$65/month for a decent amount of customers on $50k worth of equipment? Sounds pretty reasonable to me, considering what other services they can cram down that pipe.
Granted, we host 48 customers on $4k worth of equipment as FTTB/Copper to the unit, but we also charge a lot less.
You can effectively stop broadcast storms at layer 2 with the right implementation, so what I'm saying is akin to saying "Well, sure, you can hack Windows with a few simple scripts, but that doesn't constitute any fundamental failure in the concept of operating systems."
There are of course better things than vanilla Ethernet for regular IP networks, but Ethernet is still a very viable strategy if implemented correctly.
Broadcast storms can be avoided with even a modicum of proper planning. Of course you can hack it, but you can hack anything if you have the patience and skill. That does by no means constitute any fundamental failures of Ethernet.
>Because, when you get right down to it - it's still Ethernet, and so, is still basically CSMA/CA, though the switches, VLANs, etc., hide it for the most part.
When did wired Ethernet become CSMA/CA, and what decade are you in? Collision-based networking? The CD in CSMA/CD has been irrelevant after almost a decade of full-duplex microsegmentation, effectively rendering the MA point-to-point, rather than "multiple access", and throwing out the CS in favour of "empty your buffers as fast as you can".
If you can segment and aggregate on a level equivalent to a High School senior fresh out of Net+, IP over Ethernet still makes more sense than most anything else.
Considering how much more successful than yours his career has undoubtably been, without having had to conform to arbitrary standards of professionalism, I think it's safe to say that denouncing his work because of what he wears constitutes an almost criminal ineptitude on your part.
One would think that any assembly styling themselves as being open-minded and advocating open debate would be above something as petty as a dress code.
Dress codes anywhere but where the dressing is essential to the event is pointless. How is a uniform going to inspire creative thought? If what matters is what people have on their minds, why care about what they have on their bodies?
"You're infinitely more insightful than me, but you aren't wearing the special clothes, so you can't join my discussion group."
Sounds like something straight out of an elementary school playground.
The president is ultimately elected by the people as the head of state and representative of the entire population. That's the democratic process. A simple, undeniable truth.
A democracy going to war is an act of the country as a whole, popular support or not, which the war in Iraq actually had. What you're looking for with your descriptions is a dictatorship, but we're dealing with democracies here. Let's stick to the realities of those.
"The White House" and "the Kremlin" are not widely used because they're metonymic - They're widely used because they're colloquial and ubiquitous.
There is absolutely no sound argument for using metonymic references to seats of government when referring to the actions of a democratically elected government. No matter how you twist and turn it.
Regarding your first paragraph, you're arguing obscure "what if?" scenarios. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't "George W. Bush and co." going to war against "Saddam Hussein and co.", it was "the US" that went to war against "Iraq". It wasn't "Adolf Hitler and co." invading "Wadysaw Raczkiewicz and co.", it was "Germany" invading "Poland". Yes, bureaucracy exists, but it is a bureaucracy that exists to represent the country as a whole. Undeniably.
Throughout history, this most accurate and most widely understood terminology has been used. Obscure metonymic references to the geographic locations of seats of government serve absolutely no practical purpose. It may be grammatically correct to use these references, but that doesn't make them warranted, or even useful.
You're missing the point. I've been here a while, too, so that's nothing new to me.
Referring to the geographic location of an office in a corporation when discussing decisions taken from there is very normal, yes.
Referring to the capital city of a country when discussing government decisions, without regard to where the actual decisions have taken place is horrendously stupid. When a country does something, it's the result of a democratic process, either directly or indirectly. The democracy is the country. The capital city of the country is of little to no significance.
Well, ad hominem attacks have always been the mark of people who're afraid of continuing a conversation, but don't wish to lose face when quitting.
You're arriving at a woefully incorrect conclusion if you assume that by my rationale, civilians would be legitimate targets of war. The decision of a nation to go to war, and the rules of engagement and laws of warfare are completely seperate issues, and I respect your intelligence enough to assume that you're aware of this, and that you were simply making an intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit my opinion without actual substance.
Your analogies are quite obviously incompatible with my example. You're quite right in that I disagree with any metonymic reference spurring from geographic coincidence. It's an unnecessary layer of abstraction that does not serve any practical purpose.
However, I guess if you're that quick to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you're right and that everyone else is wrong, this is falling upon deaf ears.
A part of the government elected by the Japanese government. As long as the government represents the people, the actions of the government are the actions of the people. That's what democracy is.
So you're saying that you interpret criticism towards one implementation of metonymy as criticism of the concept as a whole? That sounds like you're actively making yourself an argument against metonymy by failing to discern between criticism of a single aspect and criticism against the concept as a whole.
The Japanese government is elected by the Japanese people. The only thing connecting the city of Tokyo to the Japanese government more than other Japanese cities is that a good portion of the central government is based there. The Japanese government has a loose affiliation to Tokyo by geological coincidence. The Japanese government is a product of, and governing body of the country of Japan.
So which of the two are more appropriate when referring to the actions of a government? A government represents the will of the people of a country, and represents the decision of a country as a whole. This isn't a unilateral decision by the government of Japan, or the city of Tokyo. It's the democratic decision by the entire country.
So you're saying that the government represents Tokyo, not all of Japan?
If this was a private company, the article would refer a "Japanese company" and its name, not the city in which the company is headquartered.
This is, however, the Japanese government, representing, you guessed it, Japan! The government is not entirely based in Tokyo, and no one but the government makes governmental decisions, so how on Earth is "Japan" too broad?
Seriously, people, stop referring to countries and decision made by countries with the name of the capital city. You don't sound smart, you aren't clever, this isn't a bad movie.
Japan is making an aircraft. Not Tokyo. Shut up and go away.
YOU'RE BETTER THAN THIS AC AT TELLING PEOPLE TO PAY UP OR SHUT UP.
Being easily persuaded doesn't make you better than the rest of us. What do you think we're doing when you're fixing "my internet" that got "a virus"? We aren't twiddling thumbs.
Anglo-centric thinking on a site where the only common language is English? Oh my, what a horrible thing!
It's more a case of "since ninety-nine percent of the people using this website cannot read this, it has no merit here.", which seems perfectly sensible.
[blockquote]If your university did buy more bandwidth, I can assure you the quality of the students gaming experience didn't cross anyone's mind. It's not quite as simple as the network admin calling up the local ISP and going to the next tier.[/blockquote]
That's what our customers typically do. Works fine.
You're going to have to spill the beans on how you manage to run S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in a resolution like that, and how you manage to do it on that kind of hardware.
With an 8800GTS/320, myself, and most all review sites, struggle to stay above 60FPS in 1024x768 at times with all the eyecandy on.
Slashdot Mirror
$65/month for a decent amount of customers on $50k worth of equipment? Sounds pretty reasonable to me, considering what other services they can cram down that pipe.
Granted, we host 48 customers on $4k worth of equipment as FTTB/Copper to the unit, but we also charge a lot less.
I'd rather hold out for their 20/20 asymmetrical connections.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
You can effectively stop broadcast storms at layer 2 with the right implementation, so what I'm saying is akin to saying "Well, sure, you can hack Windows with a few simple scripts, but that doesn't constitute any fundamental failure in the concept of operating systems."
There are of course better things than vanilla Ethernet for regular IP networks, but Ethernet is still a very viable strategy if implemented correctly.
Broadcast storms can be avoided with even a modicum of proper planning. Of course you can hack it, but you can hack anything if you have the patience and skill. That does by no means constitute any fundamental failures of Ethernet.
>Because, when you get right down to it - it's still Ethernet, and so, is still basically CSMA/CA, though the switches, VLANs, etc., hide it for the most part.
When did wired Ethernet become CSMA/CA, and what decade are you in? Collision-based networking? The CD in CSMA/CD has been irrelevant after almost a decade of full-duplex microsegmentation, effectively rendering the MA point-to-point, rather than "multiple access", and throwing out the CS in favour of "empty your buffers as fast as you can".
If you can segment and aggregate on a level equivalent to a High School senior fresh out of Net+, IP over Ethernet still makes more sense than most anything else.
Does anything in the picture of him suggest that he did anything other than just picking out whatever was at the top in his drawers?
Considering how much more successful than yours his career has undoubtably been, without having had to conform to arbitrary standards of professionalism, I think it's safe to say that denouncing his work because of what he wears constitutes an almost criminal ineptitude on your part.
One would think that any assembly styling themselves as being open-minded and advocating open debate would be above something as petty as a dress code.
Dress codes anywhere but where the dressing is essential to the event is pointless. How is a uniform going to inspire creative thought? If what matters is what people have on their minds, why care about what they have on their bodies?
"You're infinitely more insightful than me, but you aren't wearing the special clothes, so you can't join my discussion group."
Sounds like something straight out of an elementary school playground.
So idle and largely unsubstantiated speculations in rants from people no one knows and no one cares about constitutes news on slashdot now?
The president is ultimately elected by the people as the head of state and representative of the entire population. That's the democratic process. A simple, undeniable truth.
A democracy going to war is an act of the country as a whole, popular support or not, which the war in Iraq actually had. What you're looking for with your descriptions is a dictatorship, but we're dealing with democracies here. Let's stick to the realities of those.
"The White House" and "the Kremlin" are not widely used because they're metonymic - They're widely used because they're colloquial and ubiquitous.
There is absolutely no sound argument for using metonymic references to seats of government when referring to the actions of a democratically elected government. No matter how you twist and turn it.
Regarding your first paragraph, you're arguing obscure "what if?" scenarios. The fact of the matter is that it wasn't "George W. Bush and co." going to war against "Saddam Hussein and co.", it was "the US" that went to war against "Iraq". It wasn't "Adolf Hitler and co." invading "Wadysaw Raczkiewicz and co.", it was "Germany" invading "Poland". Yes, bureaucracy exists, but it is a bureaucracy that exists to represent the country as a whole. Undeniably.
Throughout history, this most accurate and most widely understood terminology has been used. Obscure metonymic references to the geographic locations of seats of government serve absolutely no practical purpose. It may be grammatically correct to use these references, but that doesn't make them warranted, or even useful.
Referring to the geographic location of an office in a corporation when discussing decisions taken from there is very normal colloquially, yes.*
Too late for previews.
I don't see how you use the fact that it's a common colloquialism to argue that it would be proper journalism. They have nothing in common.
You're missing the point. I've been here a while, too, so that's nothing new to me.
Referring to the geographic location of an office in a corporation when discussing decisions taken from there is very normal, yes.
Referring to the capital city of a country when discussing government decisions, without regard to where the actual decisions have taken place is horrendously stupid. When a country does something, it's the result of a democratic process, either directly or indirectly. The democracy is the country. The capital city of the country is of little to no significance.
Well, ad hominem attacks have always been the mark of people who're afraid of continuing a conversation, but don't wish to lose face when quitting.
You're arriving at a woefully incorrect conclusion if you assume that by my rationale, civilians would be legitimate targets of war. The decision of a nation to go to war, and the rules of engagement and laws of warfare are completely seperate issues, and I respect your intelligence enough to assume that you're aware of this, and that you were simply making an intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit my opinion without actual substance.
Your analogies are quite obviously incompatible with my example. You're quite right in that I disagree with any metonymic reference spurring from geographic coincidence. It's an unnecessary layer of abstraction that does not serve any practical purpose.
However, I guess if you're that quick to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you're right and that everyone else is wrong, this is falling upon deaf ears.
We're working under the assumption that the article is properly written. Obscure metonymic references constitute poor journalism.
The critical mistake in your assertion is that you seem to not realise that metonymy extends beyond metonymic references to geographic locations.
A part of the government elected by the Japanese government. As long as the government represents the people, the actions of the government are the actions of the people. That's what democracy is.
So you're saying that you interpret criticism towards one implementation of metonymy as criticism of the concept as a whole? That sounds like you're actively making yourself an argument against metonymy by failing to discern between criticism of a single aspect and criticism against the concept as a whole.
The Japanese government is elected by the Japanese people. The only thing connecting the city of Tokyo to the Japanese government more than other Japanese cities is that a good portion of the central government is based there. The Japanese government has a loose affiliation to Tokyo by geological coincidence. The Japanese government is a product of, and governing body of the country of Japan.
So which of the two are more appropriate when referring to the actions of a government? A government represents the will of the people of a country, and represents the decision of a country as a whole. This isn't a unilateral decision by the government of Japan, or the city of Tokyo. It's the democratic decision by the entire country.
So you're saying that the government represents Tokyo, not all of Japan?
If this was a private company, the article would refer a "Japanese company" and its name, not the city in which the company is headquartered.
This is, however, the Japanese government, representing, you guessed it, Japan! The government is not entirely based in Tokyo, and no one but the government makes governmental decisions, so how on Earth is "Japan" too broad?
I was going to post exactly this comment.
Seriously, people, stop referring to countries and decision made by countries with the name of the capital city. You don't sound smart, you aren't clever, this isn't a bad movie.
Japan is making an aircraft. Not Tokyo. Shut up and go away.
I think it's more likely a case of:
if this isn't happening to you
YOU'RE BETTER THAN THIS AC AT TELLING PEOPLE TO PAY UP OR SHUT UP.
Being easily persuaded doesn't make you better than the rest of us. What do you think we're doing when you're fixing "my internet" that got "a virus"? We aren't twiddling thumbs.
Anglo-centric thinking on a site where the only common language is English? Oh my, what a horrible thing!
It's more a case of "since ninety-nine percent of the people using this website cannot read this, it has no merit here.", which seems perfectly sensible.
[blockquote]If your university did buy more bandwidth, I can assure you the quality of the students gaming experience didn't cross anyone's mind. It's not quite as simple as the network admin calling up the local ISP and going to the next tier.[/blockquote] That's what our customers typically do. Works fine.
You're going to have to spill the beans on how you manage to run S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in a resolution like that, and how you manage to do it on that kind of hardware.
With an 8800GTS/320, myself, and most all review sites, struggle to stay above 60FPS in 1024x768 at times with all the eyecandy on.