My cousin's friend used to rip DVDs with DVD Shrink back in the day. It would automatically remove the "Prohibited User Operation" flags or whatever that told the DVD player to ignore your skip commands.
That's because the Internet is basically broadcast TV 2.0 so no one cares about having public IPv4's at home as long as they can get to their memes and streaming. Great job, we took something that was meant to be a next frontier in humanity and let anyone connect with anyone else without gatekeepers/intermediaries and turned it 21st century brainrot troughs. Perhaps a society not in slow intellectual decline would have chosen otherwise.
> Great job, we took something that was meant to be a next frontier in humanity and let anyone connect with anyone else without gatekeepers/intermediaries
We already had that, it's called shortwave radio. The internet, especially as it's implemented and as it's used, is a terrible way to achieve this. It's service providers the whole way down.
It would be funny if HAM radio came back because the social filter imposed by the limitations wound up being more important than the technological capability.
Problem is that HAM radio also has social filters you broadcast to everyone and you don’t know who is listening. Encrypted communication is not allowed in HAM.
You are not supposed to use it for „communication” as in Facebook. You are supposed to use spectrum to test your gear and keep transmissions short to leave space for others.
I was in local HAM club and passed the exam for license but never got license to transmit mostly because you are not supposed to chat frivolously over the radio.
Red herring. The Puritan work ethic that seems to always resolve to "human value=human income" (regardless of the ethic's stated intentions) is what causes this, not creatives in and of themselves.
I get that there is a strong online movement to destroy the traditional American Dream value of "work hard, and become rich" but that does not apply in fields where money is not the motivator. No single astronaut has ever expressed financial gain as a motivator for moving into that profession.
Quite the opposite, many have given up fortunes and prosperous businesses to move into spaceflight.
You misunderstand the movements, they exist precisely because of a perception that "work hard" doesn't seem to always mean "become rich", many see rich (correctly or incorrectly) as a product of luck, connections, or other factors unrelated to work. The price of everything constantly going up makes "work hard" work less. They actually would like the dream to work.
Anyway, someone may not want to pursue spaceflight for the money, but everything involved in spaceflight still costs a lot of money, which has to be justified. So I think the phenomenon is still there; people still want to appear to be proving themselves through appearing to work hard and appearing to be needed.
Well I don't know any economic system that guarantees the "get rich" part, nor any that enables such a thing without "work hard". But no other system has enabled so many poor people to become rich people, as has the American system.
I don't live in the US. But I recognize the American system for what it does well.
Oh yes, that's really convenient for home users. "Install this thing on several computers and keep it in sync or you're not qualified to have a network"
Home users would ideally be served by things like mDNS and LLMNR, which should just work in the background. If I want to connect to the thermostat I should be able to just go to http://honeywell-thermostat and have it work. If I want to connect to the printer it should just be ipp://brother and I shouldn't even need to have a DNS server.
Your interface has a default gateway configured for it, doesn't it? Isn't that default gateway the router? NDP should show the local routers through router advertisements. There is also LLDP to help find such devices. LLMNR/mDNS provides DNS services even without a centralized nameserver (hence the whole "I shouldn't even need to have a DNS server"). So much out there other than just memorizing numbers. I've been working with IPv6 for nearly 20 years and I've never had an issue of "what was the IP address of the local router", because there's so many ways to find devices.
Even then nobody is stopping you from giving them memorable IP addresses. Giving your local router a link-local address of fe80::1 is perfectly valid. Or if you're needing larger networking than just link-local and have memorable addresses use ULAs and have the router on network one be fd00:1::1, the router on network two be fd00:2::1, the router on network three be fd00:3::1, etc. Is fe80::1 or fd00:1::1 really that much harder to memorize than 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 or 10.0.0.1, if you're really super gung-ho about memorizing numbers?
> My DNS "server" is a router which can "add" static entries...won't work with dynamic addresses.
Sounds like a pretty poor setup, systems which could auto-add DHCP'd or discovered entries have been around for literally decades. You're choosing to live in that limitation.
> What redundancy, multiple servers?
Multicast name resolution is a thing. Hosts can send out queries and other devices can respond back. You don't need a centralized DNS server to have functional DNS.
There were no rules in DOS, or r_x permissions like Unix.
The DOS kernel itself didn't really impose any structure on the filesystem. All that mattered was:
- The two files that comprised DOS itself (MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS) had to be "inode" 0 and 1 on the disk in early versions,
- the kernel parsed \CONFIG.SYS on boot, and I think looked for \COMMAND.COM if you didn't specify a different shell with COMSPEC= in CONFIG.SYS. There were defaults if \CONFIG.SYS didn't exist, but of course all your DEVICE= stuff won't load and you'll probably not have a working mouse, CD-ROM, etc.
\AUTOEXEC.BAT was optional. That's it. Any other files could be anywhere else. I think the MS-DOS installer disk put files in C:\DOS by convention but that was just a convention. As long as COMMAND.COM was findable DOS would boot and be useable-and if you mucked something up you just grab your DOS boot floppy with A:\COMMAND.COM on it and fix it.
From what I recall most installers-if provided-made a directory in \ and put all their files there, mixing executables with read-write data. There was no central registry of programs or anything unless you were using a third party front-end.
Windows 3.x and 95 inherited the DOS legacy there.
> I think the MS-DOS installer disk put files in C:\DOS by convention but that was just a convention.
That assume that you where going to install the OS, which assumes that you had an hard drive :-). The original IBM PC didn't, and anyway MS-DOS didn't support folders until version 2.0.
On those old PCs you would boot your computer on a floppy drive with all the files on the root of a floppy, and execute your command there. There was not much to work with anyway, check the content of the boot floppy of MSDOS 1.0 [1].
And also, especially if you had a single floppy, you wouldn't even use it: to run your software you would boot a disk with a IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS, COMMAND.COM and an AUTOEXEC.BAT that would start your favorite word processor (WordStar of course :-D ).
Yep I don't think the Microsoft installer was there until version 4 or 5. Around the time MS was making DOS more "user-friendly" with things like /LONGDESCRIPTIVESWITCHES, DOSKEY, MIRROR, UNDELETE and UNFORMAT. It looked like the blue text-mode Windows XP installer.
Non-sequitur. The Internet only enables the copying of bits and not their theft, as the original bits aren't removed from their source. A remote-copy-and-delete might be considered a theft, but Bittorrent has no delete provisions and that's not really inherent to the infrastructure of the Internet per se (e.g. your network card can't physically make bits on the other side in storage disappear).
Good. The internet is meant to uplift human society, not enable petty theft. If only they could have gone after each thief to take back the money they stole.
There's a difference between "I am the creator of this content [that I actually didn't create]" and "I am enjoying this content that I did not create." One could argue that it matters, in the latter case, whether you are enjoying the content in a manner with the creator's intention of how you enjoyed it, but, to state one among many possible responses, it is far from clear when I consume media through approved channels that that accurately represents how the creator would prefer I enjoy it.
An old 1970's arcade game, Quiz Show, used an 8-track tape to store the questions and answers. There's a YouTube video about it, and audio dumps of the 8-track on archive.org I think.
I thought there was an MSR buried deep somewhere that enables "Cache as RAM" mode and basically maps the cache into the memory address space or something like that.
Lol a quick Google search leads me to a Linked in post with all the gory technical details?
reply