There is no reason to support this. It's creating a coalition of free marketers and environmentalists.
Since many have given the environmental case, let's quickly review the free market case against this. The government subsidizes ethanol. It still isn't cheap enough so they have to force people to buy it in increasing amounts. They create an oversupply and then the government has to force us to destroy our engines with it.
It's not rationality as that access to the Internet removes informational disadvantages for the consumer. Which is a good thing and has been happening with the Internet for a long time.
So when anything bad happens involving some private enterprise, someone on here usually has some stupid comment like "I thought the free market would make life perfect."
Well, let me be the one to offer a hypothesis: people are no good and there is no perfect system because of people. Or if we want to be sarcastic too "I thought government regulators were going to make life perfect."
At least with Comcast, I know customers have the option of upgrading to faster speed tiers. Things such as how fast the server you are trying to hit may limit the speeds you see. Or congestion on the network at peak times. All that should be in the fine print.
So if people aren't upgrading for faster speeds, maybe they have decided they don't need it. Sure if it was free they would take it, but they aren't willing to shill out extra for it.
Henry Kissinger actually worked out an agreement for peace for South Vietnam. The Congress pulled all support out from under the South Vietnamese and then thousands and thousands were slaughtered, the region plunged into darkness, and who knows how many were tortured and imprisoned.
Well, to be fair, if Wikileaks wants to play with the big boys and engage in espionage part of the game and taking it in stride and not complain should be far worse than a DOS attack.
One more thing. Currently in non-test markets, each channel gets its own allocation of bandwidth. Analog channels require more. Digital less.
So for SDV it would be (theoretically I'm not sure of the details) 3 allocated slots for 80 channels. Again, on the channels barely anyone watches based on analysis.
Switch Digital Video (SDV) is a cable industry standard which you can find documents detailing how it works. Its all on the back end.
I believe this is how it will work: -analysis goes into which channels get swapped in and out -for a given service group, if someone wants to go to channel X they just change the channel -on the back end some complicated stuff happens where they determine someone wants that channel and they dynamically allocate bandwidth for that channel and swap out some other channel no one is watching
Full disclosure: I worked in a Comcast department that helped to determine what future internet bandwidth requirement were going to be. They fired me for reasons I don't feel like getting into, I'll try to give an unbiased account of what I think their thinking is.
Honestly, Comcast is extremely frugal. This can be both good and bad. In 2008, Wall Street types were encouraging them to take on a lot more debt before the debt bubble popped.
They do a lot of things in order to free up bandwidth and to satisfy bandwidth demand. It's not like they are sitting on their butts and collecting money. But what they are not going to do is put fiber optics straight to your home, which would be the clearest way to expand the amount of bandwidth. That is extremely expensive and only Verizon is doing that. No other telco is doing that.
When they are converting analog channels to digital, they are doing that to free up bandwidth. They are trying to roll out Switch Digital Video in order to free up bandwidth (80 or so channels which barely anyone watches in a given service group will be swapped in and out when needed). They split off customers into different service groups to mitigate this as well. They are constantly monitoring this and a lot of hard work goes into this.
What I think is going on is not that they are worried about cable revenues going down (and I think they know that it is inevitable) but they are freaking out about an increase in web video eating up all their bandwidth. I can't be certain about this. But you have to also understand a corporation has several different parts. One part might not care about something while another part may view Netflix as an existential threat.
So while I would love to bash Comcast because I feel they screwed me over, I can't sit here and tell you that they aren't doing anything.
However, Verizon does have a superior product in my opinion which works better for reasons I could get into. But that basically comes down to the fact they don't have much legacy equipment on their system and they went with fiber-to-the-home instead of fiber-to-the-neighborhood.
You need to look at everything Microsoft does through the lens of trying to be a company that used to be a stock of a grown company. And wants growth again of course.
When I was working at a defense contractor, they would tell us in training about industrial espionage being a huge problem. And not just by other companies.
I would surmise that most American companies are blissfully unaware about the threat they face.
From what I know of it, it puts everything into memory and uses a cluster to distribute the load. It's more interesting my description, but people should really look up the product.
"The odd thing is that Apple clearly has shown they have the capacity for enterprise, but rarely the will to take it on."
Concentrating on certain sectors isn't odd. Doing a bunch of things, but not doing them well isn't a good thing. Lots of businesses do this.
But if memory serves, the reason they were in this business were to support creative types that needed this type of product for media production. It wasn't that they wanted to be in the enterprise sector. They wanted to be in the media creation sector, which especially before their current resurgence was their main area.
The Immaculate Conception is the Roman Catholic teaching that God kept Mary from having original sin and a sin nature from the beginning of her conception.
The Virgin Birth refers to the Christian belief (of all stripes) that Jesus was conceived while Mary was still a virgin.
The manipulations of the economy, the debt bubble, inflation, unemployment, etc., etc. has a lot to do with the Federal Reserve. Both successes and failures.
We can't really vote them in or out directly so maybe we like to think Congress and the President have more of an affect than they do.
One of the problems with converting to new technology is that people are still improving the old one. This always happens. That makes the adoption costs of the new way higher, relatively speaking.
Although, I'm pretty sure the cars I buy now are a lot less fuel efficient than the cars I was getting when I first started driving. My guess is either safety regulations are making cars heavier or people just prefer bigger cars. And I'm talking about cars in the same relative class.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason to support this. It's creating a coalition of free marketers and environmentalists.
Since many have given the environmental case, let's quickly review the free market case against this. The government subsidizes ethanol. It still isn't cheap enough so they have to force people to buy it in increasing amounts. They create an oversupply and then the government has to force us to destroy our engines with it.
No thank you.
It's not rationality as that access to the Internet removes informational disadvantages for the consumer. Which is a good thing and has been happening with the Internet for a long time.
Remember the year they made "you" the person of the year?
Yeah, don't forget to put that on your resume.
So when anything bad happens involving some private enterprise, someone on here usually has some stupid comment like "I thought the free market would make life perfect."
Well, let me be the one to offer a hypothesis: people are no good and there is no perfect system because of people. Or if we want to be sarcastic too "I thought government regulators were going to make life perfect."
At least with Comcast, I know customers have the option of upgrading to faster speed tiers. Things such as how fast the server you are trying to hit may limit the speeds you see. Or congestion on the network at peak times. All that should be in the fine print.
So if people aren't upgrading for faster speeds, maybe they have decided they don't need it. Sure if it was free they would take it, but they aren't willing to shill out extra for it.
Henry Kissinger actually worked out an agreement for peace for South Vietnam. The Congress pulled all support out from under the South Vietnamese and then thousands and thousands were slaughtered, the region plunged into darkness, and who knows how many were tortured and imprisoned.
Yay for simplistic peace activists!
Yes, by my calculations only -5% of the Slashdot community can do this.
Well, to be fair, if Wikileaks wants to play with the big boys and engage in espionage part of the game and taking it in stride and not complain should be far worse than a DOS attack.
One more thing. Currently in non-test markets, each channel gets its own allocation of bandwidth. Analog channels require more. Digital less.
So for SDV it would be (theoretically I'm not sure of the details) 3 allocated slots for 80 channels. Again, on the channels barely anyone watches based on analysis.
Excellent question.
Switch Digital Video (SDV) is a cable industry standard which you can find documents detailing how it works. Its all on the back end.
I believe this is how it will work:
-analysis goes into which channels get swapped in and out
-for a given service group, if someone wants to go to channel X they just change the channel
-on the back end some complicated stuff happens where they determine someone wants that channel and they dynamically allocate bandwidth for that channel and swap out some other channel no one is watching
Full disclosure: I worked in a Comcast department that helped to determine what future internet bandwidth requirement were going to be. They fired me for reasons I don't feel like getting into, I'll try to give an unbiased account of what I think their thinking is.
Honestly, Comcast is extremely frugal. This can be both good and bad. In 2008, Wall Street types were encouraging them to take on a lot more debt before the debt bubble popped.
They do a lot of things in order to free up bandwidth and to satisfy bandwidth demand. It's not like they are sitting on their butts and collecting money. But what they are not going to do is put fiber optics straight to your home, which would be the clearest way to expand the amount of bandwidth. That is extremely expensive and only Verizon is doing that. No other telco is doing that.
When they are converting analog channels to digital, they are doing that to free up bandwidth. They are trying to roll out Switch Digital Video in order to free up bandwidth (80 or so channels which barely anyone watches in a given service group will be swapped in and out when needed). They split off customers into different service groups to mitigate this as well. They are constantly monitoring this and a lot of hard work goes into this.
What I think is going on is not that they are worried about cable revenues going down (and I think they know that it is inevitable) but they are freaking out about an increase in web video eating up all their bandwidth. I can't be certain about this. But you have to also understand a corporation has several different parts. One part might not care about something while another part may view Netflix as an existential threat.
So while I would love to bash Comcast because I feel they screwed me over, I can't sit here and tell you that they aren't doing anything.
However, Verizon does have a superior product in my opinion which works better for reasons I could get into. But that basically comes down to the fact they don't have much legacy equipment on their system and they went with fiber-to-the-home instead of fiber-to-the-neighborhood.
To me at least, my iPhone is an iPod. I would put them under the same umbrella.
They ignored the de-dupe simulation Halliburton created.
I don't know, maybe they should call it something like "Kin."
They probably didn't have time to pay people millions of dollars to come up with a name.
You need to look at everything Microsoft does through the lens of trying to be a company that used to be a stock of a grown company. And wants growth again of course.
When I was working at a defense contractor, they would tell us in training about industrial espionage being a huge problem. And not just by other companies.
I would surmise that most American companies are blissfully unaware about the threat they face.
Seriously, I'm not sure I've seen any issue lately which has had such broad based political support.
http://voltdb.com/
This database project tries to eliminate a lot of the bottlenecks that cause poor scalability. Here is a talk Stonebreaker gave (requires registration): http://voltdb.com/content/mike-stonebraker-sql-urban-myths-webinar-recording
From what I know of it, it puts everything into memory and uses a cluster to distribute the load. It's more interesting my description, but people should really look up the product.
We have information that will put blame on BP. But in means giving credence to Halliburton. What is a diehard leftist to do?
Botnet developers are the biggest backers of Windows.
"The odd thing is that Apple clearly has shown they have the capacity for enterprise, but rarely the will to take it on."
Concentrating on certain sectors isn't odd. Doing a bunch of things, but not doing them well isn't a good thing. Lots of businesses do this.
But if memory serves, the reason they were in this business were to support creative types that needed this type of product for media production. It wasn't that they wanted to be in the enterprise sector. They wanted to be in the media creation sector, which especially before their current resurgence was their main area.
The Immaculate Conception is the Roman Catholic teaching that God kept Mary from having original sin and a sin nature from the beginning of her conception.
The Virgin Birth refers to the Christian belief (of all stripes) that Jesus was conceived while Mary was still a virgin.
Don't forget the unions. Especially the public sector ones.
The manipulations of the economy, the debt bubble, inflation, unemployment, etc., etc. has a lot to do with the Federal Reserve. Both successes and failures.
We can't really vote them in or out directly so maybe we like to think Congress and the President have more of an affect than they do.
One of the problems with converting to new technology is that people are still improving the old one. This always happens. That makes the adoption costs of the new way higher, relatively speaking.
Although, I'm pretty sure the cars I buy now are a lot less fuel efficient than the cars I was getting when I first started driving. My guess is either safety regulations are making cars heavier or people just prefer bigger cars. And I'm talking about cars in the same relative class.