Hi. I tried this with some ID's from friends. I got through on one, but after that I got accesss forbidden (403). Has anyone tried twice? Or more than one acct. from the same IP, or did they fix it?
Right. Here's the english version: %%%Begin translation%%% Subnetting is good. Subnetting let's you divide your assigned IP's (in-house only!) into sub-networks, which can then be controlled by a nice switch/router/guy with flags/whatever so that you get more throughput, since broadcasts to a subnet wouldn't flood the other subnets! WOW! HOWEVER, since the size of the assigned IP's is fixed (Class A, B, or C), you can't give back those IP's your not using on the subnets! DAMN! If the IETF had used subnetting in combination with assigning IP's, we would have more IP's available, since we could have halfed the size of a class B into TWO sub-classes! GEE! %%%end translation%%% p.s. I noticed the guy said he needed to learn this for a CIsco test...but he never said if he passed!
Nope. I don't. In fact, that line is more poingnant than you may realize. I've got (and have had) users who would complain and moan about every upgrade/change/anything done to "their" precicious systems (side note: they didn't own the systems) becuase they had some customized icon/desktop/e-mail/SOMETHING that they just "had to have". And we're talking Win 3.11 and Win95 (the original), so you know they don't really need this stuff. Point is, most company brass, and in fact, most of the non-technical parts of any company, wouldn't know a transistor from a tater tot, and THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW. They want their hands held, the paperclip, the "You've Got mail!", all of it. And guess who's got to give it to them? The corporate IS departments, that's who. Cause the brass pays the bills, and we all follow the golden rule, as in: "He who haveth the gold, maketh the rules."
What is Amazon worth, REALLY? I mean, take away the overinflated stock, and what do you have? Some servers, some T-1 lines, and a warehouse full of books?
Somewhere I once read a story told by an economist, where he offered a reporter a million dollars for their left arm. The reporter, or course, refused. But then the economist said: "Ah, but you see, now you're a millionare! You have something that's worh a million dollars!"
The point here is this: Nothing is worth anything unless someone wants it. If no one want to BUY amazon stock at it's current price, and the price starts to fall (see: supply and demand chart), you're going to wind up with a company that's suddenly got to prove to it's share holders what it's REALLY worth. As in profit. And trust me, this whole market share/eyeball stuff is NOT going to last long when you've got an angry horde of stockholders outside your door wondering why their $100+ stock is sudenly worth about a share of Marvel Comics stock.
I thought that MS wanted an open standard for messaging (read: they're loosing the war)? So, if they open their protocol, who cares? The whole thing will be a standard protocol anyway, so they're really not giving anything away, are they?
No, you can't get out of taxes.. Foreign nationals in the US have to pay US taxes of some sort...sorry, thanks for playing, and now, these nice INS folks would like to talk to you
I'm not worried about ISP's who sue spammers for abusing their networks...I'm worried about ISP's who take cash up front from spammers...kind of like the USPS does from Ed Whathisface. You know its coming, and you don't get to sue for GETTING spam, do you?
I'm not worried about being the "net-set" until we get a lot of pandering through fluff articles looking to cater to us because we have some disposable income.
If there was ever a wish list for this film, here's my $.02:
Remember that good science fiction is fiction first, science second. It's all well and good that we can manipulate reality on film, but don't sacrifice the story for the effects. The really good books of science fiction rely more on the charaters, their experiences, reactions, and emotions to tell the story than they do on gizmos and gear. I can think of a few examples here, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
I've worked with Compaq/HP/Dell servers in the past, and I can tell you that when you're doing a RAID-5 on the majority of these machines, the "control" of the array is handled by BIOS/HW systems, not the OS. You run a system partition utility to create the RAID-5 stripe sets, and controll it from there. The OS doesn't know about how the HW is set up, it only sees one contiguous partition, as provided by the HW controller. This may sound a little wierd, but the speed is (IMHO) usually fater by running through the HW rather than the OS.
I'd like to focus on one statement in here, one that poked at the proverbial sore spot on my psyche that I've had for a long time. There's a line in this feature that reads:
-technology transforms them into mythic, almost religious figures-
I'd like to point something out that we generally tend to forget: Technology does not DO anything! Technology is a tool, all right? It's a plastic box, full of silicon and copper and solder, that's sits on my desk. Technology is a beige paperweight. Not until I make it do something that anything happens.
This continued anthropomorphism of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and electronic technology in general has become absurd. The wheel is technology, for goodness sake, but you don't see people ranting about how bad all the changes it generated were.
The feature is correct in part when pointed out that it's the people in charge of the networks/cable channels/webcasts/etc.. that had performed this deification of the victims, and that does all the intense focusing on seemingly (I don't know everyones tastes, so maybe you ARE interested in thong underwear and blue dresses?) unimportant issues for their entertainment (and hence, dollar) value. But remember, it's the people who made the decision to send the Channel Five helecopter after OJ's Bronco on the freeway, not the helicopter's.
Now, obviously, if the technology didn't exist, the oportunity for this kind of globalized infatuation wouldn't be possible. But, with any kind of technological advancement, there are going to be negative as well as positive impacts. To blame the technology used in these cases is about as practical as screaming at the TV for showing the 1000'th hour of some search boat floating off Martha's Vineyeard.
If you ever forget this, get a hammer. Look at the hammer. Remember that the hammer has done more for the advancement of humanity, and done more for the destruction of humanity, than our much lauded technology probably ever will. If that doesn't work, hit yourself over the head with the hammer. We'll web cast it for you!
Uh-Oh, I smell a bait and switch here! Put up a BSD article, then you see the ad up top. And you think, "Can't be all that bad, can it?" then you click, then your lost! (Microsoft is not a partner in this posters' soul)
Indeed. The problem isn't that AOL is giving out the info (any bank or credit card company, etc will do so with even LESS than a court order, like a credit report, say), but that the criminal justice system as a whole hasn't got a clue as to what to do with the information economy. Their understanding of the technology is no limited that they'll take a "shotgun" approach to law enforcement where information technology is concerned, taking everything they can get their hands on, without a thought as to what it is, or what it's used for. Hopefully, as more technologically savy folks get into the justice system, this will change, but for now, it's really another growing pain of having a fundamental shift in the way things are done. That doesn't mean, however, that that's an excuse for some of the things that are done by the criminal justice system. Any violation for fourth amendment (is that the right one? Search and Seizure?) rights in a computer related case should be dealt with just as harshly as it would if it was a non-computer related crime.
Look, the REAL reason that AOL is pushing this whole "open cable" stuff is NOT some higher morality, but in fact, cold, hard cash. AOL makes many millions of dollars a MONTH by charging all the AOL'er's 19.95 for dial-up access. And if these same people suddenly decide that they want to go cable modem instead, well, guess where AOL is going?
Now, don't get me wrong, the cable companies are no bunch of winners either. Cable companies have been the most old-boy, back-door, cowboy run outfits for years(IMHO). The fact that AT&T got in there is actually a good thing for the common consumer, since now they've got an actual corporation to push tech. advancements. One thing keeping the cable modems and everything else out of your homes is that installing this stuff is extremely expensive. Cable systems were not designed for two way, originally, and getting them up to spec means running new cable, changing repeaters, cleaning the return path, and re-configuring head-ends (that's where all the signals come together, and get put onto the coax, or fiber). And why should cable companies pay for that, if we're all happy paying the $50 or so a month for Skinemax?
Maybe AOL & gang could get with some of the smaller groups, and pony up some change to help, in exchange for access? Microsoft did it, with Rogers cable in Canada, didn't they? It would push the cable companies to get the system up and running, and AOL could "run" the show, and everyone would be happy. Except the consumer, but who cares about them?
p.s. I noticed in the article that there was a (glaring?) ommission about how much AOL& that group was paying off (I mean contributing, sorry) Congress, while the numbers for AT&T were well stated.
This is just the first instance of what's probably going to become a HUGE problem in the eletronics/computer industry.
You see, a lot of companies want to make money from working on the internet, BUT, you simply cannot throw up a web site and expect the money to start rolling in (with a few exceptions, of course).
So what these companies are thinking is "gee, if we can invent a new way of doind something on the internet, and patent that technology, we have something that no one else has. That gives us intellectual capital, which will make us a very attractive company come IPO/merger/buy-out time. And in the mean time, we can lisence the stuff out, and make money, which makes us more attractive still."
The short form of this is: Patent=Intellectual capital+Lisencing=$$$
So in a few years, those of you who are doing the start-up thing, don't be suprised if your spending as much time reading through patent applciations as application code! The lawsuits will fly, the lawyers will get rich, the companies will go under, and this whole fun industry we're in will become a feeding trough or the patent lawyers!
Ok, so that's a worse case scenario, but I'm pretty sure the general principle holds true. And with the (relative) ease of creating code (it ain't like building a roket ship to the moon, after all), this process is simply going to accellerate.
The thing about this patent that's worrysome to me is NOT the fact that they have it (someone was probably going to get something like this eventualy), but the whole "should be compensated" clause, really. One of the things that fuels this industry is the relative low cost (thank you, open source!) of getting "raw materials" for whatever your working on. If we have to start putting up cash for everything, it's simply going to be that much harder for companies to develop new ideas, because the companies are going to say: " Well, we COULD do this, but we'd have to spend money fo the lisences for all the stuff to make it, then we'd have to spend money on the lawyers to check if it's OK to make it, and that's too expensive for what we're going to do! So forget it."
Sorry for the bad spelling before. The important part to note here is the bit about doctors working for HMO's CAN unionize. Replace the work HMO with "start-up" or whoever you work for...
Slashdot Mirror
-Kim Stanley Robinson
Don't know how, but it looks like their re-directing the re-direct to a new address.
Hi. I tried this with some ID's from friends. I got through on one, but after that I got accesss forbidden (403). Has anyone tried twice? Or more than one acct. from the same IP, or did they fix it?
Right. Here's the english version:
%%%Begin translation%%%
Subnetting is good. Subnetting let's you divide your assigned IP's (in-house only!) into sub-networks, which can then be controlled by a nice switch/router/guy with flags/whatever so that you get more throughput, since broadcasts to a subnet wouldn't flood the other subnets! WOW!
HOWEVER, since the size of the assigned IP's is fixed (Class A, B, or C), you can't give back those IP's your not using on the subnets! DAMN!
If the IETF had used subnetting in combination with assigning IP's, we would have more IP's available, since we could have halfed the size of a class B into TWO sub-classes! GEE!
%%%end translation%%%
p.s. I noticed the guy said he needed to learn this for a CIsco test...but he never said if he passed!
Nope. I don't. In fact, that line is more poingnant than you may realize. I've got (and have had) users who would complain and moan about every upgrade/change/anything done to "their" precicious systems (side note: they didn't own the systems) becuase they had some customized icon/desktop/e-mail/SOMETHING that they just "had to have". And we're talking Win 3.11 and Win95 (the original), so you know they don't really need this stuff. Point is, most company brass, and in fact, most of the non-technical parts of any company, wouldn't know a transistor from a tater tot, and THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW. They want their hands held, the paperclip, the "You've Got mail!", all of it. And guess who's got to give it to them? The corporate IS departments, that's who. Cause the brass pays the bills, and we all follow the golden rule, as in: "He who haveth the gold, maketh the rules."
What is Amazon worth, REALLY? I mean, take away the overinflated stock, and what do you have? Some servers, some T-1 lines, and a warehouse full of books?
Somewhere I once read a story told by an economist, where he offered a reporter a million dollars for their left arm. The reporter, or course, refused. But then the economist said: "Ah, but you see, now you're a millionare! You have something that's worh a million dollars!"
The point here is this: Nothing is worth anything unless someone wants it. If no one want to BUY amazon stock at it's current price, and the price starts to fall (see: supply and demand chart), you're going to wind up with a company that's suddenly got to prove to it's share holders what it's REALLY worth. As in profit. And trust me, this whole market share/eyeball stuff is NOT going to last long when you've got an angry horde of stockholders outside your door wondering why their $100+ stock is sudenly worth about a share of Marvel Comics stock.
Hey Jon;
if you can't be first, you might as well try to look hip.
maybe you should look up "hoisted by your own petard" sometime?
I thought that MS wanted an open standard for messaging (read: they're loosing the war)? So, if they open their protocol, who cares? The whole thing will be a standard protocol anyway, so they're really not giving anything away, are they?
"You got your chocolate in my beanut butter" : 2,025,616 "You got you peanut butter om my chocolate" : 2,025,616 hmmm...
I think it means that third Guiness kicked in...
Trust me on this...technical abilities and social development are two phrases that DON'T belong in the same sentence! :)
twenty sqare miles for servers? What are they running, NT?
No, you can't get out of taxes.. Foreign nationals in the US have to pay US taxes of some sort...sorry, thanks for playing, and now, these nice INS folks would like to talk to you
I'm not worried about ISP's who sue spammers for abusing their networks...I'm worried about ISP's who take cash up front from spammers...kind of like the USPS does from Ed Whathisface. You know its coming, and you don't get to sue for GETTING spam, do you?
I'm not worried about being the "net-set" until we get a lot of pandering through fluff articles looking to cater to us because we have some disposable income.
If there was ever a wish list for this film, here's my $.02:
Remember that good science fiction is fiction first, science second. It's all well and good that we can manipulate reality on film, but don't sacrifice the story for the effects. The really good books of science fiction rely more on the charaters, their experiences, reactions, and emotions to tell the story than they do on gizmos and gear.
I can think of a few examples here, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
I've worked with Compaq/HP/Dell servers in the past, and I can tell you that when you're doing a RAID-5 on the majority of these machines, the "control" of the array is handled by BIOS/HW systems, not the OS. You run a system partition utility to create the RAID-5 stripe sets, and controll it from there. The OS doesn't know about how the HW is set up, it only sees one contiguous partition, as provided by the HW controller. This may sound a little wierd, but the speed is (IMHO) usually fater by running through the HW rather than the OS.
The young'uns are not stupid, they're just ignorant. There's a difference there.
I'd like to focus on one statement in here, one that poked at the proverbial sore spot on my psyche that I've had for a long time. There's a line in this feature that reads:
I'd like to point something out that we generally tend to forget: Technology does not DO anything! Technology is a tool, all right? It's a plastic box, full of silicon and copper and solder, that's sits on my desk. Technology is a beige paperweight. Not until I make it do something that anything happens.
This continued anthropomorphism of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and electronic technology in general has become absurd. The wheel is technology, for goodness sake, but you don't see people ranting about how bad all the changes it generated were.
The feature is correct in part when pointed out that it's the people in charge of the networks/cable channels/webcasts/etc.. that had performed this deification of the victims, and that does all the intense focusing on seemingly (I don't know everyones tastes, so maybe you ARE interested in thong underwear and blue dresses?) unimportant issues for their entertainment (and hence, dollar) value. But remember, it's the people who made the decision to send the Channel Five helecopter after OJ's Bronco on the freeway, not the helicopter's.
Now, obviously, if the technology didn't exist, the oportunity for this kind of globalized infatuation wouldn't be possible. But, with any kind of technological advancement, there are going to be negative as well as positive impacts. To blame the technology used in these cases is about as practical as screaming at the TV for showing the 1000'th hour of some search boat floating off Martha's Vineyeard.
If you ever forget this, get a hammer. Look at the hammer. Remember that the hammer has done more for the advancement of humanity, and done more for the destruction of humanity, than our much lauded technology probably ever will. If that doesn't work, hit yourself over the head with the hammer. We'll web cast it for you!
Uh-Oh, I smell a bait and switch here!
Put up a BSD article, then you see the ad up top. And you think, "Can't be all that bad, can it?" then you click, then your lost!
(Microsoft is not a partner in this posters' soul)
Indeed. The problem isn't that AOL is giving out the info (any bank or credit card company, etc will do so with even LESS than a court order, like a credit report, say), but that the criminal justice system as a whole hasn't got a clue as to what to do with the information economy.
Their understanding of the technology is no limited that they'll take a "shotgun" approach to law enforcement where information technology is concerned, taking everything they can get their hands on, without a thought as to what it is, or what it's used for.
Hopefully, as more technologically savy folks get into the justice system, this will change, but for now, it's really another growing pain of having a fundamental shift in the way things are done.
That doesn't mean, however, that that's an excuse for some of the things that are done by the criminal justice system. Any violation for fourth amendment (is that the right one? Search and Seizure?) rights in a computer related case should be dealt with just as harshly as it would if it was a non-computer related crime.
Look, the REAL reason that AOL is pushing this whole "open cable" stuff is NOT some higher morality, but in fact, cold, hard cash. AOL makes many millions of dollars a MONTH by charging all the AOL'er's 19.95 for dial-up access. And if these same people suddenly decide that they want to go cable modem instead, well, guess where AOL is going?
Now, don't get me wrong, the cable companies are no bunch of winners either. Cable companies have been the most old-boy, back-door, cowboy run outfits for years(IMHO). The fact that AT&T got in there is actually a good thing for the common consumer, since now they've got an actual corporation to push tech. advancements. One thing keeping the cable modems and everything else out of your homes is that installing this stuff is extremely expensive. Cable systems were not designed for two way, originally, and getting them up to spec means running new cable, changing repeaters, cleaning the return path, and re-configuring head-ends (that's where all the signals come together, and get put onto the coax, or fiber). And why should cable companies pay for that, if we're all happy paying the $50 or so a month for Skinemax?
Maybe AOL & gang could get with some of the smaller groups, and pony up some change to help, in exchange for access? Microsoft did it, with Rogers cable in Canada, didn't they? It would push the cable companies to get the system up and running, and AOL could "run" the show, and everyone would be happy. Except the consumer, but who cares about them?
p.s. I noticed in the article that there was a (glaring?) ommission about how much AOL& that group was paying off (I mean contributing, sorry) Congress, while the numbers for AT&T were well stated.
This is just the first instance of what's probably going to become a HUGE problem in the eletronics/computer industry.
You see, a lot of companies want to make money from working on the internet, BUT, you simply cannot throw up a web site and expect the money to start rolling in (with a few exceptions, of course).
So what these companies are thinking is "gee, if we can invent a new way of doind something on the internet, and patent that technology, we have something that no one else has. That gives us intellectual capital, which will make us a very attractive company come IPO/merger/buy-out time. And in the mean time, we can lisence the stuff out, and make money, which makes us more attractive still."
The short form of this is:
Patent=Intellectual capital+Lisencing=$$$
So in a few years, those of you who are doing the start-up thing, don't be suprised if your spending as much time reading through patent applciations as application code! The lawsuits will fly, the lawyers will get rich, the companies will go under, and this whole fun industry we're in will become a feeding trough or the patent lawyers!
Ok, so that's a worse case scenario, but I'm pretty sure the general principle holds true. And with the (relative) ease of creating code (it ain't like building a roket ship to the moon, after all), this process is simply going to accellerate.
The thing about this patent that's worrysome to me is NOT the fact that they have it (someone was probably going to get something like this eventualy), but the whole "should be compensated" clause, really. One of the things that fuels this industry is the relative low cost (thank you, open source!) of getting "raw materials" for whatever your working on.
If we have to start putting up cash for everything, it's simply going to be that much harder for companies to develop new ideas, because the companies are going to say: " Well, we COULD do this, but we'd have to spend money fo the lisences for all the stuff to make it, then we'd have to spend money on the lawyers to check if it's OK to make it, and that's too expensive for what we're going to do! So forget it."
Sorry for the bad spelling before. The important part to note here is the bit about doctors working for HMO's CAN unionize. Replace the work HMO with "start-up" or whoever you work for...