Conversely, though, doesn't this prevent localities such as Portland from issuing exclusive franchises for media carrying Internet broadband access, and invalidate those exclusive franchises that already exist?
Trying to install Red Hat 6.0 and get it to do RAID with the ATA/66 ports on my Abit BE6/Celery 366 (Didn't even try to boot from them).
The farce went as follows:
With the proper lilo command line arguments to recognize the 3rd and 4th IDE interfaces,/dev/hde through/dev/hdh, the two 20Gig, 7200RPM Maxstor drives intended as RAID ran at about 1.5MB/s each, 2.8 MB/s together, in a high-level compatability mode. No PIO. No "ATA/66".
Found the IDE patches needed to run the HPT366 interfaces. They required the latest kernel, not Red Hat's, uh-uh, not available for that old kernel. Downloaded the new kernel from kernel.org.
After patching and recompiling the latest kernel - not available from RH of course - RAID stopped working. Guess what! Wunnerful Red Hat had decided to patch their kernel - I want to say, as opposed to the linux kernel - to have the latest beta RAID code - and tools. Since the raidtools were now too new for the kernel code they broke on the old code in the new kernel.
Naturally Red Hat did not deign to mention these changes anywhere at all in the documention on their web site, etc... Naw. Gosh, why would anyone ever want to upgrade their kernel? Well, at least the drives ran at 20MB/sec now! Almost there, almossst therrrre...
Got the old raid tools, ripped out Redhat's raidtools RPM, and did a make, reboot...
Whee - the two 20MB/s drives together, striped, gave - 22MB/s. Yeah, software RAID is as good as Hardware. Sure. Didn't matter if one or both drives was on the ATA/33 Intel BX ports, or on the same or other HPT366 port either. 22MB/s, period.
Okay, find documentation claiming the beta raid patches are still good on the newer kernel. Install them, put the Red Hat raidtools back. remake kernel etc...
Wow! Now get 35MB/s on the RAID stripe set!!!
... for about 8 seconds. Then "lost interrupt... lost interrupt..." - computer hangs, dead.
Moral: Don't assume new linux patches work with any feature other than themselves - even those features they have to work with to be worth a damn.
D'oh! Chances are, someone else has already done the search for what you are looking for, and the URL information is already in their computer.
Add a mechanism or two to let users rate pages - or better, to automatically rate them according to how long they are actually displayed in browsers, if their links are used, content saved, printed, made a part of bookmarks, et cetra...
Run browsers through the engine, and off of URLs/pages read by the distributed search engine, so it can do the above rating, and keep a more appopriate cache, maybe whole smallish pages themselves to return instead of URLs.
Combine the data from several sources to keep someone from skewing the ratings, and in the end-user's node rate the results from other nodes (as above, preferably automatically too) according to usefulness/cluelessness/spamishness. share that info too!
Then you have a distributed search engine worth something.
Re:Now you've hit on one of my favorite topics
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 1
Just because we're cutting edge and don't have the time to memorize the layout charts of the Apple II interfacer or work our way through the rigors of Z80 assembly, in the favor of taking networking courses and learning Perl, Python and Java means that we are technically incompetent and cannot possibly be compared to you. Well, you're right. We can't, because you're too old. You never caught on with the internet age and you're back there interfacing Apple IIs and writting operating systems in Z80 assembly
Shrug. The basics of interfacing hardware (which you sound rather frightened of in your tirades, hmm?) or of programming in general haven't changed that much since the days of the Z80 and Apple II, nor has the value of wisdom and simple problem-solving when faced with the real world;
My experience includes watching "cutting edge" people come to a dead halt trying to load a simple linux distribution when their experience is pure Solaris, or trying to string a simple ethernet connection between two buildings. It doesn't matter how many neat scripting languages you know if you don't have the problem-solving ability needed to detect and work around a small discrepency between the INSTALL file and the actual package's behavior, or how many protocols you know if you haven't learned the simple concept of a ground loop.
Or properly documenting your work, making tradeoffs to meet real-world time and resource limits, choosing the right hardware or software tool for the job, not reinventing the wheel, and actually doing the job rather the one you would prefer to do instead. In reality, there are only a few types of computer languages, and any truly experienced vs. "took the course" programmer worth his pay should be able to use a reference manual or some decent examples produce what is needed without that much skull sweat. Only the raw neophytes need to have been trained on "the latest version" in order to handle it - and their stuff is less likely to have been written to the official guidelines rather than taking advantage of quirks and 1137 experimental features, so it's likely to run in the next version too.
Destroys any prospect for large scale distributed search engines and caching in consumer-to-consumer applications that do not use centralized servers. I doubt many people would find it acceptable to pass along their identities and personal information as part of such algorithms.
Despite the rhetoric in the speech, Internet privacy without anonymity is a bad joke. It can't be enforced, and depends on the good will of people and corporations who have already amply demonstrated they can't be trusted with the information they collect, or trusted to protect that information from others.
Actually, I've worn a ski mask while using an ATM machine a few times in the past, with no protest from the bank. It gets quite cold at times where I used to live, and the machine is located outside where users have little protection from the weather.
"Opting out" of anonymity is a joke. "Identify yourself and we'll let you be anonymous"? Garbage.
I've heard of some cool software called "INN". Not only does it do what is needed, through its "local newsgroup" feature, and has several clones and clients (some proprietary) for almost every platform, it even has a really nest feature that even allows collaboration and solution seeking outside a company on something its users are trying to organize called "Usenet".
But the court decision doesn't seem to say that a domain name is a property that NSI can own, merely that it is not a form of property that any person can own. Including, presumably, NSI.
Bottom line: move your domain to a registrar that treats your domain name as something you can own, contractually, as far as they are concerned - instead of using NSI, which is refusing to do so.
Okay; You buy an excimer laser system designed for eye surgery to correct nearsightedness and astigmatism. It comes with a requirement that you pay the company a per-eye-treated royalty fee of hundreds of dollars. If you use the laser for, say, lighting your cigarette, you don't have to pay the fee. Closer?
"The Personal Hammer is $35.00; the Enterprise Edition Hammer is $550.00. In all other respects, the hammers are absolutely identical."
You open an electrical supply catalog and find two 3-prong, grounded 110-volt wall sockets. One is $2.95 and labeled "UL tested". The other, labeled "hospital grade", costs $39.95 and is in fact identical except for being made with a plastic of a different color.
The difference is the amount of liability the manufacturer is assuming should the outlet fail.
But what about when the sshd daemon dies, or stops responding to connection attempts and goes bananas, taking over all the satellite's processor time (ok, raises its load average to 1)? How does the engineer log in then? Thumb a ride on the next space shuttle?
Spend too much time outside on a sunny day, you'll get a painful case of radiation poisoning as it is. Maybe even skin cancer. Ooo. Let's ban solar fusion...
From the NOAA Space Weather scales for solar radiation storms at http://sec.noaa.gov/index.html comes: "S5: severe [...] high radiation levels to passengers and crew in commercial jets at high latitudes (approximately 100 chest x-rays)."
Seriously... the universe itself is full of hazards. Maybe you should wear a tinfoil hat?
Don't see anything technically wrong with it. Spot beams to limit sharing of bandwidth, reasonable 26-inch antennas, nothing magic about the technology. Cost of transmitting ground stations at each consumer might be problematical.
Useful mainly for *very* rural areas where other wireless internet would be impractical, or for supplying ISPs in those areas with bandwidth. Not good for playing Quake or similar, as noted, and would expect periods of brief solar outages for a few days twice yearly.
For those without other access and who can afford it, looks fine.
If Cox is going to upgrade their system to the point where they stop complaining about customers using "precious upstream bandwidth", more power to them. The reason they have a problem with uploads and need to restrict servers is because the cable infrastructure shares a narrow upstream channel among a large number of users.
This isn't as much of a problem with DSL, where the limit exists only in the unshared telephone line to the central office, and impacts only the end user involved (and only if ADSL is used instead of SDSL). I personally get 1.04Mbps bidirectional using Northpoint SDSL. Yeah, it costs more - TANSTAFFL.
The result is less upstream bandwidth anxiety exhibited by the ISP involved. Unless they are truly greedy and depend on selling their outgoing backbone bandwidth for commercial web hosting.
Caching doesn't even come into the picture. In fact, where modern, dynamically-generated content is involved, caching is useless.
For "ISPs" substitute "cable networks", which have just become obsolete because their unique infrastructure _does_ depend on much higher download volumes. DSL _supports_ higher download volumes, but the upstream limit is only a problem for the end user. The ISPs themselves generally have bidirectional backbone connections that are symmetric, as much outgoing available as incoming.
Ironically, this technology will end up benefitting the smart ISPs who will use it to maximize interconnections within their _own_ network rather than in from the expensive backbone connections.
Hey, we're talking new technology here. Perhaps Gnutella is not perfect, but that doesn't mean the concept is invalid. Add some caching on each local server, and yes, perhaps some pure servers to pass the metadata around, and the tech problems go away.
As for network admins, their job is to enable communications, not stifle it. Yeah, all they have to do is pull the ethernet connection to the backbone, duh. Unlikely when the tools become as valuable for passing around useful URLs - or for scientists to pass genome information and other data around among themselves - as for MP3 collectors to collect songs. Unlike MP3 collectors, most users of consumer-to-consumer connections will not have to download such huge data files.
As for the RIAA, MPAA, et cetra, I agree the audio and movie industries are as unlikely to be harmed in the long run by these technologies as the movie industry was by the VCR. The business model of the media producers will change though.
The "cable modem" distribution model simply will not support upstream data in a volume anywhere near the downstream volume.
The newest and most viable method of accessing the Internet - the new consumer-to-consumer model, of which Gnutella and Napster are the first examples - requires this.
Ergo; the @Home and similar cable modem networks (and their business models) are obsolete and no longer viable.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS By accessing or using the dotTV Site, you hereby and forever waive any and all claims you have now or may have in the future against dotTV relating to any infringement of the trademark rights, right of publicity or privacy, or other intellectual property rights you may have in any word or name used as a domain name in the.TV TLD.
Which is why any successful implementation of a peer-to-peer distributed information storage system would have to include a distributed review and rating system as well. If it were done right, negative ratings by those with data-rating tastes the opposite of your own, would be interpreted positively by your system.
Re:Old Motorola chips used to exhibit this behavio
on
Your CPU Will Explode
·
· Score: 2
It wasn't even that spectacular. Upon executing an HCF instruction, a Motorola 6800 began ignoring other input and toggling the address lines in a binary sequence which amounted to a free-running binary up counter.
Motorola didn't talk about it much, but the speculation at the time was that the feature allowed testing portions of the CPU chip before committing them to the expensive process of putting them into actual IC packages, by merely applying the proper combination of voltages to the data lines and starting the processor.
The "Halt and Catch Fire" mnemonic was a minor joke based on humorous compilations of bogus IBM assembler opcodes (JAA = Jump Almost Always, et cetra).
On the other hand, in that era it was rather easy to commit Stupid Computer Tricks like telling a floppy drive to seek track $FF and run the heads hard off the end of the ballscrew, or destroy monitors by writing the wrong sync timing to a video controller. The latter can still be done with a fast video card and low frequency monitor, of course.
It was neat watching early EPROM chips actually glow when the processor or program timing the programming pulses failed.
So the established nature, the basic idea behind the world wide web, is to allow any link to any resource.
So: will whoever it was who came up with the novel idea of forbidding "deep links" into their website, and implemented the software technology to do so, hurry up and patent it?
Slashdot Mirror
Conversely, though, doesn't this prevent localities such as Portland from issuing exclusive franchises for media carrying Internet broadband access, and invalidate those exclusive franchises that already exist?
Trying to install Red Hat 6.0 and get it to do RAID with the ATA/66 ports on my Abit BE6/Celery 366 (Didn't even try to boot from them).
The farce went as follows:
With the proper lilo command line arguments to recognize the 3rd and 4th IDE interfaces, /dev/hde through /dev/hdh, the two 20Gig, 7200RPM Maxstor drives intended as RAID ran at about 1.5MB/s each, 2.8 MB/s together, in a high-level compatability mode. No PIO. No "ATA/66".
Found the IDE patches needed to run the HPT366 interfaces. They required the latest kernel, not Red Hat's, uh-uh, not available for that old kernel. Downloaded the new kernel from kernel.org.
After patching and recompiling the latest kernel - not available from RH of course - RAID stopped working. Guess what! Wunnerful Red Hat had decided to patch their kernel - I want to say, as opposed to the linux kernel - to have the latest beta RAID code - and tools. Since the raidtools were now too new for the kernel code they broke on the old code in the new kernel.
Naturally Red Hat did not deign to mention these changes anywhere at all in the documention on their web site, etc... Naw. Gosh, why would anyone ever want to upgrade their kernel? Well, at least the drives ran at 20MB/sec now! Almost there, almossst therrrre...
Got the old raid tools, ripped out Redhat's raidtools RPM, and did a make, reboot...
Whee - the two 20MB/s drives together, striped, gave - 22MB/s. Yeah, software RAID is as good as Hardware. Sure. Didn't matter if one or both drives was on the ATA/33 Intel BX ports, or on the same or other HPT366 port either. 22MB/s, period.
Okay, find documentation claiming the beta raid patches are still good on the newer kernel. Install them, put the Red Hat raidtools back. remake kernel etc...
Wow! Now get 35MB/s on the RAID stripe set!!!
... for about 8 seconds. Then "lost interrupt... lost interrupt..." - computer hangs, dead.
Moral: Don't assume new linux patches work with any feature other than themselves - even those features they have to work with to be worth a damn.
D'oh! Chances are, someone else has already done the search for what you are looking for, and the URL information is already in their computer.
Add a mechanism or two to let users rate pages - or better, to automatically rate them according to how long they are actually displayed in browsers, if their links are used, content saved, printed, made a part of bookmarks, et cetra...
Run browsers through the engine, and off of URLs/pages read by the distributed search engine, so it can do the above rating, and keep a more appopriate cache, maybe whole smallish pages themselves to return instead of URLs.
Combine the data from several sources to keep someone from skewing the ratings, and in the end-user's node rate the results from other nodes (as above, preferably automatically too) according to usefulness/cluelessness/spamishness. share that info too!
Then you have a distributed search engine worth something.
Just because we're cutting edge and don't have the time to memorize the layout charts of the Apple II interfacer or work our way through the rigors of Z80 assembly, in the favor of taking networking courses and learning Perl, Python and Java means that we are technically incompetent and cannot possibly be compared to you. Well, you're right. We can't, because you're too old. You never caught on with the internet age and you're back there interfacing Apple IIs and writting operating systems in Z80 assembly
Shrug. The basics of interfacing hardware (which you sound rather frightened of in your tirades, hmm?) or of programming in general haven't changed that much since the days of the Z80 and Apple II, nor has the value of wisdom and simple problem-solving when faced with the real world;
My experience includes watching "cutting edge" people come to a dead halt trying to load a simple linux distribution when their experience is pure Solaris, or trying to string a simple ethernet connection between two buildings. It doesn't matter how many neat scripting languages you know if you don't have the problem-solving ability needed to detect and work around a small discrepency between the INSTALL file and the actual package's behavior, or how many protocols you know if you haven't learned the simple concept of a ground loop.
Or properly documenting your work, making tradeoffs to meet real-world time and resource limits, choosing the right hardware or software tool for the job, not reinventing the wheel, and actually doing the job rather the one you would prefer to do instead. In reality, there are only a few types of computer languages, and any truly experienced vs. "took the course" programmer worth his pay should be able to use a reference manual or some decent examples produce what is needed without that much skull sweat. Only the raw neophytes need to have been trained on "the latest version" in order to handle it - and their stuff is less likely to have been written to the official guidelines rather than taking advantage of quirks and 1137 experimental features, so it's likely to run in the next version too.
Destroys any prospect for large scale distributed search engines and caching in consumer-to-consumer applications that do not use centralized servers. I doubt many people would find it acceptable to pass along their identities and personal information as part of such algorithms.
Despite the rhetoric in the speech, Internet privacy without anonymity is a bad joke. It can't be enforced, and depends on the good will of people and corporations who have already amply demonstrated they can't be trusted with the information they collect, or trusted to protect that information from others.
Actually, I've worn a ski mask while using an ATM machine a few times in the past, with no protest from the bank. It gets quite cold at times where I used to live, and the machine is located outside where users have little protection from the weather.
"Opting out" of anonymity is a joke. "Identify yourself and we'll let you be anonymous"? Garbage.
I've heard of some cool software called "INN". Not only does it do what is needed, through its "local newsgroup" feature, and has several clones and clients (some proprietary) for almost every platform, it even has a really nest feature that even allows collaboration and solution seeking outside a company on something its users are trying to organize called "Usenet".
But the court decision doesn't seem to say that a domain name is a property that NSI can own, merely that it is not a form of property that any person can own. Including, presumably, NSI.
Bottom line: move your domain to a registrar that treats your domain name as something you can own, contractually, as far as they are concerned - instead of using NSI, which is refusing to do so.
Okay; You buy an excimer laser system designed for eye surgery to correct nearsightedness and astigmatism. It comes with a requirement that you pay the company a per-eye-treated royalty fee of hundreds of dollars. If you use the laser for, say, lighting your cigarette, you don't have to pay the fee. Closer?
"The Personal Hammer is $35.00; the Enterprise Edition Hammer is $550.00. In all other respects, the hammers are absolutely identical."
You open an electrical supply catalog and find two 3-prong, grounded 110-volt wall sockets. One is $2.95 and labeled "UL tested". The other, labeled "hospital grade", costs $39.95 and is in fact identical except for being made with a plastic of a different color.
The difference is the amount of liability the manufacturer is assuming should the outlet fail.
But what about when the sshd daemon dies, or stops responding to connection attempts and goes bananas, taking over all the satellite's processor time (ok, raises its load average to 1)?
How does the engineer log in then? Thumb a ride on the next space shuttle?
I didn't read that.
But don't you have a law prohibiting people from advocating the legalization of cannabis (as well as against its illegal use)?
Anyone remember Magnavox (unsuccessfully) trying to sue the makers of "Pong" to establish they owned the concept of a bouncing ball on a video screen?
They lost that one after it was revealed students at MIT had implemented ball-bouncing algorithms first.
Will we soon hear of Custer's Revenge vs. Leisure Suit Larry?
Spend too much time outside on a sunny day, you'll get a painful case of radiation poisoning as it is. Maybe even skin cancer. Ooo. Let's ban solar fusion...
From the NOAA Space Weather scales for solar radiation storms at http://sec.noaa.gov/index.html comes: "S5: severe [...] high radiation levels to passengers and crew in commercial jets at high latitudes (approximately 100 chest x-rays)."
Seriously... the universe itself is full of hazards. Maybe you should wear a tinfoil hat?
Don't see anything technically wrong with it. Spot beams to limit sharing of bandwidth, reasonable 26-inch antennas, nothing magic about the technology. Cost of transmitting ground stations at each consumer might be problematical.
Useful mainly for *very* rural areas where other wireless internet would be impractical, or for supplying ISPs in those areas with bandwidth. Not good for playing Quake or similar, as noted, and would expect periods of brief solar outages for a few days twice yearly.
For those without other access and who can afford it, looks fine.
If Cox is going to upgrade their system to the point where they stop complaining about customers using "precious upstream bandwidth", more power to them. The reason they have a problem with uploads and need to restrict servers is because the cable infrastructure shares a narrow upstream channel among a large number of users.
This isn't as much of a problem with DSL, where the limit exists only in the unshared telephone line to the central office, and impacts only the end user involved (and only if ADSL is used instead of SDSL). I personally get 1.04Mbps bidirectional using Northpoint SDSL. Yeah, it costs more - TANSTAFFL.
The result is less upstream bandwidth anxiety exhibited by the ISP involved. Unless they are truly greedy and depend on selling their outgoing backbone bandwidth for commercial web hosting.
Caching doesn't even come into the picture. In fact, where modern, dynamically-generated content is involved, caching is useless.
For "ISPs" substitute "cable networks", which have just become obsolete because their unique infrastructure _does_ depend on much higher download volumes. DSL _supports_ higher download volumes, but the upstream limit is only a problem for the end user. The ISPs themselves generally have bidirectional backbone connections that are symmetric, as much outgoing available as incoming.
Ironically, this technology will end up benefitting the smart ISPs who will use it to maximize interconnections within their _own_ network rather than in from the expensive backbone connections.
Hey, we're talking new technology here. Perhaps Gnutella is not perfect, but that doesn't mean the concept is invalid. Add some caching on each local server, and yes, perhaps some pure servers to pass the metadata around, and the tech problems go away.
As for network admins, their job is to enable communications, not stifle it. Yeah, all they have to do is pull the ethernet connection to the backbone, duh. Unlikely when the tools become as valuable for passing around useful URLs - or for scientists to pass genome information and other data around among themselves - as for MP3 collectors to collect songs. Unlike MP3 collectors, most users of consumer-to-consumer connections will not have to download such huge data files.
As for the RIAA, MPAA, et cetra, I agree the audio and movie industries are as unlikely to be harmed in the long run by these technologies as the movie industry was by the VCR. The business model of the media producers will change though.
The "cable modem" distribution model simply will not support upstream data in a volume anywhere near the downstream volume.
The newest and most viable method of accessing the Internet - the new consumer-to-consumer model, of which Gnutella and Napster are the first examples - requires this.
Ergo; the @Home and similar cable modem networks (and their business models) are obsolete and no longer viable.
Gosh darn, didn't you read their policies page! :)
.TV TLD.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS
By accessing or using the dotTV Site, you hereby and forever waive any and all claims you have now or may have in the future against dotTV relating to any infringement of the trademark rights, right of publicity or privacy, or other intellectual property rights you may have in any word or name used as a domain name in the
*snort*
Which is why any successful implementation of a peer-to-peer distributed information storage system would have to include a distributed review and rating system as well. If it were done right, negative ratings by those with data-rating tastes the opposite of your own, would be interpreted positively by your system.
It wasn't even that spectacular. Upon executing an HCF instruction, a Motorola 6800 began ignoring other input and toggling the address lines in a binary sequence which amounted to a free-running binary up counter.
Motorola didn't talk about it much, but the speculation at the time was that the feature allowed testing portions of the CPU chip before committing them to the expensive process of putting them into actual IC packages, by merely applying the proper combination of voltages to the data lines and starting the processor.
The "Halt and Catch Fire" mnemonic was a minor joke based on humorous compilations of bogus IBM assembler opcodes (JAA = Jump Almost Always, et cetra).
On the other hand, in that era it was rather easy to commit Stupid Computer Tricks like telling a floppy drive to seek track $FF and run the heads hard off the end of the ballscrew, or destroy monitors by writing the wrong sync timing to a video controller. The latter can still be done with a fast video card and low frequency monitor, of course.
It was neat watching early EPROM chips actually glow when the processor or program timing the programming pulses failed.
Okay...
So the established nature, the basic idea behind the world wide web, is to allow any link to any resource.
So: will whoever it was who came up with the novel idea of forbidding "deep links" into their website, and implemented the software technology to do so, hurry up and patent it?
Please?