The problem with the US and many other countries, is that politicians and movies stars became idols. And of course, they make lots of money. So while there's still a very good amount of people interrsted in science (and actually good at it)... A large part of the society is looking though on how to easily grab their piece of pie. I.e. I'll just work as cashier in McDonalds until I can sign up for the next reality shiw that would send me to the stars... In the mean time I'm going to be posting ridiculous youtube videos, as those seem to be the ones that people watch the most.
I want to believe that your comment is a joke nobody understood. You're claiming something of the level of a bullied kid in the school, who believes that the least he does, the less bullied he'll be.
If you don't vote, you're just agreeing to let everyone else pick for you. And unless you have a broken voting system (which may be perfectly the case), voting should be your option. If not, then you should VOTE anyway for someone the change the broken system. I don't see how "doing nothing" has helped anyone. ever.
there [sic] streaming media that has nowhere near enough titles!
The streaming doesn't have enough titles, and they expire with time. I have a couple movies on my instant queue claiming I won't be able to watch by the end of the month.
Did you notice you just compared adult people to teenagers, which are the actual people that go in line at 4am to get tickets to the next Justin Beaver concert?
I have an android, and works for me (and I got it for free). I'm sure there's tons of people that actually carefully review what they need, instead of going with the "wave". And while kids' happy meals are something with a large market (and tantrums included), there's actually other market of people that look through for an actual meal and not just the toy.
Your comment assumes complete lack of evolution and support. Back in the day, when I had a 75MHz Pentium processor, have I thought the same way, I'd have said that MP3 would have choppy playback because of software decoding. (In fact I couldn't have any applications open if I wanted to play music on my computer). Yet, I bought my first CD-MP3 player and it was just fine. The fact that you currently don't have the hardware doesn't mean you won't have it. Do you remember the time when TVs, DVD and BD players came with absolutely no applications such as Hulu or Netflix?
While your jump over the moon analogy seems interesting. I'll bring you a more down to earth approach:
How much money has been invested on a war on drugs around the earth? Yet, despite of being illegal, people get to buy drugs near their neighborhood. If money, weapons, intelligence, etc hasn't been able to stop drugs, why an ISP would be able to stop illegal content. They are not the police, they shouldn't be worrying about it and certainly, they shouldn't be devoting money to put band-aids over the issue.
Yes, that's interesting. On any conversation, as soon as I say I'm an electrical engineer, people are like "whoaaaah, that's tough". My sincere reply is most of the time that I think memorizing stuff, like people in botanicals or law, or acting on animals or human beens, like veterinarians or physicians, is harder. And in fact, I wouldn't like to go to any academic program where I have to read loooong books with no diagrams.
My main objection with QoS is that it helps to demote Net Neutrality. I mean, if you do it at home, why not prioritizing packets at ISP level and so on. TCP was designed to be fair among clients, using QoS means that the fairness is forced to another state (most likely that you'll be paying for).
A "hack" proposed and implemented long time ago are active queue management algorithms (AQM), but then again, many network managers don't use it or set it up on routers, because the "buzzword" is QoS, not Congestion Control (or bufferbloat).
Then again, while I'm all in for congestion control over QoS, QoS addresses a different problem, and protocols such as those used for P2P, abuse the fairness of TCP.
Very good translation. There are also mechanisms already for congestion control in TCP networks, from the routers (Random early Detection -RED, Weighted-RED -WRED, etc.) and support from the TCP clients to avoid packet dropping (Explicit Congestion Notification). However, there is not much use of those right now, as many Cisco users don't enable RED (as some claim it's not completely stable and I'd say it has it's problems, but it's the only algorithm actually implemented), and operating systems like Windows don't enable ECN support by default.
In 1992, Jain explained why more speed and more memory won't ease the need of better congestion control mechanisms for TCP. The problem becomes "who has the larger pipes" and the so called buffer bloating will start moving towards the guys with the smaller pipes (reason why, the author now claims it's highly noticeable on the customer side, where the bandwidth is limited by their subscription to the ISP)
As someone that has been working on this topic for quite sometime, I have to admit, it's the first time I hear this term. Perhaps he's trying to coin it. But the Wikipedia article about Random Early Detection may lead to better understanding (and references) to the problem of congestion control in TCP networks.
I must say, bufferbloat is a term I never heard of, so this is what I interpret from the text, but the jargon certainly needed to be explained a bit (although this topic is a sketchy road)
Perhaps, the wikipedia article about Random Early Detection, may help to understand the issue. RED (proposed by Floyd and Jacobson, the latter cited in the article posted) was proposed in 1983 to overcome this issue, along with Explicit Congestion Notification (a mechanism to mark packets instead of dropping them). ECN was implemented only until Windows Vista (and wasn't enabled by default), which made complicated to actually take advantage of such schemes.
Many mechanisms have been proposed (Even I'm proposing one), yet, the Internet Service providers have been throwing more hardware and the manufacturers have been working on increased speeds and memory rather than focus on the problem of TCP's congestion control mechanisms (which was set as a precedent problem in 1992 by Jain's paper: Myths about congestion in high speed networks), unluckily, well, nobody enables their WRED (Cisco's proprietary mechanism) or implement any other algorithm. And so, almost 30 years later, people is realizing that this may be an issue.
The seamless integration of Google applications with Android is unbeatable to me. I have Google voice (old Grand Central), and I don't have any advertisement, yet I use it for international calls due to competitive rates. Why do you think everything is search and advertising for them?
The fact the they became successful with those two and managed to provide user services for free, makes me think their strategy. If they had managed to get the 700 MHz spectrum, and started to offer free cellphones and data plans, with some advertisement, would you ever go with them?
The main problem with your mentality, is that you keep comparing Apple and Google, when Apple makes devices and Google provides services. Two very different things.
Which is really sad. I now that people keep sending just little modifications to papers to different conferences just to go around traveling, and of course since that makes lots of space on their CV, then it's also fine. Moreover, this is encouraged by advisers because, as you said, the number of publications makes deep impact in the grant application process.
But what it's more interesting, is that people is more, and more afraid of being scooped, so they try to send incomplete results (massaged of course), trying to spread the message "Yes, I was the firs one" and get a name, even though they know it doesn't work. I know a couple of research groups in Networking, that became quite famous for algorithms, that when carefully reviewed, well, they're never going to work. But they have convinced their peer reviewers how revolutionary their idea is, and presented some "selected" simulation results.
I think you can take it as you want. I know of many people working on algorithms to properly edge 22nm silicon, which is improvement in hardware (number of transistors) by software (keeping the same laser wavelength but applying the light in certain patterns). So to algorithms can also improve hardware size and speed.
I certainly read quite often about that. I had an old windows smartphone with no WPA support (I recently changed my phone so I was able to upgrade my security).
My point is, does that mean that if I get to crack the WPA security of my neighbors, I should just do whatever I want on their network, including illegal attacks and downloading illegal content, and well "Bad luck I manage to crack your security and screwup your life"?
I agree. Gas engine based cars have become really quiet. I used to play to determine the brand of a car near me, when walking anywhere by ear. I've been aware of the noise cars produce and some cars are so quiet that sound like hybrids if you don't pay careful attention.
I would assume that they would have to start imposing noise levels (on the low range) for gas cars too.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the US and many other countries, is that politicians and movies stars became idols. And of course, they make lots of money. So while there's still a very good amount of people interrsted in science (and actually good at it)... A large part of the society is looking though on how to easily grab their piece of pie. I.e. I'll just work as cashier in McDonalds until I can sign up for the next reality shiw that would send me to the stars... In the mean time I'm going to be posting ridiculous youtube videos, as those seem to be the ones that people watch the most.
I want to believe that your comment is a joke nobody understood. You're claiming something of the level of a bullied kid in the school, who believes that the least he does, the less bullied he'll be.
If you don't vote, you're just agreeing to let everyone else pick for you. And unless you have a broken voting system (which may be perfectly the case), voting should be your option. If not, then you should VOTE anyway for someone the change the broken system. I don't see how "doing nothing" has helped anyone. ever.
I'd keep some spare money to pay the people that keep the pigeons flying, aka Managers.
there [sic] streaming media that has nowhere near enough titles!
The streaming doesn't have enough titles, and they expire with time. I have a couple movies on my instant queue claiming I won't be able to watch by the end of the month.
Did you notice you just compared adult people to teenagers, which are the actual people that go in line at 4am to get tickets to the next Justin Beaver concert?
I have an android, and works for me (and I got it for free). I'm sure there's tons of people that actually carefully review what they need, instead of going with the "wave". And while kids' happy meals are something with a large market (and tantrums included), there's actually other market of people that look through for an actual meal and not just the toy.
Here's part of the problem.
Someone did it already and it's now pointing to the printed version suggested by the parent! You gotta love /.
Man, I'm with you! I'm also a responsible concerned parent!
Your comment assumes complete lack of evolution and support. Back in the day, when I had a 75MHz Pentium processor, have I thought the same way, I'd have said that MP3 would have choppy playback because of software decoding. (In fact I couldn't have any applications open if I wanted to play music on my computer). Yet, I bought my first CD-MP3 player and it was just fine. The fact that you currently don't have the hardware doesn't mean you won't have it. Do you remember the time when TVs, DVD and BD players came with absolutely no applications such as Hulu or Netflix?
While your jump over the moon analogy seems interesting. I'll bring you a more down to earth approach:
How much money has been invested on a war on drugs around the earth? Yet, despite of being illegal, people get to buy drugs near their neighborhood. If money, weapons, intelligence, etc hasn't been able to stop drugs, why an ISP would be able to stop illegal content. They are not the police, they shouldn't be worrying about it and certainly, they shouldn't be devoting money to put band-aids over the issue.
Yes, that's interesting. On any conversation, as soon as I say I'm an electrical engineer, people are like "whoaaaah, that's tough". My sincere reply is most of the time that I think memorizing stuff, like people in botanicals or law, or acting on animals or human beens, like veterinarians or physicians, is harder. And in fact, I wouldn't like to go to any academic program where I have to read loooong books with no diagrams.
My main objection with QoS is that it helps to demote Net Neutrality. I mean, if you do it at home, why not prioritizing packets at ISP level and so on. TCP was designed to be fair among clients, using QoS means that the fairness is forced to another state (most likely that you'll be paying for).
A "hack" proposed and implemented long time ago are active queue management algorithms (AQM), but then again, many network managers don't use it or set it up on routers, because the "buzzword" is QoS, not Congestion Control (or bufferbloat).
Then again, while I'm all in for congestion control over QoS, QoS addresses a different problem, and protocols such as those used for P2P, abuse the fairness of TCP.
Very good translation. There are also mechanisms already for congestion control in TCP networks, from the routers (Random early Detection -RED, Weighted-RED -WRED, etc.) and support from the TCP clients to avoid packet dropping (Explicit Congestion Notification). However, there is not much use of those right now, as many Cisco users don't enable RED (as some claim it's not completely stable and I'd say it has it's problems, but it's the only algorithm actually implemented), and operating systems like Windows don't enable ECN support by default.
In 1992, Jain explained why more speed and more memory won't ease the need of better congestion control mechanisms for TCP. The problem becomes "who has the larger pipes" and the so called buffer bloating will start moving towards the guys with the smaller pipes (reason why, the author now claims it's highly noticeable on the customer side, where the bandwidth is limited by their subscription to the ISP)
As someone that has been working on this topic for quite sometime, I have to admit, it's the first time I hear this term. Perhaps he's trying to coin it. But the Wikipedia article about Random Early Detection may lead to better understanding (and references) to the problem of congestion control in TCP networks.
I must say, bufferbloat is a term I never heard of, so this is what I interpret from the text, but the jargon certainly needed to be explained a bit (although this topic is a sketchy road)
Perhaps, the wikipedia article about Random Early Detection, may help to understand the issue. RED (proposed by Floyd and Jacobson, the latter cited in the article posted) was proposed in 1983 to overcome this issue, along with Explicit Congestion Notification (a mechanism to mark packets instead of dropping them). ECN was implemented only until Windows Vista (and wasn't enabled by default), which made complicated to actually take advantage of such schemes.
Many mechanisms have been proposed (Even I'm proposing one), yet, the Internet Service providers have been throwing more hardware and the manufacturers have been working on increased speeds and memory rather than focus on the problem of TCP's congestion control mechanisms (which was set as a precedent problem in 1992 by Jain's paper: Myths about congestion in high speed networks), unluckily, well, nobody enables their WRED (Cisco's proprietary mechanism) or implement any other algorithm. And so, almost 30 years later, people is realizing that this may be an issue.
The question is, would the TV networks and Hulu block them too?
The seamless integration of Google applications with Android is unbeatable to me. I have Google voice (old Grand Central), and I don't have any advertisement, yet I use it for international calls due to competitive rates. Why do you think everything is search and advertising for them?
The fact the they became successful with those two and managed to provide user services for free, makes me think their strategy. If they had managed to get the 700 MHz spectrum, and started to offer free cellphones and data plans, with some advertisement, would you ever go with them?
The main problem with your mentality, is that you keep comparing Apple and Google, when Apple makes devices and Google provides services. Two very different things.
Which is really sad. I now that people keep sending just little modifications to papers to different conferences just to go around traveling, and of course since that makes lots of space on their CV, then it's also fine. Moreover, this is encouraged by advisers because, as you said, the number of publications makes deep impact in the grant application process.
But what it's more interesting, is that people is more, and more afraid of being scooped, so they try to send incomplete results (massaged of course), trying to spread the message "Yes, I was the firs one" and get a name, even though they know it doesn't work. I know a couple of research groups in Networking, that became quite famous for algorithms, that when carefully reviewed, well, they're never going to work. But they have convinced their peer reviewers how revolutionary their idea is, and presented some "selected" simulation results.
Dude, iTunes on Windows should had give you a clue!
Samsung Captivate 2167 (135,1,1362)
I think you can take it as you want. I know of many people working on algorithms to properly edge 22nm silicon, which is improvement in hardware (number of transistors) by software (keeping the same laser wavelength but applying the light in certain patterns). So to algorithms can also improve hardware size and speed.
I certainly read quite often about that. I had an old windows smartphone with no WPA support (I recently changed my phone so I was able to upgrade my security).
My point is, does that mean that if I get to crack the WPA security of my neighbors, I should just do whatever I want on their network, including illegal attacks and downloading illegal content, and well "Bad luck I manage to crack your security and screwup your life"?
I agree. Gas engine based cars have become really quiet. I used to play to determine the brand of a car near me, when walking anywhere by ear. I've been aware of the noise cars produce and some cars are so quiet that sound like hybrids if you don't pay careful attention.
I would assume that they would have to start imposing noise levels (on the low range) for gas cars too.