Re: Dr. Seuss weighs in on the "weird" question

Thanks to Gene Ziegler:

A Grandchild's Guide to Using Grandpa's Computer

Bits Bytes Chips Clocks
Bits in bytes on chips in box.
Bytes with bits and chips with clocks.
Chips in box on ether-docks

.
.
.

R

> From: Barry Kleider <bkleider@sihope.com>
> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:35:43 -0500
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Dr. Seuss weighs in on the "weird" question
>
> DR. SEUSS EXPLAINS COMPUTERS
>
>
> If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, and the bus is interrupted
> as
>
> a very last resort, and the address of the memory makes your floppy disk
>
> abort, then the socket packet pocket has an error to report.
>
> If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash, and the double-clicking
> icon puts your window in the trash, and your data is corrupted 'cause the
> index doesn't hash, then your situation's hopeless and your system's gonna
> crash!
>
>
> If the label on the cable on the table at your house, says the network is
>
> connected to the button on your mouse, but your packets want to tunnel on
>
> another protocol, that's repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall,
> and
>
> your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss, so your icons in
>
> the window are as wavy as a souse, then you may as well reboot and go out
> with a bang, 'cause as sure as I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang!
>
> When the copy of your floppy's getting sloppy on the disk, and the microcode
> instructions cause unnecessary risk, then you have to flash your memory and
> you'll want to RAM your ROM.
>
> Quickly turn off the computer. . . . and be sure to tell your mom.."
>
>
>
> <I wish I could claim credit for this - it's been out there a long time.>
>
> Barry Kleider
> Photographer. Arts Educator.
> 612.722.9701
> email: bkleider@sihope.com
> Web: www.barryphotography.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryuji Suzuki" <rs@silvergrain.org>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:55 AM
> Subject: Re: weird. . .
>
>
>> From: PhotoGecko Austin <gecko@photogecko.com>
>> Subject: weird. . .
>> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:42:05 -0500
>>
>>> Here's an internet paths and protocols question. I'm mightily
>>> confounded by this. And confounded minds want to know:
>>
>> There are multiple possibilities, but the most likely cause has to do
>> with queues... no, this has nothing to do with the timely topic of
>> British system (nor the possibility that the ISP's server is located
>> in a Mediterranean country).
>>
>> So, your posting arrives at usask.ca server, and gets sent out for
>> list distribution. These are queued in the smtp (mail) server at
>> usask.ca. At this moment, your mail server may have some temporary
>> porblem and can't receive it right away. So your copy of underlivered
>> email remains in the queue until future attempt, which can occur at an
>> interval that varies with the server (it can be 5 minutes or a few
>> hours).
>>
>> There are many kinds of temporary errors. The usask.ca server may not
>> be able to find the email server for photogecko.com (which is
>> NETSOLMAIL.NET, and the usask.ca server needs to find the IP address
>> of this server.). Or it may be able to find what the server is, but
>> can't really talk to the server, possibly because the network is
>> congested, the netsolmail.net server is too busy, or netsolmail.net
>> server is temporarily down.
>>
>> Before the usask.ca server attempts a retry, new postings come in, get
>> queued and delivered. By that time, your server might have come back,
>> so those new postings got delivered right away, but your older posting
>> probably had to wait until next retry interval.
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, many spammers use purposely broken and incompetent email
>> servers to send out spams but they are not designed to receive bounced
>> errors, or to deal with temporarily errored messages (because these
>> will take too much resource). So a new anti-spam technique is to
>> respond to all incoming emails from previously unseen senders with a
>> temporary error for the first time and see if the sender's server
>> retries. This is called greylisting, and this seems a great idea, but
>> it turned out that a lot of ISP's use inadvertently broken,
>> incompetent and crappy server softwares that do not fully comply with
>> the internet standard protocols. So the problems accumulate and fight
>> against spams don't move forward by much. This great idea is
>> practically unused because of too many incompetent (though legitimate)
>> servers... (right, this paragraph is entirely parenthetical and has
>> nothing to do with your question.)
>>
>> --
>> Ryuji Suzuki
>> "All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." (Bob Dylan 2000)
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 7 07:02:46 2004