Well, you're lucky. I'm on a Wi-Fi network here, but I must be dumb or something, because I managed to download and install the application without being connected to the Internet. At least, so Trepia tells me when trying to sign up.
Anyone else experienced this? Can it be due to the nature of the NATed network I'm behind, or is it due to an evil firewall? I see no configuration options available in the app. That bothers me a little.
Once upon a time, the distance from north pole to the equator was set to 1000 metric miles. that is 10'000'000 m. Then they approximated that distance, made a iron bar of it and put it in Paris. Nowadays we know that that meter wasn't as long as we wanted it to be. Tough luck.
Judging by the patterns that comes along with the l7-filtering package, I'd say this is actually a layer-5 filtering process. All the patterns check only for the strings that are specific for establishing and maintaining the sessions, such as the POP3-server acknowledging that it is ready to recieve data, like the HTTP part where it looks for the request of a file.
What the patterns don't look at is the presentation layer, such as what kind of file it's trying to get, or in what encoding format it is transfered. It also doesn't care of the contents of the file requested, hence it is neither level 6 (presentation) nor level 7 (application), but simply layer 5 (session).
So, the patterns that come along with this are only layer 5. This however, doesn't mean you can't do layer-7 filtering. It seems easy to me to add words that just can't be searched for with google. just add something like:
sexgoogling GET \/search\?q\=[a-zA-Z\%]*(sex|xxx|porn|pr0n)[a-zA-Z \%]*
to a.pat file.
-- Niklas Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
14.4kbps modems are underestimated. They are several times faster than light! Let me tell you how:
See, I was accidently phrasing that a little program I was making would become faster than light. I started figuring about what speed is that really? And how do I measure it for a program? Naturally, the tricky questions should be answered with a simple answer, for that is the way to explain complex problems and give the evolution a helping hand.
So, what I started out doing was to find any connections between speed as in getting from point A to B and the speed commonly referred to in context of programs. It might sound like a pretty hard task to investigate this, but actually, the only thing I did was to look at the units we measure speed in. For light, we use metres per second. For some tasks we only use seconds to measure the speed, and for some other tasks we use another unit per seconds to measure it. One of these other units is the bit.
Now, we all know that the distance to our moon is quite a bit. In average that is about 384'000 km from earth, thus defining 1 bit = 3,84 * 10^8 m.
We also know that the speed of light (we assume it's constant for now, although there are other theories as well) is 299792458 m/s. Actually, that is the exact numbers, as the definition of a metre is the distance light can travel in vacuum in one 299792458th of a second.
Now, to find out how fast a program needs to be to be faster than light, we only have to know how many bits per second the light travels, so we set up the expression:
l = 299792458 m/s / 3.844*10^5 m/bit = 0.779 bits/s
Given this, and with a little margin to be on the safe side (the distance between Luna and Earth is not constant), we can agree on that 0.8 baud should be more than enough to be faster than light, thereby proving Einstein's theories wrong by simply using a common modem. Bad luck I guess. With a decent connection, making that program fast enough should not include too much of a hassle.
To sum it up, a 14.4kbps modem should provide speeds averaging around 11231 times faster than light!
The exact same story has been posted at least 10 times, each time it was modded up like I don't know what.
It's just as fun each time too. And if it wouldn't be modded up, I would have had to wait for the next time to spot it. Funny comments have the right to be funny, even though it's been posted before. If each joke was only posted once, this place would be dull.:)
Re:I still can't have more than 64 - you already d
on
High Density CDs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Now, first things first (but not necessarily in that order). Unicode is not a standard from Microsoft, and using the two bytes 'm' and '$' does not make you cooler, nor does it make me cooler to nag about (darn).
Claiming that a filesystem should use 8-bit values for all their files is like going back to the times when there was no internet for the common computer user, when each computer used only one character set all of the time. Today, I come across both US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1, 8, 16 and 32-bit Unicode and the good old codepage 850 daily. What would happen if an OS had support only for one of these character sets? Believe it or not, most computer users are not natively English speaking, and most users get in touch with many different funny looking characters or languages each day. At least so I presume.
Regarding the choice of encoding, I suppose 16-bit Unicode maybe isn't the best choice for storage. UTF-8 would seem appropriate to me, but then, there might be some issues with Thai filenames, reducing the numbers of allowed chars to 32 or so, for Thai filenames, while 128 for the American. That might be considered unfair.
All in all, we need a common character set. Unicode is the solution (although some characters codes don't have the most optimal order) and it's here to stay. At least I think it's funny to have Thai filenames on the Thai MP3's I've got, and the Icelandic names for the Icelandic.
Speaking of product names, I might as well add that here in Sweden, we believe the name "Tungsten" is a little bit funny, and a whole lot inappropriate for the products they sell. Tung means heavy and sten means stone, so for selling handhelds, the heavy stone approach might not be very appealing. Need I tell I was quite surprised when I opened the post order catalog that I get for free every month, reading how small and light that heavy stone is supposed to be.
I've never heard of anyone buying anything from Tungsten...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're lucky. I'm on a Wi-Fi network here, but I must be dumb or something, because I managed to download and install the application without being connected to the Internet. At least, so Trepia tells me when trying to sign up.
Anyone else experienced this? Can it be due to the nature of the NATed network I'm behind, or is it due to an evil firewall? I see no configuration options available in the app. That bothers me a little.
Once upon a time, the distance from north pole to the equator was set to 1000 metric miles. that is 10'000'000 m. Then they approximated that distance, made a iron bar of it and put it in Paris. Nowadays we know that that meter wasn't as long as we wanted it to be. Tough luck.
I said a meter is how long light can travel in 1/299792458 seconds. Firing up kcalc, i quickly see that your number is quite accurate with this.
1/299792458 = 3.3356409519815e-09
says kcalc.
It seems to me that Hawking has not included all the decimals. Except for that, we're talking of the exact same definition. Cheers!
Judging by the patterns that comes along with the l7-filtering package, I'd say this is actually a layer-5 filtering process. All the patterns check only for the strings that are specific for establishing and maintaining the sessions, such as the POP3-server acknowledging that it is ready to recieve data, like the HTTP part where it looks for the request of a file.
Z \%]*
.pat file.
What the patterns don't look at is the presentation layer, such as what kind of file it's trying to get, or in what encoding format it is transfered. It also doesn't care of the contents of the file requested, hence it is neither level 6 (presentation) nor level 7 (application), but simply layer 5 (session).
So, the patterns that come along with this are only layer 5. This however, doesn't mean you can't do layer-7 filtering. It seems easy to me to add words that just can't be searched for with google. just add something like:
sexgoogling
GET \/search\?q\=[a-zA-Z\%]*(sex|xxx|porn|pr0n)[a-zA-
to a
--
Niklas
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
14.4kbps modems are underestimated. They are several times faster than light! Let me tell you how:
See, I was accidently phrasing that a little program I was making would become faster than light. I started figuring about what speed is that really? And how do I measure it for a program? Naturally, the tricky questions should be answered with a simple answer, for that is the way to explain complex problems and give the evolution a helping hand.
So, what I started out doing was to find any connections between speed as in getting from point A to B and the speed commonly referred to in context of programs. It might sound like a pretty hard task to investigate this, but actually, the only thing I did was to look at the units we measure speed in. For light, we use metres per second. For some tasks we only use seconds to measure the speed, and for some other tasks we use another unit per seconds to measure it. One of these other units is the bit.
Now, we all know that the distance to our moon is quite a bit. In average that is about 384'000 km from earth, thus defining 1 bit = 3,84 * 10^8 m.
We also know that the speed of light (we assume it's constant for now, although there are other theories as well) is 299792458 m/s. Actually, that is the exact numbers, as the definition of a metre is the distance light can travel in vacuum in one 299792458th of a second.
Now, to find out how fast a program needs to be to be faster than light, we only have to know how many bits per second the light travels, so we set up the expression:
l = 299792458 m/s / 3.844*10^5 m/bit = 0.779 bits/s
Given this, and with a little margin to be on the safe side (the distance between Luna and Earth is not constant), we can agree on that 0.8 baud should be more than enough to be faster than light, thereby proving Einstein's theories wrong by simply using a common modem. Bad luck I guess. With a decent connection, making that program fast enough should not include too much of a hassle.
To sum it up, a 14.4kbps modem should provide speeds averaging around 11231 times faster than light!
So the preview is released now or what? Great!
/me fires up edonkey
The exact same story has been posted at least 10 times, each time it was modded up like I don't know what.
:)
It's just as fun each time too. And if it wouldn't be modded up, I would have had to wait for the next time to spot it. Funny comments have the right to be funny, even though it's been posted before. If each joke was only posted once, this place would be dull.
Now, first things first (but not necessarily in that order). Unicode is not a standard from Microsoft, and using the two bytes 'm' and '$' does not make you cooler, nor does it make me cooler to nag about (darn).
Claiming that a filesystem should use 8-bit values for all their files is like going back to the times when there was no internet for the common computer user, when each computer used only one character set all of the time. Today, I come across both US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1, 8, 16 and 32-bit Unicode and the good old codepage 850 daily. What would happen if an OS had support only for one of these character sets? Believe it or not, most computer users are not natively English speaking, and most users get in touch with many different funny looking characters or languages each day. At least so I presume.
Regarding the choice of encoding, I suppose 16-bit Unicode maybe isn't the best choice for storage. UTF-8 would seem appropriate to me, but then, there might be some issues with Thai filenames, reducing the numbers of allowed chars to 32 or so, for Thai filenames, while 128 for the American. That might be considered unfair.
All in all, we need a common character set. Unicode is the solution (although some characters codes don't have the most optimal order) and it's here to stay. At least I think it's funny to have Thai filenames on the Thai MP3's I've got, and the Icelandic names for the Icelandic.
Speaking of product names, I might as well add that here in Sweden, we believe the name "Tungsten" is a little bit funny, and a whole lot inappropriate for the products they sell. Tung means heavy and sten means stone, so for selling handhelds, the heavy stone approach might not be very appealing. Need I tell I was quite surprised when I opened the post order catalog that I get for free every month, reading how small and light that heavy stone is supposed to be.
I've never heard of anyone buying anything from Tungsten...