I think that's generally what sane people think it's about. I will, however, say this: I don't see why *your* Skype traffic should be given preference over *my* midget transvestite traffic. Why is you talking to your grandmother more important than me discovering a new universe?
One of these requires low latency while the other does not. You can wait a moment for your midget porn jollies.
Time Warner acquired AOL. Time Warner offered exclusive content to AOL customers. AOL is a steaming pile of fail now.
Comcast + NBC? Big fucking deal. When Time Warner got into the ISP business they had a market cap of a quarter trillion dollars.
It doesnt work because in Comcast+NBC, they care about NBC profits, which means they care about NBC being available to the customers of Time Warner, AT&T, Metrocast, COX,... and vise-versa. The argument only works in isolation cases.. like if NBC had a majority share of all content, or if Comcast had a majority share of broadband customers. Neither is even close to true.
You're right, Skype should be given a higher QoS than the torrent traffic. However, AT&T's VoIP solution should NOT be given preference over Skype, and neither should be given preference over Vonage. And AT&T should NOT be able to charge Skype or Vonage for the ability to get unthrottled access to their customers. That is what this is about.
YOU say that that is what this is about, but many Net Neutrality Proponents say otherwise, that AT&T shouldnt be allowed to throttle Torrents/etc.
The reality of what was exposed in the US wrt p2p shaping should show that the "boogieman theory" was very real. [...snipped blahblahblah...] Your mpeg.torrent and VOIP call should be just fine with real backhaul investment.
Are you claiming that the person I replied to was full of shit? He claims that restoring ISP's to Common Carrier status is what Net Neutrality is all about, and further notes that under Common Carrier, they are allowed to throttle.
This is the problem with the argument in the nutshell: Net Neutrality means different things to different people. Wait for a fucking real in-practice issue to rally behind.
In your case, your in-practice issue is that torrents get throttled by some ISP's. In my view, I welcome the throttling of torrents if the torrents are fucking with my realtime communications over VOIP or preventing my netflix movie from streaming without pauses.
There is no amount of backhaul investment that will prevent torrents from saturating connections, because it is designed to direct many connections (which we can presume also get the same backhaul investment) towards the common goal of saturate a single end point. I've had torrents going with literally several hundred sources throwing data at my neighborhood cable network. This isnt much different from a brute force denial of service bandwidth attack from the ISP's perspective.
I'm not saying that we should ban torrents. I'm saying that it is reasonable for the ISP to throttle the protocol.
Returning to common carrier rules would not prohibit prioritization of traffic based off types,
..and has nothing to do with the Net Neutrality Movement, which wants legislation that all traffic from any source to any destination should be treated the same by law.
Dont you remember the big stink about Comcast throttling? Thats the only in-practice issue that the net neutrality folks are up-in-arms about. Other than that, all they've got are boogiemen theories about what might happen.
Bullshit. You can line up all the attempts to "wall garden the internet itself" and in that line is a bunch of failures, and not just failing to complete the task, but also failing to remain a healthy prosperous business enterprise.
What AT&T is pointing out is that there are certain classes of connectivity that *are* more important than others. Their biggest example is VOIP. We really do want Skype packets to have preference over I_got_laid_by_a_midget.mpeg.torrent, but these "Net Neutrality Or Die!" folks seem to think otherwise, that no preference should be tolerated.
I think the net neutrality folks are wrong as things stand now. Maybe in the future when there is some real in-practice issue that needs to be addressed, maybe then we deal with that issie itself instead of legislating based on the boogieman theory.
If Comcast wants to set up its own video streaming service, first it has to acquire a license from the content owners for that kind of broadcast. Those same content owners are the ones running the current competing services (Hulu, etc..) so it looks to me like Comcast would be the one thats fucked out of the market if they tried to monopolize their users content consumption.
I just dont see this paranoia as a feasible concern. The people who own the content that is in demand hold all the cards, not silly middlemen like Comcast.
Apple bills itself as the quality option, so how can it be accidental that the Windows versions of each of their software products be so horrible on so many metrics?
The only question is, does the shitty shitness of their shit reflect intentional malice, or intentional apathy?
or their clunkers were too good to get a hand out... because they made a decent decision 15 years ago...
More likely, they made a bad decision 2 years ago when they picked up that 15 year old car, qualifying or not (they couldn't afford to get the cash for their clunker) and are now stuck with it for 10 more years because most older cars are off the road and can no longer be purchased second-hand.
Ah, but this is why Intel has so many CPU variations.
They have a couple nearly price/performance competitive chips because they *do* compete on actual performance/dollar numbers to a larger degree than you suggest, while all those other craptastic ripoffs are sold to the brand-idol segment.
If Intel could trump AMD on price/performance in even one price segment.. they would.. but they apparently can't. I would suggest that the current crop of chips that are nearly competitive in price/performance are already being sold at a loss.
Afaict all of intels desktop quad core chips are still on 45nm and are still beating the hell out of AMDs chips in indivdual core performance..
Umm, no.
The i3's, i5's, and i7's are 32nm. All those 45nm Core2 products do not compete with latest Phenom II's performance based on the only metric I know of to compare them by (which is price.)
Which metric other that price do you suggest to compare performance numbers?
A lot of people like to throw around that clock-for-clock, Intel's Core2 is better than AMD's Phenom II, and they are right..
..but you can get more clocks for the same price from AMD, so much so that (for instance) the $166 3.4ghz Phenom II x4 965 performs about as well as a the $269 2.83ghz Core2 x4 Q9550.. thats more than $100 cheaper for the same basic performance with the same number of cores.
Yes AMD's 6 cores are "interesting", but its a red herring. On equal 4-core comparisons, AMD still handily beats Intel on performance per dollar.. the only metric I know of to compare performance numbers against.
Not necessarily. With this hyper-threading fad it is quite clear that there are often spare execution units for typical code, and that newer CPU's are continuing the trend of adding even more execution units. Implementing a parallel pipeline+scheduler on the same core that shares those execution units isnt that big of a deal (Intel's first HT implementation only used 5% more die area.)
It is not hard to imagine that instead of implementing hyper-threading they implement what I guess could be called "hyper-branching" where both cases of a conditional branch (or several cases of an indirect branch) are executed at the same time (with a write block on the bus to prevent side effects until the true branch is finally known, which already happens with current speculative execution anyways)..
So instead of speculating about which way the branch goes with a very large penalty (pipeline flush) for being wrong, the CPU could share the execution units between both (or at least 2 of many) possibilities for a short time..
..or barring that, at least fill up a spare pipeline (fetch/decode/etc) with the "non predicted" branch but idle on the scheduling phase, greatly reducing the large penalty for being wrong (the complete flushing of a pipeline, which takes many clocks to fill again)
The grandparent to my post said "Since we hit the 3 GHz barrier, where the speed of light itself becomes a limit".. implying that we have hit a speed barrier, and that its because of the speed of light.
I gave sime citations that there isnt a barrier anywhere near the 3ghz cpu frequencies, *proving* that light speed is currently not a relevant factor limiting chip speeds like I and the person I replied to indicated, but that the person he replied to claimed.
Intel has been running a smaller 32nm process/die size in order to beat AMD in performance and only a few of those 32nm chips designs have achieved price/performance parity while the rest are grossly below the curve.
AMD is about to put its own 32nm process into production chips, so at the very least the very top end will not be Intel-only land anymore. The only question is whether or not AMD's new chips will continue the long standing trend of spanking Intel on the price/performance metric ("defeated-by-intel" indeed... shut up fanboy)
Pretty much all CPU's sold today (even "2.x ghz" chips) can go over 4ghz with proper air cooling. The reason they dont sell 4ghz+ chips is because chips have warranties and require a proper cooling setup in order to not fail at those speeds. Most important of course is heat sink and cpu fan which Intel and AMD do have some control over, but also of considerable importance is case fans and case ventilation, which they do not have control over.
Just moving my case fan from the stock front position (intake) to the back (exhaust) gave me 10 degrees C more headroom at load, allowing my AMD 1055T to go from 2.8ghz to 4.1ghz (before moving the case fan, I was only stable up to 3.36ghz)..
I'm not confusing lack of features (abstractions) with low level - abstractions are exactly what makes a language high level. Yes, C making you reference memory directly makes it low level. High level languages take you far, far away from such interactions.
Pointers are an abstraction
Apparently you didnt fucking know this, but C is a programming language defined by a standardized abstract machine which itself was tailored specifically for the purposes of abstracting operating system memory management.
Furthermore, C does not 'make' you reference memory directly. C 'allows' you to reference memory directly.
Did you not realize that BASIC qualifies as 'low level' under your definition of direct memory referencing I guess its PEEK and POKE for the win, eh?
This falls under their powers to regulate Interstate Commerce, just like everything.
You might have something hidden on your person with the intent to cross state lines and then sell it. Obviously they have to scan you, me, and everyone. Kids too. Especially little boys.
What exactly do you think is low level about C? I think that you are confusing a lack-of-features like OO, Generics, Reflection, etc.. with 'low level'
..do you think its low level because it can reference memory directly? Really? Is that your metric?
Having a good reputation among the slashdot crowd may be more important than you think. Oracle's name is quickly becoming mud in the minds of of a lot of developers, and while in the short term that may mean little to them, it will probably bite them in the ass down the road.
Developers dont make decisions about the use of Oracle's money stream products, of which Java is not among them.
Its the IT guys that make those decisions, and they pick Oracle because Oracles solutions are some of the best in the business. Oracle's revenue stream is in the same league as Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Cisco, etc.. not a household name like some of them, but their revenue stream is testimonial to the quality of their products and the loyalty of those who do make purchasing decisions relevant to Oracle.
Oracle did not buy Sun for Java. Java was just a bonus. Sun was a direct competitor with some unique IP in the storage solutions space that Oracle was and will continue to be the #1 player in. You see Sun Server prominent on that products/services page, while Java is relegated to only footnote status in the "Related Technologies" section.
Java is a fine language for what its primarily used for, and Oracle certainly uses a lot of Java code, but they barely marketing Java itself. They couldn't give a rats ass as to what developers feel about Java. They sell solutions, not platforms.
But yes, you're right, there's a hell of a lot of stuff that Java (be it running on a JVM or Dalvik) just won't do well, and anybody wanting to write truly high performance software had really better get used to writing in lower-level languages, or at the very least, understanding their stack right down to the hardware level.
Which "lower level languages" are you talking about?
Lower level languages are platform specific, and the only one people are using is assembler. I know that you didnt mean asembler.
I suppose you meant C. Its abstract machine has a generic concept of memory as a linear pool. Good enough to write operating system features that manage linear pools of memory, but decidedly not at all low level.
We can't even coerce a C compiler to emit x86 instructions like BT, BTR, and BTS.. instructions which test and manipulate individual bits (in registers or in memory) and are extremely useful (efficient!) for implementing things like a Bloom Hash, or just implementing bit arrays. In C the best we can do is use clunky full-word operations that can not get optimized down to BT, BTR, or BTS for multiple technical reasons.
I dont think anyone is saying that you made it up.
Did you think that nobody on slashdot has had extensive experience with the very.NET functionality that you claim is broken? Apparently thats what you think.
My guess is that you paid money for this broken software, and because of this fact, you are unwilling to believe that the people took you for a ride and have provided shitty software. Its funny about people who have been conned.. often they will even send even more good money at the crooks just so that they can continue to believe that they havent been conned.
I assume you're teasing Mr. Jobs on this. At one time, IE on the Mac was the best browser around. by definition, didn't have ActiveX security errors. This was obviously quite some time ago.
It would be pure hubris to believe that Jobs reads Slashdot posts from a guy who uses the alias Rockoon.
This quote is from Jobs during his annual Mac World address in 1997, where he introduced Bill Gates himself, who talked to the crowd of angry Apple fans that booed and hissed at not only Bill, but also the announcement that Internet Explorer would be shipped with new Mac's.
Jobs didnt have Bill talking to an angry Mac World because they were including Internet Explorer. He had Bill there because Microsoft just agreed to save Apple from ruin. Apple was in very very dire financial straights at the time, and Internet Explorer wasn't on the agenda because it was 'good'.. it was on the agenda because 'they were fucked.'
Slashdot Mirror
Thats why you need to take an economics class. Your error would be obvious to you had you studied even basic economics.
we're probably going to exhaust our entire supply of fossil fuels anyway
Do you put any thought at all into the statements you make?
Perhaps you should learn about reality. Your first stop should be an economics class.
I think that's generally what sane people think it's about. I will, however, say this: I don't see why *your* Skype traffic should be given preference over *my* midget transvestite traffic. Why is you talking to your grandmother more important than me discovering a new universe?
One of these requires low latency while the other does not. You can wait a moment for your midget porn jollies.
Time Warner acquired AOL. Time Warner offered exclusive content to AOL customers. AOL is a steaming pile of fail now.
... and vise-versa. The argument only works in isolation cases.. like if NBC had a majority share of all content, or if Comcast had a majority share of broadband customers. Neither is even close to true.
Comcast + NBC? Big fucking deal. When Time Warner got into the ISP business they had a market cap of a quarter trillion dollars.
It doesnt work because in Comcast+NBC, they care about NBC profits, which means they care about NBC being available to the customers of Time Warner, AT&T, Metrocast, COX,
You're right, Skype should be given a higher QoS than the torrent traffic. However, AT&T's VoIP solution should NOT be given preference over Skype, and neither should be given preference over Vonage. And AT&T should NOT be able to charge Skype or Vonage for the ability to get unthrottled access to their customers. That is what this is about.
YOU say that that is what this is about, but many Net Neutrality Proponents say otherwise, that AT&T shouldnt be allowed to throttle Torrents/etc.
The reality of what was exposed in the US wrt p2p shaping should show that the "boogieman theory" was very real. [...snipped blahblahblah...] Your mpeg.torrent and VOIP call should be just fine with real backhaul investment.
Are you claiming that the person I replied to was full of shit? He claims that restoring ISP's to Common Carrier status is what Net Neutrality is all about, and further notes that under Common Carrier, they are allowed to throttle.
This is the problem with the argument in the nutshell: Net Neutrality means different things to different people. Wait for a fucking real in-practice issue to rally behind.
In your case, your in-practice issue is that torrents get throttled by some ISP's. In my view, I welcome the throttling of torrents if the torrents are fucking with my realtime communications over VOIP or preventing my netflix movie from streaming without pauses.
There is no amount of backhaul investment that will prevent torrents from saturating connections, because it is designed to direct many connections (which we can presume also get the same backhaul investment) towards the common goal of saturate a single end point. I've had torrents going with literally several hundred sources throwing data at my neighborhood cable network. This isnt much different from a brute force denial of service bandwidth attack from the ISP's perspective.
I'm not saying that we should ban torrents. I'm saying that it is reasonable for the ISP to throttle the protocol.
Returning to common carrier rules would not prohibit prioritization of traffic based off types,
Dont you remember the big stink about Comcast throttling? Thats the only in-practice issue that the net neutrality folks are up-in-arms about. Other than that, all they've got are boogiemen theories about what might happen.
Modded Informative?
Bullshit. You can line up all the attempts to "wall garden the internet itself" and in that line is a bunch of failures, and not just failing to complete the task, but also failing to remain a healthy prosperous business enterprise.
What AT&T is pointing out is that there are certain classes of connectivity that *are* more important than others. Their biggest example is VOIP. We really do want Skype packets to have preference over I_got_laid_by_a_midget.mpeg.torrent, but these "Net Neutrality Or Die!" folks seem to think otherwise, that no preference should be tolerated.
I think the net neutrality folks are wrong as things stand now. Maybe in the future when there is some real in-practice issue that needs to be addressed, maybe then we deal with that issie itself instead of legislating based on the boogieman theory.
If Comcast wants to set up its own video streaming service, first it has to acquire a license from the content owners for that kind of broadcast. Those same content owners are the ones running the current competing services (Hulu, etc..) so it looks to me like Comcast would be the one thats fucked out of the market if they tried to monopolize their users content consumption.
I just dont see this paranoia as a feasible concern. The people who own the content that is in demand hold all the cards, not silly middlemen like Comcast.
I dont understand why that is modified troll.
Apple bills itself as the quality option, so how can it be accidental that the Windows versions of each of their software products be so horrible on so many metrics?
The only question is, does the shitty shitness of their shit reflect intentional malice, or intentional apathy?
or their clunkers were too good to get a hand out... because they made a decent decision 15 years ago...
More likely, they made a bad decision 2 years ago when they picked up that 15 year old car, qualifying or not (they couldn't afford to get the cash for their clunker) and are now stuck with it for 10 more years because most older cars are off the road and can no longer be purchased second-hand.
Ah, but this is why Intel has so many CPU variations.
They have a couple nearly price/performance competitive chips because they *do* compete on actual performance/dollar numbers to a larger degree than you suggest, while all those other craptastic ripoffs are sold to the brand-idol segment.
If Intel could trump AMD on price/performance in even one price segment.. they would.. but they apparently can't. I would suggest that the current crop of chips that are nearly competitive in price/performance are already being sold at a loss.
Afaict all of intels desktop quad core chips are still on 45nm and are still beating the hell out of AMDs chips in indivdual core performance..
Umm, no.
..but you can get more clocks for the same price from AMD, so much so that (for instance) the $166 3.4ghz Phenom II x4 965 performs about as well as a the $269 2.83ghz Core2 x4 Q9550 .. thats more than $100 cheaper for the same basic performance with the same number of cores.
The i3's, i5's, and i7's are 32nm. All those 45nm Core2 products do not compete with latest Phenom II's performance based on the only metric I know of to compare them by (which is price.)
Which metric other that price do you suggest to compare performance numbers?
A lot of people like to throw around that clock-for-clock, Intel's Core2 is better than AMD's Phenom II, and they are right..
Yes AMD's 6 cores are "interesting", but its a red herring. On equal 4-core comparisons, AMD still handily beats Intel on performance per dollar.. the only metric I know of to compare performance numbers against.
He made it, and I just quoted it verbatim. Grasping at an excuse for your asshat behavior much?
Not necessarily. With this hyper-threading fad it is quite clear that there are often spare execution units for typical code, and that newer CPU's are continuing the trend of adding even more execution units. Implementing a parallel pipeline+scheduler on the same core that shares those execution units isnt that big of a deal (Intel's first HT implementation only used 5% more die area.)
..
..or barring that, at least fill up a spare pipeline (fetch/decode/etc) with the "non predicted" branch but idle on the scheduling phase, greatly reducing the large penalty for being wrong (the complete flushing of a pipeline, which takes many clocks to fill again)
It is not hard to imagine that instead of implementing hyper-threading they implement what I guess could be called "hyper-branching" where both cases of a conditional branch (or several cases of an indirect branch) are executed at the same time (with a write block on the bus to prevent side effects until the true branch is finally known, which already happens with current speculative execution anyways)
So instead of speculating about which way the branch goes with a very large penalty (pipeline flush) for being wrong, the CPU could share the execution units between both (or at least 2 of many) possibilities for a short time..
Dickhead poster fail.
.. implying that we have hit a speed barrier, and that its because of the speed of light.
The grandparent to my post said "Since we hit the 3 GHz barrier, where the speed of light itself becomes a limit"
I gave sime citations that there isnt a barrier anywhere near the 3ghz cpu frequencies, *proving* that light speed is currently not a relevant factor limiting chip speeds like I and the person I replied to indicated, but that the person he replied to claimed.
Fucking asshole much?
Intel has been running a smaller 32nm process/die size in order to beat AMD in performance and only a few of those 32nm chips designs have achieved price/performance parity while the rest are grossly below the curve.
AMD is about to put its own 32nm process into production chips, so at the very least the very top end will not be Intel-only land anymore. The only question is whether or not AMD's new chips will continue the long standing trend of spanking Intel on the price/performance metric ("defeated-by-intel" indeed... shut up fanboy)
Overclockers have gone above 6ghz here and above 7ghz here and dont forget over 8ghz here
..
In each case, its always about the heat.
Pretty much all CPU's sold today (even "2.x ghz" chips) can go over 4ghz with proper air cooling. The reason they dont sell 4ghz+ chips is because chips have warranties and require a proper cooling setup in order to not fail at those speeds. Most important of course is heat sink and cpu fan which Intel and AMD do have some control over, but also of considerable importance is case fans and case ventilation, which they do not have control over.
Just moving my case fan from the stock front position (intake) to the back (exhaust) gave me 10 degrees C more headroom at load, allowing my AMD 1055T to go from 2.8ghz to 4.1ghz (before moving the case fan, I was only stable up to 3.36ghz)
I'm not confusing lack of features (abstractions) with low level - abstractions are exactly what makes a language high level. Yes, C making you reference memory directly makes it low level. High level languages take you far, far away from such interactions.
Pointers are an abstraction
Apparently you didnt fucking know this, but C is a programming language defined by a standardized abstract machine which itself was tailored specifically for the purposes of abstracting operating system memory management.
Furthermore, C does not 'make' you reference memory directly. C 'allows' you to reference memory directly.
Did you not realize that BASIC qualifies as 'low level' under your definition of direct memory referencing I guess its PEEK and POKE for the win, eh?
This falls under their powers to regulate Interstate Commerce, just like everything.
You might have something hidden on your person with the intent to cross state lines and then sell it. Obviously they have to scan you, me, and everyone. Kids too. Especially little boys.
C is very obviously a low level language.
What exactly do you think is low level about C? I think that you are confusing a lack-of-features like OO, Generics, Reflection, etc.. with 'low level'
..do you think its low level because it can reference memory directly? Really? Is that your metric?
Having a good reputation among the slashdot crowd may be more important than you think. Oracle's name is quickly becoming mud in the minds of of a lot of developers, and while in the short term that may mean little to them, it will probably bite them in the ass down the road.
Developers dont make decisions about the use of Oracle's money stream products, of which Java is not among them.
Its the IT guys that make those decisions, and they pick Oracle because Oracles solutions are some of the best in the business. Oracle's revenue stream is in the same league as Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Cisco, etc.. not a household name like some of them, but their revenue stream is testimonial to the quality of their products and the loyalty of those who do make purchasing decisions relevant to Oracle.
Oracle did not buy Sun for Java. Java was just a bonus. Sun was a direct competitor with some unique IP in the storage solutions space that Oracle was and will continue to be the #1 player in. You see Sun Server prominent on that products/services page, while Java is relegated to only footnote status in the "Related Technologies" section.
Java is a fine language for what its primarily used for, and Oracle certainly uses a lot of Java code, but they barely marketing Java itself. They couldn't give a rats ass as to what developers feel about Java. They sell solutions, not platforms.
But yes, you're right, there's a hell of a lot of stuff that Java (be it running on a JVM or Dalvik) just won't do well, and anybody wanting to write truly high performance software had really better get used to writing in lower-level languages, or at the very least, understanding their stack right down to the hardware level.
Which "lower level languages" are you talking about?
Lower level languages are platform specific, and the only one people are using is assembler. I know that you didnt mean asembler.
I suppose you meant C. Its abstract machine has a generic concept of memory as a linear pool. Good enough to write operating system features that manage linear pools of memory, but decidedly not at all low level.
We can't even coerce a C compiler to emit x86 instructions like BT, BTR, and BTS.. instructions which test and manipulate individual bits (in registers or in memory) and are extremely useful (efficient!) for implementing things like a Bloom Hash, or just implementing bit arrays. In C the best we can do is use clunky full-word operations that can not get optimized down to BT, BTR, or BTS for multiple technical reasons.
I dont think anyone is saying that you made it up.
.NET functionality that you claim is broken? Apparently thats what you think.
Did you think that nobody on slashdot has had extensive experience with the very
My guess is that you paid money for this broken software, and because of this fact, you are unwilling to believe that the people took you for a ride and have provided shitty software. Its funny about people who have been conned.. often they will even send even more good money at the crooks just so that they can continue to believe that they havent been conned.
Have these crooks asked for more money yet?
I assume you're teasing Mr. Jobs on this. At one time, IE on the Mac was the best browser around. by definition, didn't have ActiveX security errors. This was obviously quite some time ago.
It would be pure hubris to believe that Jobs reads Slashdot posts from a guy who uses the alias Rockoon.
.. it was on the agenda because 'they were fucked.'
This quote is from Jobs during his annual Mac World address in 1997, where he introduced Bill Gates himself, who talked to the crowd of angry Apple fans that booed and hissed at not only Bill, but also the announcement that Internet Explorer would be shipped with new Mac's.
Jobs didnt have Bill talking to an angry Mac World because they were including Internet Explorer. He had Bill there because Microsoft just agreed to save Apple from ruin. Apple was in very very dire financial straights at the time, and Internet Explorer wasn't on the agenda because it was 'good'