I wonder how this would affect sites which offer the other kind of on-line gambling, such as Everquest?
This seems to meet my definition of an on-line gambling system (on line, skill or luck allows you to gain or lose tokens which can be exchanged for cash, etc.)
Is there a convention for submitting a suggested change to a document?
I seems to me many of these would have to take on the form of a discussion, and what's clear to one person may not be a clearly superior description to another.
If the documentation says it does this, but the source says it does that, what does it really do? Or, to put it another way, isn't Open Source the ultimate documentation?
This question submitted by one who knows the value of good documentation.
So what are people buying instead of standalone audio CD recorders and DAT decks? Super cheap computer-based 8x CDR recorders and dirt cheap CDRs by the 50 pack. Of course, it never occurred to the RIAA that by suppressing the market for standalone digital audio recording devices, they were pushing the development of home digital recording technology towards the ONLY device in the house with a direct connection to the internet. Now they are totally screwed. Stupid strategy, stupid tactics.
This is one of Life's little engineering principles:
When you build a better mousetrap, you breed a smarter mouse.
Hot-Plug CPUs? Jesus, that's scary. I'd be afraid to do it, even if I had a Motorola technician walk me through it. It's just so...so WRONG.
No, this is just so COOL, if you've ever watched it done.
This is a mandatory test for TELCO equipment; yank the ACTIVE processor card out of it's slot and make sure the inactive side took over, and correctly noted the event. That's with an 80% of maximum traffic load applied.
When you're dealing with ENTERPRISE class equipment and service levels, you don't reboot even to upgrade the kernel. It stays live all the time. Probably make a killer e-commerce (or portal) server, as well.;-)
In the TELCO environment, 99.999% uptime means just that. Too much time outside of normal operation and you're writing inch-thick reports to the FCC.
And believe you me; there's a huge difference between 99.9% (just reboot and get back to work ) and 99.999%
My thought is to have some sort of "anonymous flag" that, when set, disables all of the protections against spoofing when using certain addresses. Those who didn't want anonymous traffic would leave it unset, and their machines would refuse all packets that couldn't be backtraced. Those that wanted to allow it would set the flag and therefore receive "anonymous" packets.
And how is this different from what we currently have today?
If you want absolute anonymity on the internet, just stay off. Anyone who would refuse to talk to an anonymous far end can have that today.
The problem IMHO is people who want to provide a service to anonymous recipients (like price lists to web shoppers), but only want the "right kind" of anonymous user to make use of that service.
This is one of the things I found so funny about the recent spate of DOS attacks: If you provide a service (be it a web site, or an ICMP response) to the public, you have no right to be surprised when the public makes use of that service in whatever way they see fit.
Anyone who wants to can use the kernel mods which require the application to do the MSLinux dance, but you wouldn't be able to modify your applications to do this dance without paying MS the license fee for their "insight".
Okay, how about this for a (not entirely thought-out) strategy for MS to take over Linux.
1) Microsoft releases a modified version of the Linux kernel where each system call requires an extra, useless, added parameter. (Let's call this MSLinux) Something like a copyright string so the OS knows who owns the copyright on the application making the system call. - reduces performance of MSLinux vs Linux. - breaks anything currently compiled for Linux.
2) These changes are made available to anyone who wants them, as required under GPL. Of course, nobody wants them. They patent the innovation, anyway.
3) Microsoft re-compiles all of their major Microsoft applications to do the MSLinux dance.
Result:
- You can have Linux , or you can have MSLinux. If you want Microsoft apps, though, you have to use MSLinux. - If you want your application to do the MSLinux dance, you'll have to license the technology from Microsoft. - "MSLinux-kernel.org announces the availability of the new MSLinux Kernel release: 2.5.27 As with previous releases, there are major kernel interface changes, and you'll probably have to re-write your applications again if you want them to run under this new release..."
Of course, slashdotters will just ignore MSLinux, but can you really ignore an 800 pound gorilla? And when your boss says "Sure you can have Linux, just as long as you can still run MS Office", which Linux are you going to choose?
Microsoft has everything to gain and little to lose by creating a version of one of their applications which will run under Linux: - contingency against a federally mandated breakup, - appearance that they are not an "Only on Windows" company, - pre-announce to keep potential competition out of the market,
However, such a product will never ship while the applications people and the OS people work for the same shareholders.
They may drop hints about it in the trade press. They may announce it, even officially. They may hire people for the project. They may produce an executable. They may demo it at trade shows. They may give out beta copies to influential people. They may even schedule a release date.
We should create an open source forum for the creation of legal briefs and legislation, similar to existing open documentation projects. How about openlaw?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how this would affect sites which offer the other kind of on-line gambling, such as Everquest?
This seems to meet my definition of an on-line gambling system (on line, skill or luck allows you to gain or lose tokens which can be exchanged for cash, etc.)
Is there a convention for submitting a suggested change to a document?
I seems to me many of these would have to take on the form of a discussion, and what's clear to one person may not be a clearly superior description to another.
This is just a primer to get people thinking.
If the documentation says it does this, but the source says it does that, what does it really do? Or, to put it another way, isn't Open Source the ultimate documentation?
This question submitted by one who knows the value of good documentation.
So what are people buying instead of standalone audio CD recorders and DAT decks? Super cheap computer-based 8x CDR recorders and dirt cheap CDRs by the 50 pack. Of course, it never occurred to the RIAA that by suppressing the market for standalone digital audio recording devices, they were pushing the development of home digital recording technology towards the ONLY device in the house with a direct connection to the internet. Now they are totally screwed. Stupid strategy, stupid tactics.
This is one of Life's little engineering principles:
When you build a better mousetrap, you breed a smarter mouse.
Hot-Plug CPUs? Jesus, that's scary. I'd be afraid to do it, even if I had a Motorola technician walk me through it. It's just so...so WRONG.
;-)
No, this is just so COOL, if you've ever watched it done.
This is a mandatory test for TELCO equipment; yank the ACTIVE processor card out of it's slot and make sure the inactive side took over, and correctly noted the event. That's with an 80% of maximum traffic load applied.
When you're dealing with ENTERPRISE class equipment and service levels, you don't reboot even to upgrade the kernel. It stays live all the time. Probably make a killer e-commerce (or portal) server, as well.
In the TELCO environment, 99.999% uptime means just that. Too much time outside of normal operation and you're writing inch-thick reports to the FCC.
And believe you me; there's a huge difference between 99.9% (just reboot and get back to work ) and 99.999%
My thought is to have some sort of "anonymous flag" that, when set, disables all of the protections against spoofing when using certain addresses. Those who didn't want anonymous traffic would leave it unset, and their machines would refuse all packets that couldn't be backtraced. Those that wanted to allow it would set the flag and therefore receive "anonymous" packets.
And how is this different from what we currently have today?
If you want absolute anonymity on the internet, just stay off. Anyone who would refuse to talk to an anonymous far end can have that today.
The problem IMHO is people who want to provide a service to anonymous recipients (like price lists to web shoppers), but only want the "right kind" of anonymous user to make use of that service.
This is one of the things I found so funny about the recent spate of DOS attacks: If you provide a service (be it a web site, or an ICMP response) to the public, you have no right to be surprised when the public makes use of that service in whatever way they see fit.
Patent the innovation, not the code.
Anyone who wants to can use the kernel mods which require the application to do the MSLinux dance, but you wouldn't be able to modify your applications to do this dance without paying MS the license fee for their "insight".
Okay, how about this for a (not entirely thought-out) strategy for MS to take over Linux.
1) Microsoft releases a modified version of the Linux kernel where each system call requires an extra, useless, added parameter. (Let's call this MSLinux) Something like a copyright string so the OS knows who owns the copyright on the application making the system call.
- reduces performance of MSLinux vs Linux.
- breaks anything currently compiled for Linux.
2) These changes are made available to anyone who wants them, as required under GPL. Of course, nobody wants them. They patent the innovation, anyway.
3) Microsoft re-compiles all of their major Microsoft applications to do the MSLinux dance.
Result:
- You can have Linux , or you can have MSLinux. If you want Microsoft apps, though, you have to use MSLinux.
- If you want your application to do the MSLinux dance, you'll have to license the technology from Microsoft.
- "MSLinux-kernel.org announces the availability of the new MSLinux Kernel release: 2.5.27 As with previous releases, there are major kernel interface changes, and you'll probably have to re-write your applications again if you want them to run under this new release..."
Of course, slashdotters will just ignore MSLinux, but can you really ignore an 800 pound gorilla? And when your boss says "Sure you can have Linux, just as long as you can still run MS Office", which Linux are you going to choose?
#include Halloween.doc
Are we forgetting history here?
Microsoft has everything to gain and little to lose by creating a version of one of their applications which will run under Linux:
- contingency against a federally mandated breakup,
- appearance that they are not an "Only on Windows" company,
- pre-announce to keep potential competition out of the market,
However, such a product will never ship while the applications people and the OS people work for the same shareholders.
They may drop hints about it in the trade press.
They may announce it, even officially.
They may hire people for the project.
They may produce an executable.
They may demo it at trade shows.
They may give out beta copies to influential people.
They may even schedule a release date.
but it will never ship.
We should create an open source forum for the creation of legal briefs and legislation, similar to existing open documentation projects.
How about openlaw?
harl> Anyone know where I can get transcripts, on the web?
.htm
See http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_depos