If he's trying to be a specific person's record then he should do it in the same environment and constraints as the record holder (within reason). A lot of the crap he's mentioning having access too Jacques would not. He should forego it.
The charging both sides isn't actually that insane. I know I risk being downmodded for this but it's really all a matter of how the Internet is structured. There's multiple ways to get from Point A to Point B and some paths are going to be congested more than others. I personally think that we should be paying for what we send and not what received and that's how I can agree with both sides paying for me to get Netflix.
If I buy bandwidth from my ISP, I expect them to provide the outbound performance that I have paid for based on the SLA we agreed to. This means that if my SLA to Comcast is 50Mb then I should be able to send 20Mbps. Comcast should be engaging in deals to ensure they can send my traffic at 50Mb. I also expect them to not in any way shape or form throttle or shape traffic too me assume it's not exceeding my SLA (ignoring QoS reasons). Anything more than that should not be in the confines of my agreement with Comcast because anything else is outside of Comcast's direct control. Comcast doesn't dictate what providers send traffic to me so there's no way to tell if it will come from L3, Cogent, or some other provider. There's no way to tell if a content provider is going to be traffic balancing across multiple providers or shoveling all their traffic through just one provider. That makes guaranteed download speeds virtually impossible.
The same thing should apply to Netflix. If they engage a provider for 50Gbps and the provider isn't capable of supporting 50Gbps then that provider should be engaging its peers in order to meet the SLA it signed with Netflix.
There's a lot of stuff muddying the waters. I think a lot of the noisiest players in the game are also those who seem to be engaging in hypocritical or unusual behaviors.
For instance, Netflix is the only content provider that seems to be making a stink. Others like Google have not made a stink and in fact Google did have some CDN services inside Comcast's network. I'm actually wondering why Netflix wasn't able to get the same sort of deal going on and I don't think the fault is in Comcast's court.
Netflix also seemed to, a couple months back at least, continue to send traffic down congested links (say pushing through Cogent) instead of utilizing less congested links (pushing through L3). Now, maybe that's because L3 is going to charge Netflix way more for utilizing the link. Who knows, but it's not a behavior engaged in by other CDNs like Akamai.
Level 3 terminated its peering agreement with Cogent because Cogent was sending L3 far more data than it was receiving. They said it wasn't fair that L3 was subsidizing Cogent and wanted Cogent to pay them. Meanwhile, L3 is sending more data to Comcast than Comcast to L3 but L3 thinks that they shouldn't pay Comcast.
You don't need game of thrones or episodes of honey boo boo to stay alive.
Somedays I think Honey Boo Boo needs episodes of Honey Boo Boo to stay alive. Without that income I'm sure she and he mother would be dead by now. I'm not saying this is a good thing.
The only time where you should walk on the side of the road with traffic heading in your direction is if the other side is not passable for pedestrians or it's a pedestrian sidewalk.
The article only provides the percentages but doesn't include the raw numbers by which the percentages were derived. It is highly suggested by the article that since iOS has a kill switch the thefts of iOS were instead switched to non-iOS devices. That's where the raw data would be helpful and knowing how many of the thefts were iOS vs Android. Knowing the demographics of those who typically purchase iOS vs Android would also be helpful as well are those purchasing iOS less security savvy than those who purchase Android? Repeat victims that switched OSes is a factor that needs to be eliminated. You also need to know how the crime is usually perpetrated. Are these theft violent and using threats to get the phone from the victims or are they crimes of opportunity that occur because the device is left unattended?
Nixon is overshadowed by Watergate but he had some significant triumphs during his presidency. The largest of which was the opening of US-Chinese foreign relations and he also helped get the Clean Air Act passed. I can say that the US's foreign relations were better off after he left office than compared to when he took it. I cannot say the same of Obama thus far. Aside from a few more toppled regimes I've not seen anything of substance. Israel feels more isolated and that's certainly not at all helpful to obtaining a lasting peace in the middle east. China's been acting more and more beligerent towards Japan. Russia seemingly is attempting to restore it's empire's boundaries. What I see is a raising of tensions and a President that is seemingly doing nothing to cool them.
Police sharks would be just as corrupt as police humans. They would use their lasers to viciously beat the poor fish they were supposed to protect and serve. Even worse, I'm sure the police sharks would be quite adept at making sure there's no evidence of their beatings, much to the detriment of the fish.
It means materials in the device need to be resistant to temperatures exceeding 1370 celcius... probably exceeding somewhere between 1500-1700 celcius to be on the safe side.
It's also worth noting that Okinawa was not nearly as bloody as it should have been because, if I recally correctly, one division ended up performing a banzai charge and got itself wiped out. Had it not performed said banzai charge it would have been capable of inflicting even further US casualties at Okinawa.
The Emperor wanted peace, however he did not have the power to do so unilaterally and it would have been outside his station to encourage the war council to go for peace as it would basically necessitate all those who opposed his urging but went with it to commit seppuku. He did eventually do just that after the bombs had dropped and the war council narrowly approved surrender (read 4-3 to surrender) the one person that switched sides did commit seppuku.
The takeaway from Japan is that we had not yet defeated them militarily. That had at least five armies worth of combat ready troops in Japan, Korea, and China along with supplies to conduct a protracted defensive effort. Yes their air forces and navy were crushed but that hardly matters. The situation Japan was in when it surrendered is identical to the situation under which Germany surrendered in the Great War. No foreign troops on her homeland. You have to be delicate about how you handle such a country. See instead Germany post World War Two. We had troops all over their country. They didn't control any foreign territory. It was clear that they were militarily defeated. They had no choice but to submit to the unconditional surrender.
Numericly speaking, we sent 22 divisions to the pacific theater. The typical army breakdown at that time was three to four divisions to a corps and two to four corps for an army. Strictly speaking, we had maybe as many troops in the Pacific as Japan had defending its mainland. Comparatively, we fielded 61 divisions in Europe.
Japan's armies were quite robust. Aside from the minor losses we inflicted on them in the island hopping they had two full armies protecting the Japanese mainland and at least three armies still fighting successfully in China. As it stood, we were at minimum at least 6 months away from militarily defeating Japan. MacArthur was estimating 9-12 months of a blockade would be sufficient for Japan to surrender and that's due to the destruction of factories and the ability to constrict raw materials, however supplies were quite robust for the military and would take some time to deplete through combat. Bombing the supplies away wasn't an option.
That's the key thing. Japan hadn't been militarily defeated which mean it mirrored Germany at the end of the Great War. We had no soldiers on Japan's homeland and they still had robust control in Korea and China. They only lucrative territory they had lost by that time was in the indies.
What Japan was seeking was an armistace, which was complicated by the fact that the Allies wanted unconditional surrender.
As to an experiment... the Hiroshima bomb wrote off one of the two armies defending Japan's mainland. An entire army wiped out. Most of the men in the divisions were killed. The command of the army was wiped out (the commanding general was away at the time). The entire logistics branch of that army was also destroyed. Call it an experiment but that sort of devestation would have made invasion significantly easier.
It took two nuclear bombs to go from a war council that favored continuing fighting at 5-2 to a war council that wanted war at 4-3 after Hiroshima to 3-4 after Nagasaki. That guy that switched sides committed seppuku within a week and did so only because Emperor Hirohito urged them to end the war. After Nagasaki, a military coop was attempted as well to avoid the surrender.
The NSA PRISM program was a violation of the 4ht Amendment rights of ordinary citizens. While these particular emails would not have been a 4th Amendment violation they would have been caught in a program that was violating it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.... if you consider that Viking 1 and Viking 2 landed during Gerald Ford's term in office....
If he's trying to be a specific person's record then he should do it in the same environment and constraints as the record holder (within reason). A lot of the crap he's mentioning having access too Jacques would not. He should forego it.
Life does imitate art....
Oh wait, video games aren't art. Nevermind.
At this point I'm hedging my bet that metric over imperial will be the first change to arrive.
The charging both sides isn't actually that insane. I know I risk being downmodded for this but it's really all a matter of how the Internet is structured. There's multiple ways to get from Point A to Point B and some paths are going to be congested more than others. I personally think that we should be paying for what we send and not what received and that's how I can agree with both sides paying for me to get Netflix.
If I buy bandwidth from my ISP, I expect them to provide the outbound performance that I have paid for based on the SLA we agreed to. This means that if my SLA to Comcast is 50Mb then I should be able to send 20Mbps. Comcast should be engaging in deals to ensure they can send my traffic at 50Mb. I also expect them to not in any way shape or form throttle or shape traffic too me assume it's not exceeding my SLA (ignoring QoS reasons). Anything more than that should not be in the confines of my agreement with Comcast because anything else is outside of Comcast's direct control. Comcast doesn't dictate what providers send traffic to me so there's no way to tell if it will come from L3, Cogent, or some other provider. There's no way to tell if a content provider is going to be traffic balancing across multiple providers or shoveling all their traffic through just one provider. That makes guaranteed download speeds virtually impossible.
The same thing should apply to Netflix. If they engage a provider for 50Gbps and the provider isn't capable of supporting 50Gbps then that provider should be engaging its peers in order to meet the SLA it signed with Netflix.
There's a lot of stuff muddying the waters. I think a lot of the noisiest players in the game are also those who seem to be engaging in hypocritical or unusual behaviors.
For instance, Netflix is the only content provider that seems to be making a stink. Others like Google have not made a stink and in fact Google did have some CDN services inside Comcast's network. I'm actually wondering why Netflix wasn't able to get the same sort of deal going on and I don't think the fault is in Comcast's court.
Netflix also seemed to, a couple months back at least, continue to send traffic down congested links (say pushing through Cogent) instead of utilizing less congested links (pushing through L3). Now, maybe that's because L3 is going to charge Netflix way more for utilizing the link. Who knows, but it's not a behavior engaged in by other CDNs like Akamai.
Level 3 terminated its peering agreement with Cogent because Cogent was sending L3 far more data than it was receiving. They said it wasn't fair that L3 was subsidizing Cogent and wanted Cogent to pay them. Meanwhile, L3 is sending more data to Comcast than Comcast to L3 but L3 thinks that they shouldn't pay Comcast.
A net?
Infringing copyright deprives the copyright holders right to dictate distribution.
You don't need game of thrones or episodes of honey boo boo to stay alive.
Somedays I think Honey Boo Boo needs episodes of Honey Boo Boo to stay alive. Without that income I'm sure she and he mother would be dead by now. I'm not saying this is a good thing.
The only time where you should walk on the side of the road with traffic heading in your direction is if the other side is not passable for pedestrians or it's a pedestrian sidewalk.
Anything that is flagged as a US Numbered Highway or part of the Interstate Highway System.
Is it bad that my first reading I had substituted Farscape for Farside?
The article only provides the percentages but doesn't include the raw numbers by which the percentages were derived. It is highly suggested by the article that since iOS has a kill switch the thefts of iOS were instead switched to non-iOS devices. That's where the raw data would be helpful and knowing how many of the thefts were iOS vs Android. Knowing the demographics of those who typically purchase iOS vs Android would also be helpful as well are those purchasing iOS less security savvy than those who purchase Android? Repeat victims that switched OSes is a factor that needs to be eliminated. You also need to know how the crime is usually perpetrated. Are these theft violent and using threats to get the phone from the victims or are they crimes of opportunity that occur because the device is left unattended?
Nixon is overshadowed by Watergate but he had some significant triumphs during his presidency. The largest of which was the opening of US-Chinese foreign relations and he also helped get the Clean Air Act passed. I can say that the US's foreign relations were better off after he left office than compared to when he took it. I cannot say the same of Obama thus far. Aside from a few more toppled regimes I've not seen anything of substance. Israel feels more isolated and that's certainly not at all helpful to obtaining a lasting peace in the middle east. China's been acting more and more beligerent towards Japan. Russia seemingly is attempting to restore it's empire's boundaries. What I see is a raising of tensions and a President that is seemingly doing nothing to cool them.
Police sharks would be just as corrupt as police humans. They would use their lasers to viciously beat the poor fish they were supposed to protect and serve. Even worse, I'm sure the police sharks would be quite adept at making sure there's no evidence of their beatings, much to the detriment of the fish.
It means materials in the device need to be resistant to temperatures exceeding 1370 celcius... probably exceeding somewhere between 1500-1700 celcius to be on the safe side.
It's also worth noting that Okinawa was not nearly as bloody as it should have been because, if I recally correctly, one division ended up performing a banzai charge and got itself wiped out. Had it not performed said banzai charge it would have been capable of inflicting even further US casualties at Okinawa.
The Emperor wanted peace, however he did not have the power to do so unilaterally and it would have been outside his station to encourage the war council to go for peace as it would basically necessitate all those who opposed his urging but went with it to commit seppuku. He did eventually do just that after the bombs had dropped and the war council narrowly approved surrender (read 4-3 to surrender) the one person that switched sides did commit seppuku.
The takeaway from Japan is that we had not yet defeated them militarily. That had at least five armies worth of combat ready troops in Japan, Korea, and China along with supplies to conduct a protracted defensive effort. Yes their air forces and navy were crushed but that hardly matters. The situation Japan was in when it surrendered is identical to the situation under which Germany surrendered in the Great War. No foreign troops on her homeland. You have to be delicate about how you handle such a country. See instead Germany post World War Two. We had troops all over their country. They didn't control any foreign territory. It was clear that they were militarily defeated. They had no choice but to submit to the unconditional surrender.
Numericly speaking, we sent 22 divisions to the pacific theater. The typical army breakdown at that time was three to four divisions to a corps and two to four corps for an army. Strictly speaking, we had maybe as many troops in the Pacific as Japan had defending its mainland. Comparatively, we fielded 61 divisions in Europe.
Even after the second a coup was executed to avoid surrender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Japan wasn't sueing for peace.
Japan's armies were quite robust. Aside from the minor losses we inflicted on them in the island hopping they had two full armies protecting the Japanese mainland and at least three armies still fighting successfully in China. As it stood, we were at minimum at least 6 months away from militarily defeating Japan. MacArthur was estimating 9-12 months of a blockade would be sufficient for Japan to surrender and that's due to the destruction of factories and the ability to constrict raw materials, however supplies were quite robust for the military and would take some time to deplete through combat. Bombing the supplies away wasn't an option.
That's the key thing. Japan hadn't been militarily defeated which mean it mirrored Germany at the end of the Great War. We had no soldiers on Japan's homeland and they still had robust control in Korea and China. They only lucrative territory they had lost by that time was in the indies.
What Japan was seeking was an armistace, which was complicated by the fact that the Allies wanted unconditional surrender.
As to an experiment... the Hiroshima bomb wrote off one of the two armies defending Japan's mainland. An entire army wiped out. Most of the men in the divisions were killed. The command of the army was wiped out (the commanding general was away at the time). The entire logistics branch of that army was also destroyed. Call it an experiment but that sort of devestation would have made invasion significantly easier.
It took two nuclear bombs to go from a war council that favored continuing fighting at 5-2 to a war council that wanted war at 4-3 after Hiroshima to 3-4 after Nagasaki. That guy that switched sides committed seppuku within a week and did so only because Emperor Hirohito urged them to end the war. After Nagasaki, a military coop was attempted as well to avoid the surrender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Was it in the late '70s early '80s when Japan had the 2nd highest defense budget?
The NSA PRISM program was a violation of the 4ht Amendment rights of ordinary citizens. While these particular emails would not have been a 4th Amendment violation they would have been caught in a program that was violating it.
Archived in an enterprise vault solution that is backed up.