" It may be semantic, but it's the differance between being a science and not."
I assume here you refer to that math does not involve experiments and observations and thus is not a science.
Fair enough, lets play a game just for fun:
You firmly believes that Science is knowledge obtained by experiments and/or observations and that this requirement for something to be called a Science. Since math does not contain these elements it is in your belif-system not a science. Ok.
Let us state that a bit more formally and see wheere it leads:
Theorem 1: A nessecary and mandatory component of Science is that it is based on observation and experiments.
We can write this in formal notation as P==>Q as in If it is a Science (P) it is based on Observation and Experiments(Q).
By applying basic logic rules we know that IF P==>Q then know from that also that not-Q==>not-P.
Dark Matter, can it be observed? No. Can it be Experimented upon? No. Dark Matter is thus definitely in not-Q.
But if dark matter is not-Q we also know that it is also not-P according to your theorem 1.
Ergo: you do not belive dark matter is a science.
Here you go, a formal proof that you do not belive dark matter is science (as long as we also assume your belief-system is based on logic) and as long as Theorem 1 is true.
You therefore, by logic must agree that all three can not be true:
1, theorem 1
2, math is not a science due to theorem 1
3, dark matter is science.
Take your pick, one of them must go. Or in your belief-system "dark matter is science" and "math is science" are equivalent. they must either both be true or both be false.
Well we dont have theories. We have theorems instead that are discovered by applying logic and deduction instead of experiments or observations and that they can never be falsified.
Everyone knows sort of what the word theory means but few people know what a theorem is.
In most informal non-mathematical discussions the semantic difference is mostly irrelevant and there the word theory is better. I.e Theory a better word since its meaning is well understood in the general population while theorem is just a 7 letter word and few non-mathematicians know the difference or even care about it.
Opinions differ on that. I obviously consider Math a science, a theoretical science, while most fields in Physics/Chemistry/Biology being physical sciences. They all strive to build knowledge and find truths.
Wikipedia as well as many other texts also do refer to Math as science often with the caveat that Math is different and NOT a physical science. Some people consider only physical sciences as science. I do not.
It is the fact that if something can NOT be "pinned down into inherently provable equations" then it is worthless in Math and can not be used. Notice that Math doesnt have theories per se, the closest it has are axioms but the rest are formally provable truths. This is why math is the hardest science. It does not allow unprovable statements. It is either provably true or it does not exist. (it is also why you never do "observations" in math. If it is provably true why waste time on observations. If it is NOT provably true it does not exist so what is there to observe?)
I get your joke but would like to counter with:
Since "behavioural science" is even less likely to be possible to pin down into provable equations, does that mean that "behavioural science" is harder science than say nuclear physics?:-)
I personally always saw "ether" more as an engineering theory to provide a useful engineering tool instead of a scientific theory but that is more an academical point.
I find it disturbing that the Physics community allow these sub fields to still call themself "science" when they have nothing at all to do with real science and only results in dilluting the value of real/hard science. I say this as a mathematician, the only remaining hard science. I mean where is the scientific methods, where are the scientific proofs? All i see are more or less accurate theories, hypothesis and models that when proven wrong are mended by another non-provable bandaid theories.
The problem is that using theories, that are just theories and not provably correct means that people will build a framework of other theories ontop of it and when/if the original theory is proven wrong you can not just discard the theory since the cost of doing so (invalidating another huge number of other theories built ontop of it) is just too great.
This is a trap that several fields in physics have fallen into and they are paying the price for now by having to invent more and more unprovable theories and explanations in order to keep it all together and semi-consistent.
I.e they have little option than to try to mend the breakage since discarding the theory would bee too expensive.
This IS a tragedy for physics!
In hard science/math we do not yet have that problem since we still try to be stringent and keep the science in good health by completely discarding and disallowing anything that can not be formally proven true.
"Essentially, the rotation speed of galaxies is too fast given the mass that can be seen, so there must be some mass that doesn't emit light as conventional, baryonic matter does. Dark matter was first hypothesized by Zwicky in 1933 and has been well accepted throughout the astronomical community for decades."
Another "theory" could be that the original "theory" is just plain wrong.
Event: Multiple observations provably invalidate theory.
Reaction: Invent new magic error term to cover up holes in theory. Error term must in order to be efficient also have special properties of being unmeasurable, undetectable and only cause desired interactions in situations when salvage of broken theory requires it.
Solution: dark energy/matter/whatever
"And one other thing, gravitrons. If there are really particles of gravity then they would have mass and thus create more gravitrons in an endless cycle."
No problem, soft scientists can just invent a new "dark gravity" explanation that will make the theories consistent.
Physics is a science. Physics is not really a hard science in the same way as Math is a hard science.
Physics is way harder science than Biology and Chemistry but still a lot softer than Math, which is the Queen of Science.
Since Physics is a "soft" science, they have "theories". Some of these theories are either incomplete, not fully understood or maybe incorrect. These theories are still very useful for Physicists, too useful too just discard just because they are not completely correct, complete or provable.
This is different from real hard science such as Math where there are no real "theories" per se and where statements that are not formally provable are worthless.
Anyway, some of these theories in Physics are to physicists too useful to just ignore just because they today are provably incorrect, or not currently provable correct which means:
There are certain theories that stipulate x + y = z.
The problem here is that there are legions of observations that can not be explained using that theory and that according to the theory leads to 1 + 1 = 3.
This is obviously not good since the observations show that the theory is provably incorrect (or lets say incomplete), sso instead of discarding this still useful theory one has "invented" an extra term that explains why the calculations come to the "wrong" number and which covers the errors in the theory : DARK ENERGY/MATTER so then the theory becomes :
1 + 1 + "unobservable dark xxx" = 3
and everyone is happy.
We hard scientists, i.e. mathematicians, find this very funny. You might not understand the joke unless you are a mathematician.
We mathematicians also find the "heat distribution equation in one dimension" hilarious as well since an obvious consequence of it is instant communications faster than light as long as you can construct a thermometer accurate enough.
(of course we have our share of "issues" as well as Mr Goedel was so very kind to show us)
The joke was based on the fact that the primary reason for dark energy/matter to exist is that without dark energy/matter the theories are not consistent. I am sorry you did not find it funny.
Look, dark matter does exist. There is no question about it.
How else would the other theories be consistent without dark matter to accoount for any discreptancies?
Ergo: dark matter exists, since without it the theories would fail.
I analyze network traces for a living. I also write a lot of network analyzis code for ethereal to make my job easier.
As such, many people send me "interesting" network traces.
I can say this much : At least one of the really big and high profile viruses over the last few years was described in
the media, and on/. , as a buffer overflow was no buffer overflow at all but just a standard backdoor someone accidentaly discovered.
The attack in this case as evident from network traces did NOT contain any payload that was executable code, instead it contained a very rare and very seldomly used network RPC call that just happened to carry some "funny" looking GUID as a parameter. I.e. no executable code at all, no buffer overflow, just some "magic" values for some parameters and the magic happened.
Oh, and the even better part, the backdoor was really aimed at the Domain Controllers, making a magic call to the domain controller so that they would automatically give you blind trust. Affecting non-DC hosts was likely just a way for the virus to increase the attac vector for the real purpose to compromise the DCs. (it opened up the domain real wide)
tin-foil hat on:
This was definitely a backdoor that the wrong people discovered, and all that buffer overflow talk is just BS.
My speculative theory i that this was really just industrial espionage but on a massive scale, disguised as a virus outbreak. No other explanation makes sense considering it to target and compromise domain controllers.
tin-foil hat off
I am very surprised that the media never covered this since it was obviously not a buffer overflow to anyone experienced in CIFS and CIFS network analysis.
You try to offer a 100k+ package for a specialist position in sydney and see what kind of crap will apply. You find a good ossie, good for ya.
We usually pay relocation for someone from either europe or the us in order to get someone with decent technical skills.
This is NOT cheap but what other options are there when you just can not hire locally?
Close to 50% of our hires over the last few years has been 100k+ package plus full relocation from europe/us but what other options are there?
I work for the sydney, australia office for a large international hi-tech company.
I often interview applicants for above-average payed technical positions at this company for this office. We rarely hire local australians, instead most of the time we hire immigrants or arrange relocation for staff in europe or the us to fill open positions here.
The main problem is that australia was never an industrialized country and the true entreprenours or technically skilled people of the locals are few and far between. In fact, in my particular group we no longer have a single australian born remaining.
I would say, and will probably be flamed for it, that the australian culture is not ready for hi-tech or technical thinking. But why would this be a surprise, this country does not really have any experience of having an industry. (no europeans or americans would consider this country industrialized. Dont get me wrong, quality of life is GREAT but it is not an industrialized country.)
The school system and the universities are probably also to blame, sometimes I mentor final year comp sci (master level) students that dont even know what Ordo is.
The mind boggles, how would anyone get past first year without knowing what computational complexity is.
Then again, it is not like there is lots of industry here so why should they waste resources on teaching them skills they will likely not need?
For your information, since your school failed to teach you history, slavery was used in europe long long before anyone discovered your small island.
Slave trade was arguably the most important part of the entire reason the wikings undertook so far journeys. However, the wikings used primarily used people from eastern europe as slaves.
All other cultures in europe also used slavery, primarily from neighbouring countries.
The only thing unique with american slavery was its size in numbers and also that you went so far as to go to a different continent to pick them up. We europeans rather just went to some neighbouring country to round them up.
Re:I like how C# float and double variables are...
on
Rounding Algorithms
·
· Score: 1
Ok. try this then just for fun: (you will be surprised)
333333333 * 0.000000003 is 0.999999999 right?
so 1-(333333333*0.000000003) == 0.000000001 ?
float a;
int i;
a=1.0;
for(i=333333333;i>0;i--)a-=0.000000003;
printf("a:%f\n",a);
they are quite different right? it will all make sense after you have studies num an.
Re:I like how C# float and double variables are...
on
Rounding Algorithms
·
· Score: 1
they all give you the same issues if you just add them together. it is fundamental to how floating point works.
Try this to minimize accumulated errors during addition:
1,divide all the numbers up in positive and negative numbers.
2, sort all the positive numbers and add them together in the order of smallest first and largest last.
3, sort all the negative numbers from smallest norm first to largest and add them together in the same way.
4, then take the sum of positives and subtract it with the sum of negatives.
That book explains why you should do that.
Re:I like how C# float and double variables are...
on
Rounding Algorithms
·
· Score: 1
it is because you never studied numerical analysis and thus dont know how computers add numbers.
go to amazon and search for the book called "Numerical Methods" by Dahlquist. It is a good introduction on how computer aritmetics works.
You dont understand the problem.
The problem is not the TCP overhead (which is neglible) nor can it be solved by TCP offload engines.
The problem is that TCP over TCP just doesnt work and has well understood and well documented perfromance characteristics.
IPsec which does work, as CIPE and things like IPIP and GRE all have in common that they do NOT use TCP as a transport.
IF you use TCP as transport for the tunnel and IF you transport TCP atop said tunnel it will just not work.
When tail packetloss occurs in TCP there will be a retransmission timeout, this will stall the tunnel and wreak havoc for the clock in the next upper layer TCP causing even worse stalls. Somehing that was well documented and understood many years ago.
You just can not run TCP over TCP. It just doesnt work. An offload engine will not change this.
SSH tunnels and VPN can already today be done using ssh and pppd.
i have used it for many years.
It is still a stupid idea and useless for other things than toy networks.
SSH uses TCP as transport. You should NOT transport TCP/ip ontop of TCP.
TCP over TCP has well known and well documented poor performance characteristics.
Google for TCP over TCP to find any number of researchpapers on why this just doesnt work, or try running IP traffic yourself across an SSH tunnel and find out first hand why TCP over TCP just dont work well.
Maybe, I hope, they plan to add a new SSH mode that uses UDP and will use UDP-SSH as basis for the tunnel. That would work. But you can neveruse more than one single TCP layer in any stack.
If not (i.e. they plan to tunnel traffic atop a TCP ssh session) it will fail and they will learn.
# csaba, Hungary - Fuse / BSD / Network mount via SSH
This is what I have been waiting for since the dawn of time. Well, not that long, but I have always wondered when I would be able to mount remote file systems via secure shell.
easy. nfs over ssh out of the box with just 2 shell commands and it
will work out of the box on virtually every unix like os made in the last 10 years.
Please contact me offline for details where to send the $4500.
--
# csaba, Hungary - Fuse / BSD / Network mount via SSH
This is what I have been waiting for since the dawn of time. Well, not that long, but I have always wondered when I would be able to mount remote file systems via secure shell.
--/usr/sbin/pppd updetach noauth silent nodeflate pty "ssh root@NFS-SERVER/usr/sbin/pppd nodetach notty noauth" 10.0.0.1:10.0.0.2
mount 10.0.0.2:/FILESYSTEM/MOUNTPOINT
easy. nfs over ssh out of the box with just 2 shell commands
will work out of the box on virtually every unix like os made in the last 10 years.
Please contact me offline for details where to send the $4500.
Slashdot Mirror
" It may be semantic, but it's the differance between being a science and not."
:
I assume here you refer to that math does not involve experiments and observations and thus is not a science.
Fair enough, lets play a game just for fun:
You firmly believes that Science is knowledge obtained by experiments and/or observations and that this requirement for something to be called a Science. Since math does not contain these elements it is in your belif-system not a science. Ok.
Let us state that a bit more formally and see wheere it leads:
Theorem 1: A nessecary and mandatory component of Science is that it is based on observation and experiments.
We can write this in formal notation as P==>Q as in If it is a Science (P) it is based on Observation and Experiments(Q).
By applying basic logic rules we know that IF P==>Q then know from that also that not-Q==>not-P.
Dark Matter, can it be observed? No. Can it be Experimented upon? No. Dark Matter is thus definitely in not-Q.
But if dark matter is not-Q we also know that it is also not-P according to your theorem 1.
Ergo: you do not belive dark matter is a science.
Here you go, a formal proof that you do not belive dark matter is science (as long as we also assume your belief-system is based on logic) and as long as Theorem 1 is true.
You therefore, by logic must agree that all three can not be true
1, theorem 1
2, math is not a science due to theorem 1
3, dark matter is science.
Take your pick, one of them must go. Or in your belief-system "dark matter is science" and "math is science" are equivalent. they must either both be true or both be false.
Well we dont have theories. We have theorems instead that are discovered by applying logic and deduction instead of experiments or observations and that they can never be falsified.
Everyone knows sort of what the word theory means but few people know what a theorem is.
In most informal non-mathematical discussions the semantic difference is mostly irrelevant and there the word theory is better.
I.e Theory a better word since its meaning is well understood in the general population while theorem is just a 7 letter word and few non-mathematicians know the difference or even care about it.
"Except that Math is not science."
Opinions differ on that. I obviously consider Math a science, a theoretical science, while most fields in Physics/Chemistry/Biology being physical sciences. They all strive to build knowledge and find truths.
Wikipedia as well as many other texts also do refer to Math as science often with the caveat that Math is different and NOT a physical science. Some people consider only physical sciences as science. I do not.
It is the fact that if something can NOT be "pinned down into inherently provable equations" then it is worthless in Math and can not be used. Notice that Math doesnt have theories per se, the closest it has are axioms but the rest are formally provable truths.
: :-)
This is why math is the hardest science. It does not allow unprovable statements. It is either provably true or it does not exist. (it is also why you never do "observations" in math. If it is provably true why waste time on observations. If it is NOT provably true it does not exist so what is there to observe?)
I get your joke but would like to counter with
Since "behavioural science" is even less likely to be possible to pin down into provable equations, does that mean that "behavioural science" is harder science than say nuclear physics?
I personally always saw "ether" more as an engineering theory to provide a useful engineering tool instead of a scientific theory but that is more an academical point.
I find it disturbing that the Physics community allow these sub fields to still call themself "science" when they have nothing at all to do with real science and only results in dilluting the value of real/hard science. I say this as a mathematician, the only remaining hard science.
I mean where is the scientific methods, where are the scientific proofs? All i see are more or less accurate theories, hypothesis and models that when proven wrong are mended by another non-provable bandaid theories.
The problem is that using theories, that are just theories and not provably correct means that people will build a framework of other theories ontop of it and when/if the original theory is proven wrong you can not just discard the theory since the cost of doing so (invalidating another huge number of other theories built ontop of it) is just too great.
This is a trap that several fields in physics have fallen into and they are paying the price for now by having to invent more and more unprovable theories and explanations in order to keep it all together and semi-consistent.
I.e they have little option than to try to mend the breakage since discarding the theory would bee too expensive.
This IS a tragedy for physics!
In hard science/math we do not yet have that problem since we still try to be stringent and keep the science in good health by completely discarding and disallowing anything that can not be formally proven true.
"Essentially, the rotation speed of galaxies is too fast given the mass that can be seen, so there must be some mass that doesn't emit light as conventional, baryonic matter does. Dark matter was first hypothesized by Zwicky in 1933 and has been well accepted throughout the astronomical community for decades."
Another "theory" could be that the original "theory" is just plain wrong.
Event: Multiple observations provably invalidate theory.
Reaction: Invent new magic error term to cover up holes in theory. Error term must in order to be efficient also have special properties of being unmeasurable, undetectable and only cause desired interactions in situations when salvage of broken theory requires it.
Solution: dark energy/matter/whatever
And they call themself scientists.
"And one other thing, gravitrons. If there are really particles of gravity then they would have mass and thus create more gravitrons in an endless cycle."
No problem, soft scientists can just invent a new "dark gravity" explanation that will make the theories consistent.
Sigh. Ok, lets try it like this :
:
Physics is a science. Physics is not really a hard science in the same way as Math is a hard science. Physics is way harder science than Biology and Chemistry but still a lot softer than Math, which is the Queen of Science.
Since Physics is a "soft" science, they have "theories". Some of these theories are either incomplete, not fully understood or maybe incorrect. These theories are still very useful for Physicists, too useful too just discard just because they are not completely correct, complete or provable.
This is different from real hard science such as Math where there are no real "theories" per se and where statements that are not formally provable are worthless.
Anyway, some of these theories in Physics are to physicists too useful to just ignore just because they today are provably incorrect, or not currently provable correct which means
There are certain theories that stipulate x + y = z.
The problem here is that there are legions of observations that can not be explained using that theory and that according to the theory leads to 1 + 1 = 3.
This is obviously not good since the observations show that the theory is provably incorrect (or lets say incomplete), sso instead of discarding this still useful theory one has "invented" an extra term that explains why the calculations come to the "wrong" number and which covers the errors in the theory : DARK ENERGY/MATTER so then the theory becomes :
1 + 1 + "unobservable dark xxx" = 3
and everyone is happy.
We hard scientists, i.e. mathematicians, find this very funny. You might not understand the joke unless you are a mathematician.
We mathematicians also find the "heat distribution equation in one dimension" hilarious as well since an obvious consequence of it is instant communications faster than light as long as you can construct a thermometer accurate enough.
(of course we have our share of "issues" as well as Mr Goedel was so very kind to show us)
Look, it was a JOKE.
The joke was based on the fact that the primary reason for dark energy/matter to exist is that without dark energy/matter the theories are not consistent. I am sorry you did not find it funny.
Look, dark matter does exist. There is no question about it.
How else would the other theories be consistent without dark matter to accoount for any discreptancies?
Ergo: dark matter exists, since without it the theories would fail.
Very likely.
/. , as a buffer overflow was no buffer overflow at all but just a standard backdoor someone accidentaly discovered.
I analyze network traces for a living. I also write a lot of network analyzis code for ethereal to make my job easier.
As such, many people send me "interesting" network traces.
I can say this much : At least one of the really big and high profile viruses over the last few years was described in the media, and on
The attack in this case as evident from network traces did NOT contain any payload that was executable code, instead it contained a very rare and very seldomly used network RPC call that just happened to carry some "funny" looking GUID as a parameter. I.e. no executable code at all, no buffer overflow, just some "magic" values for some parameters and the magic happened.
Oh, and the even better part, the backdoor was really aimed at the Domain Controllers, making a magic call to the domain controller so that they would automatically give you blind trust. Affecting non-DC hosts was likely just a way for the virus to increase the attac vector for the real purpose to compromise the DCs. (it opened up the domain real wide)
tin-foil hat on:
This was definitely a backdoor that the wrong people discovered, and all that buffer overflow talk is just BS.
My speculative theory i that this was really just industrial espionage but on a massive scale, disguised as a virus outbreak. No other explanation makes sense considering it to target and compromise domain controllers.
tin-foil hat off
I am very surprised that the media never covered this since it was obviously not a buffer overflow to anyone experienced in CIFS and CIFS network analysis.
Greek letter O, as in O(n^2)
also refered to by its name, Ordo, in all textbooks.
You try to offer a 100k+ package for a specialist position in sydney and see what kind of crap will apply. You find a good ossie, good for ya.
We usually pay relocation for someone from either europe or the us in order to get someone with decent technical skills.
This is NOT cheap but what other options are there when you just can not hire locally?
Close to 50% of our hires over the last few years has been 100k+ package plus full relocation from europe/us but what other options are there?
I work for the sydney, australia office for a large international hi-tech company.
I often interview applicants for above-average payed technical positions at this company for this office.
We rarely hire local australians, instead most of the time we hire immigrants or arrange relocation for staff in europe or the us to fill open positions here.
The main problem is that australia was never an industrialized country and the true entreprenours or technically skilled people of the locals are few and far between.
In fact, in my particular group we no longer have a single australian born remaining.
I would say, and will probably be flamed for it, that the australian culture is not ready for hi-tech or technical thinking. But why would this be a surprise, this country does not really have any experience of having an industry. (no europeans or americans would consider this country industrialized. Dont get me wrong, quality of life is GREAT but it is not an industrialized country.)
The school system and the universities are probably also to blame, sometimes I mentor final year comp sci (master level) students that dont even know what Ordo is.
The mind boggles, how would anyone get past first year without knowing what computational complexity is.
Then again, it is not like there is lots of industry here so why should they waste resources on teaching them skills they will likely not need?
Oh the ignorance.
For your information, since your school failed to teach you history, slavery was used in europe long long before anyone discovered your small island.
Slave trade was arguably the most important part of the entire reason the wikings undertook so far journeys. However, the wikings used primarily used people from eastern europe as slaves.
All other cultures in europe also used slavery, primarily from neighbouring countries.
The only thing unique with american slavery was its size in numbers and also that you went so far as to go to a different continent to pick them up. We europeans rather just went to some neighbouring country to round them up.
Ok. try this then just for fun: (you will be surprised)
333333333 * 0.000000003 is 0.999999999 right?
so 1-(333333333*0.000000003) == 0.000000001 ?
float a;
int i;
a=1.0;
for(i=333333333;i>0;i--)a-=0.000000003;
printf("a:%f\n",a);
a=0.0;
for(i=333333333;i>0;i--)a+=0.000000003;
a=1.0-a;
printf("a:%f\n",a);
they are quite different right? it will all make sense after you have studies num an.
they all give you the same issues if you just add them together. it is fundamental to how floating point works.
Try this to minimize accumulated errors during addition:
1,divide all the numbers up in positive and negative numbers.
2, sort all the positive numbers and add them together in the order of smallest first and largest last.
3, sort all the negative numbers from smallest norm first to largest and add them together in the same way.
4, then take the sum of positives and subtract it with the sum of negatives.
That book explains why you should do that.
it is because you never studied numerical analysis and thus dont know how computers add numbers. go to amazon and search for the book called "Numerical Methods" by Dahlquist. It is a good introduction on how computer aritmetics works.
There are some very good books that explains this and how one should do calculations on computers and how to estimate the error propagation and growth. The field that covers this is called Numerical Analysis and should be part of any math or comp sci training. A good introduction textbook for this is Numerical Methods by Germunds Dahlquist http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486428079/qid=11 36506488/sr=8-5/ref=pd_bbs_5/104-6440517-4726329?n =507846&s=books&v=glance
You dont understand the problem. The problem is not the TCP overhead (which is neglible) nor can it be solved by TCP offload engines.
The problem is that TCP over TCP just doesnt work and has well understood and well documented perfromance characteristics.
IPsec which does work, as CIPE and things like IPIP and GRE all have in common that they do NOT use TCP as a transport. IF you use TCP as transport for the tunnel and IF you transport TCP atop said tunnel it will just not work.
When tail packetloss occurs in TCP there will be a retransmission timeout, this will stall the tunnel and wreak havoc for the clock in the next upper layer TCP causing even worse stalls. Somehing that was well documented and understood many years ago.
You just can not run TCP over TCP. It just doesnt work. An offload engine will not change this.
SSH tunnels and VPN can already today be done using ssh and pppd. i have used it for many years. It is still a stupid idea and useless for other things than toy networks.
SSH uses TCP as transport. You should NOT transport TCP/ip ontop of TCP. TCP over TCP has well known and well documented poor performance characteristics.
Google for TCP over TCP to find any number of researchpapers on why this just doesnt work, or try running IP traffic yourself across an SSH tunnel and find out first hand why TCP over TCP just dont work well.
Maybe, I hope, they plan to add a new SSH mode that uses UDP and will use UDP-SSH as basis for the tunnel. That would work. But you can neveruse more than one single TCP layer in any stack. If not (i.e. they plan to tunnel traffic atop a TCP ssh session) it will fail and they will learn.
I bet that Hotblack's subwoofer is much much more powerful.
# csaba, Hungary - Fuse / BSD / Network mount via SSH This is what I have been waiting for since the dawn of time. Well, not that long, but I have always wondered when I would be able to mount remote file systems via secure shell.
mount 10.0.0.2:/FILESYSTEM
easy. nfs over ssh out of the box with just 2 shell commands and it will work out of the box on virtually every unix like os made in the last 10 years.
Please contact me offline for details where to send the $4500.
-- # csaba, Hungary - Fuse / BSD / Network mount via SSH This is what I have been waiting for since the dawn of time. Well, not that long, but I have always wondered when I would be able to mount remote file systems via secure shell. -- /usr/sbin/pppd updetach noauth silent nodeflate pty "ssh root@NFS-SERVER /usr/sbin/pppd nodetach notty noauth" 10.0.0.1:10.0.0.2
mount 10.0.0.2:/FILESYSTEM /MOUNTPOINT
easy. nfs over ssh out of the box with just 2 shell commands
will work out of the box on virtually every unix like os made in the last 10 years.
Please contact me offline for details where to send the $4500.
Sorry to spoil everything but you completely missed his joke.
Alpha and Omega, the first and the last letter of the alphabet.
i.e. Alpha and Omega == The Beginning and The End.
In a more bilbical sense Omega refers to the end of the world.
==> Hurricane Omega == Hurricane "the end of the world"
Sorry to spoil everything but school systems in the western world today, yadayadayada...