Yes, they are more expensive, however it tends to be the "native" format for most Unix / Linux applications, and brand independent.
I have a HP LaserJet 6MP with Postscript for that reason. I did pay a small fortune for it a number of years ago, including upgrading the ram to 19MB (3MB factory + 16 MB). If and when I replace it, I may not buy a HP again, however I'll certainly be looking for a Postscript replacement.
Sure, and you can kill people with your car too !
on
Plant a Seed, Get Sued?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I buy them, I own them, they're mine. I can do what I like with them.
So, does owning your car give you the right to do anything you like with it, including running over and killing your neighbour if you don't like them ? Surely you don't belive owning something gives you the right to do anything you like with it ?
As long as the clustered application doesn't shunt arount huge amounts of data, in other words is more compute oriented rather than bulk data processing oriented, the 100 Mbps link would be plenty fast enough.
1Gbps verses 100Mbps only really matters when it comes to data throughput. Latency isn't going to be much different between 1Gbps and 100Mbps, as latency is limited and dictated by the speed of light, not the number of bits per second.
For example, a cluster of theses things would be fine to brute force a crypto key.
I haven't looked at it for a while, I provided a few suggestions a while back. I thought it was a good idea. For non-authorised subnets, it sends bogus ARP replies, with bogus MAC addresses.
Actually, questioning it being owned by a company in a country with a (unfair or not) reputation for fairly low quality products in a lot of areas.
"lot of areas" doesn't mean all areas. So your labelling of "Chinese", without any qualifiers, is making a generalisation base exclusively on racial origin. That's being racist.
Unless you can prove that not one person of Chinese origin on this planet doesn't believe in aiming and achieving quality, you are guaranteed to be wrong about your generalisation that "Chinese people" don't believe in quality.
Contrary to your opinion and generalisation, I personally know of at least one Chinese person who believes in aiming for quality.
Last time I checked, folks were still entitled to their opinions.
Absolutely. And people like me are still allowed to be offended by them, and be able to express that offense.
Please re-read the grandparent post. Chinese ownership was the concern of the original poster, not Chinese electronics.
Racism is fundamentally about making generalisations about behaviours and ethics purely based on race. The original poster has just racially slurred more than 1 billion people.
I find that unacceptable, as should the other 4 or so billion of us.
Why does the Chinese ownership of the company matter, as long as the products have the same quality and support that IBM provided ?
Saying the products won't be the same quality just because the company is Chinese owned is like saying all terrorists are Arabs... which suggests that Timothy McVeigh must have been one of those rare albino Arabs.
Don't use 127.0.0.1. Use 127.29.13.4, or some equally random address in the 127/8 loopback.
Another alternative, depending on how you want the failed delivery to fail, is to use an IP address within one of the reserved IANA ranges. Bogon lists on the default free routers usually silently drop packets to these addresses. Unless spammers are doctoring the TCP/IP stack in their hosts, silent drops of TCP SYNs usually take around three minutes before the application is notified of a failure to connect. One address I use is 1.1.1.1/32.
Spamming software is almost always poorly written. They'll filter out 127.0.0.1, but aren't smart enough to do anything else. Those bastards will probably try to deliver mail to themselves for a week.
Which type of address you select, bogon (eg 1.1.1.1/32) or loopback depends a bit on whether you want to tie up their delivery resources immediately (1.1.1.1/32) or over a few days (loopback).
One of the issues with loopback though is that the delivery failure depends on whether they are running an MTA on 127.0.0.1. If not, they'll usually get immediate "connection failed" messages, although if they are firewalling the local host, the effect will be the same as using a bogon address.
If they are running an MTA on local host, then they'll likely get "bounce messages" with a "not a relay" message (or what ever the exact status is, I'm rusty on the exact SMTP messages).
Of course, another alternative is to delete the subdomain, meaning that the MX record lookup will fail.
Still, I prefer one of the "bad MX" address methods - there is a chance it will waste some of the resources of the spammers, increasing their costs.
Another idea, as part of this, is to create a bogus web page that contains a whole stack of these "sacrificial subdomain" email addresses. If spammers are using web page robots to collect addresses, they'll end up collecting a lot of them. That might frustrate them, such that they'll delete all email addresses for the particular domain, which, of course, would include any of your legitimate ones. You can have a look at mine here, which contains 7500 bogus addresses, covering a range of "sacrificial subdomain"s. I used 30 bogus domains, and a list of male and female names from files listed in Kevin Mitnick's book, "The Art of Deception". Using the full 30 domains, and the full male and female name list, I ended up with a 22 MB html file, with 256 000 or so addresses. I figured that was a bit too many (!) and cut it back. That being said, if my "sending" bandwidth was free or near free, it might be worth making the page around the 5 to 10 MBs in size, to also tie up spammer resources while they are running their address collecting robot.
None of these techniques are perfect, then again, if there is anything realatively simple you can do to frustrate the spammers, it is worth it. They might give up if their costs become too high.
Yeah, thats right. For 3 (three) months, i havn't got a single SPAM that got through to my inbox.
You may not have seen any emails that you consider to be spam, however, are you sure that you haven't had emails deleted that weren't spam ? How can you be sure ?
As much as I certainly agree spam is a problem, and would like it to be "fixed", I'm personally not keen on filters, just because they can't be guaranteed to be 100% accurate, which conflicts with my desire to see 100% of the (legitimate) emails sent to me. The only way I can reach that 100% assurance is to view all email I receive. Certainly in no way a perfect solution, however, I guarantee I can filter my email with 100% accuracy. Automated, computer based filters can't make those guarantees.
One easy way to set that up is to use subdomains that don't even resolve after a certain point. So you might have me@2004.example.com good for only three more weeks, or me@amazon.example.com good for as long as Amazon (or your "healthy" girlfriend) doesn't sell you out. You can get tricky, of course, and use subdomains that are not so easily subject to a dictionary attack or guessing.
This is exactly the same solution as I use, and I've found it very effective. I've written some stuff about it here - Mitigating spam.
Did we come up with it independently ? The first "thought" that triggered me thinking about it was when I moved house, and wanted to make sure that emails to my domain, while unavailable, were bounced immediately, rather than having the sending SMTP server keep attempting for up to 5 days (or what ever it was configured to be). My solution was to set the MX record for my domain to point to an A record that resolved to 127.0.0.1. That lead to the idea of creating "sacrificial subdomains", and then abandoning when I get too much spam by changing the MX record value.
It's deja vu. Of particular interest is my post to that thread, titled leader vs follower business approach. It hasn't been mod'ed up over there, looks like I get another chance. I usually get modded up for posts I spend time on, hopefully I also will this time. Another chance; Yipee !
In summary, you are describing what I call the "leader vs follower" business approach. Note that there probably is a better name for it, I've never studied economics, and have only really started thinking about how business and markets work over the last few years.
"Leaders", while they take assume higher risks, expect higher rewards, as compensation for taking those risks. A typical situation is that they end up creating a new market, which, because they are the creators, they end up holding a monopoly in it. Because they have a monopoly, they are free to charge what they like, as up until the point where what they produce looses its value when compared to what the customer is willing to pay.
Of course, "followers" are looking for less risk, so they choose to existing markets, rather than creating new ones. Also, because the market already exists, the competitive point of distinction between them and others within the market is usually "commodity" - something that all their competitors can also usually do, such as cheaper pricing, different locations, closer to customers, which also reduces prices etc.
Markets typically evolve over time from being new and monopolised by the creator, to common and existing, with a number of "follower" type competitors.
An interesting book which I've realised relates to this is The Science of Getting Rich. Although it doesn't directly describe markets, what it does describe, as one of the "sciences" of getting rich is change from a competitive mindset to a creative mindset. It criticises a competitive mindset because in competition there is always a winner and a loser. A competitive mindset has a destructive component, as one of the things it creates are losers. It suggests that to become a rich individual (primarily financially, and also more generally), in your area of financial endeavour, you should only create, rather than compete. As soon as you find yourself in a competitive situation, abandon it, and again move into a creative situation.
As a side note, the book is pretty philosophical, and, as probably was common for books written in 1910, includes a religious / spiritual sub-theme. This sub-theme isn't all that overt, and you can generally accept it with the view that all the measures suggested have good "karma". I still think the book is worth reading.
Companies that have a "creative mindset" fit in with the philosophy of this book. Not only do they create new things, which creates new markets, they are a monopoly within the market. As they hold a monopoly, they don't have any competitors. As they aren't competing with anybody, their aren't any losers.
A completely "creative" environment would create a world where everything would be proprietory. All products would have high prices, as there would only be one supplier. I'm not necessarily saying that situation would be ideal. Competition does have value, in the sense that it does drive the price down for products which have a large number of consumers. What you can do though is use the products of the "competitive" producers, and combine them in new, creative ways. The world then becomes a combination of "competitive" and "creative", with "creative" leading, and at the leading edge of the market.
SCTP is also connection-oriented and provides all the transport
services that TCP provides. Many Internet applications therefore
should find that either TCP or SCTP will meet their transport
requirements. Note, for applications conscious about processing
cost, there might be a difference in processing cost associated with
running SCTP with only a single ordered stream and one address pair
in comparison to running TCP.
So you're right, SCTP can perform an equivalent of TCP's functionality, although with additional features, and therefore additional complexity. Of course, increased complexity usually decreases performance. As performance was one of the major goals of this speed test, SCTP would probably have not have been appropriate.
I'm sure the serious possible contributors won't spend a lot of time on this unless they can be assured that their contributions are freely available in the future.
I think you might be right about Firewire aka IEEE 1394, although I think Sony had some significant involvement. I'm pretty sure USB was primarily created by Intel, and SCSI was originally created by Shugart Associates' Alan Shugart as "SASI". SASI was further developed by Shugart Associates and NCR to become the ANSI SCSI standard. (Alan Shugart then went on to start Seagate).
I completely agree. I don't care what Nvidia do, if they don't provide open specs, I won't be buying their hardware. That is their decision and that is their business loss.
The issue people are talking about is the claims of "superior Linux support", how "wonderful" Nvidia for "supporting" Linux, when they are only paying lip service to the ideals (open specifications) that created Linux in the first place.
I'm not going to get into an argument about the "value" of open specifications, and how they "don't really matter because Nvidia provide wonderful support." I first ran Linux in 1992. Nvidia didn't exist at that time, nor did binary modules. I wouldn't have been able to run Linux on my hardware if open specifications didn't exist.
To put the whole open specification argument into a true context, the PC as we know it wouldn't exist either if it wasn't due to open specifications. The only specification IBM didn't publish openly of their IBM PC was the BIOS, although technically they did open publish it, they just retained copyright on it, preventing people from copying it. Compaq reverse engineered that, which made the IBM PC hardware specification fully open.
If you don't understand the importance of open specifications, then realise that the PC you are (probably) sitting in front of would be a very different machine if it weren't for them, and would have probably cost way, way more than you paid for it, as proprietory products always cost more. Even Apple users have benefitted, as Apple decided to use open, industry specifications such as PCI, SATA, USB, Firewire and a number of others, which reduced the cost of an Apple PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Points for effort too !
Yes, they are more expensive, however it tends to be the "native" format for most Unix / Linux applications, and brand independent.
I have a HP LaserJet 6MP with Postscript for that reason. I did pay a small fortune for it a number of years ago, including upgrading the ram to 19MB (3MB factory + 16 MB). If and when I replace it, I may not buy a HP again, however I'll certainly be looking for a Postscript replacement.
I buy them, I own them, they're mine. I can do what I like with them.
So, does owning your car give you the right to do anything you like with it, including running over and killing your neighbour if you don't like them ? Surely you don't belive owning something gives you the right to do anything you like with it ?
As long as the clustered application doesn't shunt arount huge amounts of data, in other words is more compute oriented rather than bulk data processing oriented, the 100 Mbps link would be plenty fast enough.
1Gbps verses 100Mbps only really matters when it comes to data throughput. Latency isn't going to be much different between 1Gbps and 100Mbps, as latency is limited and dictated by the speed of light, not the number of bits per second.For example, a cluster of theses things would be fine to brute force a crypto key.
distcc
I haven't looked at it for a while, I provided a few suggestions a while back. I thought it was a good idea. For non-authorised subnets, it sends bogus ARP replies, with bogus MAC addresses.
ipsentinel
presuming you are getting email free from Google ?
Great interview with Radia about the book at The Poetry of Protocols : Radia Perlman Discusses Interconnections.
Classic book on networking. I wish it had been the first or second book I'd bought on networking, not the 20th or so.
Actually, questioning it being owned by a company in a country with a (unfair or not) reputation for fairly low quality products in a lot of areas.
"lot of areas" doesn't mean all areas. So your labelling of "Chinese", without any qualifiers, is making a generalisation base exclusively on racial origin. That's being racist.
Unless you can prove that not one person of Chinese origin on this planet doesn't believe in aiming and achieving quality, you are guaranteed to be wrong about your generalisation that "Chinese people" don't believe in quality.
Contrary to your opinion and generalisation, I personally know of at least one Chinese person who believes in aiming for quality.
Last time I checked, folks were still entitled to their opinions.
Absolutely. And people like me are still allowed to be offended by them, and be able to express that offense.
Shhh, don't give them ideas.
Just that a Chinese-owned IBM product line, on the surface, doesn't sit well with me.
So, would you be happy with a "Jewish-owned" IBM ? The nazi's wouldn't have been ...
Why are you only questioning the value of this deal based on the racial background of the organisation who are buying it ?
I didn't mean to imply racism, actually.
You might not have meant to, but you actually did.
Please re-read the grandparent post. Chinese ownership was the concern of the original poster, not Chinese electronics.
Racism is fundamentally about making generalisations about behaviours and ethics purely based on race. The original poster has just racially slurred more than 1 billion people.
I find that unacceptable, as should the other 4 or so billion of us.
Why does the Chinese ownership of the company matter, as long as the products have the same quality and support that IBM provided ?
Saying the products won't be the same quality just because the company is Chinese owned is like saying all terrorists are Arabs ... which suggests that Timothy McVeigh must have been one of those rare albino Arabs.
Don't use 127.0.0.1. Use 127.29.13.4, or some equally random address in the 127/8 loopback.
Another alternative, depending on how you want the failed delivery to fail, is to use an IP address within one of the reserved IANA ranges. Bogon lists on the default free routers usually silently drop packets to these addresses. Unless spammers are doctoring the TCP/IP stack in their hosts, silent drops of TCP SYNs usually take around three minutes before the application is notified of a failure to connect. One address I use is 1.1.1.1/32.
Spamming software is almost always poorly written. They'll filter out 127.0.0.1, but aren't smart enough to do anything else. Those bastards will probably try to deliver mail to themselves for a week.
Which type of address you select, bogon (eg 1.1.1.1/32) or loopback depends a bit on whether you want to tie up their delivery resources immediately (1.1.1.1/32) or over a few days (loopback).
One of the issues with loopback though is that the delivery failure depends on whether they are running an MTA on 127.0.0.1. If not, they'll usually get immediate "connection failed" messages, although if they are firewalling the local host, the effect will be the same as using a bogon address.
If they are running an MTA on local host, then they'll likely get "bounce messages" with a "not a relay" message (or what ever the exact status is, I'm rusty on the exact SMTP messages).
Of course, another alternative is to delete the subdomain, meaning that the MX record lookup will fail.
Still, I prefer one of the "bad MX" address methods - there is a chance it will waste some of the resources of the spammers, increasing their costs.
Another idea, as part of this, is to create a bogus web page that contains a whole stack of these "sacrificial subdomain" email addresses. If spammers are using web page robots to collect addresses, they'll end up collecting a lot of them. That might frustrate them, such that they'll delete all email addresses for the particular domain, which, of course, would include any of your legitimate ones. You can have a look at mine here, which contains 7500 bogus addresses, covering a range of "sacrificial subdomain"s. I used 30 bogus domains, and a list of male and female names from files listed in Kevin Mitnick's book, "The Art of Deception". Using the full 30 domains, and the full male and female name list, I ended up with a 22 MB html file, with 256 000 or so addresses. I figured that was a bit too many (!) and cut it back. That being said, if my "sending" bandwidth was free or near free, it might be worth making the page around the 5 to 10 MBs in size, to also tie up spammer resources while they are running their address collecting robot.
None of these techniques are perfect, then again, if there is anything realatively simple you can do to frustrate the spammers, it is worth it. They might give up if their costs become too high.
Yeah, thats right. For 3 (three) months, i havn't got a single SPAM that got through to my inbox.
You may not have seen any emails that you consider to be spam, however, are you sure that you haven't had emails deleted that weren't spam ? How can you be sure ?
As much as I certainly agree spam is a problem, and would like it to be "fixed", I'm personally not keen on filters, just because they can't be guaranteed to be 100% accurate, which conflicts with my desire to see 100% of the (legitimate) emails sent to me. The only way I can reach that 100% assurance is to view all email I receive. Certainly in no way a perfect solution, however, I guarantee I can filter my email with 100% accuracy. Automated, computer based filters can't make those guarantees.
One easy way to set that up is to use subdomains that don't even resolve after a certain point. So you might have me@2004.example.com good for only three more weeks, or me@amazon.example.com good for as long as Amazon (or your "healthy" girlfriend) doesn't sell you out. You can get tricky, of course, and use subdomains that are not so easily subject to a dictionary attack or guessing.
This is exactly the same solution as I use, and I've found it very effective. I've written some stuff about it here - Mitigating spam.
Did we come up with it independently ? The first "thought" that triggered me thinking about it was when I moved house, and wanted to make sure that emails to my domain, while unavailable, were bounced immediately, rather than having the sending SMTP server keep attempting for up to 5 days (or what ever it was configured to be). My solution was to set the MX record for my domain to point to an A record that resolved to 127.0.0.1. That lead to the idea of creating "sacrificial subdomains", and then abandoning when I get too much spam by changing the MX record value.
It's deja vu. Of particular interest is my post to that thread, titled leader vs follower business approach. It hasn't been mod'ed up over there, looks like I get another chance. I usually get modded up for posts I spend time on, hopefully I also will this time. Another chance; Yipee !
In summary, you are describing what I call the "leader vs follower" business approach. Note that there probably is a better name for it, I've never studied economics, and have only really started thinking about how business and markets work over the last few years.
"Leaders", while they take assume higher risks, expect higher rewards, as compensation for taking those risks. A typical situation is that they end up creating a new market, which, because they are the creators, they end up holding a monopoly in it. Because they have a monopoly, they are free to charge what they like, as up until the point where what they produce looses its value when compared to what the customer is willing to pay.
Of course, "followers" are looking for less risk, so they choose to existing markets, rather than creating new ones. Also, because the market already exists, the competitive point of distinction between them and others within the market is usually "commodity" - something that all their competitors can also usually do, such as cheaper pricing, different locations, closer to customers, which also reduces prices etc.
Markets typically evolve over time from being new and monopolised by the creator, to common and existing, with a number of "follower" type competitors.
An interesting book which I've realised relates to this is The Science of Getting Rich. Although it doesn't directly describe markets, what it does describe, as one of the "sciences" of getting rich is change from a competitive mindset to a creative mindset. It criticises a competitive mindset because in competition there is always a winner and a loser. A competitive mindset has a destructive component, as one of the things it creates are losers. It suggests that to become a rich individual (primarily financially, and also more generally), in your area of financial endeavour, you should only create, rather than compete. As soon as you find yourself in a competitive situation, abandon it, and again move into a creative situation.
As a side note, the book is pretty philosophical, and, as probably was common for books written in 1910, includes a religious / spiritual sub-theme. This sub-theme isn't all that overt, and you can generally accept it with the view that all the measures suggested have good "karma". I still think the book is worth reading.
Companies that have a "creative mindset" fit in with the philosophy of this book. Not only do they create new things, which creates new markets, they are a monopoly within the market. As they hold a monopoly, they don't have any competitors. As they aren't competing with anybody, their aren't any losers.
A completely "creative" environment would create a world where everything would be proprietory. All products would have high prices, as there would only be one supplier. I'm not necessarily saying that situation would be ideal. Competition does have value, in the sense that it does drive the price down for products which have a large number of consumers. What you can do though is use the products of the "competitive" producers, and combine them in new, creative ways. The world then becomes a combination of "competitive" and "creative", with "creative" leading, and at the leading edge of the market.
From RFC3257 - Stream Control Transmission Protocol Applicability Statement"
SCTP is also connection-oriented and provides all the transport services that TCP provides. Many Internet applications therefore should find that either TCP or SCTP will meet their transport requirements. Note, for applications conscious about processing cost, there might be a difference in processing cost associated with running SCTP with only a single ordered stream and one address pair in comparison to running TCP.
So you're right, SCTP can perform an equivalent of TCP's functionality, although with additional features, and therefore additional complexity. Of course, increased complexity usually decreases performance. As performance was one of the major goals of this speed test, SCTP would probably have not have been appropriate.
I'm sure the serious possible contributors won't spend a lot of time on this unless they can be assured that their contributions are freely available in the future.
I think you might be right about Firewire aka IEEE 1394, although I think Sony had some significant involvement. I'm pretty sure USB was primarily created by Intel, and SCSI was originally created by Shugart Associates' Alan Shugart as "SASI". SASI was further developed by Shugart Associates and NCR to become the ANSI SCSI standard. (Alan Shugart then went on to start Seagate).
I completely agree. I don't care what Nvidia do, if they don't provide open specs, I won't be buying their hardware. That is their decision and that is their business loss.
The issue people are talking about is the claims of "superior Linux support", how "wonderful" Nvidia for "supporting" Linux, when they are only paying lip service to the ideals (open specifications) that created Linux in the first place.
I'm not going to get into an argument about the "value" of open specifications, and how they "don't really matter because Nvidia provide wonderful support." I first ran Linux in 1992. Nvidia didn't exist at that time, nor did binary modules. I wouldn't have been able to run Linux on my hardware if open specifications didn't exist.
To put the whole open specification argument into a true context, the PC as we know it wouldn't exist either if it wasn't due to open specifications. The only specification IBM didn't publish openly of their IBM PC was the BIOS, although technically they did open publish it, they just retained copyright on it, preventing people from copying it. Compaq reverse engineered that, which made the IBM PC hardware specification fully open.
If you don't understand the importance of open specifications, then realise that the PC you are (probably) sitting in front of would be a very different machine if it weren't for them, and would have probably cost way, way more than you paid for it, as proprietory products always cost more. Even Apple users have benefitted, as Apple decided to use open, industry specifications such as PCI, SATA, USB, Firewire and a number of others, which reduced the cost of an Apple PC.
I'm struggling to think of any product America makes that a near equivalent of can't be bought from somewhere else. Care to name one ?
Is that the case ?