Google is required by law to do it "voluntarily". It is up to Google to interpret the law. The EU made it clear that their law system does not want to get involved and wants Google to "just do it", but to also not allow "blatant abuse", which is undefined. Google can get in trouble, so they need to be cautious, and a rich person could easily start an expensive law suit.
My PFSense firewall shows the many connections thing quite often after I use P2P, but it only amounts to about 5MB per 8 hours, but it can last for days after shutting down the P2P client. I guess this is mostly caused by DHT. Other clients will remember you for a long time, and when another client wants to find data, those clients may return your address and port at the time you last were in the DHT.
And not using your hair drier at 3am doesn't help with the grid load at peak time either.
Except using your hair dryer does cost fuel. Your analogy is like saying calling a taxi during off hours doesn't cost the taxi anything. This does not apply to most ISPs. Data transferred during off-peak hours typically is 99% free.
Most of the time ISPs pay for three primary things
1) Their "pipe" (fixed)
2) Their peak bandwidth
3) Electrical costs (nearly fixed, most high end network devices have nearly the same peak and idle power draw)
Let me know how non-peak data transfers have any cost for an ISP with the above.
Peak bandwidth usage is almost entirely dictated by the median user and not the data hog.
new magic data lines and switches that can handle an unlimited amount of total bandwidth.
Not unlimited, but even the low end fiber switches can handle 2tb/s of Layer 3 routing/switching, split among 2,000 customers. The higher end switches have 3tb-4tb/s of backplane bandwidth.
You still need a router and trunk to support the actual data, but that's the cheapest part of being an ISP. 80% of ISP's costs have to do with customer care and the last mile. The routers and transit are a small rounding error.
To give an idea of how much different the costs between last mile and transit are, Level 3 Comm handles 20x more bandwidth than Comcast, but L3's gross revenue is about the same as Comcast's net profit. Comcast's revenue is over 10x larger than L3. Just using this as a rough estimate, transit is about 200x cheaper than last mile per unit used.
I am using some of the biggest players in the market and smaller ISPs probably won't see these costs, but it's not to say it isn't possible.
It is actually highly uncorrelated. Data caps limit how data is used over the period of a month, but does nothing to limit the peak usage during the 1.5 hour period that results in 100% of the ISPs bandwidth costs. Data used outside of the 1.5 hour time peak time range is effectively free to the ISP. Assuming the ISP is getting charged based on 95th percentile, while is the defacto.
"Metering" is fine, but not metering data usage, but burst. It doesn't matter if you're using 5mb/s for 2 hours a day or 24 hours a day. Most people can't understand this.
In many cases, the overhead of metered billing costs more than the benefits gained. Increased customer calls and disputes will burn through any money saved or extra money earned.
Most ISP start-up failures that I've read about said political roadblocks were worse than than raising the capital. And it doesn't take 10-20 years to payoff your capital investment, it's closer to 2-3 years in practice, and 5 years in areas with strong competition. It's dead simple when competing with DSL/Cable. Fiber is cheaper, so if you're a fiber ISP competing against a copper incumbent, you've got it made. You're op-ex is about 20% lower and quality is drastically better.
On average, SSDs have 1/4 the failure rate of mechanical drives in "normal" desktop situations. You say "not high usage", but did you have a swap file on the SSDs? What brand? OCZ had some 50%+ failure rates for some models, and averaged over 4x the industry average.
Even Samsung has had a few sketchy models.
Mirrored SSDs that die from "wear", will fail near the same time.
There is modern camera tech that is being used to monitor monitor people's heart-beats. It's more of a software upgrade than a hardware one. It is possible for these cameras to require seeing a heart-beat in the skin. I recommend watching the entire video.
Why do we waste so much money on cancer research when we could be feeding more people in a 3rd world country?
Anyway, it's easy for you to claim something is useless now, but then it becomes the next big thing. Most features won't pan out to be the next big thing, but if you don't try them, you'll never find out.
Wow, that sucks. I was instantly able to watch 1080p with no buffering. 100mb/s for a few seconds then half of the time-line was buffered about 5 seconds after I clicked play. Too bad my ISP doesn't have a YouTube CDN. My YouTube comes from a PoP in Chicago over my ISP's transit.
I wonder how fast YouTube really is. If only I could afford the faster tiers, even if just to test.
I don't think he meant the existence of a photon at a certain time, but to actually be flooded with photons, like from a spot light, and still be able to distinguish the individual photons.
Some place, like MIT or something, was playing with a 1 trillion FPS camera, and by processing the individual photons, they could see around corners to a certain degree. They could use non-polished surfaces like a minor.
It costs society A LOT of directly money plus opportunity costs for each child that reaches adulthood, and it takes a long time for that adult to pay back their debt to society.
Children are a drain on society, they cost parents money and the contribute no immediately value. They're an investment. It's like putting money into the stock market, then all of it disappears. It would be nice to at least get back the initial investment.
I'm not surprised, but it's interesting how you describe your visualization doesn't quite match how I "see" them. I would think it to be a cool topic to categorize different types of visualizations and finding correlations with who knows what.
Assuming I'm taking this the correct way, I find there to also be a "fog" of the sort when I work with stuff. I would describe my visualization as a "living" yet static picture. Different "parts" of the picture interact with other near-by parts, yet nothing actually "moves". When I look at the entire picture, I can see "blurry" parts, which I would analogize to your "fog". By looking at near-by parts/sections of the picture, I can narrow down what I am missing.
Some parts of a picture may look "funny" or "strange", and I usually find a bug or a potential issue in that part that I didn't notice before. I write a decent amount of multi-threaded programs, and this is how I typically find race conditions or high contention areas.
Since parts near each-other are related or connected in some fashion, if I change how one part works, I can quickly see how the interactions of the other parts change. This can cause a domino affect in my mind about what other changes will need to happen to accommodate the one change.
This is probably about the best of how I can describe it, but I find it strange myself. It's like a world inside my head. Even when I was young, this is how I did things. Because this is how I think about almost everything, I have had certain types of issues with classes when I was in school. I can visualize interactions well, but I have a hard time regurgitating raw facts.I did better in advanced topics that required understanding, than simple topics that mostly revolved around memorizing. An example was I failed Bio 101, but when I first talked to my bio teacher and before they realized who I was, she thought I was a Sophomore or Jr in the Bio major. She couldn't quite grasp how I could show great understanding of the subjects, yet fail the tests which revolved around simple memorization.
I've always visualized what's going on, this is how I do everything. Doesn't everyone program this way? Think about something for a while, building up the model in your head, then visualize the interactions among the parts. If the problem is too complex to visualize, then I simplify and add abstractions until I can visualize it. This iteration naturally creates simplified abstract layers in my code.
I debug most of my code this way also. When I'm internally visualizing stuff, I lose track of what's going on around me. I wouldn't be surprised if a brainscan would show activity in my visual cortex.
Seems simple to me. Find the people in the corp that are responsible for the dept that does such heinous acts, then imprison all of them, all the way up to the top. Take 100% responsibility for your actions and those beneath you. If you don't want to take responsibility, then have a paper-trail backing you up showing that you tried to stop them.
So far my only experience as to why stuff takes so long to program is because there was so little architecting from the get-go. Too many engineers have access to tools that can get the job done, but don't realize how they work. All the nuances that make certain tools different creates huge differences in performance and security when the tools are mixed together.
From my perspective "Cheap. Fast. Good." all go together. The quickest projects to complete are well designed. Maybe I consider it cheap because I don't pay my own salary.
It won't completely disappear. Instead of all of the flux lines being aligned and creating one large field, there will be flux lines protruding from many different directions and have lots of smaller fields. A Discovery Channel show from many years back claimed something like an estimated 10% increase rate of cancer world wide. Doesn't sound too bad. We'll also lose a bit more upper atmosphere than normal.
On the flip side, we'll get some really cool Auroras visible to almost anywhere in the world!
High "thread" count cores are good for work loads where there is little inter-thread communication and has lots of memory stalls. By having a lot of threads running at once, whenever there is a memory stall, you can just switch to another thread, and the chance of that thread being stalled is very low. This also means lots more cache thrashing, so you need larger caches, but they can be tuned for high-throughput high-latency. The entire design for these cpus is geared for high-throughput high-latency, which also tends to be great for energy efficiency.
I made the same mistake my first read through. They were not talking about asymmetric bandwidth, but asymmetric value. Comcast finds it more valuable to not provide the service their customers paid for than to spend money investing into their infrastructure to actually deliver what they advertise.
This is a competition problem. It's hard to use the law to create competition, but it's easy to put restrictions on what a company can do.
What we really need to do is just classify what Comcast et al are doing as fraud. They should have to deliver what they advertise and not have an escape from providing sub 1% service because "up to".
If Ford advertised that their car got "up to" 40mpg on the highway, then you took their car out on a 65mph interstate with no traffic and got 0.5mpg, I'm sure Ford would be in a word of hurt.
Or maybe everyone just seems smart to you? I hear them all the time. While most people are not complete idiots, I come in figurative contact with at least one a day.
Have you ever had to talk to someone who was wondering why a new employee wasn't showing up in the system, only to find out that person was never entered? ok, that part could be understandable. But then the customer goes into an argument telling me that the new employee is physically there, so they should be in the system. Then she went on to ask me when she should enter that person into the system so this won't happen again. How the $%^& am I supposed to know how to do her job?!
Slashdot Mirror
Google is required by law to do it "voluntarily". It is up to Google to interpret the law. The EU made it clear that their law system does not want to get involved and wants Google to "just do it", but to also not allow "blatant abuse", which is undefined. Google can get in trouble, so they need to be cautious, and a rich person could easily start an expensive law suit.
My PFSense firewall shows the many connections thing quite often after I use P2P, but it only amounts to about 5MB per 8 hours, but it can last for days after shutting down the P2P client. I guess this is mostly caused by DHT. Other clients will remember you for a long time, and when another client wants to find data, those clients may return your address and port at the time you last were in the DHT.
And not using your hair drier at 3am doesn't help with the grid load at peak time either.
Except using your hair dryer does cost fuel. Your analogy is like saying calling a taxi during off hours doesn't cost the taxi anything. This does not apply to most ISPs. Data transferred during off-peak hours typically is 99% free.
Most of the time ISPs pay for three primary things
1) Their "pipe" (fixed)
2) Their peak bandwidth
3) Electrical costs (nearly fixed, most high end network devices have nearly the same peak and idle power draw)
Let me know how non-peak data transfers have any cost for an ISP with the above.
new magic data lines and switches that can handle an unlimited amount of total bandwidth.
Not unlimited, but even the low end fiber switches can handle 2tb/s of Layer 3 routing/switching, split among 2,000 customers. The higher end switches have 3tb-4tb/s of backplane bandwidth.
You still need a router and trunk to support the actual data, but that's the cheapest part of being an ISP. 80% of ISP's costs have to do with customer care and the last mile. The routers and transit are a small rounding error.
To give an idea of how much different the costs between last mile and transit are, Level 3 Comm handles 20x more bandwidth than Comcast, but L3's gross revenue is about the same as Comcast's net profit. Comcast's revenue is over 10x larger than L3. Just using this as a rough estimate, transit is about 200x cheaper than last mile per unit used.
I am using some of the biggest players in the market and smaller ISPs probably won't see these costs, but it's not to say it isn't possible.
bandwidth usage != data usage
It is actually highly uncorrelated. Data caps limit how data is used over the period of a month, but does nothing to limit the peak usage during the 1.5 hour period that results in 100% of the ISPs bandwidth costs. Data used outside of the 1.5 hour time peak time range is effectively free to the ISP. Assuming the ISP is getting charged based on 95th percentile, while is the defacto.
"Metering" is fine, but not metering data usage, but burst. It doesn't matter if you're using 5mb/s for 2 hours a day or 24 hours a day. Most people can't understand this.
In many cases, the overhead of metered billing costs more than the benefits gained. Increased customer calls and disputes will burn through any money saved or extra money earned.
Most ISP start-up failures that I've read about said political roadblocks were worse than than raising the capital. And it doesn't take 10-20 years to payoff your capital investment, it's closer to 2-3 years in practice, and 5 years in areas with strong competition. It's dead simple when competing with DSL/Cable. Fiber is cheaper, so if you're a fiber ISP competing against a copper incumbent, you've got it made. You're op-ex is about 20% lower and quality is drastically better.
150GB is more like what I do in a day.
Emulsion of oil(stuff I buy uses virgin olive oil), vinegar, egg yolk, and salt. I'm not quite sure how this is "nasty".
Yes, roll your own encryption, because no one will care about yours, except you can't use your own encryption unless others also use it.
When your time reaches 0, your "speed" reaches infinity. That'll be fun to graph.
On average, SSDs have 1/4 the failure rate of mechanical drives in "normal" desktop situations. You say "not high usage", but did you have a swap file on the SSDs? What brand? OCZ had some 50%+ failure rates for some models, and averaged over 4x the industry average.
Even Samsung has had a few sketchy models.
Mirrored SSDs that die from "wear", will fail near the same time.
There is modern camera tech that is being used to monitor monitor people's heart-beats. It's more of a software upgrade than a hardware one. It is possible for these cameras to require seeing a heart-beat in the skin. I recommend watching the entire video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why do we waste so much money on cancer research when we could be feeding more people in a 3rd world country?
Anyway, it's easy for you to claim something is useless now, but then it becomes the next big thing. Most features won't pan out to be the next big thing, but if you don't try them, you'll never find out.
Wow, that sucks. I was instantly able to watch 1080p with no buffering. 100mb/s for a few seconds then half of the time-line was buffered about 5 seconds after I clicked play. Too bad my ISP doesn't have a YouTube CDN. My YouTube comes from a PoP in Chicago over my ISP's transit.
I wonder how fast YouTube really is. If only I could afford the faster tiers, even if just to test.
I don't think he meant the existence of a photon at a certain time, but to actually be flooded with photons, like from a spot light, and still be able to distinguish the individual photons.
Some place, like MIT or something, was playing with a 1 trillion FPS camera, and by processing the individual photons, they could see around corners to a certain degree. They could use non-polished surfaces like a minor.
It costs society A LOT of directly money plus opportunity costs for each child that reaches adulthood, and it takes a long time for that adult to pay back their debt to society.
Children are a drain on society, they cost parents money and the contribute no immediately value. They're an investment. It's like putting money into the stock market, then all of it disappears. It would be nice to at least get back the initial investment.
I'm not surprised, but it's interesting how you describe your visualization doesn't quite match how I "see" them. I would think it to be a cool topic to categorize different types of visualizations and finding correlations with who knows what.
Assuming I'm taking this the correct way, I find there to also be a "fog" of the sort when I work with stuff. I would describe my visualization as a "living" yet static picture. Different "parts" of the picture interact with other near-by parts, yet nothing actually "moves". When I look at the entire picture, I can see "blurry" parts, which I would analogize to your "fog". By looking at near-by parts/sections of the picture, I can narrow down what I am missing.
Some parts of a picture may look "funny" or "strange", and I usually find a bug or a potential issue in that part that I didn't notice before. I write a decent amount of multi-threaded programs, and this is how I typically find race conditions or high contention areas.
Since parts near each-other are related or connected in some fashion, if I change how one part works, I can quickly see how the interactions of the other parts change. This can cause a domino affect in my mind about what other changes will need to happen to accommodate the one change.
This is probably about the best of how I can describe it, but I find it strange myself. It's like a world inside my head. Even when I was young, this is how I did things. Because this is how I think about almost everything, I have had certain types of issues with classes when I was in school. I can visualize interactions well, but I have a hard time regurgitating raw facts.I did better in advanced topics that required understanding, than simple topics that mostly revolved around memorizing. An example was I failed Bio 101, but when I first talked to my bio teacher and before they realized who I was, she thought I was a Sophomore or Jr in the Bio major. She couldn't quite grasp how I could show great understanding of the subjects, yet fail the tests which revolved around simple memorization.
I've always visualized what's going on, this is how I do everything. Doesn't everyone program this way? Think about something for a while, building up the model in your head, then visualize the interactions among the parts. If the problem is too complex to visualize, then I simplify and add abstractions until I can visualize it. This iteration naturally creates simplified abstract layers in my code.
I debug most of my code this way also. When I'm internally visualizing stuff, I lose track of what's going on around me. I wouldn't be surprised if a brainscan would show activity in my visual cortex.
Seems simple to me. Find the people in the corp that are responsible for the dept that does such heinous acts, then imprison all of them, all the way up to the top. Take 100% responsibility for your actions and those beneath you. If you don't want to take responsibility, then have a paper-trail backing you up showing that you tried to stop them.
So far my only experience as to why stuff takes so long to program is because there was so little architecting from the get-go. Too many engineers have access to tools that can get the job done, but don't realize how they work. All the nuances that make certain tools different creates huge differences in performance and security when the tools are mixed together.
From my perspective "Cheap. Fast. Good." all go together. The quickest projects to complete are well designed. Maybe I consider it cheap because I don't pay my own salary.
It won't completely disappear. Instead of all of the flux lines being aligned and creating one large field, there will be flux lines protruding from many different directions and have lots of smaller fields. A Discovery Channel show from many years back claimed something like an estimated 10% increase rate of cancer world wide. Doesn't sound too bad. We'll also lose a bit more upper atmosphere than normal.
On the flip side, we'll get some really cool Auroras visible to almost anywhere in the world!
High "thread" count cores are good for work loads where there is little inter-thread communication and has lots of memory stalls. By having a lot of threads running at once, whenever there is a memory stall, you can just switch to another thread, and the chance of that thread being stalled is very low. This also means lots more cache thrashing, so you need larger caches, but they can be tuned for high-throughput high-latency. The entire design for these cpus is geared for high-throughput high-latency, which also tends to be great for energy efficiency.
I made the same mistake my first read through. They were not talking about asymmetric bandwidth, but asymmetric value. Comcast finds it more valuable to not provide the service their customers paid for than to spend money investing into their infrastructure to actually deliver what they advertise.
This is a competition problem. It's hard to use the law to create competition, but it's easy to put restrictions on what a company can do.
What we really need to do is just classify what Comcast et al are doing as fraud. They should have to deliver what they advertise and not have an escape from providing sub 1% service because "up to".
If Ford advertised that their car got "up to" 40mpg on the highway, then you took their car out on a 65mph interstate with no traffic and got 0.5mpg, I'm sure Ford would be in a word of hurt.
It's very rare to find an idiot in this world.
Or maybe everyone just seems smart to you? I hear them all the time. While most people are not complete idiots, I come in figurative contact with at least one a day.
Have you ever had to talk to someone who was wondering why a new employee wasn't showing up in the system, only to find out that person was never entered? ok, that part could be understandable. But then the customer goes into an argument telling me that the new employee is physically there, so they should be in the system. Then she went on to ask me when she should enter that person into the system so this won't happen again. How the $%^& am I supposed to know how to do her job?!
These kind of people are everywhere.