| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Comments:
<0> haha
<0> that one is good
<0> Lion-O, I love this one too http://www.bash.org/?597875
<1> oh, I forgot to mention; I'm also reading up on bash.org 8)
<0> cheating on your ethics test is pretty, low ;)
<1> "May I speak person who is in charge of the phone services in your house?" / "Ummmm...We don't have a phone." / "Well, then what are you talking to me on?" / "A banana?" ? ;)
<1> how to deal with telemarketing :P
<2> Hello
<0> Bubble, do you burst easily?
<2> :P
<0> Lion-O, many good ways to deal with telemarketers :)
<0> I mean, i'd consider telemarketing towards businesses myself. But, I still think wasting a telemarketers time is a good thing.
<0> Lion-O, do you get telemarketers that try to sell you newspaper subscriptions?
<1> oh, it seems the US is going to cripple the internet tomorrow in order to "test against terrorism". http://www.fcw.com/article92160-01-31-06-Web&RSS=yes#related
<1> I am so going to laugh my *** off if they manage to damage critical boxes thus crippleing services :P
<3> hi how could I report events from a shell script to syslog ?
<1> bouzoul: man logger
<3> tks
<0> haha
<0> Lion-O, so do you have that? newspaper subscriptions sold over the phone?
<3> great it works thks Lion-O
<1> fredk_: in a more limited way, yeah. I can connect to certain websites using gprs. But my regular paper also offers me online access through internet and mobile access for no extra charge so I have no subscriptions going at this time... Hmm, apart from "teletext". E 1,- / month.
<0> no, I mean. you dont have telemarketers trying to sell you newspaper subscriptions?
<1> fredk_: oooh, that. Yeah, we have our shares too :P
<0> Lion-O, here's what you do, play interestsed for about 30 minutes
<1> newspaper, pension, vacation, etc. We used to have an "anti script" against them lying around.
<0> and just when you're ready to sign the deal, ask them "you do have a braille version right?"
<1> They're basicly following a pattern in their questioning, so if you counter that with questions and certain comments of your own you can totally catch them off balance.
<1> fredk_: lol
<0> a guy I know did that, you know the sad part is.. the guy kept pushing for the sale haha
<1> fredk_: I usually throw the phone on the hook
<2> Take a bath, bbl.
<1> finally... I was wondering where that smell was coming from.
<2> Hehe
<0> haha
<2> I'm only the Bubble :P
<4> Lion-O: Oh dear
<2> :)
<4> Lion-O: "Internet infrastructure damaged by terrorist attack prevention excersize"
<4> Lion-O: I can see the headlines already
<4> One more reason to pry control the the internet from US hands
<5> bah, I have no doubt that the internet could be largely partitioned by a halfdozen people with a digger
<4> Yeah, stick a shovel in the ground at just the right spot, and all of a sudden there's Internet1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc
<5> a couple of divers with microexplosives could probably do damamge to the transatlantic and pascific lines that would take days to work out righ
<1> PolarWolf: still... Its the same reason why I'd oppose a "google based internet". One big company has full control, which is hardly like the internet itself.
<0> google owns my soul
<6> you can't control the internet. if the internet got to a point where it was unbearable, we'd just move to mesh networking
<6> where there is no centralized anything to take control of
<1> all we need are personal laser shields and laser swords, then we'll work it out 80
<1> 8)
<0> you know, think about it
<0> there's not THAT many years since we all were bbs'ing
<1> It'll be like playing in god mode during Jedi Knight II :-)
<0> the internet has totally transformed an entire planet
<1> hmm, yeah
<1> fredk_: it was bound to happen.
<0> I bet those geeks that suddenly came up with the idea though that "we're gonna rule the world.hahahaha"
<6> mesh networking is the future anyway, bad companies ****ing with the current internet is only accelerating the move towards it
<0> and everyone was like "yeah, right"
<0> I know for us, we spend alot of our support time on email.
<0> and its mostly "why doesnt this antispam feature work like I expect" and **** like that
<4> A mesh network doesn't work too well for a network as large as the internet
<4> Not unless you decide to start to memorize IP addresses anyway
<0> PolarWolf, don't we all do that?
<6> with current hardware
<4> And even then it'll be a mess with people using conflicting IP addresses
<1> IPv6 anyone? ;)
<6> with ipv6 that's not a problem
<4> For basic servcies like that there *has* to be a single overseeing body
<6> ipv6 automagically detects neighbors and all that ****
<6> mesh networking is about 10 years off
<6> by then we'll have hardware that can handle it
<0> I wonder when we will start using ipv6 all over
<4> safemode: yeah, and you go google something using its ipv6 address, eh?
<0> we'll
<6> Polarwolf: dns can exist in mesh networking, it's just distributed
<4> And tomorrow that address has changed because someone decided to reboot a router, and you have no way to figure out what the new address is
<1> distributed? sounds like a lot of overhead to me
<4> safemode: Sure, but without some central control you end up with three google.coms
<6> polarwolf: you're thinking current day internet functionality for justifying a future tech
<1> safemode: and why not? So far most future technology has always been backwards compatible one way or another.
<4> safemode: You're ignoring some basic rules while inventing an overcomplex future for yourself :)
<6> what basic rules? there is nothing stopping multiple dns top level servers from existing now.. in fact they do
<6> you _could_ have multiple google.com's but for the most part you dont
<4> safemode: Indeed they do. The servers aren't the issue here, it's their content. I.e. the root zone.
<4> safemode: The fact it's distributed is nice, but not the issue
<0> PolarWolf, wouldnt more root servers in many ways relieve the problem?
<4> It'll be a fine mess when you type "www.mybank.com" and end up at a russian phishing site just because you forgot that your ISP uses a different DNS infrastructure than everyone else
<6> I dont see how you can force mesh networking to not regulate dns names but ignore how multiple root dns servers can regulate now...even with completely non-related dns systems like opendns and regular dns. They choose to worktogether rather than against.
<4> safemode: They choose to work together because there's only one dominant system and the rest is irrelevent
<6> even now, you get your dns server handed to you by your isp, or you can choose one.. in the end you're trusting them to not play badly
<4> safemode: I have no choice than to trust the root
<4> And I trust the root because I know it's goverened
<6> indeed, and the root can be any number of dns systems out now... but you get whatever root your dns server has setup
<1> huh ?
<4> safemode: There's only one relevent root, mate
<6> china's dns system is governed.. opendns is governed. but that doesn't mean ****.
<1> PolarWolf: actually... that can be combined. You can have more authorative servers for 1 domain.
<4> Yeah, and both systems show they don't work too well
<4> Lion-O: Sure
<0> Lion-O, what url might that be?
<6> they're exactly the same type of systems as what everyone else is using
<1> fredk_: the one with that n00d babe sitting on the bed :P your customer ;)
<0> Ahh lol
<6> and there is nothing stopping your "governed" system from fracturing and becoming just like the chinese one soon anyway with the bells doing what they're doing
<4> Lion-O: You're missing the point. I don't deny that there are more than one root servers, and that's why the whole system still works. But those root servers all host the same root zone. That's the point.
<0> Lion-O, your slightly slow ;)
<1> fredk_: I figured it was a normal picture so now that I'm in X popped it up, immediatly followed by "Oh, are we surfing pr0n again" :P
<6> so in the end, you'll be getting a worse setup than something completely cooperative like mesh networking would have. you'd be forced to use whatever your provider gave you the ability to use.
<1> PolarWolf: aaah, yeah. roger.
<4> safemode: History shows that voluntary cooperation doesn't work too well unless there's a clear dominating entity which makes the rules to cooperate by
<4> In the internet's case, ARPA and its descendants, ARIN, ICANN, et al.
<5> PolarWolf: Cooperate, or else!
<6> PolarWolf: yea, they've done a great job
<0> not to mention our beloved network solutions :P
<6> now we'll have the US internet, the European internet, the Chinese internet and in the US it'll be the Verizon net, and Comcast net and etc etc etc
<4> safemode: I don't make any claims over the quality, I just dare to claim it's a better system than what you're proposing
<6> all slightly different ..interconnected, but strained and funneled
<4> Unless you manage to solve the minor issue of naming and addressing
<4> Which you can't without central control
<6> PolarWolf: naming and addressing has nothing to do with what they can do when they own everything on their pipe...
<4> Naming and addressing has everything to do with it when you take away that control
<6> the only way for the internet to survive outside of commercial interests is by using a medium they can't control. physical wires aren't one of them
<6> so you figure out how you're not gonna be forced into mesh networking when the internet is completely wireless
<4> I don't see a survival chance for the internet for the general public without commercial interests. Sorry.
<4> Someone simply has to pay for it
<0> like me :P
<4> And if you want to do it yourself, just start to wonder if what you're paying now is really cost covering when commercialism wasn't a factor
<0> except my money go to rich verizon executives blah
<6> the internet isn't as expensive as you'd think. not when you dont need to continually maintain thousands of miles of cables and such. all the traffic isn't being routed through centralized areas.. the cost becomes negligable per person
<7> earth could run without money, polarwolf; just a matter of organization
<4> And even when basic connectivity were to become commodity. Then what?
<7> i admit that not more, nor less :S
<4> modprobe: Sure, but try to organise 6 billion people so that they all do the right thing...whatever that may be, and by who's definition :)
<6> yea i'm ****ing paying 90 bucks a ****ing month for ****ty comcast cable internet, that's really cost effective when you consider that I should be paying 20 bucks a month for fiber with no restrictions on my content creation and they'd still make money off it. just not as much as they do now, so that will never happen
<6> the internet is really optimal the way it is now.. yea.
<7> for sure, we're in biiiiiiiiiiig trouble polarwolf :)
<6> commercialism is pushing the internet to reform... it's just a matter of time before it routes around them
<0> safemode, and how do you plan to finance the digging and everything needed to actually lay that fiber?
<6> and it's not the commercialism of the content providers, it's the commercialism of the telephone and cable companies ...the backbones and all that ..the very nature of the centralized internet that are being the most poisonous
<6> it's already there douche
<4> fredk_: Most of it is already there anyway
<6> they did it years ago
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
#c++
#teens
nulog tutorial
#linux
men ma3e?
gzira qhab
#london
#php
#AllNiteCafe
snuffx dot wtf
|
|