That was the point of the other post: although the protocol itself hasn't changed, TCP has been improved over the years by improving the algorithms used.
Nevermind that you clearly don't understand what RFCs are, just where the hell is "tcp window adjustment based on ping" even used?
I'd think that you'd be philosophically against the government stepping in to prevent what companies do with their own infrastructure.
If it were truly their infrastructure, you would have a point.
But as long as they get the benefit of government mandated right-of-way and monopoly-bolstering market restrictions and subsidies, then that infrastructure is a public utility. Public utilities exist to serve the public, not to exploit it.
Until one of the most highly regulated industries sees fit to compete in a real free market, they've got no right to the laissez faire of the free market.
1KB was used to describe 1024 Bytes earlier than 1980. Standards that come along and re-define terms in common usage decades after their first use should be ignored, and are by everyone except those marketing hard drives.
Or networks. What a rip-off that your gigabit ethernet card will only transmit at 1,000,000,000bps!!
The president read the report and said, "Is this all we have?" Tenet responded with, It's a "slam dunk"
Do you seriously believe that a president should make a decision of that gravity on the basis of a single report and a one-liner from a career politician who obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered?
It's called "overhead" - real-estate, furniture, HVAC, electricity, computer equipment, coffee, security, employer taxes, etc. The rule of thumb is that an employee's annual cost is twice his annual salary.
If MS was successful in prosecuting these guys, it would make exploit sales a much riskier business, always wondering if the Nigerian offering money for the latest exploit isn't in reality a MS agent.
These guys are already dealing with the kind of people who will kill you if they feel like they've been wronged badly enough. I don't think threat of prosecution is going to add much to their concerns.
Great, another web-site that requires you to enable cookies in order to get beyond the advertising. Yet not a word of warning as to all the ways enabling cookies allows anti-consumer 'services' like doubleclick to track your every move and build up all kinds of privacy invasive databases.
Ordinarily, I would just use a smart cookie manager like CookieSafe but this is suppossed to be a place I can send my non-geek friends to -- people who can't go all ubergeek and know the ins and outs of cookie abuse and cookie counter-measures.
for the record there is no requirement that they give away the content to show you advertising, they choose do to so because a free service attracts more "eyeballs" than a paid service.
Doh! You've just described the requirement. IF they want to maximize their return they are required to give it away.
Google does not give those things away for free. It exchanges them in return for subjecting you to advertising, which they in turn sell to folks who want to show you advertising.
Gee, thanks for the class in Google 101. You miss the point that if google did not give them to you for nothing - i.e. no other requirement on your part, they could not get money from the advertisers. Thus giving it away is actually required in order to reap those benefits.
To give the fruit of that much money away would be irresponsible to their shareholders...At least until they've made their money back with it.
Only if you don't expect to reap the benefits of it afterwards and that giving it away might actually be required in order to reap those benefits. You know, kinda like how google gives away search engine results and email accounts.
Socialism is to open source as capitalism is to propietary software development.
So, you are disputing my claim that unless you advocate for slavery, concentration of wealth is not an issue with Free software because its only the labor that is a scarce commodity?
Of course this is all assuming you accept the premise to begin with, which I do.
It's not clear exactly what your premise is, but if it is that software ownership can be defined in terms of socialism and capitalism, then that would be a bad assumption to make.
The conflict between the two economic philosophies is mostly about the management of rivalrous resources, i.e. stuff that gets used up. Software is inherently non-rivalrous so any direct application of the ideas of either economic philosophy to software would be analogous to applying them to something (almost) as non-rivalrous as air.
On the other hand, the labor involved in the creation of software is rivalrous. But that is a wholly separate matter from ownership of software. Unless you advocate slavery, labor can not be "owned" in a concentrated form.
What I want to know is, who can afford to live on 6K fulltime?
In the Philippines the average yearly salary for software developers was right at $6K, last time I checked. I expect that other 3rd world countries are similar.
Not that deb guys were filipinos, just answering the more general question.
I'm not being a troll, but it seems like every energy resource we come up with runs afowl (pun intended) with environmentalist and every security measure runs afoul of privacy groups.
It sounds like you question the validity of the problems the various groups have with various policies. You should consider that the issues they bring up represent real costs in the "big picture" that have been otherwise ignored. Not that there aren't extremists, but that there are extremists on both the pro and the con side in roughly equal (probably bell-curve shaped) proportions.
Thus, when taken as a whole, if the real big picture costs outweigh the real big picture benefits, then in a perfect world, those policies would be canceled.
It is entirely possible that only a minimal amount of security can achieve a net benefit in the big picture. If that's true, then the best policy really would be minimal security measures.
My advice to anybody who wants their cake and eat it too: Use different handles for different applications.
Don't count on it. There are tools to identify people by writing style that can be used to uncover and link multiple identities. I think they've even been mentioned here on slashdot along with claims of very high success rates. I don't really know how successful they will be when applied to really large datasets like some of the larger forums on the net, but they are at least a cause for concern.
even if we go with your interpretation that he's merely saying that he doesn't expect people to do things for him
That's not my interpretation. The keyword here is "expect." My interpretation is that as a general rule, nobody should go around expecting others to do them favors - nothing about his willingness to do someone a favor.
You've assigned a whole self-focused meaning to his words that isn't necessarily there. Unless your goal is to portray him as "cold" it is much more reasonable to see it as a statement that people who expect something for nothing are selfish, which is pretty much what he literally wrote, in the sentence you excised.
The yogi gives without expectation of anything in return.
Is the yogi not seeking to attain a level of spiritual enlightenment? Does he not believe that doing favors without asking for compensation is part of the path to enlightenment?
Seems to me that he is expecting to receive compensation then, just not directly from the person benefiting from the favor, but rather to lighten the load of his karma which is itself kind of a spiritual score-card.
Slashdot Mirror
It does involve ICMP messages (MTU too large).
Not "ping" though (whatever that means)
Yeah, and MTU, not window size either.
That was the point of the other post: although the protocol itself hasn't changed, TCP has been improved over the years by improving the algorithms used.
Nevermind that you clearly don't understand what RFCs are, just where the hell is "tcp window adjustment based on ping" even used?
Or TCP window adjustment based on ping
Huh? Just what RFC is that defined in?
Do you mean timestamps?
I'd think that you'd be philosophically against the government stepping in to prevent what companies do with their own infrastructure.
If it were truly their infrastructure, you would have a point.
But as long as they get the benefit of government mandated right-of-way and monopoly-bolstering market restrictions and subsidies, then that infrastructure is a public utility. Public utilities exist to serve the public, not to exploit it.
Until one of the most highly regulated industries sees fit to compete in a real free market, they've got no right to the laissez faire of the free market.
1KB was used to describe 1024 Bytes earlier than 1980. Standards that come along and re-define terms in common usage decades after their first use should be ignored, and are by everyone except those marketing hard drives.
Or networks. What a rip-off that your gigabit ethernet card will only transmit at 1,000,000,000bps!!
The president read the report and said, "Is this all we have?" Tenet responded with, It's a "slam dunk"
Do you seriously believe that a president should make a decision of that gravity on the basis of a single report and a one-liner from a career politician who obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered?
So please stop being the tool for this lawyer and his celebrity seeking habits (what is this, the 2nd article published this week from this guy?).
Yeah, who would ever want to hear from a lawyer who regularly takes the cases of RIAA defendants?
It's called "overhead" - real-estate, furniture, HVAC, electricity, computer equipment, coffee, security, employer taxes, etc. The rule of thumb is that an employee's annual cost is twice his annual salary.
Now, if they'd called them "flash hard disks" or "flash magnetic disk" or something ridiculous you'd have a point.
The correct term of art is SSD - solid state disk.
I don't know anyone who can crack a disk encryption scheme in a few seconds anytime they want.
DeCSS? VLC decrypts every disc I play in less than a second.
If you bothered to RTFA, you'd realise selfish!=bad.
That's what Gordon Gecko said.
If MS was successful in prosecuting these guys, it would make exploit sales a much riskier business, always wondering if the Nigerian offering money for the latest exploit isn't in reality a MS agent.
These guys are already dealing with the kind of people who will kill you if they feel like they've been wronged badly enough. I don't think threat of prosecution is going to add much to their concerns.
Great, another web-site that requires you to enable cookies in order to get beyond the advertising. Yet not a word of warning as to all the ways enabling cookies allows anti-consumer 'services' like doubleclick to track your every move and build up all kinds of privacy invasive databases.
Ordinarily, I would just use a smart cookie manager like CookieSafe but this is suppossed to be a place I can send my non-geek friends to -- people who can't go all ubergeek and know the ins and outs of cookie abuse and cookie counter-measures.
for the record there is no requirement that they give away the content to show you advertising, they choose do to so because a free service attracts more "eyeballs" than a paid service.
Doh! You've just described the requirement. IF they want to maximize their return they are required to give it away.
Google does not give those things away for free. It exchanges them in return for subjecting you to advertising, which they in turn sell to folks who want to show you advertising.
Gee, thanks for the class in Google 101. You miss the point that if google did not give them to you for nothing - i.e. no other requirement on your part, they could not get money from the advertisers. Thus giving it away is actually required in order to reap those benefits.
To give the fruit of that much money away would be irresponsible to their shareholders...At least until they've made their money back with it.
Only if you don't expect to reap the benefits of it afterwards and that giving it away might actually be required in order to reap those benefits. You know, kinda like how google gives away search engine results and email accounts.
Socialism is to open source as capitalism is to propietary software development.
So, you are disputing my claim that unless you advocate for slavery, concentration of wealth is not an issue with Free software because its only the labor that is a scarce commodity?
That's great and all, but what exactly does socialism vs capitalism and concentration of wealth have to do with what you wrote?
Of course this is all assuming you accept the premise to begin with, which I do.
It's not clear exactly what your premise is, but if it is that software ownership can be defined in terms of socialism and capitalism, then that would be a bad assumption to make.
The conflict between the two economic philosophies is mostly about the management of rivalrous resources, i.e. stuff that gets used up. Software is inherently non-rivalrous so any direct application of the ideas of either economic philosophy to software would be analogous to applying them to something (almost) as non-rivalrous as air.
On the other hand, the labor involved in the creation of software is rivalrous. But that is a wholly separate matter from ownership of software. Unless you advocate slavery, labor can not be "owned" in a concentrated form.
What I want to know is, who can afford to live on 6K fulltime?
In the Philippines the average yearly salary for software developers was right at $6K, last time I checked. I expect that other 3rd world countries are similar.
Not that deb guys were filipinos, just answering the more general question.
I'm not being a troll, but it seems like every energy resource we come up with runs afowl (pun intended) with environmentalist and every security measure runs afoul of privacy groups.
It sounds like you question the validity of the problems the various groups have with various policies. You should consider that the issues they bring up represent real costs in the "big picture" that have been otherwise ignored. Not that there aren't extremists, but that there are extremists on both the pro and the con side in roughly equal (probably bell-curve shaped) proportions.
Thus, when taken as a whole, if the real big picture costs outweigh the real big picture benefits, then in a perfect world, those policies would be canceled.
It is entirely possible that only a minimal amount of security can achieve a net benefit in the big picture. If that's true, then the best policy really would be minimal security measures.
My advice to anybody who wants their cake and eat it too: Use different handles for different applications.
Don't count on it. There are tools to identify people by writing style that can be used to uncover and link multiple identities. I think they've even been mentioned here on slashdot along with claims of very high success rates. I don't really know how successful they will be when applied to really large datasets like some of the larger forums on the net, but they are at least a cause for concern.
Here's a reference to one such set of tools: A framework for authorship identification of online messages: Writing-style features and classification techniques
And with that winning attitude, it's no wonder Slashdotters have such a reputation for success with the ladies.
Yeah, we are all just a bunch of Ford Fairlane clones.
even if we go with your interpretation that he's merely saying that he doesn't expect people to do things for him
That's not my interpretation. The keyword here is "expect." My interpretation is that as a general rule, nobody should go around expecting others to do them favors - nothing about his willingness to do someone a favor.
You've assigned a whole self-focused meaning to his words that isn't necessarily there. Unless your goal is to portray him as "cold" it is much more reasonable to see it as a statement that people who expect something for nothing are selfish, which is pretty much what he literally wrote, in the sentence you excised.
The yogi gives without expectation of anything in return.
Is the yogi not seeking to attain a level of spiritual enlightenment? Does he not believe that doing favors without asking for compensation is part of the path to enlightenment?
Seems to me that he is expecting to receive compensation then, just not directly from the person benefiting from the favor, but rather to lighten the load of his karma which is itself kind of a spiritual score-card.