Watch the opening animation of the movie.. Matrix code...zoomed out... makes more matrix code... zoomed out... makes the numbers on the guard's desk clock.
Governments using windows everywhere increase overhead, bloat, reduce network and infrastructure security and all in all increase government inefficiency. Enemies of the United States will like this. Enemies of the United States will fund lobbyists in the U.S. to promote inefficiencies and security holes that can be taken advantage of later. Only mildly joking...
Interestingly, I have a friend in Amsterdam who says that the LAST thing you ever want is an efficient government - the first thing they will do is interfere with your way of life very efficiently.
A few years ago I postulated that one way to make a lot of money is to create and sell technologies that a fascist country would have loved to have 40 years ago. I unfortunately believe I was correct.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [34].
RFC 2119 says:
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
So in this case should is not synonymous with must.
The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response.
Also:
9.6 PUT...if an existing resource is modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) response codes SHOULD be sent to indicate successful completion of the request. If the resource could not be created or modified with the Request-URI, an appropriate error response SHOULD be given that reflects the nature of the problem....
(there are lots more...)
It is these kinds of SHOULDS that cause problems in real implementations. They cause too many combinations that are often missed by testing.
Part of the problem with HTTP is the very fact that the RFC uses the word SHOULD. A standards document should never use the word SHOULD. It should always use the word 'MUST'. Optional features in the protocol are the source of many many incompatibilities between webservers and clients.
You would be surprised to know how many mickey-mouse operations are run by large corporations!
A few years ago www.mybc.com - now it is mytelus.com - which is the telephone company for British Columbia and Alberta. At one of their internal meetings where the mybc.com team was to make a presentation about the new fancy changes they are doing to the mybc.com site, they had to tell everyone, sorry the server crashed. All of mybc.com went down. No there were no backups.
I was thinking about how today's latest processors have millions of transistors in them, and how fun and efficient the 6502 was with so fewer transistors.
Imagine making a new 6502 chip with all the SRAM on the chip. Maybe extend the 6502 to encompass the 65816 extensions for more memory access. Add 4 high speed synchronous serial ports. You will still have very few transistors on the chip compared to a P4. You could make the cpu run at 2+ gigahertz too.
Now, the trick: Put multiples of these on one chip, connected in a matrix with the 4 serial ports. Put multiples of these chips on one DIMM. Make the DIMM interface compatible with memory DIMMs so you can just stick it into an existing computer.
Now, your memory is intelligent - every 128kbytes of memory would have its own processor to do stuff with. A photoshop blur algorithm on a multi-megabyte image could probably be completed in 100 ns.
Kinda like a micro-beowulf cluster in your computer! I don't know how useful it would be, but it sure would be a fun project and I'm sure people could find a use!
This would be a very interesting thing to use in conjunction with the Real Time Linux extensions, so one could dynamically modify their real time tasks. It would probably make the writing of the real time tasks even simpler.
Off topic I know, but the weirdest thing happened to me. One morning I woke up with my wife and the first thing I thought of was Audrey saying 'The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain'.... Went into the living room and turned on the TV and saw that Audrey Hepburn died.
But this is a problem with some providers - For instance below I mentioned my friend's company's private web forums hosted on a static IP address on a cable modem. If he wants the forum software to broadcast send an email to all his subscribers, the shaw.ca mail server rejects it, saying you are not allowed to BCC more than 10 people at once.
My solution for them was to make an ssh tunnel to my mail server which is on a 'real' connection at a co-lo.
My friend pays for a "static" Ip address on his cable modem to run some private corporate web forums. A few weeks ago, all email notifications from the forums going to anyone hosted at earthlink.net were bouncing - The message is "No email accepted from dynamic IP addresses". Both AOL and Earthlink have TONS of subscribers.
If they both decide to carry on doing this, there is nothing you can do about it.
Truth is, SMTP sucks. They are only doing this because of all the spam. Yes they are violating RFC's. Too bad...
Slashdot Mirror
But you'd have to prove that they are flat too, and not just a hill.
--jeff++
Watch the opening animation of the movie.. Matrix code...zoomed out... makes more matrix code... zoomed out... makes the numbers on the guard's desk clock.
--jeff++
Oh my god. ... Is THAT what the original UNIX source code looks like? I'm going to have nightmares now...
--jeff++
Governments using windows everywhere increase overhead, bloat, reduce network and infrastructure security and all in all increase government inefficiency. Enemies of the United States will like this. Enemies of the United States will fund lobbyists in the U.S. to promote inefficiencies and security holes that can be taken advantage of later. Only mildly joking...
Interestingly, I have a friend in Amsterdam who says that the LAST thing you ever want is an efficient government - the first thing they will do is interfere with your way of life very efficiently.
--jeff++
By the way, my mother has been using Janome computerized sewing machines for quite a few years. Way cool stuff. see Janome Memory Craft 10000 --jeff++
A few years ago I postulated that one way to make a lot of money is to create and sell technologies that a fascist country would have loved to have 40 years ago. I unfortunately believe I was correct.
--jeff++
Very impressive!
--jeff++
As asked by a taxi driver who has never seen snow before: "Do want to get to the airport FAST or SAFE?"
--jeff++
I always wanted to meet this Violet girl that my physics teacher mentioned. And how did HE know that she gave willingly? Lucky B*stard!
--jeff++
Yes SHOULD is ok in specs, I just feel that SHOULD (see rfc2119) is used far too often in the HTTP/1.1 spec.
--jeff++
RFC 2119 says:
So in this case should is not synonymous with must.
--jeff++
Also:
(there are lots more...)
It is these kinds of SHOULDS that cause problems in real implementations. They cause too many combinations that are often missed by testing.
--jeff++
Part of the problem with HTTP is the very fact that the RFC uses the word SHOULD. A standards document should never use the word SHOULD. It should always use the word 'MUST'. Optional features in the protocol are the source of many many incompatibilities between webservers and clients.
--jeff++
You would be surprised to know how many mickey-mouse operations are run by large corporations!
A few years ago www.mybc.com - now it is mytelus.com - which is the telephone company for British Columbia and Alberta. At one of their internal meetings where the mybc.com team was to make a presentation about the new fancy changes they are doing to the mybc.com site, they had to tell everyone, sorry the server crashed. All of mybc.com went down. No there were no backups.
How is this possible? Dilbert knows, I think!
--jeff++
It isn't scary because it is fast, or upside down or any of that fancy stuff.
It is scary because it is old and made of wood, and every moment you get the feeling that the wood is going to snap and you will die.
The new fancy coasters are so strong with reinforced whatchamacallits and you know deep down that they are safe.
Not this one. I swear that if you don't hold on you'd go flying out after the first hump.
--jeff++
I was thinking about how today's latest processors have millions of transistors in them, and how fun and efficient the 6502 was with so fewer transistors.
Imagine making a new 6502 chip with all the SRAM on the chip. Maybe extend the 6502 to encompass the 65816 extensions for more memory access. Add 4 high speed synchronous serial ports. You will still have very few transistors on the chip compared to a P4. You could make the cpu run at 2+ gigahertz too.
Now, the trick: Put multiples of these on one chip, connected in a matrix with the 4 serial ports. Put multiples of these chips on one DIMM. Make the DIMM interface compatible with memory DIMMs so you can just stick it into an existing computer.
Now, your memory is intelligent - every 128kbytes of memory would have its own processor to do stuff with. A photoshop blur algorithm on a multi-megabyte image could probably be completed in 100 ns.
Kinda like a micro-beowulf cluster in your computer! I don't know how useful it would be, but it sure would be a fun project and I'm sure people could find a use!
--jeff++
f666g
would give you the ! prompt for the mini-assembler.
I am beginning to dislike computers in general now.
They were more fun before.
--jeff++
Wow!
So I wonder what compensation the 'occupant' was expecting to get after doing that?
Did they not like him or something?
What happened to him?
--jeff++
Oh my god! You killed Archer!
--jeff++
This would be a very interesting thing to use in conjunction with the Real Time Linux extensions, so one could dynamically modify their real time tasks. It would probably make the writing of the real time tasks even simpler.
--jeff++
Off topic I know, but the weirdest thing happened to me. One morning I woke up with my wife and the first thing I thought of was Audrey saying 'The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain'.... Went into the living room and turned on the TV and saw that Audrey Hepburn died.
--jeff++
tour=your, yes, I started it with Eathlink=Earthlink.
Anyways, I cannot do this myself (refuse mail from them) - A bunch of people I regularly contract with are on Earthlink.
--jeff++
This is php forum software that was doing the BCC'ing.
I did not misspell 'A lot'... Maybe you were looking at someone else's post?
--jeff++
But this is a problem with some providers - For instance below I mentioned my friend's company's private web forums hosted on a static IP address on a cable modem. If he wants the forum software to broadcast send an email to all his subscribers, the shaw.ca mail server rejects it, saying you are not allowed to BCC more than 10 people at once.
My solution for them was to make an ssh tunnel to my mail server which is on a 'real' connection at a co-lo.
--jeff++
My friend pays for a "static" Ip address on his cable modem to run some private corporate web forums. A few weeks ago, all email notifications from the forums going to anyone hosted at earthlink.net were bouncing - The message is "No email accepted from dynamic IP addresses".
Both AOL and Earthlink have TONS of subscribers.
If they both decide to carry on doing this, there is nothing you can do about it.
Truth is, SMTP sucks. They are only doing this because of all the spam. Yes they are violating RFC's. Too bad...
--jeff++