Along those lines, is it even theoretically possible to manage TCP connections without formally establishing them, along the lines of sending a UDP datagram with "begin listening on port 1234 from my port 4321". I guess you'd basically be shifting the handshake to another protocol, either UDP or another established TCP "control connection". Then, just agree to ignore RST altogether and disconnect by sending the corresponding "hang up now message" through that other channel.
Yeah, firewalls would hate this and you'd probably have to roll out something disgusting like UPnP to allow it. But handwaving that away, would this be possible, even if difficult? Would it help?
In general, yeah. In this particular, no. A CCIE is pretty darn hard to get, and when someone who has one offers an opinion on networking, you pay attention.
Remember that Comcast was throttling bandwidth to cut costs on network upgrades so why would they spend exponentially more on new specialized crypto hardware and software to MITM the handshakes on bittorent sessions if they are too cheap to even upgrade their network?
That's a very important point. Comcast is going to have to spend $X to make their network tolerable, either by buying blocking P2P and other bandwidth-hungry application, or by expanding capacity. The first method gets them a nice, controlled, slow network and the hatred of all their potential customers. The second gives them a wild-and-woolly, fast network their customers love (and therefore more customers). So, again, given $X: do you invest it to lose business or gain business? That's really the choice here.
Given Comcast, they'll probably use it to put ultrasonic speakers on their modems so that teens don't want to use them, then five years lateer ask Congress for a bailout because they're uncompetitive.
Or ISPs could stop over-selling their capacity, then no one would need to "police" themselves by making sure they use less than the bandwidth they're paying for.
That will happen when the Magic Free Bandwidth Fairies sprinkle their pixie dust on the backbone.
Seriously, it is economically impossible to run an ISP without overselling bandwidth. In fact, there's a special term for ISPs that analyze their customers' usage patterns and try to scale to demand, rather than to being able to provide 100% throughput to all customers simultaneously. In the trade, those ISPs are referred to as "not (yet) bankrupt".
Guess what, you (apparently) get paid RIGHT AWAY for your work, not in royalties over a period of years.
So the problem is that I have a better compensation contract with my boss than artists do with their publishers, therefore requiring legislation to save them from themselves. Gotcha.
Whatever happened to "quality of service"? I see no ethical problems with detecting torrents and running them at a lower priority, for example, so that they're still perfectly usable but don't overwhelm more interactive activities like web browsing. Everyone seems to be so into imposing quotas when there seem to be more customer-friendly and provider-friendly solutions.
He was 94 years old when he passed on and taught me plenty about computers. He was already 33 years old when ENIAC was unveiled. He was working until his last days because he enjoyed it so much.
I use a 110 dots per inch monitor. I hate, hate, hate all web pages that were laid out with WYSIWYG design tools, with fonts set to 7 pixels tall and columns also specified as a certain number of pixels wide.
You're not alone. That's always especially amusing when it's on a site hawking luxury goods. How many people who can afford a BMW are using 15" screens?
"Sorry, you can't run the Aero theme eye candy, DVD Maker, or Movie Maker, because your Intel 915 integrated graphics chip doesn't qualify for a WDDM driver."
Wait, what? DVD Maker and Movie Maker don't have a fallback reduced-graphics mode? Our 6 year old iMac can run both iMovie and iDVD for graphical editing. Is it really the case that there are Windows PCs made in 2008 that are incapable of doing the same jobs as an old G4 machine?
There isn't that much performance hidden in there.
Fortunately for us, compiler researchers say you're wrong. LLVM takes the Java-like approach of seeing what parts of your code can be optimized by gathering runtime profiling information, then using that to dynamically recompile parts of your code that really need it. I'd be surprised if that kind of system couldn't squeeze out quite a bit more performance.
I have not seen a computer come up in less than perfect resolution following an install since pre XP, with one exception (an onboard SiS video card on an Asus box. Running Windows 2003).
I haven't seen it since, let's see, last week. My coworker and I have identical Dells, his with XP and mine with Ubuntu. I recently got a 22" monitor at 1680x1050. He got a similar 21" model and couldn't get his past 1600x1200 (which looked predictably horrendous).
Same PC, same graphics card, different OS. Well, same graphics card until he bought a new one so he could use his new monitor.
Yes, Linux requires some manual intervention sometimes. This is particularly true when you're asking it to do something that would be impossible under Windows.
Although I do agree that there is a level of subjective preference on this issue, there is something you are overlooking.
I'm not overlooking it. It's just that there is no objective standard for which approach is correct. Both have advantages and tradeoffs; they're optimized for different goals.
as well as the extra font smoothing that went beyond the built in smoothing to make everything look really blurry and ugly.
OK, Safari on Windows is ugly - I won't disagree with that. However, that "extra font smoothing" renders exactly the way it would on a Mac. To you, it looks blurry and ugly. To a Mac user, it would look normal and the standard Cleartype text would seem spidery and hard to read.
I just wanted to point out that this is really a matter of taste and what you're used to, and not something that's inherently incorrect (or correct).
Well, it has been for the last two months and I doubt they disabled it.
Just compare how long Vista has been out with how long Leoptard has been out, and it becomes even more apparent which company released a functioning product, and which one required a desperate emergency update.
You're 100% correct. Leopard is down to the point that they're fixing cosmetic issues that customers complained about, while Vista still isn't sure if you can listen to an MP3 while downloading from a local fileserver. That desperate emergency update, aka SP1, is about a year long in coming. It must irk MS to no end that Leopard just needs the final spit and polish while Vista languishes.
Typed on Linux. I don't really care one way or the other, but there's no way you can say that Leopard is as troubled as Vista.
The only thing is, that the browser only seems to be available for a small number of available Operating Systems.... namely "Microsoft Windows" and also a small number of "Macintosh OS Ten"
Actually, it's not available for OS X. This is actually a good thing. When I'd complain about Firefox/Safari compatibility to certain webmasters - not the guy from "Bob's House of Flash Cartoons" but ones I actually cared about, like my online banking - the canned response would be for me to "upgrade to Internet Explorer". Now that MS has officially EOLed IE for Mac, they actually have to deal with the problem. Thanks, MS!
It's possible that the sales of copies are built into the decision about whether or not to update maps, do additional flyovers, and that sort of thing.
I'm asking because I'm ignorant of the workings of such agencies, but why would the gov't ever need to pay to have their maps updated? Do you have rogue developers laying out new subdivisions without telling you? It seems like part of the permit to build a road could include the cost of maintaining the official maps.
Slashdot Mirror
Along those lines, is it even theoretically possible to manage TCP connections without formally establishing them, along the lines of sending a UDP datagram with "begin listening on port 1234 from my port 4321". I guess you'd basically be shifting the handshake to another protocol, either UDP or another established TCP "control connection". Then, just agree to ignore RST altogether and disconnect by sending the corresponding "hang up now message" through that other channel.
Yeah, firewalls would hate this and you'd probably have to roll out something disgusting like UPnP to allow it. But handwaving that away, would this be possible, even if difficult? Would it help?
In general, yeah. In this particular, no. A CCIE is pretty darn hard to get, and when someone who has one offers an opinion on networking, you pay attention.
That's a very important point. Comcast is going to have to spend $X to make their network tolerable, either by buying blocking P2P and other bandwidth-hungry application, or by expanding capacity. The first method gets them a nice, controlled, slow network and the hatred of all their potential customers. The second gives them a wild-and-woolly, fast network their customers love (and therefore more customers). So, again, given $X: do you invest it to lose business or gain business? That's really the choice here.
Given Comcast, they'll probably use it to put ultrasonic speakers on their modems so that teens don't want to use them, then five years lateer ask Congress for a bailout because they're uncompetitive.
They're a brand of cheap, colorful yachts that are popular with the kids.
Yes, in much the same way that Fuji* owns the floppy disk manufacturing market.
*or Verbatim or Maxell or whoever else rules that category these days.
"Deteriorated into"? To the contrary, I'm amazed at the number of Microsoft apologists who are getting modded up these days.
It's still that same ugly green to me. Maybe your monitor's flaky?
That will happen when the Magic Free Bandwidth Fairies sprinkle their pixie dust on the backbone.
Seriously, it is economically impossible to run an ISP without overselling bandwidth. In fact, there's a special term for ISPs that analyze their customers' usage patterns and try to scale to demand, rather than to being able to provide 100% throughput to all customers simultaneously. In the trade, those ISPs are referred to as "not (yet) bankrupt".
So the problem is that I have a better compensation contract with my boss than artists do with their publishers, therefore requiring legislation to save them from themselves. Gotcha.
Whatever happened to "quality of service"? I see no ethical problems with detecting torrents and running them at a lower priority, for example, so that they're still perfectly usable but don't overwhelm more interactive activities like web browsing. Everyone seems to be so into imposing quotas when there seem to be more customer-friendly and provider-friendly solutions.
There's precedent.
You're not alone. That's always especially amusing when it's on a site hawking luxury goods. How many people who can afford a BMW are using 15" screens?
Why? The Wii has USB keyboard drivers now.
Wait, what? DVD Maker and Movie Maker don't have a fallback reduced-graphics mode? Our 6 year old iMac can run both iMovie and iDVD for graphical editing. Is it really the case that there are Windows PCs made in 2008 that are incapable of doing the same jobs as an old G4 machine?
I presume they have resource limiting mechanisms, just like their larger cousins.
At first glance, I thought your arrow was a folding chair. I figured you were illustrating Ballmer just barely missing Nash's head.
Fortunately for us, compiler researchers say you're wrong. LLVM takes the Java-like approach of seeing what parts of your code can be optimized by gathering runtime profiling information, then using that to dynamically recompile parts of your code that really need it. I'd be surprised if that kind of system couldn't squeeze out quite a bit more performance.
I haven't seen it since, let's see, last week. My coworker and I have identical Dells, his with XP and mine with Ubuntu. I recently got a 22" monitor at 1680x1050. He got a similar 21" model and couldn't get his past 1600x1200 (which looked predictably horrendous).
Same PC, same graphics card, different OS. Well, same graphics card until he bought a new one so he could use his new monitor.
Yes, Linux requires some manual intervention sometimes. This is particularly true when you're asking it to do something that would be impossible under Windows.
I'm not overlooking it. It's just that there is no objective standard for which approach is correct. Both have advantages and tradeoffs; they're optimized for different goals.
OK, Safari on Windows is ugly - I won't disagree with that. However, that "extra font smoothing" renders exactly the way it would on a Mac. To you, it looks blurry and ugly. To a Mac user, it would look normal and the standard Cleartype text would seem spidery and hard to read.
I just wanted to point out that this is really a matter of taste and what you're used to, and not something that's inherently incorrect (or correct).
Well, it has been for the last two months and I doubt they disabled it.
Just compare how long Vista has been out with how long Leoptard has been out, and it becomes even more apparent which company released a functioning product, and which one required a desperate emergency update.You're 100% correct. Leopard is down to the point that they're fixing cosmetic issues that customers complained about, while Vista still isn't sure if you can listen to an MP3 while downloading from a local fileserver. That desperate emergency update, aka SP1, is about a year long in coming. It must irk MS to no end that Leopard just needs the final spit and polish while Vista languishes.
Typed on Linux. I don't really care one way or the other, but there's no way you can say that Leopard is as troubled as Vista.
Actually, it's not available for OS X. This is actually a good thing. When I'd complain about Firefox/Safari compatibility to certain webmasters - not the guy from "Bob's House of Flash Cartoons" but ones I actually cared about, like my online banking - the canned response would be for me to "upgrade to Internet Explorer". Now that MS has officially EOLed IE for Mac, they actually have to deal with the problem. Thanks, MS!
I've read Slashdot on an Eee PC, a Nintendo DS, and a cellphone. Many new web-capable devices are a little slim on client-side store.
The inventor named it the "Perepiteia", so that kinda shoots your idea.
I'm asking because I'm ignorant of the workings of such agencies, but why would the gov't ever need to pay to have their maps updated? Do you have rogue developers laying out new subdivisions without telling you? It seems like part of the permit to build a road could include the cost of maintaining the official maps.