RFC 3390 uses the "MUST" terminology exactly one place: when describing behavior after a packet is lost during the syn/synack. It doesn't use the phrase "MUST NOT" anywhere.
In every other respect slow-start is recommended but optional. Google is in no way breaching the standard by not using it.
I just logged in to say exactly the same thing. Not implementing an optional variant is not cheating. Nothing to see, move along.
... and as Frosty Piss clicked the Submit button he suddenly realized that he had succumb to temptation and taken the joke that one step too far. Four months later he regained consciousness on the vomit strewn bathroom floor of a third rate Key West motel struggling to remember how he got there and why the phases "never give up", "trust your instincts" and "hot dirty sex" kept spinning around his muddled brain.
this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
I'm not saying that the lawyers are malicious, just technically incompetent.
In other words the average patent lawyer would not be able to differentiate technical innovation from a tuna sandwich even if the sandwich jumped up on his desk and yelled in Samuel L. Jackson's voice: "I'm a motherfucking tuna sandwich bitch!"
Maybe, but generally speaking whenever the TSA has done something, they've pulled out every stop to try to justify their actions. It's telling that they decided to focus on trains and stuff after public sentiment turned against the new scanners, and after many security experts went on national TV commenting that the TSA is focusing too myopically on air and ignoring other easy targets. The timing of this statement makes it rather unlikely that it is based on an actual threat that just happened to pop up at the same time as the public uproar. Those sorts of coincidences, when they do occur, have a high probability of being false flags.
Agreed, however there is a significant difference between unlikely and impossible.
While I would agree that the best bet is that TSA is flailing around incompetently (Occam's Razor); I would not be at all shocked to discover that the public has been carefully shielded from the truth of real threats for intelligence purposes and that TSA has instead done a brilliant job of saving lives by preventing dozens of terrorist attacks and the public is not been made aware to avoid panic.
Come to think of it, that would make a great plot for a film...
The legal department meticulously goes through the proposal claims just as a patent office would to avoid scenarios like what the OP is implying.
The problem is that the legal department is only marginally less technically clueless than the patent office. I'm willing to bet that the average Slashdot troll is more technically qualified to judge the appropriateness of a patent application than 99% of patent lawyers. I'm not saying that the lawyers are malicious, just technically incompetent.
Let's see. They live under an oppressive government / invading force. They find themselves ecnomically fucked with no hope of advancing themselves or their family. They find their way of life and/or religion maligned as evil. Then one day they decide, "Fuck it. My life can't be any worse. Maybe I can make things better for the next generation by fighting what has fucked up my generation."
And that is exactly why Celine Dion was exiled from Canada to Las Vegas.
There has never even been intelligence suggesting that this is a credible threat.
I have to agree with all your other points, but honestly if you knew this for a FACT you would probably have just made yourself vulnerable to prosecution for treason. Nobody with access to "intelligence" would even contemplate posting anything on Slashdot that exposed what we knew or did not know.
I don't have any access to current intelligence either, but at least I know that I don't.
"Twenty-five years and two days later, it’s not just hard to remember an era in which Windows wasn’t everywhere"
Bullshit
My thoughts exactly, it makes me wonder how old this kid was (and will he stay off my lawn?)
Given just how retarded Windows 1 was compared the original Mac we should be more surprised just how successful they've been. Even Win 3.1 only competed with Apple on price. If nothing else Microsoft has my respect for putting lipstick on that pig and finally delivering XP and Win 7 which are pretty damn good.
(Disclaimer: my personal machines run OSX, iOS, Win7, Vista, XP and Linux... as an oldschool Linux junkie who has version 0.9 on floppy disk I'm almost ashamed to admit that my OS of choice these days is Win 7)
You're wrong. Tablets will get thinner and lighter, and you'll dock them with keyboards (wirelessly) and larger monitors when you need to. Fewer and fewer people will see the need to buy a desktop or laptop computer.
That's my prediction too... the laptop is dead, long live the laptop.
Yes I know you were joking, my point is that the joke is reality. iOS and Android are already bigger in the tablet space than windows is even though windows still owns the desktop.
I didn't linux say was unix, just pointing out that there are already advanced (and possibly superior) operating systems in that space. (Though Linux is a unix clone, always was, always will be. Just a different lineage.)
Of course. Though budget buys time, which buys patience and 911 pretty much secured interest.
Perhaps in some parts of government, particularly security oriented agencies like military, CIA, FBI and NSA. But I'd bet that in the majority of government and business 9/11 had little to no impact on security considerations for IT projects. It has certainly not impacted my software projects, and they've been sold to a whole plethora of government agencies and fortune 500 companies.
Note that three is one more than is effective in the US and two more than was allowed in most Communist states. However now that you mention the explosion of parties in the past decade, three does sound rather small.
Ehm, they had exactly three parties. When all three had the same candidates, it was obvious what's happening. Life was good enough for the majority of the population, so most people didn't bother. Corruption was rampant, but there was economic growth and stability, which gave less reason to raise a fuss. I reckon at the time, most people see election day as either a nuisance, or a holiday.
i'm sure there were quite a number of politically aware people in the itelligensia who were aware of the corruption, however I traveled around Java quite a lot in 86 & 87 and had more than one person tell me IN ENGLISH that they lived in a democracy because they could vote. I was as incredulous as you.
Come election day, nothing ever changed and the people were more content than they would have been without the illusion of political contention, it was very educational to watch.
I realized I was working on personal memory from over 20 years ago, so for the [citation needed] crowd I provide the following:
To maintain a veneer of democracy, Suharto made a number of electoral reforms. He stood for election before electoral college votes every five years, beginning in 1973. According to his electoral rules, however, only three parties were allowed to participate in the election: his own Golkar party, the Islamist United Development Party (PPP), and the Democratic Party of Indonesia (PDI). All the previously existing political parties were forced to be part of either the PPP or PDI, with public servants under pressure to join the membership of Golkar. In a political compromise with the powerful military, he banned its members from voting in elections, but set aside 100 seats in the electoral college for their representatives. As a result, he won every election in which he stood, in 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998.
You joke, but during the Suharto regime in Indonesia (1967 - 1998) they held elections and a large part of the population thought they lived in a democracy as a result.
Thats very interesting. I wonder what else the Suharto regime has in common with the recent UK elections.
I'm going to hazard a guess: Absolutely nothing
If you can't tell the difference between an effective and dynamic democracy and a true dictatorship where the leadership doesn't change for 30 years then you should get your meds adjusted.
Slashdot Mirror
RFC 3390 uses the "MUST" terminology exactly one place: when describing behavior after a packet is lost during the syn/synack. It doesn't use the phrase "MUST NOT" anywhere.
In every other respect slow-start is recommended but optional. Google is in no way breaching the standard by not using it.
I just logged in to say exactly the same thing. Not implementing an optional variant is not cheating. Nothing to see, move along.
I particularly love it how Winston said it over a month before the U.S. realized there was a war on and that they should be in it.
... and as Frosty Piss clicked the Submit button he suddenly realized that he had succumb to temptation and taken the joke that one step too far. Four months later he regained consciousness on the vomit strewn bathroom floor of a third rate Key West motel struggling to remember how he got there and why the phases "never give up", "trust your instincts" and "hot dirty sex" kept spinning around his muddled brain.
this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
- Winston Churchill, 29 October 1941
I'm not saying that the lawyers are malicious, just technically incompetent.
In other words the average patent lawyer would not be able to differentiate technical innovation from a tuna sandwich even if the sandwich jumped up on his desk and yelled in Samuel L. Jackson's voice: "I'm a motherfucking tuna sandwich bitch!"
Maybe, but generally speaking whenever the TSA has done something, they've pulled out every stop to try to justify their actions. It's telling that they decided to focus on trains and stuff after public sentiment turned against the new scanners, and after many security experts went on national TV commenting that the TSA is focusing too myopically on air and ignoring other easy targets. The timing of this statement makes it rather unlikely that it is based on an actual threat that just happened to pop up at the same time as the public uproar. Those sorts of coincidences, when they do occur, have a high probability of being false flags.
Agreed, however there is a significant difference between unlikely and impossible.
While I would agree that the best bet is that TSA is flailing around incompetently (Occam's Razor); I would not be at all shocked to discover that the public has been carefully shielded from the truth of real threats for intelligence purposes and that TSA has instead done a brilliant job of saving lives by preventing dozens of terrorist attacks and the public is not been made aware to avoid panic.
Come to think of it, that would make a great plot for a film...
Why not learn something decent instead, like Ruby or Python?
That's funny, you should get that on T-shirts. You could make a bundle from project managers.
The legal department meticulously goes through the proposal claims just as a patent office would to avoid scenarios like what the OP is implying.
The problem is that the legal department is only marginally less technically clueless than the patent office. I'm willing to bet that the average Slashdot troll is more technically qualified to judge the appropriateness of a patent application than 99% of patent lawyers. I'm not saying that the lawyers are malicious, just technically incompetent.
I frequently thought Slashdot had a team of 12-year-old boys in charge of thinking up tags.
Don't be hating, they patented the process to cover their asses.
So don't mess with them unless you either have a certain ring in your posession, or at least a bunch of enchanted swords.
Let it be noted that even an epic geared hero must go through extensive training to slay a Lich King.
I think if there had been credible threats, they wouldn't be saying "We're thinking about doing this," but rather "We're doing this because...".
That would depend entirely on the nature of the threat. For example, acknowledging that there was a credible threat might expose a covert source.
Let's see. They live under an oppressive government / invading force. They find themselves ecnomically fucked with no hope of advancing themselves or their family. They find their way of life and/or religion maligned as evil. Then one day they decide, "Fuck it. My life can't be any worse. Maybe I can make things better for the next generation by fighting what has fucked up my generation."
And that is exactly why Celine Dion was exiled from Canada to Las Vegas.
There has never even been intelligence suggesting that this is a credible threat.
I have to agree with all your other points, but honestly if you knew this for a FACT you would probably have just made yourself vulnerable to prosecution for treason. Nobody with access to "intelligence" would even contemplate posting anything on Slashdot that exposed what we knew or did not know.
I don't have any access to current intelligence either, but at least I know that I don't.
"Twenty-five years and two days later, it’s not just hard to remember an era in which Windows wasn’t everywhere"
Bullshit
My thoughts exactly, it makes me wonder how old this kid was (and will he stay off my lawn?)
Given just how retarded Windows 1 was compared the original Mac we should be more surprised just how successful they've been. Even Win 3.1 only competed with Apple on price. If nothing else Microsoft has my respect for putting lipstick on that pig and finally delivering XP and Win 7 which are pretty damn good.
(Disclaimer: my personal machines run OSX, iOS, Win7, Vista, XP and Linux ... as an oldschool Linux junkie who has version 0.9 on floppy disk I'm almost ashamed to admit that my OS of choice these days is Win 7)
You're wrong. Tablets will get thinner and lighter, and you'll dock them with keyboards (wirelessly) and larger monitors when you need to. Fewer and fewer people will see the need to buy a desktop or laptop computer.
That's my prediction too... the laptop is dead, long live the laptop.
(whoosh), and linux isn't unix.
Yes I know you were joking, my point is that the joke is reality. iOS and Android are already bigger in the tablet space than windows is even though windows still owns the desktop.
I didn't linux say was unix, just pointing out that there are already advanced (and possibly superior) operating systems in that space. (Though Linux is a unix clone, always was, always will be. Just a different lineage.)
I was hoping 2011 would be the year Linux was on the pad.
It will be, it's called Android.
(N.B. iPad is already running unix...)
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Of course. Though budget buys time, which buys patience and 911 pretty much secured interest.
Perhaps in some parts of government, particularly security oriented agencies like military, CIA, FBI and NSA. But I'd bet that in the majority of government and business 9/11 had little to no impact on security considerations for IT projects. It has certainly not impacted my software projects, and they've been sold to a whole plethora of government agencies and fortune 500 companies.
The Apache Indian in North America would go to war with the Athenian Oracle at Delphi over the island of Java in the South Pacific.
Sounds like a game of FreeCiv
only three parties
Note that three is one more than is effective in the US and two more than was allowed in most Communist states. However now that you mention the explosion of parties in the past decade, three does sound rather small.
Ehm, they had exactly three parties. When all three had the same candidates, it was obvious what's happening. Life was good enough for the majority of the population, so most people didn't bother. Corruption was rampant, but there was economic growth and stability, which gave less reason to raise a fuss. I reckon at the time, most people see election day as either a nuisance, or a holiday.
i'm sure there were quite a number of politically aware people in the itelligensia who were aware of the corruption, however I traveled around Java quite a lot in 86 & 87 and had more than one person tell me IN ENGLISH that they lived in a democracy because they could vote. I was as incredulous as you.
Come election day, nothing ever changed and the people were more content than they would have been without the illusion of political contention, it was very educational to watch.
I realized I was working on personal memory from over 20 years ago, so for the [citation needed] crowd I provide the following:
Indonesia's New Order: Politics and dissent
To maintain a veneer of democracy, Suharto made a number of electoral reforms. He stood for election before electoral college votes every five years, beginning in 1973. According to his electoral rules, however, only three parties were allowed to participate in the election: his own Golkar party, the Islamist United Development Party (PPP), and the Democratic Party of Indonesia (PDI). All the previously existing political parties were forced to be part of either the PPP or PDI, with public servants under pressure to join the membership of Golkar. In a political compromise with the powerful military, he banned its members from voting in elections, but set aside 100 seats in the electoral college for their representatives. As a result, he won every election in which he stood, in 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998.
Want to go for a bike ride?
You joke, but during the Suharto regime in Indonesia (1967 - 1998) they held elections and a large part of the population thought they lived in a democracy as a result.
Thats very interesting. I wonder what else the Suharto regime has in common with the recent UK elections.
I'm going to hazard a guess: Absolutely nothing
If you can't tell the difference between an effective and dynamic democracy and a true dictatorship where the leadership doesn't change for 30 years then you should get your meds adjusted.