What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray?
Why would he care? How many extra DVD rentals would you have to convert to Blu-Ray rentals each month to cover the setup costs, power, maintenance, and floor space?
Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies. Top Gun looks great in blu ray.
I don't doubt that's true, but do you really want to associate the new format with "available for lots of old movies!"?
Doctors who are forced to order every possible test because if they skip one and fail to detect a 1-in-10,000,000 condition, they're subject to a $20,000,000 lawsuit and the end of their career.
I got it "for free" with the dist-upgrade. I didn't really have an opinion on PA before then (and still don't have much of one; Ubuntu making a few mistakes doesn't mean it's inherently bad) and only removed it because its new presence was breaking a lot of previously-working sound on my system.
I use an obscure distro called "Ubuntu" that halfway switched to PulseAudio during the latest release, breaking half the audio on my system until I uninstalled it. PA might be a great thing but the current state of it, right now, today, on the most common Linux systems, ain't so hot.
Yes, Linux audio sucks. If nothing else, we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks, and none of them are definitively better than the others. So, my question: what exactly is it that we're trying to achieve? What's the end goal of creating newer APIs instead of perfecting the old ones, such as moving from OSS to ALSA to whatever they roll out this month?
For comparison, FreeBSD uses multi-channel OSS. You can have a whole passel of processes writing to/dev/dsp simultaneously, because whenever a process attempts to open it, the OS spawns off a new copy. It Just Works. I'm a little amazed that my FreeBSD server's sound handling is so much better than my Linux desktop's and requires approximate zero client configuration. So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?
That's nice but doesn't change a single thing. Whether she was physically or spiritually tired, she deliberately broke the law and set the ball rolling.
Not always. If you tell me the sky is hot pink with plaid splotches, I can dismiss your claims without having to prove you wrong. This is almost that bad.
I know... this doesn't change the fact they charge for iPod firmware updates -- and Apple's reasoning is certainly open to well-deserved criticism -- but they lay the blame squarely on the Sarbanes-Oxley act.
That's bullshit. I bought iTouch OS 3.0 for $10 and assure you that it's not a bigger update than any of MS's service packs, or even their own OS X point upgrades. Every OS company - including Apple - somehow manages to give away upgrades, but they're claiming the government made this one illegal? Nope. Apple wanted extra cash and they charged for it, pure and simple. If they'd said something like "we're offering it for free to our premium customers", I think there would've been a lot less anger over it.
Right before he added trillions to the national debt,
His budget wasn't that bad, although the 20% interest rates were nearly fatal to the housing industry.
sank the country into an extended and unpopular war in the middle east,
In fairness, the Iran hostage affair only seemed to take forever. Still, I agree that nearly taking on the USSR in Afghanistan was possibly about as unpopular as it gets.
ignored intelligence that warned of an attack of the World Trade Center via airplanes,
I guess it's a little good that they settled for an embassy instead.
wiretapped Americans illegally,
First I've heard of Carter starting the practice, which sadly continues through this day.
and complacently watched the destruction of a major American city, apparently.
Well, the Chrysler bailout temporarily kept Detroit floating along, even if it eventually took the rest of Michigan with it.
Although we agree that Carter was terrible, I don't think he was quite as bad as you're claiming.
Then let me help: Jammie, if you go nuts and commit an act of retribution against the RIAA and/or their lawyers, and I can scam my way onto the jury, I personally guarantee you a hung jury at worst. Seriously, I figure for $2 million you've pretty much bought the right to any form of revenge you can come up with.
I do that in practice all the time. Our FreeBSD servers host many jail environments on each physical machine, so I use something like dd if=/dev/random bs=1k count=1 | md5 to generate the last 64 bits of each jail's inet6 alias.
That only handles multiple domains on the same IP, not multiple servers. You have to switch at the HTTP level (as srvivn21 described) to have multiple machines served by the same IP, and then you'd adding a new single point of failure.
Incorrect. Had you said you only get one port 443 per public IP, I wouldn't have an issue, but HTTP traffic is easy to "route".
I hearby declare Squid's reverse proxy mode as another form of NAT and wave my hands at it.:-)
Every tool has a purpose. NAT is fine for a home, a small business, or an arbitrarily large network of strictly client computers.
I'd still provisionally disagree. NAT breaks things that homes, small businesses, and even strictly client networks might like to use (such as P2P and VOIP).
Uhm, reclaiming ALL/8 netblocks would return 100% of the network. You people really need to get over this classful idea of routing and assignment, its hasn't been that way for years, we use subnet masks now, you heard of them?
That's what we call "irony". You see, there aren't that many/8 netblocks, and you don't hear people clamoring for the subnetting of anything smaller. I mean, what are you going to do with a/20? Break it up and route two/21s?
But back to the errors in your statement, each/8 assignment accounts for approximately 3.125% of the total network address space (not usable space, TOTAL space).
There are 256/8 netblocks, each accounting for about.4% of the TOTAL space. If you somehow missed that, then you're not really qualified to argue either side of the debate.
The large telecoms and cable outfits have tons of unused IP space that could be CIDR blocked out
No, they don't. The last I heard, reclaiming all/8 netblocks would return something like 8% of available space back to the pool. When usage is growing exponentially (or would be if it wasn't constrained to a tiny fishbowl), 8% isn't worth the aggravation.
But guess what, if you understand NAT, you will NEVER have to upgrade past IPv4, because you will NEVER run out of IP Addresses. NAT is just the flexible approach to the problem that alot of people don't like because they don't understand.
Meanwhile, back in reality...
In abstract, NAT treats addr+port as a 48-bit address, so you're effectively trading ports for address. That means you only get one port 80 per public IP, so forget having more than one webserver (unless you can somehow get your visitors to go to http://www.example.com:8080/ ). Every P2P app, every Skype, every game server, every random application you want to post has to have a unique port number across your entire network.
Can you really not see why that sucks in comparison to IPv6 which lets every machine on your LAN listen on the whole 2^16 port range as your firewall allows?
People who don't understand NAT at all like IPv6. People who only barely understand it, like yourself, think IPv4+NAT is spiffy. People who actually understand NAT and what it implies think that it needs to be taken out back and shot.
Nope, not in the slightest. I would expect to have to call to initialize service - as I do for cell phones, pizza delivery, etc.
Really? That's kind of strange. When my DSL modem went south, I popped in a spare and configured it like the original and was back online without a single call to my ISP.
Additionally, there are a lot of people whose LAN would be screwed up by having all of their machines have a public IP address and who don't know enough to fix it.
No, there aren't. A DSL or cable modem with a default-deny firewall (which will be all of them) will give a superset of the protections NAT offers now. There's a difference between public and publicly routable, you know.
IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.
How often do you enter IP addresses directly?
It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.
How so? I'd be surprised if most consumers ever noticed.
Slashdot Mirror
With space being so cheap these days, I wonder why distributions don't offer precompiled binaries for each separate --march flag.
Probably because it multiplies the load on their build servers by the number of supported platforms.
What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray?
Why would he care? How many extra DVD rentals would you have to convert to Blu-Ray rentals each month to cover the setup costs, power, maintenance, and floor space?
Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies. Top Gun looks great in blu ray.
I don't doubt that's true, but do you really want to associate the new format with "available for lots of old movies!"?
Clueless patients wanting every possible test
Not to mention:
Doctors who are forced to order every possible test because if they skip one and fail to detect a 1-in-10,000,000 condition, they're subject to a $20,000,000 lawsuit and the end of their career.
I got it "for free" with the dist-upgrade. I didn't really have an opinion on PA before then (and still don't have much of one; Ubuntu making a few mistakes doesn't mean it's inherently bad) and only removed it because its new presence was breaking a lot of previously-working sound on my system.
hey make it in userspace because of floating point, I think. No FP is allowed in the kernel.
Is it that difficult in this case to emulate floating point with integers (0 => 0, 1 > 2^32 - 1)?
No it doesn't - it works for me.
I use an obscure distro called "Ubuntu" that halfway switched to PulseAudio during the latest release, breaking half the audio on my system until I uninstalled it. PA might be a great thing but the current state of it, right now, today, on the most common Linux systems, ain't so hot.
You're an idiot and/or a Microsoft astroturfer.
Cute, kid. Run along.
Yes, Linux audio sucks. If nothing else, we have three common and incompatible APIs to perform a single tasks, and none of them are definitively better than the others. So, my question: what exactly is it that we're trying to achieve? What's the end goal of creating newer APIs instead of perfecting the old ones, such as moving from OSS to ALSA to whatever they roll out this month?
For comparison, FreeBSD uses multi-channel OSS. You can have a whole passel of processes writing to /dev/dsp simultaneously, because whenever a process attempts to open it, the OS spawns off a new copy. It Just Works. I'm a little amazed that my FreeBSD server's sound handling is so much better than my Linux desktop's and requires approximate zero client configuration. So again, what was Linux hoping to achieve by dropping old "obsolete" OSS in favor of increasingly complex solutions?
That's nice but doesn't change a single thing. Whether she was physically or spiritually tired, she deliberately broke the law and set the ball rolling.
Citation needed.
Not always. If you tell me the sky is hot pink with plaid splotches, I can dismiss your claims without having to prove you wrong. This is almost that bad.
If only there were someplace that a Native American could go that isn't subject to Federal jurisdiction.
I know... this doesn't change the fact they charge for iPod firmware updates -- and Apple's reasoning is certainly open to well-deserved criticism -- but they lay the blame squarely on the Sarbanes-Oxley act.
That's bullshit. I bought iTouch OS 3.0 for $10 and assure you that it's not a bigger update than any of MS's service packs, or even their own OS X point upgrades. Every OS company - including Apple - somehow manages to give away upgrades, but they're claiming the government made this one illegal? Nope. Apple wanted extra cash and they charged for it, pure and simple. If they'd said something like "we're offering it for free to our premium customers", I think there would've been a lot less anger over it.
You knew when you bought it that you'd have to pay for upgrades.
I certainly didn't know I'd be paying for updates that other people are getting for free.
But it is for a criminal trial.
Right before he added trillions to the national debt,
His budget wasn't that bad, although the 20% interest rates were nearly fatal to the housing industry.
sank the country into an extended and unpopular war in the middle east,
In fairness, the Iran hostage affair only seemed to take forever. Still, I agree that nearly taking on the USSR in Afghanistan was possibly about as unpopular as it gets.
ignored intelligence that warned of an attack of the World Trade Center via airplanes,
I guess it's a little good that they settled for an embassy instead.
wiretapped Americans illegally,
First I've heard of Carter starting the practice, which sadly continues through this day.
and complacently watched the destruction of a major American city, apparently.
Well, the Chrysler bailout temporarily kept Detroit floating along, even if it eventually took the rest of Michigan with it.
Although we agree that Carter was terrible, I don't think he was quite as bad as you're claiming.
Then let me help: Jammie, if you go nuts and commit an act of retribution against the RIAA and/or their lawyers, and I can scam my way onto the jury, I personally guarantee you a hung jury at worst. Seriously, I figure for $2 million you've pretty much bought the right to any form of revenge you can come up with.
I do that in practice all the time. Our FreeBSD servers host many jail environments on each physical machine, so I use something like dd if=/dev/random bs=1k count=1 | md5 to generate the last 64 bits of each jail's inet6 alias.
That only handles multiple domains on the same IP, not multiple servers. You have to switch at the HTTP level (as srvivn21 described) to have multiple machines served by the same IP, and then you'd adding a new single point of failure.
When did Carter live in Texas?
Incorrect. Had you said you only get one port 443 per public IP, I wouldn't have an issue, but HTTP traffic is easy to "route".
I hearby declare Squid's reverse proxy mode as another form of NAT and wave my hands at it. :-)
Every tool has a purpose. NAT is fine for a home, a small business, or an arbitrarily large network of strictly client computers.
I'd still provisionally disagree. NAT breaks things that homes, small businesses, and even strictly client networks might like to use (such as P2P and VOIP).
Uhm, reclaiming ALL /8 netblocks would return 100% of the network. You people really need to get over this classful idea of routing and assignment, its hasn't been that way for years, we use subnet masks now, you heard of them?
That's what we call "irony". You see, there aren't that many /8 netblocks, and you don't hear people clamoring for the subnetting of anything smaller. I mean, what are you going to do with a /20? Break it up and route two /21s?
But back to the errors in your statement, each /8 assignment accounts for approximately 3.125% of the total network address space (not usable space, TOTAL space).
There are 256 /8 netblocks, each accounting for about .4% of the TOTAL space. If you somehow missed that, then you're not really qualified to argue either side of the debate.
The large telecoms and cable outfits have tons of unused IP space that could be CIDR blocked out
No, they don't. The last I heard, reclaiming all /8 netblocks would return something like 8% of available space back to the pool. When usage is growing exponentially (or would be if it wasn't constrained to a tiny fishbowl), 8% isn't worth the aggravation.
But guess what, if you understand NAT, you will NEVER have to upgrade past IPv4, because you will NEVER run out of IP Addresses. NAT is just the flexible approach to the problem that alot of people don't like because they don't understand.
Meanwhile, back in reality...
In abstract, NAT treats addr+port as a 48-bit address, so you're effectively trading ports for address. That means you only get one port 80 per public IP, so forget having more than one webserver (unless you can somehow get your visitors to go to http://www.example.com:8080/ ). Every P2P app, every Skype, every game server, every random application you want to post has to have a unique port number across your entire network.
Can you really not see why that sucks in comparison to IPv6 which lets every machine on your LAN listen on the whole 2^16 port range as your firewall allows?
People who don't understand NAT at all like IPv6. People who only barely understand it, like yourself, think IPv4+NAT is spiffy. People who actually understand NAT and what it implies think that it needs to be taken out back and shot.
Nope, not in the slightest. I would expect to have to call to initialize service - as I do for cell phones, pizza delivery, etc.
Really? That's kind of strange. When my DSL modem went south, I popped in a spare and configured it like the original and was back online without a single call to my ISP.
Additionally, there are a lot of people whose LAN would be screwed up by having all of their machines have a public IP address and who don't know enough to fix it.
No, there aren't. A DSL or cable modem with a default-deny firewall (which will be all of them) will give a superset of the protections NAT offers now. There's a difference between public and publicly routable, you know.
IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.
How often do you enter IP addresses directly?
It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.
How so? I'd be surprised if most consumers ever noticed.