It'd be interesting to see what would happen if somebody (on the way out, permanently) decided to refuse to submit to fingerprinting (on the grounds that when they entered the country, it wasn't a requirement.)
It's not like they can arrest you for refusing to provide information while LEAVING the country, which leaves them with the sole option of deportation. Fair enough, deport me; it's better than getting my fingerprints.
There was no such thing as Windows 97. Windows "Memphis" referred to itself internally for a while as "Windows 97" in places; by the time of the final betas of Windows 98, all such ambiguity had been removed.
The warez scene continued, of course, to refer to the leaked Memphis/win98 betas as "Windows 97" for some time.
You could always use one of the class "E" reserved addresses. Most IP stacks will return 'invalid argument' or similar to a process trying to connect to one of these addresses, so there won't be a huge timeout. You could also tell your webserver not to listen on 127.0.0.1.
What follows is my opinion only, and should not be construed as representing the facts of the matter in any way possible, except where noted.
The problem with this is that the IIA is likely to agree to this proposal in some form or other, in order to be seen to be doing "something". The CEO of the IIA has a reputation as a lobbyist first, and an ISP Industry Association CEO second. If the IIA is seen to be "proactively setting policy" on something as big-ticket as file-sharing, then Coroneos'll likely go for it. It doesn't matter if the "policy" in this case was written by ARIA, three ISPs and a singing waiter, or even The Piratebay. This is a worry.
Fortunately, while most of the east-coast ISPs are IIA members to some degree or other, Adelaide and Perth based providers are typically members of SAIA or WAIA respectively, and pay (at most) lip-service to Coroneos' lobbyists.
Additionally, if ARIA thinks they have the legal right to demand your phone get disconnected, then ACMA (AU equiv of FCC) will likely hit them with something called the Universal Service Obligation (briefly: at least one licensed carrier MUST provide phone service in a given area to ANYONE who wants it, subject to paying the bill.)
Finally, if ARIA's goons see that I'm connected to a tracker that happens to be announcing for an MP3.torrent file and manage to get me disconnected, I'd likely sue them under an "interference with contract" tort. The simple act of being connected to a tracker does NOT imply, as Mediasentry would like it to, that you are moving any data whatsoever.
Storm. Teacup. Move along.
Re:Does anyone even use this OS?
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The only use I see for something like CentOS is for a dev or UAT environment, when you're running the same RHEL version in production. This gives you two (three) essentially identical environments, but you've only gotta pay the man for one copy.
ICANN operate a registry of IP addresses, and the root DNS zone. Neither of these things are operational in nature, but administrative. (They also take care of the RFC process and handle assigned ports, etc, but these tasks, again, are not operational tasks.)
The only reason that ICANN is able to make an impact right now on the day to day operation of the Network is because there is a general consensus to propagate routing information in conjunction with what ICANN says, and a consensus amongst DNS operators to use 13 particular IP addresses in their hints file.
There have been attempts to replace the ICANN root with an alternate root; the walls faced are not political, legal, or technical, but simply one of consensus. If I use alternate-root A, and you use alternate-root B, there's a chance that we may not be able to query each others DNS zones. The most credible alternate-root hierachy currently proposed is ORSN ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Root_Server_Netw ork ), who currently mirror the ICANN root, but have stated that this will change if, in their opinion, the ICANN root becomes a political tool.
There is nothing, really, stopping ICANN from moving to Switzerland and saying 'OK, we recommend that you change your root.hints file to THIS. There may be weirdness if you don't.' Vixie would release an updated bind which includes the new root.hints file, and other DNS admins would make the changes to their own hints files. The only pitfall, again, is consensus. If you or I suggested this, we'd be roundly ignored and laughed at. If ICANN do it, there's a chance that the accumulated momentum could cause a change.
It's worth noting at this stage, of course, that the only reason there'd be a need for a new hints file is because many, if not most, of the root-servers themselves are controlled by the US government, and if the US government decided they didn't like what ICANN was doing, then they'd obviously not have access to same. Of course, other root-servers (such as F) probably wouldn't have this issue, and would side with ICANN.
It would be interesting times ahead, but there's certainly nothing obligating any single operator to use the root that the US government tells them to (nor, of course, to obey the US government's guidance on interdomain routing). The massive inertia in convincing people to use an alternate root would, in my opinion, largely go away if it was ICANN trying to change the common consensus. Especially if Vixie sided with them.
At the end of the day, it's not governments that can (or should) set Internet policy. It's network operators. This is by design.
While there are probably a lot of Linux users with 9200s/6200TCs/whatever (my two mythfrontends have 6200TC64s in them 'cos that's all that you need to play back any video content you like on a modern CPU,) there's also a significant (at least, empirically) segment of Linux users who own high-end graphics cards.
Case in point, my 3 most recent 3D card purchases have been: 7950GX2 (PCIe), 7600GT (PCIe), and 6600GT (AGP, some factory-overclocked job I got on ebay for $120 before my last motherboard upgrade.) I exclusively run Linux at home (with the exception of the FreeBSD server handling shell accounts and DNS, and the macbook that belongs to the guy who sleeps on my couch while he's looking for a house.)
A good friend of mine owns an 8800GTS (and is talking about buying a second one.) Before that, he had a 7800GT. Again, No Windows. He's also got a macbook, but doesn't do anything remotely 3D on it beyond expose and quartz extreme.
Of the 10-odd people I know who are either exclusively or predominantly Linux users on their personal machines, at least 8 of them own a mid-high or high-end graphics card. Most of us also subscribe to Cedega for some reason or another (at least five of that 8-person sample uses it predominantly to play warcrack, thankfully i'm not included in that five.) In my case, it's because I bought it so that I could finish Morrowind (back in 2002 when I owned an AGP GF4 4400) after deciding that Windows 2000 wasn't worth the pain and suffering that it was inflicting. Since then, I've played one or two Sid Meier games, Oblivion, the two C&C: Generals games, and a stack of others.
VMWare ESX's 'vmkernel' isn't linux, it's based on something called SimOS, which came outta Stanford Uni (if memory serves, the VMware founders were Stanford alumnae). As I understand it, it boots a linux kernel to initialise the hardware, and then loads vmkernel 'under' this linux kernel, so that the linux installation (in the management VM) just becomes another ESX guest, albeit one with more privileges than the other guests. It's kind of like the way Xen works, with a privileged domain (domain 0) handling management, but which is still really nothing more than another guest.
Current systems for AMD use a point-to-point HT link from each CPU to RAM/SouthBridge.
This is good as each processor gets dedicated bandwidth which leads to great performance(see Intel's ass-whooping in 4P+ systems for real-world example).
This isn't the case; each CPU has one or two channels of DDR (or DDR2) interfacing with a memory controller on-die. Local RAM is not accessed via Hypertransport. Remote RAM is accessed over a ccHT link, but that's not the same as the non-coherent HT links which are used to connect peripheral buses.
So, what this 1x1 or 2x2 or 4x4 mechanism(and I believe 4x4 is the max it will scale to due to HT addressing limits without external control chips) will allow AMD to do is have 2 cpu's per set of traces to RAM/SB effectively halving the bandwidth that each CPU gets. This would be *really bad* if they were using standard DDR as both those CPU's would be severly starved. But, the fact that AMD has just moved to DDR2, which has a lot more bandwidth than one CPU can consume, should result in a significant net-gain in performance.
I doubt that this is the case. You could conceivably hang a RAM controller off HT in a single processor environment (when the first K8s came out, there was talk of using this as an expansion pathway, although it does awful things to your latency), but if you were to connect some kind of RAM controller to two CPUs at once, how would you do cache coherency? From what I'm reading of this '4x4' stuff, it's most likely that the recent (AM2 and onwards) x2s and FXs ship with a second, cache coherent, HT link enabled (rendering them functionally identical to an Opteron 2xx without the requirement for registered DRAMs.)
The Itanic sank for many and varied reasons, most of which had nothing to do with the front-end of the CPU being replaced by a smart compiler. These days, the latest revision of Itanic are actually quite fast, usable CPUs, although nobody is buying them.
- The initial revision (Merced) was missing hardware support for several important features of the IA64 ISA which had to be trapped and emulated by the supervisor. This was corrected in Itanium2 (McKinley and onwards), but not before Merced got a reputation for being slow and awful.
- Code for VLIW chips pretty much requires a recompile if you add execution units (I believe that Itanic supports nop-padding of bundles in hardware, but this is dumb). This is a far greater issue than needing a 'good compiler' to get decent speed out of VLIW chips.
- The P4 was initially seen as a stopgap measure between Katmai/Tulatin hitting a clock-speed wall and Itanium becoming mainstream. This didn't happen due to a combination of factors (Sledgehammer and Itanium's awful handling of ia32 code spring to mind.) Instead of working on making Itanic competitive with Hammer, Intel decided to enter a clockrate pissing contest with AMD and eventually lost, forcing intel to get a bunch of Israelis to revisit Tulatin.
- Nobody other than HP was actively trying to SELL Itanic boxes for the first half of its life. HP had bet the Unix farm on Itanic (and had committed to phasing out HPPA), but nobody was really interested for the reasons noted above.
As a result of these points (and others, i'm sure), IA64 became a historical footnote, rather than the replacement for IA32 and HPPA which Intel and HP had envisaged. The compiler technology was there (icc will write blindingly fast IA64 assembly, and I believe that even GCC does a reasonable job on it these days), but a combination of other technical factors and abysmal marketing pretty much doomed it from the get go.
A later poster mentioned the OIN. That's a good place to start. IBM, also, have both a vested interest in Linux succeeding (I can't imagine for the life of me that they want to go back to the days when AIX and Dynix were the only UNIX platforms they could sell to people who wanted UNIX) and about six trillion 'defensive' patents.
Add to this the fact that most of these patents are utter garbage in a large part of the civilised world (even Berne Convention countries) who refuse to recognise software patents.
Note also the Blackberry saga. Various governmental entities (both within America and without it) had a vested interest in keeping their Blackberries running. Look what happened (NTP cashing out to the tune of $600M not withstanding, the patents WERE going to be overturned in the end, the $600M was essentially used to shore up their share price in the interim). A lot of governments like Free Software, too. Some have even come to rely on it. You can't imagine that all of these governments are going to be happy about giving tens of millions (or more) in budget surplus to Steve and Bill over something as (apparently) trivial (to an elected official) as patent law, can you? In fact, Microsoft deciding to use patent litigation to FUCKING KILL free software might actually be the best thing for IP law reform we've seen since Sonny Bono skiied into a tree.
Ballmer is a loon who's going to FUCKING KILL you. He's done it before, and he'll do it again. But he's not nuts enough to take on IBM, the EU, and various federal and state governments all at once. Especially not after he's totally caked MS' short-mid term Operating System plans by utterly ruining Vista.
Any ISP with 100k customers (or even one with an order of magnitude less) is going to be assigned a/32 (or shorter) prefix, which is guaranteed to be globally portable.
The basic structure of an IPv6 address is: 0-31 Top-level network bits 32-47 16 bits for customer allocations (/48) 48-63 Customers' subnetworks 64-127 Local subnet addressing (EUI64)
If you've been allocated a/48 by your ISP, sure, you'll need to renumber every time you change ISPs. If you've been allocated a/32 or shorter prefix by a RIR, then you won't.
BGP4+ Routing tables will also be correspondingly smaller, because they'll only contain a number of/32 prefixes (a much smaller number than the current IPv4 soup, which includes prefixes as long as/24 for legacy reasons.)
I humbly submit that you do more research in future.
Well, Merced was out (with delay) but for sure it wasn't 64-bit or based on RISC core.
Merced was the first generation of Itanium, which was definitely 64-bit, and arguably RISC (it used the basic principles of VLIW, which Intel bastardised and renamed EPIC.)
My understanding of the high court's ruling, specifically points 210 onwards, is that the Copyright (Digital Agenda) Act's definition of a 'TPM' is to be interpreted in the most narrow fashion possible, in order to allow consumers to retain all of the rights of ownership over purchased chattels.
In other words, as long as there's a legitimate reason behind disabling Macrovision (and trust me, there's several. The most obvious which springs to mind is to enable you to plug a DVD player into an older television without baseband composite inputs by way of a VHS VCR instead of having to spring $60 for an RF modulator).
Andrew Bolt is a well known right-wing sympathiser, who's written articles condemning everything from abortion, to homosexuality, and back again. The man has also gone on public record as saying that global warming is a myth perpetrated by left wing scientists who want to rule the world. Check the herald sun's website for an archive of his columns, and tell me if you're prepared to believe his rhetoric.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily make his summation of the Katrina situation any less accurate, but you should probably do some more research before quoting his opinion piece as verbatim fact.
Mr Malcolm is quite a respected individual in these parts; having been an EFA board member, and being involved with Western Australia's pre-eminent Internet Association on some level for quite some time.
He's also a lawyer; in that capcity he has acted both for (see previous cites) Scientology, and against it (www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual00.html, www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual01.html).
He voluntarily stood down from the board of EFA during his actions on behalf of CoS, in order to prevent accusations of bias. A clam would probably not have done this.
He's just a lawyer trying to make a buck from his clients. Not a clam.
Slashdot Mirror
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if somebody (on the way out, permanently) decided to refuse to submit to fingerprinting (on the grounds that when they entered the country, it wasn't a requirement.)
It's not like they can arrest you for refusing to provide information while LEAVING the country, which leaves them with the sole option of deportation. Fair enough, deport me; it's better than getting my fingerprints.
Legislating to protect a business model violates every principle of a free market. The DMCA is a stupid law and deserves to be broken.
There was no such thing as Windows 97. Windows "Memphis" referred to itself internally for a while as "Windows 97" in places; by the time of the final betas of Windows 98, all such ambiguity had been removed.
The warez scene continued, of course, to refer to the leaked Memphis/win98 betas as "Windows 97" for some time.
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they think that Brussels is in England.
Stupid americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels,_Belgium
You could always use one of the class "E" reserved addresses. Most IP stacks will return 'invalid argument' or similar to a process trying to connect to one of these addresses, so there won't be a huge timeout. You could also tell your webserver not to listen on 127.0.0.1.
What follows is my opinion only, and should not be construed as representing the facts of the matter in any way possible, except where noted.
.torrent file and manage to get me disconnected, I'd likely sue them under an "interference with contract" tort. The simple act of being connected to a tracker does NOT imply, as Mediasentry would like it to, that you are moving any data whatsoever.
The problem with this is that the IIA is likely to agree to this proposal in some form or other, in order to be seen to be doing "something". The CEO of the IIA has a reputation as a lobbyist first, and an ISP Industry Association CEO second. If the IIA is seen to be "proactively setting policy" on something as big-ticket as file-sharing, then Coroneos'll likely go for it. It doesn't matter if the "policy" in this case was written by ARIA, three ISPs and a singing waiter, or even The Piratebay. This is a worry.
Fortunately, while most of the east-coast ISPs are IIA members to some degree or other, Adelaide and Perth based providers are typically members of SAIA or WAIA respectively, and pay (at most) lip-service to Coroneos' lobbyists.
Additionally, if ARIA thinks they have the legal right to demand your phone get disconnected, then ACMA (AU equiv of FCC) will likely hit them with something called the Universal Service Obligation (briefly: at least one licensed carrier MUST provide phone service in a given area to ANYONE who wants it, subject to paying the bill.)
Finally, if ARIA's goons see that I'm connected to a tracker that happens to be announcing for an MP3
Storm. Teacup. Move along.
The only use I see for something like CentOS is for a dev or UAT environment, when you're running the same RHEL version in production. This gives you two (three) essentially identical environments, but you've only gotta pay the man for one copy.
ICANN operate a registry of IP addresses, and the root DNS zone. Neither of these things are operational in nature, but administrative. (They also take care of the RFC process and handle assigned ports, etc, but these tasks, again, are not operational tasks.)
w ork ), who currently mirror the ICANN root, but have stated that this will change if, in their opinion, the ICANN root becomes a political tool.
The only reason that ICANN is able to make an impact right now on the day to day operation of the Network is because there is a general consensus to propagate routing information in conjunction with what ICANN says, and a consensus amongst DNS operators to use 13 particular IP addresses in their hints file.
There have been attempts to replace the ICANN root with an alternate root; the walls faced are not political, legal, or technical, but simply one of consensus. If I use alternate-root A, and you use alternate-root B, there's a chance that we may not be able to query each others DNS zones. The most credible alternate-root hierachy currently proposed is ORSN ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Root_Server_Net
There is nothing, really, stopping ICANN from moving to Switzerland and saying 'OK, we recommend that you change your root.hints file to THIS. There may be weirdness if you don't.' Vixie would release an updated bind which includes the new root.hints file, and other DNS admins would make the changes to their own hints files. The only pitfall, again, is consensus. If you or I suggested this, we'd be roundly ignored and laughed at. If ICANN do it, there's a chance that the accumulated momentum could cause a change.
It's worth noting at this stage, of course, that the only reason there'd be a need for a new hints file is because many, if not most, of the root-servers themselves are controlled by the US government, and if the US government decided they didn't like what ICANN was doing, then they'd obviously not have access to same. Of course, other root-servers (such as F) probably wouldn't have this issue, and would side with ICANN.
It would be interesting times ahead, but there's certainly nothing obligating any single operator to use the root that the US government tells them to (nor, of course, to obey the US government's guidance on interdomain routing). The massive inertia in convincing people to use an alternate root would, in my opinion, largely go away if it was ICANN trying to change the common consensus. Especially if Vixie sided with them.
At the end of the day, it's not governments that can (or should) set Internet policy. It's network operators. This is by design.
While there are probably a lot of Linux users with 9200s/6200TCs/whatever (my two mythfrontends have 6200TC64s in them 'cos that's all that you need to play back any video content you like on a modern CPU,) there's also a significant (at least, empirically) segment of Linux users who own high-end graphics cards.
Case in point, my 3 most recent 3D card purchases have been: 7950GX2 (PCIe), 7600GT (PCIe), and 6600GT (AGP, some factory-overclocked job I got on ebay for $120 before my last motherboard upgrade.) I exclusively run Linux at home (with the exception of the FreeBSD server handling shell accounts and DNS, and the macbook that belongs to the guy who sleeps on my couch while he's looking for a house.)
A good friend of mine owns an 8800GTS (and is talking about buying a second one.) Before that, he had a 7800GT. Again, No Windows. He's also got a macbook, but doesn't do anything remotely 3D on it beyond expose and quartz extreme.
Of the 10-odd people I know who are either exclusively or predominantly Linux users on their personal machines, at least 8 of them own a mid-high or high-end graphics card. Most of us also subscribe to Cedega for some reason or another (at least five of that 8-person sample uses it predominantly to play warcrack, thankfully i'm not included in that five.) In my case, it's because I bought it so that I could finish Morrowind (back in 2002 when I owned an AGP GF4 4400) after deciding that Windows 2000 wasn't worth the pain and suffering that it was inflicting. Since then, I've played one or two Sid Meier games, Oblivion, the two C&C: Generals games, and a stack of others.
Piracy is theft, violence, and murder upon the high seas. FairUse4WM allows legal but non-allowed (per the DRM) uses of DRM'd media.
These two things are not the same.
Asstard.
VMWare ESX's 'vmkernel' isn't linux, it's based on something called SimOS, which came outta Stanford Uni (if memory serves, the VMware founders were Stanford alumnae). As I understand it, it boots a linux kernel to initialise the hardware, and then loads vmkernel 'under' this linux kernel, so that the linux installation (in the management VM) just becomes another ESX guest, albeit one with more privileges than the other guests. It's kind of like the way Xen works, with a privileged domain (domain 0) handling management, but which is still really nothing more than another guest.
Current systems for AMD use a point-to-point HT link from each CPU to RAM/SouthBridge.
This is good as each processor gets dedicated bandwidth which leads to great performance(see Intel's ass-whooping in 4P+ systems for real-world example).
This isn't the case; each CPU has one or two channels of DDR (or DDR2) interfacing with a memory controller on-die. Local RAM is not accessed via Hypertransport. Remote RAM is accessed over a ccHT link, but that's not the same as the non-coherent HT links which are used to connect peripheral buses.
So, what this 1x1 or 2x2 or 4x4 mechanism(and I believe 4x4 is the max it will scale to due to HT addressing limits without external control chips) will allow AMD to do is have 2 cpu's per set of traces to RAM/SB effectively halving the bandwidth that each CPU gets. This would be *really bad* if they were using standard DDR as both those CPU's would be severly starved. But, the fact that AMD has just moved to DDR2, which has a lot more bandwidth than one CPU can consume, should result in a significant net-gain in performance.
I doubt that this is the case. You could conceivably hang a RAM controller off HT in a single processor environment (when the first K8s came out, there was talk of using this as an expansion pathway, although it does awful things to your latency), but if you were to connect some kind of RAM controller to two CPUs at once, how would you do cache coherency? From what I'm reading of this '4x4' stuff, it's most likely that the recent (AM2 and onwards) x2s and FXs ship with a second, cache coherent, HT link enabled (rendering them functionally identical to an Opteron 2xx without the requirement for registered DRAMs.)
The Itanic sank for many and varied reasons, most of which had nothing to do with the front-end of the CPU being replaced by a smart compiler. These days, the latest revision of Itanic are actually quite fast, usable CPUs, although nobody is buying them.
- The initial revision (Merced) was missing hardware support for several important features of the IA64 ISA which had to be trapped and emulated by the supervisor. This was corrected in Itanium2 (McKinley and onwards), but not before Merced got a reputation for being slow and awful.
- Code for VLIW chips pretty much requires a recompile if you add execution units (I believe that Itanic supports nop-padding of bundles in hardware, but this is dumb). This is a far greater issue than needing a 'good compiler' to get decent speed out of VLIW chips.
- The P4 was initially seen as a stopgap measure between Katmai/Tulatin hitting a clock-speed wall and Itanium becoming mainstream. This didn't happen due to a combination of factors (Sledgehammer and Itanium's awful handling of ia32 code spring to mind.) Instead of working on making Itanic competitive with Hammer, Intel decided to enter a clockrate pissing contest with AMD and eventually lost, forcing intel to get a bunch of Israelis to revisit Tulatin.
- Nobody other than HP was actively trying to SELL Itanic boxes for the first half of its life. HP had bet the Unix farm on Itanic (and had committed to phasing out HPPA), but nobody was really interested for the reasons noted above.
As a result of these points (and others, i'm sure), IA64 became a historical footnote, rather than the replacement for IA32 and HPPA which Intel and HP had envisaged. The compiler technology was there (icc will write blindingly fast IA64 assembly, and I believe that even GCC does a reasonable job on it these days), but a combination of other technical factors and abysmal marketing pretty much doomed it from the get go.
No! Argh.
A later poster mentioned the OIN. That's a good place to start. IBM, also, have both a vested interest in Linux succeeding (I can't imagine for the life of me that they want to go back to the days when AIX and Dynix were the only UNIX platforms they could sell to people who wanted UNIX) and about six trillion 'defensive' patents.
Add to this the fact that most of these patents are utter garbage in a large part of the civilised world (even Berne Convention countries) who refuse to recognise software patents.
Note also the Blackberry saga. Various governmental entities (both within America and without it) had a vested interest in keeping their Blackberries running. Look what happened (NTP cashing out to the tune of $600M not withstanding, the patents WERE going to be overturned in the end, the $600M was essentially used to shore up their share price in the interim). A lot of governments like Free Software, too. Some have even come to rely on it. You can't imagine that all of these governments are going to be happy about giving tens of millions (or more) in budget surplus to Steve and Bill over something as (apparently) trivial (to an elected official) as patent law, can you? In fact, Microsoft deciding to use patent litigation to FUCKING KILL free software might actually be the best thing for IP law reform we've seen since Sonny Bono skiied into a tree.
Ballmer is a loon who's going to FUCKING KILL you. He's done it before, and he'll do it again. But he's not nuts enough to take on IBM, the EU, and various federal and state governments all at once. Especially not after he's totally caked MS' short-mid term Operating System plans by utterly ruining Vista.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
/32 (or shorter) prefix, which is guaranteed to be globally portable.
/48 by your ISP, sure, you'll need to renumber every time you change ISPs. If you've been allocated a /32 or shorter prefix by a RIR, then you won't.
/32 prefixes (a much smaller number than the current IPv4 soup, which includes prefixes as long as /24 for legacy reasons.)
Any ISP with 100k customers (or even one with an order of magnitude less) is going to be assigned a
The basic structure of an IPv6 address is:
0-31 Top-level network bits
32-47 16 bits for customer allocations (/48)
48-63 Customers' subnetworks
64-127 Local subnet addressing (EUI64)
If you've been allocated a
BGP4+ Routing tables will also be correspondingly smaller, because they'll only contain a number of
I humbly submit that you do more research in future.
Microsoft - well, shit, I don't remember this one, but it WAS an official microsoft saying. Something like 'one people, one company, one solution'
From memory, it was "One world, one web, one program". Don't quote me.
Google Search
Well, Merced was out (with delay) but for sure it wasn't 64-bit or based on RISC core.
Merced was the first generation of Itanium, which was definitely 64-bit, and arguably RISC (it used the basic principles of VLIW, which Intel bastardised and renamed EPIC.)
[omg - this is a post you can correctly respond to with "that begs the question"]
You just made my friends list, for what that's worth.
The phone number is accurate enough. Well, at least, when I rang it, some guy SAID that he was Jack Thompson.
I attempted to engage him in civil discourse. He called me a moron.
My understanding of the high court's ruling, specifically points 210 onwards, is that the Copyright (Digital Agenda) Act's definition of a 'TPM' is to be interpreted in the most narrow fashion possible, in order to allow consumers to retain all of the rights of ownership over purchased chattels.
In other words, as long as there's a legitimate reason behind disabling Macrovision (and trust me, there's several. The most obvious which springs to mind is to enable you to plug a DVD player into an older television without baseband composite inputs by way of a VHS VCR instead of having to spring $60 for an RF modulator).
If you're going to quote Geoff Huston, please attribute the quote.
There Is No Lumber Cartel.
Andrew Bolt is a well known right-wing sympathiser, who's written articles condemning everything from abortion, to homosexuality, and back again. The man has also gone on public record as saying that global warming is a myth perpetrated by left wing scientists who want to rule the world. Check the herald sun's website for an archive of his columns, and tell me if you're prepared to believe his rhetoric.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily make his summation of the Katrina situation any less accurate, but you should probably do some more research before quoting his opinion piece as verbatim fact.
Um, no. Red Hat hasn't included an mp3 decoder plugin with xmms since at least RH8, because of concerns about Thomson/Fraunhofer's patents.
Mr Malcolm is quite a respected individual in these parts; having been an EFA board member, and being involved with Western Australia's pre-eminent Internet Association on some level for quite some time.
He's also a lawyer; in that capcity he has acted both for (see previous cites) Scientology, and against it (www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual00.html, www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual01.html).
He voluntarily stood down from the board of EFA during his actions on behalf of CoS, in order to prevent accusations of bias. A clam would probably not have done this.
He's just a lawyer trying to make a buck from his clients. Not a clam.