It also seems like it would be a useful cautionary measure. There was a post above this one, wherein a quote from the GMail site was pasted, claiming that you must also log in with any dots you placed in your name during the sign-up process (naturally). You could, theoretically, strategically place a sequence of periods inside of your username to thwart off attempts at gaining access to your account. It doesn't stop all attacks, of course. Someone could just steal your session, as always (unless you use HTTPS for your GMail -- a wise decision!).
Uh, 'inbound port 53' doesn't relate to DNS look-ups, unless you're running a nameserver, or have a really flawed resolver. 53/tcp for DNS isn't rare. It's used for all kinds of things: long query responses and AXFR/IXFR transfers for nameservers, off the top of my head. The first one relates directly to client usage, as well.
I have to wonder what the grandparent is on about, though. Enabling inbound SMTP, pop3 + pop3s, SMB over TCP, HTTP, and SMTP over SSL makes no sense whatsoever. Quite a funny post, guy!!
An observation is some type of measurement. We could call this a fact if we like, but observation is better because is acknowledges the role of the observer in a way that "fact" does not.
Wwhich would be.. a fact -- a scientific fact, which is NECESSARILY a probability statement. There's no such thing as absolute truth, of course. As another guy said, observations can be misinterpreted. This does not make observations infactual (in the realm of science, at least). The fact exists on its own; the interpretation is a different matter, which can be changed entirely. The fact cannot. And as it may be, still, the observation may be incomplete or inconsistent due to observational error as well. Still, if done carefully and repeatedly (as the parent poster suggested), the fact can be assigned a statement of probability, just like everything else that we perceive is.
I don't think very many people will be saying: 'with absolute certainty, objects fall at the same rate,' or 'this apple will fall if I drop it.' Well, maybe some will, actually. That subset of humans is probably more vast than that of strong atheists, only because the concept of a deity and the framing of the question of the existence one is more removed from human reasoning than the experience of gravitation. It's a semantics game that most laymen don't understand or don't want to accept, much like the (more common) theory versus hypothesis debate. The thing is that: a statement that an apple will fall if it is dropped is supported by observation, repeated again over and done carefully. It is also, perhaps more importantly, justified heavily by the body of laws governing motion and gravitation, but that is nothing more than a glorification of the observation itself. We would still be able to say that there's a good chance that fruits of various shapes, sizes, and sweetness will accelerate toward the ground at a rate approximating 9.81m/s on the surface of Earth, with or without recourse to the large body of theory and law to support it. It would only be said with a lower probability than something so supported.
What if you can't close your right or left eye? I don't think that system is very foolproof, either. I think the driver's license should be sufficient; if someone managed to steal yours, then I guess you deserve what you got!! On the other hand, the entire concept of both age-verification for buying products and drivers' licenses make me want to kill myself in disgust.
I run a web server, mailserver, and numerous other hobby services here, so I had the "business grade DSL", which is 936/1536. (divide kbps by 9 for a good guestimate in kb/sec, so 100 up, 170 down) DSL always provides me with that speed, it never fluctuates so I get every penny I pay for. I also pay a bit extra for a block of 8 (5 usable) static IP addresses which my services require.
By comparison, the cable offers many more tiers of service, and I opted for again the "business class" service. This I was told was 2k/20k. When he brought the modem I ran a speed test. The installer scoffed at those numbers (about 1.7/15k) and told me "You never really get 2/20, that's the theoretical maximum, just like DSL" at which point I had to show him what DSL really gives you.
Well, for a start, asymmetric transfer speeds are usually related in Downstream/Upstream format, not the reverse. More importantly, the SI prefix for kilo is k, while the SI prefix for mega is M. I would be really surprised to see that you had 15kbps cable modem service. I don't think I'd pay for that. As far as DSL and cable modem speed goes, both you and the "installer" (of whatever) are wrong and right.
Depending on the DSL technology used, the sync speed varies widely depending upon the quality of the connection. Specifically, if you're using ADSL, then you're probably using G.992.1 (G.DMT), which seperates downstream in 256 channels of some kHz each (can't remember, to be honest; it's been 3-4 years since I used ADSL). The higher frequency channels have a lower signal-to-noise ratio. If there are any problems on your line -- bridged tap, bad local wiring, bad DSLAM card, water in your NID, whatever -- the sync rate of your connection can be and will be degraded. I have, in the past, had an ADSL line with a maximum sync rate of some 6.5Mbps (this was around 1999 or 2000), and, under some conditions, the connection would re-sync at even 500kbps.
However, if your line is functioning normally, you do have a 'dedicated' bandwidth straight to the DSLAM, whereas, with a cable modem, you (likely) share the last mile with several other people -- that 38Mbps, 6MHz wide channel over DOCSIS 1.1 is the same for both you and your neighbors, up until some higher HFC node or the CMTS. For that reason, in some of the more higher populated areas, it's easy to get a bad performance over a cable modem now and again. There is a difference, though, between the sync rate and the performance in practice. I think what your installer referred to was the sync rate of the connection. On DSL, even with a pristinely clean line, you do not sync at the maximum allowed for the specification, or even for the tier that you're supposed to be on. That's just a given (it's sort of like never getting 56kbps on a V.92 line). And, even as close as you get, the overhead is always higher: PPPoE/PPPoA + the ATM used (which, I guess, is why you were dividing by 9) in the background between your DSLAM and ISP.
Finally, if you're worried about DNS, then why not run a local caching nameserver? I don't know what you're going on about with all the business about OS X and whatnot. If you have two physical (not logical) interfaces on a UNIX machine, then outbound connections will go out over the default route (barring the existence of a more specific route, of course). Inbound connections will go to the interface for which they're addressed is bound, and subsequent packets sent to that socket go out on the proper link all the same. To have failover, you need not do anything more advanced than watchdog each interface and fiddly with the default route or use metrics. Anything more advanced is just a bgpd away.
I'm not sure why the parent is modded troll, because he's right. This is a common misunderstanding of the word "why." Sometimes why means how, and that's what science addresses. Why implies intent, and is a meaningless question UNLESS you are invoking intelligent design. Whether or not intelligent design is a stupid thing or not is irrelevant: there is no purpose or lack of purpose for sexual intercourse; it only so happens to be. The mechanism which allows for sexual intercourse to exist, and the results that it produces, are separate completely from questions of intentionality.
Except ARIN runs WHOIS servers, too, dumbass (and so do all the other RIRs). And, no, that's not how they're doing the tracking, as he's indicated that the WHOIS information is accurate (geolocation services use a mixture of different things, including multiple WHOIS records [you can get more specific records for a particular net]).
Christ, the amount of misinformation on Slashdot is astonishing. And I don't know what you're babbling about in relation to reverse DNS. Where did anyone say anything about it?
Is there anyone out there that knows the likelihood of ISPs going down if they came under a real attack? If a few botnets targeted these ISPs, could they be brought down completely?
Hahahah. Uhh.. Yeah? People have been taking down ISPs for years. It's not some sort of special accomplishment, and it doesn't even take a single "botnet," let alone a few. I've even taken down UUNet nodes in the past before, using just a few hosts. But it depends entirely on the amount of "bandwidth" available to you and the target. Most ISPs don't really have that much; they are not magical creatures.
The species' survival is more important than the survival of any single individual.
According to whom? Try to wax philosophical and then say a thing like that? Nevertheless, I don't have a horse in the race; I'm just trying to maintain intellectual integrity.
No, but it would allow for us to determine whether or not they're using VeriSign's key to encrypt things. Could just have VeriSign decrypt a file and see if it matches the original. Of course, that doesn't help much, since VeriSign is only one entity, and the key could belong to any number of important entities.
Telecoms are natural monopolies. They OWN whatever lines they manage to get a right of way into your house. That means that Telecoms aren't "capitalism" at all. They're each petty monopolies.
Getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, are we? Big jump from "monopolies to "petty monopolies." As I've already said once in this thread, is there something wrong with a monopoly? Yes, they own the lines. Good on them; they made a good investment back in the early days. They were smart people. So if you want to get into someone's household, you need to be creative and find new, inventive ways to do it without using OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. But, even if you wanted to bury cable, which would've been feasible some years ago, it would not be possible because of REGULATIONS. AT&T doesn't somehow magically stop people from putting cable into the ground, because they are not law enforcement officials. But they do have law enforcement officials, as well as congress, bought off. To what end? Regulatory barriers to entry. Nice.
What you are saying is that you don't like AT&T, and that they shouldn't be allowed to have their property all to themselves, because you want more, more, more, and you want the government to come in and make everything okay. Ok, maybe that isn't what you're saying, but it sounds very close to what you were implying.
Bullshit. For a start, you say the word "monopoly" like it's the plague. Is there something inherently bad about a monopoly or am I missing something? Monopolies are not the bain [sic] of capatalism -- they are the result of regulations, which is necessarily not capitalistic. The telecoms were always going to be a "monopoly" in the way that they are. Why? Because of barriers to entry. Oh, wait. No, no, no, I've got it all wrong. It's the big, bad telecoms, which are just corporations, but they are so big and evil and make it impossible to compete!!!
Or not. Have you ever thought HOW, exactly, they make it impossible to compete? Hey, I want to build a network. Oh, wait, I have to contact the city to bury cable under the ground, or get a license from the FCC to use a particular slice of the RF spectrum. Fuck that. Things have been tilted in favor of AT&T for as long as things have existed, and were always going to be, because of LAWS. It's funny how many people come on here and acknowledge how the telecom industry has their hands in the pockets of the government, but then go on ranting about how we need more regulations to stop their evil deeds. Who the fuck do you think is allowing them to be evil? Get rid of the damn regulations, and people who want to compete WILL. How can you have competition when no one is allowed to compete by law?
And, hey, if the Bells produce a good, quality product in a true free market, that no one else can rival, then what's the problem? Right now, they definitely haven't. We don't have a free market. But I would say that this decision is entirely sensible. Although, having some experience with networking and networking infrastracture, myself, I think the AT&T guys are full of shit about how much network upgrading they need to do. But if it were true, and it WILL be in the long run, then it's the only logical thing to do. If you want to use more, you pay for it. How does that not make sense? Please fucking tell me.
The grand parent is right about socialism not NECESSARILY being the worst thing in the world, but he's confusing propaganda with the real reasons we didn't want socialism. I'm not saying I agree with propaganda, but I think a lot of people in government during the Cold War and WW II and whatnot had an idea of what socialism would really bring. How to communicate difficult economic arguments to the layperson, who always wants more, more, more for himself, and has a naive understanding of the world around him? No, I'm not saying I wish we had an aristocracy. In fact, I'm not saying anything, but only asking a question. It is true that socialism has never been fully implemented the way Marx, et al intended, though (although some retards will say "Sweden!!" or something to that effect). We don't know if real socialism can truly work. We do have plenty examples of it completely falling through the floor, though ("some animals are more equal than others"). But even if you manage a socialistic system with no authoritarian elements, socialism is still inherently fascistic. The government still takes your hard earned money and gives it to someone you didn't necessarily want it to be given to. And why should everyone be equal? Why should hard work not be rewarded any more than no work at all? I don't understand this. I'm not a social Darwinist or anything, but if anyone can explain that idea to me, I'd love to fucking hear it. Personally, I think it's really, really naive idealism, perhaps with a tinge of leftist propaganda ingrained into the heads of these kids in schools -- anti-"racism" and anti-classism taken a bit too far by people who don't understand logical fallacies, that brings people to such ridiculous utopian thought.
Also, why would you want to override the natural behavior of Alt-Space (opening the program menu)? It's very useful. On the other hand, you avoid the potential embarrassment from heeding the commands of IRC pranksters: 'hit alt-space then type cookie jar for fun!!.'
Should've used elinks and irssi, but yeah. I've done that many times as well, and it's much better than X Windows, and probably better than Windows for most things.
Each time I read this, it gets easier to read the final paragraph. However, it still has at least two issues. The first is the overloading of the v with w, the two of which have different sounds. The second is that British English has about 11 non-dipthong vowels (which is really most of the issue with spelling), and the "new spelling system" (let's call it a Rechtschreibung) doesn't really address that. This, of course, can also lead to the issues of sh and ch. Although,, if you left sh as the s symbol, you wouldn't be able to drop a letter from the keyboard. Furthermore, does Z replace th as in thin or th as in than? If it replaces both, then there is not advantage to its replacement.
Since we are inclined to speak of a Rechtschreibung, can we address issues like it's versus its? Perhaps, we can add back some of our missing pronouns (e.g. wit to mean you, I, and maybe others versus I and others, excluding you; gé to mean plural you). Oh, the list can go on for some time, but, if we propose a Rechtschreibung, we should do it right.
Slashdot Mirror
It also seems like it would be a useful cautionary measure. There was a post above this one, wherein a quote from the GMail site was pasted, claiming that you must also log in with any dots you placed in your name during the sign-up process (naturally). You could, theoretically, strategically place a sequence of periods inside of your username to thwart off attempts at gaining access to your account. It doesn't stop all attacks, of course. Someone could just steal your session, as always (unless you use HTTPS for your GMail -- a wise decision!).
That was probably the worst example of English grammar that I have ever seen.
Not so.
Uh, 'inbound port 53' doesn't relate to DNS look-ups, unless you're running a nameserver, or have a really flawed resolver. 53/tcp for DNS isn't rare. It's used for all kinds of things: long query responses and AXFR/IXFR transfers for nameservers, off the top of my head. The first one relates directly to client usage, as well.
I have to wonder what the grandparent is on about, though. Enabling inbound SMTP, pop3 + pop3s, SMB over TCP, HTTP, and SMTP over SSL makes no sense whatsoever. Quite a funny post, guy!!
Wwhich would be .. a fact -- a scientific fact, which is NECESSARILY a probability statement. There's no such thing as absolute truth, of course. As another guy said, observations can be misinterpreted. This does not make observations infactual (in the realm of science, at least). The fact exists on its own; the interpretation is a different matter, which can be changed entirely. The fact cannot. And as it may be, still, the observation may be incomplete or inconsistent due to observational error as well. Still, if done carefully and repeatedly (as the parent poster suggested), the fact can be assigned a statement of probability, just like everything else that we perceive is.
I don't think very many people will be saying: 'with absolute certainty, objects fall at the same rate,' or 'this apple will fall if I drop it.' Well, maybe some will, actually. That subset of humans is probably more vast than that of strong atheists, only because the concept of a deity and the framing of the question of the existence one is more removed from human reasoning than the experience of gravitation. It's a semantics game that most laymen don't understand or don't want to accept, much like the (more common) theory versus hypothesis debate. The thing is that: a statement that an apple will fall if it is dropped is supported by observation, repeated again over and done carefully. It is also, perhaps more importantly, justified heavily by the body of laws governing motion and gravitation, but that is nothing more than a glorification of the observation itself. We would still be able to say that there's a good chance that fruits of various shapes, sizes, and sweetness will accelerate toward the ground at a rate approximating 9.81m/s on the surface of Earth, with or without recourse to the large body of theory and law to support it. It would only be said with a lower probability than something so supported.
loL
Curfew? "Ditching class?" What country do you live in? None of these things are remotely the business of anyone. Hell, smoking? Get out.
What if you can't close your right or left eye? I don't think that system is very foolproof, either. I think the driver's license should be sufficient; if someone managed to steal yours, then I guess you deserve what you got!! On the other hand, the entire concept of both age-verification for buying products and drivers' licenses make me want to kill myself in disgust.
Well, for a start, asymmetric transfer speeds are usually related in Downstream/Upstream format, not the reverse. More importantly, the SI prefix for kilo is k, while the SI prefix for mega is M. I would be really surprised to see that you had 15kbps cable modem service. I don't think I'd pay for that. As far as DSL and cable modem speed goes, both you and the "installer" (of whatever) are wrong and right.
Depending on the DSL technology used, the sync speed varies widely depending upon the quality of the connection. Specifically, if you're using ADSL, then you're probably using G.992.1 (G.DMT), which seperates downstream in 256 channels of some kHz each (can't remember, to be honest; it's been 3-4 years since I used ADSL). The higher frequency channels have a lower signal-to-noise ratio. If there are any problems on your line -- bridged tap, bad local wiring, bad DSLAM card, water in your NID, whatever -- the sync rate of your connection can be and will be degraded. I have, in the past, had an ADSL line with a maximum sync rate of some 6.5Mbps (this was around 1999 or 2000), and, under some conditions, the connection would re-sync at even 500kbps.
However, if your line is functioning normally, you do have a 'dedicated' bandwidth straight to the DSLAM, whereas, with a cable modem, you (likely) share the last mile with several other people -- that 38Mbps, 6MHz wide channel over DOCSIS 1.1 is the same for both you and your neighbors, up until some higher HFC node or the CMTS. For that reason, in some of the more higher populated areas, it's easy to get a bad performance over a cable modem now and again. There is a difference, though, between the sync rate and the performance in practice. I think what your installer referred to was the sync rate of the connection. On DSL, even with a pristinely clean line, you do not sync at the maximum allowed for the specification, or even for the tier that you're supposed to be on. That's just a given (it's sort of like never getting 56kbps on a V.92 line). And, even as close as you get, the overhead is always higher: PPPoE/PPPoA + the ATM used (which, I guess, is why you were dividing by 9) in the background between your DSLAM and ISP.
Finally, if you're worried about DNS, then why not run a local caching nameserver? I don't know what you're going on about with all the business about OS X and whatnot. If you have two physical (not logical) interfaces on a UNIX machine, then outbound connections will go out over the default route (barring the existence of a more specific route, of course). Inbound connections will go to the interface for which they're addressed is bound, and subsequent packets sent to that socket go out on the proper link all the same. To have failover, you need not do anything more advanced than watchdog each interface and fiddly with the default route or use metrics. Anything more advanced is just a bgpd away.
Holy shit! The internet?
I'm not sure why the parent is modded troll, because he's right. This is a common misunderstanding of the word "why." Sometimes why means how, and that's what science addresses. Why implies intent, and is a meaningless question UNLESS you are invoking intelligent design. Whether or not intelligent design is a stupid thing or not is irrelevant: there is no purpose or lack of purpose for sexual intercourse; it only so happens to be. The mechanism which allows for sexual intercourse to exist, and the results that it produces, are separate completely from questions of intentionality.
Except ARIN runs WHOIS servers, too, dumbass (and so do all the other RIRs). And, no, that's not how they're doing the tracking, as he's indicated that the WHOIS information is accurate (geolocation services use a mixture of different things, including multiple WHOIS records [you can get more specific records for a particular net]).
Christ, the amount of misinformation on Slashdot is astonishing. And I don't know what you're babbling about in relation to reverse DNS. Where did anyone say anything about it?
No, but it would allow for us to determine whether or not they're using VeriSign's key to encrypt things. Could just have VeriSign decrypt a file and see if it matches the original. Of course, that doesn't help much, since VeriSign is only one entity, and the key could belong to any number of important entities.
Getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, are we? Big jump from "monopolies to "petty monopolies." As I've already said once in this thread, is there something wrong with a monopoly? Yes, they own the lines. Good on them; they made a good investment back in the early days. They were smart people. So if you want to get into someone's household, you need to be creative and find new, inventive ways to do it without using OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. But, even if you wanted to bury cable, which would've been feasible some years ago, it would not be possible because of REGULATIONS. AT&T doesn't somehow magically stop people from putting cable into the ground, because they are not law enforcement officials. But they do have law enforcement officials, as well as congress, bought off. To what end? Regulatory barriers to entry. Nice.
What you are saying is that you don't like AT&T, and that they shouldn't be allowed to have their property all to themselves, because you want more, more, more, and you want the government to come in and make everything okay. Ok, maybe that isn't what you're saying, but it sounds very close to what you were implying.
Bullshit. For a start, you say the word "monopoly" like it's the plague. Is there something inherently bad about a monopoly or am I missing something? Monopolies are not the bain [sic] of capatalism -- they are the result of regulations, which is necessarily not capitalistic. The telecoms were always going to be a "monopoly" in the way that they are. Why? Because of barriers to entry. Oh, wait. No, no, no, I've got it all wrong. It's the big, bad telecoms, which are just corporations, but they are so big and evil and make it impossible to compete!!! Or not. Have you ever thought HOW, exactly, they make it impossible to compete? Hey, I want to build a network. Oh, wait, I have to contact the city to bury cable under the ground, or get a license from the FCC to use a particular slice of the RF spectrum. Fuck that. Things have been tilted in favor of AT&T for as long as things have existed, and were always going to be, because of LAWS. It's funny how many people come on here and acknowledge how the telecom industry has their hands in the pockets of the government, but then go on ranting about how we need more regulations to stop their evil deeds. Who the fuck do you think is allowing them to be evil? Get rid of the damn regulations, and people who want to compete WILL. How can you have competition when no one is allowed to compete by law? And, hey, if the Bells produce a good, quality product in a true free market, that no one else can rival, then what's the problem? Right now, they definitely haven't. We don't have a free market. But I would say that this decision is entirely sensible. Although, having some experience with networking and networking infrastracture, myself, I think the AT&T guys are full of shit about how much network upgrading they need to do. But if it were true, and it WILL be in the long run, then it's the only logical thing to do. If you want to use more, you pay for it. How does that not make sense? Please fucking tell me. The grand parent is right about socialism not NECESSARILY being the worst thing in the world, but he's confusing propaganda with the real reasons we didn't want socialism. I'm not saying I agree with propaganda, but I think a lot of people in government during the Cold War and WW II and whatnot had an idea of what socialism would really bring. How to communicate difficult economic arguments to the layperson, who always wants more, more, more for himself, and has a naive understanding of the world around him? No, I'm not saying I wish we had an aristocracy. In fact, I'm not saying anything, but only asking a question. It is true that socialism has never been fully implemented the way Marx, et al intended, though (although some retards will say "Sweden!!" or something to that effect). We don't know if real socialism can truly work. We do have plenty examples of it completely falling through the floor, though ("some animals are more equal than others"). But even if you manage a socialistic system with no authoritarian elements, socialism is still inherently fascistic. The government still takes your hard earned money and gives it to someone you didn't necessarily want it to be given to. And why should everyone be equal? Why should hard work not be rewarded any more than no work at all? I don't understand this. I'm not a social Darwinist or anything, but if anyone can explain that idea to me, I'd love to fucking hear it. Personally, I think it's really, really naive idealism, perhaps with a tinge of leftist propaganda ingrained into the heads of these kids in schools -- anti-"racism" and anti-classism taken a bit too far by people who don't understand logical fallacies, that brings people to such ridiculous utopian thought.
hurry up, folks.
Also, why would you want to override the natural behavior of Alt-Space (opening the program menu)? It's very useful. On the other hand, you avoid the potential embarrassment from heeding the commands of IRC pranksters: 'hit alt-space then type cookie jar for fun!!.'
So Use Ctrl+Esc.
Should've used elinks and irssi, but yeah. I've done that many times as well, and it's much better than X Windows, and probably better than Windows for most things.
To someone so simple, it surely was.
I prefer rot-26, anyhow.