... in comparision to what? I find most comercial software to stink in various ways. Free software does too, but at least there's a chance you can fix it. (As opposed to the Microsoft "we know it's broke and we have a patch, but we aren't giving it out for free")
Gee, Alan Cox being a melodramatic ass? The horror. (He's British; it's his birth right.)
Would all you chicken little's please line up in a tight little column so I don't have to use any more bullets than necessary. (they aren't free, after all.)
Nowhere in the DMCA am I prohibited from circumventing my own copy protection measures ("devices"), telling people how to get around my copy protection measures, providing and even selling for a profit means to circumvent my own copy protection measures on my own copyrighted stuffs.
Next your going to tell me "breaking and entering" are violations of the DMCA. I've circumvented your access controls -- that being the locks on your doors -- and gained unauthorized access to copyrighted materials.
Someone crazy (stupid?) enough to switch TO Digex??? In my experience, Digex has the biggest, messiest routing fubar's in recorded history -- like a broken link causing a major routing problems (why the fsck are routes to that broken link still in the route table?) for THREE DAYS.
I read that patent application last time it was posted... it's still just as invalid. Let's look at the abstract alone:
allows the purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good No auction in the world works that way. You haven't purchased the good(s) until a price has been set (read: the end of the auction.) At that point, the price isn't open for debate. (So, this nut doesn't even know how auctions work.)
low cost posting terminals Define "low cost" and "posting terminal". I've used eBay from extremely expensive computers.
Plus, patent filings are not public knowledge, so, exactly how is eBay supposed to have "stolen" his technology when eBay didn't even know who this guy was until a year ago? It's called parallel discovery -- both independantly came up with similar ideas. eBay has made a very successful business from it; Woolston obviously hasn't and never will.
ONE nuke isn't going to end the world -- the hundreds of nukes everybody is likely to sling at the first sight of that one nuke will. And it's not the force of the explision, the initial radiation, or fallout that ruins everything for decades. There's a small problem of tons of stuff being blown into the atmosphere.
And to be fair, we don't know exactly how powerful our modern nukes are -- we aren't supposed to be test detonating any of them. So, we only have a theory of how big a boom they will make (and we're currently missing an Atol due to one of those theoretical yeilds.)
Oh and since plutonium is present in the fallout, the radiation really is a moot point... Plutonium is very highly toxic.
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
No match for "FUCKVOWELS".
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:48:51 EDT
Unfortunately, this means it's going to be a very long time before there's a functional DAC960 driver for 2.5. Someone got a bug up their ass to break everything (new pci dma handling). And Leonard's code tended to be, umm, wordy.
Actually, the 68070 was a chip made by Philips over a decade ago -- it was a CPU32 core with a bunch of stuff tacked on to make it useful as a single chip. It was the basis for at least two Tandy Color Computer 3 (Coco3) succesors. [Both the tomcat and mm/1 had an '070 in there.]
First, NO T1 is a single pair. The ANSI/ITU spec is for two pairs. There are things to transport a T1 over a signle pair (like a "pair gain"), but it's got be a twin pair at the CSU/DSU. (If it's one pair, it's DSL.)
I guess I should take a moment to explain the difference between ISDN BRI-U and ISDN BRI-S/T interfaces. "U" is used in the US. This is the ANSI T1.601-1992 spec, 2B1Q data format, 2 wire interface. "S/T" is used in Europe and other "less civilized places":-). This is the ANSI T1.605-1991 spec, AMI data format, 4 wire interface.
(Just like there are two formats for T1's... ESF/B8ZS and SF/AMI -- SF is more commonly refered to as D4.)
No, a BRI is ONE PAIR. (/me looks over his shoulder at the telco NID. Yeap. ONE PAIR.)
A PRI is just a layer on top of a T1 (which is 2 pairs). The only difference is the out-of-band management and signaling channel (the "D" channel.) And thus, a "point-to-point PRI" doesn't make a lot of sense. (I've never seen anyone link two PBXen with a private PRI.)
Planning is a good thing. But that doesn't address the issue of overselling the bandwidth. All you've done is monitor the severity of the oversold sections. One could still sell 30x the bandwidth of a POP, but as long as the util is below the planning thresholds, it's ok. This is actually a very common practice.
Keep on eye on big media events, like the release of a Star Wars or LOTR trailer.
Heh, the sites supplying those are Akamai cached... bring it on, buddy.:-) Unless you're servicing residential customers (who tend to be b/w whores anyway), it's not very noticable. (unless, of course, you *are* Akamai.)
Negative. A DS3 is 28 T1's muxed together. The individual timeslots from each T1 are not interlaced. (24 tslots from the frist T followed by 24 tslots form the second T and so on...)
Except frame relay was designed to more efficiently move data instead of the old "circuit switched" means of running T1's where there was some form of electrical crossconnect. Frame is 100% "packet switched".
Umm, BRI = Basic Rate Interface which is 2B+D on a single pair. This is a standard, "consumer", ISDN phone line.
PRI = Primary Rate Interface which is 23B+D or 24B in an NFAS group (Non-Facality Associated Signalling -- the D channel is on a different PRI) on TWO pairs. This is a T1 typically bought by businesses and feed into a PBX.
Go look at the Cisco ONS 15000. That's just one a growing number of hybrid muxing systems.
With such "regen/mux" hardware, it's possible to severely oversell a SONET backbone. Take two ONSen with an OC-12 ring between them... To provision a conventional point-to-point T1 linking a customers two offices, there would be a physical T1 at each end but a muxed SONET network between them. In telco lingo, that's a digital cross-connect; it consumes the T1's full bandwidth at all times through the SONET ring -- i.e. an ATM AAL1/CBR circuit emulation service (CES). Telco's have done that for years. Now, enter the ONS; it doesn't do this CES, "consume the bandwidth all the time" thing. It'll drop timeslots! It doesn't consume backbone bandwidth for idle patterns, etc.
[Cisco isn't the only one making this sort of toy. I'm just pickin' on Cisco as I've seen a p-t-p DS3 only capable of 22M because of the ONS.]
T1's are sub-1k these days. And if you think any ISP isn't over subscribing their uplink(s), you are a certified idiot. Every ISP over subscribes their bandwidth -- by very large margins in far too many cases. That's the only way to make any money... sell people something they don't need and will never use.
As a general rule, at any given point in time, 90% of the customers are using 10% of their bandwidth -- and vice versa (10% using 90%)
(Oh, the stories I can tell... I'm sure there are other slashdoters with similar stories.)
Even with an SLA, you have to prove the ISP isn't providing the contracted level of service. As such, SLAs are never worth the cost from the big boys that sell them.
Slashdot Mirror
... in comparision to what? I find most comercial software to stink in various ways. Free software does too, but at least there's a chance you can fix it. (As opposed to the Microsoft "we know it's broke and we have a patch, but we aren't giving it out for free")
Still, that's a very high ceiling.
To be accurate, Skylarov was arrested after Adobe called in the FBI. Adobe later changed their position after people became pissed at their actions.
Bull. Voting is electronic and recorded! Consult the Congressional Register to see who voted (or didn't) for what.
Gee, Alan Cox being a melodramatic ass? The horror. (He's British; it's his birth right.)
Would all you chicken little's please line up in a tight little column so I don't have to use any more bullets than necessary. (they aren't free, after all.)
Nowhere in the DMCA am I prohibited from circumventing my own copy protection measures ("devices"), telling people how to get around my copy protection measures, providing and even selling for a profit means to circumvent my own copy protection measures on my own copyrighted stuffs.
Next your going to tell me "breaking and entering" are violations of the DMCA. I've circumvented your access controls -- that being the locks on your doors -- and gained unauthorized access to copyrighted materials.
And where are the results of the (stuffed) Lulu Nominations???
The voting was, of course, worthless as it did no validity or duplicate checking (hence people with negative and much greater than 10 scores.)
Someone crazy (stupid?) enough to switch TO Digex??? In my experience, Digex has the biggest, messiest routing fubar's in recorded history -- like a broken link causing a major routing problems (why the fsck are routes to that broken link still in the route table?) for THREE DAYS.
I read that patent application last time it was posted... it's still just as invalid. Let's look at the abstract alone:
allows the purchaser to change the price of the good once the purchaser has purchased the good No auction in the world works that way. You haven't purchased the good(s) until a price has been set (read: the end of the auction.) At that point, the price isn't open for debate. (So, this nut doesn't even know how auctions work.)
low cost posting terminals Define "low cost" and "posting terminal". I've used eBay from extremely expensive computers.
Plus, patent filings are not public knowledge, so, exactly how is eBay supposed to have "stolen" his technology when eBay didn't even know who this guy was until a year ago? It's called parallel discovery -- both independantly came up with similar ideas. eBay has made a very successful business from it; Woolston obviously hasn't and never will.
ONE nuke isn't going to end the world -- the hundreds of nukes everybody is likely to sling at the first sight of that one nuke will. And it's not the force of the explision, the initial radiation, or fallout that ruins everything for decades. There's a small problem of tons of stuff being blown into the atmosphere.
And to be fair, we don't know exactly how powerful our modern nukes are -- we aren't supposed to be test detonating any of them. So, we only have a theory of how big a boom they will make (and we're currently missing an Atol due to one of those theoretical yeilds.)
Oh and since plutonium is present in the fallout, the radiation really is a moot point... Plutonium is very highly toxic.
Then where's the SCO graph? (Everybody forgets about SCO!)
- [cramer:pts/4]seamonkey:~/[2:15am]:fwhois fuckvowels[whois.crsnic.net]
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
... a domain that isn't registered!Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
No match for "FUCKVOWELS".
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:48:51 EDT
Once is too many times in my book
(Note to those who haven't seen it: Skip the first hour and a half.)
Unfortunately, this means it's going to be a very long time before there's a functional DAC960 driver for 2.5. Someone got a bug up their ass to break everything (new pci dma handling). And Leonard's code tended to be, umm, wordy.
Actually, the 68070 was a chip made by Philips over a decade ago -- it was a CPU32 core with a bunch of stuff tacked on to make it useful as a single chip. It was the basis for at least two Tandy Color Computer 3 (Coco3) succesors. [Both the tomcat and mm/1 had an '070 in there.]
First, NO T1 is a single pair. The ANSI/ITU spec is for two pairs. There are things to transport a T1 over a signle pair (like a "pair gain"), but it's got be a twin pair at the CSU/DSU. (If it's one pair, it's DSL.)
:-). This is the ANSI T1.605-1991 spec, AMI data format, 4 wire interface.
I guess I should take a moment to explain the difference between ISDN BRI-U and ISDN BRI-S/T interfaces. "U" is used in the US. This is the ANSI T1.601-1992 spec, 2B1Q data format, 2 wire interface. "S/T" is used in Europe and other "less civilized places"
(Just like there are two formats for T1's... ESF/B8ZS and SF/AMI -- SF is more commonly refered to as D4.)
[See also: Telco and ISDN Glossary]
No, a BRI is ONE PAIR. (/me looks over his shoulder at the telco NID. Yeap. ONE PAIR.)
A PRI is just a layer on top of a T1 (which is 2 pairs). The only difference is the out-of-band management and signaling channel (the "D" channel.) And thus, a "point-to-point PRI" doesn't make a lot of sense. (I've never seen anyone link two PBXen with a private PRI.)
- Keep on eye on big media events, like the release of a Star Wars or LOTR trailer.
Heh, the sites supplying those are Akamai cached... bring it on, buddy.Negative. A DS3 is 28 T1's muxed together. The individual timeslots from each T1 are not interlaced. (24 tslots from the frist T followed by 24 tslots form the second T and so on...)
- You got Frame Relay right...
Except frame relay was designed to more efficiently move data instead of the old "circuit switched" means of running T1's where there was some form of electrical crossconnect. Frame is 100% "packet switched".(And it beats the hell out of SMDS.)
- They all use TDMA
Well, for T1's anyway. The ISDN BRI (and IDSL) uses 2B1Q.Umm, BRI = Basic Rate Interface which is 2B+D on a single pair. This is a standard, "consumer", ISDN phone line.
PRI = Primary Rate Interface which is 23B+D or 24B in an NFAS group (Non-Facality Associated Signalling -- the D channel is on a different PRI) on TWO pairs. This is a T1 typically bought by businesses and feed into a PBX.
Go look at the Cisco ONS 15000. That's just one a growing number of hybrid muxing systems.
With such "regen/mux" hardware, it's possible to severely oversell a SONET backbone. Take two ONSen with an OC-12 ring between them... To provision a conventional point-to-point T1 linking a customers two offices, there would be a physical T1 at each end but a muxed SONET network between them. In telco lingo, that's a digital cross-connect; it consumes the T1's full bandwidth at all times through the SONET ring -- i.e. an ATM AAL1/CBR circuit emulation service (CES). Telco's have done that for years. Now, enter the ONS; it doesn't do this CES, "consume the bandwidth all the time" thing. It'll drop timeslots! It doesn't consume backbone bandwidth for idle patterns, etc.
[Cisco isn't the only one making this sort of toy. I'm just pickin' on Cisco as I've seen a p-t-p DS3 only capable of 22M because of the ONS.]
T1's are sub-1k these days. And if you think any ISP isn't over subscribing their uplink(s), you are a certified idiot. Every ISP over subscribes their bandwidth -- by very large margins in far too many cases. That's the only way to make any money... sell people something they don't need and will never use.
As a general rule, at any given point in time, 90% of the customers are using 10% of their bandwidth -- and vice versa (10% using 90%)
(Oh, the stories I can tell... I'm sure there are other slashdoters with similar stories.)
Even with an SLA, you have to prove the ISP isn't providing the contracted level of service. As such, SLAs are never worth the cost from the big boys that sell them.
I wonder if this source of income is being properly reported to the IRS?