Depending on which way you look at it, either caps lock (immediate left of alt), shift, z, or a, are between control and alt.
Yea, this is a sun type 5. *shrug*.
Stupid comment, perhaps, but the 104/105 key 'MS' keyboards still WORK in other OSs. You can even remap 'windows' to meta and the 'menu' key to a fourth modifier.
Yeah, and anyways, who's going to bring the motion against you under the DMCA anyway, if you just replace the BIOS chip?
Phoenix? Why would they care? You haven't circumvented their access control mechanism (you've simply thrown out their entire product.) The motherboard manufacturer? They don't care, their only IP is in the design of the board. Bill? Not owning any of the board's IP whatsoever, he has no case.
Ghaah. DMCA. It's bad, but i don't think it applies in the case where you want to replace your bios. If you MODIFIED the BIOS, ok, sure. If there was one company who built the whole PC, sure, possibly. But if I buy a 'dragons' breath 2000' Sledgehammer motherboard with one of these BIOSes, nobody is seriously going to give a shit. Especially because phoenix, the people who own the BIOS IP, don't own the finished product.
The only correct interpretation is 2, 12, 15. 8, 8, 5 doesn't work as IIX is NOT 8, anymore than IIV is 3. You can have a maximum of ONE lesser value before a greater value to decrement it, for example CM (900), XL (40), etc.
II XII XV works. IIX IIX V doesn't.
Re:The protocol implements in it's own way...
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 1
- SMP : If you mean on the server, who cares. most 'servers' are going to be embedded things much like a DEC HSG80 with a single task processor and a fuckton of disks. If you mean on the client, yeah, this is a problem. It should be fixed. - No client/server on the same box: Why the HELL would you want to do this? Most clients would have small local disks, if any, and mount most of their storage from a 'server' (possibly shared with other boxes using c.f. OpenGFS) - Server crashing can crash a client: Most FibreChannel deployments i've seen have this property as well. Same with SCSI. Unplug the cable going to your HD and see how long your system stays up.
That's all well and good, but one of the reasons that X is so successful is that you can use whatever toolkit you want, and all X really is is a network-aware framebuffer.
This leads to toolkit darwinism, which has left us with essentially GTK and QT as the two dominant toolkits. Imagine if X had been shipped with Motif as its native toolkit? Who the hell would use that in 2003?
The Sun Type 5 keyboard has what I would consider an 'any' key between escape and F1.
It's a blank key with no writing on it. Time was, you would walk into the computer labs at university and some joker would have scrawled 'any' on this keycap with either a 2H pencil or a permanent marker.
Yes, and if you do a whois, you get to find out that 'Sid' is also an alias.
I don't care about that. I don't care that people know that i'm a unix guy who likes playing snooker with his spathyfillum. This is information which I am VOLUNTEERING. There is a difference, and it is great.
So, what bothers me, is not so much the fact that the data's out there; face it. Every time you use plastic, you become a foreign key in SOMEBODY's database. Every time you spend money and get a receipt, somebody knows that somebody fitting your biometric patterning bought $X worth of FOO.
That's irrelevant.
What's worrying is the potential for abuse. If, say, I spend $800 in a certain part of town by withdrawing it from an ATM, then make no transactions for 24 hours, what are the conclusions that 'they' are going to come to? What are the thresholds between when you are merely a 'statistic' to when they decide that you are a 'statistical anomaly' and look closer at what you are doing?
We need to be seriously campaigning for stronger privacy reform (no, the toothless australian 'Privacy Act' doesn't cut it.) CC info should be DESTROYED every 7 years (7 years being how long companies need hold onto information for ATO purposes, not sure about the 'States), and CCTV recordings should be kept for a maximum of a week unless there's an incident which needs to be investigated (viz, somebody setting up them the armed robbery, etc.)
Why? Glue records. You are _meant_ to receive certain As from the parent servers of a domain delegated to nameservers which live within its own namespace.
For example, let's say I have the domain movezig.com. I fill in a host template to for the two nameservers, base.movezig.com (3.214.8.19) and cats.movezig.com (3.217.21.40), then delegate it to those nameservers. Obviously, if the.com NSs only returned movezig.com IN NS base.movezig.com and movezig.com IN NS cats.movezig.com, we'd have a problem of infinite recursion.
So, nameservers are designed to respond with A records for authoritative nameservers when a domain is delegated to NSs within its own zone.
Since these records are sent by the servers authoritative for the parent zone (they live in the same zonefile as the NS records do), filtering them would break resolution of roughly 20% of the internet.
Bad idea.
A much better idea is to merely filter out any responses under a configurable set of parent TLDs where the authority section returned matches a preconfigured list of NSs.
For example, doing a lookup for f00bw1tz.com (which i presume doesn't exist) returns an A of 64.94.110.11 as expected, with the Authority section claiming com. IN NS (a-m).gtld-servers.net.
No, they don't. A-M.root-servers.net and A-whatever.gtld-servers.net are not the same set of machines.
Bother the people who own B-whatever.gtld-servers.net and get them to filter the *.com entries from their DNS. That might do something, especially considering that there's a LOT of gtld-servers, and netsol only has one of em.
Thing is, though, that tea has larger quantities of many other interesting alkaloids. Nicotine, for instance.
Many's the time i've tried to quit smoking by switching to nasty cups of cheap black tea. It works surprisingly well until you realise it tastes like arse and go outside for a smoko.
Sounds like an, uhm, interesting mud wrestling match. I would seriously pay for front row seats to that.
In the, erm, brown corner we have Hilary Rosen; devourer of civil liberties, champion of everyone's IP rights (for varying values of 'everyone',) and destroyer of the fell beast Napster.
In the, uhm, OTHER brown corner, we have Nikki Hemming; fearless leader of Sharman Networks, profiteers behind such wonderful, life enhancing software as 'KaZaA Media Desktop;' single-handedly responsible for installing the Brilliant Digital plugin onto millions of desktops.
Like I said. Front row seats. Winner gets a latex fist, ten pounds of diff grease and a brass replica of the Scales of Justice.
Dammit, someone should tell the MPAA that their James Bond copyright is being 0wned by SCO.
Jack Valenti: "Yes, you can license Mr. Bond's likeness for your crappy convention, for the sum of $699 per attendee. More per attendee if any attendee has two heads, three arms, or other 'enterprise' features."
Could KaZaA/Sharman Networks/whoever have a potential Libel/Slander suit on their hands for buymusic.com referring to their service as a 'pirate site'?
This has never been proven in court, and has the substantial potential to damage their reputation. The only way that bm.com would be able to get away with allegations such as these, as far as I know (albeit IANAL) would be for a judge to decree that the ONLY use for KaZaA is 'piracy'.
Although, given the fact that probably 60-70% of the activity which takes place on KaZaA is 'piracy' by nature, they'd probably have a hard time making any libel/slander allegations stick.
However, while I don't like to reply to my own comments, there IS a way you could do this.
A system of interconnected cliques, where I will only ever distribute files to people whose public keys i've marked as 'trusted', where the requests for those files come with their private keys.
I can set myself up to relay queries between people I trust and people who trust me, and also relay the data. This means that the highest potential cost for somebody down the line trusting the wrong guy is that if you screw up trusting the wrong person, YOU wind up in the aforementioned Federal P-M-I-T-A Prison. The Man sees the connections coming from YOUR IP address, and assuming the system doesn't log, all that The Man sees when he takes your PC off for 'evidence analysis' is a whole bunch of public keys which aren't associated with any particular IP addresses at all.
Bad, Bad idea. Removing the middleman almost invariably will increase speed at the cost of doing things 'the right way.'
For example: I trust a select group of individuals, including, say, Frank. Frank trusts another small group, including Bill. Bill trusts a small group which includes law enforcement, because although Frank trusts Bill, and I trust Frank, my standards for trust are higher than franks, and franks are obviously higher than Bills.
In your hypothetical scenario, Mr Secret Agent Man can now authenticate with Bill, who authenticates with Frank, who authenticates with me. All i'm told is "trust delegation: send these bits to IP address XXX.YYY.ZZZ.ZZZ", and because of the poor discretion of somebody i've likely never even heard of, I wind up in Federal Pound Me In The Ass prison.
Rings of trust only work when EVERY member trusts EVERY OTHER member.
I was there with a few mates couple years back. Had to leave to answer the phone, and because there were practically no good looking chicks anywhere near the place, they declined to let me in because i'd 'had too much to drink' (Melbourne Club colloquial for 'we want more good looking chicks and less yobbo geeks in here'). I drove home. My friends, who were counting on me to be the DD, were less understanding.
Interesting that you comment on 218/8. APnic has assigned several largish blocks from this net as peering nets, which aren't meant to be advertised onto the net at large. Several other slices are assigned to china.
Definitely one to blackhole, as much of it shouldn't even appear on the net at large due to RIR policy
Using a CNAME for an MX record is generally frowned upon, since it may not point at a valid A record, or, in fact, an A record it all. CNAMEs can point at any sort of data.
The recommended way to delegate reverse DNS for blocks smaller than/24 is to CNAME the.in-addr.arpa entries to a zone under the control of the people who have the small allocation, for example.
Albeit, a very good troll in that you ALMOST had me going until I read point 4. Upon rereading your other points:
1) 'Single-source logons' are a function of AD/Kerberos under 2000/2003. In a corporate environment, they give you all the benefits you're claiming that.net does. The '.net passport' stuff hasn't really taken off (is anybody apart from hotmail and msn using it?)
2) How does this have anything to do with.net? Remote access is a function of authentication (AD/KDC as above in a 2000/3 environment) and security (leased line or 'VPN'.).net has nothing to do with the latter part of the equation.
3) Since the various.net RPC mechanisms use a more verbose protocol than traditional MS/DCE RPC calls, I fail to see how this could be the case, unless you're using the 9/10 of your TCO saved in (5) to buy bigger pipes.
4) My windows 2000 servers at work usually only get a reboot when someone installs a hotfix. Since the patch lifecycle is test->uat->production, we have ample warning for this. Uptime, on average, is around 5-6 months. These machines are everything from AD controllers supporting thousands of users, to RDP/MS TS boxes with 50-odd users each.
5) correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't.net more expensive, being subscription based? I realise that this isn't the whole of the TCO equation, but windows servers are windows servers, and no amount of point and click window dressing is going to reduce the amount of manpower required to run systems well.
I'm no Windows apologist (check my posting history,) but surely your argument is bunk:P
I'll second that... I've got a dodgy-ass Gigabyte KT266 board with an XP2100+ on it, and it's rock solid in Slackware 9 and 2000 Pro.
The weird part is it's running off a really old AOpen 230W ATX PSU, which I would think was massively under-spec considering the box has got a Geforce 5600 Ultra, 1.5 Gig of DDR2100, 2 SCSI cards, 2 burners, and a Seagate SX44..... 'Elite' (47 gig double height USCSI disk, eats about 50W on its own....).
This box has NEVER crashed on me, except when I booted a 2.5.something kernel and it didn't like the GART driver (I think.)
Athlon instability is either a myth or due to bad luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on which way you look at it, either caps lock (immediate left of alt), shift, z, or a, are between control and alt.
Yea, this is a sun type 5. *shrug*.
Stupid comment, perhaps, but the 104/105 key 'MS' keyboards still WORK in other OSs. You can even remap 'windows' to meta and the 'menu' key to a fourth modifier.
Yeah, and anyways, who's going to bring the motion against you under the DMCA anyway, if you just replace the BIOS chip?
Phoenix? Why would they care? You haven't circumvented their access control mechanism (you've simply thrown out their entire product.)
The motherboard manufacturer? They don't care, their only IP is in the design of the board.
Bill? Not owning any of the board's IP whatsoever, he has no case.
Ghaah. DMCA. It's bad, but i don't think it applies in the case where you want to replace your bios. If you MODIFIED the BIOS, ok, sure. If there was one company who built the whole PC, sure, possibly. But if I buy a 'dragons' breath 2000' Sledgehammer motherboard with one of these BIOSes, nobody is seriously going to give a shit. Especially because phoenix, the people who own the BIOS IP, don't own the finished product.
The only correct interpretation is 2, 12, 15.
8, 8, 5 doesn't work as IIX is NOT 8, anymore than IIV is 3. You can have a maximum of ONE lesser value before a greater value to decrement it, for example CM (900), XL (40), etc.
II XII XV works. IIX IIX V doesn't.
- SMP : If you mean on the server, who cares. most 'servers' are going to be embedded things much like a DEC HSG80 with a single task processor and a fuckton of disks. If you mean on the client, yeah, this is a problem. It should be fixed.
- No client/server on the same box: Why the HELL would you want to do this? Most clients would have small local disks, if any, and mount most of their storage from a 'server' (possibly shared with other boxes using c.f. OpenGFS)
- Server crashing can crash a client: Most FibreChannel deployments i've seen have this property as well. Same with SCSI. Unplug the cable going to your HD and see how long your system stays up.
That's all well and good, but one of the reasons that X is so successful is that you can use whatever toolkit you want, and all X really is is a network-aware framebuffer.
This leads to toolkit darwinism, which has left us with essentially GTK and QT as the two dominant toolkits. Imagine if X had been shipped with Motif as its native toolkit? Who the hell would use that in 2003?
The Sun Type 5 keyboard has what I would consider an 'any' key between escape and F1.
It's a blank key with no writing on it. Time was, you would walk into the computer labs at university and some joker would have scrawled 'any' on this keycap with either a 2H pencil or a permanent marker.
Yes, and if you do a whois, you get to find out that 'Sid' is also an alias.
I don't care about that. I don't care that people know that i'm a unix guy who likes playing snooker with his spathyfillum. This is information which I am VOLUNTEERING. There is a difference, and it is great.
So, what bothers me, is not so much the fact that the data's out there; face it. Every time you use plastic, you become a foreign key in SOMEBODY's database. Every time you spend money and get a receipt, somebody knows that somebody fitting your biometric patterning bought $X worth of FOO.
That's irrelevant.
What's worrying is the potential for abuse. If, say, I spend $800 in a certain part of town by withdrawing it from an ATM, then make no transactions for 24 hours, what are the conclusions that 'they' are going to come to? What are the thresholds between when you are merely a 'statistic' to when they decide that you are a 'statistical anomaly' and look closer at what you are doing?
We need to be seriously campaigning for stronger privacy reform (no, the toothless australian 'Privacy Act' doesn't cut it.) CC info should be DESTROYED every 7 years (7 years being how long companies need hold onto information for ATO purposes, not sure about the 'States), and CCTV recordings should be kept for a maximum of a week unless there's an incident which needs to be investigated (viz, somebody setting up them the armed robbery, etc.)
I'm worried.
That approach is fucking dangerous.
.com NSs only returned movezig.com IN NS base.movezig.com and movezig.com IN NS cats.movezig.com, we'd have a problem of infinite recursion.
Why? Glue records. You are _meant_ to receive certain As from the parent servers of a domain delegated to nameservers which live within its own namespace.
For example, let's say I have the domain movezig.com. I fill in a host template to for the two nameservers, base.movezig.com (3.214.8.19) and cats.movezig.com (3.217.21.40), then delegate it to those nameservers. Obviously, if the
So, nameservers are designed to respond with A records for authoritative nameservers when a domain is delegated to NSs within its own zone.
Since these records are sent by the servers authoritative for the parent zone (they live in the same zonefile as the NS records do), filtering them would break resolution of roughly 20% of the internet.
Bad idea.
A much better idea is to merely filter out any responses under a configurable set of parent TLDs where the authority section returned matches a preconfigured list of NSs.
For example, doing a lookup for f00bw1tz.com (which i presume doesn't exist) returns an A of 64.94.110.11 as expected, with the Authority section claiming com. IN NS (a-m).gtld-servers.net.
This would be the tricky way of doing it.
No, they don't.
A-M.root-servers.net and A-whatever.gtld-servers.net are not the same set of machines.
Bother the people who own B-whatever.gtld-servers.net and get them to filter the *.com entries from their DNS. That might do something, especially considering that there's a LOT of gtld-servers, and netsol only has one of em.
Thing is, though, that tea has larger quantities of many other interesting alkaloids. Nicotine, for instance.
Many's the time i've tried to quit smoking by switching to nasty cups of cheap black tea. It works surprisingly well until you realise it tastes like arse and go outside for a smoko.
You intrigue me :)
Who is this famous coder?
Yes, but without the GPL, you have only 'standard' copyright permitting the use of the code in question.
Standard interpretation of copyright frowns upon duplication except for 'fair use' and other similar purposes.
Sounds like an, uhm, interesting mud wrestling match. I would seriously pay for front row seats to that.
In the, erm, brown corner we have Hilary Rosen; devourer of civil liberties, champion of everyone's IP rights (for varying values of 'everyone',) and destroyer of the fell beast Napster.
In the, uhm, OTHER brown corner, we have Nikki Hemming; fearless leader of Sharman Networks, profiteers behind such wonderful, life enhancing software as 'KaZaA Media Desktop;' single-handedly responsible for installing the Brilliant Digital plugin onto millions of desktops.
Like I said. Front row seats. Winner gets a latex fist, ten pounds of diff grease and a brass replica of the Scales of Justice.
Nah, he's safe.
He's the only one who is, though.
Dammit, someone should tell the MPAA that their James Bond copyright is being 0wned by SCO.
Jack Valenti: "Yes, you can license Mr. Bond's likeness for your crappy convention, for the sum of $699 per attendee. More per attendee if any attendee has two heads, three arms, or other 'enterprise' features."
Darl: "Urk...."
Could KaZaA/Sharman Networks/whoever have a potential Libel/Slander suit on their hands for buymusic.com referring to their service as a 'pirate site'?
This has never been proven in court, and has the substantial potential to damage their reputation. The only way that bm.com would be able to get away with allegations such as these, as far as I know (albeit IANAL) would be for a judge to decree that the ONLY use for KaZaA is 'piracy'.
Although, given the fact that probably 60-70% of the activity which takes place on KaZaA is 'piracy' by nature, they'd probably have a hard time making any libel/slander allegations stick.
Adjusting Gas Valve! Pressure levels set!
However, while I don't like to reply to my own comments, there IS a way you could do this.
A system of interconnected cliques, where I will only ever distribute files to people whose public keys i've marked as 'trusted', where the requests for those files come with their private keys.
I can set myself up to relay queries between people I trust and people who trust me, and also relay the data. This means that the highest potential cost for somebody down the line trusting the wrong guy is that if you screw up trusting the wrong person, YOU wind up in the aforementioned Federal P-M-I-T-A Prison. The Man sees the connections coming from YOUR IP address, and assuming the system doesn't log, all that The Man sees when he takes your PC off for 'evidence analysis' is a whole bunch of public keys which aren't associated with any particular IP addresses at all.
Bad, Bad idea. Removing the middleman almost invariably will increase speed at the cost of doing things 'the right way.'
For example: I trust a select group of individuals, including, say, Frank. Frank trusts another small group, including Bill. Bill trusts a small group which includes law enforcement, because although Frank trusts Bill, and I trust Frank, my standards for trust are higher than franks, and franks are obviously higher than Bills.
In your hypothetical scenario, Mr Secret Agent Man can now authenticate with Bill, who authenticates with Frank, who authenticates with me. All i'm told is "trust delegation: send these bits to IP address XXX.YYY.ZZZ.ZZZ", and because of the poor discretion of somebody i've likely never even heard of, I wind up in Federal Pound Me In The Ass prison.
Rings of trust only work when EVERY member trusts EVERY OTHER member.
Or Frost Bites in Chapel Street.
I was there with a few mates couple years back. Had to leave to answer the phone, and because there were practically no good looking chicks anywhere near the place, they declined to let me in because i'd 'had too much to drink' (Melbourne Club colloquial for 'we want more good looking chicks and less yobbo geeks in here'). I drove home. My friends, who were counting on me to be the DD, were less understanding.
Interesting that you comment on 218/8. APnic has assigned several largish blocks from this net as peering nets, which aren't meant to be advertised onto the net at large. Several other slices are assigned to china.
Definitely one to blackhole, as much of it shouldn't even appear on the net at large due to RIR policy
Using a CNAME for an MX record is generally frowned upon, since it may not point at a valid A record, or, in fact, an A record it all. CNAMEs can point at any sort of data.
/24 is to CNAME the .in-addr.arpa entries to a zone under the control of the people who have the small allocation, for example.
The recommended way to delegate reverse DNS for blocks smaller than
You, Sir, are a troll :)
.net does. The '.net passport' stuff hasn't really taken off (is anybody apart from hotmail and msn using it?)
.net? Remote access is a function of authentication (AD/KDC as above in a 2000/3 environment) and security (leased line or 'VPN'.) .net has nothing to do with the latter part of the equation.
.net RPC mechanisms use a more verbose protocol than traditional MS/DCE RPC calls, I fail to see how this could be the case, unless you're using the 9/10 of your TCO saved in (5) to buy bigger pipes.
.net more expensive, being subscription based? I realise that this isn't the whole of the TCO equation, but windows servers are windows servers, and no amount of point and click window dressing is going to reduce the amount of manpower required to run systems well.
:P
Albeit, a very good troll in that you ALMOST had me going until I read point 4. Upon rereading your other points:
1) 'Single-source logons' are a function of AD/Kerberos under 2000/2003. In a corporate environment, they give you all the benefits you're claiming that
2) How does this have anything to do with
3) Since the various
4) My windows 2000 servers at work usually only get a reboot when someone installs a hotfix. Since the patch lifecycle is test->uat->production, we have ample warning for this. Uptime, on average, is around 5-6 months. These machines are everything from AD controllers supporting thousands of users, to RDP/MS TS boxes with 50-odd users each.
5) correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't
I'm no Windows apologist (check my posting history,) but surely your argument is bunk
IHBT. IHL. HAND.
I'll second that... I've got a dodgy-ass Gigabyte KT266 board with an XP2100+ on it, and it's rock solid in Slackware 9 and 2000 Pro.
The weird part is it's running off a really old AOpen 230W ATX PSU, which I would think was massively under-spec considering the box has got a Geforce 5600 Ultra, 1.5 Gig of DDR2100, 2 SCSI cards, 2 burners, and a Seagate SX44..... 'Elite' (47 gig double height USCSI disk, eats about 50W on its own....).
This box has NEVER crashed on me, except when I booted a 2.5.something kernel and it didn't like the GART driver (I think.)
Athlon instability is either a myth or due to bad luck.