An employee who has a different job at least every two years, if not more often, is suspect and has a much less chance of future employment is every company I have been with. It point to one of two things. Either the employee is "shopping the market," is only interested in the money, and will jump to another job as soon as they get an offer for more money than you've been paying. It makes an employer wonder whether the employee will actively be searching for a new job practically before they are through the on-boarding process. OR, the employee has a very deficient ability on their own to pick good employers. So you would expect that a person just coming out of school may have a job or two where they were short-timers, but beyond that should have been able to find a stable employer. You may also find some short-time jobs on other peoples resumes, which could be explained by a layoff or other abnormal event. However, someone with 10 years of experience and 8 jobs is very suspect.
The beg exception, of course, is if someone has been doing contract work...
Do we take history at face value because we read it in a book? NO! We dig up the ground and look for evidence and corroboration from other sources that these stories are true. Even then it's only a best GUESS. We assume it's true because we have nothing better. That's not truth.
Hmm, so you don't believe what you read in a book. Then you dig up the ground and look for evidence. Then you... write it down in a book, or scientific report. Interesting.
No, I haven't RTFA, but I have read most of the comments here. A lot of them point out that what is meant by the "West" is really referring to the USA. The other main topic of discussion seems to be talking about what is wrong with the system in the USA, and why their methods are better, "their" because most of these comments seem to come from non-US citizens. There seems to be something intrinsically wrong with this.
Apple decides to update all the firmware in their iPhones to #BBBBBBBBBBBA
However since you applied your hack, you now have firmware: #BBBBBBBBBBBF
This is an idiotic way to upgrade firmware on a phone. The only reason not to include a full image update is for size purposes. Updates to software used to include full executables, but as the size increased and people were stuck with 360K floppy disks or dial-up networking a new way was devised to distribute updates. They would include a binary patch system where it would modify the existing files instead of replacing them. However, that is no longer necessary. There is plenty of bandwidth available, and no reason why Apple should not send #BBBBBBBBBBBA to the phone instead of just #BBBBBBBBBBB and leave the last nibble as whatever happened to be in the current firmware.
The ASA does not run Linux, although the IPS AIP-SSM does. All their IPS devices still run Linux. Interestingly, you can get them to run under a VMware session. You can also run IOS code using dynamips, and you can run PIX code (but not ASA code) using pixemu.
You don't have to delete the list and start over. Mysteriously, if you add and delete lines from a named ACL called "1" it somehow modifies the numbered ACL 1. Whodathunkit?
Most of the commends I've read so far slamming IOS appear to be from unexperienced people.
Ever hear of TCL? That's a script language and available right on the router. You want to script command line changes? That's not a very smart thing to do from a change control and configuration control perspective. Experienced engineers don't write up some script to dynamically change router configurations and just let the thing fly on production equipment, even if during a maintenance window. They document what the existing configuration is and what they are going to change. Then they have it peer-reviewed, then the implement during a maintenance window. If you want to use a scripting language to generate the configuration you will implement during your maintenance window, run that on whatever platform and using whatever scripting language you want. I use Perl personally.
I don't understand how the BSA could have standing to file a suit. It's not their software. Just like I don't understand how the RIAA has standing to sue people for copyright infringement for copying songs that are owned by their members. The RIAA does not own the copyright, so how can they sue without standing?
That's informative, and interesting. However, it doesn't take away from the point of the parent post. If Rowlings isn't going to be making any additional Writings about the characters in her series it is in the interest of Progress to allow others to do so. Actually, it would be in the interest of Progress to allow for derivative works even if she had planned on continuing the series. As long as it is made clear that it is a derivative, and not an original, I don't see a problem with it. The new Writing would also need to refrain from plagiarizing significant portions of Rowlings' Writings. Rowlings would still have protection for the actual creative work that she did with the original Writing. Not allowing for derivative Writings would be like not allowing for the improvement of inventions a la patents. That would be kind of an ass-backwards way of looking at things. You would then be intentionally interfering with Progress in a detrimental manner, not in a positive way.
Now you are trying to be funny. It was just quoted to you exactly what they have jurisdiction over, to include WIRE. Cable television is made from WIRE. They certainly do have jurisdiction over cable. That they allow nipples on HBO and Cinemax is more of a grand fathering in left over from when cable was not ubiquitous. That and the fact that you actually have to pay for service, for which you do not for radio transmissions (directly). Since you are paying for it it is assumed that you know what you are paying for. If you're really that lazy, here's another quote from the FCC site:
Congress recognized the importance of broadband in Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which directs the FCC to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans." The Commission's goals are to:
* Broaden the deployment of broadband technologies
* Define broadband to include any platform capable of transmitting high-bandwidth intensive services
* Ensure harmonized regulatory treatment of competing broadband services
* Encourage and facilitate an environment that stimulates investment and innovation in broadband technologies and services.
Are you retarded or what? You write like you might know what you are talking about, but obviously you don't. A TCP connection is a combination of the source and destination IP address and the source and destination TCP port. That is why two people can telnet to the same server and the same port. The two clients send packets to the same IP address and the same port. So are they the same connection? No. And if you spoof (forge) my source address you can mess up my connection if you do it right. You would be impersonating me and could tell the server to close my connection. This is essentially what Comcast is doing with bit torrent traffic. No, I don't think you're retarded, just trolling. Feel free to mark this flamebait; the parent post was stupid enough for me to take the karma hit.
It's also important to note that all of the contradictory examples happen to be involving communications, with bits as you point out, not storage. Storage, whether it be how much RAM a computer can access or how much storage space on a hard drive, has always been measured in base-2 units, not base-10.
Create a base-10 computer instead of a base-2 computer and we'll start using base-10 storage terms.
So Schroedinger's cat isn't a cat? Or it isn't science? I once read this SciFi book about the ToE, and the search for the ToE. To ruin the end, if I remember it correctly, if someone actually could grasp one all-encompassing theory of everything then they would, in fact, be God like. Hey, it was a SciFi book. But maybe that's an idea, in that if we were able to actually observe God's intervention we would either "mess up the experiment" much like the cat, or that we would have to be so advanced we would in fact have God-like abilities of our own. What if there are other parallel universes and this "God" dude is just a bunch of really advanced scientists bridging the gap and messing with us? Now there's a scary thought!
No, he wrote the code, and he was really really clever in doing so too!
So by Kernighan's law he will never be able to debug it.
Kernighan's Law: 'Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.'
You can probably check with nanog to find out what the rough percentage of provider equipment is QoS capable. Since you have to expect providers to upgrade their equipment on a regular basis you'd have to expect that the percentage of equipment that is QoS capable is increasing at a steady rate, or even at an accelerated rate. I'm not talking about upgrading systems every year or two, but any gear that is 5 years old or younger is likely to have the necessary features. All of these normally scheduled equipment upgrades are part of the normal operating cost of the network, so the providers are already getting paid to maintain their networks. The only added effort on the provider would be the actual QoS configurations, which would take engineering time that they should get compensated for.
As far as the trusted network path, that is up to the providers and peering partners to come to some agreement between themselves to honor the QoS markings on packets already within their network. The backbone routers should honor those QoS markings. And if I can spoof the source IP of HBO right now and send packets anywhere on the Internet then my ISP already is F'd up, because best practices say you should only allow traffic into your network that has source addresses within the expected range. It's called uRPF (unicast reverse path forwarding checks). And HBO wouldn't mark the packets themselves, if service providers allowed end-users to mark their own QoS then you would have rampant abuse of the system. The service providers themselves would classify traffic as it entered their network, and discard any QoS markings already on the packets. All service providers would have cross-agreements where they would have assurances that any traffic it receives from another peer would be properly inspected, so that they could trust the QoS markings coming from another peer.
This isn't really that difficult to envision. The issue is that providers want to make more money than they are rightfully entitled to. And add to that the fact that they all have to agree to an infrastructure and how it would all work out for it to work at all.
It should be a one-time setup fee for the end-user. The end-user is defined in this context as the person who has the DSL/Cable/T1/T3/Metro E connection to the provider. So if HBO wanted to take advantage of the QoS capabilities of AT&T then AT&T should be able to charge them a reasonable one-time fee to configure their routers to do proper classification and marking at the ingress port that HBO is connected to. Similarly, AT&T should also be able to charge the DSL "consumer" a reasonable one-time fee for configuring their DSL router for proper QoS. Obviously this would only be required on the consumer end if they were sending traffic. The traffic that HBO is sending for their IPTV is already marked appropriately. So if consumers wanted to send traffic that needed to be marked appropriately, such as VoIP traffic, then they should be charge a reasonable one-time fee for that configuration setup work.
The discussion revolves around two differences. The carriers would presumably like to make this a recurring charge, and not a one-time fee that in my opinion it should be. Most already have the network gear to handle proper QoS. Those that don't may need to charge slightly higher one-time fees to recoup the cost of new equipment. So what we are really talking about here is a one-time fee for the one-time engineering work to properly setup QoS. The other difference is in what the carriers and what everyone else may consider reasonable one-time fees. For QOS configurations for the consumer end I'd think a fee of $20-75 would be reasonable. Say $20 for a QoS configuration that fits an existing profile, while a higher charge of $75 for a customized QoS profile. For the provider end, they may have considerably more interest in getting everything completely right, and I could see a one-time fee of several hundred to several thousand ($5K) for the proper QoS setup.
802.11n is not designed for home use. While you can use them in the home, and companies do market them for that also, it is really designed for the business environment. Think hospitals with challenging RF environments. There are, or should be, no other AP's within range of any that the hospital deploys internally. With a high-rise building that multiple businesses have suites in you may have a problem, but then there's a problem NOW with b/g because most of these small businesses are idiots when it comes to wireless and everyone configures their equipment to be on channel 1. So, you're going to have a lot of cross-channel interference anyway.
Complaining about 802.1n in a home environment is like complaining the 6000W power supplies for a 6509 chassis work best with dual 220V NEMA L6-20 plugs, and you generally don't find that in a home/apartment. It's not applicable. Yes, you CAN go out and purchase a Cisco 6509 with SUP720-3B's for your home network, but you shouldn't. Complain about the idiot end-users who think they need more than 11Mb wireless connections at home when their ISP can't even deliver that bandwidth on a consistent basis, if at all.
It seems to me if you dual license code you basically have a license over top both of them that says, I license this code, and here are two sets of license terms that you can choose to use. As said by someone else, if you choose the GPL version of terms there is no requirement to keep the BSD terms, and vice versa. Getting rid of the set of terms you did not agree with and choosing the GPL terms instead doesn't sound to me like any kind of infringement whatsoever. Now if the "top" license says that you can't choose which terms you can use the code under, and that you have to comply with BOTH sets of terms, then it would be quite different, and there would be a violation.
Can someone explain to me why it is desirable to be able to socialize with folks of lesser intelligence? I don't want to socialize with people of lower intelligence. I interact with them when I have to, but not "socialize."
Slashdot Mirror
An employee who has a different job at least every two years, if not more often, is suspect and has a much less chance of future employment is every company I have been with. It point to one of two things. Either the employee is "shopping the market," is only interested in the money, and will jump to another job as soon as they get an offer for more money than you've been paying. It makes an employer wonder whether the employee will actively be searching for a new job practically before they are through the on-boarding process. OR, the employee has a very deficient ability on their own to pick good employers. So you would expect that a person just coming out of school may have a job or two where they were short-timers, but beyond that should have been able to find a stable employer. You may also find some short-time jobs on other peoples resumes, which could be explained by a layoff or other abnormal event. However, someone with 10 years of experience and 8 jobs is very suspect.
The beg exception, of course, is if someone has been doing contract work...
Hmm, so you don't believe what you read in a book. Then you dig up the ground and look for evidence. Then you... write it down in a book, or scientific report. Interesting.
For a phone firmware upgrade, yes, there's plenty of bandwidth.
No, I haven't RTFA, but I have read most of the comments here. A lot of them point out that what is meant by the "West" is really referring to the USA. The other main topic of discussion seems to be talking about what is wrong with the system in the USA, and why their methods are better, "their" because most of these comments seem to come from non-US citizens. There seems to be something intrinsically wrong with this.
This is an idiotic way to upgrade firmware on a phone. The only reason not to include a full image update is for size purposes. Updates to software used to include full executables, but as the size increased and people were stuck with 360K floppy disks or dial-up networking a new way was devised to distribute updates. They would include a binary patch system where it would modify the existing files instead of replacing them. However, that is no longer necessary. There is plenty of bandwidth available, and no reason why Apple should not send #BBBBBBBBBBBA to the phone instead of just #BBBBBBBBBBB and leave the last nibble as whatever happened to be in the current firmware.
The ASA does not run Linux, although the IPS AIP-SSM does. All their IPS devices still run Linux. Interestingly, you can get them to run under a VMware session. You can also run IOS code using dynamips, and you can run PIX code (but not ASA code) using pixemu.
And so are their IPS sensors. And so is MARS.
You don't have to delete the list and start over. Mysteriously, if you add and delete lines from a named ACL called "1" it somehow modifies the numbered ACL 1. Whodathunkit?
Most of the commends I've read so far slamming IOS appear to be from unexperienced people.
Ever hear of TCL? That's a script language and available right on the router. You want to script command line changes? That's not a very smart thing to do from a change control and configuration control perspective. Experienced engineers don't write up some script to dynamically change router configurations and just let the thing fly on production equipment, even if during a maintenance window. They document what the existing configuration is and what they are going to change. Then they have it peer-reviewed, then the implement during a maintenance window. If you want to use a scripting language to generate the configuration you will implement during your maintenance window, run that on whatever platform and using whatever scripting language you want. I use Perl personally.
I don't understand how the BSA could have standing to file a suit. It's not their software. Just like I don't understand how the RIAA has standing to sue people for copyright infringement for copying songs that are owned by their members. The RIAA does not own the copyright, so how can they sue without standing?
That's informative, and interesting. However, it doesn't take away from the point of the parent post. If Rowlings isn't going to be making any additional Writings about the characters in her series it is in the interest of Progress to allow others to do so. Actually, it would be in the interest of Progress to allow for derivative works even if she had planned on continuing the series. As long as it is made clear that it is a derivative, and not an original, I don't see a problem with it. The new Writing would also need to refrain from plagiarizing significant portions of Rowlings' Writings. Rowlings would still have protection for the actual creative work that she did with the original Writing. Not allowing for derivative Writings would be like not allowing for the improvement of inventions a la patents. That would be kind of an ass-backwards way of looking at things. You would then be intentionally interfering with Progress in a detrimental manner, not in a positive way.
Now you are trying to be funny. It was just quoted to you exactly what they have jurisdiction over, to include WIRE. Cable television is made from WIRE. They certainly do have jurisdiction over cable. That they allow nipples on HBO and Cinemax is more of a grand fathering in left over from when cable was not ubiquitous. That and the fact that you actually have to pay for service, for which you do not for radio transmissions (directly). Since you are paying for it it is assumed that you know what you are paying for. If you're really that lazy, here's another quote from the FCC site:
Congress recognized the importance of broadband in Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which directs the FCC to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans." The Commission's goals are to:
* Broaden the deployment of broadband technologies
* Define broadband to include any platform capable of transmitting high-bandwidth intensive services
* Ensure harmonized regulatory treatment of competing broadband services
* Encourage and facilitate an environment that stimulates investment and innovation in broadband technologies and services.
Mod parent up. He said it better than I possibly could.
Are you retarded or what? You write like you might know what you are talking about, but obviously you don't. A TCP connection is a combination of the source and destination IP address and the source and destination TCP port. That is why two people can telnet to the same server and the same port. The two clients send packets to the same IP address and the same port. So are they the same connection? No. And if you spoof (forge) my source address you can mess up my connection if you do it right. You would be impersonating me and could tell the server to close my connection. This is essentially what Comcast is doing with bit torrent traffic. No, I don't think you're retarded, just trolling. Feel free to mark this flamebait; the parent post was stupid enough for me to take the karma hit.
But did they catch the bad guys?
It's kind of hard to give the natural father custody of the kids if said father is in custody himself.
Environmental history?
Enough said.
It's also important to note that all of the contradictory examples happen to be involving communications, with bits as you point out, not storage. Storage, whether it be how much RAM a computer can access or how much storage space on a hard drive, has always been measured in base-2 units, not base-10.
Create a base-10 computer instead of a base-2 computer and we'll start using base-10 storage terms.
So Schroedinger's cat isn't a cat? Or it isn't science? I once read this SciFi book about the ToE, and the search for the ToE. To ruin the end, if I remember it correctly, if someone actually could grasp one all-encompassing theory of everything then they would, in fact, be God like. Hey, it was a SciFi book. But maybe that's an idea, in that if we were able to actually observe God's intervention we would either "mess up the experiment" much like the cat, or that we would have to be so advanced we would in fact have God-like abilities of our own. What if there are other parallel universes and this "God" dude is just a bunch of really advanced scientists bridging the gap and messing with us? Now there's a scary thought!
No, he wrote the code, and he was really really clever in doing so too!
So by Kernighan's law he will never be able to debug it.
Kernighan's Law: 'Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.'
You can probably check with nanog to find out what the rough percentage of provider equipment is QoS capable. Since you have to expect providers to upgrade their equipment on a regular basis you'd have to expect that the percentage of equipment that is QoS capable is increasing at a steady rate, or even at an accelerated rate. I'm not talking about upgrading systems every year or two, but any gear that is 5 years old or younger is likely to have the necessary features. All of these normally scheduled equipment upgrades are part of the normal operating cost of the network, so the providers are already getting paid to maintain their networks. The only added effort on the provider would be the actual QoS configurations, which would take engineering time that they should get compensated for.
As far as the trusted network path, that is up to the providers and peering partners to come to some agreement between themselves to honor the QoS markings on packets already within their network. The backbone routers should honor those QoS markings. And if I can spoof the source IP of HBO right now and send packets anywhere on the Internet then my ISP already is F'd up, because best practices say you should only allow traffic into your network that has source addresses within the expected range. It's called uRPF (unicast reverse path forwarding checks). And HBO wouldn't mark the packets themselves, if service providers allowed end-users to mark their own QoS then you would have rampant abuse of the system. The service providers themselves would classify traffic as it entered their network, and discard any QoS markings already on the packets. All service providers would have cross-agreements where they would have assurances that any traffic it receives from another peer would be properly inspected, so that they could trust the QoS markings coming from another peer.
This isn't really that difficult to envision. The issue is that providers want to make more money than they are rightfully entitled to. And add to that the fact that they all have to agree to an infrastructure and how it would all work out for it to work at all.
It should be a one-time setup fee for the end-user. The end-user is defined in this context as the person who has the DSL/Cable/T1/T3/Metro E connection to the provider. So if HBO wanted to take advantage of the QoS capabilities of AT&T then AT&T should be able to charge them a reasonable one-time fee to configure their routers to do proper classification and marking at the ingress port that HBO is connected to. Similarly, AT&T should also be able to charge the DSL "consumer" a reasonable one-time fee for configuring their DSL router for proper QoS. Obviously this would only be required on the consumer end if they were sending traffic. The traffic that HBO is sending for their IPTV is already marked appropriately. So if consumers wanted to send traffic that needed to be marked appropriately, such as VoIP traffic, then they should be charge a reasonable one-time fee for that configuration setup work.
The discussion revolves around two differences. The carriers would presumably like to make this a recurring charge, and not a one-time fee that in my opinion it should be. Most already have the network gear to handle proper QoS. Those that don't may need to charge slightly higher one-time fees to recoup the cost of new equipment. So what we are really talking about here is a one-time fee for the one-time engineering work to properly setup QoS. The other difference is in what the carriers and what everyone else may consider reasonable one-time fees. For QOS configurations for the consumer end I'd think a fee of $20-75 would be reasonable. Say $20 for a QoS configuration that fits an existing profile, while a higher charge of $75 for a customized QoS profile. For the provider end, they may have considerably more interest in getting everything completely right, and I could see a one-time fee of several hundred to several thousand ($5K) for the proper QoS setup.
Or at least that's my thoughts on it.
802.11n is not designed for home use. While you can use them in the home, and companies do market them for that also, it is really designed for the business environment. Think hospitals with challenging RF environments. There are, or should be, no other AP's within range of any that the hospital deploys internally. With a high-rise building that multiple businesses have suites in you may have a problem, but then there's a problem NOW with b/g because most of these small businesses are idiots when it comes to wireless and everyone configures their equipment to be on channel 1. So, you're going to have a lot of cross-channel interference anyway.
Complaining about 802.1n in a home environment is like complaining the 6000W power supplies for a 6509 chassis work best with dual 220V NEMA L6-20 plugs, and you generally don't find that in a home/apartment. It's not applicable. Yes, you CAN go out and purchase a Cisco 6509 with SUP720-3B's for your home network, but you shouldn't. Complain about the idiot end-users who think they need more than 11Mb wireless connections at home when their ISP can't even deliver that bandwidth on a consistent basis, if at all.
It seems to me if you dual license code you basically have a license over top both of them that says, I license this code, and here are two sets of license terms that you can choose to use. As said by someone else, if you choose the GPL version of terms there is no requirement to keep the BSD terms, and vice versa. Getting rid of the set of terms you did not agree with and choosing the GPL terms instead doesn't sound to me like any kind of infringement whatsoever. Now if the "top" license says that you can't choose which terms you can use the code under, and that you have to comply with BOTH sets of terms, then it would be quite different, and there would be a violation.
And Microsoft paid them to distribute said software.
Can someone explain to me why it is desirable to be able to socialize with folks of lesser intelligence? I don't want to socialize with people of lower intelligence. I interact with them when I have to, but not "socialize."