We also have to distinguish raw capability from ability. Perhaps if parents spent as much time showing baby scratch and sniff books and saying "What is THAT smell?" as they do with picture books, we might do better. Of course, we also confound our sense of smell on a regular basis. The products that aren't actively scented often have compounds meant to damp down the sense of smell as a cover-up (sometimes they have both). Practically nothing we learn encourages us (or instructs us) to use our sense of smell.
When is the last time you got directions that said when you smell the gardenias, turn left?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the human sense of smell turns out to be much better than we think given practice. All the same, I WOULD be surprised if it was actually as good as a dog's.
Why would the customer need to know how to flag packets with QOS, the app or device would do that. And I was referring to WANs in my last post. More specifically, a few LANs interconnected.
The world has changed a bit since the days when a T1 was big bandwidth.
This has everything to do with price gouging since it is a major part of the way ISPs sweep inadequacies under the rug and make themselves appear to be better than they actually are (for example, if you do a consumer lever speed test). Or alternatively, make other competing streaming or VOIP solutions look worse. Even if we do get significant competition going, it'll be useless if customers can't compare apples to apples.
So a consumer VOIP app or device should by all means set the appropriate QOS flags and the ISP equipment should honor the settings. But in practice, if the ISP is actually providing adequate bandwidth and maintaining the equipment, there won't be dropped packets. If Netflix needs/wants specific flags to make their streaming work best, they can set them.
The ISP should be a dumb pipe.
In practice, I have never had any problem at all with VOIP, streaming, or anything else on a well provisioned network ignoring all QOS flags and doing no packet inspection.
Perhaps more to the point, employers aren't willing to pay for the planning stage. It's even worse for contract programming where they want a time table and a firm price before they've even hired you. There's no way that what should be 50 to 90 percent of the total project is going to be done for free up front and not get corners cut. If you add in enough fudge factor to get the planning in after signing, someone will inevitably undercut your bid and do a crap job of planning.
Citation needed. Networks need adequate bandwidth. As long as the upstream is sufficient to supply the customers, the ISPs job is done. Each individual customer may wish to apply QOS to their own data but since that would be customer controlled it's not a neutrality issue.
It's down to intent and all the vagaries that entails. If the intent was to communicate an opinion, then it is not a denial of service attack, it is simply a site unable to handle the legitimate load. If the intent is to keep others from commenting, it is exactly a denial of service attack.
If it is due to a bot masquerading as individuals, then it is fraud.
John Oliver laid out the argument and then pointed his viewers to a site where they could comment as they wish. That is substantially different from targeting the system with a bot. The former is the system being used as intended but with unanticipated interest, the latter is abuse of the system.
It hardly matters. The first pass at the comments sorts them into categories. Yes and no comments sort easily and can then just be considered by count. "John Oliver sent me here" can be taken as a yes to NN.
The more in depth comments can be counted as well, but also read and summarized. Particularly insightful comments can be passed up the chain as is.
No, it isn't. Especially on the web where it is well known that screen sizes vary and many browsers are in use.
But even print publishers have no right to demand specific lighting, lack of tinted glasses, or even that I not cut the ads out before I read it. I can even black out teeth and add horns to people in the pictures if that amuses me.
The employers aren't currently held responsible either.
The problem is that the developers have no power over management to make them do the right thing. Unless and until they do, it isn't reasonable to hold them responsible. They can't make their employer do QA tests, they can't make the employer push the schedule back, and they can't prevent the premature release of a product.
The particular choice of words suggests that it isn't so much the fact that the act would be homosexual but that the act would be submissive and unreciprocated.
Towers can get knocked down, it depends on the tower and the weather. You can't evacuate for a tornado, for example, but that can certainly take out a cell tower. I've seen cell towers take themselves out due to a battery failure.
Avoiding thought of ethics doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Why not rob a liquor store while avoiding all thoughts of law, morals, or ethics and see what a judge thinks of that?
In this case, Facebook plus the advertisers are using the same techniques as a typical child sex offender, just a different sense of fucking.
The whole point of advertising is to deliver ads that will convince the recipient (for better or worse) to hand over money.
One time honored technique among the sleezier advertisers is to attack the ego. Convince the person they are somehow defective and failing, then throw them a 'lifeline' that promises to make them somehow socially acceptable. These are the ones who need to find people who feel insecure.
You're confused. If peering involves payment, there certainly is double dipping. Lets say there are 2 providers A and B. I am a customer of A and the server I want to talk to is a customer of B. If the server is sending me a packet, B should not need to pay A to deliver it to me because I have already paid A to deliver that packet. Likewise, A should not pay B because the server's owner has already paid B. Transit would be a 3ed company C that is contracted by A and B to carry traffic between them.
A and B choose to peer in order to shorten the path between me and the server, relieving congestion on their own internal networks. Also so that they don't have to pay C,D, or E to carry the traffic.
The crazy situation with voice communication where companies constantly nickel and dime each other to death creates a huge overhead. So much that it is actually cheaper to implement Voice over Ip over voice lines than it is to just use the voice lines directly, because it avoids the overhead of trading the same nickel back and forth dozens of times.
Blame the scumbags in telecomm. We have already seen examples of implementing slow lanes by slowing everything down and then adding "fast lanes" that are simply what existed before the throttling. Kinda like in cartoons where someone "volunteers" when everyone else takes a step back.
Likewise there's sharply limiting a peering point, then trying to double dip by charging a fee to someone who isn't even your customer to remove the otherwise unneeded bandwidth limiter.
Btw, the peering crisis in the late '90s was due to more attempts to double dip on the business side rather than a technical problem.
However, there is the ctype module for python that will let it actually work with that, though it might be a bit clunky compared to just doing it in C.
You seem like one of those people who for some unfathomable reason enjoys the idea of other people getting the shaft just for the sake of it. Really nice, that.
Fear not, it was only an example, not my actual situation, so you'll need to find your jollies elsewhere.
But note, that it's not uncommon for employers to do that sort of thing even when employees aren't actually on-call and where there isn't even a provision to be on-call in the employment contract. Unsurprisingly, employees who get treated to that tend to decide it works both ways. Also unsurprisingly, employers complain bitterly about it and conveniently forget that they started it.
Slashdot Mirror
We also have to distinguish raw capability from ability. Perhaps if parents spent as much time showing baby scratch and sniff books and saying "What is THAT smell?" as they do with picture books, we might do better. Of course, we also confound our sense of smell on a regular basis. The products that aren't actively scented often have compounds meant to damp down the sense of smell as a cover-up (sometimes they have both). Practically nothing we learn encourages us (or instructs us) to use our sense of smell.
When is the last time you got directions that said when you smell the gardenias, turn left?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the human sense of smell turns out to be much better than we think given practice. All the same, I WOULD be surprised if it was actually as good as a dog's.
Why would the customer need to know how to flag packets with QOS, the app or device would do that. And I was referring to WANs in my last post. More specifically, a few LANs interconnected.
The world has changed a bit since the days when a T1 was big bandwidth.
This has everything to do with price gouging since it is a major part of the way ISPs sweep inadequacies under the rug and make themselves appear to be better than they actually are (for example, if you do a consumer lever speed test). Or alternatively, make other competing streaming or VOIP solutions look worse. Even if we do get significant competition going, it'll be useless if customers can't compare apples to apples.
Actually it's because my daddy isn't rich enough.
It's easy to get a run when you're born on 3rd base.
So a consumer VOIP app or device should by all means set the appropriate QOS flags and the ISP equipment should honor the settings. But in practice, if the ISP is actually providing adequate bandwidth and maintaining the equipment, there won't be dropped packets. If Netflix needs/wants specific flags to make their streaming work best, they can set them.
The ISP should be a dumb pipe.
In practice, I have never had any problem at all with VOIP, streaming, or anything else on a well provisioned network ignoring all QOS flags and doing no packet inspection.
Perhaps more to the point, employers aren't willing to pay for the planning stage. It's even worse for contract programming where they want a time table and a firm price before they've even hired you. There's no way that what should be 50 to 90 percent of the total project is going to be done for free up front and not get corners cut. If you add in enough fudge factor to get the planning in after signing, someone will inevitably undercut your bid and do a crap job of planning.
Networks need different QOS for different traffic
Citation needed. Networks need adequate bandwidth. As long as the upstream is sufficient to supply the customers, the ISPs job is done. Each individual customer may wish to apply QOS to their own data but since that would be customer controlled it's not a neutrality issue.
It's down to intent and all the vagaries that entails. If the intent was to communicate an opinion, then it is not a denial of service attack, it is simply a site unable to handle the legitimate load. If the intent is to keep others from commenting, it is exactly a denial of service attack.
If it is due to a bot masquerading as individuals, then it is fraud.
John Oliver laid out the argument and then pointed his viewers to a site where they could comment as they wish. That is substantially different from targeting the system with a bot. The former is the system being used as intended but with unanticipated interest, the latter is abuse of the system.
It hardly matters. The first pass at the comments sorts them into categories. Yes and no comments sort easily and can then just be considered by count. "John Oliver sent me here" can be taken as a yes to NN.
The more in depth comments can be counted as well, but also read and summarized. Particularly insightful comments can be passed up the chain as is.
OTOH, the Ds sandbagging Sanders to coronate Clinton may have cost them the presidency.
The FCC is part of the executive branch, so yes, they answer to Trump.
No, it isn't. Especially on the web where it is well known that screen sizes vary and many browsers are in use.
But even print publishers have no right to demand specific lighting, lack of tinted glasses, or even that I not cut the ads out before I read it. I can even black out teeth and add horns to people in the pictures if that amuses me.
The employers aren't currently held responsible either.
The problem is that the developers have no power over management to make them do the right thing. Unless and until they do, it isn't reasonable to hold them responsible. They can't make their employer do QA tests, they can't make the employer push the schedule back, and they can't prevent the premature release of a product.
You should get better lawyers. The ones you have apparently can't read a simple license for comprehension.
The particular choice of words suggests that it isn't so much the fact that the act would be homosexual but that the act would be submissive and unreciprocated.
It is guaranteed that those consequences won't include sanction from the government.
Towers can get knocked down, it depends on the tower and the weather. You can't evacuate for a tornado, for example, but that can certainly take out a cell tower. I've seen cell towers take themselves out due to a battery failure.
That depends on the area. In many places, cell towers have as little as 24 hours of backup power. Most COs for POTS lines have a week or more.
The actual copper is often buried where it won't be blown down by storms, unlike a tower.
Was that a form letter? It sure seemed like it since it addressed none of the issues at hand and contained only your own chest thumping.
Avoiding thought of ethics doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Why not rob a liquor store while avoiding all thoughts of law, morals, or ethics and see what a judge thinks of that?
Because pimping children is bad!
In this case, Facebook plus the advertisers are using the same techniques as a typical child sex offender, just a different sense of fucking.
The whole point of advertising is to deliver ads that will convince the recipient (for better or worse) to hand over money.
One time honored technique among the sleezier advertisers is to attack the ego. Convince the person they are somehow defective and failing, then throw them a 'lifeline' that promises to make them somehow socially acceptable. These are the ones who need to find people who feel insecure.
You're confused. If peering involves payment, there certainly is double dipping. Lets say there are 2 providers A and B. I am a customer of A and the server I want to talk to is a customer of B. If the server is sending me a packet, B should not need to pay A to deliver it to me because I have already paid A to deliver that packet. Likewise, A should not pay B because the server's owner has already paid B. Transit would be a 3ed company C that is contracted by A and B to carry traffic between them.
A and B choose to peer in order to shorten the path between me and the server, relieving congestion on their own internal networks. Also so that they don't have to pay C,D, or E to carry the traffic.
The crazy situation with voice communication where companies constantly nickel and dime each other to death creates a huge overhead. So much that it is actually cheaper to implement Voice over Ip over voice lines than it is to just use the voice lines directly, because it avoids the overhead of trading the same nickel back and forth dozens of times.
Blame the scumbags in telecomm. We have already seen examples of implementing slow lanes by slowing everything down and then adding "fast lanes" that are simply what existed before the throttling. Kinda like in cartoons where someone "volunteers" when everyone else takes a step back.
Likewise there's sharply limiting a peering point, then trying to double dip by charging a fee to someone who isn't even your customer to remove the otherwise unneeded bandwidth limiter.
Btw, the peering crisis in the late '90s was due to more attempts to double dip on the business side rather than a technical problem.
Memory mapped I/O is still a thing.
However, there is the ctype module for python that will let it actually work with that, though it might be a bit clunky compared to just doing it in C.
You seem like one of those people who for some unfathomable reason enjoys the idea of other people getting the shaft just for the sake of it. Really nice, that.
Fear not, it was only an example, not my actual situation, so you'll need to find your jollies elsewhere.
But note, that it's not uncommon for employers to do that sort of thing even when employees aren't actually on-call and where there isn't even a provision to be on-call in the employment contract. Unsurprisingly, employees who get treated to that tend to decide it works both ways. Also unsurprisingly, employers complain bitterly about it and conveniently forget that they started it.