PSINet's network status page has the details - apparently 90% of the traffic is being rerouted, 10% is apparently cut off by C&W. The page does indicate that PSINet is offering to "supply service directly to C&W's customers who have been cut off". In other words, come ISP with us instead of C&W, I guess.
Apparently getting C&W's customers is the only the only way PSINet can offer relief to their own customers cut off from C&W resources, since no other help is offered in that direction.
Okay, I missed that point. I'd think if that was the case that the bankruptcy court (Er, PSI has filed for Chapter 11 protection, haven't they?) might have something to say about that. Or maybe not... don't know the rules exactly.
The fun thing is that now all C&W customers will be unable to connect to most PSI customers.
And that's not a small amount of people/sites.
Not true. Not all backbone providers have peering arrangements. This merely means that this traffic will not travel directly between the networks, but will be exchanged at the NAP (Network Access Point) routers, and possibly by other networks which have still have peering with both the companies in question. Almost certainly slower and with longer ping times, however.
Strange, this seems to be the first time I've seen backbone providers' peering arrangements considered a major news item. Doesn't this kind of thing, along with the establishment of new peering arrangements, happen all the time?
I would think the report, if true, means that C & W is unsatisfied with the {way that|amount of|rate at} its packets are transported on PSINet relative to the way PSI is using C & W's resources.
Other than that, I don't see why C & W would give a care what happens to PSI financially. If it closes down the peering arrangements would be beside the point.
Which is why DSL wont work. Someone needs to take the technology of a regular mode and make it faster. 56k to 128 then to 256k. Then maybe high speed will take off. But until normal computer modems can do the speed of dsl we wont see it grow like people want it to.
In other words, spend as much money per line for upgrading lines used for both modem and voice lines (which don't need the upgrade) as it would cost them to add DSL service to the line - and then have to add more DSL hardware on top of that for those who need better than this still half-assed service, which would still be delivering digital data through totally unnecessary analog-to-digital-and-back conversions.
I can only conclude you must work for a modem manufacturer.
Like the manager I've known who, having read that download time is important, applied idiot's logic and concluded that reducing the delivery time of a page from 400 milliseconds to 200 would double page access by outside users.
After the web page involved was necessarily stripped of content to do this and when, of course, the number of users dropped precipitously as a result, refused to believe the real reason for it and demanded the sysadmins and web engineers "prove" to him "why the page is now being delivered more slowly [instead] to the users".
Well, why a case at all?
on
Hardwoodware
·
· Score: 2
Since EMI radiation and the FCC seem to be zero concern, why not just take the analog of a removable motherboard backplate cut out of the metal case cannibalized, and leave it sitting motherboard-down on a table or desk?
Don't cut away the card slot part and you have support for at least one end of the cards, hell who has many full-length cards? The rest hang loose on the other end anyway.
If the cpu fan whine irritates just replace it with a bigger, slower fan that moves as much air - no other fans should be needed, the open box would let convection keep things pretty near room temperature.
Just the thing to show off your new Voodoo XIV or whatever, but be sure to watch out for the Pepsi syndrome.
How many people have a computer that gets hard drive head stick? The school had assumed it was dead when they gave it to me. After a few (difficult to pull off) twirls of the massive hard drive, it rumbeld back to life.
Ah that brings back memories. Although it was bearing stick in my case, due to thickening lubricant. The solution I found involved a moderate whack with a hammer or other heavy object... Not recommended for mission critical data, but that particular system had been retired to driving a dot matrix printer reserved for printing sheets of precut wire labels.
Non-disclosure would need to be specifically mentioned in this case, since he allows the source to be viewed, compiled, and outside of certain test releases distributed. An NDA would be a restriction on top of the previous rights he specifically granted to others, and would have to be specifically mentioned. Modification rights were never specifically dealt with.
Oh, really? And you wouldn't call the result of reverse engineering the software based on the new software's authors' knowledge of the original a derivative work?
Even though new substitute package would likely be (and should be) written by those expert programmers who have already concerned themselves the IFL package, and naturally have gone through it with a figurative fine-tooth comb looking for security holes)? That kind of knowledge of the software seems to create a legal assumption that the resulting new software is a copy/paraphrase/erivative work, going by the the results of between-corporation lawsuits.
Gee, too bad. I guess that makes the competing package a lot harder to create, doesn't it? How convenient for that original author again...
2. People *assumed* the license meant what they wanted it to mean.
No, they assumed, naturally, that it meant the established meaning of the wording that he copied.
3. He clarifies the license (the distribution policies of HIS software).
He changed it, adding restrictions that were not stated, and that therefore did not exist originally in the license, and that therefore do not apply to the distributions before those restrictions were added (this is perfectly valid as it applies to the software distributed with the new releases, of course).
4. People complain they cant do things they ASSUMED were okay.
No, people are complaining that they can't do things that the license absolutely did not forbid before, and which are a perfectly normal part of the "use" of the software source code.
5. People get up in arms and post to/.
irrelevent, except as a troll.
Solution?
Just do like lots of other Open Source enthusiasts
do - IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, WRITE YOUR OWN!
That's one solution. An equally valid one being to fork the code from the last version that did not contain the new and odious restriction which would forbid that forking, and if he doesn't like that and goes to court, to watch as the judge laughs him out of said court once the situation is explained.
In fact, that is a far superior solution, because it will prevent him from waiting until the competing software is complete, and then calling it illegal because of further "accidently left out" clauses forbidding reverse engineering the software and so forth and so on, and oh, that nondisclosure note he sort of forgot again to put into his "open" source, but which conveniently added just before the latest lawsuit he filed...
IIRC the actual license cannot be changed for those releases which you received under a different license except this is stated. So a fork will appear. (Or maybe more: OpenIPF, NetIPF, FreeIPF...;-)
According to Darren, the modification restriction is only a clarification of the original license, and applies retroactively. He intended the restriction to apply from day one, but didn't explicitly mention it in the license. He could be right, he could the wrong; the ambiguity in language calls this into question. The lesson; read the licenses on software you intend to use, so you aren't taken by surprise by situations like this.
No, I don't think so. Whether you call it a "clarification" or not, the changes are changes and don't apply to the original license terms. "provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors" is a fairly well understood phrase in the open software world in which Darren was working, and what it means has been fairly established. I don't care if he adds "except that distribution is not allowed by left handed people" and states that he originally intended that such sinister characters not be included, or whatever, license changes don't propogate retroactively.
You can't honestly tell me that the original Star Trek was that great. I mean, come on!. It was incredibly cheesy, and every single episode ended up with Kirk getting the hook-up with some freaky alien chick
You lie! There was, hang on, um. There was the one with... no, wait... er. Ha! The one where Spock got to play finger hockey with the Romulan tart, and, er, the Gorn (Big Green Lizard) episode. Sure, Kirk fscked it over pretty good, but I don't think it was a female.
Kirk never was very subtle, but there certainly are more romantic ways to present a diamond to your intended.
If the 26 year later janeway came back in time to help the current crew get home earlier with 26 year later technology, wouldn't this not happen with the current crew getting home earlier?
Shh!
The Borg queen might hear you!
Re:The day I realized Trek sucked
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
It was that episode of Next Generation that guest starred Jimmy Dewhan (Scotty). In the climax scene, Scotty and Laforge were trapped on a space ship being crushed by these huge doors.
I couldn't buy the "the Dyson Sphere builders must have abandoned it because of the solar flares" explanation.
If someone had the technology to build that kind of structure in the first place, that would be like abandoning a new house because the furnace's pilot light needed adjustment.
Re:Galaxy Class Starships
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Was it me, or were there too many galaxy class starships (Next Generation Enterprise NCC-1701D type)? I thought there were only 2 made: the Yamato (which was lost in a TNG episode) and the Enterprise. In the final episode there were a few more to greet the Voyager...
I'm pretty sure the Galaxy class starships would have had a USS Galaxy as their class ship.:-)
You can't honestly tell me that the original Star Trek was that great. I mean, come on!. It was incredibly cheesy, and every single episode ended up with Kirk getting the hook-up with some freaky alien chick.
He was just obeying his Evolutionary Prime Directive.
Re:Last episode mirrored structure of STTNG
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
But, if it was growing backwards in time, why was it bigger 5 minutes in the future between the time they visited and saw nothing and Picard's realisation?
it was a "paradox".
So you're not allowed to analyze it.:-)
Re:Last episode mirrored structure of STTNG
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
somebody explain why the ship that got janeway BACK in time, couldn't take the whole crew forward again?
I think that was the reason she had Doctor Bob - excuse me, "Doctor Joe" score a couple grams of that experimental anti-chronon radiation drug (assuming again a few kilos for Voyager's crew was not available).
And why the "healthy as the first day the doctor saw her" Janeway couldn't wait a couple more years for Deus Ex Machina Industries to come up with a sturdier time machine, that wouldn't burn itself out going one-way.
Well the world owns seven wonders as the travellers always tell.
Some gardens and some towers, I guess you know them well.
But now the greatest wonder is in Uncle Sam's fair land.
That King Columbia river and the great Grand Coulee Dam.
[...]
Oh Uncle Sam took up the notion in the year of thirty three,
For the factory and the farmer and for all of you and me.
He said: roll it on Columbia, you can roll out to the sea
But river, while you're rolling you can do some work for me.
Now from Washington and Oregon you can hear them factories a-hum,
Making corn and making mangonies lying all over the ground.
Always a flying fortress to blast for Uncle Sam,
That King Columbia river and the great Grand Coulee dam.
Well the world owns seven wonders as the travellers always tell.
Some gardens and some towers, I guess you know them well.
But now the greatest wonder is in Uncle Sam's fair land.
That King Columbia river and the great Grand Coulee Dam.
And trains, or as fuel oil instead - one other thing not mentioned was the fact (I think you apply it correctly) that a barrel of oil, depending on grade, is distilled into certain percentages of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel/fuel oil, tar-thick bunker oil used in power plants, et cetra, and changing the process can only somewhat adjust these. Going to all diesel, or even mostly, would increase the need for oil imports, because there is little use for gasoline except for motor fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently getting C&W's customers is the only the only way PSINet can offer relief to their own customers cut off from C&W resources, since no other help is offered in that direction.
Okay, I missed that point. I'd think if that was the case that the bankruptcy court (Er, PSI has filed for Chapter 11 protection, haven't they?) might have something to say about that. Or maybe not... don't know the rules exactly.
Not true. Not all backbone providers have peering arrangements. This merely means that this traffic will not travel directly between the networks, but will be exchanged at the NAP (Network Access Point) routers, and possibly by other networks which have still have peering with both the companies in question. Almost certainly slower and with longer ping times, however.
I would think the report, if true, means that C & W is unsatisfied with the {way that|amount of|rate at} its packets are transported on PSINet relative to the way PSI is using C & W's resources.
Other than that, I don't see why C & W would give a care what happens to PSI financially. If it closes down the peering arrangements would be beside the point.
Bored of the Rings!
With Dildo, Pepsi, Moxie, Greytooth, the Green Berets and Vee-Eights, Nozdril and all the rest!
In other words, spend as much money per line for upgrading lines used for both modem and voice lines (which don't need the upgrade) as it would cost them to add DSL service to the line - and then have to add more DSL hardware on top of that for those who need better than this still half-assed service, which would still be delivering digital data through totally unnecessary analog-to-digital-and-back conversions.
I can only conclude you must work for a modem manufacturer.
After the web page involved was necessarily stripped of content to do this and when, of course, the number of users dropped precipitously as a result, refused to believe the real reason for it and demanded the sysadmins and web engineers "prove" to him "why the page is now being delivered more slowly [instead] to the users".
Velveeta.
Don't cut away the card slot part and you have support for at least one end of the cards, hell who has many full-length cards? The rest hang loose on the other end anyway.
If the cpu fan whine irritates just replace it with a bigger, slower fan that moves as much air - no other fans should be needed, the open box would let convection keep things pretty near room temperature.
Just the thing to show off your new Voodoo XIV or whatever, but be sure to watch out for the Pepsi syndrome.
This will be popular until it dies in the middle because only 17 people access the paid part and 3 pay for it.
Ah that brings back memories. Although it was bearing stick in my case, due to thickening lubricant. The solution I found involved a moderate whack with a hammer or other heavy object... Not recommended for mission critical data, but that particular system had been retired to driving a dot matrix printer reserved for printing sheets of precut wire labels.
Even though new substitute package would likely be (and should be) written by those expert programmers who have already concerned themselves the IFL package, and naturally have gone through it with a figurative fine-tooth comb looking for security holes)? That kind of knowledge of the software seems to create a legal assumption that the resulting new software is a copy/paraphrase/erivative work, going by the the results of between-corporation lawsuits.
Gee, too bad. I guess that makes the competing package a lot harder to create, doesn't it? How convenient for that original author again...
You have heard of the Term "fair use"?
Perhhaps the author forgot to add the clause:
"The provisions in this license mean, now and in the future, exactly what the author wants then to mean, neither more nor less".
Unlike yourself, I do not believe this is automatically assumed to be a standard part of a software license or other legal document.
Given.
2. People *assumed* the license meant what they wanted it to mean.
No, they assumed, naturally, that it meant the established meaning of the wording that he copied.
3. He clarifies the license (the distribution policies of HIS software).
He changed it, adding restrictions that were not stated, and that therefore did not exist originally in the license, and that therefore do not apply to the distributions before those restrictions were added (this is perfectly valid as it applies to the software distributed with the new releases, of course).
4. People complain they cant do things they ASSUMED were okay.
No, people are complaining that they can't do things that the license absolutely did not forbid before, and which are a perfectly normal part of the "use" of the software source code.
5. People get up in arms and post to /.
irrelevent, except as a troll.
Solution?
Just do like lots of other Open Source enthusiasts
do - IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, WRITE YOUR OWN!
That's one solution. An equally valid one being to fork the code from the last version that did not contain the new and odious restriction which would forbid that forking, and if he doesn't like that and goes to court, to watch as the judge laughs him out of said court once the situation is explained.
In fact, that is a far superior solution, because it will prevent him from waiting until the competing software is complete, and then calling it illegal because of further "accidently left out" clauses forbidding reverse engineering the software and so forth and so on, and oh, that nondisclosure note he sort of forgot again to put into his "open" source, but which conveniently added just before the latest lawsuit he filed...
No, I don't think so. Whether you call it a "clarification" or not, the changes are changes and don't apply to the original license terms. "provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors" is a fairly well understood phrase in the open software world in which Darren was working, and what it means has been fairly established. I don't care if he adds "except that distribution is not allowed by left handed people" and states that he originally intended that such sinister characters not be included, or whatever, license changes don't propogate retroactively.
Shh!
The Borg queen might hear you!
I couldn't buy the "the Dyson Sphere builders must have abandoned it because of the solar flares" explanation.
If someone had the technology to build that kind of structure in the first place, that would be like abandoning a new house because the furnace's pilot light needed adjustment.
Was it me, or were there too many galaxy class starships (Next Generation Enterprise NCC-1701D type)? I thought there were only 2 made: the Yamato (which was lost in a TNG episode) and the Enterprise. In the final episode there were a few more to greet the Voyager...
I'm pretty sure the Galaxy class starships would have had a USS Galaxy as their class ship. :-)
He was just obeying his Evolutionary Prime Directive.
it was a "paradox".
So you're not allowed to analyze it. :-)
I think that was the reason she had Doctor Bob - excuse me, "Doctor Joe" score a couple grams of that experimental anti-chronon radiation drug (assuming again a few kilos for Voyager's crew was not available).
And why the "healthy as the first day the doctor saw her" Janeway couldn't wait a couple more years for Deus Ex Machina Industries to come up with a sturdier time machine, that wouldn't burn itself out going one-way.
And trains, or as fuel oil instead - one other thing not mentioned was the fact (I think you apply it correctly) that a barrel of oil, depending on grade, is distilled into certain percentages of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel/fuel oil, tar-thick bunker oil used in power plants, et cetra, and changing the process can only somewhat adjust these. Going to all diesel, or even mostly, would increase the need for oil imports, because there is little use for gasoline except for motor fuel.