Well, I'm certainly no expert when it comes to "real" Internet access such as T1 connections, etc.
But, my understanding was (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that a T1 line is a dedicated connection: The telcos create a complete, unimpeded circuit, point-to-point, from where you are, to wherever you are paying to have it terminate (generally at your ISP).
If "where you are" happens not to be serviced by fiber, then they have to dedicate a pair of copper wires to you: That removes a physical pair of wires, along the entire pathway of the T1 circuit from where you are, to where it terminates, for so far as is necessary to do so.
And, I suppose, even if you have fiber servicing where you are, somewhere along the way they still have to provision that bandwidth, to dedicate it to you, and again that removes part of their capacity from "general" use.
Compare and contrast that to DSL and Cable broadband access: They both *share* bandwidth: For DSL, it's shared on the phone line, for Cable, it's shared on the cable connection.
But, in neither of the latter 2 cases, is any of the upstream bandwidth dedicated exclusively to your use, in either direction.
THAT is what you are paying for, for a T1 line, etc. - dedicated symmetrical bandwidth: For a T1 line, you get 1.54 Mbps, in BOTH directions, guaranteed.
And again, that's my poor understanding of this.
As much as I hate car analogies, here's one that is close, I think: Consider the current road systems, in any particular country. You have a combination of local roads, that link to freeways, highways, etc.
When you get a dedicated circuit, such as a T1 line, you are paying for a "road", from where you are, to your ISP, one which has no other "cars" on it, except for those that YOU put on the road. At some point, that "road", merges onto a "highway", and then YOU are then paying the "road provider" for the privilege of a dedicated "lane": They are blocking off a section of their "highway" to make a "lane" for YOUR use, only, and in doing so, they are removing it from general use.
And, that "lane" is "two-way", BTW: The "cars" that travel from where you are, do so at full speed, without "stop lights", etc. - and when they return, they return in the same way.
And that's why T1 lines are still "so expensive" - though their cost HAS dropped, and remarkably so, considering.
Oh, and yes, the analogy breaks down, past the point where the "lane" meets the ISP... so?
And it doesn't appear to be that uncommon a last name in Michigan, which isn't all that surprising, considering its history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan
"I'm sure you think that makes some kind of sense, even as sarcasm."
Actually, it was intended as a joke, mostly: You stated: "So, I don't think you can really say its "overdue" for anything." - that's a direct quote, BTW - since you appeared to be so certain, I just had to ask HOW you knew that, because the data that you provided was scanty, at best.
But I figured, since you're apparently a scientist, you got it first hand, somehow. I just wanted to know:)
Hence, the joke.
The rest, of course, comes from that:)
Still, if UID is an indication - you're far too young to be so dour. Relax!
Best regards,
dj
P.S.
If you're going to cite facts, you might just as well state the sources from which you have obtained them: It helps the rest of us, that aren't as smart and knowledgeable as you, don't you know:)
As for the rest, well... I've been insulted by better here over the years, certainly... and with better reason, mostly.
"The three known eruptions of Yellowstone Caldera are at 2.2 mya, 1.3 mya, and 640 kya. Given the two periods of 900 ky and 660 ky between those, that's an average of 780 ky between eruptions, with a standard deviation of about 170 ky. So, I don't think you can really say its "overdue" for anything."
Those are interesting facts, but I'm curious: Have you informed the Yellowstone Caldera? And, if so, what, if anything, was its response?
The sarcastic point being, of course, that you're doing, in essence, the same thing as the poster to whom you object: Making assessments based upon incomplete and uncertain data, from unreliable sources. Only, you're dressing it up to make it look better.
Worse, you assume not only that the data you cite in your reply is perfectly trustworthy (since you make no disclaimers to the contrary, nor even bother to provide sources to such, to allow others to ascertain such), but also, that it is complete (again, for the same reason), yet, you provide no proof that either is the case, beyond your stating this as bald fact.
Then, you apply mathematical analysis to that, and post it as a refutation, with a conclusion... VERY nice!
I'd rephrase your post for you, but, I'm too tired, and you should've known better in the first place.
You should be ashamed.
Regards,
dj
P.S. This should be posted with a subscriber bonus, since I BOUGHT 25000 pages, and have only used 4411, as of this posting... want to bet there's no magical "asterisk" on this post?
No, the REAL question is: Why was the article posted in the first place? It's pretty much "remedial TCP/IP network administration", in this day and age, and isn't "News for Nerds", nor "Stuff that Matters".
Which is basically what you said, but with much less tact:)
"Only in this case, no actual theft has occurred." OK, are you the ONLY person on Slashdot that doesn't know that theft and copyright infringement aren't the same thing?
"infringe on the copyright" Looks like I was wrong: You DO know, but are a hypocrite.
"If it's fake" No offense, but, by definition, a complete, exact download of something that you requested cannot be "fake". You got exactly what you asked to be downloaded.
It might not have been what you wanted, but it certainly isn't fake.
Also, the mere fact that it was downloaded proves it must exist, so it is NOT a "nonexistent work", regardless of your expectations.
How your post got modded to +5, Insightful, in light of such egregious logic errors, is beyond me - the subscription helps, I suppose:)
I LOVE this post! It sums up the best of Slashdot's groupthink, here in the early 21st century.
Let's dissect it, shall we?
"I would bet" - This is a disguised appeal from authority: After all, if iamacat is willing to bet "something" (that something not being mentioned) from his/her position as, um, nothing that I can tell... then certainly, it lends credence to the post, right?
"slip and fall in the shower is a more frequent cause of death for teens than online predators"
Ignoring the grammar for a moment, let's look at the bald assertion, shall we?
"slip and fall in the shower is a more frequent cause of death for teens than online predators"
Note the lack of citations: iamacat doesn't cite ANYTHING to support this. It's a bald appeal to emotion... an opinion stated as fact - VERY nice, very smooth!
Finally, this: "Did you also install a bathroom cam?"
This is the final appeal to emotion that put iamacat's post over the top, here on Slashdot, to +5, Insightful, I think... it has the appeal to emotion, with just enough insinuation towards perversion against those that would disagree, to do so.
All without ever actually saying what was implied: "You know, statistically, your teenager is more likely to slip, fall, and die, in the shower, than be a victim of an online predator, and I think that you should install a camera in your shower so as to monitor that, too". Stated as such, it would be derided for lack of evidence, and paranoia, and an invasion of privacy... not to mention the fact that installing a camera into the bathroom wouldn't actually PREVENT someone from slipping and falling in the shower.
But, stated as iamacat did, it's a masterful piece of innuendo, much beloved here on Slashdot these days.
It was modded up, I bet, because it sounds good, appeals to the prejudices of the masses here now, and is stated in an easily consumed IM format: That is to say, one line of response text, which seems to be the unit of posting/attention here now.
"What happens id they become a matter of course, and to work you ahve no choice because everyone has one." Guess you'll have to deal with it, if/when it happens... not likely.
"This, and other abuses, are why there not binding in some states." You contradict yourself: If they are not binding in some states, then, it it isn't likely that you'll have no choice.
Also, your Rush quote, in your sig, is inaccurate. It should be: "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government".
"DRM really hampers the flow of information in education."
OK, I swore to stop responding to "Your Rights Online" articles, mostly because they really don't have anything to do with my rights online... but THIS is just stupid... and unsupported.
HOW, exactly, does DRM hamper the flow of information in education? The parent posts not ONE instance where the bald assertion made is true... yet gets moderated up.
Let's consider higher education, first: If a particular college/university's policies permit it, then, a professor is free to release their lectures, as he or she wishes... and in fact, some institutions release their curriculum, in part, or in whole, for free. MIT comes to mind: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
They've chosen to make those resources freely available, without DRM... clearly, DRM hasn't hampered the flow of information in education in this case.
Do you dispute this?
"It's important to remember that the "traditional" classroom is changing. We now have things like "distance learning.""
No offense, but, the wealth of knowledge available now, without DRM, so far outweighs your non-examples, to render your post ludicrous... and, "distance learning" is only a login to the 'net away, for anyone that wishes to learn...
You mean to tell me, that free, non-DRM access to some of the best written knowledge, insights, entertainment, created by the best of us, over thousands of years, means nothing?
And, it will only get better, over time.
So, how does DRM hamper that "flow of information", please?
"It's important to think about innovative current or future uses instead of dwelling on ancient historical uses of computers in education."
How about just leveraging the vast store of knowledge that others, more dedicated than you, have made available, for free, without DRM, online, as it currently exists?
"(BTW, let's be grownups and stop with the personal attacks, M-Kay?)" I've refrained from such, but I admit I was tempted:)
I'm sorry, but, there's *so* much available now, that I at times resent the fact that my time is so limited - I have to work for a living - that cuts into the time I can spend reading, and learning.
"Unfortunately many companies are not willing to strike this clause from their contracts."
Am I missing something? It's a straightforward business decision: If the client is unwilling to strike the clause from their contract, and you are unwilling to accept that, then don't sign the contract and don't do business with them.
The only unfortunate thing about it is not getting the money that would have resulted from the contract - but why would you want to contract under unfavorable terms?
"The only mnemonic that I can ever manage to remember for the planets is:"
I got this from Heinlein's "Have Space Suit, Will Travel", when I was very young: "Mother Very Thoughtfully Made A Jelly Sandwich Under No Protest". I don't know whether or not it was original to the book, however.
Why not join a Credit Union? They offer the same services, tend to be local and regional (which helps the local/regional economies) and in my experience their customer service is far better than that of commercial banks.
Best of all, they are non-profit, which eliminates the greed factor that drives outsourcing.
Nice how you quoted me out of context, so as to make me appear to be as clueless as the guy you interviewed: But, here's what came BEFORE what you quoted in your post.
"Me, I had the EXACT same attitude as you, back in 1992... I'd already been doing NetWare network installs for over 5 years by that point... why should I get certified?
Well, my boss wanted to become a Novell Reseller... and, that meant that someone had to get certified.
So, I did: He was cheap, and wouldn't pay for training... so, I just went and took the tests. They weren't offered in our city, so, I had to drive an hour and a half to where they were available... and, since I was the head tech, I couldn't stay away long."
How about a little honesty, next time? I took, and passed, those tests, because I KNEW what I was doing - had done so, for 5 years, previously... 5 years during which I made LOTS of money for my employer, doing it.
Asshole. Welcome to my Foes list - you've the honor of being the second.
I think you misread what I posted, and don't understand the technology available at the time(I'm talking about mid-late 1980's, early 1990's):
"Ethernet was 'way too expensive back back then for our customers (small-medium sized companies)... we used ARCNET, running on coax... and while it was "only" 2.5 Mbps, it was token-based, and scaled well as node population per segment increased... unlike Ethernet, at that time, which didn't have switches available to mitigate collisions."
There were no Ethernet switches, back then, you see - the only way to minimize collisions on any particular Ethernet network segment was to keep the collision domains small.
But, later, I used switches to eliminate collisions on Ethernet networks, just as everyone does today. It eliminates collisions by ensuring that any frames that would have collided, by timing, do not, by buffering them, and passing them very quickly to their destinations, because the switches have processors that are actively mitigating collision issues - that's what they do, after all. But, switches effectively mitgate, eliminate or minimize a problem that cannot exist in token-passing networks.
And, in that sense, token-based networks scale better as node population per segment increases.
I never had to deal with Token Ring - as I said, we used ARCNET, which was token-based, but was NOT IBM's Token Ring, so, I never ran into issues such as you describe, where the token was lost: ARCNET handles such differently. As I recall, with ARCNET, there's a timeout value for the token: The node to which it is passed must respond with an ack to the passing node, within that time, and if it doesn't, the entire segment resets - the node that last passed the token issues a reconfigure (recon) broadcast on the segment, and then the token gets regenerated, and the new token is given to the lowest-numbered node on the segment, to start over... which is why I always addressed the NetWare servers' ARCNET cards at node ID 1 - if a station failed "out there"... there would be no noticable loss in performance, you see.
"On a server I have that sees plenty of network traffic over switched ethernet, I still have '0' in the interface's collision column."
But, it wouldn't, nor shouldn't, so long as the switches are doing their job - that's the point, right?
You shouldn't worry yourself over my post: I was talking about networking from a historical perspective which you'll never see.
And, that's NOT a bad thing - things are much easier today, for the most part.
"But I never understood the need for certification"
Sometimes, certification isn't for you - it's for your employer, and their customers. Unfair as it may appear to you, it establishes a baseline, one which I'm sure you far surpass.
"I preferred (and still prefer) to let my skills do the talking instead of jacking around taking some prefab test that any monkey could study for and pass."
No offense, but, if you're as good as you think, then certainly you should be able to pass some "prefab tests that any monkey could study for and pass"? And, I'm sure your company would be pleased not to have to pay to send you for training, but simply pay for those tests you can pass simply because you're so good?
If you're self-employed, then, not only do you get a certification, but, the costs are a tax write-off, too.
Just a thought: Why not try? Certainly, if some monkey can pass them, you should be able to as well.
There's only one way to find out:) Then, not only can your skills do the talking, but you can claim certification, on top of that, too, which can only be a plus for you.
You graduated in 2000, yet you're so uber skilled that you don't think you need to be certified?
Hell, I've been doing computer service for over 20 years, I GREW UP with the PC industry [1], learned it as I went as did many others of my generation, and I STILL take tests, mostly to re-certify, and am often surprised by what I don't know, as I tend to take them cold since I rarely have time now to study (and, I like to see what I've learned, by experience, and compare that to what I don't know, against what they're testing for.. and many times, I learn new things that way, which I always enjoy).
Regards,
dj
[1] Started as a technician, in 1986, doing field service for a local PC sales and service company. Installed my first PC-based LAN in 1987. Server was an IBM PC-AT, 8 Mhz (the "fast" one, *grin*). Had a Seagate ST-4096 80 MB MFM drive, and we had to replace the BIOS on the motherboard, with EPROMS whose drive table we'd altered to support the drive natively, as IBM didn't support it... there wasn't such a thing as user-settable hard drive parameters back then.
Oh, and the NOS was NetWare 286, v2.0a. Compiled it myself, from copies of the masters... and does anyone besides me remember COMPSURF? *grin*
Ethernet was 'way too expensive back back then for our customers (small-medium sized companies)... we used ARCNET, running on coax... and while it was "only" 2.5 Mbps, it was token-based, and scaled well as node population per segment increased... unlike Ethernet, at that time, which didn't have switches available to mitigate collisions.
Now, of course, everyone calls Ethernet switches "hubs", even though they aren't... and we all ignore the performance loss that results from a collision-based topology, 'cause the hardware handles it, pretty much transparently now... except when it doesn't.
But, I'd be willing to bet, that as network speeds scale, eventually, collision-based Ethernet will be replaced with something that is non-collision based - probably token-passing based... but, it'll probably still be called "Ethernet", so as to placate the masses.
However, I'm wandering now.
Guess the last thing I'd say is this: If you're so good, go get certified... costs you nothing to do so, really.
And, it proves that you're at least as good as those that just passed:)
Me, I had the EXACT same attitude as you, back in 1992... I'd already been doing NetWare network installs for over 5 years by that point... why should I get certified?
Well, my boss wanted to become a Novell Reseller... and, that meant that someone had to get certified.
So, I did: He was cheap, and wouldn't pay for training... so, I just went and took the tests. They weren't offered in our city, so, I had to drive an hour and a half to where they were available... and, since I was the head tech, I couldn't stay away l
This is Slashdot: The new Nerd chic is to use words that sound good, but don't really make any sense in the context in which they are used. Add points if they are mispelled.
It's called respect - you offer the two weeks to your employer, ostensibly so that you can train your replacement, but just as importantly, as a sign of respect, and gratitude.
Of course, those are mostly obsolete concepts now. And, after having read your post, I'm fairly certain that you won't get it even after my explanation.
But, for whatever it's worth, that's the origin of giving notice.
Honestly, and harshly: The professional thing to do is STFU, take the two weeks paid, and start your new job ASAP.
Walk away: You did what was required - the fact that they don't want you to work your last two weeks has nothing to do with you, as a person. You don't owe them anything beyond what you already did.
Hell, I had to FIGHT to get paid for the two weeks, once I put in notice, for the last employer for whom I actually did that (nearly a decade ago: I'm happily self-employed now).
So, let it go, and I wish you the best with your new employer!
>I don't pretend to have a source on this, but I cannot think of a single English word that begins with a 'g' followed by a vowel that has a soft g (i.e. a 'j' sound) as opposed to a hard g (i.e. a 'guh' sound).
Apparently, you failed basic reading comprehension, so, I'll re-quote it for you.
OP: "I think I speak for us all when I say "What The Fuck"
Me: "No offense, but you don't speak for me. And I certainly don't agree with your premise that "It's OK to break the law so long as you're a kid", which is what you seem to imply."
So, STFU, OK? I didn't say, ANYWHERE in my post, that it was OK to sue a child. My understanding of the OP was that, basically, that he thought that everyone breaks the law once or twice as a child, so, it was basically "OK" to do so... and that was what I objected to.
It's an unprovable statement, one which I know to be false, in at least one instance, from personal experience, though I cannot prove it, either.
Anyway, take your moral outrage, fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it up your ass, OK? It'll do you a world of good - might even prod you to learn how to read.
I think I speak for us all when I say "What The Fuck".
No offense, but you don't speak for me. And I certainly don't agree with your premise that "It's OK to break the law so long as you're a kid", which is what you seem to imply.
I think that it's a sad thing that it came to this, but it points out something that is painfully apparent: The mother wasn't watching her child's use of the computer, as was her responsibility to do.
And I wonder - how many Slashdot posters here are in the same boat? Underage, posting here without their parents' knowledge or permission? Glorying in their ability to break laws elsewhere, fairly anonymously, by using the computers that their parents purchased for them to infringe on others' copyrights so that they can get their "entertainment fix" for free, and then bragging about it here? After all, all it takes is a small amount of knowledge, and a broadband connection. It's not as if you actually have to understand how BitTorrent works, for example, to use it.
I have many issues with the current state of copyright in the US, and have just as many issues with what I deem to be price gouging.
For example: I'd love to own the original Star Trek series on DVD, as it was something I watched on TV when I was very young, and owning them and being able to watch them at my leisure as I wish is something that appeals to me. Buying them is well within my means now, but I refuse to do so: I believe that they are overpriced, and think that Paramount is simply being greedy by charging what they do for them. I just checked again, and the price for all 3 seasons, new, is $265.99 US on Amazon.com. (yeah, yeah, I can probably get it cheaper elsewhere, but, no offense - my time is very precious to me... and I prefer to deal with Amazon as it's a "one-stop" place for everything that I want - the prices may not be the lowest, but the service is great, availability generally the same... and for $72 per year, I get 2-day shipping on anything I buy via Amazon... and if you think that THAT is a rip-off, consider this: It works out to $6/month, to get anything I want in 2 days, availability permitting. I've ordered FAR MORE than enough, to offset that cost, in books, CDs and DVDs, in the past few months alone, had I paid for 2-day shipping because I was unwilling to wait the amount of time it takes for it to arrive at the free shipping rate. And, yes, I'm self-indulgent - so? I'm willing to pay for it, and it is worth it to me at $6/month).
Despite that, I'm not tempted to download them illegally: I've too much self-esteem to do so. Instead, I've chosen to look into other SF series that are available now. Firefly is on its way to me as I type this, it will be here tomorrow. I've not seen any of the episodes, but heard many so good things about them that I bought it. $29.99 US, 2 day shipping for free. Seems worth it to me. The first season of the new Battlestar Galactica will be here later this week.
I guess the difference between me and so many others here is this: I don't think that over-pricing by a corporation for their copyrighted materials entitles me to obtain them illegally - it's not worth my self-respect, and I'm not so lacking in the same to think that self-entertainment is more important.
Were I *so* offended by, for example, Paramount's pricing of ST:TOS, I'd take the time to write them, and explain my position to them, NOT in any hope that they'd change their minds, but simply to voice my opinion. As it is, I think that they're stupid, and greedy, and they won't get my money... but I STILL refuse to obtain them illegally, although it would be a simple matter to do so. Maybe I'll write them a letter, maybe not.
But, I don't need to be entertained so badly, via their products, so as to break the law to do so, regardless of perceived "provocation" that would "justify" it.
There's a saying: "Character is doing the right thing even when nobody is watching". In many ways, that saying underscores what's going on with regards to copyri
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm certainly no expert when it comes to "real" Internet access such as T1 connections, etc.
But, my understanding was (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that a T1 line is a dedicated connection: The telcos create a complete, unimpeded circuit, point-to-point, from where you are, to wherever you are paying to have it terminate (generally at your ISP).
If "where you are" happens not to be serviced by fiber, then they have to dedicate a pair of copper wires to you: That removes a physical pair of wires, along the entire pathway of the T1 circuit from where you are, to where it terminates, for so far as is necessary to do so.
And, I suppose, even if you have fiber servicing where you are, somewhere along the way they still have to provision that bandwidth, to dedicate it to you, and again that removes part of their capacity from "general" use.
Compare and contrast that to DSL and Cable broadband access: They both *share* bandwidth: For DSL, it's shared on the phone line, for Cable, it's shared on the cable connection.
But, in neither of the latter 2 cases, is any of the upstream bandwidth dedicated exclusively to your use, in either direction.
THAT is what you are paying for, for a T1 line, etc. - dedicated symmetrical bandwidth: For a T1 line, you get 1.54 Mbps, in BOTH directions, guaranteed.
And again, that's my poor understanding of this.
As much as I hate car analogies, here's one that is close, I think: Consider the current road systems, in any particular country. You have a combination of local roads, that link to freeways, highways, etc.
When you get a dedicated circuit, such as a T1 line, you are paying for a "road", from where you are, to your ISP, one which has no other "cars" on it, except for those that YOU put on the road. At some point, that "road", merges onto a "highway", and then YOU are then paying the "road provider" for the privilege of a dedicated "lane": They are blocking off a section of their "highway" to make a "lane" for YOUR use, only, and in doing so, they are removing it from general use.
And, that "lane" is "two-way", BTW: The "cars" that travel from where you are, do so at full speed, without "stop lights", etc. - and when they return, they return in the same way.
And that's why T1 lines are still "so expensive" - though their cost HAS dropped, and remarkably so, considering.
Oh, and yes, the analogy breaks down, past the point where the "lane" meets the ISP... so?
>Tell me more about how you can get wood from the Internet.
:)
I can tell you that it is good Norwegian wood, isn't it?
At least, that's what I heard
"Dot" is a nickname - it's short for "Dorothy".
As for her last name: Brunette is French for "brown", basically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunette
And it doesn't appear to be that uncommon a last name in Michigan, which isn't all that surprising, considering its history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan
Regards,
dj
"I'm sure you think that makes some kind of sense, even as sarcasm."
:)
:)
:)
Actually, it was intended as a joke, mostly: You stated: "So, I don't think you can really say its "overdue" for anything." - that's a direct quote, BTW - since you appeared to be so certain, I just had to ask HOW you knew that, because the data that you provided was scanty, at best.
But I figured, since you're apparently a scientist, you got it first hand, somehow. I just wanted to know
Hence, the joke.
The rest, of course, comes from that
Still, if UID is an indication - you're far too young to be so dour. Relax!
Best regards,
dj
P.S.
If you're going to cite facts, you might just as well state the sources from which you have obtained them: It helps the rest of us, that aren't as smart and knowledgeable as you, don't you know
As for the rest, well... I've been insulted by better here over the years, certainly... and with better reason, mostly.
"The three known eruptions of Yellowstone Caldera are at 2.2 mya, 1.3 mya, and 640 kya. Given the two periods of 900 ky and 660 ky between those, that's an average of 780 ky between eruptions, with a standard deviation of about 170 ky. So, I don't think you can really say its "overdue" for anything."
Those are interesting facts, but I'm curious: Have you informed the Yellowstone Caldera? And, if so, what, if anything, was its response?
The sarcastic point being, of course, that you're doing, in essence, the same thing as the poster to whom you object: Making assessments based upon incomplete and uncertain data, from unreliable sources. Only, you're dressing it up to make it look better.
Worse, you assume not only that the data you cite in your reply is perfectly trustworthy (since you make no disclaimers to the contrary, nor even bother to provide sources to such, to allow others to ascertain such), but also, that it is complete (again, for the same reason), yet, you provide no proof that either is the case, beyond your stating this as bald fact.
Then, you apply mathematical analysis to that, and post it as a refutation, with a conclusion... VERY nice!
I'd rephrase your post for you, but, I'm too tired, and you should've known better in the first place.
You should be ashamed.
Regards,
dj
P.S. This should be posted with a subscriber bonus, since I BOUGHT 25000 pages, and have only used 4411, as of this posting... want to bet there's no magical "asterisk" on this post?
No, the REAL question is: Why was the article posted in the first place? It's pretty much "remedial TCP/IP network administration", in this day and age, and isn't "News for Nerds", nor "Stuff that Matters".
:)
Which is basically what you said, but with much less tact
Regards,
dj
"Only in this case, no actual theft has occurred."
:)
OK, are you the ONLY person on Slashdot that doesn't know that theft and copyright infringement aren't the same thing?
"infringe on the copyright"
Looks like I was wrong: You DO know, but are a hypocrite.
"If it's fake"
No offense, but, by definition, a complete, exact download of something that you requested cannot be "fake". You got exactly what you asked to be downloaded.
It might not have been what you wanted, but it certainly isn't fake.
Also, the mere fact that it was downloaded proves it must exist, so it is NOT a "nonexistent work", regardless of your expectations.
How your post got modded to +5, Insightful, in light of such egregious logic errors, is beyond me - the subscription helps, I suppose
Regards,
dj
>I've got an assortment of five XP and Vista machines (+ 1 LINUX) on my network at home and I've had any of them zombied!
:)
And you're proudly proclaiming this on Slashdot? I admire your courage
I LOVE this post! It sums up the best of Slashdot's groupthink, here in the early 21st century.
Let's dissect it, shall we?
"I would bet" - This is a disguised appeal from authority: After all, if iamacat is willing to bet "something" (that something not being mentioned) from his/her position as, um, nothing that I can tell... then certainly, it lends credence to the post, right?
Cites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
"slip and fall in the shower is a more frequent cause of death for teens than online predators"
Ignoring the grammar for a moment, let's look at the bald assertion, shall we?
"slip and fall in the shower is a more frequent cause of death for teens than online predators"
Note the lack of citations: iamacat doesn't cite ANYTHING to support this. It's a bald appeal to emotion... an opinion stated as fact - VERY nice, very smooth!
Finally, this: "Did you also install a bathroom cam?"
This is the final appeal to emotion that put iamacat's post over the top, here on Slashdot, to +5, Insightful, I think... it has the appeal to emotion, with just enough insinuation towards perversion against those that would disagree, to do so.
All without ever actually saying what was implied: "You know, statistically, your teenager is more likely to slip, fall, and die, in the shower, than be a victim of an online predator, and I think that you should install a camera in your shower so as to monitor that, too". Stated as such, it would be derided for lack of evidence, and paranoia, and an invasion of privacy... not to mention the fact that installing a camera into the bathroom wouldn't actually PREVENT someone from slipping and falling in the shower.
But, stated as iamacat did, it's a masterful piece of innuendo, much beloved here on Slashdot these days.
It was modded up, I bet, because it sounds good, appeals to the prejudices of the masses here now, and is stated in an easily consumed IM format: That is to say, one line of response text, which seems to be the unit of posting/attention here now.
I'd wait for Service Pack 1, myself, before deploying.
If you're going to use XCOPY, Robocopy is even better:a milyid=9d467a69-57ff-4ae7-96ee-b18c4790cffd&displa ylang=en
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?f
"What happens id they become a matter of course, and to work you ahve no choice because everyone has one."
Guess you'll have to deal with it, if/when it happens... not likely.
"This, and other abuses, are why there not binding in some states."
You contradict yourself: If they are not binding in some states, then, it it isn't likely that you'll have no choice.
Also, your Rush quote, in your sig, is inaccurate. It should be:
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government".
Please correct this.
"DRM really hampers the flow of information in education."
:)
OK, I swore to stop responding to "Your Rights Online" articles, mostly because they really don't have anything to do with my rights online... but THIS is just stupid... and unsupported.
HOW, exactly, does DRM hamper the flow of information in education? The parent posts not ONE instance where the bald assertion made is true... yet gets moderated up.
Let's consider higher education, first: If a particular college/university's policies permit it, then, a professor is free to release their lectures, as he or she wishes... and in fact, some institutions release their curriculum, in part, or in whole, for free. MIT comes to mind: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
They've chosen to make those resources freely available, without DRM... clearly, DRM hasn't hampered the flow of information in education in this case.
Do you dispute this?
"It's important to remember that the "traditional" classroom is changing. We now have things like "distance learning.""
No offense, but, the wealth of knowledge available now, without DRM, so far outweighs your non-examples, to render your post ludicrous... and, "distance learning" is only a login to the 'net away, for anyone that wishes to learn...
How about Project Gutenberg? http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
You mean to tell me, that free, non-DRM access to some of the best written knowledge, insights, entertainment, created by the best of us, over thousands of years, means nothing?
And, it will only get better, over time.
So, how does DRM hamper that "flow of information", please?
"It's important to think about innovative current or future uses instead of dwelling on ancient historical uses of computers in education."
How about just leveraging the vast store of knowledge that others, more dedicated than you, have made available, for free, without DRM, online, as it currently exists?
"(BTW, let's be grownups and stop with the personal attacks, M-Kay?)"
I've refrained from such, but I admit I was tempted
I'm sorry, but, there's *so* much available now, that I at times resent the fact that my time is so limited - I have to work for a living - that cuts into the time I can spend reading, and learning.
Regards,
dj
"Unfortunately many companies are not willing to strike this clause from their contracts."
Am I missing something? It's a straightforward business decision: If the client is unwilling to strike the clause from their contract, and you are unwilling to accept that, then don't sign the contract and don't do business with them.
The only unfortunate thing about it is not getting the money that would have resulted from the contract - but why would you want to contract under unfavorable terms?
"The only mnemonic that I can ever manage to remember for the planets is:"
I got this from Heinlein's "Have Space Suit, Will Travel", when I was very young: "Mother Very Thoughtfully Made A Jelly Sandwich Under No Protest". I don't know whether or not it was original to the book, however.
"And which bank would you change to?"
Why not join a Credit Union? They offer the same services, tend to be local and regional (which helps the local/regional economies) and in my experience their customer service is far better than that of commercial banks.
Best of all, they are non-profit, which eliminates the greed factor that drives outsourcing.
Nice how you quoted me out of context, so as to make me appear to be as clueless as the guy you interviewed: But, here's what came BEFORE what you quoted in your post.
"Me, I had the EXACT same attitude as you, back in 1992... I'd already been doing
NetWare network installs for over 5 years by that point... why should I get certified?
Well, my boss wanted to become a Novell Reseller... and, that meant that someone had to get certified.
So, I did: He was cheap, and wouldn't pay for training... so, I just went and took the tests. They weren't offered in our city, so, I had to drive an hour and a half to where they were available... and, since I was the head tech, I couldn't stay away long."
How about a little honesty, next time? I took, and passed, those tests, because I KNEW what I was doing - had done so, for 5 years, previously... 5 years during which I made LOTS of money for my employer, doing it.
Asshole. Welcome to my Foes list - you've the honor of being the second.
I think you misread what I posted, and don't understand the technology available at the time(I'm talking about mid-late 1980's, early 1990's):
"Ethernet was 'way too expensive back back then for our customers (small-medium sized companies)... we used ARCNET, running on coax... and while it was "only" 2.5 Mbps, it was token-based, and scaled well as node population per segment increased... unlike Ethernet, at that time, which didn't have switches available to mitigate collisions."
There were no Ethernet switches, back then, you see - the only way to minimize collisions on any particular Ethernet network segment was to keep the collision domains small.
But, later, I used switches to eliminate collisions on Ethernet networks, just as everyone does today. It eliminates collisions by ensuring that any frames that would have collided, by timing, do not, by buffering them, and passing them very quickly to their destinations, because the switches have processors that are actively mitigating collision issues - that's what they do, after all. But, switches effectively mitgate, eliminate or minimize a problem that cannot exist in token-passing networks.
And, in that sense, token-based networks scale better as node population per segment increases.
I never had to deal with Token Ring - as I said, we used ARCNET, which was token-based, but was NOT IBM's Token Ring, so, I never ran into issues such as you describe, where the token was lost: ARCNET handles such differently. As I recall, with ARCNET, there's a timeout value for the token: The node to which it is passed must respond with an ack to the passing node, within that time, and if it doesn't, the entire segment resets - the node that last passed the token issues a reconfigure (recon) broadcast on the segment, and then the token gets regenerated, and the new token is given to the lowest-numbered node on the segment, to start over... which is why I always addressed the NetWare servers' ARCNET cards at node ID 1 - if a station failed "out there"... there would be no noticable loss in performance, you see.
"On a server I have that sees plenty of network traffic over switched ethernet, I still have '0' in the interface's collision column."
But, it wouldn't, nor shouldn't, so long as the switches are doing their job - that's the point, right?
You shouldn't worry yourself over my post: I was talking about networking from a historical perspective which you'll never see.
And, that's NOT a bad thing - things are much easier today, for the most part.
Regards,
dj
"But I never understood the need for certification"
:) Then, not only can your skills do the talking, but you can claim certification, on top of that, too, which can only be a plus for you.
:)
Sometimes, certification isn't for you - it's for your employer, and their customers. Unfair as it may appear to you, it establishes a baseline, one which I'm sure you far surpass.
"I preferred (and still prefer) to let my skills do the talking instead of jacking around taking some prefab test that any monkey could study for and pass."
No offense, but, if you're as good as you think, then certainly you should be able to pass some "prefab tests that any monkey could study for and pass"? And, I'm sure your company would be pleased not to have to pay to send you for training, but simply pay for those tests you can pass simply because you're so good?
If you're self-employed, then, not only do you get a certification, but, the costs are a tax write-off, too.
Just a thought: Why not try? Certainly, if some monkey can pass them, you should be able to as well.
There's only one way to find out
You graduated in 2000, yet you're so uber skilled that you don't think you need to be certified?
Hell, I've been doing computer service for over 20 years, I GREW UP with the PC industry [1], learned it as I went as did many others of my generation, and I STILL take tests, mostly to re-certify, and am often surprised by what I don't know, as I tend to take them cold since I rarely have time now to study (and, I like to see what I've learned, by experience, and compare that to what I don't know, against what they're testing for.. and many times, I learn new things that way, which I always enjoy).
Regards,
dj
[1] Started as a technician, in 1986, doing field service for a local PC sales and service company. Installed my first PC-based LAN in 1987. Server was an IBM PC-AT, 8 Mhz (the "fast" one, *grin*). Had a Seagate ST-4096 80 MB MFM drive, and we had to replace the BIOS on the motherboard, with EPROMS whose drive table we'd altered to support the drive natively, as IBM didn't support it... there wasn't such a thing as user-settable hard drive parameters back then.
Oh, and the NOS was NetWare 286, v2.0a. Compiled it myself, from copies of the masters... and does anyone besides me remember COMPSURF? *grin*
Ethernet was 'way too expensive back back then for our customers (small-medium sized companies)... we used ARCNET, running on coax... and while it was "only" 2.5 Mbps, it was token-based, and scaled well as node population per segment increased... unlike Ethernet, at that time, which didn't have switches available to mitigate collisions.
Now, of course, everyone calls Ethernet switches "hubs", even though they aren't... and we all ignore the performance loss that results from a collision-based topology, 'cause the hardware handles it, pretty much transparently now... except when it doesn't.
But, I'd be willing to bet, that as network speeds scale, eventually, collision-based Ethernet will be replaced with something that is non-collision based - probably token-passing based... but, it'll probably still be called "Ethernet", so as to placate the masses.
However, I'm wandering now.
Guess the last thing I'd say is this: If you're so good, go get certified... costs you nothing to do so, really.
And, it proves that you're at least as good as those that just passed
Me, I had the EXACT same attitude as you, back in 1992... I'd already been doing NetWare network installs for over 5 years by that point... why should I get certified?
Well, my boss wanted to become a Novell Reseller... and, that meant that someone had to get certified.
So, I did: He was cheap, and wouldn't pay for training... so, I just went and took the tests. They weren't offered in our city, so, I had to drive an hour and a half to where they were available... and, since I was the head tech, I couldn't stay away l
This is Slashdot: The new Nerd chic is to use words that sound good, but don't really make any sense in the context in which they are used. Add points if they are mispelled.
It's called respect - you offer the two weeks to your employer, ostensibly so that you can train your replacement, but just as importantly, as a sign of respect, and gratitude.
Of course, those are mostly obsolete concepts now. And, after having read your post, I'm fairly certain that you won't get it even after my explanation.
But, for whatever it's worth, that's the origin of giving notice.
"What is the professional thing to do?"
Honestly, and harshly: The professional thing to do is STFU, take the two weeks paid, and start your new job ASAP.
Walk away: You did what was required - the fact that they don't want you to work your last two weeks has nothing to do with you, as a person. You don't owe them anything beyond what you already did.
Hell, I had to FIGHT to get paid for the two weeks, once I put in notice, for the last employer for whom I actually did that (nearly a decade ago: I'm happily self-employed now).
So, let it go, and I wish you the best with your new employer!
Regards,
dj
>I don't pretend to have a source on this, but I cannot think of a single English word that begins with a 'g' followed by a vowel that has a soft g (i.e. a 'j' sound) as opposed to a hard g (i.e. a 'guh' sound).
How about "giant"? "Giraffe?" "Gelatin"?
Apparently, you failed basic reading comprehension, so, I'll re-quote it for you.
OP: "I think I speak for us all when I say "What The Fuck"
Me: "No offense, but you don't speak for me. And I certainly don't agree with your premise that "It's OK to break the law so long as you're a kid", which is what you seem to imply."
So, STFU, OK? I didn't say, ANYWHERE in my post, that it was OK to sue a child. My understanding of the OP was that, basically, that he thought that everyone breaks the law once or twice as a child, so, it was basically "OK" to do so... and that was what I objected to.
It's an unprovable statement, one which I know to be false, in at least one instance, from personal experience, though I cannot prove it, either.
Anyway, take your moral outrage, fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it up your ass, OK? It'll do you a world of good - might even prod you to learn how to read.
I think I speak for us all when I say "What The Fuck".
No offense, but you don't speak for me. And I certainly don't agree with your premise that "It's OK to break the law so long as you're a kid", which is what you seem to imply.
I think that it's a sad thing that it came to this, but it points out something that is painfully apparent: The mother wasn't watching her child's use of the computer, as was her responsibility to do.
And I wonder - how many Slashdot posters here are in the same boat? Underage, posting here without their parents' knowledge or permission? Glorying in their ability to break laws elsewhere, fairly anonymously, by using the computers that their parents purchased for them to infringe on others' copyrights so that they can get their "entertainment fix" for free, and then bragging about it here? After all, all it takes is a small amount of knowledge, and a broadband connection. It's not as if you actually have to understand how BitTorrent works, for example, to use it.
I have many issues with the current state of copyright in the US, and have just as many issues with what I deem to be price gouging.
For example: I'd love to own the original Star Trek series on DVD, as it was something I watched on TV when I was very young, and owning them and being able to watch them at my leisure as I wish is something that appeals to me. Buying them is well within my means now, but I refuse to do so: I believe that they are overpriced, and think that Paramount is simply being greedy by charging what they do for them. I just checked again, and the price for all 3 seasons, new, is $265.99 US on Amazon.com. (yeah, yeah, I can probably get it cheaper elsewhere, but, no offense - my time is very precious to me... and I prefer to deal with Amazon as it's a "one-stop" place for everything that I want - the prices may not be the lowest, but the service is great, availability generally the same... and for $72 per year, I get 2-day shipping on anything I buy via Amazon... and if you think that THAT is a rip-off, consider this: It works out to $6/month, to get anything I want in 2 days, availability permitting. I've ordered FAR MORE than enough, to offset that cost, in books, CDs and DVDs, in the past few months alone, had I paid for 2-day shipping because I was unwilling to wait the amount of time it takes for it to arrive at the free shipping rate. And, yes, I'm self-indulgent - so? I'm willing to pay for it, and it is worth it to me at $6/month).
Despite that, I'm not tempted to download them illegally: I've too much self-esteem to do so. Instead, I've chosen to look into other SF series that are available now. Firefly is on its way to me as I type this, it will be here tomorrow. I've not seen any of the episodes, but heard many so good things about them that I bought it. $29.99 US, 2 day shipping for free. Seems worth it to me. The first season of the new Battlestar Galactica will be here later this week.
I guess the difference between me and so many others here is this: I don't think that over-pricing by a corporation for their copyrighted materials entitles me to obtain them illegally - it's not worth my self-respect, and I'm not so lacking in the same to think that self-entertainment is more important.
Were I *so* offended by, for example, Paramount's pricing of ST:TOS, I'd take the time to write them, and explain my position to them, NOT in any hope that they'd change their minds, but simply to voice my opinion. As it is, I think that they're stupid, and greedy, and they won't get my money... but I STILL refuse to obtain them illegally, although it would be a simple matter to do so. Maybe I'll write them a letter, maybe not.
But, I don't need to be entertained so badly, via their products, so as to break the law to do so, regardless of perceived "provocation" that would "justify" it.
There's a saying: "Character is doing the right thing even when nobody is watching". In many ways, that saying underscores what's going on with regards to copyri