>d) start using TCP-vegas on the router: Add the following custom script for boot:
That won't do much good on the router. Your router is a layer 3 device and (except for packet classification) only looks at the IP header. TCP congestion control is layer 4 and operates at each end of your TCP connection. This is a good idea if your P2P client is running on a Linux box, however. But do the config on that box, not the router.
That may be true, but I have had several dozen legitimate and innocuous messages sent to the spam folder that did not belong there. False positives in the spam filters are becoming a serious issue in e-mail these day.
This has gotten much better in later releases of Tiger. At this point, my use of IMAP is quite solid for 4 email accounts, some of which have over 100,000 email messages in various folders. My experience has been much better than my partners running on fairly recent versions of Outlook WRT IMAP support.
Historically, it does appear that your comment has a grain of truth. There did appear to be a lot of teething pains to get to this level of stability. I attribute some of this to the fact that developers of IMAP imlementations focus on Outlook as a primary use case and make sure they don't break anything in standard Outlook installations. (OTOH, lack of built-in IDLE support in Mail.app without having to install a plug-in is a bit brain-dead.)
As another poster said, the green plus is really more of a zoom button. Which browser are you using? Using Safari, the zoom button expands to encompass the width of the page you are viewing up to the width of the screen. Firefox may have different behavior, but I don't use it on the mac any more.
Applications that have sensible full-screen behavior generally have a full-screen menu option.
This works ok for most apps, but zoom in Preview is pretty useless. The newest Adobe reader has better behavior and have defaulted to that for PDF viewing.
It's not really Vonage's fault that they provide misleading emails and promotional material and instructions that lead one to believe they are providing 911 service - when they actually are not? That's the point here - Not the PSAP's, not the RBOC's, but Vonage misleading people into believing that they provide the same functionality as a POTS 911.
Having been a subscriber to Vonage, I found them quite up front about the difference between what they provide and POTS 911 service. Doing a bit of work in this area (recently for VoIP and in the past for mobile satellite networks), I have found the holders of PSAP data and routing information to be generally uncooperative with small players. Although I support the intent of the FCC's position, the time frame was really unreasonable unless they were willing to really lean on the back-end folks to cooperate.
I must also say that the back-end folks are not necessarily being deliberately uncooperative. They have/had a general lack of knowledge about newer technology (not their job) and need to be carefully walked through things step-by-step. (To be fair, VoIP folks often come in with a lack of knowledge about safety and legacy telecom operations and preconceived notions about how things SHOULD work. I include myself in that.) I also found a general post-9/11 reticence to share public-safety infrastructure information with "unknown" entities.
"The Motorola v710 isn't the only bluetooth phone on Verizon and on top of bluetooth it has an MP3 player, memory card slot, huge TFT screen with equally large resolution -- inside and out, and pretty much every feature you could imagine having on a cell phone that isn't a PDA phone. That is what you're paying $400 for. There are cheaper bluetooth phones."
Last I checked about a month or so ago it WAS the only Bluetooth phone from Verizon. Lots of c**p I don't need and they crippled many of the standard BT functions that Motorola provided to generate more airtime revenue.
Several folks have suggested that the larger address space of IPv6 would help in this issue.
True, but not as a direct consequence of the larger address blocks. Generally the routing prefixes for the global addresses of each host on the network are not statically configured into each block of addresses used by the customer. Rather, they are discovered from a router when the node first starts. The host part of the address is normally auto-derived from the MAC address of the node. (Large organizations with complex internal networks might have a "infix" portion of the address used to route within the internal topology, but these are also configured at the router and auto-discovered.)
Renumbering your global routing prefix (and the full, routable, address of each node) is merely a matter of changing the config on one or more of your routers.
I've done this a number of times on my home V6 test network (changing my v6 provider) and it works fine.
There is still the issue of DNS remapping, but that is trivial. Any migration of a major customer data center would involve dual ISP connectivity for at least some time, and the DNS caches could flush during that time.
Slashdot Mirror
That won't do much good on the router. Your router is a layer 3 device and (except for packet classification) only looks at the IP header. TCP congestion control is layer 4 and operates at each end of your TCP connection. This is a good idea if your P2P client is running on a Linux box, however. But do the config on that box, not the router.
That may be true, but I have had several dozen legitimate and innocuous messages sent to the spam folder that did not belong there. False positives in the spam filters are becoming a serious issue in e-mail these day.
Historically, it does appear that your comment has a grain of truth. There did appear to be a lot of teething pains to get to this level of stability. I attribute some of this to the fact that developers of IMAP imlementations focus on Outlook as a primary use case and make sure they don't break anything in standard Outlook installations. (OTOH, lack of built-in IDLE support in Mail.app without having to install a plug-in is a bit brain-dead.)
As another poster said, the green plus is really more of a zoom button. Which browser are you using? Using Safari, the zoom button expands to encompass the width of the page you are viewing up to the width of the screen. Firefox may have different behavior, but I don't use it on the mac any more.
Applications that have sensible full-screen behavior generally have a full-screen menu option.
This works ok for most apps, but zoom in Preview is pretty useless. The newest Adobe reader has better behavior and have defaulted to that for PDF viewing.
A large amount of the P2P work is done in Java. Limewire, Azureus and FreeNet come to mind.
IIRC, MPEG-4 Part 10 HD would be about 10Mbps.
"flip4mac is payware"
The new 2.0 version of the player is now free. Probably prompted by the MS referral. They figure they can get enough revenue from the upgrades.
I must also say that the back-end folks are not necessarily being deliberately uncooperative. They have/had a general lack of knowledge about newer technology (not their job) and need to be carefully walked through things step-by-step. (To be fair, VoIP folks often come in with a lack of knowledge about safety and legacy telecom operations and preconceived notions about how things SHOULD work. I include myself in that.) I also found a general post-9/11 reticence to share public-safety infrastructure information with "unknown" entities.
"The Motorola v710 isn't the only bluetooth phone on Verizon and on top of bluetooth it has an MP3 player, memory card slot, huge TFT screen with equally large resolution -- inside and out, and pretty much every feature you could imagine having on a cell phone that isn't a PDA phone. That is what you're paying $400 for. There are cheaper bluetooth phones."
Last I checked about a month or so ago it WAS the only Bluetooth phone from Verizon. Lots of c**p I don't need and they crippled many of the standard BT functions that Motorola provided to generate more airtime revenue.
True, but not as a direct consequence of the larger address blocks. Generally the routing prefixes for the global addresses of each host on the network are not statically configured into each block of addresses used by the customer. Rather, they are discovered from a router when the node first starts. The host part of the address is normally auto-derived from the MAC address of the node. (Large organizations with complex internal networks might have a "infix" portion of the address used to route within the internal topology, but these are also configured at the router and auto-discovered.)
Renumbering your global routing prefix (and the full, routable, address of each node) is merely a matter of changing the config on one or more of your routers.
I've done this a number of times on my home V6 test network (changing my v6 provider) and it works fine.
There is still the issue of DNS remapping, but that is trivial. Any migration of a major customer data center would involve dual ISP connectivity for at least some time, and the DNS caches could flush during that time.