Personally, I don't think we should declare a free for all on spectrum like King_TJ apparently does, but I would like to see more spectrum opened for unlicensed use much as the ISM band was. The rate of advance there has been startling the last few years. Adding space at 5GHz was good, but it might be interesting to allocate at least some space in a band with a better reach (still at a reasonably low power).
This should not come out of the ham bands, they've been compressed enough.
The 'imbalance' itself is a ludicrous notion when the peering is between source and destination (rather than mutual transit to 3rd parties).
There is perfect balance between Netflix and Comcast. For every byte Netflix provides to Comcast, there is a paying Comcast customer who requested it.
Balanced traffic in peering was originally a concern when the peering includes transit services. Say there are 4 networks, a-d connected up in a line. A-B-C-D. In that arrangement, B and C might agree to peering including transit. That is, C will send traffic bound for A through B and B will send traffic bound for D therogh C. They agree that as long as the traffic is more or less equal, they'll call it even.
Traffic from C bound for B's customer was already paid for by B's customer, so wasn't counted at all. Likewise traffic from B bound for C's customer.
Meanwhile, as far as I know, Comcast wasn't providing transit for Netflix and Netflix has no capability to provide transit for Comcast, so there was nothing to be imbalanced.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. I decided against VOIP from them since my neighbor got it and kept needing to use our phone to tell then it wasn't working again.
Actually, other than residential and business cable, it tends to be billed based on 95th percentile data rate (greater of outbound or inbound). That's because the rate is what drives the costs. Of course, they also have committed rates.
BTW, Comcast HAS implemented caps over and above the rate limit on the connection, so the customer DID already pay for those bytes.
You seem to be missing a LOT of information to have formed such a strong opinion.
Perhaps you should RTFA and not just the summary then. None of the people freaking out about cell towers have ever had a licensed medical doctor find microwave radiation in their blood and advise them to move away from the tower immediately.
That depends, have you seen a doctor and gotten your blood tested? What did they find and what was the most likely source of the harmful pollutants found?
Probably because the people who work there are away from it when they're off, but the people affected actually live there. And since it's a ranch, they may well work there as too.
That would depend on the blood test. If it shows levels of the offending compound in your blood that would be expected to cause that problem, sue the manufacturer. If it comes back with no detectable level or trace, consider a meditation class.
So they're surrounded by leaky wells venting known harmful VOCs into the air, and blood testing shows harmful concentrations in the plaintiffs and their symptoms are consistant with that exposure but since it's not absolutely impossible that a tsetse fly from Africa blew in on the jet stream and bit them, they should get nothing?
A perfectly reasonable position to take if they believe (as they appear to) that fracking can be done safely but that the defendand was negligent.
If someone rear-ended you in traffic, would you declare your hatred for all cars, roads, modes of travel? No? Would you still sue for damages? I'll bet you would.
Comcast doesn't do enterprise. Their business account is 100Mbps down and 20 up, a few static IPs. And yes, they use those magic words 'up to'.
As for VPN, probably not a dedicated box, but pretty much any server can support VPNs. I have used SSH on my phone with the socks proxy set up as an ad-hoc VPN.
The threat of junk traffic was likely just a debate tactic to shut Comcast up about 'unbalanced traffic'. I often use the same rhetoric when someone won't stop complaining about 'unbalanced traffic' along the lines of "well if that's the big problem, I can fix that right now". That would be because the people complaining about it generally are just trying to avoid the point that every byte of traffic was requested and paid for by their customers.
Comcast does not run two separate networks. Different routing inside their network couldn't be fixed by a fatter peering connection on the outside.
Note though that I have Comcast and none of the traceroutes I have done suggest that a business account is routed differently. It appears to be more a matter of what limits they give the modem and how they figure your monthly balance.
And as I said, 'peering' with someone who doesn't own a network is just bizarre to the point that calling it peering is a stretch.
Yes, and what of a chain and magnet providing potential energy? Still a siphon? It acts more or less like one.
I am simply arguing the other side of the coin. You argue that very specific liquids (not just uncommon to non-chemists, uncommon in conditions on earth's surface) can be siphoned without atmospheric pressure and gravity drives the thing (at least I presume you argue that). I argue that that with atmospheric pressure you get a much more generally usable siphon.
If we're going to accept the corner cases, might as well accept the steel chain with a magnet for potential energy as a siphon and then gravity cannot be claimed as driving force either.
However, it should be noted that even ionic liquids may have a non-zero vapor pressure and still need an atmospheric pressure above that to work. It's just that that pressure is typically considered a hard vacuum. (one extreme case deserves another:-)
It's sort of like the case of a light bulb. You may argue that a break in the circuit means the light goes out. That is so frequently true that you will get little argument. I might argue that if the wires are long enough and the frequency of the power source is high enough it will stay lit so you are wrong. My argument is technically correct, but it has to be acknowledged to be an extreme corner case and largely irrelevant.
TFA demonstrated that when atmospheric pressure fell too low, the siphon stopped working. When it was increased again, it re-started. At no point was the atmospheric pressure below the vapor pressure of the liquid (though that condition did exist inside the tube at some points).
In the video, they produced a fairly exotic liquid that substitutes weak ionic bonds for atmospheric pressure. If that's fair game, so is a magnetic liquid in free fall proving that siphons operate on magnetism. Or for that matter, a steel chain.
But most liquids do need atmospheric pressure over and above their vapor pressure.
The home connection (with the slowdown) and the office connection (without) hung off of the same router deep inside Comcast's network. Meanwhile, a peering happens way on the other side of the operation.
Pulling that stream from a vpn to the office back through that same router again meant that the well performing stream required double the resources than the direct stream, yet performed better because it evaded a deliberately configured slowdown for residential customers (by using a business connection and an encrypted stream whose nature couldn't be detected).
When I was in high school, they had machines that presented text one line at a time at a set speed. The idea is that we were to gradually speed it up to force us to read faster. There would be a brief comprehension test after which was more of a short term retention test.
Then there was reading texts normally (free reading) and seeing how fast you were reading without the machine.
The result of that was that I could read much faster than natural if I pressed it and my natural speed improved by about 10%. I find that I rarely care to press it as it gives me little time to think about what I'm reading and so poor long term retention so it's good mostly when I need to do more than skim but just need to find a bit of information for immediate use.
Of course, the far more useful 10% increase in natural rate doesn't make as big a bullet point.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I don't think we should declare a free for all on spectrum like King_TJ apparently does, but I would like to see more spectrum opened for unlicensed use much as the ISM band was. The rate of advance there has been startling the last few years. Adding space at 5GHz was good, but it might be interesting to allocate at least some space in a band with a better reach (still at a reasonably low power).
This should not come out of the ham bands, they've been compressed enough.
The 'imbalance' itself is a ludicrous notion when the peering is between source and destination (rather than mutual transit to 3rd parties).
There is perfect balance between Netflix and Comcast. For every byte Netflix provides to Comcast, there is a paying Comcast customer who requested it.
Balanced traffic in peering was originally a concern when the peering includes transit services. Say there are 4 networks, a-d connected up in a line. A-B-C-D. In that arrangement, B and C might agree to peering including transit. That is, C will send traffic bound for A through B and B will send traffic bound for D therogh C. They agree that as long as the traffic is more or less equal, they'll call it even.
Traffic from C bound for B's customer was already paid for by B's customer, so wasn't counted at all. Likewise traffic from B bound for C's customer.
Meanwhile, as far as I know, Comcast wasn't providing transit for Netflix and Netflix has no capability to provide transit for Comcast, so there was nothing to be imbalanced.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. I decided against VOIP from them since my neighbor got it and kept needing to use our phone to tell then it wasn't working again.
Yeah, fast internet pretty well eliminated their reason to be. I have a few CDs from them on my shelf. I keep them around as a curiosity.
Actually, other than residential and business cable, it tends to be billed based on 95th percentile data rate (greater of outbound or inbound). That's because the rate is what drives the costs. Of course, they also have committed rates.
BTW, Comcast HAS implemented caps over and above the rate limit on the connection, so the customer DID already pay for those bytes.
You seem to be missing a LOT of information to have formed such a strong opinion.
Perhaps you should RTFA and not just the summary then. None of the people freaking out about cell towers have ever had a licensed medical doctor find microwave radiation in their blood and advise them to move away from the tower immediately.
That depends, have you seen a doctor and gotten your blood tested? What did they find and what was the most likely source of the harmful pollutants found?
Probably because the people who work there are away from it when they're off, but the people affected actually live there. And since it's a ranch, they may well work there as too.
That would depend on the blood test. If it shows levels of the offending compound in your blood that would be expected to cause that problem, sue the manufacturer. If it comes back with no detectable level or trace, consider a meditation class.
So they're surrounded by leaky wells venting known harmful VOCs into the air, and blood testing shows harmful concentrations in the plaintiffs and their symptoms are consistant with that exposure but since it's not absolutely impossible that a tsetse fly from Africa blew in on the jet stream and bit them, they should get nothing?
A tiger? In AFRICA??!
See: tort reform
You sir appear to be a fracking idiot.
A perfectly reasonable position to take if they believe (as they appear to) that fracking can be done safely but that the defendand was negligent.
If someone rear-ended you in traffic, would you declare your hatred for all cars, roads, modes of travel? No? Would you still sue for damages? I'll bet you would.
It looks like they just went poof. Their domain is still registered but DNS seems to be down.
The BBB says they are believed to be shut down.
Comcast doesn't do enterprise. Their business account is 100Mbps down and 20 up, a few static IPs. And yes, they use those magic words 'up to'.
As for VPN, probably not a dedicated box, but pretty much any server can support VPNs. I have used SSH on my phone with the socks proxy set up as an ad-hoc VPN.
The threat of junk traffic was likely just a debate tactic to shut Comcast up about 'unbalanced traffic'. I often use the same rhetoric when someone won't stop complaining about 'unbalanced traffic' along the lines of "well if that's the big problem, I can fix that right now". That would be because the people complaining about it generally are just trying to avoid the point that every byte of traffic was requested and paid for by their customers.
It's in the framing. How many would support it if told they could be sued for millions if their kid (or the neighbor's kid) downloads a few movies?
I am trying to generalize the definition of a siphon and see where we stop calling it a siphon. Since you don't seem interested, I'll stop.
Comcast does not run two separate networks. Different routing inside their network couldn't be fixed by a fatter peering connection on the outside.
Note though that I have Comcast and none of the traceroutes I have done suggest that a business account is routed differently. It appears to be more a matter of what limits they give the modem and how they figure your monthly balance.
And as I said, 'peering' with someone who doesn't own a network is just bizarre to the point that calling it peering is a stretch.
Yes, and what of a chain and magnet providing potential energy? Still a siphon? It acts more or less like one.
I am simply arguing the other side of the coin. You argue that very specific liquids (not just uncommon to non-chemists, uncommon in conditions on earth's surface) can be siphoned without atmospheric pressure and gravity drives the thing (at least I presume you argue that). I argue that that with atmospheric pressure you get a much more generally usable siphon.
If we're going to accept the corner cases, might as well accept the steel chain with a magnet for potential energy as a siphon and then gravity cannot be claimed as driving force either.
However, it should be noted that even ionic liquids may have a non-zero vapor pressure and still need an atmospheric pressure above that to work. It's just that that pressure is typically considered a hard vacuum. (one extreme case deserves another :-)
It's sort of like the case of a light bulb. You may argue that a break in the circuit means the light goes out. That is so frequently true that you will get little argument. I might argue that if the wires are long enough and the frequency of the power source is high enough it will stay lit so you are wrong. My argument is technically correct, but it has to be acknowledged to be an extreme corner case and largely irrelevant.
Google "Comcast throttling Netflix". It was all over the net recently, including right here on /.
TFA demonstrated that when atmospheric pressure fell too low, the siphon stopped working. When it was increased again, it re-started. At no point was the atmospheric pressure below the vapor pressure of the liquid (though that condition did exist inside the tube at some points).
In the video, they produced a fairly exotic liquid that substitutes weak ionic bonds for atmospheric pressure. If that's fair game, so is a magnetic liquid in free fall proving that siphons operate on magnetism. Or for that matter, a steel chain.
But most liquids do need atmospheric pressure over and above their vapor pressure.
If it was only a couple meg, you were missing most of the distro. No wonder you thought it was a POS.
The home connection (with the slowdown) and the office connection (without) hung off of the same router deep inside Comcast's network. Meanwhile, a peering happens way on the other side of the operation.
Pulling that stream from a vpn to the office back through that same router again meant that the well performing stream required double the resources than the direct stream, yet performed better because it evaded a deliberately configured slowdown for residential customers (by using a business connection and an encrypted stream whose nature couldn't be detected).
Actually, I prefer to slow down when reading good fiction. It provides for a more detailed imagination of the scene.
When I was in high school, they had machines that presented text one line at a time at a set speed. The idea is that we were to gradually speed it up to force us to read faster. There would be a brief comprehension test after which was more of a short term retention test.
Then there was reading texts normally (free reading) and seeing how fast you were reading without the machine.
The result of that was that I could read much faster than natural if I pressed it and my natural speed improved by about 10%. I find that I rarely care to press it as it gives me little time to think about what I'm reading and so poor long term retention so it's good mostly when I need to do more than skim but just need to find a bit of information for immediate use.
Of course, the far more useful 10% increase in natural rate doesn't make as big a bullet point.