As much as I want. And none of it is spam, as in unsolicited commercial email.
Getting back to the question, you're going to have to get a box somewhere, get a friend who does, find a tiny, likemined ISP, or pay for business services. ISPs are using the the (very very good) excuse of spam to further restrict service tiers (for which there's less of a good reason).
Is it really right to spend $X on AIDS research when one hundred times more people die of cancer or heart disease or stroke every year?
So, since the USG is so carefully focused on only those research projects that provide the greatest good for the greatest number, it is right to deny research pertaining to a short list of "bad" things?
And, of course, the USG only funds those projects which return the greatest good for the greatest number, which is why the tax bill doesn't include studies into the sex lives of grasshoppers, or research into intelligent hopping landmines.
Just to chime in, Sun provides consistency. You know what you're deploying works, and will work for as long as you care.
Sure, you can do something faster. Or cheaper. Or more elegant.
Sun works, and that's why they're there. Much like Cisco - the hardware doesn't really win any prizes, but the combination of a box, IOS, and support earns the premium they charge.
I think Sun needs to embrace linux and slowly move away from Solaris - It is a great OS, but the industry is moving away from the premises that caused them to create it.
Sun has a wonderful chance to live in the commodity-OS world - they need to learn that hardware exists independent of OS, and service is where you make the buckets of cash.
Thus spake Anonymous Coward: Not all speech is "free speech".
That nearly sums up my point, but I'm going to ramble a bit anyway.
Consent is not quantifiable in either a legal or technical way.
For example, I run a business. I want people to contact me. If people contact me too much, I'm not able to actually provide services, because I'm doing nothing but separating signal from noise. "Too much" is not quantifiable - harassment is obvious, but attempts to define it have too many edge cases. Any legal solution that attempts to do so is misguided.
My mixmaster node can continue sending messages to the world at large. I'm just asserting that I sent something in a way that cannot be denied. If I'm sending spam, this is an invitation to call my to task. If I do so frequently, it is an invitation to blacklist me.
What I choose to do with identifying headers is an entirely different question.
There is an important point here, which is why I'm jumping in to the middle of a typical meandering discussion.
I take the assumption that having a phone, an email address, or a location where mail can be delivered is implicit consent for people to employ that method for contacting you through it.
That some tend to abuse that mechanism is part and parcel of being contactable.
I screen calls. If you're calling my private line, I expect you to indentify yourself. If you don't want to, that's your business, but I'm not going to talk to you.
Anyone can contact my mail server. What I choose to have it do with those contacts are my business. I can happily lie to you about whether or not messages have been delivered, deliver them, or build something that flashes a light every time you attempt to send mail. My server, my business.
However, much like running a web server, providing a mail server is an invitation for use.
Any other approach is absurd - our would you like to require a prior business relationship with CNN before you can view thier site?
As an aside, I'm personally a huge advocate of signed headers as spam prevention. This respects anonymous communication - the server is authenticated, not the individual. Blacklists can be built against serial abusers, and one can know you're targeting the abuser. The right place to apply pressure to stop spam is the owner of the machine sending it. Mistakes happen (a spammer once used a machine I ran; I was very embarrassed by that and fixed it immediately), but without a way to verify that there isn't a history of claiming mistakes, you end up with blacklists that both are somewhat inaccurate and also mechanisms for abuse.
ASRG (asrg@ietf.org) is discussing this; consent is essentially impossible to define in a way that a machine can implement. You have to attack the problem differently. (The general uselessness of the mailing list is a topic for a different post.)
The point isn't that spending a couple million on servers is what's required to take part. How do you manage them? That's not trivial. Google is as much an IT company as they are an ad provider. Oh, ans search firm.
Exactly. It doesn't explicitly exempt or include anonymnity as part of speech. In fact, (IRRC IANAL) SCOTUS only protected anonymnity because to dissallow it would impact speach.
Congress shall make no law.
Think about it for a second. Again, I believe you need to read up on the history of the 1st Amendment.
The bill of rights doesn't say anything about speech while standing on your head, either. It merely states what the government cannot do.
To wit, make a law about speech, whether you're wearing a nametag or standing on your head.
I don't feel that anonymnity is a right in the same way that speech is [...]
...and as is typical of Slashdot, we wind up back where we were, with me asserting, "Thankfully, the founding fathers disagreed.
77% of people asked say getting their money back from Benny "The Cheat" Malone is a top concern, however 89% continue to loan him money.
Would you say they are trusting Benny?
Actually, its doesn't prove that at all. Its partially a matter of who makes the decisions about applications (often clueless managers) and some may only run on windows[...]
To address your exact words, are you trying to disagree with me? I originally said "Of course, they probably have very little choice in the matter."
From the article: While 77 percent of respondents in the information technology (IT) field said security was a top concern when using Windows, 89 percent still use the software for sensitive applications[...]
So, clearly people *do* trust Windows, in that they are using the software for "sensitive applications". Of course, they probably have very little choice in the matter, and hopefully they take my tack of firewalling it off from everything when forced to use it.
I was just getting at the obvious false statement in the teaser - the respondents *are* trusting Win, they just aren't *happy* about having to.
Re:Thankfully, the Founding Fathers disagreed.
on
Geocoding All Content
·
· Score: 1
It is, of course, your right to "respect", or not, any sort of communications you wish.
(BTW, anonymous communication is upheld by a lot more than SCOTUS fiat. "Congress shall make no law", and the 1st doesn't say anything about wearing a nametag. Remeber, the BoR restricts the government, not the people, and is not an expression of all rights. Reading up on the history of the bill of rights could do you some good.)
Anyway, yes, please listen, or not, to whatever you like. And the rest of us will continue to enjoy anonymous communication.
Thankfully, the Founding Fathers disagreed.
on
Geocoding All Content
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Anonymous communication has a long and valid history in the U.S., and is constitutionally protected.
Remember that if it weren't, various whistle blowers would never have brought horrid practices to light.
My rule of thumb was one box per ~140 hits/second. For that site's page weight and activity, it worked out out to an average of 1 box per (very roughly) 1.5M pageviews, averaged (eg, spikes are not accounted for here). These were pretty heavyweight pages, though; a fair amount of DB activity, images and dynamic content. Lighter pages or less dynamic content and you can do better.
On that site, for the main web cluster, there were 6 low end Sparcs doing web service. Five were fine; the extra was for failover and rotating in software updates.
Our average daily traffic was around 30M hits (not PVs); peak traffic ran around ~750 hits/sec.
I'm curious where an example of a site doing that level of traffic with PHP is, and what they're using. As I said, I intentionally don't have much php experience, because I don't like the language.
You think incorrectly, sahib. Even using mod_perl, PHP scales far better.
This isn't my experience at all.
I've scaled mod_perl to several million pageviews/day levels of traffic - it always behaves predictibly and sanely.
We run php internally, becuase some of the software we use in house is written in it, and all those tools are dog slow.
I don't like php very much, so I don't use it, so I can't compare myself.
Can you point to any real comparisons?
I know Yahoo decided they liked it, but I've never seen real comparisons.
My company will develop in anything for cash, but it has been my experience that this combination is hands down the best general purpose web development setup. Rock solid, fast, extremely full featured, great rapid development, and generally fun to write.
England was not established through war, unless you count the fact that they reformed because they were scared poop-less over the French revolution.
Depends on how you think about it. England as a quasi-nation state has been there for a long time. It has the advantage of having definite boundries that are (or at least were) hard to invade.
The various movements of Saxons, Picks, Jutes, et all probably do not qualify as war today, but at the time they were very serious examples of "regime change".
-j
I contracted to a company called Narrowline in 1994-1995. They were an early competitor to Doubleclick. The important difference was that they attempted to be a neutral market for advertising, matching buyers and sellers.
The system was exactly what what described here.
Now I need to hunt down the folks who used to work there...
Now that I have tried Postgres though there is no way I would go back.
I grew up on Sybase and Oracle, and couldn't stand the constraints of Msql/Mysql when I first started using them.
Now that I'm using Postgres wherever I have a choice, I even prefer it to Oracle.
About the only problem I have now is that I support too many different databases, and switching between ';" and "go", and "show tables" and "\dt" drives me nuts.
Anonymous Coward writes:
You have no right to anonymity, it's not even reasonable to expect it. Not so long as you live in this society.
Funny stuff.
I'll leave you with a question:
When I exchange things ov value with another person, what gives you the right to know anything about that transaction?
So if this idea works, we'll see a lot more ads in other fora, right? Such as...
Contact Brainclone Enterprises, if you are an ISP and would like to have this set up for you and your email users. Anthony@brainclone.com
Not only is this a halfbaked attempt to make a profit from applying sender-reciever pairs to mail traffic analysis, it is attempting to actively undermine the value of email in general. Hint: if I get a bounce telling me to go type a credit card number into some random web site in order to communicate with someone, I'm going to giggle and assume there's no good reason for me to communicate with that person.
Meanwhile, actually useful methods of fighting spam will continue. Thank you, drive through.
> DB Performance when querying outside the normal object hierarchy (...)
> is orders of magnitude SLOWER on an OODB! That's right: you are trying to use a oodbms as a rdbms. Ever tried to drive a car like you ride a bicycle?
I've still never heard a good answer to this problem, only that I'm using the wrong hammer.
When performing activities against pure OO storage in which selectively collecting data from a (potentially large) number of objects is required, what is the OC (object-correct) way to do so? Asking each one via a method call is horrendously slow in comparison to a RDBMS. For instance, contrast "select last_activity, uid from users" to
my %blarg;
foreach ( my $user $users->$next() ) {
$blarg{uid} = $user->{uid};
$blarg{last_activity} = $user->{last_activity};
}
I suppose if one is building a product instead of managing an ongoing project, saying that lazy access to the hash will save a little time. I still don't see the performance win, and for ad hoc access, building the methods and accessors just takes too much time to be reasonable.
Use the right tool for the right job, I say. And usually, for managing data, a RDBMS is the right tool. For interacting with that data, OO is frequently nice.
Please correct my incorrect notions.
Slashdot Mirror
The same way I do, from my personal servers.
As much as I want. And none of it is spam, as in unsolicited commercial email.
Getting back to the question, you're going to have to get a box somewhere, get a friend who does, find a tiny, likemined ISP, or pay for business services. ISPs are using the the (very very good) excuse of spam to further restrict service tiers (for which there's less of a good reason).
Good luck.
So, since the USG is so carefully focused on only those research projects that provide the greatest good for the greatest number, it is right to deny research pertaining to a short list of "bad" things?
And, of course, the USG only funds those projects which return the greatest good for the greatest number, which is why the tax bill doesn't include studies into the sex lives of grasshoppers, or research into intelligent hopping landmines.
Check out Wave.
He does really good work and is a very no-bullshit sort of guy.
Gotta love the anonymous coward who had a problem with it supporting someone who doesn't want anonymous communications.
Just to chime in, Sun provides consistency. You know what you're deploying works, and will work for as long as you care.
Sure, you can do something faster. Or cheaper. Or more elegant.
Sun works, and that's why they're there. Much like Cisco - the hardware doesn't really win any prizes, but the combination of a box, IOS, and support earns the premium they charge.
I think Sun needs to embrace linux and slowly move away from Solaris - It is a great OS, but the industry is moving away from the premises that caused them to create it.
Sun has a wonderful chance to live in the commodity-OS world - they need to learn that hardware exists independent of OS, and service is where you make the buckets of cash.
Not all speech is "free speech".
That nearly sums up my point, but I'm going to ramble a bit anyway.
Consent is not quantifiable in either a legal or technical way.
For example, I run a business. I want people to contact me. If people contact me too much, I'm not able to actually provide services, because I'm doing nothing but separating signal from noise. "Too much" is not quantifiable - harassment is obvious, but attempts to define it have too many edge cases. Any legal solution that attempts to do so is misguided.
They end anonymous mail servers.
My mixmaster node can continue sending messages to the world at large. I'm just asserting that I sent something in a way that cannot be denied. If I'm sending spam, this is an invitation to call my to task. If I do so frequently, it is an invitation to blacklist me.
What I choose to do with identifying headers is an entirely different question.
There is an important point here, which is why I'm jumping in to the middle of a typical meandering discussion.
I take the assumption that having a phone, an email address, or a location where mail can be delivered is implicit consent for people to employ that method for contacting you through it.
That some tend to abuse that mechanism is part and parcel of being contactable.
I screen calls. If you're calling my private line, I expect you to indentify yourself. If you don't want to, that's your business, but I'm not going to talk to you.
Anyone can contact my mail server. What I choose to have it do with those contacts are my business. I can happily lie to you about whether or not messages have been delivered, deliver them, or build something that flashes a light every time you attempt to send mail. My server, my business.
However, much like running a web server, providing a mail server is an invitation for use.
Any other approach is absurd - our would you like to require a prior business relationship with CNN before you can view thier site?
As an aside, I'm personally a huge advocate of signed headers as spam prevention. This respects anonymous communication - the server is authenticated, not the individual. Blacklists can be built against serial abusers, and one can know you're targeting the abuser. The right place to apply pressure to stop spam is the owner of the machine sending it. Mistakes happen (a spammer once used a machine I ran; I was very embarrassed by that and fixed it immediately), but without a way to verify that there isn't a history of claiming mistakes, you end up with blacklists that both are somewhat inaccurate and also mechanisms for abuse.
ASRG (asrg@ietf.org) is discussing this; consent is essentially impossible to define in a way that a machine can implement. You have to attack the problem differently. (The general uselessness of the mailing list is a topic for a different post.)
2: 54000
1: 300
*
1: 16200000
The point isn't that spending a couple million on servers is what's required to take part. How do you manage them? That's not trivial. Google is as much an IT company as they are an ad provider. Oh, ans search firm.
Congress shall make no law.
Think about it for a second. Again, I believe you need to read up on the history of the 1st Amendment.
The bill of rights doesn't say anything about speech while standing on your head, either. It merely states what the government cannot do.
To wit, make a law about speech, whether you're wearing a nametag or standing on your head.
I don't feel that anonymnity is a right in the same way that speech is [...]
I'm done here.
77% of people asked say getting their money back from Benny "The Cheat" Malone is a top concern, however 89% continue to loan him money.
Would you say they are trusting Benny?
Actually, its doesn't prove that at all. Its partially a matter of who makes the decisions about applications (often clueless managers) and some may only run on windows[...]
To address your exact words, are you trying to disagree with me? I originally said "Of course, they probably have very little choice in the matter."
While 77 percent of respondents in the information technology (IT) field said security was a top concern when using Windows, 89 percent still use the software for sensitive applications[...]
So, clearly people *do* trust Windows, in that they are using the software for "sensitive applications". Of course, they probably have very little choice in the matter, and hopefully they take my tack of firewalling it off from everything when forced to use it.
I was just getting at the obvious false statement in the teaser - the respondents *are* trusting Win, they just aren't *happy* about having to.
It is, of course, your right to "respect", or not, any sort of communications you wish.
(BTW, anonymous communication is upheld by a lot more than SCOTUS fiat. "Congress shall make no law", and the 1st doesn't say anything about wearing a nametag. Remeber, the BoR restricts the government, not the people, and is not an expression of all rights. Reading up on the history of the bill of rights could do you some good.)
Anyway, yes, please listen, or not, to whatever you like. And the rest of us will continue to enjoy anonymous communication.
Anonymous communication has a long and valid history in the U.S., and is constitutionally protected.
Remember that if it weren't, various whistle blowers would never have brought horrid practices to light.
Remember Watergate?
My rule of thumb was one box per ~140 hits/second. For that site's page weight and activity, it worked out out to an average of 1 box per (very roughly) 1.5M pageviews, averaged (eg, spikes are not accounted for here). These were pretty heavyweight pages, though; a fair amount of DB activity, images and dynamic content. Lighter pages or less dynamic content and you can do better.
On that site, for the main web cluster, there were 6 low end Sparcs doing web service. Five were fine; the extra was for failover and rotating in software updates.
Our average daily traffic was around 30M hits (not PVs); peak traffic ran around ~750 hits/sec.
I'm curious where an example of a site doing that level of traffic with PHP is, and what they're using. As I said, I intentionally don't have much php experience, because I don't like the language.
This isn't my experience at all.
I've scaled mod_perl to several million pageviews/day levels of traffic - it always behaves predictibly and sanely.
We run php internally, becuase some of the software we use in house is written in it, and all those tools are dog slow.
I don't like php very much, so I don't use it, so I can't compare myself.
Can you point to any real comparisons?
I know Yahoo decided they liked it, but I've never seen real comparisons.
mod_perl, postgres, apache and HTML::Mason rock.
My company will develop in anything for cash, but it has been my experience that this combination is hands down the best general purpose web development setup. Rock solid, fast, extremely full featured, great rapid development, and generally fun to write.
Depends on how you think about it. England as a quasi-nation state has been there for a long time. It has the advantage of having definite boundries that are (or at least were) hard to invade.
The various movements of Saxons, Picks, Jutes, et all probably do not qualify as war today, but at the time they were very serious examples of "regime change".
-j
When I used Eudora at a job, I don't know how many email I ended like this:
:wq
-j
I contracted to a company called Narrowline in 1994-1995. They were an early competitor to Doubleclick. The important difference was that they attempted to be a neutral market for advertising, matching buyers and sellers.
The system was exactly what what described here.
Now I need to hunt down the folks who used to work there...
I grew up on Sybase and Oracle, and couldn't stand the constraints of Msql/Mysql when I first started using them.
Now that I'm using Postgres wherever I have a choice, I even prefer it to Oracle.
About the only problem I have now is that I support too many different databases, and switching between ';" and "go", and "show tables" and "\dt" drives me nuts.
In any case, Postres rocks.
Anonymous Coward writes: You have no right to anonymity, it's not even reasonable to expect it. Not so long as you live in this society.
Funny stuff.
I'll leave you with a question:
When I exchange things ov value with another person, what gives you the right to know anything about that transaction?
"...but the latency sucks."
Not only that, but in the case of, ahem, packet collisions, your retry rate is a real killer with that station wagon.
Contact Brainclone Enterprises, if you are an ISP and would like to have this set up for you and your email users. Anthony@brainclone.com
Not only is this a halfbaked attempt to make a profit from applying sender-reciever pairs to mail traffic analysis, it is attempting to actively undermine the value of email in general. Hint: if I get a bounce telling me to go type a credit card number into some random web site in order to communicate with someone, I'm going to giggle and assume there's no good reason for me to communicate with that person.
Meanwhile, actually useful methods of fighting spam will continue. Thank you, drive through.
> is orders of magnitude SLOWER on an OODB!
That's right: you are trying to use a oodbms as a rdbms. Ever tried to drive a car like you ride a bicycle?
I've still never heard a good answer to this problem, only that I'm using the wrong hammer.
When performing activities against pure OO storage in which selectively collecting data from a (potentially large) number of objects is required, what is the OC (object-correct) way to do so? Asking each one via a method call is horrendously slow in comparison to a RDBMS. For instance, contrast "select last_activity, uid from users" to
my %blarg;
foreach ( my $user $users->$next() ) {
$blarg{uid} = $user->{uid};
$blarg{last_activity} = $user->{last_activity};
}
I suppose if one is building a product instead of managing an ongoing project, saying that lazy access to the hash will save a little time. I still don't see the performance win, and for ad hoc access, building the methods and accessors just takes too much time to be reasonable.
Use the right tool for the right job, I say. And usually, for managing data, a RDBMS is the right tool. For interacting with that data, OO is frequently nice.
Please correct my incorrect notions.