Depends on the program; on every platform, programs all have their own quirks. For instance, some programs on linux store their config in ~/.program, some in/etc/program, some in/usr/local/program/conf, etc etc etc.
The fairness argument is that there are people in line to legally enter the country, and because of some stupid emotional appeal we're giving them the middle finger and granting amnesty to people who started their career in the US by breaking immigration law.
Lets see here... These results are from a June 10-11 Gallup poll. Although the current survey context was different, these results are similar to those obtained in a May 2006 Gallup poll measuring support for a government program that "obtained records from three of the largest U.S. telephone companies in order to create a database of billions of telephone numbers dialed by Americans." In that survey, 43% approved and 51% disapproved.
There are significant partisan differences in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve. -- Gallup
The hillarity of it is he is accusing Republicans of being blind to fact, when the actual polls behind this show Republicans to be more against the spying than Democrats. And a number of people are jumping on the bandwagon!
What would be really, really nice is if people would stop regurgitating stupid soundbytes from partisan sources, and actually do some research on their own. They might find that people of the opposite party ARENT freedom hating idiots, and that the media generally tries to stir up as much drama as it possibly can. Way to play into it, dude.
It gets better; when they asked whether people approved of Snowden's leak, 49% of Republicans thought it was right, vs 39% of Democrats. And really, this fits in line with the traditional Republican fear of large, expansive government
Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fact their official party stance?
Seriously, are you that blind that you form your opinions based on internet echo chambers rather actual fact?
These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.
Thats actually not true at all (democrats actually approve of the NSA spying more than republicans), but at least you were able to continue the fine slashdot tradition of baseless, unsubstantiated strawmen.
I was going to congratulate everyone for managing to discuss a partisan issue without using words such as "sheeple", "rethuglican", "dumbocrat", or using strawmen, but I guess I was overly optimistic.
Money matters because it allows the expression of political opinion, and people use expressions of political opinion to shape their own opinion.
Clearly the solution to this problem is to have a government-approved expression of opinion that is permissible on the airwaves, and government-approved votes that citizens can cast.
Is it remotely possible that the people voting those politicians in arent as dumb as everyone wants to make them, that they are entitled to their own opinions, and that their opinion is reflected in their vote?
Naaaah cant be, we need to restrict the first amendment because we dont like the impact that political opinion has on voting. (I sort of thought that was half the point of the first amendment, but whatever...)
That "driver manager" was added somewhere between versions 6.10 and 7.10. It not only installs the nVidia driver, it handles re-installing it every time you upgrade kernels (though, to be fair, it did still occasionally break).
Really, all OSs are guilty of it to some extent: MS "hides" tons of stuff in the registry,
I always find it hillarious when the registry is brought up, but somehow noone wants to discuss gconf or the.gconf folder with all of its bizarre files.
Ubuntu has had its own method of dealing with nVidia drivers for about 7 years now. If you really want to go with the official nVidia driver (rather than the ubuntu-provided package which, IIRC, automatically handles kernel upgrades), all you have to do is cd to where you stuck the nVidia bin installer, and "sudo./run" it. But really, if you're manually going outside of the package management system, you should learn how it works rather than complaining that you got burned,
Not to mention that the "dumped to console" was ALSO fixed many, many years ago (8.04?) as part of their bulletproof-X initiative.
Dragos Ruiu's findings from last year were never able to be reproduced by an outsider, and were highly suspect. Sometimes you can be a brilliant security guy, and also a delusional paranoid-- and I think the general consensus was that in that scenario, Dragos was being delusionally paranoid.
The idea that various laptop speakers (all of varying and generally poor quality) will be able to reliably form a wireless network is really far-fetched, no matter how you cut it. Every laptop's mic is different, the speakers are all in different locations, some mics are gonna be off, the acoustics of the room are unknown....
To be blunt, you dont know what you are talking about.
Video traffic isnt generally like voice, and doesnt need to be prioritized. It is NOT latency sensitive; it can be buffered. It would be classified as "bulk", unless it were part of a teleconference (in which case it would share several of the below characteristics, like being UDP).
Voice traffic can come from any number of sources; whether it is Skype, or GoToMeeting, or WebEx, or a privately run Jabber server, it will share a number of characteristics:
* The traffic needs to arrive quickly, and reliably, or not at all. If a voice packet takes longer than ~100ms to arrive, it might as well be dropped and just cause a slight blip.
* It will almost always be UDP, because TCP is only useful for re-transmits; a missing packet in a webpage means the page doesnt render, whereas a missing packet in voice just causes a minor blip.
* Latency will kill a connection. 500ms of additional latency means each side will perceive a 1 second delay in responses. That is completely unworkable, and means that theres a pretty hard cap on the amount of latency that is allowable. Bulk traffic does not have this problem; a 0.5 second delay just means a 0.5 second delay.
QoS is about types of traffic that cannot fulfill their function if they are not reliably delivered; it is generally used for protocols that require fast response times. It also generally will have no perceivable impact on "everyone else".
Anecdotally, ~6 of the top 10 richest congressfolks are democrats. But surely thats an anomaly, right? Whats Bill Gate's, Warren Buffet's, and Larry Page's political affiliation?
Democrat you say?!?! Wow its almost like the media spins the heck out of reality; one begins to suspect that the top 1% ARENT overwhelmingly republican.
It pisses me off that an issue like abortion is boiled down to what side of the aisle you're on. One of the big problems we have is how big issues get sidetracked by stupid irrelevancies.
This is an issue of life and death, not an issue of what color your state is, and all the strawmen in the world wont change that.
QoS does not do very much on a home router. It only kicks in when you have a lot of stuff (ISP level) really hammering your equipment, which is why its most useful for ISPs.
I dont know what your specialty is but it sounds like it is not networking. You're going to have to accept (from a networking guy) that Net Neutrality is not nearly the same thing as QoS. QoS has very little avenue for abuse, is highly useful, and has basically no downsides (as long as it is properly set up). It also pretty much has to be done by the ISP to be of any real use at all-- the chances that your router's CPU is going to get overwhelmed to the point of dropping traffic is basically non-existent, considering its rated for ~100mbit/s on each interface and you are given under 50mbit/s by your ISP.
You really need to stop conflating the issue, because if anything sinks Net Neutrality its gonna be people pushing for the abolition of QoS at the same time because they simply dont understand the difference.
This is a good thing, and not relevant to Net Neutrality. You want voice (regardless of source-- the crux of net neutrality) to be prioritized, because it is sensitive to latency.
Sure you can. QoS based on type is a layer 4-7 thing; RSTP, UDP, VoIP are all prioritized (regardless of whether its Skype or Jabber or Google Hangouts or Joe's Voice Chat), while HTTP, FTP, and Bittorrent are all deprioritized (regardless of whether its Google, or MSN, or AOL, or Bill's Internet ISO archive).
Sure, but they don't have 3 second latency now and they won't have it ever if the ISPs invest the necessary amount of money in infrastructure. Japan and Korea ISPs do...
This is about not being wasteful with the infrastructure, no matter what it is. EVeryone recognizes that HTTP / FTP / Bittorrent are "bulk" traffic, and that whether it is delayed by 0.3 seconds or not has no practical impact on the user; interactive streams however like VoIP will notice a 0.3 second latency (doubled to 1/2 second conversational delays due to roundtrip) and can have a massive impact.
The problem with QoS isnt QoS, its when you try to apply it to the provider rather than just based on the traffic type.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the program; on every platform, programs all have their own quirks. For instance, some programs on linux store their config in ~/.program, some in /etc/program, some in /usr/local/program/conf, etc etc etc.
The fairness argument is that there are people in line to legally enter the country, and because of some stupid emotional appeal we're giving them the middle finger and granting amnesty to people who started their career in the US by breaking immigration law.
Lets see here...
These results are from a June 10-11 Gallup poll. Although the current survey context was different, these results are similar to those obtained in a May 2006 Gallup poll measuring support for a government program that "obtained records from three of the largest U.S. telephone companies in order to create a database of billions of telephone numbers dialed by Americans." In that survey, 43% approved and 51% disapproved.
There are significant partisan differences in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve.
-- Gallup
Foot, meet mouth.
The hillarity of it is he is accusing Republicans of being blind to fact, when the actual polls behind this show Republicans to be more against the spying than Democrats. And a number of people are jumping on the bandwagon!
What would be really, really nice is if people would stop regurgitating stupid soundbytes from partisan sources, and actually do some research on their own. They might find that people of the opposite party ARENT freedom hating idiots, and that the media generally tries to stir up as much drama as it possibly can. Way to play into it, dude.
Is your experienced backed by a Gallup poll?
To pull some statistics out of it....
Approve.... Disapprove: .... 63% .... 40%
R- 32%
D- 49%
Avg- 37%...53%
It gets better; when they asked whether people approved of Snowden's leak, 49% of Republicans thought it was right, vs 39% of Democrats. And really, this fits in line with the traditional Republican fear of large, expansive government
Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fact their official party stance?
Seriously, are you that blind that you form your opinions based on internet echo chambers rather actual fact?
These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.
Thats actually not true at all (democrats actually approve of the NSA spying more than republicans), but at least you were able to continue the fine slashdot tradition of baseless, unsubstantiated strawmen.
I was going to congratulate everyone for managing to discuss a partisan issue without using words such as "sheeple", "rethuglican", "dumbocrat", or using strawmen, but I guess I was overly optimistic.
Money matters because it allows the expression of political opinion, and people use expressions of political opinion to shape their own opinion.
Clearly the solution to this problem is to have a government-approved expression of opinion that is permissible on the airwaves, and government-approved votes that citizens can cast.
Is it remotely possible that the people voting those politicians in arent as dumb as everyone wants to make them, that they are entitled to their own opinions, and that their opinion is reflected in their vote?
Naaaah cant be, we need to restrict the first amendment because we dont like the impact that political opinion has on voting. (I sort of thought that was half the point of the first amendment, but whatever...)
That "driver manager" was added somewhere between versions 6.10 and 7.10. It not only installs the nVidia driver, it handles re-installing it every time you upgrade kernels (though, to be fair, it did still occasionally break).
Really, all OSs are guilty of it to some extent: MS "hides" tons of stuff in the registry,
I always find it hillarious when the registry is brought up, but somehow noone wants to discuss gconf or the .gconf folder with all of its bizarre files.
Ubuntu has had its own method of dealing with nVidia drivers for about 7 years now. If you really want to go with the official nVidia driver (rather than the ubuntu-provided package which, IIRC, automatically handles kernel upgrades), all you have to do is cd to where you stuck the nVidia bin installer, and "sudo ./run" it. But really, if you're manually going outside of the package management system, you should learn how it works rather than complaining that you got burned,
Not to mention that the "dumped to console" was ALSO fixed many, many years ago (8.04?) as part of their bulletproof-X initiative.
Sounds like the services google provides, except for this:
Let me play it over remote, synchronized speakers.
Which is called "bluetooth".
Android has the benefit of not needing to be plugged in to do a lot of it, too.
So is a collection of national geographic magazines.
That doesnt make it currency.
Why would a TLA want bitcoins? How would it help for a TLA to use a government-granted budget to buy bitcoins? Theres still a paper trail.
Dragos Ruiu's findings from last year were never able to be reproduced by an outsider, and were highly suspect. Sometimes you can be a brilliant security guy, and also a delusional paranoid-- and I think the general consensus was that in that scenario, Dragos was being delusionally paranoid.
The idea that various laptop speakers (all of varying and generally poor quality) will be able to reliably form a wireless network is really far-fetched, no matter how you cut it. Every laptop's mic is different, the speakers are all in different locations, some mics are gonna be off, the acoustics of the room are unknown....
Theres just no way for this to reliably work.
To be blunt, you dont know what you are talking about.
Video traffic isnt generally like voice, and doesnt need to be prioritized. It is NOT latency sensitive; it can be buffered. It would be classified as "bulk", unless it were part of a teleconference (in which case it would share several of the below characteristics, like being UDP).
Voice traffic can come from any number of sources; whether it is Skype, or GoToMeeting, or WebEx, or a privately run Jabber server, it will share a number of characteristics:
* The traffic needs to arrive quickly, and reliably, or not at all. If a voice packet takes longer than ~100ms to arrive, it might as well be dropped and just cause a slight blip.
* It will almost always be UDP, because TCP is only useful for re-transmits; a missing packet in a webpage means the page doesnt render, whereas a missing packet in voice just causes a minor blip.
* Latency will kill a connection. 500ms of additional latency means each side will perceive a 1 second delay in responses. That is completely unworkable, and means that theres a pretty hard cap on the amount of latency that is allowable. Bulk traffic does not have this problem; a 0.5 second delay just means a 0.5 second delay.
QoS is about types of traffic that cannot fulfill their function if they are not reliably delivered; it is generally used for protocols that require fast response times. It also generally will have no perceivable impact on "everyone else".
Wrong.
QoS isnt about bandwidth, its about queues and latency.
Thats a hillarious take on the situation.
Anecdotally, ~6 of the top 10 richest congressfolks are democrats. But surely thats an anomaly, right? Whats Bill Gate's, Warren Buffet's, and Larry Page's political affiliation?
Democrat you say?!?! Wow its almost like the media spins the heck out of reality; one begins to suspect that the top 1% ARENT overwhelmingly republican.
It pisses me off that an issue like abortion is boiled down to what side of the aisle you're on. One of the big problems we have is how big issues get sidetracked by stupid irrelevancies.
This is an issue of life and death, not an issue of what color your state is, and all the strawmen in the world wont change that.
Cantor had him outspent 20 to 1
FTFY.
QoS does not do very much on a home router. It only kicks in when you have a lot of stuff (ISP level) really hammering your equipment, which is why its most useful for ISPs.
I dont know what your specialty is but it sounds like it is not networking. You're going to have to accept (from a networking guy) that Net Neutrality is not nearly the same thing as QoS. QoS has very little avenue for abuse, is highly useful, and has basically no downsides (as long as it is properly set up). It also pretty much has to be done by the ISP to be of any real use at all-- the chances that your router's CPU is going to get overwhelmed to the point of dropping traffic is basically non-existent, considering its rated for ~100mbit/s on each interface and you are given under 50mbit/s by your ISP.
You really need to stop conflating the issue, because if anything sinks Net Neutrality its gonna be people pushing for the abolition of QoS at the same time because they simply dont understand the difference.
This is a good thing, and not relevant to Net Neutrality. You want voice (regardless of source-- the crux of net neutrality) to be prioritized, because it is sensitive to latency.
Sure you can. QoS based on type is a layer 4-7 thing; RSTP, UDP, VoIP are all prioritized (regardless of whether its Skype or Jabber or Google Hangouts or Joe's Voice Chat), while HTTP, FTP, and Bittorrent are all deprioritized (regardless of whether its Google, or MSN, or AOL, or Bill's Internet ISO archive).
Sure, but they don't have 3 second latency now and they won't have it ever if the ISPs invest the necessary amount of money in infrastructure. Japan and Korea ISPs do...
This is about not being wasteful with the infrastructure, no matter what it is.
EVeryone recognizes that HTTP / FTP / Bittorrent are "bulk" traffic, and that whether it is delayed by 0.3 seconds or not has no practical impact on the user; interactive streams however like VoIP will notice a 0.3 second latency (doubled to 1/2 second conversational delays due to roundtrip) and can have a massive impact.
The problem with QoS isnt QoS, its when you try to apply it to the provider rather than just based on the traffic type.