Well, the docs I found by clicking on the help button and then clicking on Basic Skills, then clicking on Keyboard Shortcuts.
1.2.1. Desktop Shortcut KeysDesktop shortcut keys enable you to use the keyboard to perform desktop tasks. The following table lists some desktop shortcut keys: Default Shortcut KeysFunctionAlt+F1Opens the GNOME Menu.Alt+F2Displays the Run Program dialog. Print ScreenTakes a screenshot. Alt+Print ScreenTakes a screenshot of the window that has focus.
I guess with presidential politics already starting it was inevitable that people would start putting forward ideas to combat spam in the political arena. My first question on this is why would I pay the government anything to send email, since neither state nor federal agencies have anything to do how I process email. They don't provide bandwidth, servers, or even oversight. The author's suggestion that this money could be used to "The proceeds could go to maintain and expand bandwidth." is patently ridiculous since the government doesn't provide bandwidth, private companies do. The next issue is just how would you even implment this? Most of the spam that our servers process comes from places that US can't tax, and I imagine that if this was implemented, then the remaining spam would quickly move to places that aren't known for cooperating with US courts & extradition. There is a reason that Sharman Networks (the folks who own Kazaa) are incorporated in Vanuatu The only thing that we can do that isn't a band aid or a un-enforcable law is look at how to rewrite the SMTP protocol, right now it is far too easy (by design) to send email from anywhere to anywhere without any accountability. We need a system that allows for servers to positively identified (something similar to a secure cert, not that I want to hand more money to Verisign but...) Then its up to the individual admin to decide what to do with email from a un-certified server; accept it, rate limit it, tag it, or deny it. Now no one _wants_ to rewrite all of the MTA's in the world, but at least this gives a way for non-compliant servers to get mail processed until everyone has gotten their's updated.
I hope the newsletter is for the VOD trade group, 'cause it won't get much traction anywhere else given your premise. I design broadband systems including DSL, CMTS, FTTH, FTTC, wireless, etc and I can let you know that none of them are remotely ready for true VOD. In fact most of the "VOD" systems are actually the near VOD similar to what DirectTV uses. Now given that everyone would _like_ to have real on demand VOD why do you think company implement near VOD? The simple answer is bandwidth, with IGMP proxying Click here for the RFC you only need the amount of bandwidth equal to the lesser of either your total number of subscribers on each DSLAM/node or the total number of channels. Take a simple example of a DSL system that offers 100 channels of broadcast & near VOD and their density per DSLAM is 300 subs and that they only allow ONE set top box per household. This means that I need to provision at least 300 mbps (OC-12 minimum) to that DSLAM to handle the traffic (100 channels x 3 mbps per channel I'll address the reason I use 3 mbps later). Now lets says that I want to offer true VOD, suddenly our bandwidth needs to that DSLAM have tripled to 900 mbps (OC-24 minumum but I'll probably have to use an OC-48 since most vendors don't make an OC-24)because VOD is inherently a UNICAST not multicast service. It doesn't take a mathematician to see the challenges. To further complicate matters, most of the DSL systems in the world work run ATM at layer 2. This is a problem since ATM is inherently a connection oriented protocol, in other words there is no simple way to send a broadcast as you do in Ethernet or other baseband shared acess system. This means that you have to have a large system or systems to handle the load of (1) creating the main IGMP streams at the head end and (2) doing all the work to SAR that data into and out of the ATM cloud. This adds a great deal of cost to the system since SAR'ing takes allot of processing power. Also to run video reliably you need to be running your PVC's as VBR-NRT or better. All of this adds up to very expensive gear. The reference to power line based broadband is very much wishful thinking, that technology is not even close to being ready for a major deployment and there are NO standards for access. 1.5 mbps as a planning bandwidth per video channel is also not realistic, it is possible with some of the very low bit rate encoders but those are all two or three times as expensive as "normal" 3.0 - 3.5 mbps encoders and you still haven't made any provisions for HDTV which runs in excess of 27 mbps.
umm perhaps you should take a look at the actual support options Here is their features chart I doubt you can find another DB company whose support options include escalation to the CTO when needed. BTW CTO in this case is Monty himself. Pricing for support is here
thats why Nokia killed their mesh products....
on
Wireless Mesh Networks
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Mesh wireless networks sound good in theory, kinda like microkernel OS's;p, but in practice they have been unworkable to this point. Nokia bought a company, whose name I can't remember, for this type of product, Nokia called it Rooftop. The previous company had spent more than 4 years in development, and Nokia pumped in enough cash to add another year or so, but the product was a technical failure. Our company was already experienced deploying wireless systems (Alvarion/Breezecom and Orninoco) so we liked what Nokia had to say about the product and we gave it a try. The system proved to be totally unusable, the customer prem equipment often couldn't figure out which way to send traffic if the node it was previously using went away. I don't think that a mesh system is totally unworkable, but I do think its more complicated than most people think. Nokia has already removed the info from their site, but
I think I agree with your intent, but not your logic. When you say the Internet is a "public" network, you are only partially correct. A truly public network would not be owned by companies like UUNET, Sprint, and AT&T, not to mention the countless companies whose infrastructure makes up the Internet. I agree totally that new laws won't do what is needed, what is needed is for ISP's and enterprises to take their claims of harm (wasted bandwidth & processor cycles) to court and make it very expensive for companies to use UCE. The problem with trying to create a system that forces the Spammers to pay the network providers is there isn't "one" entity like the Post Office that handles email, or even email policies for America, much less the rest of the world. I think a better long term approach is to force opt-in, which will force advertisers to go down the pay the recipient track. ISP's and other service providers will have to watch for abuse from endusers, but disk qoutas and aging would handle most of that problem. If users started getting out of hand max email per day qoutas could be built fairly easily.
Well, that is mostly correct. The stuff of TDM and the muxing is dead on, however, there is NO DSL over fiber. xDSL is a (mostly) layer 1 (physical layer) technology that specifies copper. What has to happen for you to get service is for Verizon to put a DSLAM within 18,000 feet (for ADSL) of your location. That DSLAM, can be a card in the DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) that is supplying voice to your area, if the manufacturer has it ready or it can be a seperate box that fits in the same cabinet/shelter. The traffic from the DSLAM (DSL Access Multiplexer) has to be back hauled to the CO (Central Office), normally that traffic is taken out of a DSLAM as ATM (Alcatel, Paradyne, Lucent, ADC) or Frame Relay (Copper Mountain), but a few are now using Ethernet (Elastic Networks) as the layer 2 protocol. The DSLAM is responsbile for translating between DSL and the other protocols. Once this is done we still have to hitch a ride on their fiber which is probably an OC-3/12 SONET ring. Normally this isn't a problem if we are using ATM or Frame but can be an issue for Ethernet based DSLAMS since most fiber mux's either don't have Ethernet cards or they are very expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the docs I found by clicking on the help button and then clicking on Basic Skills, then clicking on Keyboard Shortcuts.
1.2.1. Desktop Shortcut KeysDesktop shortcut keys enable you to use the keyboard to perform desktop tasks. The following table lists some desktop shortcut keys:
Default Shortcut KeysFunctionAlt+F1Opens the GNOME Menu.Alt+F2Displays the Run Program dialog.
Print ScreenTakes a screenshot.
Alt+Print ScreenTakes a screenshot of the window that has focus.
Hmm
I can't answer to all of your issues, but you certainly can connect a linux box to an M$ PPTP VPN.
The project is open source and sponsored by HP.
I guess with presidential politics already starting it was inevitable that people would start putting forward ideas to combat spam in the political arena. My first question on this is why would I pay the government anything to send email, since neither state nor federal agencies have anything to do how I process email. They don't provide bandwidth, servers, or even oversight. The author's suggestion that this money could be used to "The proceeds could go to maintain and expand bandwidth." is patently ridiculous since the government doesn't provide bandwidth, private companies do. The next issue is just how would you even implment this? Most of the spam that our servers process comes from places that US can't tax, and I imagine that if this was implemented, then the remaining spam would quickly move to places that aren't known for cooperating with US courts & extradition. There is a reason that Sharman Networks (the folks who own Kazaa) are incorporated
in Vanuatu
The only thing that we can do that isn't a band aid or a un-enforcable law is look at how to rewrite the SMTP protocol, right now it is far too easy (by design) to send email from anywhere to anywhere without any accountability. We need a system that allows for servers to positively identified (something similar to a secure cert, not that I want to hand more money to Verisign but...) Then its up to the individual admin to decide what to do with email from a un-certified server; accept it, rate limit it, tag it, or deny it. Now no one _wants_ to rewrite all of the MTA's in the world, but at least this gives a way for non-compliant servers to get mail processed until everyone has gotten their's updated.
I hope the newsletter is for the VOD trade group, 'cause it won't get much traction anywhere else given your premise. I design broadband systems including DSL, CMTS, FTTH, FTTC, wireless, etc and I can let you know that none of them are remotely ready for true VOD. In fact most of the "VOD" systems are actually the near VOD similar to what DirectTV uses. Now given that everyone would _like_ to have real on demand VOD why do you think company implement near VOD? The simple answer is bandwidth, with IGMP proxying Click here for the RFC you only need the amount of bandwidth equal to the lesser of either your total number of subscribers on each DSLAM/node or the total number of channels. Take a simple example of a DSL system that offers 100 channels of broadcast & near VOD and their density per DSLAM is 300 subs and that they only allow ONE set top box per household. This means that I need to provision at least 300 mbps (OC-12 minimum) to that DSLAM to handle the traffic (100 channels x 3 mbps per channel I'll address the reason I use 3 mbps later). Now lets says that I want to offer true VOD, suddenly our bandwidth needs to that DSLAM have tripled to 900 mbps (OC-24 minumum but I'll probably have to use an OC-48 since most vendors don't make an OC-24)because VOD is inherently a UNICAST not multicast service. It doesn't take a mathematician to see the challenges. To further complicate matters, most of the DSL systems in the world work run ATM at layer 2. This is a problem since ATM is inherently a connection oriented protocol, in other words there is no simple way to send a broadcast as you do in Ethernet or other baseband shared acess system. This means that you have to have a large system or systems to handle the load of (1) creating the main IGMP streams at the head end and (2) doing all the work to SAR that data into and out of the ATM cloud. This adds a great deal of cost to the system since SAR'ing takes allot of processing power. Also to run video reliably you need to be running your PVC's as VBR-NRT or better. All of this adds up to very expensive gear. The reference to power line based broadband is very much wishful thinking, that technology is not even close to being ready for a major deployment and there are NO standards for access. 1.5 mbps as a planning bandwidth per video channel is also not realistic, it is possible with some of the very low bit rate encoders but those are all two or three times as expensive as "normal" 3.0 - 3.5 mbps encoders and you still haven't made any provisions for HDTV which runs in excess of 27 mbps.
umm perhaps you should take a look at the actual support options Here is their features chart I doubt you can find another DB company whose support options include escalation to the CTO when needed. BTW CTO in this case is Monty himself. Pricing for support is here
Mesh wireless networks sound good in theory, kinda like microkernel OS's ;p, but in practice they have been unworkable to this point. Nokia bought a company, whose name I can't remember, for this type of product, Nokia called it Rooftop. The previous company had spent more than 4 years in development, and Nokia pumped in enough cash to add another year or so, but the product was a technical failure. Our company was already experienced deploying wireless systems (Alvarion/Breezecom and Orninoco) so we liked what Nokia had to say about the product and we gave it a try. The system proved to be totally unusable, the customer prem equipment often couldn't figure out which way to send traffic if the node it was previously using went away. I don't think that a mesh system is totally unworkable, but I do think its more complicated than most people think. Nokia has already removed the info from their site, but
google cache here
Tessco was Nokia's reseller on the line and they still have info and pics on it here
I think I agree with your intent, but not your logic. When you say the Internet is a "public" network, you are only partially correct. A truly public network would not be owned by companies like UUNET, Sprint, and AT&T, not to mention the countless companies whose infrastructure makes up the Internet. I agree totally that new laws won't do what is needed, what is needed is for ISP's and enterprises to take their claims of harm (wasted bandwidth & processor cycles) to court and make it very expensive for companies to use UCE. The problem with trying to create a system that forces the Spammers to pay the network providers is there isn't "one" entity like the Post Office that handles email, or even email policies for America, much less the rest of the world. I think a better long term approach is to force opt-in, which will force advertisers to go down the pay the recipient track. ISP's and other service providers will have to watch for abuse from endusers, but disk qoutas and aging would handle most of that problem. If users started getting out of hand max email per day qoutas could be built fairly easily.
Thorizdin
Well, that is mostly correct. The stuff of TDM and the muxing is dead on, however, there is NO DSL over fiber. xDSL is a (mostly) layer 1 (physical layer) technology that specifies copper. What has to happen for you to get service is for Verizon to put a DSLAM within 18,000 feet (for ADSL) of your location. That DSLAM, can be a card in the DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) that is supplying voice to your area, if the manufacturer has it ready or it can be a seperate box that fits in the same cabinet/shelter. The traffic from the DSLAM (DSL Access Multiplexer) has to be back hauled to the CO (Central Office), normally that traffic is taken out of a DSLAM as ATM (Alcatel, Paradyne, Lucent, ADC) or Frame Relay (Copper Mountain), but a few are now using Ethernet (Elastic Networks) as the layer 2 protocol. The DSLAM is responsbile for translating between DSL and the other protocols. Once this is done we still have to hitch a ride on their fiber which is probably an OC-3/12 SONET ring. Normally this isn't a problem if we are using ATM or Frame but can be an issue for Ethernet based DSLAMS since most fiber mux's either don't have Ethernet cards or they are very expensive.