My first G2 (the one that the G2 root was developed on) managed to stay in good shape, and I gave it away to someone signed, but the ones after all had that damned hinge break.
I've got 3 G1s with dead keyboards in my room, right now.
I still love them, but I can't honestly attest to their build quality
I have to call you out on call-gates.
They suck. That's why Linux didn't use them (int 0x80). That's why Windows NT didn't use them (int 0x2e), though they did use them on the 16/32 hybrid "dos-like" kernels;). That's why *BSD didn't use them (int 0x80). That's why OSX doesn't use them (int 0x80).
Cache locality is horrible, the far pointer requires more bytes/instruction, and segment registers suck- especially when running in protected mode. (see: protected mode paging)
The "DOS-style" syscalls you're referring to are a software interrupt trap, (also called a trap-gate). Every OS worth mentioning used them prior to SYSENTER being introduced.
I'm sure you know that Torvalds et al., didn't write the userspace you're referring to as "Linux".
Android is another open-source OS running on the Linux open source kernel. It is Linux.
Also, there is no kernel in existence with greater market share on "end-user" devices than Linux. None. My TV runs it, my Blu-ray player runs it, my little TV dongle runs it, my router runs it, my little cheapy off-the-shelf SAN runs it, my cell phone runs it, the damn IPMI firmware on my machine runs it... Unless of course Linux + busybox is also "not Linux", then I guess nothing runs Linux except for Desktop PCs.
We actually do *not* blame Netflix. We just get real scared at people calling draconian restrictions on us managing the limited network assets we have "Net Neutrality".
The only thing I blame Netflix for is misconstruing this fight for free peering on their terms as Network Neutrality.
Real Net Neutrality is a serious issue. Preventing eyeball networks from shaping their traffic to fit their aggregate needs lest they infringe on some fictional right of a content provider? Simply ridiculous.
BTW, yes, their solution was fair and good. Now, what if Netflix were able to demand that your university ISP expand their network infrastructure to accomodate said throttling, or demand that your university ISP peer with them, or demand that they upgrade their backbone links. What if they simply didn't have the funds for it, or the aggregate will of the customer base (you) was not in favor of that allocation of funds?
Now, what if *any* content providing network could do this?
Must I really implement throttling across my entire customer base when 10% of them use 90% of the bandwidth?
From my perspective, it's perfectly reasonable for either Netflix *or* the ISP to demand one or the other side pay for a private peering link. Who that is that pays should be dependent on who has the facts on the ground for both networks and their effected customer bases. I can't be forced to peer with every content provider that wants to peer with me. And Netflix surely doesn't allow me to set the terms of free peering with them. I have to follow the will of my customers and the reality of the total market.
Finally, being Netflix has a ways to go before hitting 254 million subscribed customers, I find it unlikely that their customers represent the majority in any ISP's network. They certainly weren't in mine. If my customer base is unwilling to pay for network expansion for Netflix, and Netflix doesn't want to either, guess what. I'm throttling them.
Oh I completely agree my customers should have the last say. You are not one of my customers, and judging from the assertion you just made, the aggregate demands of my customers were fed to you by Netflix, and not my customers.
And yet the rules you're proposing apply to these "microISPs" (of which I am the senior network engineer of one), and the last bastion of a free market in the US ISP market. Having to accomodate Netflix was not easy for us (until they started doing open peering at our local IX- we're fortunate enough to have a presence at one). Previously, we did not meet their private peering guidelines (wait- what's this? Netflix is allowed to set limits on who they will peer with??!! but.. but.. Net Neutrality!) and they were *crushing* our other upstreams, that were far more than adequate for all other use, minus Netflix.
Maybe you think we podunk ISPs have no place in the large world of monopolistic ISPs... My customers will be smiling at you with their Gbps FTTH connections. I hope you really enjoy your Comcast, because once you give content provides more power than free-market eyeball networks over management of our network and cost structures, you've killed us once and for good.
That was why I said I don't fully disagree with him. This gate attendant was completely out of line, no doubt about it. But I still completely disagree that an agent of the company should not have that power. Agents of any company that abuse their power should be let go.
No, it's not fraud. Unless otherwise dictated by statute, they reserve the right to terminate their contract (service) with you at any time. Knowingly selling you a service that they never had any intention of providing is fraud, and intent is the deciding factor. He has a tort complaint, nothing more.
Or over a gram of radium, enough to cause massive skin ulceration after hours of exposure. You're correct it isnt much Caesium-137, but it's still enough to cause flesh to rot away from your body, in dense enough exposure. Experiment has shown 140MBq/kg of C137 to be fatal within 130 days. Half that, 1 year. So no thanks to being exposed to all 1 TBq of it.
And mine wass an explanation that radioactivity without density is meaningless.
Hold a gram and change of radium in your pocket for a week and tell me 1 GBq is irrelevant. It wont kill you... well, maybe it will after long enough, but it will cause the flesh to fall off. A gram of radium spread out over a square mile? not such a big deal.
One could say she was exercising her 1st Amendment right to lie to another private citizen and fool him into doing what she wanted.
Seriously, in what fucking universe does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." mean that anyone who tells you to shut the fuck up before they pop you in the face is somehow in violation of that Amendment?
I actually pay more for the front seats because they're made of leather, recline further, and the nice stewardess feeds me free alcohol for the entire flight. Usually by the time we land, I'm not really too concerned about where the exit is.
I think you should stop conflating "shit that i think is mean and bad for businesses to do" with "illegal". It makes you look stupid.
The guy can most definitely file a tort suit against the airline. But are you actually proposing that a carrier of human cargo not be allowed to refuse service?
I kinda agree with you, and kinda really don't.
They're basically tasked with managing a flying sardine can full of people, an appreciable percentage of which can't even act like they're more civilized than fucking animals. Someone in a similar position of responsibility on your average trip across the Atlantic in ye olden days would simply have thrown the dude's ass over the side.
It seems we've made progress.
That being said, it's pretty obvious that this was abuse of power, but in no way suggestive that said "air waitress" should not have the power to evict motherfuckers off planes before they take off, especially if they perceive said fuckwad being a problem once the tinderbox is up in the air, and she's facing down the lot of you shitheads solo.
Disclaimer: I fly a lot. Airline passengers make me embarrassed for our species.
A trillion Bq is a fairly huge number, especially when spread over a very small area. That will cook you like fried chicken exposed to the afterburner on an F18.
Of course they didn't give us any idea which of our both-true statements reflects reality.
To be fair, a gram of radium held for long enough will kill your ass dead. Held for not very long at all, it will just cause your flesh to die and ulcerate.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol. Mine are all fucked up.
My first G2 (the one that the G2 root was developed on) managed to stay in good shape, and I gave it away to someone signed, but the ones after all had that damned hinge break.
I've got 3 G1s with dead keyboards in my room, right now.
I still love them, but I can't honestly attest to their build quality
I have to call you out on call-gates. ;). That's why *BSD didn't use them (int 0x80). That's why OSX doesn't use them (int 0x80).
They suck. That's why Linux didn't use them (int 0x80). That's why Windows NT didn't use them (int 0x2e), though they did use them on the 16/32 hybrid "dos-like" kernels
Cache locality is horrible, the far pointer requires more bytes/instruction, and segment registers suck- especially when running in protected mode. (see: protected mode paging)
The "DOS-style" syscalls you're referring to are a software interrupt trap, (also called a trap-gate). Every OS worth mentioning used them prior to SYSENTER being introduced.
I think he cleverly manipulated you into making his point for him.
A rant against your language of choice has nothing to do with humility.
It's as linux as linux can be...
I'm sure you know that Torvalds et al., didn't write the userspace you're referring to as "Linux".
Android is another open-source OS running on the Linux open source kernel. It is Linux.
Also, there is no kernel in existence with greater market share on "end-user" devices than Linux. None. My TV runs it, my Blu-ray player runs it, my little TV dongle runs it, my router runs it, my little cheapy off-the-shelf SAN runs it, my cell phone runs it, the damn IPMI firmware on my machine runs it... Unless of course Linux + busybox is also "not Linux", then I guess nothing runs Linux except for Desktop PCs.
We actually do *not* blame Netflix. We just get real scared at people calling draconian restrictions on us managing the limited network assets we have "Net Neutrality".
The only thing I blame Netflix for is misconstruing this fight for free peering on their terms as Network Neutrality.
Real Net Neutrality is a serious issue. Preventing eyeball networks from shaping their traffic to fit their aggregate needs lest they infringe on some fictional right of a content provider? Simply ridiculous.
BTW, yes, their solution was fair and good. Now, what if Netflix were able to demand that your university ISP expand their network infrastructure to accomodate said throttling, or demand that your university ISP peer with them, or demand that they upgrade their backbone links. What if they simply didn't have the funds for it, or the aggregate will of the customer base (you) was not in favor of that allocation of funds?
Now, what if *any* content providing network could do this?
Must I really implement throttling across my entire customer base when 10% of them use 90% of the bandwidth?
From my perspective, it's perfectly reasonable for either Netflix *or* the ISP to demand one or the other side pay for a private peering link. Who that is that pays should be dependent on who has the facts on the ground for both networks and their effected customer bases. I can't be forced to peer with every content provider that wants to peer with me. And Netflix surely doesn't allow me to set the terms of free peering with them. I have to follow the will of my customers and the reality of the total market.
Finally, being Netflix has a ways to go before hitting 254 million subscribed customers, I find it unlikely that their customers represent the majority in any ISP's network. They certainly weren't in mine. If my customer base is unwilling to pay for network expansion for Netflix, and Netflix doesn't want to either, guess what. I'm throttling them.
Oh I completely agree my customers should have the last say. You are not one of my customers, and judging from the assertion you just made, the aggregate demands of my customers were fed to you by Netflix, and not my customers.
And yet the rules you're proposing apply to these "microISPs" (of which I am the senior network engineer of one), and the last bastion of a free market in the US ISP market. Having to accomodate Netflix was not easy for us (until they started doing open peering at our local IX- we're fortunate enough to have a presence at one). Previously, we did not meet their private peering guidelines (wait- what's this? Netflix is allowed to set limits on who they will peer with??!! but.. but.. Net Neutrality!) and they were *crushing* our other upstreams, that were far more than adequate for all other use, minus Netflix.
Maybe you think we podunk ISPs have no place in the large world of monopolistic ISPs... My customers will be smiling at you with their Gbps FTTH connections. I hope you really enjoy your Comcast, because once you give content provides more power than free-market eyeball networks over management of our network and cost structures, you've killed us once and for good.
Correct.
But you'll notice there is no law authorizing the former, and a law directly prohibiting the latter.
Using this information, which is the default permissibility of their right to refuse service?
Of course a contract places an obligation on both parties. But criminal law still doesn't factor into it. You're simply wrong.
Look up what tort is.
Finally, speaking to criminal law: Yes they can.
Also, to repeat, the guy would have a valid tort claim however.
That was why I said I don't fully disagree with him. This gate attendant was completely out of line, no doubt about it. But I still completely disagree that an agent of the company should not have that power. Agents of any company that abuse their power should be let go.
No, it's not fraud. Unless otherwise dictated by statute, they reserve the right to terminate their contract (service) with you at any time. Knowingly selling you a service that they never had any intention of providing is fraud, and intent is the deciding factor. He has a tort complaint, nothing more.
that was shameless hyperbole- i felt it obvious... apologies.
Cs137 is far scarier than the relatively stable elements above. 140MBq/kg of its decay radiation is fatal within 30 days.
Or over a gram of radium, enough to cause massive skin ulceration after hours of exposure. You're correct it isnt much Caesium-137, but it's still enough to cause flesh to rot away from your body, in dense enough exposure. Experiment has shown 140MBq/kg of C137 to be fatal within 130 days. Half that, 1 year. So no thanks to being exposed to all 1 TBq of it.
* 1 TBq
And mine wass an explanation that radioactivity without density is meaningless. Hold a gram and change of radium in your pocket for a week and tell me 1 GBq is irrelevant. It wont kill you... well, maybe it will after long enough, but it will cause the flesh to fall off. A gram of radium spread out over a square mile? not such a big deal.
One could say she was exercising her 1st Amendment right to lie to another private citizen and fool him into doing what she wanted.
Seriously, in what fucking universe does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." mean that anyone who tells you to shut the fuck up before they pop you in the face is somehow in violation of that Amendment?
... Fucking genius. I salute you, sir.
I actually pay more for the front seats because they're made of leather, recline further, and the nice stewardess feeds me free alcohol for the entire flight. Usually by the time we land, I'm not really too concerned about where the exit is.
I think you should stop conflating "shit that i think is mean and bad for businesses to do" with "illegal". It makes you look stupid.
The guy can most definitely file a tort suit against the airline. But are you actually proposing that a carrier of human cargo not be allowed to refuse service?
I kinda agree with you, and kinda really don't.
They're basically tasked with managing a flying sardine can full of people, an appreciable percentage of which can't even act like they're more civilized than fucking animals. Someone in a similar position of responsibility on your average trip across the Atlantic in ye olden days would simply have thrown the dude's ass over the side.
It seems we've made progress.
That being said, it's pretty obvious that this was abuse of power, but in no way suggestive that said "air waitress" should not have the power to evict motherfuckers off planes before they take off, especially if they perceive said fuckwad being a problem once the tinderbox is up in the air, and she's facing down the lot of you shitheads solo.
Disclaimer: I fly a lot. Airline passengers make me embarrassed for our species.
Clearly we need to coat our insides in lead.
General Motors was right all along!
A trillion Bq is a fairly huge number, especially when spread over a very small area. That will cook you like fried chicken exposed to the afterburner on an F18.
Of course they didn't give us any idea which of our both-true statements reflects reality.
Without context is no.
Approximately 66 GBED
To be fair, a gram of radium held for long enough will kill your ass dead. Held for not very long at all, it will just cause your flesh to die and ulcerate.