I can't imagine why. The fact that you were using the free resource for a legitimate use doesn't have any bearing on their ability to sieze it due to illegal activity.
This is how roaming cell providers work. This is not unique to China.
You need to either use a cheap calling card or buy a sim card locally.
I was in Egypt recently and checked my cell company's prices - $12 connection fee plus $6/min to call back home. Cell roaming prices are insane and should only be used as a last resort.
It's also about innovation. Telstra is burdened with many very old software packages and processes, some going back to the days of the PMG (postmaster general's) department.
All of a sudden, they are faced with losing the majority government investor which has been a safety net for a long time. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Government departments run inefficiently. But most of those aren't facing privatisation.
What happens when Telstra is cast off, to truly compete with rivals to ensure decent returns to investors?
What better platform than Open Source environments to start fresh? It is just as easy for Telstra software developers (c'mon, Telstra has 50000+ employees, there are decent software developers in there) to develop on these platforms as it is on Windows, plus the TCO is much lower. And ample training is available these days to support OSS systems.
I can't think of a company in a better position, given their budget and situation, to deploy an OSS solution for the desktop.
They ARE a corporation. They DO put their investors before customers. Let's be realistic here, telecommunications has always been an expensive service for consumers. All telcos are guilty of high rates. If any other competing telco could offer better rates, Telstra customers would have a choice in the matter, and they wouldn't be considered a monopoly.
And for all those 'but Telstra owns all the infrastructure' whiners, have you considered that maybe every other telco has decided that maintaining parallel infrastructure in Australia is way too expensive? It sure costs a lot of money to maintain bush/outback telco services, only to be paid the same $20 line rental that city-dwellers do.
Yes, we are subsidising bush telecommunications. So either stop whining about the size of your bill, or stop whining about the state of telecommunications in the bush.
Telstra's parting with IBM GSA is probabely as much Telstra's decision as GSA's. I don't want to go into the history too much, but basically:
Telstra had a subsid. company named Advantra. Advantra was a SME outsourcer. IBM owned 1/3, Telstra owned 1/3.
IBM has a subsid SME outsourcer named IBM GSA. IBM owns 1/3, Telstra owns 1/3.
Both of these companies had a role in the support of Telstra desktops and resources. Things have changed. Advantra has since, after a name change, been integrated back into Telstra, after IBM dropping it's investment in the company. GSA has become a legacy problem for Telstra, who are looking to insource again. GSA is also looking to insource (as Telstra handles significant portions of GSA's services to customers).
I've forgotten to add, that compressing an already compressed file or random binary data will NOT test the capabilities of a compression algorithm. If you want to really test each method, find something like a web server log file, and compress it. At least the test will be somewhat realistic as well.
There are many many issues with this test, which has proved absolutely nothing:
a. It appears (as someone mentioned elsewhere) that you are compressing an already compressed file
b. You have not specified the options used when compressing, which can seriously alter the result
c. You have thrown in TAR, which can be overlooked, however taring a single file before gzip compressing it is simply a waste of time unless there is some particularly pertinent permissions/directory structure data you want to preserve. Basically, you have inflated the gzip output by doing this
d. Each of these compression methods has its own benifits and shortfalls. Good compression ratio is not the be-all and end-all. Certainly many people have explained the whole block-compression theory and why gzip is so versatile.
e. You seem to be trying to prove here that RAR is a superior compression method. It is also not free. It certainly can't be used without licensing fees as gzip can.
f. Where is output such as time taken, i/o and cpu demands, etc?
What.NET security issues? This virus spreads via email and infects files relating to.NET which have to be executed to further infect. The.NET environment is not instrumental in the attack, you could substitute in any executable in.
.NET is not an unfeasable technology simply because it was developed by Microsoft. From what I have seen on the DotGNU Portable.NET environment on *NIX, C# bitcode is able to be executed with low overhead. You could be fooled for thinking you were executing native binaries.
TransACT communications, an ACTEW spinoff company, is laying the network infrastructure for fibre to the curb, which will carry traffic such as phone, internet and cable tv.
Unfortunately, they don't plan to roll out to newer suburbs like mine at this stage, due to the underground powerlines..
Might also point out that TransACT themselves do not provide internet service, and those that do provide it to TransACT customers (a whole 1 suburb at this stage, I think), provide it at a premium. There are links to ISP pricing on the TransACT site.
This BIOS is going to interface with your TCP/IP stack on whatever OS you are running, bind a port, and then have some sort of interactive interface on the other side? Gee, that's quite impressive. A bound port is no more useful than an unbound port unless you have some sort of service on the other side...
You can't get DSL? Woah.. I'm in south canberra, which must be the furthest from silicon valley that you could possibly be, and we can get Telstra ADSL.. however, it's expensive as all hell, and their 'unlimited' package is capped to some average transfer rate every day, so you have capped daily transfers, and you don't know what the cap is, but if you exceed it too many times, you break the AUP and you lose your connection.. no thanks
Pretty much everything you listed first interests me, and everything else bores the shit out of me. I am sure that your opinion is counted.. amongst the 10s of thousands of others.
Go to start/settings/printers, file/server properties/advanced and untick 'Notify when remote documents are printed'
For no netware popups at all, go to start/settings/control panel/network/services, click on properties for novell client, go to advanced settings tab, select recieve broadcasts and set it to None
PS. This is not a fault of netware server at all, it's just the default settings for client32. I also doubt that they are using Netware 10 as it does not exist, and I your support team may be correct when they say that it is a recent version.
Re:IP provider or DSL provider?
on
DSL Woes
·
· Score: 1
In the case of ISP's reselling DSL service, although it is true that some of the ISP's are just resellers for DSL service from other ISP's, most of these so called 'resellers' are actually just reselling the DSL line to the point of the DSLAM, at that point this virtual circuit still has to make it's way to your ISP of choice (usually by way of Bell's ATM network, which your ISP will have an OC3 to or something like that), and from there it *gasp* actually uses your ISP to get Internet bandwidth.
Changing that service from one ISP to the next is _NOT_ a simple case of just changing who you send your bill to, the network operations people actually have to setup your account, change your virtual circuit to point to them, and whatever else ISP's typically do when taking in new circuits.
Gee that sounds difficult... Setting up the the 'virtual circuit' on a packet switched network.. Routing packets is not a new concept you know..
That is really really sad. You obviously have not had to support people like yourself. You may think you are pretty cool for running Linux, but when you are non-productive for hours fixing your mistakes because you have no idea what you are doing, and when you expect people to provide you with service to allow Linux to interface with other systems on the network, I will personally come around, format your hard drive, and install Windows.
I must say I took the entire article with a grain of salt, as it is quite obvious what perspective this was written from and who stands to benefit from changes.
How can you compare the IT market in Australia to that of another country? Australia hardly owns any of it's big industry because of international corporations like Microsoft, so what sort of 'innovation' (TM) are they expecting? We are a very passive country which may not be on the cutting edge of new technology but is quite happy to sit back and watch new technology evolve and prove itself.
Our telecommunications industry was only recently deregulated and unlike many other countries, we have around 2 prominant carriers, both of which offer a range of broadband access options (Telstra Bigpond and Optus@Home). Speaking from a Canberran's point of view, the transact system which is being rolled out at this moment across Canberra bringing fibre to the curb and vDSL to houses from junction boxes is in itself a world first. Australia's IT industry is very strong and while I am not a bit interested in the political side of it, the notion that we should be carbon copying the IT industries of other countries like the united states is lacking in innovation.. a popular word.
The GNUtella architecture is good for its design (with minor scalability issues of course), however because on IRC each user is nominating discussion channels which they want to participate in, every conversation from every client would have to be broadcast to every client. There would be a lot of traffic flying around. The topology used by Undernet is good because it designates certain servers on fast links as hubs. The hubs are identified as less likely to be attacked and all joined together. Hanging off the hubs are the individual servers, meaning if someone takes one out, the chain is not broken for the rest of the network which functions normally. If a hub goes down there is a problem but because this is less likely, the system is more effective.
It is their responsibility? Is it also the responsibility of your ISP to mask your identity when sending email? I am sure that would be a handy feature for spammers.
It is NOT the network's responsibility. Most implementations where the IP is hidden force channel ops to ban entire hostnames. Not to mention the fact that they are revealed in direct client connections. If you really want to mask your IP, find a socks server to connect to, but for most people a person's IP is of no value (assuming they don't just IRC, there are plenty of other ways to get it) and the current IRC protocol has lasted so many years as it is, I don't believe that DoS attacks on servers (TOTALLY unrelated to clients) should affect anything.
Blocking the incoming traffic would only avoid the server it was directed at from having to process/respond to the packets, it would not stop the link being saturated, which is the real DoS.
IRC server connectivity is decentralized by design. Any server can connect to any other server in the network which recognises it. In fact, routing changes are often made in IRC networks by delinking servers and connecting them to other servers to increase efficiency.
Some IRC networks have employed a network topology, a structure in which certain servers of certain specifications & locations connect to each other to create the most efficient path across the network. This introduces a centralization but you must remember that IRC networks like this mimic the actual network on which they run, the internet. On the Internet, the backbones branch off to smaller networks, like the networks of servers. There would be no advantage to each server having a connection to each other, as they would still have to take a certain path through the Internet to communicate.
Never heard of that scheme before but it is definately a good idea. It would also be great if large ISPs were able to set up systems to exchange packet routing information on a private connection medium (ie not taking up valuable internet bandwidth).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't imagine why. The fact that you were using the free resource for a legitimate use doesn't have any bearing on their ability to sieze it due to illegal activity.
This is how roaming cell providers work. This is not unique to China.
You need to either use a cheap calling card or buy a sim card locally.
I was in Egypt recently and checked my cell company's prices - $12 connection fee plus $6/min to call back home. Cell roaming prices are insane and should only be used as a last resort.
Fair enough. I agree with you. If I was an investor, I'd seriously be hoping this were the case. The share price is a little low...
It's also about innovation. Telstra is burdened with many very old software packages and processes, some going back to the days of the PMG (postmaster general's) department.
All of a sudden, they are faced with losing the majority government investor which has been a safety net for a long time. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Government departments run inefficiently. But most of those aren't facing privatisation.
What happens when Telstra is cast off, to truly compete with rivals to ensure decent returns to investors?
What better platform than Open Source environments to start fresh? It is just as easy for Telstra software developers (c'mon, Telstra has 50000+ employees, there are decent software developers in there) to develop on these platforms as it is on Windows, plus the TCO is much lower. And ample training is available these days to support OSS systems.
I can't think of a company in a better position, given their budget and situation, to deploy an OSS solution for the desktop.
No, the point is a more managable and flexible IT environment. The cost is a bonus, but using open source software does not make a company 'cheap'.
They ARE a corporation. They DO put their investors before customers. Let's be realistic here, telecommunications has always been an expensive service for consumers. All telcos are guilty of high rates. If any other competing telco could offer better rates, Telstra customers would have a choice in the matter, and they wouldn't be considered a monopoly.
And for all those 'but Telstra owns all the infrastructure' whiners, have you considered that maybe every other telco has decided that maintaining parallel infrastructure in Australia is way too expensive? It sure costs a lot of money to maintain bush/outback telco services, only to be paid the same $20 line rental that city-dwellers do.
Yes, we are subsidising bush telecommunications. So either stop whining about the size of your bill, or stop whining about the state of telecommunications in the bush.
Telstra's parting with IBM GSA is probabely as much Telstra's decision as GSA's. I don't want to go into the history too much, but basically:
Telstra had a subsid. company named Advantra. Advantra was a SME outsourcer. IBM owned 1/3, Telstra owned 1/3.
IBM has a subsid SME outsourcer named IBM GSA. IBM owns 1/3, Telstra owns 1/3.
Both of these companies had a role in the support of Telstra desktops and resources. Things have changed. Advantra has since, after a name change, been integrated back into Telstra, after IBM dropping it's investment in the company. GSA has become a legacy problem for Telstra, who are looking to insource again. GSA is also looking to insource (as Telstra handles significant portions of GSA's services to customers).
It's just a cleaning up exercise.
I've forgotten to add, that compressing an already compressed file or random binary data will NOT test the capabilities of a compression algorithm. If you want to really test each method, find something like a web server log file, and compress it. At least the test will be somewhat realistic as well.
There are many many issues with this test, which has proved absolutely nothing:
a. It appears (as someone mentioned elsewhere) that you are compressing an already compressed file
b. You have not specified the options used when compressing, which can seriously alter the result
c. You have thrown in TAR, which can be overlooked, however taring a single file before gzip compressing it is simply a waste of time unless there is some particularly pertinent permissions/directory structure data you want to preserve. Basically, you have inflated the gzip output by doing this
d. Each of these compression methods has its own benifits and shortfalls. Good compression ratio is not the be-all and end-all. Certainly many people have explained the whole block-compression theory and why gzip is so versatile.
e. You seem to be trying to prove here that RAR is a superior compression method. It is also not free. It certainly can't be used without licensing fees as gzip can.
f. Where is output such as time taken, i/o and cpu demands, etc?
You may want to rethink your research.
What .NET security issues? This virus spreads via email and infects files relating to .NET which have to be executed to further infect. The .NET environment is not instrumental in the attack, you could substitute in any executable in.
.NET is not an unfeasable technology simply because it was developed by Microsoft. From what I have seen on the DotGNU Portable.NET environment on *NIX, C# bitcode is able to be executed with low overhead. You could be fooled for thinking you were executing native binaries.
Unfortunately, they don't plan to roll out to newer suburbs like mine at this stage, due to the underground powerlines..
Might also point out that TransACT themselves do not provide internet service, and those that do provide it to TransACT customers (a whole 1 suburb at this stage, I think), provide it at a premium. There are links to ISP pricing on the TransACT site.
This BIOS is going to interface with your TCP/IP stack on whatever OS you are running, bind a port, and then have some sort of interactive interface on the other side? Gee, that's quite impressive. A bound port is no more useful than an unbound port unless you have some sort of service on the other side...
You can't get DSL? Woah.. I'm in south canberra, which must be the furthest from silicon valley that you could possibly be, and we can get Telstra ADSL.. however, it's expensive as all hell, and their 'unlimited' package is capped to some average transfer rate every day, so you have capped daily transfers, and you don't know what the cap is, but if you exceed it too many times, you break the AUP and you lose your connection.. no thanks
Pretty much everything you listed first interests me, and everything else bores the shit out of me. I am sure that your opinion is counted.. amongst the 10s of thousands of others.
Go to start/settings/printers, file/server properties/advanced and untick 'Notify when remote documents are printed'
For no netware popups at all, go to start/settings/control panel/network/services, click on properties for novell client, go to advanced settings tab, select recieve broadcasts and set it to None
PS. This is not a fault of netware server at all, it's just the default settings for client32. I also doubt that they are using Netware 10 as it does not exist, and I your support team may be correct when they say that it is a recent version.
Changing that service from one ISP to the next is _NOT_ a simple case of just changing who you send your bill to, the network operations people actually have to setup your account, change your virtual circuit to point to them, and whatever else ISP's typically do when taking in new circuits.
Gee that sounds difficult... Setting up the the 'virtual circuit' on a packet switched network.. Routing packets is not a new concept you know..
hmm? I have sitting right next to me a copy of Visual Studio.NET beta..
That is really really sad. You obviously have not had to support people like yourself. You may think you are pretty cool for running Linux, but when you are non-productive for hours fixing your mistakes because you have no idea what you are doing, and when you expect people to provide you with service to allow Linux to interface with other systems on the network, I will personally come around, format your hard drive, and install Windows.
I must say I took the entire article with a grain of salt, as it is quite obvious what perspective this was written from and who stands to benefit from changes.
How can you compare the IT market in Australia to that of another country? Australia hardly owns any of it's big industry because of international corporations like Microsoft, so what sort of 'innovation' (TM) are they expecting? We are a very passive country which may not be on the cutting edge of new technology but is quite happy to sit back and watch new technology evolve and prove itself.
Our telecommunications industry was only recently deregulated and unlike many other countries, we have around 2 prominant carriers, both of which offer a range of broadband access options (Telstra Bigpond and Optus@Home). Speaking from a Canberran's point of view, the transact system which is being rolled out at this moment across Canberra bringing fibre to the curb and vDSL to houses from junction boxes is in itself a world first. Australia's IT industry is very strong and while I am not a bit interested in the political side of it, the notion that we should be carbon copying the IT industries of other countries like the united states is lacking in innovation.. a popular word.
The GNUtella architecture is good for its design (with minor scalability issues of course), however because on IRC each user is nominating discussion channels which they want to participate in, every conversation from every client would have to be broadcast to every client. There would be a lot of traffic flying around. The topology used by Undernet is good because it designates certain servers on fast links as hubs. The hubs are identified as less likely to be attacked and all joined together. Hanging off the hubs are the individual servers, meaning if someone takes one out, the chain is not broken for the rest of the network which functions normally. If a hub goes down there is a problem but because this is less likely, the system is more effective.
It is their responsibility? Is it also the responsibility of your ISP to mask your identity when sending email? I am sure that would be a handy feature for spammers.
It is NOT the network's responsibility. Most implementations where the IP is hidden force channel ops to ban entire hostnames. Not to mention the fact that they are revealed in direct client connections. If you really want to mask your IP, find a socks server to connect to, but for most people a person's IP is of no value (assuming they don't just IRC, there are plenty of other ways to get it) and the current IRC protocol has lasted so many years as it is, I don't believe that DoS attacks on servers (TOTALLY unrelated to clients) should affect anything.
Blocking the incoming traffic would only avoid the server it was directed at from having to process/respond to the packets, it would not stop the link being saturated, which is the real DoS.
IRC server connectivity is decentralized by design. Any server can connect to any other server in the network which recognises it. In fact, routing changes are often made in IRC networks by delinking servers and connecting them to other servers to increase efficiency.
Some IRC networks have employed a network topology, a structure in which certain servers of certain specifications & locations connect to each other to create the most efficient path across the network. This introduces a centralization but you must remember that IRC networks like this mimic the actual network on which they run, the internet. On the Internet, the backbones branch off to smaller networks, like the networks of servers. There would be no advantage to each server having a connection to each other, as they would still have to take a certain path through the Internet to communicate.
This is his ISPs (and their ISPs.. etc etc) responsibility and as they are in Romania, I doubt they would be under much pressure to implement this
Never heard of that scheme before but it is definately a good idea. It would also be great if large ISPs were able to set up systems to exchange packet routing information on a private connection medium (ie not taking up valuable internet bandwidth).