You are all aware that Excite@Home was just bought at pennies on the dollar by Microsoft? This is the first strike in a corporate warfare between AT&T and the Redmond giant. Did you notice how the article quotes a Microsoft employee (from Sammamish, Washington) who blames AT&T for service being cut off --and threatens a lawsuit, when it was actually Microsoft that pulled the plug?
Microsoft's ultimate target is AOL/Time Warner, but they need the broadband infrastructure that AT&T has before they take on AOL. They've already got Qwest, and are forcing virtually all DSL subscribers west of the Mississippi (outside California) to use a proprietary MSN and sign up for Passport. Expect Real Networks to fall soon too, unless they ally with AOL.
He was talking about "non-Americans" not everyone visiting America or illegally enterying America is an American. If you went to visit Rome would you become an Italian? If after visiting the Sistine chapel you drive north and then hiked across the Alps would you then become Swiss? Even if you intended to live there? Even if you broke halting French or Italian or German?
A Saudi or Chinese student who goes to college at one of our state universities isn't an American and probably doesn't consider himself so. A migrant worker from Mexico isn't an American either, whether he receives welfare or not.
Under what circumstances such people should be allowed to become Americans if they so choose is irrelevant.
It can't vote, can't spend, eat, screw, or anything else that people like to do. You might look to find out who the people are that benefit from corporate rights. They are not machines, and they are not sentient.
Corporations are pieces of paper that grant individual people power.
Hilter might have said, "the Reich made me do it" but no one would have believed him then.
right. copyright exists only for large publishers. It is undefendible and worthless to the creator of intellectual property (read: person, not corporation)
except as something to sell to a media publisher. An analogous state would be that your freedom exists only in that you choose who to enslave yourself to.
If you consider java from the perspective of the average programmer, you'd have to admit that java is a fundamentally flawed language and it is impossible to implement efficient algorithms in it because its low barrier to entry, automatic garbage collection, etc. mean that the average java programmer does not have the skill set necessary to formulate efficient algorithms, and a statistical sample of code bears this out.
the US infrastucture does suck, but I'd like to see you drive 1000 miles in any direction from whereever you are outside the US and still have service. And that's on your "rest of the world" compatible network.
That ties the score.
And "there are no per minute charges because american customers will not allow it." I won't say never, but the reason that the service will not be offered in the US is because it doesn't pay. The phone companies have no incentive to offer extra services for a losing proposition. Every time you ICQ from Sweden or South Africa, the phone company makes money -- you pay less because you're not using as much bandwidth. In America, you pay a flat fee for X minutes.
Consider again the task of representing all numbers from 0 through decimal 999,999. In base 10 this obviously requires a width of six digits, so that rw=60. Binary does better: 20 binary digits suffice to cover the same range of numbers, for rw=40. But ternary is better still: The ternary representation has a width of 13 digits, so that rw=39. (If base e were a practical choice, the width would be 14 digits, yielding rw=38.056.)
so the theoretical approximate is less than 2% efficiency increase. But what they don't say is that it takes 2 operantions to distinguish a ternary system:
v < 1 ? 0 :
v < 2 ? 1 :
2
as oppose to binary:
v < 1 ? 0 : 1
In the real world you can't do "equal to" because there is the potential for infinite precision -- you can always measure more closely. And you can't measure on/off, because then your circuit is dead and no further calculations can be done. You can't use positive/negative, because you want three. So you need something that can detect voltage levels.
The problem is, that if such a device can be created that distinguish 3 different voltage levels, and do so more efficiently than using to binary operations (see above ternary notation:) -- it could also be used to perform 2 binary operations which doubles the efficiency of the binary system
rw = 40 / 2 = 20
almost twice as efficient as the ternary circuit.
they don't want your app running through port 80 either. You are tricking their users into downloading a trojan and illegally circumventing their security. That's why they had the other ports closed in the first place. It may be anal, it may be ignorant, but it is their decision.
so use your soap protocol on some random high port with its own httpd.
No one is saying you can't use soap. But the fact is that SOAP is designed to hide in seemingly safe requests. If it wasn't on port 80 (or 443), no one would want to use SOAP. Period. Soap is not port or protocol independent. The only reason it exists is to tunnel through firewalls, and more particularly to run on client systems with limited TCP/IP implementations (win9x). And no one is going to create soap clients that are build on full Apache Webserver implementations. They will be custom built, buggy, closed source applications that perform one task that the user may want (stock ticker/music service/etc), but be specifically designed as trojans so that the company that persuades the user to download them will have access to other data and services on the client computer. Just because it is Microsoft or some other benevolent company doing doesn't make it right or safe.
a little more CPU may not be much for an occasional packet, But you're talking at least 10x as much work for every request that goes through port 80 -- and intend to send more through it.
compare this:
does tcp port = 80
optionally assemble and check for http request patterns (is valid request)
if suspicious look for known exploit signatures
to
log incoming host request
nslookup to verify
translate name
assemble packets
parse message
checksum
compare url with known good
optionally anayze dtd/program flow
if suspicious check with known exploit signatures
And the second ruleset is going to let alot more through. The advantage of the first message is that you can just reject anything that looks suspicious on port 80. You may have to be more cautious with packets coming through on port 12345, but there are far fewer of them.
Slashdot Mirror
You are all aware that Excite@Home was just bought at pennies on the dollar by Microsoft? This is the first strike in a corporate warfare between AT&T and the Redmond giant. Did you notice how the article quotes a Microsoft employee (from Sammamish, Washington) who blames AT&T for service being cut off --and threatens a lawsuit, when it was actually Microsoft that pulled the plug?
Microsoft's ultimate target is AOL/Time Warner, but they need the broadband infrastructure that AT&T has before they take on AOL. They've already got Qwest, and are forcing virtually all DSL subscribers west of the Mississippi (outside California) to use a proprietary MSN and sign up for Passport. Expect Real Networks to fall soon too, unless they ally with AOL.
He was talking about "non-Americans" not everyone visiting America or illegally enterying America is an American. If you went to visit Rome would you become an Italian? If after visiting the Sistine chapel you drive north and then hiked across the Alps would you then become Swiss? Even if you intended to live there? Even if you broke halting French or Italian or German?
A Saudi or Chinese student who goes to college at one of our state universities isn't an American and probably doesn't consider himself so. A migrant worker from Mexico isn't an American either, whether he receives welfare or not.
Under what circumstances such people should be allowed to become Americans if they so choose is irrelevant.
Regarding the EULA
Did you click it?
Even if so, is that a binding legal agreement?
Even so, the court rules copyright law, (being in the constitution), supercedes other impositions, and specifically allows for fair use --
Can a book publisher sue you for photocopying a page for personal use?
Of course not. But what if, before photocopied the page, you used white out to delete one word on the page?
Now we're talking about sinking ships and raping women.
you mean Mattel's lawyers accuse the domain owner of patent violation for "dislodging snap-off parts with a pointed implement"
It can't vote, can't spend, eat, screw, or anything else that people like to do. You might look to find out who the people are that benefit from corporate rights. They are not machines, and they are not sentient.
Corporations are pieces of paper that grant individual people power.
Hilter might have said, "the Reich made me do it" but no one would have believed him then.
regulation == protection
name one regulation that has elicited positive results. It is just a law passed that ties the corporation to the government.
when was the last windows EFS release that was not just a vulnerability patch?
by the way, when was the last vulnerability patch?
don't give any anecdotes without names -- I think you forgot the traditional
"its a Fortune (number) company"
right. copyright exists only for large publishers. It is undefendible and worthless to the creator of intellectual property (read: person, not corporation)
except as something to sell to a media publisher. An analogous state would be that your freedom exists only in that you choose who to enslave yourself to.
you use that word so much. I don't think it means what you think it means
Adobe only even *competes* these days through hostile takeovers, software patents, and bogus lawsuits.
If you consider java from the perspective of the average programmer, you'd have to admit that java is a fundamentally flawed language and it is impossible to implement efficient algorithms in it because its low barrier to entry, automatic garbage collection, etc. mean that the average java programmer does not have the skill set necessary to formulate efficient algorithms, and a statistical sample of code bears this out.
semicolons and brackets doth not a language-family make.
C# and Java bear no other relation to C & C++ than puctuation.
I wonder what chapter he's studying this week?
...at CMU, I'd guess.
Specifically to flame, but...
Java and C# aren't programming languages. They are scripting languages for an application (JVM, CLR) that is not a true virtual machine
the US infrastucture does suck, but I'd like to see you drive 1000 miles in any direction from whereever you are outside the US and still have service. And that's on your "rest of the world" compatible network.
That ties the score.
And "there are no per minute charges because american customers will not allow it." I won't say never, but the reason that the service will not be offered in the US is because it doesn't pay. The phone companies have no incentive to offer extra services for a losing proposition. Every time you ICQ from Sweden or South Africa, the phone company makes money -- you pay less because you're not using as much bandwidth. In America, you pay a flat fee for X minutes.
well documented for IRS purposes. Even then it takes into account R&D, marketing, executive salaries, and the price of sodas for developers.
Consider again the task of representing all numbers from 0 through decimal 999,999. In base 10 this obviously requires a width of six digits, so that rw=60. Binary does better: 20 binary digits suffice to cover the same range of numbers, for rw=40. But ternary is better still: The ternary representation has a width of 13 digits, so that rw=39. (If base e were a practical choice, the width would be 14 digits, yielding rw=38.056.) so the theoretical approximate is less than 2% efficiency increase. But what they don't say is that it takes 2 operantions to distinguish a ternary system: v < 1 ? 0 : v < 2 ? 1 : 2 as oppose to binary: v < 1 ? 0 : 1 In the real world you can't do "equal to" because there is the potential for infinite precision -- you can always measure more closely. And you can't measure on/off, because then your circuit is dead and no further calculations can be done. You can't use positive/negative, because you want three. So you need something that can detect voltage levels. The problem is, that if such a device can be created that distinguish 3 different voltage levels, and do so more efficiently than using to binary operations (see above ternary notation :) -- it could also be used to perform 2 binary operations which doubles the efficiency of the binary system
rw = 40 / 2 = 20
almost twice as efficient as the ternary circuit.
there is no per minute charge for local calls in america
if you use soap, you will
i don't allow CGIs or servlets exposed to the world to run on my client machines.
guess what--
they don't want your app running through port 80 either. You are tricking their users into downloading a trojan and illegally circumventing their security. That's why they had the other ports closed in the first place. It may be anal, it may be ignorant, but it is their decision.
so use your soap protocol on some random high port with its own httpd.
No one is saying you can't use soap. But the fact is that SOAP is designed to hide in seemingly safe requests. If it wasn't on port 80 (or 443), no one would want to use SOAP. Period. Soap is not port or protocol independent. The only reason it exists is to tunnel through firewalls, and more particularly to run on client systems with limited TCP/IP implementations (win9x). And no one is going to create soap clients that are build on full Apache Webserver implementations. They will be custom built, buggy, closed source applications that perform one task that the user may want (stock ticker/music service/etc), but be specifically designed as trojans so that the company that persuades the user to download them will have access to other data and services on the client computer. Just because it is Microsoft or some other benevolent company doing doesn't make it right or safe.
a little more CPU may not be much for an occasional packet, But you're talking at least 10x as much work for every request that goes through port 80 -- and intend to send more through it.
compare this:
does tcp port = 80
optionally assemble and check for http request patterns (is valid request)
if suspicious look for known exploit signatures
to
log incoming host request
nslookup to verify
translate name
assemble packets
parse message
checksum
compare url with known good
optionally anayze dtd/program flow
if suspicious check with known exploit signatures
And the second ruleset is going to let alot more through. The advantage of the first message is that you can just reject anything that looks suspicious on port 80. You may have to be more cautious with packets coming through on port 12345, but there are far fewer of them.
unless the soap request lies. The only way you can tell that is to look at the entire message.