ymarkov | Talmud Interneti

MISHNA: Dot-coms: With excessive Dot-coms: the commentary on a
price to earnings ratios. NASDAQ: laptop writes excessive price to
That is to say earnings. But
any stock market. MISHNA: These are the dot-coms surely not every
All the more so on that have no share in the stock with high
NYSE. Publically NASDAQ: Aleph-bay, Nile.com, P/E ratio is a
traded: but they and Blackhat.com. R' Akeyboard dot-com. Rather
may be traded says they are not publically it means because
privately. Ten traded. R' ElazerPrinter says of the high P/E
trillion: stock they should not have an IPO. : ratio. Rabbienu
stock certificates Is Aleph-bay a dot-com? ROM says this is
Pits of organic Certainly it is not a dot-org? to include other
dye: on a CD-RW. Rather it is a dot-com [non-Internet]
Scalded with although it is not called a tech stocks.
lasers: re-written dot-com. R' OS-i says the text
100,000 times. is deficient, read it these are the dot-coms that
have no share in the NASDAQ: Aleph-bay.com,
Nile.com, and Blackhat.com. Similarly, it is taught in a braisa,
these are the dot-coms that have no share in the NASDAQ:
Aleph-bay.com, Nile.com, and Blackhat.com. Abyte says scripture refers
to them as ploni or ploni.com, with the exception of Nile which is
always called Nile.com, as it is written, "and Nile.com split and the
stockholders came through dry-shod." : Should not have an IPO : It is
prohibited to give them an IPO. But if they have an IPO anyway they
are not punished by Beis Din. But are they not punished? For it is
taught in a braisa: What is their punishment? Ten trillion are dumped
into pits of organic dye and scalded with lasers. Here we speak of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Even one can flame.: Here Abyte Group: that is: USENET, listservs,
is going according to his own and message boards. As it is
opinion further written "this
on (26:) that an : Ad hominems and flames by three, USENET group."
am ha'aretz may trolls by one. R' Yahooda says Ad hominems:
only pasken flames by one: What is the case? both true and
regarding that If this is a un-moderated group false. Trolls:
which he is even one can post ad hominems so called
ingnorant of. and flames. And if this is a because they
And over there moderated group, all of these are interfere with
we explain that prohibited. And furthermore, what traffic across
"pasken" must is the difference between ad network bridges.
mean "flame." hominems and flames and between The text is
But it is trolls? Abyte says: [the text] is lacking: the
difficult to me lacking and this is what he text was
why the Gemara teaches: In a moderated group, ad corrupted when
writes "flame" hominems can be permitted by a the server
here explicitly, moderation committee of three. In crashed because
when it writes an unmoderated group flames are by it was not Y5K
"pasken" later three and ad hominems and trolls compliant. The
on. So we must are by one. But is this the case? first Tana: who
say that here it Like it says in an RFD: Even one holds that ad
is talking about can flame. And who is the author hominems and
any flame, of the RFD? R' Yahooda. But the flames are by
whereas there it first Tana teaches according to 3. Everyone:
is talking about that which we learned: flaming that is to say,
specifically a must be joined by everyone. at least three.
flame phrased :Death threats by twenty-three:
to sound like a
psak. But this needs investigation. Everyone: The commentary on a
laptop writes that "everyone" means at least three. But it seems to
me that everyone refers to l'chatchilah, but only three b'dievad.
But if it was less than three, then he didn't fulfill his obligation.
And there are those that say that in any case this is referring to a
flame-fest, but a regular flame can be done by an individual even
according to the first Tana.

=======================================================================

FOR A PARTICULAR HOST: This is a A multicast packet: this refers to
difficulty! For how can we say a TCP/IP packet. Are meant for a
that a packet is lost if it has a particular host: that the packet is
destination address? addressed to in
And if you would Come and hear: a multicast the packet header.
say that the name packet is not returned. This is In this case, the
server is down, fine according to the one who sender knew the
but this is an says multicast packets are not destination. R'
IP address, not a meant for a particular host, but Akeyboard says
machine name. what about the one who says that multicast packets
Rather, we are multicast packets are meant for are hefker: and
forced to say the a particular host? And who is therefore they can
Gemara is talking this? R' Akeyboard. Like we not be intended
about the case of learn in the Mishna: R' Elaser for a specific
a diskless client Printer says multicast packets host, since that
which broadcasts are not meant for a specific host would be able
to find a boot host, R' Akeyboard says to claim them.
server; therefore multicast are meant for a There is no
it intends the specific host. But does R disagreement: of
packet for a Akeyboard really say this? We R' Akeyboard with
specific machine, learn in a Braisa: R' Akeyboard himself. A local
but it does not says multicast packets are subnet: So it is
know its IP hefker. Says R' Yahoo-shua: intended for a
address for the really there is no disagreement, specific host. A
header. HEFKER: the first case refers to packets gateway: since it
Why doesn't the within a local subnet, the later has a high TTL, we
it bring the case case refers to packets going assume it is meant
of the token ring through a gateway. R' UUCP to be seen by many
(Kiddushin 12a)? came up from Silicon Valley and hosts. Silicon
For it says: a he taught: a TCP/IP packet is Valley: from the
packet can not be word sh'lach, the
hefker. Now this is fine according to the one who valley of sending.
says that that case is speaking about a UUCP packet,
but what about the one who says it is speaking about all packets?
Therefore it seems to me that R' Akeyboard does not consider multicast
packets to be real packets. But I have heard it that there are those
say that this refers not to the packet mamash, but to a TCP wrapper
protocol.