Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers attack
> www.eugdpr.org, ec.europa.eu and some other key .eu sites. When the
> response they get will be "sorry, we can't determine who is attacking
> you since that contravenes GDPR", will the EU light bu
"Tony Hain" wrote:
> Actually nat does something for security, it decimates it. Any 'real'
> security system (physical, technology, ...) includes some form of audit
> trail. NAT explicitly breaks any form of audit trail, unless you are the one
> operating the header mangling device. Given that th
Jared Mauch wrote:
> > Your point being?
>
> That the "BSD" community sometimes doesn't play well with others,
> and certainly won't fess up when they make a mistake and cause
> collateral damage.
The "BSD" community is larger than OpenBSD, and larger than Theo's
ego, much to said persons disapp
dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
> While the image of a desiccated user, still typing away, is appealing --
> but possibly not all that remarkable, given recent reports of Internet
> addiction -- what's especially tasty is the idea of having an Internet
> connection that works without electricity...
Abou
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Take a carrier like Comcast that has ~20,000,000 subscribers. That's
> 660,000,000,000 or 660 Terabytes per day of log files. Now, imagine
> trying to keep that data set for 7 years worth of data. That's a
> 660*365*7 = 1,686,300 Terabyte (or 1.7 Exabyte) storage array.
On m
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Nope The power going into each fiber out of the splitter is 1/16th
> that of what went into the splitter.
... which is 12 dB loss.
> Yes, your total in-line loss is still 10km, but you are forgetting
> about the fact that you lost 15/16th of the power effectively going
> to
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets
> rather than bytes, as they had a rather slippery notion of "byte"
> (anywhere from 6 to 9 bits, often multiple sizes used *in the
> same program*).
Not quite correct. Anywhere from 1 to 36 bits, a
Javier Henderson wrote:
> > Or XNS. On the other hand, people did have a nice career with
> SNA...but they weren't trying to push packets over the
>
> LAT
.daytime
Monday 29-Jun-2015 20:10:46
.pjob
Job 3 at ODEN User BYGG [10,335] TTY4
.where tty4
LAT PC78(LATD for FreeBSD) TTY4
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> This is similar to the jiffycounter wrapping, since this doesn't happen
> that often, it's not commonly tested for. Good way is to start the jiffy
> counter so it wraps after 10 minutes of uptime. That way you'll run into
> any bugs quickly. Either we should abolish
Jake Khuon wrote:
> While others have already talked about what to look out for in terms of
> systems and drives, I haven't seen anyone mention things like your UPS
> batteries. Were they also heat-soaked? At one place I worked at, we
> lost a whole bank of batteries in the UPS room when it o
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> A _really_ intelligent airline scheduling system would (IMHO) be
> able to offer you options like
>
> "there is a direct flight Pittsburgh -> Kansas City, and from there it
> is a 2 hour drive to Columbia, so that will save you 5 hours travel time"
That's not an airlin
> Marshall wrote:
> >This is of course off-off-topic, but I would suspect the room
> >temperature ultrasonic
> >misters, not dry ice or wood smoke.
> >
> >Regards
> >Marshall
>
> Concur.
>
> As anyone who works with air conditioning knows, ultrasonic are
> the low maintenance option for your hu
"Paul Stewart" wrote:
> What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a
> closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done
> sometimes
Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than
RFC1918 gives you. In a closed lab. Yes,
Michael Hallgren :
> > Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than
> > RFC1918 gives you.
>
> Use IPv6.
For an IPv4 scalability test? Interesting idea...
Apart from the basic incompability here, my opinion of IPv6 is that it
just gives you 2^96 more addresses to repe
> Robert D. Scott wrote:
> > The harder way:
> >
> > Decimal: 1089055123
> > Hex (dashes inserted at octals): 40-E9-A9-93
> > Decimal (of each octet): 64-233-169-147
> > IP Address: 64.233.169.147
>
> The Python way
>
> >>> import socket, struct
> >>> socket.inet_ntoa(struct.pack('>l', 1089055
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter
> changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally
> his to take along, "just like" what is proposed for ISP clients.
No, a complete street address portability system.
Assumi
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The fix right now is for Microsoft to disable IPv4 by default.
Yes, please. That would put a serious dent in most botnets...
> Nick
--Johnny
17 matches
Mail list logo
