If you look at their rate sheet, they seem to offer 10 Mbps (for $10,000/month). That's actually fairly comparable to what you'd pay for a 10 Mbps fraction T3, isn't it?
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Cogent does not provide 100 Mbps Internet connections; they simply provide 100 Mbps connections between offices. It's up to you to somehow connect that to the Internet. (I may be mistaken, but I know that this is how it was about a year ago.)
IIRC, there used to be a UPS contraption that was roughly the size of a 5 1/4" drive bay, although I seem to remember that it sat on the bottom of your case, as opposed to fitting in a bay.
I was never particularly intrigued, since something that small probably wouldn't power my computer for long at all; if it did have enough power, you couldn't plug other components (monitor, printer, etc.) into it.
I haven't seen it lately, but I think it was in an old TigerDirect catalog. I doubt if they're still around, but I figured I'd let you know that, at one point in time, internal UPSs did indeed exist.
Overture is infringing on my patent, USPTO Number 1,234,567, entitled "Method for Registering Pathetically Broad Patents." This patent, however, is of questionable authenticity, because of USPTO Number 7,654,321, "Method for Applying for a Patent."
In all seriousness, though, does anyone else find this lawsuit absurd? And I think I just figured out the term "patently obvious"...:)
This is similar to your point, but ventures into different topics...
Essentially, what Sony is doing is very bad for them. They, unintentionally, are essentially promoting the use of Gnutella, etc. If you buy the CD, you can legally download MP3s (though the record companies seem to dislike this concept...?). But after buying a couple 'bad' CDs, why bother? What's the point of buying a CD just so you can download things off Gnutella?
I think Sony, without realizing it, is really shooting themselves in the foot on this one. People are just going to stop buying CDs, and use Gnutella instead. Not only is it cheaper, but it will work better, and they don't risk damaging their computer. (Although I am still a bit skeptical of physical damage claims...)
I see a major flaw with this. There's the obvious censorship problems, and the increased cost...
But one of the first things that struck me is that the Pennyslvania state government is now going to be sending people lists of child pornography websites? If copies of these lists were to get into the wrong hands, the government has essentially send some perverted creep somewhere a list of sites to visit.
This is a common mistake, as you said. I think this is one of those words where the meaning keeps evolving... I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, some dictionary gives in and just says something like "In modern usage, effect and affect are interchangable."
For now, though, this helfpul tip from Merriam-Webster is pretty informative (and interesting):
"The confusion of the verbs affect and effect is not only quite common but has a long history. Effect was used in place of 3affect as early as 1494 and in place of 2affect as early as 1652. If you think you want to use the verb effect but are not certain, check the definitions in this dictionary. The noun affect is sometimes mistakenly used for effect. Except when your topic is psychology, you will seldom need the noun affect." -- From the "effect" entry in Merriam-Webster's online Collegiate Dictionary.
I was looking at gift a while ago... I went into IRC to ask for some help with getting it working, only to be told by one of the developers that gift no longer works.
So, the short answer to your question is that it's because gift doesn't work anymore.:(
I forget the URL, but I saw a cool program a while ago...
Essentially, it was a simple CGI script. The author had 'links' to it, with no text between the and tags, so a normal broswer wouldn't display it. Most bots, however, would pick up on the link, and go there.
The link was to a CGI script, which would take the visitor's domain name, and do a whois lookup on it, and extract the administrative/technical addresses given.
It would then translate them to an IP address, making it less likely to be filtered out by the bot.
As a result, a lot of spammers started spamming their ISPs, who were listed as technical consultants.
Being the crazy geek I am, the very first thing I thought when I read this poll was "I wonder who owns the domain www.masenko-media.net" (the one that people are apparently sent to).
$ whois www.masenko-media.net
Whois Server Version 1.3
...
No match for "WWW.MASENKO-MEDIA.NET".
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:06:43 EST..."
Okay, so no DNS, so the domain can't possibly resolve, right?
$ hostinfo -a www.masenko-media.net
66.96.247.55
Okay, so it does resolve to an IP... And I can ping it, too.
I tried to log in as "slashdot", with password "slashdot", which someone on Slashdot usually sets up. It told me, first of all, that my address "FakeAddress@hotmail.com" was already taken. (!) But then it started saying that "Slashdot" was already taken, and started tacking random numbers onto the end. So I finally got frustrated and registered "crappywebsite", given how long it took to register an account... *grin*
Actually... The thought of emulation did cross my mind, but I decided that clusters are usually used to get maximum performance, so running an emulator would be somewhat silly...
I'll refrain from making any flat-out "{Macs | x86s} are better!" comments. I do want to mention one thing that, surprisingly, hasn't really come up yet.
That's the x86 is more of a standard. Let's say that node 15 of my massive cluster bursts into flames for no apparent reason. I can replace it with any old 'off-the-shelf' computer, and, at the very least, the 'architecture' is the same. With the exception of various slot/socket layouts, the PC is more 'interchangable'. If my Athlon overheats, I can run into practically any computer store, buy the same chip, and pop it in, where the old one was. If my iMac processor bursts into flames, I'd most likely have to take it to a special Mac place.
Another 'disadvantage' of the PowerPC platform (and this one won't really affect me, or many Slashdotters for that matter) is that you can't run Windows on a the PPC (Mac) platform. My choice for a clustered operating system would most definitely be UNIX-based, but surely some would like to run Windows on their cluster. With x86, that's possible.
I've thought about this in the past, actually, and, to be honest, I feel that Linux is perhaps the best choice, at least in terms of development. I don't own a PDA, so I won't make any ridiculous claims like "Linux is easier to use on my PalmPilot!". However, from a developmental standpoint, I think Linux has to be a good choice -- you can take the source, and do what you please. You can essentially tailor it to be your 'own' custom-brew operating system, suited perfectly to your unique hardware, and yet you didn't have to write it from scratch.
Also... With regard to applications... I could've sworn there's a PalmPilot emulator (copilot? xcopilot?) for Linux. Now, obviously, if you were to built a handheld running Linux, and have it run only that Palm emulator, that would be completely insane. But if you have a Linux-based PDA, and feel the need to use a Palm application... You, in theory, can.
Another reason that I'd like a Linux-based PDA is that I'm familiar with Linux. IIRC, you can run BlackBox on an iPaq with Linux. You've essentially got a 'desktop' in your hand. I've played with a couple PDAs running Windows CE, and, even as a regular Windows user (not at home), I couldn't figure out how to use it. The interface really doesn't resemble Windows too much. If I actually owned a PDA, I'm sure it's somewhat sensible, and I could figure it out...
All this said... I think the question you pose is based partially on opinion. Is a dump truck better than a Ferrari? You could make a strong argument either way... But ultimately, it really depends on what you need it for, and what your personal preference is. If you need to transport 12 tons of boulders out of your backyard... The dump truck is clearly better. But if you're looking for a car to drive around town with, the Ferrari might be better. But I've always seen any "Linux is always better" type things as like saying "The Ferrari is better. I don't care that you need to move your 12 tons of boulders. Use the Ferrari. It's faster."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if not... I just got an idea that's just a slight twist of yours.
Why not just suspend the entire system to the hard drive...? The system could simply read the way your memory 'should be', and quickly copy it over. I don't have a lot of experience with how things boot, but this seems like a good idea to me...? It should be limited only by your hard drive's speed...?
On the other hand, ARP, IP, UDP, and DHCP are all well-understood protocols so you might well decide to do it [use IP to talk to disks] that way.
Until some idiot script kiddy launches a DDoS attack against the IP of your disk.;)
I agree. I'm not exactly a system admin. (Just a computer-illiterate home user who manages to link directories to themselves...)
I downloaded the patch from 2.4.16 to 2.4.17, but couldn't figure out what to do with it... So I downloaded the whole kernel. Which means I wasted even more bandwidth than I would have if I just downloaded the whole thing.
The first thing I have to say is largely irrelevant, but quite a good idea, IMHO. Let's move the 'official' list of kernel.org mirrors *off* the kernel.org machine. When you can't load their main page at all, it makes no sense to expect me to use a mirror, since I don't have that list.
That said... An idea struck me. Suppose kernel.org develops a system where incoming requests are sent to a server; the routing is based on the preferences of the admin of that server. For example, let's say I work at a small webhosting company, and have a couple of T3s. (I don't really.) All our servers run Linux, and I want to give back to the community, and show everyone how cool I am. But I'm gonna go out of business if I allow 90 Mbps of bandwidth to be going to kernel.myfakelittlehostingcompany.com, because my customers wouldn't have any bandwidth.
So I decide "Well... I can spare 10 Mbps at the most." I could tell the kernel.org admins this, and when you went to kernel.org, you would be redirected to a site, based on what the mirror sites wanted.
I'm willing to be that companies like OSDN, RedHat, Mandrake, Rackspace, etc. might be willing to let a kernel.org mirror have a small bit of their bandwidth, if they had a way of knowing that it would be controlled.
What I find most amusing is that... I'm on 100 Mbps switched Ethernet. At my 'peak' traffic utilization, I'm nowhere near the ~25+ Mbps sustained traffic that kernel.org gets. In fact... I'd consider 25 Mb/hour to be rather insane.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at their rate sheet, they seem to offer 10 Mbps (for $10,000/month). That's actually fairly comparable to what you'd pay for a 10 Mbps fraction T3, isn't it?
Not saying that I can afford it (I wish...), but the poster of the original story said something to the effect of "assuming money is no issue"...
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Cogent does not provide 100 Mbps Internet connections; they simply provide 100 Mbps connections between offices. It's up to you to somehow connect that to the Internet. (I may be mistaken, but I know that this is how it was about a year ago.)
IIRC, there used to be a UPS contraption that was roughly the size of a 5 1/4" drive bay, although I seem to remember that it sat on the bottom of your case, as opposed to fitting in a bay.
I was never particularly intrigued, since something that small probably wouldn't power my computer for long at all; if it did have enough power, you couldn't plug other components (monitor, printer, etc.) into it.
I haven't seen it lately, but I think it was in an old TigerDirect catalog. I doubt if they're still around, but I figured I'd let you know that, at one point in time, internal UPSs did indeed exist.
probally if you lick it it will taste like a CD.
As long as this tastes the same, I'll buy it!
In all seriousness, though, does anyone else find this lawsuit absurd? And I think I just figured out the term "patently obvious"... :)
Essentially, what Sony is doing is very bad for them. They, unintentionally, are essentially promoting the use of Gnutella, etc. If you buy the CD, you can legally download MP3s (though the record companies seem to dislike this concept...?). But after buying a couple 'bad' CDs, why bother? What's the point of buying a CD just so you can download things off Gnutella?
I think Sony, without realizing it, is really shooting themselves in the foot on this one. People are just going to stop buying CDs, and use Gnutella instead. Not only is it cheaper, but it will work better, and they don't risk damaging their computer. (Although I am still a bit skeptical of physical damage claims...)
My trademark is for *
But one of the first things that struck me is that the Pennyslvania state government is now going to be sending people lists of child pornography websites? If copies of these lists were to get into the wrong hands, the government has essentially send some perverted creep somewhere a list of sites to visit.
Until I saw this, I had, for some reason, been under the impression that IBM drives were the most reliable IDE drives around...
Which leads me to wonder... What IDE drives *are* good?
For now, though, this helfpul tip from Merriam-Webster is pretty informative (and interesting):
"The confusion of the verbs affect and effect is not only quite common but has a long history. Effect was used in place of 3affect as early as 1494 and in place of 2affect as early as 1652. If you think you want to use the verb effect but are not certain, check the definitions in this dictionary. The noun affect is sometimes mistakenly used for effect. Except when your topic is psychology, you will seldom need the noun affect." -- From the "effect" entry in Merriam-Webster's online Collegiate Dictionary.
So, the short answer to your question is that it's because gift doesn't work anymore. :(
Essentially, it was a simple CGI script. The author had 'links' to it, with no text between the and tags, so a normal broswer wouldn't display it. Most bots, however, would pick up on the link, and go there.
The link was to a CGI script, which would take the visitor's domain name, and do a whois lookup on it, and extract the administrative/technical addresses given.
It would then translate them to an IP address, making it less likely to be filtered out by the bot.
As a result, a lot of spammers started spamming their ISPs, who were listed as technical consultants.
Perhaps someone can paste the link?
I, in my stupidity, kept the "www." on the front, even though it shouldn't have been. :)
--19:08:55-- http://www.masenko-media.net/cool.html => `cool.html' Connecting to www.masenko-media.net:80... connected! HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 19:08:55 ERROR 404: Not Found.
Seems they took it down? Now is this just going to have millions of people getting 404 messages?
$ whois www.masenko-media.net
Whois Server Version 1.3
...
No match for "WWW.MASENKO-MEDIA.NET".
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:06:43 EST..."
Okay, so no DNS, so the domain can't possibly resolve, right?
$ hostinfo -a www.masenko-media.net
66.96.247.55
Okay, so it does resolve to an IP... And I can ping it, too.
Username: "crappywebsite"
Password: "slashdot"
I tried to log in as "slashdot", with password "slashdot", which someone on Slashdot usually sets up. It told me, first of all, that my address "FakeAddress@hotmail.com" was already taken. (!) But then it started saying that "Slashdot" was already taken, and started tacking random numbers onto the end. So I finally got frustrated and registered "crappywebsite", given how long it took to register an account... *grin*
Actually... The thought of emulation did cross my mind, but I decided that clusters are usually used to get maximum performance, so running an emulator would be somewhat silly...
That's the x86 is more of a standard. Let's say that node 15 of my massive cluster bursts into flames for no apparent reason. I can replace it with any old 'off-the-shelf' computer, and, at the very least, the 'architecture' is the same. With the exception of various slot/socket layouts, the PC is more 'interchangable'. If my Athlon overheats, I can run into practically any computer store, buy the same chip, and pop it in, where the old one was. If my iMac processor bursts into flames, I'd most likely have to take it to a special Mac place.
Another 'disadvantage' of the PowerPC platform (and this one won't really affect me, or many Slashdotters for that matter) is that you can't run Windows on a the PPC (Mac) platform. My choice for a clustered operating system would most definitely be UNIX-based, but surely some would like to run Windows on their cluster. With x86, that's possible.
Also... With regard to applications... I could've sworn there's a PalmPilot emulator (copilot? xcopilot?) for Linux. Now, obviously, if you were to built a handheld running Linux, and have it run only that Palm emulator, that would be completely insane. But if you have a Linux-based PDA, and feel the need to use a Palm application... You, in theory, can.
Another reason that I'd like a Linux-based PDA is that I'm familiar with Linux. IIRC, you can run BlackBox on an iPaq with Linux. You've essentially got a 'desktop' in your hand. I've played with a couple PDAs running Windows CE, and, even as a regular Windows user (not at home), I couldn't figure out how to use it. The interface really doesn't resemble Windows too much. If I actually owned a PDA, I'm sure it's somewhat sensible, and I could figure it out...
All this said... I think the question you pose is based partially on opinion. Is a dump truck better than a Ferrari? You could make a strong argument either way... But ultimately, it really depends on what you need it for, and what your personal preference is. If you need to transport 12 tons of boulders out of your backyard... The dump truck is clearly better. But if you're looking for a car to drive around town with, the Ferrari might be better. But I've always seen any "Linux is always better" type things as like saying "The Ferrari is better. I don't care that you need to move your 12 tons of boulders. Use the Ferrari. It's faster."
Why not just suspend the entire system to the hard drive...? The system could simply read the way your memory 'should be', and quickly copy it over. I don't have a lot of experience with how things boot, but this seems like a good idea to me...? It should be limited only by your hard drive's speed...?
On the other hand, ARP, IP, UDP, and DHCP are all well-understood protocols so you might well decide to do it [use IP to talk to disks] that way. Until some idiot script kiddy launches a DDoS attack against the IP of your disk. ;)
I downloaded the patch from 2.4.16 to 2.4.17, but couldn't figure out what to do with it... So I downloaded the whole kernel. Which means I wasted even more bandwidth than I would have if I just downloaded the whole thing.
That said... An idea struck me. Suppose kernel.org develops a system where incoming requests are sent to a server; the routing is based on the preferences of the admin of that server. For example, let's say I work at a small webhosting company, and have a couple of T3s. (I don't really.) All our servers run Linux, and I want to give back to the community, and show everyone how cool I am. But I'm gonna go out of business if I allow 90 Mbps of bandwidth to be going to kernel.myfakelittlehostingcompany.com, because my customers wouldn't have any bandwidth.
So I decide "Well... I can spare 10 Mbps at the most." I could tell the kernel.org admins this, and when you went to kernel.org, you would be redirected to a site, based on what the mirror sites wanted.
I'm willing to be that companies like OSDN, RedHat, Mandrake, Rackspace, etc. might be willing to let a kernel.org mirror have a small bit of their bandwidth, if they had a way of knowing that it would be controlled.
What I find most amusing is that... I'm on 100 Mbps switched Ethernet. At my 'peak' traffic utilization, I'm nowhere near the ~25+ Mbps sustained traffic that kernel.org gets. In fact... I'd consider 25 Mb/hour to be rather insane.