Sorry if I came off as 'anti-Catholic' in my post. (I'm Catholic myself.) I do agree about their treatment on Slashdot, but am somewhat concerned that you seem to consider me one of them.
My question wasn't really "What's wrong with porn," but rather "Why would anyone want to share information on where they go (even if they don't go anywhere they shouldn't) with others?" (You answered both pretty convincingly.)
Thanks for the reply. I'm not about to install it myself, but I can see the logic now.
I don't understand the reasoning here. I understand that it's something voluntarily installed, and that no one forces it... I don't mind that. What I don't get is *why* anyone would want it. As the text led me to believe, let's pretend I'm an extremely pious who thinks that porn is the work of the devil. I never visit porn sites. So why would I want to install software to tell people this?
If people want to do this, so be it. But I really don't get the logic. I don't visit 'objectionable' sites, and have nothing to hide. But that doesn't mean that I'd voluntarily show a list of every site I've visited to people? Again, they have every right to do this if they want, but can someone please explain WHY someone would want to use this? (As a sidenote... If the 'peer pressure' aspect is really the reason... I think I'd find some new peers. I don't think people have the right to hound you constantly to prove that you're not visiting porn sites? Are your friends that distrusting? Mine wouldn't even care...?)
Not that I exactly advocate weak passwords, but you really can't compare the 'home user' Windows model with the 'Internet server' Linux model. I think a lot of people (primarily the less computer-literate) would be completely bewildered when it rejected the password they wanted to use. Personally, I use a password that's a 'l33t'-ified word (with absolutely no signifance to me... it was a random word I saw as I glanced down at my desk while trying to think of a new password), which some Linux boxes seem to reject. On the systems set up to be this picky, I su to root and change my password, allowing me to bypass the password integrity test. Not the most secure thing in the world, I suppose, but if 'hardcore Linux geeks' get flustered when their password is rejected (and find ways to *make* the system take it), imagine how relatively 'clueless' home users would feel?
Anyway, maybe it could have a very elementary test: things like "password" and its variants would be rejected, as would common derivations of the username. What might be a better idea was if when the user was asked to create / change a password, it had a section on choosing a *good* password. (And if your password was a 'common' bad one, it could explain why it's bad.)
This is a step in the right direction, but I don't quite agree with it entirely. You've identified it as most likely being spam, but are still sending it, just slowly.
What I'd like to see (and what I think other programs do; I believe they're called "teergrubbers" or something to that effect) is something that incorporates the same "make the spammers wait" concept, but doesn't actually relay the mail. They try to send 10,000 messages through your server, one at a time, waiting several minutes between each one, only to not get any sent at all.
This is a really bizarre viewpoint, and I'm sure it wouldn't work, but in a sense, if you run this, you're an 'accomplice' to the spamming: You ID it as spam, but still pass it through. Why not go all out and not even relay it?
How long before spammers get smart and set their SMTP program to give up after X seconds
I hope it's soon, as then I can just make potential spammers wait X+1 seconds, slowing the 'dumb' ones down, but completely defeating the 'smart' ones. (Which makes you wonder who's smarter...)
I had just built a sweet new system (dual AthlonMP 1600s), and was doing something inside it (putting in another disk, I think.)
I put the case back on, powered it up, and started messing around in Linux. About 10 minutes later, it locked up... I hit the reboot switch, muttering something about how horribly instable Linux seemed all of a sudden.
It wouldn't boot. It wouldn't POST. It took me a while to think it might be a hardware issue. I eventually went into the BIOS's system monitor... CPU0 was at about 45 degrees C (normal), okay, so what gives? If I recall correctly, CPU1 was at like 150 C!! (It sounds absurdly high, so I might be wrong.)
I powered it down REAL fast, realizing that my precious new system was probably toasted. (No pun intended.) I ripped the side off (it's a removable side, I'm not a total spaz *grin*), to find... An extra hard drive connector lodged in the CPU fan. Whoops!
Anyway, after opening it up and having a huge fan blow on it for a few hours, I booted it up and it worked fine. (Although I ended up replacing the fan and heatsink, since it didn't give readings to the BIOS, although it did work fine otherwise.)
I've actually thought of this before, too. I thought it had a really cool potential: You're not confined to the ~60 channels my cable company thinks I might want. I want the local news for a small town on the opposite side of the country? No problem, just enter in the right 'hostname.'
Not only that, but it can make 'start up' easier, and even make censorship harder. You want to start a TV station out of your garage? All you need is a server and enough bandwidth to handle the viewers. You don't need an FCC license, a 1000' tower, a megawatt transmitter...
The problem is that this will REALLY suck for people like CNN, who suddenly need some insane amount of bandwidth, maybe like a megabit a person (if it's high-res, with sound)... I suppose this is where IPv6's support for multicast will become really helpful?
The other really cool thing is that you can see exactly who's viewing your station, when, etc. With TV, short of the viewer ratings (polls done via telephone), you have no idea who's watching. With this, I can say "Exactly 1,348 people watched my show," and even do what people do with websites and try to extract more information: "most of them seem to be in California." (Heh, maybe we could even have referrers: "I got a deluge of people watching my show today, after SlashdotTV mentioned my site.")
Plus, it's easy to pass along alternate languages (prefer the news in Spanish? Just set that in your TV's preferences), 'closed captioning,' etc -- maybe even something like Slashdot's "Related Links." ("In today's news, Microsoft Corporation has filed for bankruptcy..." would allow you to go to Microsoft's site if they made it a 'link'.)
I can't predict the future, but I sure hope that this is the next "big thing." (And that no idiots at the MPAA/RIAA/etc. try to apply DRM all over it.)
Hehe, I realized after I posted it that it wasn't a very good example... A better one would be the more complex pattern matching that can be done, or the easy scriptability. (Okay, again, DOS can be scripted... *needs to stop pointing out these bad examples*)
Precisely! I constantly field questions from people on why I insist on using programs in 'DOS,' and how Linux is SOOOOO outdated because of this. What they don't get is exactly what you said: if you know what you're doing, it's often times 10x easier to just type in the command than it is to point-and-click through illogically-oriented menus. (I'll admit, if I have no clue what I'm doing, a GUI helps...)
Sometimes the command line can save even more time, not just because you don't have to search poorly-layed-out GUIs for the option you want. For example, the other day I got really sick of having about 50 "incomplete" MP3s in my playlist. Rather than going through and deleting all the files one by one, I fired up Cygwin (which gives you a shell on Windows... quite handy!) and did "rm __INCOM*" to delete the countless files beginning with "__INCOMPLETE__" Nice and handy.
Not to mention the remote access aspect of the command line. I'm responsible for maintaining a webserver running Linux; it's so handy to be able to pull up an ssh session and do whatever needs to be done. Let's see the admins of the Windows boxes neighboring it work on their servers from home.
Anyway, I may have just bored everyone to death, but for those just getting into Linux/UNIX, don't fear the command line! If you take the time to learn it, you'll grow to love it.
For the second, do you know how much publicity would come of trying to prosecute a reporter for reporting the truth?
They're not being prosecuted for reporting the truth. They have every right to report whatever they please.
But breaking into secret government places is a prosecutable offense. I get really annoyed when journalists blatantly violate laws to 'report' on how easy they are to break.
I think this guy should at least be sternly reprimanded. It's one thing to report it; it's a totally separate thing to actually break in.
Wasn't it Wired that supposedly tried to 'hack' the modems of a bunch of its customers not too long ago, to verify that many had the default password of "1234"?
Did anyone else just have flashbacks to the whole TurboTax thing that wrote to 'protected areas of the hard drive'? This technology sounds cool, but I'm a bit concerned: it almost sounds like the beginnings of BIOS-level DRM (digital rights management), sugar-coated with some seemingly-good features.
It has cool potential, but at the same time, scares me somewhat at what it could theoretically be used for.
To show the inner geek in me, Homestarrunner.net and Homestarrunner.com are on completely different netblocks. It looks to me as if the.net one is a sort of 'backup,' although maybe one with less bandwidth, since it's not a full mirror.
In other news [reuters.com], Iraqis welcomed the news as God's vengeance"
After talking to some friends, I realized I'm not the only one who fully expects Bush to try to blame Iraq for this. I'm really getting sick of everything being used as justification to attack Iraq.
Portscanning isn't illegal, per se. It's like loitering. It's not illegal unless theres a sign that says 'no loitering'.
It's not illegal, and I adamantly support people's right to portscan people. However, a better analogy would be if the loitering was being done late at night in a neighborhood that was victim to a number of break-ins at night: It's not illegal, and there could be *entirely* legitimate reasons for doing it, but it's obviously going to look like you're trying to break in. (Off-topic: You can't really hang a "No portscannning" sign on your server)
What Wired did was either (depending on how you interpret the phrase "polled"): - tried logging into people's routers with this password (blatant 'cracking') - sent out a "poll" (as in a Slashdot Poll) to its readers asking Sprint customers to check their router and report back to Wired
In one case, I'd like to see more outrage, dropped subscriptions, and police involvement -- the fact that they're a respected magazine in no way gives them the attempt to try to crack routers en masse. On the other hand, if it's the second type of "poll," we're making a massive deal out of nothing.:)
Just this morning, I got another idiotic chain letter (informing me that on January 14th [a week ago] AOL would start charging people for AIM.) It was obviously a hoax, but, like you said, it's hard to convince people of this.
So I started thinking... I want to start a site that will collect e-mail hoaxes (allowing people to submit hoaxes), and investigate / explain why they're hoaxes. (For example, in this case, they could call up AOL and have the AOL people confirm it's a hoax.) Then I could elaborate on the parts of the e-mail that should have clued people in that it was a scam, such as that AOL can't track my e-mail, especially if neither I nor those who I send it to use AOL. (Or that it was sent almost a week after they were supposed to have made it non-free... that was a good indicator.)
I'm tempted to to register a domain, such as hoaxlist.com, and start this, although it'd need to become somewhat popular before I could actually have a fairly inclusive list of hoaxes.
Does anyone else think this is a good idea? (BTW, anyone should feel free to steal my idea... I don't really have the time to implement anything like this anytime soon.)
This actually isn't as improbable as it might sound. I know someone who was writing code for a robot, and, apparently, it was designed to use an 8-bit integer to govern it's speed/direction, and I guess 0 was full-speed reverse, ~128 was neutral, and 254 was full speed ahead... A buffer overflow caused it to 'wrap around' from 254 to 0, which is akin to throwing your car into reverse while speeding down the highway.
My point is just that it's not as hard as it sounds -- a simple little slip-up could cause something horrible like this. The transmission will probably die long before you actually start going backwards, but I'd still prefer that my car not try this...:)
What I find much more interesting than this article is the way Slashdot handles the massive load. I might be a little off, but I believe Slashdot essentially has the main page updated every minute (five minutes?), so if you just load the main page, you're getting a static document, which is *much* faster.
I've always thought more sites should do this. Why not have the pages you can get away with be static (updated every couple minutes for a 'real-time' feel), and only have the pages that need to be dynamic be generated on the fly? I was playing with ab (the Apache benchmark tool) on one of my computers, and I couldn't believe the difference -- loading a static page, I got something like 100,000 hits (I don't remember the time period); PHP got about 5,000 (unknown, but same as previous, time period). My numbers could be off, but assuming they're not, it would be 20x more effective to have the page generated every few minutes and saved as a static page, at least for high traffic sites. (For low traffic sites, this could probably consume *more* resources...)
...I don't understand how this helps. I'm typing this on a Dual 1.4 GHz system -- even if a process is multi-threaded, it's still not as fast as a 2800 MHz processor. In addition, many programs can't take advantage of SMP, rendering dual processors 'useless' (for any single process; Linux distributes processes across processors.)
So if 2*1400 1400? Shouldn't taking, say, the 3 GHz P4 and 'emulating' SMP actually slow things down slightly? I don't understand how it can help, and am actually surprised that it doesn't *hurt* speedwise.
The wording of the quote below and the main page are really quite similar.
Slashdot article: "Analysts are being quoted as saying that slapping.NET on so many Microsoft products has confused people as to what.NET actually means."
The post being discussed: "They are changing the name because people are getting confused about what.NET really is. It was a bad idea for Microsoft to try to add ".NET" to every single product they sell."
It almost seems as if the author simply re-worded the original Slashdot post ever so slightly, and submitted it. You used to have to at least expand on something a bit before rewording it and getting it modded way up.
(I can't believe I actually took the time to do that...)
Reading this, I was forced to wonder... Is this really a bad thing? For once, it almost seems like true innovation, rather than their 'embrace and extend' (ie - 'extend' a standard just enough to make it incompatible with non-Microsoft stuff): they've found something superior to the current method in use, and both their browser and server software implements it. Better yet, it's backwards-compatible: a non-MS browser can connect to an IIS server, and IE can connect to a non-IIS server.
The thing I don't understand... Isn't this somewhat like keepalive and pipelining?
I normally hate Microsoft, and think they are up to massive conspiracies. However, in this case, it seems more to me like a legitimate innnovation, as opposed to some elaborate scheme. I fail to understand what is 'evil' about this: isn't this a good thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry if I came off as 'anti-Catholic' in my post. (I'm Catholic myself.) I do agree about their treatment on Slashdot, but am somewhat concerned that you seem to consider me one of them.
My question wasn't really "What's wrong with porn," but rather "Why would anyone want to share information on where they go (even if they don't go anywhere they shouldn't) with others?" (You answered both pretty convincingly.)
Thanks for the reply. I'm not about to install it myself, but I can see the logic now.
I don't understand the reasoning here. I understand that it's something voluntarily installed, and that no one forces it... I don't mind that. What I don't get is *why* anyone would want it. As the text led me to believe, let's pretend I'm an extremely pious who thinks that porn is the work of the devil. I never visit porn sites. So why would I want to install software to tell people this?
If people want to do this, so be it. But I really don't get the logic. I don't visit 'objectionable' sites, and have nothing to hide. But that doesn't mean that I'd voluntarily show a list of every site I've visited to people? Again, they have every right to do this if they want, but can someone please explain WHY someone would want to use this? (As a sidenote... If the 'peer pressure' aspect is really the reason... I think I'd find some new peers. I don't think people have the right to hound you constantly to prove that you're not visiting porn sites? Are your friends that distrusting? Mine wouldn't even care...?)
Not that I exactly advocate weak passwords, but you really can't compare the 'home user' Windows model with the 'Internet server' Linux model. I think a lot of people (primarily the less computer-literate) would be completely bewildered when it rejected the password they wanted to use. Personally, I use a password that's a 'l33t'-ified word (with absolutely no signifance to me... it was a random word I saw as I glanced down at my desk while trying to think of a new password), which some Linux boxes seem to reject. On the systems set up to be this picky, I su to root and change my password, allowing me to bypass the password integrity test. Not the most secure thing in the world, I suppose, but if 'hardcore Linux geeks' get flustered when their password is rejected (and find ways to *make* the system take it), imagine how relatively 'clueless' home users would feel?
Anyway, maybe it could have a very elementary test: things like "password" and its variants would be rejected, as would common derivations of the username. What might be a better idea was if when the user was asked to create / change a password, it had a section on choosing a *good* password. (And if your password was a 'common' bad one, it could explain why it's bad.)
Finally, we're all on-topic! Of course, you all know about the dupe posts, so there's no use in it for me.
This is a step in the right direction, but I don't quite agree with it entirely. You've identified it as most likely being spam, but are still sending it, just slowly. What I'd like to see (and what I think other programs do; I believe they're called "teergrubbers" or something to that effect) is something that incorporates the same "make the spammers wait" concept, but doesn't actually relay the mail. They try to send 10,000 messages through your server, one at a time, waiting several minutes between each one, only to not get any sent at all. This is a really bizarre viewpoint, and I'm sure it wouldn't work, but in a sense, if you run this, you're an 'accomplice' to the spamming: You ID it as spam, but still pass it through. Why not go all out and not even relay it?
How long before spammers get smart and set their SMTP program to give up after X seconds
I hope it's soon, as then I can just make potential spammers wait X+1 seconds, slowing the 'dumb' ones down, but completely defeating the 'smart' ones. (Which makes you wonder who's smarter...)
I had just built a sweet new system (dual AthlonMP 1600s), and was doing something inside it (putting in another disk, I think.)
:)
I put the case back on, powered it up, and started messing around in Linux. About 10 minutes later, it locked up... I hit the reboot switch, muttering something about how horribly instable Linux seemed all of a sudden.
It wouldn't boot. It wouldn't POST. It took me a while to think it might be a hardware issue. I eventually went into the BIOS's system monitor... CPU0 was at about 45 degrees C (normal), okay, so what gives? If I recall correctly, CPU1 was at like 150 C!! (It sounds absurdly high, so I might be wrong.)
I powered it down REAL fast, realizing that my precious new system was probably toasted. (No pun intended.) I ripped the side off (it's a removable side, I'm not a total spaz *grin*), to find... An extra hard drive connector lodged in the CPU fan. Whoops!
Anyway, after opening it up and having a huge fan blow on it for a few hours, I booted it up and it worked fine. (Although I ended up replacing the fan and heatsink, since it didn't give readings to the BIOS, although it did work fine otherwise.)
The wires are run meticulously now.
I've actually thought of this before, too. I thought it had a really cool potential: You're not confined to the ~60 channels my cable company thinks I might want. I want the local news for a small town on the opposite side of the country? No problem, just enter in the right 'hostname.'
Not only that, but it can make 'start up' easier, and even make censorship harder. You want to start a TV station out of your garage? All you need is a server and enough bandwidth to handle the viewers. You don't need an FCC license, a 1000' tower, a megawatt transmitter...
The problem is that this will REALLY suck for people like CNN, who suddenly need some insane amount of bandwidth, maybe like a megabit a person (if it's high-res, with sound)... I suppose this is where IPv6's support for multicast will become really helpful?
The other really cool thing is that you can see exactly who's viewing your station, when, etc. With TV, short of the viewer ratings (polls done via telephone), you have no idea who's watching. With this, I can say "Exactly 1,348 people watched my show," and even do what people do with websites and try to extract more information: "most of them seem to be in California." (Heh, maybe we could even have referrers: "I got a deluge of people watching my show today, after SlashdotTV mentioned my site.")
Plus, it's easy to pass along alternate languages (prefer the news in Spanish? Just set that in your TV's preferences), 'closed captioning,' etc -- maybe even something like Slashdot's "Related Links." ("In today's news, Microsoft Corporation has filed for bankruptcy..." would allow you to go to Microsoft's site if they made it a 'link'.)
I can't predict the future, but I sure hope that this is the next "big thing." (And that no idiots at the MPAA/RIAA/etc. try to apply DRM all over it.)
Hehe, I realized after I posted it that it wasn't a very good example... A better one would be the more complex pattern matching that can be done, or the easy scriptability. (Okay, again, DOS can be scripted... *needs to stop pointing out these bad examples*)
Precisely! I constantly field questions from people on why I insist on using programs in 'DOS,' and how Linux is SOOOOO outdated because of this. What they don't get is exactly what you said: if you know what you're doing, it's often times 10x easier to just type in the command than it is to point-and-click through illogically-oriented menus. (I'll admit, if I have no clue what I'm doing, a GUI helps...)
Sometimes the command line can save even more time, not just because you don't have to search poorly-layed-out GUIs for the option you want. For example, the other day I got really sick of having about 50 "incomplete" MP3s in my playlist. Rather than going through and deleting all the files one by one, I fired up Cygwin (which gives you a shell on Windows... quite handy!) and did "rm __INCOM*" to delete the countless files beginning with "__INCOMPLETE__" Nice and handy.
Not to mention the remote access aspect of the command line. I'm responsible for maintaining a webserver running Linux; it's so handy to be able to pull up an ssh session and do whatever needs to be done. Let's see the admins of the Windows boxes neighboring it work on their servers from home.
Anyway, I may have just bored everyone to death, but for those just getting into Linux/UNIX, don't fear the command line! If you take the time to learn it, you'll grow to love it.
For the second, do you know how much publicity would come of trying to prosecute a reporter for reporting the truth?
They're not being prosecuted for reporting the truth. They have every right to report whatever they please.
But breaking into secret government places is a prosecutable offense. I get really annoyed when journalists blatantly violate laws to 'report' on how easy they are to break.
I think this guy should at least be sternly reprimanded. It's one thing to report it; it's a totally separate thing to actually break in.
Wasn't it Wired that supposedly tried to 'hack' the modems of a bunch of its customers not too long ago, to verify that many had the default password of "1234"?
Did anyone else just have flashbacks to the whole TurboTax thing that wrote to 'protected areas of the hard drive'? This technology sounds cool, but I'm a bit concerned: it almost sounds like the beginnings of BIOS-level DRM (digital rights management), sugar-coated with some seemingly-good features.
It has cool potential, but at the same time, scares me somewhat at what it could theoretically be used for.
If you use semi-colons and a language like C, PHP, Perl, etc. etc. etc., I bet they can trim it down to one line. :)
No, that's their old Windows cluster that you're referring to. ;)
To show the inner geek in me, Homestarrunner.net and Homestarrunner.com are on completely different netblocks. It looks to me as if the .net one is a sort of 'backup,' although maybe one with less bandwidth, since it's not a full mirror.
After talking to some friends, I realized I'm not the only one who fully expects Bush to try to blame Iraq for this. I'm really getting sick of everything being used as justification to attack Iraq.
Portscanning isn't illegal, per se. It's like loitering. It's not illegal unless theres a sign that says 'no loitering'.
:)
It's not illegal, and I adamantly support people's right to portscan people. However, a better analogy would be if the loitering was being done late at night in a neighborhood that was victim to a number of break-ins at night: It's not illegal, and there could be *entirely* legitimate reasons for doing it, but it's obviously going to look like you're trying to break in. (Off-topic: You can't really hang a "No portscannning" sign on your server)
What Wired did was either (depending on how you interpret the phrase "polled"):
- tried logging into people's routers with this password (blatant 'cracking')
- sent out a "poll" (as in a Slashdot Poll) to its readers asking Sprint customers to check their router and report back to Wired
In one case, I'd like to see more outrage, dropped subscriptions, and police involvement -- the fact that they're a respected magazine in no way gives them the attempt to try to crack routers en masse. On the other hand, if it's the second type of "poll," we're making a massive deal out of nothing.
Just this morning, I got another idiotic chain letter (informing me that on January 14th [a week ago] AOL would start charging people for AIM.) It was obviously a hoax, but, like you said, it's hard to convince people of this.
So I started thinking... I want to start a site that will collect e-mail hoaxes (allowing people to submit hoaxes), and investigate / explain why they're hoaxes. (For example, in this case, they could call up AOL and have the AOL people confirm it's a hoax.) Then I could elaborate on the parts of the e-mail that should have clued people in that it was a scam, such as that AOL can't track my e-mail, especially if neither I nor those who I send it to use AOL. (Or that it was sent almost a week after they were supposed to have made it non-free... that was a good indicator.)
I'm tempted to to register a domain, such as hoaxlist.com, and start this, although it'd need to become somewhat popular before I could actually have a fairly inclusive list of hoaxes.
Does anyone else think this is a good idea? (BTW, anyone should feel free to steal my idea... I don't really have the time to implement anything like this anytime soon.)
This actually isn't as improbable as it might sound. I know someone who was writing code for a robot, and, apparently, it was designed to use an 8-bit integer to govern it's speed/direction, and I guess 0 was full-speed reverse, ~128 was neutral, and 254 was full speed ahead... A buffer overflow caused it to 'wrap around' from 254 to 0, which is akin to throwing your car into reverse while speeding down the highway.
:)
My point is just that it's not as hard as it sounds -- a simple little slip-up could cause something horrible like this. The transmission will probably die long before you actually start going backwards, but I'd still prefer that my car not try this...
138974 ms
A little over their 4 ms goal. Specifically, 138,970ms.
What I find much more interesting than this article is the way Slashdot handles the massive load. I might be a little off, but I believe Slashdot essentially has the main page updated every minute (five minutes?), so if you just load the main page, you're getting a static document, which is *much* faster.
I've always thought more sites should do this. Why not have the pages you can get away with be static (updated every couple minutes for a 'real-time' feel), and only have the pages that need to be dynamic be generated on the fly? I was playing with ab (the Apache benchmark tool) on one of my computers, and I couldn't believe the difference -- loading a static page, I got something like 100,000 hits (I don't remember the time period); PHP got about 5,000 (unknown, but same as previous, time period). My numbers could be off, but assuming they're not, it would be 20x more effective to have the page generated every few minutes and saved as a static page, at least for high traffic sites. (For low traffic sites, this could probably consume *more* resources...)
...I don't understand how this helps. I'm typing this on a Dual 1.4 GHz system -- even if a process is multi-threaded, it's still not as fast as a 2800 MHz processor. In addition, many programs can't take advantage of SMP, rendering dual processors 'useless' (for any single process; Linux distributes processes across processors.)
So if 2*1400 1400? Shouldn't taking, say, the 3 GHz P4 and 'emulating' SMP actually slow things down slightly? I don't understand how it can help, and am actually surprised that it doesn't *hurt* speedwise.
The wording of the quote below and the main page are really quite similar.
.NET on so many Microsoft products has confused people as to what .NET actually means."
.NET really is. It was a bad idea for Microsoft to try to add ".NET" to every single product they sell."
Slashdot article:
"Analysts are being quoted as saying that slapping
The post being discussed:
"They are changing the name because people are getting confused about what
It almost seems as if the author simply re-worded the original Slashdot post ever so slightly, and submitted it. You used to have to at least expand on something a bit before rewording it and getting it modded way up.
(I can't believe I actually took the time to do that...)
The thing I don't understand... Isn't this somewhat like keepalive and pipelining?
I normally hate Microsoft, and think they are up to massive conspiracies. However, in this case, it seems more to me like a legitimate innnovation, as opposed to some elaborate scheme. I fail to understand what is 'evil' about this: isn't this a good thing?
It's doubtful that the original poster meant that they should electrocute the alleged thief.
But if the original poster were a member of the RIAA, it would be a completely different story.