Hmm. I have two boxes that have been up (not "no unscheduled downtime" -- up and running _constantly_) for longer than you've _had_ at least one of those NT boxes, and a third that only misses that six-month mark by a few days.
CI-NET (Netware 3.12): up 291 days, 21:41 Cause of last reboot: Accidentally pulled the wrong plug while moving stuff around on the UPS.
lynn (Linux 2.0.35): up 208 days, 23:31 Cause of last reboot: Lockup after extensive hard drive errors caused by a bad BIOS setting (trying to use CHS on a drive bigger than 512M... oops!).
anastasia (Linux 2.0.35): up 173 days, 17:38 Cause of last reboot: Shut down for hardware installation (a parallel port card). Cause of last unscheduled reboot: Uh.... I don't remember. It was a -while- ago... Probably a power outage back before I had her on UPS...
Most of the rest of my machines (various Linux versions ranging from 1.2.13 to 2.2.2): up 5 days and change Cause of last reboot: Power outage. I need to get some more UPSen... 20-40 days uptime is reasonably representative of these machines, then Duke Power goes and messes around with the lines or someone drives into a light pole or something...
I'm consistently getting the banner ad and the bar with the Slashdot logo and the story icons, then my transfer rate drops off to nothing and I never get anything else, but the comets keep flying past the "N" and Netscape never says the page is done loading. I'm sitting on switched 100Mb Ethernet hooked to a T3, so it's not a lack of bandwidth on my end. I've seen this problem with the main Slashdot server, too, but it's been a long time since I've seen it do it more than once or twice in a row.
I'm not seeking protections, or attempting to define an "Internet citizen", whatever that may be (In the context it was originally used, it sounds like anyone who gets hooked up to the Internet is instantly an "Internet citizen".). I'm simply pointing out that the difference between someone rambling on in a public forum about (e.g.) the rights of Internet citizens, and someone making the observation in the same public forum that aforementioned rambler is (e.g.) a long-winded twit, is merely one of content.
Based on this reasoning and the statement that "Internet citizens" should have certain rights that should be denied to "flamers", Katz seems to be expressing the opinion that the right to communicate should be given or withheld on the basis of content... and that's a short and slippery slope straight to 1984.
With Unix's scripting capabilities, it shouldn't be too terribly hard to build a distribution disk that could set up an entire system with no manual intervention, and thus with no display at all, regular or serial. It would have to be pre-configured, of course...
Another method that comes to mind is putting a network-capable kernel on the distribution disk and firing up a telnetd in the init scripts.
I organize mine using a highly advanced cataloging system called "ext2fs".:) I've got a directory structure set up such that it's "/usr/data/music/Artist Name/Album Name/Song Name.mp3".
If I want to random-play through all my songs, I can just do a "splay -s/usr/data/music/*/*/*.mp3". Playing all songs by a given artist or on a given album, or even playing all songs by the same name ("Learning To Fly", by Floyd, ELP, and Tom Petty, for example) are all almost as trivially easy. With a little creative symlinking, it's possible to match on just about any other criteria with nothing more complex than wildcard matching.
How hard is it to learn to type plain text? That's all that's required for most of the communication people do. Basic HTML is relatively easy, too, and suffices for most of the rest it.
Yeah, business is about earning money. About earning money for *your* company, not earning money for Microsoft (unless, of course, you work for Microsoft, then the two are equivalent). So, while it's in Microsoft's best interest for people to spend lots of money on their bloatware, it isn't in anyone else's best interest to do so...
Nope, the net didn't give rise to hacker culture, hacker culture gave rise to the net. What the net's done is allow hacker culture to pervade mainstream culture to a much greater extent than in the past. Those of us who got made fun of for being intellectuals in grade school are becoming the ones who know how to run the new world...
What are you talking about? I thought it was funny (and Rob mentioned that he did, too), and, if it had been true, it would have earned new respect for Apple from me. I think it's a much better way to deal with a domain dispute than calling in the lawyers. I don't see anything anti-{Apple,iMac,Macintosh} about it...
That said, I think you Mac users would catch a lot less anti-Mac flak if you'd get over the persecution complex. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody cares enough about you to be out to get you. It's just that every time you start up with your "Wintel sucks and we're the best OS in the world and nothing can be any better because Steve Jobs is God and the fact that we're a failure in the market is because of (pull reason out of ass) and not because our OS is still stuck in the mid-80s" crap, we "Wintel"* users have to defend ourselves.
There. There's some anti-Macintosh attitude to feed your complex. You happy now?
* For the record, my "Wintel" machine is a Cyrix 6x86MX-233+ on a VIA VP3 motherboard running Linux 2.2.2. Not a speck of Windows or Intel in the thing, but Mac weenies** call it "Wintel" anyway. Go figure.
** As opposed to sensible Mac users, of which I know a few. They unfortunately seem to be in the minority, though. Or maybe it's just like any other advocacy, where the morons are always the most vocal.
Gods know I love the First Amendment, but it's not relevant in this case. Spammers are free to say whatever they want... they're just not free to steal my bandwidth, my CPU time, and my storage space to do it -- not to mention my time. If they want to try selling something on the 'net, they can get a web site like everyone else and use their own bandwidth, CPU time, and storage space for their advertising, and we can all choose for ourselves whether we want to give them our time.
Incidentally, I think the same logic is applicable to telephone solictors... I'm the one paying for the phone line and service, after all... why should they be allowed to use it without my permission?
Personally, I've always wished that Beavis and Butthead were real people so that they could be slowly tortured to death for their crimes against intelligence and good taste. The mere sound of that stupid laugh is enough to send me into paroxyms of homicidal rage.
I think you may be missing a little of the point in speculating about why we should/shouldn't care about any of the "protagonists" of the film. The movie wasn't about them, it was about us, all the little hassles cubicle inhabitants deal with every day, and the things we'd all do if we just didn't give a damn about getting fired. It's like Dilbert, but without the goofy animals and the attempts at humor. It doesn't -have- to _try_ to be funny... it's got the "ha ha, only serious," quality that so many geeks love.
The plot seems to have only been there as a vehicle to link together all the other scenes... I never found myself caring if they were going to get away with the money or not. None of the previews I saw contained so much as a hint of the actual plot, which would suggest to me that the producers rated it about as highly as I did.
There wasn't much in the way of conventional gags or quotable one-liners in the movie (though I did like, "Why should I have to change? He's the one who sucks."), but I still laughed my ass off several times. Why? Because it's all true. This is satire, folks... very accurate, barbed satire...
Ah. Got it now. So it's just full zone transfers they're restricting, not any access to the root zone information (which, unless my reading comprehension is failing me, is what the article says). I didn't _think_ it was the latter... the whole system would break if they did that...
(And, yes, I have set up a few DNS servers... I own and operate two domains and their associated name servers.)
Yeah, no problem. You just need a set of root servers and a bunch of clients pointed at them. Root servers are easy... there's no practical difference between a hostname, a domain name, and a TLD, so BIND and a fat pipe'll do you. The problem is getting enough clients to use your servers in preference to/in addition to NSI's. You'd need to convince a significant portion of the Internet in order to do any good...
Can anyone tell me what, exactly, they're restricting access to? I read the ZD article twice and I still can't make heads or tails of it. I'm hoping that the fault lies in the writing, not in the reading...
Because documentation needs to be clear, concise, and written with an eye towards the hard facts by someone who knows what they're doing.
I mean, when you type "man ls", do you want a description of its switches, or a ten page rant on how ls is going to help the new geeks destroy the corporate culture and bring back the Sixties and get geeks more in touch with their geek roots and make everything geeky and cool and oh, by the way, I don?t use ?ls?, I use ?My Computer??
Hmm... that's odd. It's nice and fast and looks fine on Netscape 3.01 under XF86 3.3 and Linux 2.2.1, and on a machine that falls far short of the minimum requirements for even running Win98, at that...
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. I have two boxes that have been up (not "no unscheduled downtime" -- up and running _constantly_) for longer than you've _had_ at least one of those NT boxes, and a third that only misses that six-month mark by a few days.
CI-NET (Netware 3.12): up 291 days, 21:41
Cause of last reboot: Accidentally pulled the wrong plug while moving stuff around on the UPS.
lynn (Linux 2.0.35): up 208 days, 23:31
Cause of last reboot: Lockup after extensive hard drive errors caused by a bad BIOS setting (trying to use CHS on a drive bigger than 512M... oops!).
anastasia (Linux 2.0.35): up 173 days, 17:38
Cause of last reboot: Shut down for hardware installation (a parallel port card).
Cause of last unscheduled reboot: Uh.... I don't remember. It was a -while- ago... Probably a power outage back before I had her on UPS...
Most of the rest of my machines (various Linux versions ranging from 1.2.13 to 2.2.2): up 5 days and change
Cause of last reboot: Power outage. I need to get some more UPSen... 20-40 days uptime is reasonably representative of these machines, then Duke Power goes and messes around with the lines or someone drives into a light pole or something...
I'm consistently getting the banner ad and the bar with the Slashdot logo and the story icons, then my transfer rate drops off to nothing and I never get anything else, but the comets keep flying past the "N" and Netscape never says the page is done loading. I'm sitting on switched 100Mb Ethernet hooked to a T3, so it's not a lack of bandwidth on my end. I've seen this problem with the main Slashdot server, too, but it's been a long time since I've seen it do it more than once or twice in a row.
I'm not seeking protections, or attempting to define an "Internet citizen", whatever that may be (In the context it was originally used, it sounds like anyone who gets hooked up to the Internet is instantly an "Internet citizen".). I'm simply pointing out that the difference between someone rambling on in a public forum about (e.g.) the rights of Internet citizens, and someone making the observation in the same public forum that aforementioned rambler is (e.g.) a long-winded twit, is merely one of content.
Based on this reasoning and the statement that "Internet citizens" should have certain rights that should be denied to "flamers", Katz seems to be expressing the opinion that the right to communicate should be given or withheld on the basis of content... and that's a short and slippery slope straight to 1984.
> Citizens of the Internet, once arrived there, are entitled to speak freely, unencumbered by [...] abusive flamers.
Umm... does anyone else see the logical inconsistancy inherent in this statement? Hint: Flamers are "Citizens of the Internet", too.
"There is a small, finite risk that this could lead to an accidental nuclear war."
A "small, finite risk" is scientist-speak for, "Theoretically, it's possible, but it ain't gonna happen."
With Unix's scripting capabilities, it shouldn't be too terribly hard to build a distribution disk that could set up an entire system with no manual intervention, and thus with no display at all, regular or serial. It would have to be pre-configured, of course...
Another method that comes to mind is putting a network-capable kernel on the distribution disk and firing up a telnetd in the init scripts.
Personally, I liked: "You agree not to reproduce, [...] without the express prior written consent of SSC."
I organize mine using a highly advanced cataloging system called "ext2fs". :) I've got a directory structure set up such that it's "/usr/data/music/Artist Name/Album Name/Song Name.mp3".
/usr/data/music/*/*/*.mp3". Playing all songs by a given artist or on a given album, or even playing all songs by the same name ("Learning To Fly", by Floyd, ELP, and Tom Petty, for example) are all almost as trivially easy. With a little creative symlinking, it's possible to match on just about any other criteria with nothing more complex than wildcard matching.
If I want to random-play through all my songs, I can just do a "splay -s
How hard is it to learn to type plain text? That's all that's required for most of the communication people do. Basic HTML is relatively easy, too, and suffices for most of the rest it.
It's hard to type.
Yeah, business is about earning money. About earning money for *your* company, not earning money for Microsoft (unless, of course, you work for Microsoft, then the two are equivalent). So, while it's in Microsoft's best interest for people to spend lots of money on their bloatware, it isn't in anyone else's best interest to do so...
There was an article about that thing here ages ago... well, Internet ages, anyway. Six months or so.
I think the HP-48 series of calculators uses the 80186, too.
Nope, the net didn't give rise to hacker culture, hacker culture gave rise to the net. What the net's done is allow hacker culture to pervade mainstream culture to a much greater extent than in the past. Those of us who got made fun of for being intellectuals in grade school are becoming the ones who know how to run the new world...
What are you talking about? I thought it was funny (and Rob mentioned that he did, too), and, if it had been true, it would have earned new respect for Apple from me. I think it's a much better way to deal with a domain dispute than calling in the lawyers. I don't see anything anti-{Apple,iMac,Macintosh} about it...
That said, I think you Mac users would catch a lot less anti-Mac flak if you'd get over the persecution complex. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody cares enough about you to be out to get you. It's just that every time you start up with your "Wintel sucks and we're the best OS in the world and nothing can be any better because Steve Jobs is God and the fact that we're a failure in the market is because of (pull reason out of ass) and not because our OS is still stuck in the mid-80s" crap, we "Wintel"* users have to defend ourselves.
There. There's some anti-Macintosh attitude to feed your complex. You happy now?
* For the record, my "Wintel" machine is a Cyrix 6x86MX-233+ on a VIA VP3 motherboard running Linux 2.2.2. Not a speck of Windows or Intel in the thing, but Mac weenies** call it "Wintel" anyway. Go figure.
** As opposed to sensible Mac users, of which I know a few. They unfortunately seem to be in the minority, though. Or maybe it's just like any other advocacy, where the morons are always the most vocal.
Gods know I love the First Amendment, but it's not relevant in this case. Spammers are free to say whatever they want... they're just not free to steal my bandwidth, my CPU time, and my storage space to do it -- not to mention my time. If they want to try selling something on the 'net, they can get a web site like everyone else and use their own bandwidth, CPU time, and storage space for their advertising, and we can all choose for ourselves whether we want to give them our time.
Incidentally, I think the same logic is applicable to telephone solictors... I'm the one paying for the phone line and service, after all... why should they be allowed to use it without my permission?
Personally, I've always wished that Beavis and Butthead were real people so that they could be slowly tortured to death for their crimes against intelligence and good taste. The mere sound of that stupid laugh is enough to send me into paroxyms of homicidal rage.
And I thought Office Space was hilarious.
I think you may be missing a little of the point in speculating about why we should/shouldn't care about any of the "protagonists" of the film. The movie wasn't about them, it was about us, all the little hassles cubicle inhabitants deal with every day, and the things we'd all do if we just didn't give a damn about getting fired. It's like Dilbert, but without the goofy animals and the attempts at humor. It doesn't -have- to _try_ to be funny... it's got the "ha ha, only serious," quality that so many geeks love.
The plot seems to have only been there as a vehicle to link together all the other scenes... I never found myself caring if they were going to get away with the money or not. None of the previews I saw contained so much as a hint of the actual plot, which would suggest to me that the producers rated it about as highly as I did.
There wasn't much in the way of conventional gags or quotable one-liners in the movie (though I did like, "Why should I have to change? He's the one who sucks."), but I still laughed my ass off several times. Why? Because it's all true. This is satire, folks... very accurate, barbed satire...
Wow... it's like a Little Caesar's commercial... "twotwotwo!"
Ah. Got it now. So it's just full zone transfers they're restricting, not any access to the root zone information (which, unless my reading comprehension is failing me, is what the article says). I didn't _think_ it was the latter... the whole system would break if they did that...
(And, yes, I have set up a few DNS servers... I own and operate two domains and their associated name servers.)
Yeah, no problem. You just need a set of root servers and a bunch of clients pointed at them. Root servers are easy... there's no practical difference between a hostname, a domain name, and a TLD, so BIND and a fat pipe'll do you. The problem is getting enough clients to use your servers in preference to/in addition to NSI's. You'd need to convince a significant portion of the Internet in order to do any good...
Can anyone tell me what, exactly, they're restricting access to? I read the ZD article twice and I still can't make heads or tails of it. I'm hoping that the fault lies in the writing, not in the reading...
What do you mean, fish aren't hygenic? They spend their entire lives taking baths. What could be more hygenic than that? :)
Because documentation needs to be clear, concise, and written with an eye towards the hard facts by someone who knows what they're doing.
I mean, when you type "man ls", do you want a description of its switches, or a ten page rant on how ls is going to help the new geeks destroy the corporate culture and bring back the Sixties and get geeks more in touch with their geek roots and make everything geeky and cool and oh, by the way, I don?t use ?ls?, I use ?My Computer??
Hmm... that's odd. It's nice and fast and looks fine on Netscape 3.01 under XF86 3.3 and Linux 2.2.1, and on a machine that falls far short of the minimum requirements for even running Win98, at that...