Apparently, their WAP gateway does indeed block ssh (and god knows what else). I was already paying for the Tmobile Unlimited Internet package. When I called in to find out if there was a different access point I should be using, there was.
I think he (the tech support guy) did something to activate "Tmobile Unlimited Internet VPN", "on [my] SIM", and then gave me the info for a new access point.
Now when I try to connect with Putty, it goes through!
I can't get putty to work. It installs fine on my 3650, and is able to connect to GPRS fine (or, I assume that's what it's doing when it says "Connection Created"), but then does nothing. After a bit, I get:
An operation timed out.(TimedOut)
I'm in San Francisco, with TMobile as my carrier, if that sheds any light....
I concur. Speakeasy owns. I now have (for $140ish/month) 3mbit down and 768 kbit up. With 4 static IPs.
And no blocked ports.
I can't believe people settle for anything less. (I also can't believe other posters think that "no blocked ports" is that unusual. Speakeasy's been that way for at least 3 years (as long as I've had their service))
It's funny how the series started out as kind of a hardboiled detective novel (albeit with vampires and zombies) and by the last few books is basically just pr0n.
When I first got it it was quite difficult to open, so I opened and closed it a lot until it loosened up. It was then fine (easily opened with thumbnail) until I let someone use the can/bottle opener at a party, and it came back hard to open.:( WD40 fixed it tho.
I said nothing about digestion, I said "handled." Specifically, I meant that carbohydrate-rich food may not make you feel full like protein and fats do.
Ok. I don't agree with the "feel full" part of your beliefs (since it is clear from various sources that the Atkins diet is in fact based on metabolism, and not on a subjective sensation of fullness), but it does seem that the "evolutional suitability" of carbs as food would lead to problems (e.g. obesity) when they are overly indulged in. So, in that sense, I do agree that carbs may not be "handled" as well as fats and proteins. (And indeed, if one is to believe the Atkins-provided information, they aren't handled as well.)
I would think being less readily digested would be a good thing for keeping a food from adding to your body fat, not vice-versa.
Quite so, my mistake. I believe I was thinking more along the lines above, and misspoke (misposted?).
Your two paragraphs seem to be contradictory. In the first, you say that it's just the feeling of fullness that makes the difference, and in the second you indicate that you believe carbs to be less readily digested than fat and protein. So, which is it?
By the way, this link indicates that the Atkins diet is very much to do with the difference in metabolization between carbs, fats and proteins.
The core concept of The Atkins Diet is Dr. Atkins' theory that over-consumption of and hypersensitivity to carbohydrates is the root of our problem with being overweight. The principle he bases his plan on says that it is the way your body processes the carbohydrates you eat -- not how much fat you eat -- that causes you to gain weight.
It's simple: If you take in more than you burn per day, no matter what the source, you gain weight.
This is true, but the question is, "Does everything you eat get 'taken in' (i.e. metabolized)?". If someone metabolizes fat better than carbs, and poops out less of the eaten calories, then it does matter what they eat.
That being said, I have no idea what the "normal human" is like, as far as digesting food, so I can't say whether the carb vs. fat thing has any merit. My understanding as to the reason the Atkins diet works is that people digest fat and protein much less readily than they do carbs, so you effectively eat fewer calories.
You know, this is basically a vi-vs.-emacs kind of thing.
Some people think it's obvious, that they own the bit-patterns that they create, just as some people think it's obvious that two people of the same gender can't get married. ("Marriage is between a man and a woman, period!").
The question isn't so much whether people do or do not own the bit-patterns, it's whether people should or should not own them. That is, do we want our society to contain that concept? Sure, if we changed, some people/businesses would no longer have a way of generating income. But I think they are inherently doomed anyway, and the draconian laws that we'd have to enact (and are, come to think of it) to protect those people/businesses are a far worse price to pay, societally speaking.
I think this file (I forget where I found it) is one of the canonical ones of this type. So, your scanner may have a specific rule for exactly this file.
Well, I didn't make it, but if you look at it, you'll see that the 4Gig files are compressed into something not very small. Then, 16 of them are compressed into another file that is slightly smaller. And so on, and so on.
I think the 4gig files are actually just 4gigs of Nulls, so that's obviously very compressible.
Well, you can run into trouble if you try to scan this zip file.
I forget the exact stats, but it decompresses out about 7 levels deep, 16 files per level, and 4gig files at the last level. So, that's a lot of unzipping your virusscanner would be doing.
Granted, you could probably give it a checksum for this file in particular, but there are always variations on the theme.
So far (2.5 years) it's been pretty damn reliable. I've never rebooted it, it's running on NT4.0.
The version we have will let you use any IP phone as an extension (which is to say, identical to a wired extension). The other thing that's nice is that it gives you analog phone jacks, so you can use any phone/fax/modem you want at each extension.
It's got other nice stuff, like a (windows) desktop app that will pop up to do phone stuff (transfers, conference calls, etc.) Or a java applet, if you don't have windows.
I'm not sure how common the other features are, but it has good call routing/group calling stuff. They sell an add-on package for doing reports on the calls that each person made, and you have very fine grained control over outcalling (e.g. Joe can call out from his voicemail, even off site, but Bob can't).
I'm pretty satisfied with its capabilites, overall.
I can't believe you mention Firefly and John Doe in the same sentence. Firefly was good. John Doe was ridiculous. Half the "science" gibberish he was spouting wasn't even true, and his analogies made no sense at all. Not to mention the fact that he is the worst overactor since Shatner.
Did they change stuff when I wasn't looking? I thought win2k still used PPTP to do their "trivial" VPNs. Sure win2k has support for IPSec, but the most common "VPN" that anyone will ever do is the PPTP style. Which would be 1 TCP connection (port 1723) that you run PPP over.
Using the IPSec stuff is way nicer though, since you don't have to do any special "connect" stuff after you configure it (i.e. you don't have to "dial up" before you can use the VPN). It all just works based on the rulesets you specify.
If you want to set up a real IPSec VPN with FreeS/WAN and win2k, they have some fairly mature tools available. Head on over to http://www.freeswan.ca to check them out.
Re:Warning for 802.11b devices
on
802.11g Slows Down
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Shouldn't your sig say:
In Soviet Rush, you get high on today's Tom Sawyer.
That would be in keeping with the wacky mixing-up of the other Soviet Russia jokes. As it is, you aren't mixing it up at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, their WAP gateway does indeed block ssh (and god knows what else). I was already paying for the Tmobile Unlimited Internet package. When I called in to find out if there was a different access point I should be using, there was.
I think he (the tech support guy) did something to activate "Tmobile Unlimited Internet VPN", "on [my] SIM", and then gave me the info for a new access point.
Now when I try to connect with Putty, it goes through!
Thank you, slashdot! (Ok, Phexro, specifically)
I'm in San Francisco, with TMobile as my carrier, if that sheds any light....
Thanks.
That is, they literally allocate more of the physical line to the downstream channel. At least on ADSL.
This is because people (generally) care much more about how fast their download is than they care about their upload.
They are giving people what they want.
Why is this a troll, and its parent isn't? This guy's joke is funnier.
+1 Funny
This was the "final example".
These are all under the "Applying the skin" section.
Did you actually want image files or something crazy like that?
Good lord, man! Where are your priorities?!?
In 20 years, which one will you be more glad to have?
I concur. Speakeasy owns. I now have (for $140ish/month) 3mbit down and 768 kbit up. With 4 static IPs.
And no blocked ports.
I can't believe people settle for anything less. (I also can't believe other posters think that "no blocked ports" is that unusual. Speakeasy's been that way for at least 3 years (as long as I've had their service))
Is Speakeasy really that unknown?
Good lord, man! Please read the fine manuals before posting craziness such as this.
Or even just think about what you are saying.... "Sends out", "grabs it" ??? Sends it out to where? Grabs it from where?
I think it's funny that the shift-to-pr0n happened because it indicates that that is what the market wants.
It's funny how the series started out as kind of a hardboiled detective novel (albeit with vampires and zombies) and by the last few books is basically just pr0n.
Try spraying it (the pivot point) with some WD40.
When I first got it it was quite difficult to open, so I opened and closed it a lot until it loosened up. It was then fine (easily opened with thumbnail) until I let someone use the can/bottle opener at a party, and it came back hard to open. :( WD40 fixed it tho.
Ok. I don't agree with the "feel full" part of your beliefs (since it is clear from various sources that the Atkins diet is in fact based on metabolism, and not on a subjective sensation of fullness), but it does seem that the "evolutional suitability" of carbs as food would lead to problems (e.g. obesity) when they are overly indulged in. So, in that sense, I do agree that carbs may not be "handled" as well as fats and proteins. (And indeed, if one is to believe the Atkins-provided information, they aren't handled as well.)
I would think being less readily digested would be a good thing for keeping a food from adding to your body fat, not vice-versa.
Quite so, my mistake. I believe I was thinking more along the lines above, and misspoke (misposted?).
By the way, this link indicates that the Atkins diet is very much to do with the difference in metabolization between carbs, fats and proteins.
That being said, I have no idea what the "normal human" is like, as far as digesting food, so I can't say whether the carb vs. fat thing has any merit. My understanding as to the reason the Atkins diet works is that people digest fat and protein much less readily than they do carbs, so you effectively eat fewer calories.
Some people think it's obvious, that they own the bit-patterns that they create, just as some people think it's obvious that two people of the same gender can't get married. ("Marriage is between a man and a woman, period!").
The question isn't so much whether people do or do not own the bit-patterns, it's whether people should or should not own them. That is, do we want our society to contain that concept? Sure, if we changed, some people/businesses would no longer have a way of generating income. But I think they are inherently doomed anyway, and the draconian laws that we'd have to enact (and are, come to think of it) to protect those people/businesses are a far worse price to pay, societally speaking.
So, what's the link to your torrent?
Silly poster. Slashdot is all about self-promotion.
I think this file (I forget where I found it) is one of the canonical ones of this type. So, your scanner may have a specific rule for exactly this file.
I think the 4gig files are actually just 4gigs of Nulls, so that's obviously very compressible.
I forget the exact stats, but it decompresses out about 7 levels deep, 16 files per level, and 4gig files at the last level. So, that's a lot of unzipping your virusscanner would be doing.
Granted, you could probably give it a checksum for this file in particular, but there are always variations on the theme.
The version we have will let you use any IP phone as an extension (which is to say, identical to a wired extension). The other thing that's nice is that it gives you analog phone jacks, so you can use any phone/fax/modem you want at each extension.
It's got other nice stuff, like a (windows) desktop app that will pop up to do phone stuff (transfers, conference calls, etc.) Or a java applet, if you don't have windows.
I'm not sure how common the other features are, but it has good call routing/group calling stuff. They sell an add-on package for doing reports on the calls that each person made, and you have very fine grained control over outcalling (e.g. Joe can call out from his voicemail, even off site, but Bob can't).
I'm pretty satisfied with its capabilites, overall.
I listen not to your heresy.
But seriously. This album is way better than Load or Reload (not saying much, I know). It's far more driving, and the drums are way better.
I'm thinking about actually purchasing it. :)
I can't believe you mention Firefly and John Doe in the same sentence. Firefly was good. John Doe was ridiculous. Half the "science" gibberish he was spouting wasn't even true, and his analogies made no sense at all. Not to mention the fact that he is the worst overactor since Shatner.
Using the IPSec stuff is way nicer though, since you don't have to do any special "connect" stuff after you configure it (i.e. you don't have to "dial up" before you can use the VPN). It all just works based on the rulesets you specify.
If you want to set up a real IPSec VPN with FreeS/WAN and win2k, they have some fairly mature tools available. Head on over to http://www.freeswan.ca to check them out.
That would be in keeping with the wacky mixing-up of the other Soviet Russia jokes. As it is, you aren't mixing it up at all.