On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 02:42:24PM -0700, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2010, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >you may rail about the stupidity of those developers as much as you > >want. apparently unlike you, they live in the real world where the only > >guarantee which tcp provides is that the data stream is intact - *if* it > >arrives. > > "Mr. Newton, your notions about gravity are of no use to those of us in > the real world where heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects." > > An earmarks of a sham argument is "we live in the real world". > you want rhetorics? how about that one: an earmark of a denialist argument is "but it is the *law* [never mind that the constraints make it not applicable in the given case]". let me illustrate that: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2010/01/lalalala_beavercanthearyou-300x233.jpg
> >timeouts as a workaround for shortcomings of the tcp/ip stack > >under real-world conditions are a perfectly reasonable approach, > > "Tailgating and cutting across multiple lanes of traffic as a workaround > for the shortcomings of highways under real-world conditions are a > perfectly reasonable approach." > "not everything which looks like an analogy is actually a turd ..." err, wait, i think that went differently ... i'll be way more impressed when you actually propose something that works on a large scale instead of insisting on your idealized worldview and insulting the intelligence of everyone who tries to solve very real problems. _______________________________________________ Imap-uw mailing list [email protected] http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
