I laughed when I read this little piece of "breaking news"... This kinda technology has been in use for over a year in Moncton, New Brunswick CANADA... yeah that's right... Canada...
A similar system has been available to consumers from Kingston Communications in UK, for year (it trialled for nearly two years before that).
http://www.kingston-comms.co.uk
http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk (flash)
Consider a [very] small ISP with a 10Mbps link to the net, for simplicity we will also assume a zero logging, & indexing overhead.
600 Mbps a minute
3600 Mbps a hour
864,000 Mpbs a day
31,536,000 Mbps a year
2,207,520,000 Mpbs each 7 years
This single link from one small ISP passes ~>260 TeraBytes in Seven years, Now consider that this is a small ISP, 100Mbps and 1Gbps links are not unusual, the largest ISP's have Terabit links, now multiply these by the number of ISP's.
RIP apparently expects UK ISP's smash the laws of physics, RIP is pointlessly ineffective and simply impossible to obey & enforce.
Should the Post Office be responsible storing copies of every letter sent, or British Telecom be responsible for recording and indexing the content of every telephone call, should Kodak be responsible for coping and archiving every photo taken, or Xerox, etc, etc...
This IS a strawman argument (despite his claims otherwise) by somebody who clearly has little idea of what OO is about. I guess he is frightened and fearful for his prospects because he is unable to make the paradigm shift. The clearest evidence of this are the Myths; an OO authority would never proclaim many of these, some just don't make sense, some are 'clearly' miss-quotes or misrepresentations of what OO advocates do claim. That these are myths is only claimed with his opinion, not proven with evidence.
Myth: OOP is a proven general-purpose technique Where is the evidence that it is not? His own pet hate about the massive growth of OO over the last decade directly contradicts this claim. I've used an OO approach successfully to produce many types of systems including, databases, real time, calculations, GUI's & parsers, print engines, utilities.
Myth: OOP models the real world better Better than what ? OO readily models Physics, the most fundamental 'real world' model in existence.
Myth: OOP makes programming more visualStawman
Myth: OOP makes programming easier and faster This claim should be qualified as over the full life cycle of a system; the design may be longer than a traditionally 'hacked' project. However the iterative nature of an OO development more than make up for it during elaboration & maintenance phases, the most important phases in bespoke systems development.
Myth: OOP eliminates the complexity of "case" or "switch" statementsStawman This is an algorithmic issue; the Command pattern is one OO approach to achieve this, there are non OO approaches that could also do the same (function pointers in C) if it is warranted. It was with Win SDK message crackers for instance.
Myth: OOP reduces the number of places that require changingStawman OOP aids a reduction in coupling. Reduced coupling improves a system in a number of ways, including maintenance.
Myth: Inheritance increases reuseStawman There is a lot more to reuse in OO than inheritance. Encapsulation, polymorphism, aggregation/ composition.
Myth: Most things fit nicely into hierarchical taxonomies. Stawman As I just said there is a lot more to OO than inheritance.
Myth: Self-handling nouns are more important than self-handling verbs ?!?!
This miss-represents a rule of thumb used to aid the learning of OO; 'more important', this does not make proper sense.
Myth: Only OOP has automatic garbage collectionStawman Garbage collection and OO are not synonymous, not all OO languages include [automatic] garbage collection, procedural & functional languages do include automatic garbage collection. it's probably only really essential in functional languages.
Myth: Components can only be built with OOP
Myth: Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data Stawman
Myth: OODBMS are overall faster than RDBMS Stawman
Myth: C is the best procedural can get Stawman
Myth: OOP would have prevented Y2K problems Stawman No, just made it easier to fix.
Myth: Implementation changes significantly more often than interfaces Stawman
Myth: Procedural/Relational ties field types and sizes to the code more Stawman
Myth: Procedural/Relational programs cannot "factor" as well Stawman
Regarding the unanswered challenge, the old philosophy of science adage, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, says more than I ever could.
The posting history of this identity, demonstrates a single narrow minded obsession with ignoring the evidence, that it's pointless trying to convince him otherwise. His ego prevent him progressing. I would guess that he's a self taught amateur who know a few [non OO] languages, rather than a trained professional with a range of tools [including OO] in his arsenal.
Could this link reveal the real reason for your opposition to junk email traps. www.xs4all.nl appear to offer a bulk emailer service.
http://www.xs4all.nl/helpdesk/algemeen/faq/bsmtp_f aq.html
Then why, oh overwrought one, do you specify your email address on slashdot as it is? Do you get your jollies thinking about how now and again overworked and underpaid email server administrators get an email intended to you, but incomprehensible and not truly trackable to them?
Have you even read my post? You certainly have not understood it! If you had it would be clear why I use the email address I do.
I use abuse@127.0.0.1 for the very good reason that Junk emailers and mail-bombers, etc end up report themselves to their own Sysop.
If you can suggest a more elegant solution, I'll be happy to consider it.
We should call this stuff what it IS. This is Unsolicited commercial email / junk email it is not Spam or done by Spamer's.
Spamer is my family surname (Try searching Google, you'll find hundred of us), and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spamer, Spam, Spaming causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems. I've been flamed, mail bombed, had my machines attacked, this has become seriously unfunny!
This is plea that everybody be responsible, use and encourage others to use, the most accurate term Unsolicited commercial email / junk email.
My family surname is Spamer and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spam causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems.
I don't doubt, there will be some irritating "witty" follow up comments to illustrate this point.
Guys,
I like to encourage the use of the terms 'Unsolicited Commercial Email' or Junk Email instead of 'Spam' and it's derivatives.
My family surname is Spamer and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spam causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems.
IMHO, a port scan is analogous to knocking on a door. It's what happens afterwards, how the information gained is used, that determines if the subsequent actions are criminal.
Generally I agree with you comments, but I have to pick up up on a couple of pieces.
I have this sneaking suspicion that any abstraction of code -- UML, flowcharts, proofs -- is only that: an abstraction. And that correctness (or, more likely, bugginess) lives in the code, and in the code alone, so that's where you have to weed it out.
The Design and the Code are both abstractions from the problem domain. Therefore they could both (or neither) be faulty. The problem could be design or coding fault.
It is the design 'process' that is useful, it forces the Software Engineer to understand the problem, before they've invested too much time. It improves flexibility and reliability, both of which reduce the mainternace burden (a VGT). In my experience, using Analysis & Design tools such as UML makes a considerable impovement in the 'quality' of the system. They are also a better that code to communicate ideas to fellow Engineers.
I personally think Extreme Programming holds a high amount of promise...
Extreme Programming, is just the latest buzz word for what was RAD, and before that what was simply good practice/procedures, i.e. review, Review, REVIEW! test, Test, TEST!
BT is the only company able to provide ADSL, and resells it through other companies as well as marketing it itself.
Not true, Kingston Communications also offer ADSL, and have been since the Nov 1998, well over a year before BT's trial started.
Cable modems are no solution to the lack of ADSL, they are only available is very small areas, and they have much lower data rates, because of the network architecture (ring).
The problem is not xDSL it is BT's monopoly position. They've been obstructing competition since they where privatised and OFTEL has done little to control them. OFTEL is run by exBT staff, which is why the Government is disbanding it in favour of a new regulator.
It seems BT have had real problems making ADSL work properly. See news:uk.telecoms.broadband. Which indicates that they are only achieving 2Mbps (very low for ADSL).
Oftel failure to control BT monopoly has resulted in it being disbanded by the government and is to be replaced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1066000/1066488.stm
Isn't Kingston Communications already providing cable and internet using ADSL technology?
Yes. Kingston ( http://www.kingston-comms.co.uk/ ) are one of the few Telcos left in the UK offering ADSL, to deliver Kingston Interactive Television service(http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/ [site uses flash] ).
It includes Interactive/Digital TV, true Video on Demand, high speed Web & Email & the Local Link (a sort of Metro-Sized Intranet)
Kingston have their own Network infastructure in East Yorkshire and expanding this nationally through their subsidiary Torch . (http://www.torch.co.uk) KIT/ADSL should be available across the UK from June 1st next year.
Something you'll find interesting, is that KIT does not use M$ s/w, and the ADSL router is ethernet (not USB).
<Disclosure>I'm a Kingston shareholder, employee and customer.</disclosure>
This should lead to at least some sign of intelligence, but why isnt some found?
I think you've hit the nail, this is the real question of life the universe and everything. I find the application of Occam's Razor to this subject is essential and produces some interest possibilities.
My personal guess, is that the universe is a much more dangerous place than we currently believe, and that consequently minimal sentinels survive to leave an impact. The universe should be teaming with life, but observational evidence suggests it's rare or unique. It seems to me that many scientists shy away from the uniqueness conclusion, because of the obvious religious connotations. However, much [all?] of the evidence suggests we are [or nearly] unique, at this time.
Also we seem to believe we are safe from extinction, but are we ? To me it seem we are constantly perilously close to doing the job of self annihilation, this also presents and an interesting angle on biological survival strategy, the R-K curve.
You clearly did not read the link(s) I supplied. I know this because the the first paragraph of the first link states:
The Drake Equation was developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy.
The probability of extraterrestrial life can be measured using the Drake equation.
The following links have more info, including a chance to try it
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/d rake_equation.html
SEARCHING FOR OTHER WORLDS - http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec27.htm
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec29.htm
WHERE IS EVERYONE? http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec30.htm
... the belief you cite is not a doctrine of the largest single Christian sect on Earth, the Roman Catholic Church (hasn't been since Vatican II).
You've clearly never been in a Catholic Church. I was raised as a Catholic, and this dogma was the primary reason for my early childhood skeptism. I later realisesed that it's about control, which was to lead to my atheism.
Better Link : H4 Survives at Greenwich
on
Longitude
·
· Score: 1
This is actually a better link than the one I've provided above:
http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/museum/harrison/index.h tm l
Slashdot Mirror
I laughed when I read this little piece of "breaking news"... This kinda technology has been in use for over a year in Moncton, New Brunswick CANADA... yeah that's right... Canada... A similar system has been available to consumers from Kingston Communications in UK, for year (it trialled for nearly two years before that). http://www.kingston-comms.co.uk http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk (flash)
Take a stand against junk mail! Sorry Mr. Postal Worker! Sorry... ? this is the thing keeping them in a job! :)
Consider a [very] small ISP with a 10Mbps link to the net, for simplicity we will also assume a zero logging, & indexing overhead.
600 Mbps a minute
3600 Mbps a hour
864,000 Mpbs a day
31,536,000 Mbps a year
2,207,520,000 Mpbs each 7 years
This single link from one small ISP passes ~>260 TeraBytes in Seven years, Now consider that this is a small ISP, 100Mbps and 1Gbps links are not unusual, the largest ISP's have Terabit links, now multiply these by the number of ISP's.
RIP apparently expects UK ISP's smash the laws of physics, RIP is pointlessly ineffective and simply impossible to obey & enforce.
Should the Post Office be responsible storing copies of every letter sent, or British Telecom be responsible for recording and indexing the content of every telephone call, should Kodak be responsible for coping and archiving every photo taken, or Xerox, etc, etc...
This IS a strawman argument (despite his claims otherwise) by somebody who clearly has little idea of what OO is about. I guess he is frightened and fearful for his prospects because he is unable to make the paradigm shift. The clearest evidence of this are the Myths; an OO authority would never proclaim many of these, some just don't make sense, some are 'clearly' miss-quotes or misrepresentations of what OO advocates do claim. That these are myths is only claimed with his opinion, not proven with evidence.
Myth: OOP is a proven general-purpose technique
Where is the evidence that it is not? His own pet hate about the massive growth of OO over the last decade directly contradicts this claim. I've used an OO approach successfully to produce many types of systems including, databases, real time, calculations, GUI's & parsers, print engines, utilities.
Myth: OOP models the real world better
Better than what ? OO readily models Physics, the most fundamental 'real world' model in existence.
Myth: OOP makes programming more visual Stawman
Myth: OOP makes programming easier and faster
This claim should be qualified as over the full life cycle of a system; the design may be longer than a traditionally 'hacked' project. However the iterative nature of an OO development more than make up for it during elaboration & maintenance phases, the most important phases in bespoke systems development.
Myth: OOP eliminates the complexity of "case" or "switch" statements Stawman
This is an algorithmic issue; the Command pattern is one OO approach to achieve this, there are non OO approaches that could also do the same (function pointers in C) if it is warranted. It was with Win SDK message crackers for instance.
Myth: OOP reduces the number of places that require changing Stawman
OOP aids a reduction in coupling. Reduced coupling improves a system in a number of ways, including maintenance.
Myth: Inheritance increases reuse Stawman
There is a lot more to reuse in OO than inheritance. Encapsulation, polymorphism, aggregation/ composition.
Myth: Most things fit nicely into hierarchical taxonomies. Stawman
As I just said there is a lot more to OO than inheritance.
Myth: Self-handling nouns are more important than self-handling verbs ?!?!
This miss-represents a rule of thumb used to aid the learning of OO; 'more important', this does not make proper sense.
Myth: Only OOP has automatic garbage collection Stawman
Garbage collection and OO are not synonymous, not all OO languages include [automatic] garbage collection, procedural & functional languages do include automatic garbage collection. it's probably only really essential in functional languages.
Myth: Components can only be built with OOP
Myth: Only OO databases can store large, multimedia data Stawman
Myth: OODBMS are overall faster than RDBMS Stawman
Myth: C is the best procedural can get Stawman
Myth: OOP would have prevented Y2K problems Stawman
No, just made it easier to fix.
Myth: Implementation changes significantly more often than interfaces Stawman
Myth: Procedural/Relational ties field types and sizes to the code more Stawman
Myth: Procedural/Relational programs cannot "factor" as well Stawman
Regarding the unanswered challenge, the old philosophy of science adage, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, says more than I ever could.
The posting history of this identity, demonstrates a single narrow minded obsession with ignoring the evidence, that it's pointless trying to convince him otherwise. His ego prevent him progressing. I would guess that he's a self taught amateur who know a few [non OO] languages, rather than a trained professional with a range of tools [including OO] in his arsenal.
Judging from the number of posts (3), this whole article seems to be "offtopic" :)
Could this link reveal the real reason for your opposition to junk email traps. www.xs4all.nl appear to offer a bulk emailer service. http://www.xs4all.nl/helpdesk/algemeen/faq/bsmtp_f aq.html
Have you even read my post? You certainly have not understood it! If you had it would be clear why I use the email address I do.
I use abuse@127.0.0.1 for the very good reason that Junk emailers and mail-bombers, etc end up report themselves to their own Sysop.
If you can suggest a more elegant solution, I'll be happy to consider it.
Guys,
We should call this stuff what it IS. This is Unsolicited commercial email / junk email it is not Spam or done by Spamer's.
Spamer is my family surname (Try searching Google, you'll find hundred of us), and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spamer, Spam, Spaming causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems. I've been flamed, mail bombed, had my machines attacked, this has become seriously unfunny!
This is plea that everybody be responsible, use and encourage others to use, the most accurate term Unsolicited commercial email / junk email.
The only problem is the MPS (and the FAX & Phone version) do not work very well.
We registered with MPS in Nov 98 because the amount of junk mail we where getting was becoming unreal, (~6-10 items a day).
We still get a dozen items a week which we dilligently forward to MPS, only for them to make an excuse.
We've complained to the DTI, and are seriously considering legal action.
The MPS is self regulation by the people responsible for the problem in the first place. Self regulation never wins over the profit motive.
My family surname is Spamer and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spam causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems. I don't doubt, there will be some irritating "witty" follow up comments to illustrate this point.
Guys, I like to encourage the use of the terms 'Unsolicited Commercial Email' or Junk Email instead of 'Spam' and it's derivatives. My family surname is Spamer and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spam causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems.
IMHO, a port scan is analogous to knocking on a door. It's what happens afterwards, how the information gained is used, that determines if the subsequent actions are criminal.
Generally I agree with you comments, but I have to pick up up on a couple of pieces.
I have this sneaking suspicion that any abstraction of code -- UML, flowcharts, proofs -- is only that: an abstraction. And that correctness (or, more likely, bugginess) lives in the code, and in the code alone, so that's where you have to weed it out.
The Design and the Code are both abstractions from the problem domain. Therefore they could both (or neither) be faulty. The problem could be design or coding fault.
It is the design 'process' that is useful, it forces the Software Engineer to understand the problem, before they've invested too much time. It improves flexibility and reliability, both of which reduce the mainternace burden (a VGT). In my experience, using Analysis & Design tools such as UML makes a considerable impovement in the 'quality' of the system. They are also a better that code to communicate ideas to fellow Engineers.
I personally think Extreme Programming holds a high amount of promise...
Extreme Programming, is just the latest buzz word for what was RAD, and before that what was simply good practice/procedures, i.e. review, Review, REVIEW! test, Test, TEST!
it was extremely limited
So was the BT one, Oftel limited both trials to 400 Users.
BT is the only company able to provide ADSL, and resells it through other companies as well as marketing it itself. Not true, Kingston Communications also offer ADSL, and have been since the Nov 1998, well over a year before BT's trial started.
Cable modems are no solution to the lack of ADSL, they are only available is very small areas, and they have much lower data rates, because of the network architecture (ring).
The problem is not xDSL it is BT's monopoly position. They've been obstructing competition since they where privatised and OFTEL has done little to control them. OFTEL is run by exBT staff, which is why the Government is disbanding it in favour of a new regulator.
It seems BT have had real problems making ADSL work properly. See news:uk.telecoms.broadband. Which indicates that they are only achieving 2Mbps (very low for ADSL).
Oftel failure to control BT monopoly has resulted in it being disbanded by the government and is to be replaced. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1066000 /1066488.stm
Yes. Kingston ( http://www.kingston-comms.co.uk/ ) are one of the few Telcos left in the UK offering ADSL, to deliver Kingston Interactive Television service(http://www.kingston-vision.co.uk/ [site uses flash] ).
It includes Interactive/Digital TV, true Video on Demand, high speed Web & Email & the Local Link (a sort of Metro-Sized Intranet)
Kingston have their own Network infastructure in East Yorkshire and expanding this nationally through their subsidiary Torch . (http://www.torch.co.uk) KIT/ADSL should be available across the UK from June 1st next year.
Something you'll find interesting, is that KIT does not use M$ s/w, and the ADSL router is ethernet (not USB).
<Disclosure>I'm a Kingston shareholder, employee and customer.</disclosure>
I think you've hit the nail, this is the real question of life the universe and everything. I find the application of Occam's Razor to this subject is essential and produces some interest possibilities.
My personal guess, is that the universe is a much more dangerous place than we currently believe, and that consequently minimal sentinels survive to leave an impact. The universe should be teaming with life, but observational evidence suggests it's rare or unique. It seems to me that many scientists shy away from the uniqueness conclusion, because of the obvious religious connotations. However, much [all?] of the evidence suggests we are [or nearly] unique, at this time.
Also we seem to believe we are safe from extinction, but are we ? To me it seem we are constantly perilously close to doing the job of self annihilation, this also presents and an interesting angle on biological survival strategy, the R-K curve.
You clearly did not read the link(s) I supplied. I know this because the the first paragraph of the first link states:
The Drake Equation was developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy.
The probability of extraterrestrial life can be measured using the Drake equation.
The following links have more info, including a chance to try it
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI /d rake_equation.html
SEARCHING FOR OTHER WORLDS - http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec27.htm
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec29.htm
WHERE IS EVERYONE? http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec30.htm
The probability of extraterrestrial life can be measured using the Drake equation. The following links have more info, including a chance to try it http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/d rake_equation.html
SEARCHING FOR OTHER WORLDS - http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec27.htm
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec29.htm
WHERE IS EVERYONE? http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/ lec30.htm
You've clearly never been in a Catholic Church. I was raised as a Catholic, and this dogma was the primary reason for my early childhood skeptism. I later realisesed that it's about control, which was to lead to my atheism.
This is actually a better link than the one I've provided above:
http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/museum/harrison/index.h tm l