The way I see this, prioritizing packets also ensures that a minority of users can't abuse the network ressources the everybody else want to use.
No, fair queueing ensures that a minority of users can't monopolize the network's capacity. Prioritizing packets based on applications hurts all other applications.
Prioritizing packets within your own network is fine because you know what you want. The core of the Internet doesn't know what you want, so there's no way for it to provide reasonable prioritization.
I see nobody around here is familiar with the actual proposals. Nobody would send a bill to anybody else, so there's no possibility of an innocent person getting the bill for spam. If mail doesn't have the postage it would just be dropped.
And there isn't even any original content; the articles are just rehashed press releases or IDF presentations. OK, occasionally they run some stock benchmarks on some stock hardware (all the sites have to use the same benchmarks; they wouldn't want to break away from the herd).
The/. editors should do us a favor and just link to the Intel propaganda; at least Intel can keep their servers up.
Xen has no host OS and it provides very efficient I/O (check the SOSP paper). So not all virtualization is alike.
Vanderpool is vaporware for now; Intel hasn't described exactly what it is or how it works, so it's impossible to draw any intelligent conclusions about it.
What do trusted computing features and operating systems have to do with the pipeline length? I can't tell whether these posters are clueless or trolling.
WiMax uses centrally scheduled TDMA, so it doesn't suffer from the hidden node problem. WiMax can also run full duplex (for some reason the vendors call it FDD), but most equipment seems to not support it.
In reality, WiMax cells will only have ~5 mile radius. The cells are also sectorized, so you'd only be sharing the bandwidth with 1/6th of the people within the cell.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see this, prioritizing packets also ensures that a minority of users can't abuse the network ressources the everybody else want to use.
No, fair queueing ensures that a minority of users can't monopolize the network's capacity. Prioritizing packets based on applications hurts all other applications.
Prioritizing packets within your own network is fine because you know what you want. The core of the Internet doesn't know what you want, so there's no way for it to provide reasonable prioritization.
Live Channel?
No, an array of 8-byte doubles with 2^32 entries is 32GB; that's the largest array you can create in Java.
You want to create single arrays larger than 32GB? What kind of hardware are you using?
What they meant is that they didn't have enough players in the Prologue. Everyone who bought Uru got into the Prologue.
You need some kind of hardware to access the network, and hardware needs drivers.
You mean the online component that has terrible lag and can only support 35 players per age?
I have not seen Teredo for Linux yet.
Since Teredo (or 6to4) gives you a global IPv6 address, you can run servers. This blows a giant hole in the "I'm behind NAT so I'm safe" theory.
If you're behind a NAT you need Teredo (until you kill your ISP).
Yeah, Ace's is one of the exceptions. It's just annoying to see wannabe sites getting linked on /. instead of good sites.
I see nobody around here is familiar with the actual proposals. Nobody would send a bill to anybody else, so there's no possibility of an innocent person getting the bill for spam. If mail doesn't have the postage it would just be dropped.
Every article is split across 10 pages.
/. editors should do us a favor and just link to the Intel propaganda; at least Intel can keep their servers up.
Every page has 10 ads.
And there isn't even any original content; the articles are just rehashed press releases or IDF presentations. OK, occasionally they run some stock benchmarks on some stock hardware (all the sites have to use the same benchmarks; they wouldn't want to break away from the herd).
The
Intel and IBM have a blade form factor pseudo-standard already.
Then there's PICMG 2.16 and 3.x (AdvancedTCA).
You know what they say about standards...
Xen has no host OS and it provides very efficient I/O (check the SOSP paper). So not all virtualization is alike.
Vanderpool is vaporware for now; Intel hasn't described exactly what it is or how it works, so it's impossible to draw any intelligent conclusions about it.
Xen is (theoretically) great if you want to consolidate multiple Linux machines. But if you want Windows, forget it.
What do trusted computing features and operating systems have to do with the pipeline length? I can't tell whether these posters are clueless or trolling.
You can't get any version of Windows that runs on Xen.
DSS certainly can do on-demand streaming; maybe you're just not using it right.
I don't think a $30 copy of QuickTime Pro is a serious problem for NPR.
WiMax does not use multiple bands simultaneously. Each base station only uses up to 40MHz of spectrum.
WiMax uses centrally scheduled TDMA, so it doesn't suffer from the hidden node problem. WiMax can also run full duplex (for some reason the vendors call it FDD), but most equipment seems to not support it.
You don't have to use high power and long range. You can build a half-mile-radius WiMax cell if you want to.
802.16 uses more efficient modulation than 802.11g (AFAIK).
802.16 equipment uses larger antennas (and probably more power) than 802.11 PCMCIA cards.
802.16 uses a much more efficient MAC protocol than 802.11.
Sane ISPs won't run WiMax in the 2.4GHz band.
In reality, WiMax cells will only have ~5 mile radius. The cells are also sectorized, so you'd only be sharing the bandwidth with 1/6th of the people within the cell.
I agree. If you want control, don't use Windows. If you want binary drivers, don't use Linux.