Straw man, you mean like taking parts of a comment and then only refuting part of what those parts say?
No, straw man, like distorting someone's opinion, then attacking that distortion, so that you can claim you are right.
Which is pretty much exactly what you did.
Did you read your own comment?
Yes, I did. Here is a summary of what happened.
Original poster said "US was targetted on 9/11 by terrorists because of their forign policy"
You said "9/11 was not justified! You called it justified!" and proceeded to attack that assumption. (This is the straw man part.)
I said "he didn't say that it was justified."
Pretty simple, huh? The reason I didn't address any of your "points" is because these points weren't relevant to the discussion. But since you want me to address your points, I will.
if you believe that 9/11 was not the way sensible human beings solve problems, then you're going to have to question whether these terrorists are sensisble human beings.
This is 100% true. You and I are in complete agreement on this issue. Why you're bringing it up is beyond me, as it has no relevance to the issue at hand.
If terrorists are not the most rational, psychologically-balanced individuals (pretty much a given) then you have to wonder if doing something rational would even matter to them.
Rationality is subjective. I'm sure Lizzie Borden thought that what she was doing was rational, even though (almost?) everybody else would disagree.
Claiming that the terrorists were not rational does not in any way diminish the effect that US foriegn policy had on their actions.
In the future try not to be both clueless and condescending
OK, so what's your point then? (Oh, and it's marked 'DF', not 'DNF')
The host computer should be intelligent enough to send a smaller packet after enough DNF packets disappear into the ether.
"Should be"? First, we're talking about what "is" and "isn't", not "should be"... and second, no, it SHOULDN'T be.
If the host is just going to assume that a dropped packet is due to someone misconfiguring their firewall - and not just because the packet was dropped for some other reason - what happens when "enough" packets disappear because of some other reason (like, say - temporary link outages, congestion, etc..)?
The "intelligent enough" host begins making it's packets smaller, which causes more overhead for the troubled link. If the dropped packets are because of congestion, you're actually making the problem worse instead of better (because smaller packets impose higher overhead on a network, both because the payload is smaller relative to the packet size, and there are more packets for the routers to process.)
Once a PTMU has been calculated, the data packets should not be marked DNF
Try reading RFC 1191, which describes PMTU discovery, and directly contradicts your statement.
Section 6.3 (Purging stale PMTU information) states this: "Because a host using PMTU Discovery always sets the DF bit" (emphasis added.) Seems the guys who invented PMTU discovery disagree with you.
data packets should not be marked DNF, as the path may change as routers change states
This is the perfect reason why hosts should continue to set the DF bit, not a reason why they shouldn't.
I suppose you've never heard of packet fragmenting, then?
Yes, I've heard of it. And unlike you, I actually know how it works in relation to PMTU discovery.
MTU discovery tries to ensure that your packets won't be fragmented by routers, but if you send larger packets, they'll be fragmented by routers
No, they won't.
PMTU discovery works by setting the "DO NOT FRAGMENT" bit of the IP header. Packets that are too large are dropped, NOT fragmented, and an ICMP message is sent to the originating host, telling them to re-send a smaller packet.
If you're gonna correct someone, make sure you know what you're talking about first.
If I were Google, I'd just delete them all together from the search database. Google is a PRIVATE CORPORATION and has the ability to include or exclude anyone they choose.
While this is true, I think that Google isn't doing it because they realize that it would be detrimental to them.
Google is held in general high regard because it provides the best search engine. If you are looking for something, chances are Google will be your best shot at finding it easily.
The web sites hosted by searchking contain information that might be important to someone - and by deleting them from their DB, Google is lowering their own value to whoever might want to find that info.
ICMP is used for control messages between systems - it's used for control messages (the 'C' and 'M' in ICMP) for TCP and UDP packets.
Without ICMP, your connections can take longer, or (in some cases) not work at all. All modern OSes support path MTU discovery - and PMTU discovery relies on ICMP messages. If you block these messages, your clients will be unable to reach sites if part of your path to them has a smaller MTU than the MTU of your local interface.
You may know a lot about SSH, but you don't know squat about TCP/IP. ICMP is used for more than just 'ping'.
I understand that some US foreign policy is bad and need to be fixed, but that's not an excuse to go around killing a bunch of innocent people
He didn't say it was an excuse.
The terrorists that did it believed they were exacting revenge for their countrymen who were killed as a direct result of US foreign policy. He didn't pass any judgement whatsoever on this act.
than 9/11 would have been an excuse for the US to nuke Afghanistan
No, but it evidently was an excuse to invade them.
Even if the US was to suddenly adopt perfect foreign policies, that every country in the world agrees with, and magically right our past wrongs, there would still be people out there who want to kill others
Yes, but if that did come to pass, I'd be willing to bet that the US wouldn't be the target of that violence.
a country's bad foreign policy does not justify that mass murder of civilians within that country
Straw man. Nobody said (or even implied) that 9/11 was justified. In the future, please make all arguments relevant to the discussion.
good/evil: they are NOT opposite sides of the same coin
Why not?
For any example of "evil", there is pretty much an example of "good" - it simply depends on how you look at it.
Take the American Revolution. Ask any American if the participants were good or evil, and they'll say "good, of course!"
However, from the perspective of the British, the revolutionaries were treasonous scum.
(Note, I'm not taking sides here, just presenting both.)
Or take the American Civil War - good or evil? Even when you look at one tiny part of it (the welfare of the slaves themselves) it's not so clear cut: many slaves were conscripted by the south, and forced to die in a war for the side that wanted them to remain slaves.
Good and evil pretty much depends on your perspective. It's possible to see anything as "good" or "evil" if you narrow your view enough.
You could justify the two branches (life and number of years) of the term of a copyright as follows: (i) the "life of author" branch is to prevent a person's creativity, heart & soul, etc. from being exploited by others without his consent while he is alive (call this a "moral right")
As far as I know, moral rights are not addressed by US copyright law. They are paritally addressed in Canada, and in some (most? all?) European countries. Moral rights cannot be "assigned" to another person, so they die when the author dies.
There are interesting issues relating to the interaction of copyright lapse and continuing derviative products. For instance, in the case of Dune, upon a theoretical 20-year copyright expiration in 1985, (i) publishers would have been free to publish the original Dune without royalties to Frank Herbert, etc., and (ii) authors and publishers would have been free to publish their own derivative works using characters from the original Dune
Why is this an issue?
This is the exact purpose of copyright law - to enrich our culture by having a continually growing base of works in the public domain.
You think Disney created Snow White? Or Cinderella?
No, he made embellishments to these stories. He's made his money, now it's time to give back, so that our culture can expand.
Remember I said my mother was a writer? She's 67 now. Assuming nothing changes in WRT copyright terms, I (and the rest of my brothers and sisters) will die before the copyright expires.
It's actually life + 70 years, which is a pretty long time
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the law that defines the copyright term as a function of the life of the author discriminatory?
Here's my logic:
Person A is 10 years old, and is a prodigy. There's no history of major disease (like cancer) in his family, and everybody in his family lives for an average of 100 years - for the sake of argument, he lives until he's 100. He writes his first symphony at the age of 10 years, and (as he lives to be 100 years old) his copyright lasts 160 years (100 - 10 + 70)
Person B is 46 years old, but has a family history of cancer and diabetes. She writes her first symphony at 46, lives to 50, and so her copyright only lasts 110 years.
So if all people are equal under the law, why does Person A get 160 years of protection, but the same law grants Person B only 2/3rds the same amount?
It's quite clear that the current copyright law discriminates against the elderly, as well as terminally ill, and people who have a genetic predisposition to cancer or other life-shortening diseases.
I'm not an American, so can someone tell me if there are laws against discrimination?
Thanks for responding, but do you have anything relevant to add?
Tell me where you live. I want to see if I can pick your locks, open your windows, and peek through your curtains. What is your IP address? I demand the right for complete and unfettered scanning abilities.
What does any of this have to do with my post?
You of course have zero right to ask who I am or my true identity.
You're a moron. Re-read my post, then point out where I asked you for your identity.
I'm not afraid to be tested, I just block EVERYONE who tries to use my servers for relaying.
Well, IMHO, that's a pretty stupid thing to do.. someone here asked me if we could do something similar, and I told them we could, but it wouldn't be smart.
All someone needs to do is list your mail server as a MX for thier domain (or a useless subdomain), then get people to respond..
They sign up with hotmail, and you'll never recieve mail from hotmail ever again.. same with Yahoo..
Send mail to $BIG_ISP with a From: for this domain; they reply, and you'll never recieve any email from that ISP again.. you'll be blocking legitimate servers, who are doing exactly what they should be doing.
It's all of sudden pretty simple to screw you over.
"Well, why don't you just send email through your ISP's email servers?" Well, that would look very professional and business-like, wouldn't it?
If you actually knew how to configure an email client, it sure would.
_My_ users expect _my_ emails to originate from _my_ domain.
You're saying that your users check the Received: headers, to make sure that the email you send comes from your server? If so, I call bullshit on you.
Does your sysadmin frequently send you email from a YaHoo address? From a Juno.com address? From a Verizon address?
Well, I am a sysadmin. And the "From:" line in my email comes from (gasp) my domain, even when I dial in from home, because (unlike you) I know how to configure an email client.
If you really are an admin, I have great pity for your users. I hope they find out how incompetant you really are, so they can find someone who actually knows what they're doing.
Re:WOPR? David Lightman.
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
A 10Mb HD on a C64 in 1984?
Yup.
The Commodore 9090 was a 9MB HD made for the PET line of computers (which were discontinued in the early 80's). It was compatable with the C64, just like SFD 1001.
I'm sorry that you see my posts as personal attacks.
He's not the only one.
From what I can see about this discussion, here's my interpretation of the incident you're describing:
Someone (possibly even you) called Redhat "Linux 7.1" (or whatever)
Rick told them that Redhat != Linux, and there are other distributions - then (probably) went on to explain what a distribution was.
This person (again, possibly you) didn't like his attitude (because it shows that he/you're wrong), and sets out to assasinate Rick's character whenever possible.
I see something that isn't right and so I speak up
Again, this is solely my interpretation from reading your comments and Rick's, but (to me, at least) your comments make me sympathetic to Rick.
Of course, maybe you are Rick, and this is just a clever ploy to cause me to gain sympathy for you (for your own evil ends!):o)
'scuse me, I have to go find my tinfoil hat now:o)
Slashdot Mirror
Raping, sodomizing and torturing to death a 12 year old girl.
Find some good in that!!
Examine why someone would do such a thing, and you'll find your answer:
It's sick, perverted, and twisted. But it would make the rapist feel good.
Remember, "good" doesn't mean "good for everybody".
Anything else? (Maybe a little harder this time.)
Straw man, you mean like taking parts of a comment and then only refuting part of what those parts say?
No, straw man, like distorting someone's opinion, then attacking that distortion, so that you can claim you are right.
Which is pretty much exactly what you did.
Did you read your own comment?
Yes, I did. Here is a summary of what happened.
Original poster said "US was targetted on 9/11 by terrorists because of their forign policy"
You said "9/11 was not justified! You called it justified!" and proceeded to attack that assumption. (This is the straw man part.)
I said "he didn't say that it was justified."
Pretty simple, huh? The reason I didn't address any of your "points" is because these points weren't relevant to the discussion. But since you want me to address your points, I will.
if you believe that 9/11 was not the way sensible human beings solve problems, then you're going to have to question whether these terrorists are sensisble human beings.
This is 100% true. You and I are in complete agreement on this issue. Why you're bringing it up is beyond me, as it has no relevance to the issue at hand.
If terrorists are not the most rational, psychologically-balanced individuals (pretty much a given) then you have to wonder if doing something rational would even matter to them.
Rationality is subjective. I'm sure Lizzie Borden thought that what she was doing was rational, even though (almost?) everybody else would disagree.
Claiming that the terrorists were not rational does not in any way diminish the effect that US foriegn policy had on their actions.
In the future try not to be both clueless and condescending
Why, do you hate the competition?
For the PMTU, yes it's marked DNF
OK, so what's your point then? (Oh, and it's marked 'DF', not 'DNF')
The host computer should be intelligent enough to send a smaller packet after enough DNF packets disappear into the ether.
"Should be"? First, we're talking about what "is" and "isn't", not "should be"... and second, no, it SHOULDN'T be.
If the host is just going to assume that a dropped packet is due to someone misconfiguring their firewall - and not just because the packet was dropped for some other reason - what happens when "enough" packets disappear because of some other reason (like, say - temporary link outages, congestion, etc..)?
The "intelligent enough" host begins making it's packets smaller, which causes more overhead for the troubled link. If the dropped packets are because of congestion, you're actually making the problem worse instead of better (because smaller packets impose higher overhead on a network, both because the payload is smaller relative to the packet size, and there are more packets for the routers to process.)
Once a PTMU has been calculated, the data packets should not be marked DNF
Try reading RFC 1191, which describes PMTU discovery, and directly contradicts your statement.
Section 6.3 (Purging stale PMTU information) states this: "Because a host using PMTU Discovery always sets the DF bit" (emphasis added.) Seems the guys who invented PMTU discovery disagree with you.
data packets should not be marked DNF, as the path may change as routers change states
This is the perfect reason why hosts should continue to set the DF bit, not a reason why they shouldn't.
I suppose you've never heard of packet fragmenting, then?
Yes, I've heard of it. And unlike you, I actually know how it works in relation to PMTU discovery.
MTU discovery tries to ensure that your packets won't be fragmented by routers, but if you send larger packets, they'll be fragmented by routers
No, they won't.
PMTU discovery works by setting the "DO NOT FRAGMENT" bit of the IP header. Packets that are too large are dropped, NOT fragmented, and an ICMP message is sent to the originating host, telling them to re-send a smaller packet.
If you're gonna correct someone, make sure you know what you're talking about first.
If I were Google, I'd just delete them all together from the search database. Google is a PRIVATE CORPORATION and has the ability to include or exclude anyone they choose.
While this is true, I think that Google isn't doing it because they realize that it would be detrimental to them.
Google is held in general high regard because it provides the best search engine. If you are looking for something, chances are Google will be your best shot at finding it easily.
The web sites hosted by searchking contain information that might be important to someone - and by deleting them from their DB, Google is lowering their own value to whoever might want to find that info.
this is uninformed spouting of the mouth.
you mean his post, or yours?
Block IMCP if you don't need it
Ahem; if you run TCP/IP, you always need it.
ICMP is used for control messages between systems - it's used for control messages (the 'C' and 'M' in ICMP) for TCP and UDP packets.
Without ICMP, your connections can take longer, or (in some cases) not work at all. All modern OSes support path MTU discovery - and PMTU discovery relies on ICMP messages. If you block these messages, your clients will be unable to reach sites if part of your path to them has a smaller MTU than the MTU of your local interface.
You may know a lot about SSH, but you don't know squat about TCP/IP. ICMP is used for more than just 'ping'.
gravitational forces had accelerated Sonny pretty gently, and he was doing just fine until electrostatic forces from a nearby tree intervened.
Reminds me of the old joke.
A fall never killed anybody - the problem is that sudden stop at the end.
This is obviously a movie parody (note the roman numerals in the title..)
"SmarTruck II - The Wrath of Saddam"
Hmm, doesn't quite have the same ring as "Wrath of Khan"..
I wouldn't watch it anyway.. William Shatner parodying Bush might make my head explode.
I understand that some US foreign policy is bad and need to be fixed, but that's not an excuse to go around killing a bunch of innocent people
He didn't say it was an excuse.
The terrorists that did it believed they were exacting revenge for their countrymen who were killed as a direct result of US foreign policy. He didn't pass any judgement whatsoever on this act.
than 9/11 would have been an excuse for the US to nuke Afghanistan
No, but it evidently was an excuse to invade them.
Even if the US was to suddenly adopt perfect foreign policies, that every country in the world agrees with, and magically right our past wrongs, there would still be people out there who want to kill others
Yes, but if that did come to pass, I'd be willing to bet that the US wouldn't be the target of that violence.
a country's bad foreign policy does not justify that mass murder of civilians within that country
Straw man. Nobody said (or even implied) that 9/11 was justified. In the future, please make all arguments relevant to the discussion.
The inability for all sides to agree on what is good or evil, does not eliminate the possibility of an absolute good or evil.
"All sides" don't have to agree.
Here's a thought excercise for you:
Prove that absolute evil exists.
All you can do is provide examples of "evil" - but for each of those examples, I bet I can find some "good" in it.
The closed-minded will believe that something has to be one or the other, but not both - or will argue that "we don't agree".
The open-minded will say that something can be both.
good/evil: they are NOT opposite sides of the same coin
Why not?
For any example of "evil", there is pretty much an example of "good" - it simply depends on how you look at it.
Take the American Revolution. Ask any American if the participants were good or evil, and they'll say "good, of course!"
However, from the perspective of the British, the revolutionaries were treasonous scum.
(Note, I'm not taking sides here, just presenting both.)
Or take the American Civil War - good or evil? Even when you look at one tiny part of it (the welfare of the slaves themselves) it's not so clear cut: many slaves were conscripted by the south, and forced to die in a war for the side that wanted them to remain slaves.
Good and evil pretty much depends on your perspective. It's possible to see anything as "good" or "evil" if you narrow your view enough.
Spammers, also, are exercising their right to free enterprise and free speech,
Spam has _NOTHING_ to do with free speech.
Free speech is the right to say whatever you want.
It it not, nor has it ever been the right to force people to listen to you, or the right to force people to pay you to speak.
The whole "free speech" argument is a red herring.
I know for sure that European cable ISP Chello does.
No link? (I went to www.chello.se, but I'm english-only.)
How do you know? Do you have a chello.se account?
So (at best) that's one unconfirmed.
Last time I checked, "lots" generally meant more than (at least) one.
You could justify the two branches (life and number of years) of the term of a copyright as follows: (i) the "life of author" branch is to prevent a person's creativity, heart & soul, etc. from being exploited by others without his consent while he is alive (call this a "moral right")
As far as I know, moral rights are not addressed by US copyright law. They are paritally addressed in Canada, and in some (most? all?) European countries. Moral rights cannot be "assigned" to another person, so they die when the author dies.
There are interesting issues relating to the interaction of copyright lapse and continuing derviative products. For instance, in the case of Dune, upon a theoretical 20-year copyright expiration in 1985, (i) publishers would have been free to publish the original Dune without royalties to Frank Herbert, etc., and (ii) authors and publishers would have been free to publish their own derivative works using characters from the original Dune
Why is this an issue?
This is the exact purpose of copyright law - to enrich our culture by having a continually growing base of works in the public domain.
You think Disney created Snow White? Or Cinderella?
No, he made embellishments to these stories. He's made his money, now it's time to give back, so that our culture can expand.
Remember I said my mother was a writer? She's 67 now. Assuming nothing changes in WRT copyright terms, I (and the rest of my brothers and sisters) will die before the copyright expires.
To me, that's just plain wrong.
Sure, his family may rely on the royalties (however minor those are), which is why I said perhaps his immediate family.
Here's an idea..
How about his family get a damn job, or create something of their own?
Disclaimer:
My mother is a writer. I am an artist (in fact, I did the cover of her most recent book.)
A term is the best way of handling copyright. None of this "life plus" crap.
Does anybody know what copyright period is in Canana?
Yes, Life plus 50.
It's actually life + 70 years, which is a pretty long time
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the law that defines the copyright term as a function of the life of the author discriminatory?
Here's my logic:
Person A is 10 years old, and is a prodigy. There's no history of major disease (like cancer) in his family, and everybody in his family lives for an average of 100 years - for the sake of argument, he lives until he's 100. He writes his first symphony at the age of 10 years, and (as he lives to be 100 years old) his copyright lasts 160 years (100 - 10 + 70)
Person B is 46 years old, but has a family history of cancer and diabetes. She writes her first symphony at 46, lives to 50, and so her copyright only lasts 110 years.
So if all people are equal under the law, why does Person A get 160 years of protection, but the same law grants Person B only 2/3rds the same amount?
It's quite clear that the current copyright law discriminates against the elderly, as well as terminally ill, and people who have a genetic predisposition to cancer or other life-shortening diseases.
I'm not an American, so can someone tell me if there are laws against discrimination?
the last few attempts to up it were unsucessful I dont think this would work.
... if your from oregon
In oregon taxes must be approved buy ballote/vote
I wish my fellow Oregonians would open there eyes
the school systems here SUCK
Hmm, you don't say!
Thanks for responding, but do you have anything relevant to add?
Tell me where you live. I want to see if I can pick your locks, open your windows, and peek through your curtains. What is your IP address? I demand the right for complete and unfettered scanning abilities.
What does any of this have to do with my post?
You of course have zero right to ask who I am or my true identity.
You're a moron. Re-read my post, then point out where I asked you for your identity.
There are a lot of ISP's that only allow their own email adresses to pass. I think OP is hinting on this.
If there are a lot, then you won't mind listing some of them, right?
Links, please.
This puts undue pressure on a potentially responsible ISP
Potentially responsible? Isn't that like me claiming I was "potentially a 8'5" swedish woman"?
Either the ISP is responsible or they aren't. If they are, then they won't be on the DNSBL.
I'm not afraid to be tested, I just block EVERYONE who tries to use my servers for relaying.
Well, IMHO, that's a pretty stupid thing to do.. someone here asked me if we could do something similar, and I told them we could, but it wouldn't be smart.
All someone needs to do is list your mail server as a MX for thier domain (or a useless subdomain), then get people to respond..
They sign up with hotmail, and you'll never recieve mail from hotmail ever again.. same with Yahoo..
Send mail to $BIG_ISP with a From: for this domain; they reply, and you'll never recieve any email from that ISP again.. you'll be blocking legitimate servers, who are doing exactly what they should be doing.
It's all of sudden pretty simple to screw you over.
With all due respect, you're an idiot.
"Well, why don't you just send email through your ISP's email servers?"
Well, that would look very professional and business-like, wouldn't it?
If you actually knew how to configure an email client, it sure would.
_My_ users expect _my_ emails to originate from _my_ domain.
You're saying that your users check the Received: headers, to make sure that the email you send comes from your server? If so, I call bullshit on you.
Does your sysadmin frequently send you email from a YaHoo address? From a Juno.com address? From a Verizon address?
Well, I am a sysadmin. And the "From:" line in my email comes from (gasp) my domain, even when I dial in from home, because (unlike you) I know how to configure an email client.
If you really are an admin, I have great pity for your users. I hope they find out how incompetant you really are, so they can find someone who actually knows what they're doing.
A 10Mb HD on a C64 in 1984?
Yup.
The Commodore 9090 was a 9MB HD made for the PET line of computers (which were discontinued in the early 80's). It was compatable with the C64, just like SFD 1001.
I'm sorry that you see my posts as personal attacks.
:o)
:o)
He's not the only one.
From what I can see about this discussion, here's my interpretation of the incident you're describing:
Someone (possibly even you) called Redhat "Linux 7.1" (or whatever)
Rick told them that Redhat != Linux, and there are other distributions - then (probably) went on to explain what a distribution was.
This person (again, possibly you) didn't like his attitude (because it shows that he/you're wrong), and sets out to assasinate Rick's character whenever possible.
I see something that isn't right and so I speak up
Again, this is solely my interpretation from reading your comments and Rick's, but (to me, at least) your comments make me sympathetic to Rick.
Of course, maybe you are Rick, and this is just a clever ploy to cause me to gain sympathy for you (for your own evil ends!)
'scuse me, I have to go find my tinfoil hat now