emacs "org-mode" ( http://orgmode.org/ ) for note taking. I use it almost exclusively.
Org mode is insanely powerful, but like everything in emacs, it has a steep learning curve. Still, if you're taking a lot of notes, I fully recommend it.
I'm going to invoke Poe's Law on this reply because I can't possibly imagine anybody actually believing this. But, just in case you're serious (surely not)...
Yes, actually it is our responsibility to care for each other. We live in a society. I pay property taxes that go to my local schools, and even though I have no children I am glad (and proud) to do so, because other people's children go to those schools. Those other people positively impact my life by contributing to society. Those sick people, should they be given treatment and become well again, also positively impact my life by contributing to society.
Man. Memories for sure. I got my start with Linux as a freshman in college in 1992. I happened to be living in the same dorm building as Matt Welsh, a major contributor to the early Linux documentation efforts. He hooked me up with a box of 3.5" floppies holding SLS Linux with the 0.98 kernel on it. Good times.
Well, for some value of "Good times":) I think being extremely young and naive helped me keep up the energy to play around and be adventurous with Linux, as unstable and fluid as it was in those days. I probably would not have the patience anymore. I guess that's why I'm perfectly happy with Ubuntu now. Too many memories of recompiling the kernel to get the newest (and hopefully less buggy) ethernet or Tseng Labs ET4000 X11 drivers!
I have to agree with some of the other commenters -- it really is an excellent film. I think it's a testament to how engrossing it is that when I got to the infamous scene, I wasn't distracted or amused by its association with all of the YouTube clips I'd watched, because I was fully engaged with the film and the story by that point.
And yes, I would likely never have seen or even heard of this film without the YouTube parodies. They made at least one DVD sale right here.
Wonderful! You're in exactly the same situation I was in about two months ago, when a friend recommended that I pick up a Xilinx FPGA board.
I'm a programmer, I'd never done any kind of electronics before. I fooled around with the FPGA for a bit, but found the whole idea baffling. I'm used to procedural logic, asynchronous design, calling and returning from functions, but this FPGA beast was fully synchronous. All functions defined in my HDL were executing at the same time! How odd! Well, on second thought, of course it makes sense. HDLs are languages for defining circuits, not programming. That spark of realization drove me to go back to basics and try to understand exactly how to define a circuit using digital logic. It's been addictively fun. It sounds like that's sort of where you are now.
The most important thing to remember in all this is that all circuits are analog. It may say "digital", but that's just a convenient abstraction. Fully grok the fundamentals of analog circuits before you try to understand the digital.
For books, I have to second or third or fourth "The Art of Electronics". The other inexpensive but fun book I've used when learning was "Starting Electronics", by Keith Brindley. It's small, but an easy read, and leads you through a bunch of breadboard experiments.
Finally, experiment! Go nuts! Get a cabinet of basic parts and a breadboard. You don't even need a fancy regulated power supply, just grab a 9V battery, a 7805 voltage regulator and a couple of capacitors, shouldn't cost more than a dollar or two for parts and spares. Just start playing. If you burn out an LED or two, who cares, they're cheap! Grab a 555 timer, and some 4000 or 7400 series logic, TTL (the 74LS00 series) or CMOS (the 74HC00 series), and start playing. Learn how to interface TTL to CMOS, you can find that with a simple Google search. Hunt down your local surplus electronics shops, start stripping boards. It's all putty in your hands! I hope you have fun with it.
It's good to hear about these things now, I had no idea how modern schools were teaching computers. I feel very out of touch: When I was 15, our school had a lab of Apple II computers, and learning BASIC was mandatory!
Also, don't dismiss command line programming too quickly, it's incredibly useful for teaching how to think like a programmer. I can't stress enough how understanding the fundamentals of data structures and algorithms will help you. Well, if you want to be a programmer, that is. If that's not your career goal, it seems less important:)
It looks like it's about time for me to revive my early 90's plan of rebranding the word "internet".
I propose that, in honor of Doctor Norbert Wiener, inventer of the term 'cybernetics', and the 'cyber-' prefix in larger use, we should refer to the internet as 'Wienerspace' from now on.
Try it!
'I logged onto the Wienerspace last night, and looked at my favorite web sites!'
Oh my goodness, I'm in pain just thinking about re-installing every month. I apologize for this not being a direct reply to your question, but it is (I hope) a piece of very useful advice nonetheless.
If you're re-installing on the same hardware every time, or even on identical but different hardware, I would very seriously recommend buying Norton Ghost. The personal edition is relatively inexpensive. Then, you can get your system installed in a fresh, clean way, patched up as you like it, with whatever programs you choose, and make an image of it. Store the image on a remote server, a DVD-R, split up across CD-Rs, whatever you like. The next time you want to reinstall, just boot up off the Ghost disk and restore the image.
It will save you so many painful hours of waiting, downloading patches, rebooting, downloading drivers, rebooting, rebooting again, installing programs, rebooting, rinse, repeat.
The point of a hoax, in my opinion, would most likely have been financial gain.
There is no clear evidence pointing to an exact date that the manuscript was written, and the only firm circumstantial evidence we have to go on is Marcus Marci's letter to Anasthasius Kirchir, which mentions that the manuscript was sold to King Rudolph for 600 ducats. That is a heck of a lot of money. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone manufactured the manuscript to extract 600 ducats from the emperor.
This assumes a lot. It assumes that the letter is genuine, and it assumes that the facts mentioned in the letter are true, and it assumes that Rudolph was the first buyer, so it is by no means a sure thing. But a lot of us who lean (gingerly) toward the hoax theory stand by Occam's Razor, which points to a hoax being at least a feasable, and probably even likely solution. Rugg's analysis is just more circumstantial evidence, not proof, but every little bit weights the scale more.
Come on, these days you should implement things as Java web services, or maybe a simple LAMP solution using MySQL and Perl, Python, or PHP. CGI is just so mid-90s!
Oh, wait, you mean Computer Graphics? Not the Common Gateway Interface? My mistake.
Seriously, every time I see CGI I have this moment of confusion when I try to map the subject into my little web development world. Too much time writing code I guess.
But it is magical! Because while you can easily get around it, iTunes is not automatically giving you permission to copy the files.
I stick by my statement, "you can not copy the files", but I'd better modify it because everyone's missing the point. "You can copy the data, but you can't use iTunes to easily copy the files to your disk without jumping through some third party hoops." There, happy?
You can use all sorts of hacks and workarounds and custom tools copy the stream and save it to your disk. But in all those cases you're working around the existing implementation.
If I don't have a deadbolt on my door, just a handle lock, am I giving you permission to enter my home without asking me? You can come in a window, or jimmy the lock, or slide down the chimney, it doesn't matter, you're still breaking the law. The point is, Apple is not giving you an easy way to copy the files. If you want to break the law, you have to go out of your way to do it.
You can't copy this files. It's streaming. It's not sharing in the sense of sharing files, it's sharing in the sense of sharing music that can be listened to only while the person sharing is online.
You can NOT copy the files.
Got it? You're not sharing files, you're sharing a playlist of streamable music, that's it. Person turns off sharing or goes offline, you can't play them. You can't copy them to your local disk. You just can't.
You can NOT copy the files.
So please do a little research before you jump all over this as music piracy. It's not a bug, it's a feature that Apple has proudly advertised.
I fail to see how this language is significantly different than Java, except for the addition of templates. Apparently, if you call your runtime a VM, you're bad, and if you call it a runtime, you're good!
Am I the only one who's still completely thrown for a loop when I see the phrase "Back in the 20th century"?
My God! It's the future, and I didn't notice!
-Seth
Re:Problems are legal, not technical
on
Digital Dark Ages?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My concern remains strong, however. For every tape that was saved and rescued by TUHS and by your own stellar recovery abilities (which I am grateful for, by the way), how many have been lost? And what if, god forbid, trailing-edge.com goes down in five years, or ten? There may be mirrors if we're lucky, maybe, and some people will have copies of the tapes they've downloaded, but how will we find them? Poof, it can vanish all too quickly. And those original tapes are already in hard shape, some portion of them will be completely unreadable in ten years, and we can't say which portion that will be.
For the most part, I think that TUHS and the PDP10 archives have done so well because of the efforts of a few hardcore packrats. Most of the Slashdot readers who have so casually poo-pooed this article are the same sort of person, myself included. We save everything. We do backups. We feel like we could restore our computers after a crash.
But that viewpoint is so short term. What happens when we die? (no, i'm not discussing theology here!) What becomes of our computers and our scattered tapes labeled "/usr (dump) 1994-02-12"? Will we have digital executors who look after it for us? I somehow doubt it.
The argument can be made that most of the lost information is unimportant, but I'm not sure I buy that either. A lot of it may well be. A lot of it will be accumulated junk a future society can live just fine without. But it is impossible to know what will be and won't be important in the future. You really never know. And while I don't think we want to save every single bit of information ever created, we should at least do ourselves the service of trying to come up with a better solution than just trusting everything to work itself out in the end. There's no harm in thinking about it a little, people.
I'm really surprised more people in the media haven't commented on how much NeXT there is in MacOS X. The common battlecry is "it's based on UNIX", or with a little more specificity, "it's based on BSD". Look, the truth is, this is NeXTSTEP (or OPENSTEP for you 4.2 fans) with a funny interface.
Let's review. There is a BSD layer, yes, but it's no more BSD than NeXTSTEP had. Think back to 1990. Imagine yourself sitting in front of a big black cube. Open up a shell, and you'll find it's tcsh. Look around at the file system. You'll see it's strikingly similar to MacOS X today, virtually the same layout.
Most important are the runtimes available. The primary runtime, now called "Cocoa", was formerly just called OPENSTEP. It's Objective-C, and all objects inherit from NSObject (NS - NextStep, get it?). You can get access to a lot of these objects through Java as well, but mostly you use Objective-C to write native MacOS X applications.
The display layer, now called "Quartz", is Display PostScript at its heart. You'd be more accurate to call it "Display PDF", but since PDF is really an extension of PostScript... well, you get the idea.
Oh, and applications are "bundles" (really just directories that encapsulate their internal components and expose a single icon) that end in a ".app" extension. That is so very, very NeXT.
The good news is that there are so many core enhancements since OPENSTEP 4.2. This is not your father's OS. The tight integration into the system of a really rather decent Java VM is a delight. Quartz has come a long way since the initial Display PS. The mere fact that InterfaceBuilder.app and ProjectBuilder.app are included for free is marvellous.
I was a NeXT Computer booster from way back, I've always had a soft spot for them. And MacOS X just confirms what I knew was going on in 1996 -- NeXT bought Apple, not the other way around.
I was almost willing to believe it, despite the extraordinary unlikliness of it all (what can I say, I like unlikely things), until I saw the "infra-red photograph" of the Codex Udolphus.
Did anyone else notice that the "handwriting" is just a pasted-in snippet of the Voynich Manuscript? Clearly Ray Girvan is up on his obscure un-translated early renaissance alchemy texts, at least.
I got a full list of their subnets through ARIN, conveniently listed below. Some of these guys may not actually be Double Click, but since they all have "Double Click" somewhere in their names, they all get blocked at my router level:
Wow. I have to give credit where it's due, and in this case it is. The M5 milestone looks like a tremendous and dramatic improvement over previous incarnations of Mozilla.
I'm posting this comment from M5 right now, and apart from a few minor and a few not-so-minor issues with rendering form widgets, everything feels like its coming together.
Communicator 4.51 is a joke. It should never have been considered releasable software for stability reasons. I hope Mozilla can turn that around. M5 is almost as fast as Communicator, and probably (sadly) almost as stable. With a few more releases and some good bug hunting, we might just have a Quick, Reliable, Standards Compliant web browser for Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
It's fine. The average boss works 312 times harder than their average employee, so it's all good.
It sure does bring back memories. I was on LambdaMOO for a while, also worked with Pavel Curtis much later at a different job. Did my years on MUCKs and MUSHes, too. It's amazing how much this stuff is both ancient history and recent history all at the same time.
Under a competent administration, it likely would not be a terrible idea. Under this administration, and under these circumstances, however, it's nothing more than a distraction.
Oh cool! Now we have two reports that draw opposite conclusions, so we can just pick whichever one we already agree with and ignore the other. Sweet!
I am an adherent of Emacs "org-mode" ( http://orgmode.org/ ) for note taking. I use it almost exclusively.
Org mode is insanely powerful, but like everything in emacs, it has a steep learning curve. Still, if you're taking a lot of notes, I fully recommend it.
I'm going to invoke Poe's Law on this reply because I can't possibly imagine anybody actually believing this. But, just in case you're serious (surely not)...
Yes, actually it is our responsibility to care for each other. We live in a society. I pay property taxes that go to my local schools, and even though I have no children I am glad (and proud) to do so, because other people's children go to those schools. Those other people positively impact my life by contributing to society. Those sick people, should they be given treatment and become well again, also positively impact my life by contributing to society.
You do not live in a bubble, man!
Man. Memories for sure. I got my start with Linux as a freshman in college in 1992. I happened to be living in the same dorm building as Matt Welsh, a major contributor to the early Linux documentation efforts. He hooked me up with a box of 3.5" floppies holding SLS Linux with the 0.98 kernel on it. Good times.
Well, for some value of "Good times" :) I think being extremely young and naive helped me keep up the energy to play around and be adventurous with Linux, as unstable and fluid as it was in those days. I probably would not have the patience anymore. I guess that's why I'm perfectly happy with Ubuntu now. Too many memories of recompiling the kernel to get the newest (and hopefully less buggy) ethernet or Tseng Labs ET4000 X11 drivers!
I have to agree with some of the other commenters -- it really is an excellent film. I think it's a testament to how engrossing it is that when I got to the infamous scene, I wasn't distracted or amused by its association with all of the YouTube clips I'd watched, because I was fully engaged with the film and the story by that point.
And yes, I would likely never have seen or even heard of this film without the YouTube parodies. They made at least one DVD sale right here.
Where the heck is the "-1: Pedantic" button when you need it?
Wonderful! You're in exactly the same situation I was in about two months ago, when a friend recommended that I pick up a Xilinx FPGA board.
I'm a programmer, I'd never done any kind of electronics before. I fooled around with the FPGA for a bit, but found the whole idea baffling. I'm used to procedural logic, asynchronous design, calling and returning from functions, but this FPGA beast was fully synchronous. All functions defined in my HDL were executing at the same time! How odd! Well, on second thought, of course it makes sense. HDLs are languages for defining circuits, not programming. That spark of realization drove me to go back to basics and try to understand exactly how to define a circuit using digital logic. It's been addictively fun. It sounds like that's sort of where you are now.
The most important thing to remember in all this is that all circuits are analog. It may say "digital", but that's just a convenient abstraction. Fully grok the fundamentals of analog circuits before you try to understand the digital.
For books, I have to second or third or fourth "The Art of Electronics". The other inexpensive but fun book I've used when learning was "Starting Electronics", by Keith Brindley. It's small, but an easy read, and leads you through a bunch of breadboard experiments.
Finally, experiment! Go nuts! Get a cabinet of basic parts and a breadboard. You don't even need a fancy regulated power supply, just grab a 9V battery, a 7805 voltage regulator and a couple of capacitors, shouldn't cost more than a dollar or two for parts and spares. Just start playing. If you burn out an LED or two, who cares, they're cheap! Grab a 555 timer, and some 4000 or 7400 series logic, TTL (the 74LS00 series) or CMOS (the 74HC00 series), and start playing. Learn how to interface TTL to CMOS, you can find that with a simple Google search. Hunt down your local surplus electronics shops, start stripping boards. It's all putty in your hands! I hope you have fun with it.
It's good to hear about these things now, I had no idea how modern schools were teaching computers. I feel very out of touch: When I was 15, our school had a lab of Apple II computers, and learning BASIC was mandatory!
:)
Also, don't dismiss command line programming too quickly, it's incredibly useful for teaching how to think like a programmer. I can't stress enough how understanding the fundamentals of data structures and algorithms will help you. Well, if you want to be a programmer, that is. If that's not your career goal, it seems less important
It looks like it's about time for me to revive my early 90's plan of rebranding the word "internet".
I propose that, in honor of Doctor Norbert Wiener, inventer of the term 'cybernetics', and the 'cyber-' prefix in larger use, we should refer to the internet as 'Wienerspace' from now on.
Try it!
'I logged onto the Wienerspace last night, and looked at my favorite web sites!'
Oh my goodness, I'm in pain just thinking about re-installing every month. I apologize for this not being a direct reply to your question, but it is (I hope) a piece of very useful advice nonetheless.
If you're re-installing on the same hardware every time, or even on identical but different hardware, I would very seriously recommend buying Norton Ghost. The personal edition is relatively inexpensive. Then, you can get your system installed in a fresh, clean way, patched up as you like it, with whatever programs you choose, and make an image of it. Store the image on a remote server, a DVD-R, split up across CD-Rs, whatever you like. The next time you want to reinstall, just boot up off the Ghost disk and restore the image.
It will save you so many painful hours of waiting, downloading patches, rebooting, downloading drivers, rebooting, rebooting again, installing programs, rebooting, rinse, repeat.
The point of a hoax, in my opinion, would most likely have been financial gain.
There is no clear evidence pointing to an exact date that the manuscript was written, and the only firm circumstantial evidence we have to go on is Marcus Marci's letter to Anasthasius Kirchir, which mentions that the manuscript was sold to King Rudolph for 600 ducats. That is a heck of a lot of money. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone manufactured the manuscript to extract 600 ducats from the emperor.
This assumes a lot. It assumes that the letter is genuine, and it assumes that the facts mentioned in the letter are true, and it assumes that Rudolph was the first buyer, so it is by no means a sure thing. But a lot of us who lean (gingerly) toward the hoax theory stand by Occam's Razor, which points to a hoax being at least a feasable, and probably even likely solution. Rugg's analysis is just more circumstantial evidence, not proof, but every little bit weights the scale more.
Come on, these days you should implement things as Java web services, or maybe a simple LAMP solution using MySQL and Perl, Python, or PHP. CGI is just so mid-90s!
Oh, wait, you mean Computer Graphics? Not the Common Gateway Interface? My mistake.
Seriously, every time I see CGI I have this moment of confusion when I try to map the subject into my little web development world. Too much time writing code I guess.
But it is magical! Because while you can easily get around it, iTunes is not automatically giving you permission to copy the files.
I stick by my statement, "you can not copy the files", but I'd better modify it because everyone's missing the point. "You can copy the data, but you can't use iTunes to easily copy the files to your disk without jumping through some third party hoops." There, happy?
You can use all sorts of hacks and workarounds and custom tools copy the stream and save it to your disk. But in all those cases you're working around the existing implementation.
If I don't have a deadbolt on my door, just a handle lock, am I giving you permission to enter my home without asking me? You can come in a window, or jimmy the lock, or slide down the chimney, it doesn't matter, you're still breaking the law. The point is, Apple is not giving you an easy way to copy the files. If you want to break the law, you have to go out of your way to do it.
Sheesh, nitpicky people.
Repeat after me:
You can't copy this files. It's streaming. It's not sharing in the sense of sharing files, it's sharing in the sense of sharing music that can be listened to only while the person sharing is online.
You can NOT copy the files.
Got it? You're not sharing files, you're sharing a playlist of streamable music, that's it. Person turns off sharing or goes offline, you can't play them. You can't copy them to your local disk. You just can't.
You can NOT copy the files.
So please do a little research before you jump all over this as music piracy. It's not a bug, it's a feature that Apple has proudly advertised.
I fail to see how this language is significantly different than Java, except for the addition of templates. Apparently, if you call your runtime a VM, you're bad, and if you call it a runtime, you're good!
The story's not two minutes old, and the trailer is already missing.
The fastest slashdotting ever?
(And on an unrelated topic, will Apple report that their G4 can slashdot faster than light?)
Am I the only one who's still completely thrown for a loop when I see the phrase "Back in the 20th century"?
My God! It's the future, and I didn't notice!
-Seth
My concern remains strong, however. For every tape that was saved and rescued by TUHS and by your own stellar recovery abilities (which I am grateful for, by the way), how many have been lost? And what if, god forbid, trailing-edge.com goes down in five years, or ten? There may be mirrors if we're lucky, maybe, and some people will have copies of the tapes they've downloaded, but how will we find them? Poof, it can vanish all too quickly. And those original tapes are already in hard shape, some portion of them will be completely unreadable in ten years, and we can't say which portion that will be.
For the most part, I think that TUHS and the PDP10 archives have done so well because of the efforts of a few hardcore packrats. Most of the Slashdot readers who have so casually poo-pooed this article are the same sort of person, myself included. We save everything. We do backups. We feel like we could restore our computers after a crash.
But that viewpoint is so short term. What happens when we die? (no, i'm not discussing theology here!) What becomes of our computers and our scattered tapes labeled "/usr (dump) 1994-02-12"? Will we have digital executors who look after it for us? I somehow doubt it.
The argument can be made that most of the lost information is unimportant, but I'm not sure I buy that either. A lot of it may well be. A lot of it will be accumulated junk a future society can live just fine without. But it is impossible to know what will be and won't be important in the future. You really never know. And while I don't think we want to save every single bit of information ever created, we should at least do ourselves the service of trying to come up with a better solution than just trusting everything to work itself out in the end. There's no harm in thinking about it a little, people.
I'm really surprised more people in the media haven't commented on how much NeXT there is in MacOS X. The common battlecry is "it's based on UNIX", or with a little more specificity, "it's based on BSD". Look, the truth is, this is NeXTSTEP (or OPENSTEP for you 4.2 fans) with a funny interface.
Let's review. There is a BSD layer, yes, but it's no more BSD than NeXTSTEP had. Think back to 1990. Imagine yourself sitting in front of a big black cube. Open up a shell, and you'll find it's tcsh. Look around at the file system. You'll see it's strikingly similar to MacOS X today, virtually the same layout.
Most important are the runtimes available. The primary runtime, now called "Cocoa", was formerly just called OPENSTEP. It's Objective-C, and all objects inherit from NSObject (NS - NextStep, get it?). You can get access to a lot of these objects through Java as well, but mostly you use Objective-C to write native MacOS X applications.
The display layer, now called "Quartz", is Display PostScript at its heart. You'd be more accurate to call it "Display PDF", but since PDF is really an extension of PostScript... well, you get the idea.
Oh, and applications are "bundles" (really just directories that encapsulate their internal components and expose a single icon) that end in a ".app" extension. That is so very, very NeXT.
The good news is that there are so many core enhancements since OPENSTEP 4.2. This is not your father's OS. The tight integration into the system of a really rather decent Java VM is a delight. Quartz has come a long way since the initial Display PS. The mere fact that InterfaceBuilder.app and ProjectBuilder.app are included for free is marvellous.
I was a NeXT Computer booster from way back, I've always had a soft spot for them. And MacOS X just confirms what I knew was going on in 1996 -- NeXT bought Apple, not the other way around.
(And thank God, too.)
-Seth
I was almost willing to believe it, despite the extraordinary unlikliness of it all (what can I say, I like unlikely things), until I saw the "infra-red photograph" of the Codex Udolphus.
Did anyone else notice that the "handwriting" is just a pasted-in snippet of the Voynich Manuscript? Clearly Ray Girvan is up on his obscure un-translated early renaissance alchemy texts, at least.
I got a full list of their subnets through ARIN, conveniently listed below. Some of these guys may not actually be Double Click, but since they all have "Double Click" somewhere in their names, they all get blocked at my router level:
[root@foo
[arin.net]
Double Click (NETBLK-UU-208-211-225) UU-208-211-225
208.211.225.0 - 208.211.225.255
Double Click (NETBLK-UU-208-203-243) UU-208-203-243
208.203.243.0 - 208.203.243.255
Double Click (NETBLK-UU-204-178-112-160) UU-204-178-112-160
204.178.112.160 - 204.178.112.191
Double Click (NETBLK-UU-204-253-104) UU-204-253-104
204.253.104.0 - 204.253.105.255
Double Click (NETBLK-CYPC-2162306564) CYPC-2162306564
216.230.65.64 - 216.230.65.79
Double Click (NETBLK-UU-63-77-79-192) UU-63-77-79-192
63.77.79.192 - 63.77.79.255
Double Click Computers (NETBLK-DCLICK-T1-BLK) DCLICK-T1-BLK
204.186.74.0 - 204.186.74.255
Double Click Imaging, Inc. (ICO-HST) NS1.ICONETWORKS.NET 204.94.129.65
Double Click Imaging, Inc. (NET-DOUBLECLICK2) DOUBLECLICK2 192.65.80.0
Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK31-60-18) DOUBLECLICK31-60-18
128.11.60.64 - 128.11.60.127
Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK-92-19) DOUBLECLICK-92-19
128.11.92.0 - 128.11.92.255
Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK-210-08) DOUBLECLICK-210-08
199.95.210.0 - 199.95.210.255
Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK3) DOUBLECLICK3
199.95.206.0 - 199.95.209.255
Wow. I have to give credit where it's due, and in this case it is. The M5 milestone looks like a tremendous and dramatic improvement over previous incarnations of Mozilla.
I'm posting this comment from M5 right now, and apart from a few minor and a few not-so-minor issues with rendering form widgets, everything feels like its coming together.
Communicator 4.51 is a joke. It should never have been considered releasable software for stability reasons. I hope Mozilla can turn that around. M5 is almost as fast as Communicator, and probably (sadly) almost as stable. With a few more releases and some good bug hunting, we might just have a Quick, Reliable, Standards Compliant web browser for Linux.
Imagine that!
-Seth