(off topic) With "Hombrewing" and "J. C. Penny" [sic] on the front page, it seems that today's Slashdot is definitely not brought to you by the letter "E".
Details about who doens't want to friend you and why should remain private. Then again that's true for most of the stuff posted on facebook but that's another story.
You ask someone to be your friend. It's hard to see how you can not know if they said yes or no.
I have 21 FB friends. If this number should ever decrease I have this great technique ready, called "looking to see who isn't on the list any more". It is less nerdy than GreaseMonkey but equally effective. Why someone with 900 "friends" should even care about someone vanishing from the list is beyond me.
wikipedia is just the encyclopedia of the hundred few to choose to spend their majority of time working the "politics" of such site.
This seems unfair. If you hang around the articles on hot button issues for Slashdotters, like gun stuff, iPads or climate change, I can imagine you see quite a bit of Wikipedia politics. But a lot of people are making small contributions across a huge number of less contentious articles. Take a look at the article history for J. J. Thomson. From June to December there were 433 edits, and the article got slightly better. Quite a lot of this was unsung work like reverting edits like "wats up peeps u know me" or "Hi im JOohnnnnnn". There is a lot of fixing going on, and I'm sure it is more than a few hundred people doing it.
Never mind that only the rich will be able to afford Springsteen tickets at the jacked-up prices. Who cares?
That's terrible! The wrong kind of person might end up at the concert. I'm sure Springsteen wants a fan sitting by a browser pressing control-R all the time to get the tickets, rather than someone who works five days a week loading crates down on the dock.
When I got as far as "forcing users to go without a valuable learning experience" I began to wonder if this article is some kind of elaborate joke played on its readers.
It's hard to be more patronizing than the "Joe Sixpack", "Grandmom" or "Sh*eple" crap that pops up here, but the guy seems to be aiming to limbo under that very low bar.
I don't think you will find any use of the old British "billion" in mainstream British newspapers for the last 30 years or so. For example, The Economist published a style guide in 1986, which defined billion as a thousand million.
If you want to improve the accuracy of written English in these comments, maybe you could provide improved versions of the following:
get their at the speed of light
Didn't you hear, their going to put a Mosque in it's place.
Well, the first phase of this project is supposed to connect New York to Chicago and Ashburn, VA. Level 3's headquarters in in Ashburn, VA. So, you might be on to something.
Level 3 is headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. The locations (NYC, Chicago, and the Dulles Technology Corridor) are three out of the eight or nine metros where North American internet giants interconnect with each other. Others include Atlanta, Dallas, LA and the Bay Area.
Compare this to the Apollo program. In a span of eight years (1961-1968), the US sent 21 space probes to the Moon (I believe 8 of them failed, 6 in the first four years). NASA then sent seven successful manned missions to the Moon (plus Apollo 13 which was a mission failure but passed around the Moon briefly). One merely orbited (Apollo 8), but the other six landed on the Moon (Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,and 17). The last three had manned lunar rovers which traveled at least 25 km. And collectively the missions dropped off a bunch of instruments and returned 380 kg of samples.
There was also Apollo 10, which took the LEM within a few kilometers of the Moon's surface.
I think the whole project from inception to end was somewhere over eleven years. Even now, I don't think one can repeat via an unmanned program the scientific accomplishments of Apollo without spending a similar amount of money.
The Wikipedia articles give a cost of about $1bn for the Mars rover program, and $145bn in 2008 dollars for Apollo. There are a lot of factors that make the Moon easier than Mars (reduced gravity when landing, lower communications power requirements, etc.). On the other hand you would need chunkier rovers to achieve results similar to manned exploration, and rockets/heatshields/parachutes for sample return to Earth. Also the nights are inconveniently long if you are solar powered.
Apollo 10 is quite a good example of the difference between a manned and an unmanned program. No robotic lander would have been flown that close to the Moon just to try stuff out. They would have just landed it!
Most of us don't leave companies particularly often, and are not experts on every detail of how to do it. As well as asking friends, why not get the collective wisdom of Slashdot, where there is experience of hundreds of companies and their behavior? Sometimes tags like "thinkforyourself" are just annoying!
PTAT-1 was closed down a year after the Apollo cable system (capacity >3Tbit/s) was brought into service. PTAT-1 was then 15 years old. I can't find the capacity, but the TAT-n cables built after PTAT-1 were all less than 2Gbit/s.
The "not commercially viable" comes from actions like sending out a repair ship. You pay the same dollars out as the people who own the new cable, but you can only spread the costs over a tiny fraction of the customer traffic the competitor has. The old cable begins to look expensive because it can't carry much traffic.
Recent advances in transmission equipment have been great news for cables from the last ten years. More data can be squeezed on the existing (pretty good) fiber pairs, so their prospects may be better than earlier generations of cable systems.
Any ISP that uses RIPv2, OSPFv3 or ISIS on their internal network - or to connect to other networks - uses multicast for the routing protocol.
True, but irrelevant in considering whether a customer might one day get IP multicast on an ISP connection. The routing protocols you mention (and OSPFv2 as well) use multicast packets with TTL=1 to exchange information across a LAN. Not at all the same thing - no multicast forwarding tree in sight!
as of 2002.
Which says everything you need to know about interdomain IP Multicast on the public internet. In contrast, it's doing pretty well on private VPNs (CEO "egocasts" and that kind of thing).
Modern medicine *absolutely* would have saved James A. Garfield. It took him over two months to die, and that of an infection!
Apparently even medicine of his own time would have saved him. He had the misfortune to be treated by older doctors who didn't believe in new-fangled antiseptics, and poked at his wounds with unsterilized fingers.
The author of a recent biography, Ira Rutkow, was on C-SPAN's BookTV recently, talking about Garfield's medical treatment. He joked about reading the doctors' reports of the President's improvement; they were so upbeat that you half expected him to be still alive today.
There's an interesting story on the BBC site. Apparently you can microwave the lunar dust and get it to fuse together. Robots could prepare the surface before the humans arrive and make it safer.
Although there are only 13 IP addresses some of them are used by multiple physical servers. Wikipedia again...
the C, F, I, J, K and M servers now exist in multiple locations on different continents, using anycast announcements to provide a decentralized service. As a result most of the physical, rather than nominal, root servers are now outside the United States
Last year the K server alone was present in 17 places. Examples are Delhi, Novosibirsk and Miami. Another poster above says the total for A through M is 130 servers, which is impressive!
Slashdot Mirror
(off topic) With "Hombrewing" and "J. C. Penny" [sic] on the front page, it seems that today's Slashdot is definitely not brought to you by the letter "E".
Anyway... Kudos to HP!
Details about who doens't want to friend you and why should remain private. Then again that's true for most of the stuff posted on facebook but that's another story.
You ask someone to be your friend. It's hard to see how you can not know if they said yes or no.
I have 21 FB friends. If this number should ever decrease I have this great technique ready, called "looking to see who isn't on the list any more". It is less nerdy than GreaseMonkey but equally effective. Why someone with 900 "friends" should even care about someone vanishing from the list is beyond me.
I'm curious then - what language?
From the interwiki links at the side of Wikipedia's "Syndrome" page it could be Czech, German, Norwegian or Swedish
Personally, I will yawn at the story this time, too...
Ten years ago the IANA pool had about 100 free /8 blocks. Now it has seven. Something newsworthy happened while you were yawning.
Compaq gave up DEC's /8. HP gave up Compaq's. HP only has a single /8 rather than the 3 it could possibly have ended up with.
Not according to the latest IANA allocation data
015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 1994-07 LEGACY
016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 1994-11 LEGACY
15.0.0.0/8 and 16.0.0.0/8 were being advertised by AS71 last time I checked (five minutes ago).
wikipedia is just the encyclopedia of the hundred few to choose to spend their majority of time working the "politics" of such site.
This seems unfair. If you hang around the articles on hot button issues for Slashdotters, like gun stuff, iPads or climate change, I can imagine you see quite a bit of Wikipedia politics. But a lot of people are making small contributions across a huge number of less contentious articles. Take a look at the article history for J. J. Thomson. From June to December there were 433 edits, and the article got slightly better. Quite a lot of this was unsung work like reverting edits like "wats up peeps u know me" or "Hi im JOohnnnnnn". There is a lot of fixing going on, and I'm sure it is more than a few hundred people doing it.
Simply block doz.me (or all of .me if you wish).
All of .me, simply block all of .me,
Can't you see I'm no good without .yu?
Never mind that only the rich will be able to afford Springsteen tickets at the jacked-up prices. Who cares?
That's terrible! The wrong kind of person might end up at the concert. I'm sure Springsteen wants a fan sitting by a browser pressing control-R all the time to get the tickets, rather than someone who works five days a week loading crates down on the dock.
Are Dwarf horses no longer considered houses?
I know this one!
They are not considered houses. Mostly.
When I got as far as "forcing users to go without a valuable learning experience" I began to wonder if this article is some kind of elaborate joke played on its readers.
It's hard to be more patronizing than the "Joe Sixpack", "Grandmom" or "Sh*eple" crap that pops up here, but the guy seems to be aiming to limbo under that very low bar.
So the question is of-course this: was Sherlock a gorgeous blond girl from Chicago?
"Fool me four times, Professor Moriarty, shame on you. Fool me five times, shame on me."
Or perhaps you should get some sleep :-)
Well, the first phase of this project is supposed to connect New York to Chicago and Ashburn, VA. Level 3's headquarters in in Ashburn, VA. So, you might be on to something.
Level 3 is headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. The locations (NYC, Chicago, and the Dulles Technology Corridor) are three out of the eight or nine metros where North American internet giants interconnect with each other. Others include Atlanta, Dallas, LA and the Bay Area.
IAFAIUI, Hubble was instrumental (heh) in discovering the background radiation...
YDNUIVW. The answer is 350 miles lower than Hubble and a quarter century before its launch - New Jersey in 1964
Compare this to the Apollo program. In a span of eight years (1961-1968), the US sent 21 space probes to the Moon (I believe 8 of them failed, 6 in the first four years). NASA then sent seven successful manned missions to the Moon (plus Apollo 13 which was a mission failure but passed around the Moon briefly). One merely orbited (Apollo 8), but the other six landed on the Moon (Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,and 17). The last three had manned lunar rovers which traveled at least 25 km. And collectively the missions dropped off a bunch of instruments and returned 380 kg of samples.
There was also Apollo 10, which took the LEM within a few kilometers of the Moon's surface.
I think the whole project from inception to end was somewhere over eleven years. Even now, I don't think one can repeat via an unmanned program the scientific accomplishments of Apollo without spending a similar amount of money.
The Wikipedia articles give a cost of about $1bn for the Mars rover program, and $145bn in 2008 dollars for Apollo. There are a lot of factors that make the Moon easier than Mars (reduced gravity when landing, lower communications power requirements, etc.). On the other hand you would need chunkier rovers to achieve results similar to manned exploration, and rockets/heatshields/parachutes for sample return to Earth. Also the nights are inconveniently long if you are solar powered.
Apollo 10 is quite a good example of the difference between a manned and an unmanned program. No robotic lander would have been flown that close to the Moon just to try stuff out. They would have just landed it!
Technically, there's no plural of the word 'virus'.
If you're going to pick nits, you should pick well.
Sounds like good advice :-)
Besides, I'm sure you can just buy a carrier pigeon nowadays... this is not the 15th century anymore you know...
You're right, you can't, because they're extinct, and they're also not the same thing as Homing Pigeons.
You're probably thinking of the yummy, delicious Passenger Pigeon, which became extinct in 1914.
Here's a reference: http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.space.history/2005-07/msg00891.html
The GP has missed out quotation marks. It looks like "When NASA cuts costs, the safety margins go down." comes from p51d007 rather than the original joking astronaut.
Most of us don't leave companies particularly often, and are not experts on every detail of how to do it. As well as asking friends, why not get the collective wisdom of Slashdot, where there is experience of hundreds of companies and their behavior? Sometimes tags like "thinkforyourself" are just annoying!
PTAT-1 was closed down a year after the Apollo cable system (capacity >3Tbit/s) was brought into service. PTAT-1 was then 15 years old. I can't find the capacity, but the TAT-n cables built after PTAT-1 were all less than 2Gbit/s.
The "not commercially viable" comes from actions like sending out a repair ship. You pay the same dollars out as the people who own the new cable, but you can only spread the costs over a tiny fraction of the customer traffic the competitor has. The old cable begins to look expensive because it can't carry much traffic.
Recent advances in transmission equipment have been great news for cables from the last ten years. More data can be squeezed on the existing (pretty good) fiber pairs, so their prospects may be better than earlier generations of cable systems.
Apparently even medicine of his own time would have saved him. He had the misfortune to be treated by older doctors who didn't believe in new-fangled antiseptics, and poked at his wounds with unsterilized fingers.
The author of a recent biography, Ira Rutkow, was on C-SPAN's BookTV recently, talking about Garfield's medical treatment. He joked about reading the doctors' reports of the President's improvement; they were so upbeat that you half expected him to be still alive today.
There's an interesting story on the BBC site. Apparently you can microwave the lunar dust and get it to fuse together. Robots could prepare the surface before the humans arrive and make it safer.