These new syscalls will require nothing of the sort. The functionality is already present in glibc (which will use the kernel functions if they're present), and programs are already using them.
They're being put into the kernel because that's where they belong.
if/when China does get ahead, that will be the impetus for the USA to change these stupid laws
No, what will happen:
Lobbyists for big business will tell Congress that the reason that the country is getting smacked is all of the horrible labour laws and union restrictions.
The government will then eliminate minimum wage (and whatever else they can) and draft laws restricting what unions can bargain for.
Given this process there shouldn't be any scope for such problems as the publishers themselves are, presumably, considered trustworthy by the console manufacturers.
Find a large TXT record somewhere (or set one up on your own domain.) Make it about 4K (which, incidentally, is the size that was used in this last batch of attacks.)
Request this TXT record from an open resolver (the amplifier) with lots of bandwidth, with a spoofed IP address of your target. Repeat as fast as you can.
The amplifier will cache your TXT record, and start sending replies, swamping the target.
Each request uses ~ 100 bytes from you. Each reply from the amplifier to the target will use 4096 bytes. That's a 40X amplification. Doing this from a T1 will result in consumption of 60Mbps of bandwidth from your target (enough to swamp an OC-1.) If you have more upstream bandwidth, you can do more damage.
You have to set up your authoritative records on a separate IP address from your current DNS server
I don't think so.
Why don't you just add a "query { trusted-hosts; }" line to the global options, and a "query { any; }" line to your authoritative zones? It's not rocket science.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in the previous post. I believe he was referring to the Valerie Plame case, which is an obvious reference to someone disagreeing with the US government and getting nailed for it.
perl-syndrome is the nasty habit that perl programmers get into (some might call it a mild case of brain damage), wherein when presented with a problem, say "oh, that's easy - it will only take me 10 minutes to whip up a perl script" rather than using an existing tool that does the same thing, easier, with much less hassle and opportunity for error.
An example:
Newbie-admin asks "how do you make your syslog files go to a different machine?"
Perl-syndrome admin says "oh, that's easy - just write a quick perl script to tail the log files you want, then open a TCP connection to a perl script on the remote machine to write the data. I could write that in 15 minutes!"
Experienced-admin says "Why don't you just configure syslog to send the files to the remote machine? It takes all of 5 seconds."
perl-syndrome admin "TMTOWTDI!"
(and yes, this exchange *really* happened, but it's not the only one - I've seen lots of other examples of guys with perl-syndrome posting perl scripts that could be done much easier with things like sed and awk.)
I think first and foremost is that is web developers who don't understand SQL, and so go about happily re-inventing its functionality in their web apps.
99% of the problems that web developers face have already been solved for them, but they think that SQL is just a data dump, and thus see no reason to use Postgres, because they think that MySQL does everything they need. In reality, their apps would be faster to write and easier to maintain if they used SQL features.
It's kind of like perl-syndrome, but on a larger scale.
For me, the biggest single-user problem is Windows *still* doesn't ship with a true multi-user filesystem.
Case in point:
One user creates a file, another user obtains a read lock on the file. The file's owner can do *nothing* to that file until the read lock is removed.
In a single-user system, this is acceptable; you know which files you have open, and just close the program. In a multi-user system, you can't do that - you have to contact the other user (if you even know who it is) and get them to stop what they're doing, so that you can do what you should already be able to do. It's asinine to think that this is acceptable behaviour.
There's more to a multi-user filesystem than file permissions.
.. not that you're wrong, but because *before* people have to deal with that, Cisco will have to make their equipment works out of the box with everybody else's.
That means Cisco is going to have to step boldly into the '90s and get MII autoconfig working.
If they'll let me pay $10 a month to prioritize VoIP, can I pay them $10 to prioritize my bittorrent packets?
I don't know - you might ask them, but even if they say "yes", it would be really, really stupid to do it.
QoS is (basically) designed to guarantee the packets arrive within a certain timeframe. It's goal is to make interactive traffic, well, interactive, regardless of congestion on the link. As bittorrent isn't interactive, there is no benefit whatsoever to giving it a higher priority.
Or can I use the VoIP prioritization to sidestep their traffic shaping.
It's not "VoIP" prioritization, it's QoS. And no, because QoS and shaping address different things (in fact, when sharing a link with "best effort" traffic, prioritized traffic is almost always shaped and/or policed, to prevent it from drowning out the unprioritized traffic.)
Yes, "optional" as in "do you want to use your voip phone or not"?
Bullshit. As others have said, they're not paying the fee, and VoIP still works.
keep in mind that Shaw cut (in damn near half) the service for all of their customers a few months ago.
What the fsck are you smoking? I've been a Shaw customer for 7 years, and their service has been the same as always (as a matter of fact, last year they replaced my working modem *for free* with a new model, and it's faster than ever - I'm getting 6Mbps down and 1Mbps upstream.)
They're not being forced to proceed without the depositions.
Yes, they are. The deposition boat has sailed, and SCOX missed it.
The judge gave them the opportunity to renew:
No, she most certainly did not.
She says that she will deny SCO's motion to compel without predjudice.
Umm, you *do* know there is a difference between a deposition and a motion to compel, right? And that the two things are entirely, and completely different things.
Slashdot Mirror
what will Alexander Terekhov troll usenet about now?
Oh, he's still trolling. He showed up on Y!SCOX this morning talking about how day5dumbass would have won on the merits.
You wouldn't expect a little thing like reality to deter these guys, would you?
What was the WallaceOS
It was basically FreeBSD with all of the non-BSD licensed software removed, and no source.
So no X, no gcc, etc.
No, I'm not kidding.
the previous executive branch crew tried the same thing[...] he was encouraged
Um, no.
The opposite of encourage is discourage, not forbid.
To quote Dogma: "there's a subtle difference."
Umm, no.
These new syscalls will require nothing of the sort. The functionality is already present in glibc (which will use the kernel functions if they're present), and programs are already using them.
They're being put into the kernel because that's where they belong.
Our government has all kinds of intelligence...if they thought there were WMDs, there must have been a good reason.
Yes, and that reason is "I want to invade them so that my oil-company owning buddies can make a few more $billion."
There's a nice, simple test to see if he really had WMDs:
did he use any when the US invaded?
if/when China does get ahead, that will be the impetus for the USA to change these stupid laws
No, what will happen:
Lobbyists for big business will tell Congress that the reason that the country is getting smacked is all of the horrible labour laws and union restrictions.
The government will then eliminate minimum wage (and whatever else they can) and draft laws restricting what unions can bargain for.
My fav:
"I'm not a machine, I don't like having disks crammed into me. Unless they're Oreos, and then only in the mouth."
Umm, that doesn't really answer his question.
Why recursion is bad:
Find a large TXT record somewhere (or set one up on your own domain.) Make it about 4K (which, incidentally, is the size that was used in this last batch of attacks.)
Request this TXT record from an open resolver (the amplifier) with lots of bandwidth, with a spoofed IP address of your target. Repeat as fast as you can.
The amplifier will cache your TXT record, and start sending replies, swamping the target.
Each request uses ~ 100 bytes from you. Each reply from the amplifier to the target will use 4096 bytes. That's a 40X amplification. Doing this from a T1 will result in consumption of 60Mbps of bandwidth from your target (enough to swamp an OC-1.) If you have more upstream bandwidth, you can do more damage.
Now do you see why it's bad?
A better solution would be to use allow-recursion to specify which clients will receive recursive DNS responses.
Or to use allow-query to specify which hosts can query your nameserver at all (and do allow-query {any;} on any zones you serve authoritatively for.)
Yeah, such a restrictive license killed the pine mail reader years ago.
Except that pine is, y'know, actually useful in the real world, without applying any patches. The same can't honestly be said for qmail.
You have to set up your authoritative records on a separate IP address from your current DNS server
I don't think so.
Why don't you just add a "query { trusted-hosts; }" line to the global options, and a "query { any; }" line to your authoritative zones? It's not rocket science.
I believe you missed the sarcasm in the previous post. I believe he was referring to the Valerie Plame case, which is an obvious reference to someone disagreeing with the US government and getting nailed for it.
There, I've killed my frog for the day.
Wait - how did Dungeon Siege require math skills?
Well, he also said that it was entertaining. Perhaps he was being sarcastic?
perl-syndrome is the nasty habit that perl programmers get into (some might call it a mild case of brain damage), wherein when presented with a problem, say "oh, that's easy - it will only take me 10 minutes to whip up a perl script" rather than using an existing tool that does the same thing, easier, with much less hassle and opportunity for error.
An example:
Newbie-admin asks "how do you make your syslog files go to a different machine?"
Perl-syndrome admin says "oh, that's easy - just write a quick perl script to tail the log files you want, then open a TCP connection to a perl script on the remote machine to write the data. I could write that in 15 minutes!"
Experienced-admin says "Why don't you just configure syslog to send the files to the remote machine? It takes all of 5 seconds."
perl-syndrome admin "TMTOWTDI!"
(and yes, this exchange *really* happened, but it's not the only one - I've seen lots of other examples of guys with perl-syndrome posting perl scripts that could be done much easier with things like sed and awk.)
I think first and foremost is that is web developers who don't understand SQL, and so go about happily re-inventing its functionality in their web apps.
99% of the problems that web developers face have already been solved for them, but they think that SQL is just a data dump, and thus see no reason to use Postgres, because they think that MySQL does everything they need. In reality, their apps would be faster to write and easier to maintain if they used SQL features.
It's kind of like perl-syndrome, but on a larger scale.
For me, the biggest single-user problem is Windows *still* doesn't ship with a true multi-user filesystem.
Case in point:
One user creates a file, another user obtains a read lock on the file. The file's owner can do *nothing* to that file until the read lock is removed.
In a single-user system, this is acceptable; you know which files you have open, and just close the program. In a multi-user system, you can't do that - you have to contact the other user (if you even know who it is) and get them to stop what they're doing, so that you can do what you should already be able to do. It's asinine to think that this is acceptable behaviour.
There's more to a multi-user filesystem than file permissions.
.. not that you're wrong, but because *before* people have to deal with that, Cisco will have to make their equipment works out of the box with everybody else's.
That means Cisco is going to have to step boldly into the '90s and get MII autoconfig working.
If they'll let me pay $10 a month to prioritize VoIP, can I pay them $10 to prioritize my bittorrent packets?
I don't know - you might ask them, but even if they say "yes", it would be really, really stupid to do it.
QoS is (basically) designed to guarantee the packets arrive within a certain timeframe. It's goal is to make interactive traffic, well, interactive, regardless of congestion on the link. As bittorrent isn't interactive, there is no benefit whatsoever to giving it a higher priority.
Or can I use the VoIP prioritization to sidestep their traffic shaping.
It's not "VoIP" prioritization, it's QoS. And no, because QoS and shaping address different things (in fact, when sharing a link with "best effort" traffic, prioritized traffic is almost always shaped and/or policed, to prevent it from drowning out the unprioritized traffic.)
It's an optional fee that you can pay if you want QoS with any VoIP service.
Yes, "optional" as in "do you want to use your voip phone or not"?
Bullshit. As others have said, they're not paying the fee, and VoIP still works.
keep in mind that Shaw cut (in damn near half) the service for all of their customers a few months ago.
What the fsck are you smoking? I've been a Shaw customer for 7 years, and their service has been the same as always (as a matter of fact, last year they replaced my working modem *for free* with a new model, and it's faster than ever - I'm getting 6Mbps down and 1Mbps upstream.)
You're just flat out wrong.
There's something to be said about 400 pounds of dogs chasing a tiny dot, pushing each other out of the way.
:o)
Interesting. Have you ever tried to patent that?
If you do, be sure to note prior art.
Oh yeah, and I want a cut.
Is this a new Slashdot cliche in the works? Will it be added to soviet russia, elderly koreans and the like?
In Soviet Korea, elderly dead people spin YOU!
the concept of Jesus and Mary getting married has been around (and documented) for quite a while.
Holy crap!
Jesus married his mom?!??!?
They're not being forced to proceed without the depositions.
Yes, they are. The deposition boat has sailed, and SCOX missed it.
The judge gave them the opportunity to renew:
No, she most certainly did not.
She says that she will deny SCO's motion to compel without predjudice.
Umm, you *do* know there is a difference between a deposition and a motion to compel, right? And that the two things are entirely, and completely different things.