As a way to run 2 AGP video cards, each with two digital monitor outputs, combining the 4 resulting flat screens for a truly useful 3D workstation / desktop (see the SGI reality stations, etc.).
Living in ONtario as well and knowing someone at one of the upstream bandwidth providers, several cable providers are definately oversold on their Internet bandwidth.
Talking to a local installer, their internal networks have oodles of free bandwidth (cable can move a lot of data) but their Internet access points (Cisco routers) are maxed out.
In the case of Cable vs. ADSL, you can choose to either have the cable shared from the mux to your neighbourhood or straight from Ma Bell to the rest of the Internet. ISPs buy large pipes (sometimes from multiple providers, sometimes their own) and _share_ them across their users. That's the whole system... ADSL is shared, just at a different concentration point.
I don't think you understand. Those of us with correctly set security settings on our machines don't _need_ to type root's password to do our day to day work. I don't need a root password to install or remove software from my computer. I don't need root's password to burn CDs or to rip MP3s or watch video full screen. I don't need root access to do almost anything on my computer. I therefore am not in the (bad) habit of logging in as root on any computer. If its something I need to log in as root to do, the amount of time it takes me to type in the root password (which is probably my password if the computer is as insecure as you describe) is time spent deciding if its something I should be doing that way.
You've described laziness, not convenience. You may be happy with that, but there are alternatives that require very little more thought or effort.
I'm not talking about hacking. I didn't mention people hacking into your system. I was talking about you not doing something stupid to your own computer because you decided to establish good rules for your user account to prevent idiocy. If you're perfect, feel free to ignore this conventional wisdom. If you're human, like me, you'll find that not being able to run "rm -rf.*" a blessing when you do something like that by accident.
A new toplevel domain for UNICODE domains could be added. This domain would be implicit when UNICODE domains were entered by the user and added to the end of the domain before lookup. The TLD domain servers would be the ones extended to support this domain.
Each domain could also be assigned a 7 bit clean representation of the UNICODE name by doing simple 16 to 7 bit conversion with any necessary padding. This is different than the UTF-8 conversion method proposed. These (nonsensical) domains would then be used as the 'real' domain name that was looked up by the resolvers (such as smtp servers).
Dual-booting is the first thing that came to mind reading the editorial comment (could Slashdot editors do less of that -- they're often less than intelligent comments).
If you dual-boot and mount your fat partitions from within Linux, it would infect your executables there.
Running as root is entirely unnecessary if you change permissions on your system properly. Add write access to members of the root group to directories, etc. and add your user account to that group. You can give yourself write access to/usr/local/* and then install all the software you want as yourself, etc. without the ability to trash your system with an rm -rf /
I'm wondering if anyone feels like distributing simple binary driver files to be dropped into the/usr/X11R6/... directory. I have a G400 and it would be quite nice to have these drivers but I've never had the time to be bothered with recompiling everything.
The goal is to create an output file that describes the queuing and traffic parameters (perhaps in XML?) which can then be parsed (Perl / Python) to give the appropriate iptables, ip, tc, etc. commands.
After seeing the lack of information available, I've created a new web page with Linux QoS & TC as the focus. I will only add information to it that I
couldn't find elsewhere, and link to the information I do find elsewhere.
What would be even better is if everyone could get beyond the buzz words and marketing hype and talk about the technology for a minute. Active desktop and other such phenomenon (remember pointcast and the castanet push craze?) are usually based on sound concepts which are then implemented poorly. Integrating network access into applications is a great idea -- extending this to fetching recent information over the Internet is very valuable. Doing this as applications that just work as applications, instead of trying to hide their implementation is stupid. What's the difference between an active desktop window showing me the weather and a buttonless browser window showing me the same rdf/xml/html/php page? Nothing. Lets implement xml, rdf, etc. well in browser backend software and then give the user the option of how to be presented with that information.
Thank-you for your response. It heartens me to just see the very few responses as an indicator that the Linux implementation is as complex as I've felt it is. I've been trying to work on a Gtk+ application that would allow an administrator to prepare the tc, ipchains & ip commands necessary to implement some of the QoS & TC options given, but its very difficult to get a handle on the implementation.
Its one of the nightmares of MS Windows that application distributors package the system libraries with their programs. You may honestly believe that all the libraries are already there, but installers like InstallShield (TM) actually grab all the dependancies and include them in the program installer file. How many times have people had an old version of DirectX overwrite their newer one because they wanted to play an old game that shipped with D-X 3.0? By shipping the libraries seperately, Linux avoids these issues. By using good tools, like gnorpm (some day), you can have those dependancies updated at the same time as the program you're installing. Its not unreasonable for an application (like Mozilla) to ship on CD with several other RPMs (like glibc2.1, etc.) included, which get installed if needed.
Should all tax-relieved organisations have their powers curtailed? Would it be different if this church organisation paid taxes? Would it be different if the park were run by, say, a group of wiccans who registered a religious charitible organisation to support their beliefs about nature?
Why is it that non-religious groups should have specific freedoms that religious groups should not? Or are you just complaining because religious beliefs bother you? In that case, you're trying to curtail Utah's state rights for no good reason.
"Set back America 50 years" -- in what way? In many ways, America is no better off than it was 50 years ago. We have some good new laws, and some poor ones. Which would you prefer to repeal and which would you keep? Not all change is progress.
My wife works in a shelter for abused women as well as a group home for mentally disabled adults.
Try asking any of those people about drinking.
--
For those who don't deduce well, most women are beaten by drunk husbands and many mentally ill people are so because their mothers drank while pregnant, which, btw, is a 'freedom'.
Without getting into another poster's comment that drinking laws have other than religious reasons (drunk driving and public drunkenness are already illegal in most parts of the USA and Canada), I'd like to know what kind of constitutional or legal minority is formed by those wishing to drink against the laws in Utah? Like the minority who wish to drink and drive in my home town? Or the minority who wish to have sex with minors? Or...
... when do you decide that moral issues become more important than personal freedoms? Rape is illegal because of morality and restricts freedoms, ditto for murder.
Actually, it is how democracy works -- and that's why the Constitution was created. They realised that a democracy would cause forms of oppression and decided to lay some things down permenantly. However, you missed the direction of my comment in your "such as church/state allegiances"; it isn't 'the church' which is passing this law in conjunction with the state. In fact, with the current state of Christian organisations (leaving out Muslim, etc.), its very hard to say that something is a church/state issue unless it were clearly requested of government by a Bishop of the Catholic Church or a ranking presbyter of the AoG.
Church/State union comments need to be kept in context of how Europe used to (and still does?) be very much run by the Church and the Kings / statesmen together. In that context, a large number of Christians / Muslims / etc. voting against drinking does not make for a violation of this part of the constitution.
What form of suffering, btw, are you refering to in the case that you aren't able to have the social life you want if you move to Utah? What forces you to live there and be subject to these rules?
People who bring up such moral arguments fail to consider the possibility that morality is sometimes situational. In the case where the island is large and the people may never be rescued, all having sex with the women (say, each gets a year;-) gives a larger gene pool for reproduction, should they desire to continue as a people.
Tyrany of the majority does indeed happen, and the fact that one person doesn't like something should usually be respected. In this case, you're missing the cases where that minority finds each other, gets together and becomes a micro-majority (a majority within their community) and passes laws like the above.
Just to be the devil's advocate (or the church's) -- church/state doesn't come into this much. If the voters happen to be church-folk who don't want drinking, that's the way a democracy works. If the majority did want drinking, the voting would work things out for them. One of the nice things about 'bible belts' or 'tech belts' if you will, is that people of a given persuation can enjoy each others' views together (the non-drinkers together, the tech-heads together). One of the problems is that you end up with a severed sense of a "United" country.
Slashdot Mirror
Concurrent AGP would be a great idea for several purposes:
As a faster way to do Ultra-320 SCSI (maybe) than 66MHz 64bit PCI.
As a way to run 2 AGP video cards, each with two digital monitor outputs, combining the 4 resulting flat screens for a truly useful 3D workstation / desktop (see the SGI reality stations, etc.).IM is not a new market.
Am I the only one who's been doing IM since Powwow came out?
Living in ONtario as well and knowing someone at one of the upstream bandwidth providers, several cable providers are definately oversold on their Internet bandwidth.
Talking to a local installer, their internal networks have oodles of free bandwidth (cable can move a lot of data) but their Internet access points (Cisco routers) are maxed out.
All internet connections are shared.
... ADSL is shared, just at a different concentration point.
In the case of Cable vs. ADSL, you can choose to either have the cable shared from the mux to your neighbourhood or straight from Ma Bell to the rest of the Internet. ISPs buy large pipes (sometimes from multiple providers, sometimes their own) and _share_ them across their users. That's the whole system
I don't think you understand. Those of us with correctly set security settings on our machines don't _need_ to type root's password to do our day to day work. I don't need a root password to install or remove software from my computer. I don't need root's password to burn CDs or to rip MP3s or watch video full screen. I don't need root access to do almost anything on my computer. I therefore am not in the (bad) habit of logging in as root on any computer. If its something I need to log in as root to do, the amount of time it takes me to type in the root password (which is probably my password if the computer is as insecure as you describe) is time spent deciding if its something I should be doing that way.
You've described laziness, not convenience. You may be happy with that, but there are alternatives that require very little more thought or effort.
I'm not talking about hacking. I didn't mention people hacking into your system. I was talking about you not doing something stupid to your own computer because you decided to establish good rules for your user account to prevent idiocy. If you're perfect, feel free to ignore this conventional wisdom. If you're human, like me, you'll find that not being able to run "rm -rf .*" a blessing when you do something like that by accident.
A new toplevel domain for UNICODE domains could be added. This domain would be implicit when UNICODE domains were entered by the user and added to the end of the domain before lookup. The TLD domain servers would be the ones extended to support this domain.
...
Each domain could also be assigned a 7 bit clean representation of the UNICODE name by doing simple 16 to 7 bit conversion with any necessary padding. This is different than the UTF-8 conversion method proposed. These (nonsensical) domains would then be used as the 'real' domain name that was looked up by the resolvers (such as smtp servers).
Just a thought
Dual-booting is the first thing that came to mind reading the editorial comment (could Slashdot editors do less of that -- they're often less than intelligent comments).
If you dual-boot and mount your fat partitions from within Linux, it would infect your executables there.
Running as root is entirely unnecessary if you change permissions on your system properly. Add write access to members of the root group to directories, etc. and add your user account to that group. You can give yourself write access to /usr/local/* and then install all the software you want as yourself, etc. without the ability to trash your system with an rm -rf /
I'm wondering if anyone feels like distributing simple binary driver files to be dropped into the /usr/X11R6/... directory. I have a G400 and it would be quite nice to have these drivers but I've never had the time to be bothered with recompiling everything.
The goal is to create an output file that describes the queuing and traffic parameters (perhaps in XML?) which can then be parsed (Perl / Python) to give the appropriate iptables, ip, tc, etc. commands.
The author of "Interconnections" (reviewed here earlier this year) mentions that IPX+ would have made a much better backbone to the Internet.
After seeing the lack of information available, I've created a new web page with Linux QoS & TC as the focus. I will only add information to it that I couldn't find elsewhere, and link to the information I do find elsewhere.
What would be even better is if everyone could get beyond the buzz words and marketing hype and talk about the technology for a minute. Active desktop and other such phenomenon (remember pointcast and the castanet push craze?) are usually based on sound concepts which are then implemented poorly. Integrating network access into applications is a great idea -- extending this to fetching recent information over the Internet is very valuable. Doing this as applications that just work as applications, instead of trying to hide their implementation is stupid. What's the difference between an active desktop window showing me the weather and a buttonless browser window showing me the same rdf/xml/html/php page? Nothing. Lets implement xml, rdf, etc. well in browser backend software and then give the user the option of how to be presented with that information.
Thank-you for your response. It heartens me to just see the very few responses as an indicator that the Linux implementation is as complex as I've felt it is. I've been trying to work on a Gtk+ application that would allow an administrator to prepare the tc, ipchains & ip commands necessary to implement some of the QoS & TC options given, but its very difficult to get a handle on the implementation.
Its one of the nightmares of MS Windows that application distributors package the system libraries with their programs. You may honestly believe that all the libraries are already there, but installers like InstallShield (TM) actually grab all the dependancies and include them in the program installer file. How many times have people had an old version of DirectX overwrite their newer one because they wanted to play an old game that shipped with D-X 3.0? By shipping the libraries seperately, Linux avoids these issues. By using good tools, like gnorpm (some day), you can have those dependancies updated at the same time as the program you're installing. Its not unreasonable for an application (like Mozilla) to ship on CD with several other RPMs (like glibc2.1, etc.) included, which get installed if needed.
Why?
Should all tax-relieved organisations have their powers curtailed? Would it be different if this church organisation paid taxes? Would it be different if the park were run by, say, a group of wiccans who registered a religious charitible organisation to support their beliefs about nature?
Why is it that non-religious groups should have specific freedoms that religious groups should not? Or are you just complaining because religious beliefs bother you? In that case, you're trying to curtail Utah's state rights for no good reason.
"Set back America 50 years" -- in what way? In many ways, America is no better off than it was 50 years ago. We have some good new laws, and some poor ones. Which would you prefer to repeal and which would you keep? Not all change is progress.
My wife works in a shelter for abused women as well as a group home for mentally disabled adults.
Try asking any of those people about drinking.
--
For those who don't deduce well, most women are beaten by drunk husbands and many mentally ill people are so because their mothers drank while pregnant, which, btw, is a 'freedom'.
Without getting into another poster's comment that drinking laws have other than religious reasons (drunk driving and public drunkenness are already illegal in most parts of the USA and Canada), I'd like to know what kind of constitutional or legal minority is formed by those wishing to drink against the laws in Utah? Like the minority who wish to drink and drive in my home town? Or the minority who wish to have sex with minors? Or ...
... when do you decide that moral issues become more important than personal freedoms? Rape is illegal because of morality and restricts freedoms, ditto for murder.
Actually, it is how democracy works -- and that's why the Constitution was created. They realised that a democracy would cause forms of oppression and decided to lay some things down permenantly. However, you missed the direction of my comment in your "such as church/state allegiances"; it isn't 'the church' which is passing this law in conjunction with the state. In fact, with the current state of Christian organisations (leaving out Muslim, etc.), its very hard to say that something is a church/state issue unless it were clearly requested of government by a Bishop of the Catholic Church or a ranking presbyter of the AoG.
Church/State union comments need to be kept in context of how Europe used to (and still does?) be very much run by the Church and the Kings / statesmen together. In that context, a large number of Christians / Muslims / etc. voting against drinking does not make for a violation of this part of the constitution.
What form of suffering, btw, are you refering to in the case that you aren't able to have the social life you want if you move to Utah? What forces you to live there and be subject to these rules?
People who bring up such moral arguments fail to consider the possibility that morality is sometimes situational. In the case where the island is large and the people may never be rescued, all having sex with the women (say, each gets a year ;-) gives a larger gene pool for reproduction, should they desire to continue as a people.
Tyrany of the majority does indeed happen, and the fact that one person doesn't like something should usually be respected. In this case, you're missing the cases where that minority finds each other, gets together and becomes a micro-majority (a majority within their community) and passes laws like the above.
Hey! They linked to sites that offer software for copyright infringement (according to them at least). Can someone sue them?
So well stated.
;-).
I just thought I'd throw that in, since I don't have moderator points right now
Just to be the devil's advocate (or the church's) -- church/state doesn't come into this much. If the voters happen to be church-folk who don't want drinking, that's the way a democracy works. If the majority did want drinking, the voting would work things out for them. One of the nice things about 'bible belts' or 'tech belts' if you will, is that people of a given persuation can enjoy each others' views together (the non-drinkers together, the tech-heads together). One of the problems is that you end up with a severed sense of a "United" country.