but the "un" in unique comes from the latin unus, which means one. you can't be relatively unique any more than you can be relatively dead.
Perhaps if we were in Ancient Rome, you might have a point. However, while many words in English have their origins in Latin, their modern meanings have deviated from the original Latin roots.
3: unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>
Usage Discussion of UNIQUE
Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary....
Charging very different users the same is obviously not as efficient as tiered services - otherwise there would no such thing as tiered service, anywhere. By forcing them not to use a legitimate business model you are telling them that they may not recover costs as efficiently.
They already charge different users differently -- I pay more money for a faster connection since I use Netflix heavily. If I didn't watch streaming video, instead of a 25mbit connection, I'd buy their cheap 6mbit connection (or would use an ADSL provider). If they find charging for bandwidth alone to be unsustainable, then they can charge for data too -- charge $20 for each 100GB, or whatever covers their costs. They have lots of flexibility in their pricing structure. They can add peak surcharges or whatever else they need to do to pay for their network.
The type of business that will be more likely to fail in this situation is the start-up or the small scale business.
How can a startup expect to charge money to large users like Netflix, Amazon, etc? If Joe's House of Internet tried to force Netflix to pay up, Netflix would tell them to shove off and wouldn't worry about losing a few customers. But when Comcast (with over 15 million internet customers) tells them to pay up, they have little choice, since they can't afford to lose millions of customers.
Sure, allow more competition. I'm all for a freer market.
But don't reduce competition by telling Comcast that they can't incur costs on Netflix, when Netflix is incurring costs on Comcast.
Netflix isn't incurring costs on Comcast, I (as a Comcast customer) am incurring the cost by requesting the data from Netflix, so I should be paying for that -- Netflix isn't forcing me to accept their data, I am requesting it.
Why is it worse to have hidden costs in your monopoly bill than your more competitive Netflix bill?
Because, it's a hidden cost and I can't see the true cost of my Comcast connection. If I pay $50/month to Comcast, and have a hidden $5 for Netflix, $3 for Amazon, $5 for Youtube, $1 for Facebook, etc, the true cost of my bill might really be over $100, and if I knew that, I might find another ISP more cost effective. And more importantly, if Comcast charged their true cost of delivering service and that ended up being $100/month, that might be a level that makes it profitable for another provider to come in, while if the content provider subsidies kept Comcast rates artificially low, then there would be less incentive for a competitor to enter the market since he wouldn't get the same subsidies yet he'd be competing against Comcast's subsidized rates.
There's little difference between converting an existing lane and deciding that the new lane you're adding is an HOV lane.
It seems that the difference is that it's *not* the same as "they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane" as the grandparent poster was claiming.
There are costs besides roads. Trucks have costs associated with them, mostly by mileage. There are gas, oil, repairs to pay for. Drivers to pay.
They have to pay more for a truck that's less full. Fewer people will use priority mail, so the vehicles that have priority packages are more likely to be less full. Being less full is less efficient, and has higher costs associated with it.
Sure, and that's all borne by the carrier that's driving on the roads to deliver the package to my door -- I pay that carrier just like I pay Netflix, but I don't expect my city to charge Fedex Priority truck a surchage when they let Fedex Ground trucks drive for free.
The problem with analogies is that they don't always translate well to the real world problem.
You didn't pay for bandwidth, you paid for 'up to' that amount - unless you have an ISP that wants to be sued for fraud (and more power to you if they did). I don't know of anyone that actually buys data transfer, except on their phone. And that's on top of a flat connection bill
Let's see what Comcast says on their High Speed internet page:
Get download speeds up to 25 Mbps – Share photos, book travel, and watch the latest viral video craze – at super-fast speeds.
Get download speeds up to 50 Mbps – so you can game in real-time, download HD movies, and connect all the devices in your home simultaneously – at incredible speeds.
Connect your devices and do more of what you love online with reliable Internet speeds for your home.
Gee, I don't see anything there or their terms of use that says "Note: High speed internet applies only to providers that pay us to deliver their data to you".
.
An ISP that owns cables is paying off the cost of building them. An ISP that borrows cables is paying off the bulk cost of renting. When a cable is made to serve customers that use it less efficiently, such as mostly at peak hours, or otherwise concentrated in large transfers, then it costs more to accommodate them.
If a business is not allowed to find the efficient means of paying these costs, then that business will fail. Everyone will lose, especially the customer, who will have fewer and worse options.
I don't know why you think I don't want Comcast to be able to recover their costs of providing service -- they already have an efficient means to pay those costs -- they send me a bill each month, and if that bill isn't paying their costs, they can increase the rates I pay. That way I can fairly compare prices among different ISP's (luckily I'm in an area where I can choose from a few). When Netflix subsidizes Comcast, that makes the true cost of my internet service hidden since part of the cost is hidden in my Netflix bill (and eventually Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc will all have to pay). The largest ISP's shouldn't be allowed to use their near monopoly market penetration to extract fees from content providers when they are already charging customers for internet access.
They are both identifiers, one identifies a person, one identifies a post.
Why does anything besides the content of a post matter in the merit of an argument?
Because it's impossible to conduct any reasonable discussion with an AC since that "one" AC may be many different people with differing arguments.
TBH I would sign in but I've been effectively banned for arguing on a side that the mobs disagreed with. Not sure why I would log in anymore.
And now I have to wait how long - who knows? - to post again. Some open community!
I didn't even know Slashdot banned anyone except outright trolls and spammers. You can always sign in again if are going to complain about Ad Hominen attacks when you aren't even a Hominem, it's not like it's hard to use create Slashdot accounts. Quoting the point you're arguing against wouldn't hurt either.
Fewer people use high priority mailing. The costs don't scale as much. More empty space is on the planes that carry more of the priority packages. It costs more to deliver things faster.
Fewer people need fiber bandwidth at peak hours. It costs more per mile of cable to serve those people.
There's a scarce amount of things, and the price will have to go up in order for demand to shrink down.
I'm already paying taxes that cover the roads that Fedex uses to deliver my packages, why does Fedex have to pay more money to drive a priority package to my house when they've already flown the package (at their own cost) to within 20 miles of my house?
I've already paid Comcast for 20mbit of bandwidth, why does Netflix have to pay them money to send me data over a pipe that I've already paid for when Netflix is willing to drop that data off at Comcast's front door? If Comcast can't provide 20mbit of bandwidth at the price they sold it to me for, then it sounds like they've overpromised and underdelivered and they should adjust rates accordingly.
But they aren't using wireless for the backhaul, they're using it for the last mile. And they're doing it because it's cheaper and quicker to install than improved wireline connections.
So if they want to use wireless to meet this obligation they should be held to the same standard as if they had met it with wireline service.
My point is that wired gives dedicated bandwidth to the aggregation point. With wireles the bandwidth is shared, so the more users that use it, the more it degrades. I thought that was clear when I made the analogy with Wifi.
Oh, but in many rural areas they *do* use point-to-point wireless for the backhaul. Since it's point-to-point, it's not subject to the same sharing constraints, but it's not the same as a hardwired fiber connection.
It's not ad hominem if there's no "hominem" -- sign in to an account if you want someone to argue the merits of your argument. When you post as an AC, you're just one of many anonymous voices shouting from the back of the auditorium.
Are you against overnight delivery options? This is propaganda against the same thing, except for bandwidth.
Companies offer expedited delivery because it increases the amount of business they can do. If it cost them customers to offer tiered services, they wouldn't do it. The internet will be larger and offer more options, not fewer, if Net Neutrality is kept out of the ISP industry.
The righteous indignation against internet freedom in this case is surprising for the community that wants so much choice in software.
Fedex doesn't pay more money to use the roads to deliver an overnight package than to deliver a 5 day ground package.
A more apt analogy to express delivery is that Netflix could opt for a slower service where you choose the movie you want to watch the day before, and they download it to you overnight, reducing their need for peak bandwidth. But that is not the same as paying the carriers more money to get the bits to you.
You obviously don't live in any densely populated enough area (say, Southern California) where there in fact are any car-pool lanes, do you? Where do you think that extra lane came from? The meta-plane of elemental freeway lanes? No, they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane and now, one-by-one, they're beginning to systematically charge you extra to use them.
Actually, CalTrans is not allowed to convert an existing lane to an HOV lane, only "new" lanes can become HOV lanes:
There's no technical reason that good LTE coverage isn't going to give you a broadband experience. I've got 50/10 meg VDSL2, and three-bar LTE coverage provides similar downstream and way more upstream.
The problem, then, isn't the technology itself. The problem is the 1GB data cap and $15/GB overage fees. My VDSL2 connection comes with 300GB of data, on an LTE connection that'd cost me $4,500 a month. At those prices, even if LTE is capable of acting as broadband, you can't use it as such.
Well, there is one Technical reason -- the same reason that limits every wireless protocol -- there is a limited amount of frequency spectrum available to wireless signals, which puts a cap on the aggregate bandwidth available. Multiple sectors and channels can help, but it's still not the same as wireless -- just like how 300Mbit 802.11n Wifi in the office doesn't give everyone the same quality of service as 100mbit wired connections -- it's great when only a few people are using the Wifi, but when everyone tries to use the fileserver at once, they all have to share the same bandwidth.
Wired infrastructure is also aggregated and shared on the back end, but there are fewer limitations on available bandwidth since the fiber backhaul has a lot more capacity than the limited RF bandwidth available to carriers. Increasing LTE capacity often means installing a new cell site so each site serves fewer users, which can take years from planning to implementation. In comparison, adding additional wired backhaul capacity is often as easy as lighting up another fiber strand (or using faster transceivers).
They transcoded it a ton, don't expect FLAC or even mp3 v0. Seems more for publicity.
"...came from.ogg files that were encoded from.wav files that were created from.mp3 files that were encoded from the mastered.wav files which were generated from ProTools final mix.wav files that were created from 24-track analog tape."
Mod this insightful! I was tricked and thought that loadable kernel modules were going to be the music distribution format of the future... it seems so convenient! But it turns out that this was just about the publicity. How dissapointing!
This data's barely 50 years old, of extremely high value (thus worth the extraordinary effort), and relatively low Size. We're talking about a couple of thousand high-resolution pictures, so what, each is perhaps what, 10 megabytes (they're all b&w)? So total of 20 gigs of images?
I know people that take more picture data than that in a single 1st birthday party.
And in 50 years, will it be gone?
When my grandmother died and we cleaned out her attic, we threw away a lot of old photos and 8mm movies because no one alive still knew who was in the pictures.
Someday my thousands of digital photos will suffer the same fate -- when my computer is sold off for scrap and the credit card that pays my dropbox bill is canceled, they will all dissappear except for images that I've specifically chosen to pass on... as they should.
...No card slot, no keyboard, no daylight readable screen, and therefore no sale.
Why do companies insist on copying the same lack of features of the big-name manufacturers while still calling themselves "revolutionary?" It's just another clone phone, the Toyota Camry of boring copycat "me too" featureless blank slates that already flood the marketplace.
Yawn.
No microSD card slot? A non-removable battery? Into the trash it goes.
I was a little disappointed when I found out that you had to be invited to have the option of buying one but I wasn't aware they had gotten rid of the microSD slot and removable battery so I guess I'll be looking at the Galaxy S5 instead even if I had an invite. For the life of me I don't understand why people consider a non-removable battery (and batteries are very prone to failures) to be a feature; I like to have spares in case I go somewhere charging is not possible or convenient or in the more likely case the original battery loses its ability to keep a charge like I've experienced with two different Li-Ion batteries.
While I don't necessarily consider a non-removable battery to be a "feature" (though maybe it is if manufacturer claims that it lets them create a thinner phone are true), I never removed the battery in my Galaxy Nexus after almost 2 years of use, and while the Nexus 5 battery is "non-removable", that only means that it'll take 20 minutes to change the battery if it fails, it's really not that hard to open the phone. I already carry a USB battery pack for recharging other USB devices, so I don't really need to be able to change batteries on the fly.
Given the choice between a MicroSD card slot and a removable battery, I'd opt for the MicroSD, since I like to load up movies for long trips and would love to be able to just pop in a 64GB MicroSD card with dozens of movies rather than downloading them on the phone.
I have a slightly more ambitious suggestion. We should make a list of every device that uses this 'sercomm' module and make a point never to buy them again.
Who is 'we'? The.01% of consumers that are tech savvy enough to know what a backdoor is and why we don't want one? Meanwhile everyone else will continue to buy routers based on which picture on the box looks better.
Testing department are useless when you can take a snapshot and rollback in case a problem is detected. Also, if you are into an organisation as big as you claim, your critical system run unecrypted behind an SSL accelerator&application firewall. Testing is so 200?ish...
Sure.... I've heard that before... rollback fixes everything... When the time clocks lose punches because they can't upload data to the attendance system you can just tell managers to manually reconcile timecards for 10,000 employees since IT didn't bother to test anything.
That's ridiculous. I download firmware patches, software patches, etc on a daily basis. Patching heartbleed wouldn't even be out of the ordinary for my job as CIO. It basically costs IT nothing.
If you are downloading patches,you are no CIO regardless of the the title you gave yourself. Any company large enough to need a real CIO would have a gone through an extensive testing/qualification process for an emergency out-of-band patch. You would be lamenting the many man hours your teams lost while testing the patch (which, due to the urgency, meant that it could not go through the normal QA process you use before deploying patches). It took Amazon all day to deploy the patch across their load balancers.
If clicking 'like' where I have no way to read to and agree to a contract stands up in court, can I also email them a contract of my own telling them that by accepting my 'like' then they are bound to the terms of my contract?
The huge problem with OSS is that if no one takes the responsibility to do a good code audit for a project, the NSA will do that independently, file the found exploits, and tell nobody.
Of course, the flip side is that if you *want* to do a good code audit for software you're using, you can do it on your own with open source software (and you can review code changes in patches before applying them). However, with closed source software, you can (usually) only take the word of the closed source company and have to trust that they haven't purposely inserted back doors into the code.
And once one company does the audit, they can share it with others (or a group of companies could share the costs of the audit), and all users, no matter how large or small, can validate that the code they are running matches the audited code.
Of course, an audit isn't a guarantee of finding a bug (which is just as true for closed source software as it is for open source software), but at least with open source code, a company that finds a bug can choose to fix it immediately without waiting for it to filter through a large company's release process.
Perl remediates 85% of all Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities, the highest rate among all languages but only 18% of SQL Injection.
There is no Perl language support to remediate cross site scripting. That's all done by the developer and/or framework he's using, so I don't see how it's useful to say that Perl remediates 85% of XSS vulnerabilities when the language itself has no idea what XSS is or how to remediate it.
I'm also having trouble reconciling this statement:
Perl has an observed rate of 67% Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities, over 17% more than any other language.
So Perl re mediates 85% of XSS vulnerabilities -- the highest rate of any language, yet it has a 17% higher rate of XSS vulnerabilities?
This study would be slightly more useful if they gave details on web frameworks instead of just languages.
I'm surprised Ruby and Python didn't make the list, I figured that either one of those languages would be more popular than Perl for web development today
Considering this is a non-problem to start with, we'd absolutely be doing more harm than good. This was the most brutal winter I've seen in over 20 years. It seems like every other day I was plowing more global warming off my driveway and we just got another 5" of global warming last night that I had to shovel off my walk.
Why do so many people confuse weather with climate?
would either Google or especially Facebook be buying drone companies? These companies obviously have WAY too much money and are WAY overvalued. I suppose it is smart that rather than wait for the bubble to burst and the share price to crash, wiping out billions in value, they're trying to get stuff that is worth something while they still can. Still, this is actually kind of unsettling to me and makes me wonder if we may cruising obliviously towards the next text meltdown, sooner rather than later?
It's alluded to in the summary, and spelled out in TFA - both companies have shown interest in providing internet access in underserved areas through aerial platforms:
Both Ascenta and Titan Aerospace are in the business of high altitude drones, which cruise nearer the edge of the earth’s atmosphere and provide tech that could be integral to blanketing the globe in cheap, omnipresent Internet connectivity to help bring remote areas online. According to the WSJ, Google will be using Titan Aerospace’s expertise and tech to contribute to Project Loon, the balloon-based remote Internet delivery project it’s currently working on along these lines.
...
The main goal, however, is likely spreading the potential reach of Google and its network, which is Facebook’s aim, too. When you saturate your market and you’re among the world’s most wealthy companies, you don’t go into maintenance mode; you build new ones.
The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?"
Why not let software engineers take responsibility for their work just like "real" engineers do when they sign off on a project?
The developer responsible for the Heartbleed bug that put the privacy of millions of users at risk stood up and took responsibility for his mistake.
If you know that the world is going to hear about it if you screw up, then maybe you'll take a little more time to vet your work before you sign off on it.
It was discovered and fixed so quickly *because* it's open source
For crikessakes, the heartbleed vulnerability existed for over 2 years before being discovered and fixed!
Sorry my bad, that sentence was confusing -- I meant the fix was fast, not finding the bug.
An exact timeline for Hearthbleed is hard to find, but it looks like there was some responsible disclosure of the bug to some large parties about a week before public disclosure and release of the fixed SSL library.
In contract, Apple learned of its SSL vulnerabilityover a month before they released an IOS patch and even after public disclosure of the bug, it was about a week before they released the OSX patch. And just like the OpenSSL bug, Apple's vulnerability was believed to have been in the wild for about 2 years before detection. (of course, since the library code was opensourced by Apple, several unofficial patches were released before Apple's official patch).
Slashdot Mirror
but the "un" in unique comes from the latin unus, which means one. you can't be relatively unique any more than you can be relatively dead.
Perhaps if we were in Ancient Rome, you might have a point. However, while many words in English have their origins in Latin, their modern meanings have deviated from the original Latin roots.
"a very unique milestone in space exploration"
WTF?
"unique" is not a relative adjective. There are no degrees of "unique". Something is either unique or it's not.
Aaargh!
That's why there are no such words as uniquer or uniquest
</rant>
Funny thing about English - many words have more than one meaning:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
unique adjective \yu-nk\
3: unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>
Usage Discussion of UNIQUE
Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary....
Charging very different users the same is obviously not as efficient as tiered services - otherwise there would no such thing as tiered service, anywhere. By forcing them not to use a legitimate business model you are telling them that they may not recover costs as efficiently.
They already charge different users differently -- I pay more money for a faster connection since I use Netflix heavily. If I didn't watch streaming video, instead of a 25mbit connection, I'd buy their cheap 6mbit connection (or would use an ADSL provider). If they find charging for bandwidth alone to be unsustainable, then they can charge for data too -- charge $20 for each 100GB, or whatever covers their costs. They have lots of flexibility in their pricing structure. They can add peak surcharges or whatever else they need to do to pay for their network.
The type of business that will be more likely to fail in this situation is the start-up or the small scale business.
How can a startup expect to charge money to large users like Netflix, Amazon, etc? If Joe's House of Internet tried to force Netflix to pay up, Netflix would tell them to shove off and wouldn't worry about losing a few customers. But when Comcast (with over 15 million internet customers) tells them to pay up, they have little choice, since they can't afford to lose millions of customers.
Sure, allow more competition. I'm all for a freer market.
But don't reduce competition by telling Comcast that they can't incur costs on Netflix, when Netflix is incurring costs on Comcast.
Netflix isn't incurring costs on Comcast, I (as a Comcast customer) am incurring the cost by requesting the data from Netflix, so I should be paying for that -- Netflix isn't forcing me to accept their data, I am requesting it.
Why is it worse to have hidden costs in your monopoly bill than your more competitive Netflix bill?
Because, it's a hidden cost and I can't see the true cost of my Comcast connection. If I pay $50/month to Comcast, and have a hidden $5 for Netflix, $3 for Amazon, $5 for Youtube, $1 for Facebook, etc, the true cost of my bill might really be over $100, and if I knew that, I might find another ISP more cost effective. And more importantly, if Comcast charged their true cost of delivering service and that ended up being $100/month, that might be a level that makes it profitable for another provider to come in, while if the content provider subsidies kept Comcast rates artificially low, then there would be less incentive for a competitor to enter the market since he wouldn't get the same subsidies yet he'd be competing against Comcast's subsidized rates.
There's little difference between converting an existing lane and deciding that the new lane you're adding is an HOV lane.
It seems that the difference is that it's *not* the same as "they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane" as the grandparent poster was claiming.
There are costs besides roads. Trucks have costs associated with them, mostly by mileage. There are gas, oil, repairs to pay for. Drivers to pay.
They have to pay more for a truck that's less full. Fewer people will use priority mail, so the vehicles that have priority packages are more likely to be less full. Being less full is less efficient, and has higher costs associated with it.
Sure, and that's all borne by the carrier that's driving on the roads to deliver the package to my door -- I pay that carrier just like I pay Netflix, but I don't expect my city to charge Fedex Priority truck a surchage when they let Fedex Ground trucks drive for free.
The problem with analogies is that they don't always translate well to the real world problem.
You didn't pay for bandwidth, you paid for 'up to' that amount - unless you have an ISP that wants to be sued for fraud (and more power to you if they did). I don't know of anyone that actually buys data transfer, except on their phone. And that's on top of a flat connection bill
Let's see what Comcast says on their High Speed internet page:
Get download speeds up to 25 Mbps – Share photos, book travel, and watch the latest viral video craze – at super-fast speeds.
Get download speeds up to 50 Mbps – so you can game in real-time, download HD movies, and connect all the devices in your home simultaneously – at incredible speeds.
Connect your devices and do more of what you love online with reliable Internet speeds for your home.
Gee, I don't see anything there or their terms of use that says "Note: High speed internet applies only to providers that pay us to deliver their data to you".
.
An ISP that owns cables is paying off the cost of building them. An ISP that borrows cables is paying off the bulk cost of renting. When a cable is made to serve customers that use it less efficiently, such as mostly at peak hours, or otherwise concentrated in large transfers, then it costs more to accommodate them.
If a business is not allowed to find the efficient means of paying these costs, then that business will fail. Everyone will lose, especially the customer, who will have fewer and worse options.
I don't know why you think I don't want Comcast to be able to recover their costs of providing service -- they already have an efficient means to pay those costs -- they send me a bill each month, and if that bill isn't paying their costs, they can increase the rates I pay. That way I can fairly compare prices among different ISP's (luckily I'm in an area where I can choose from a few). When Netflix subsidizes Comcast, that makes the true cost of my internet service hidden since part of the cost is hidden in my Netflix bill (and eventually Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc will all have to pay). The largest ISP's shouldn't be allowed to use their near monopoly market penetration to extract fees from content providers when they are already charging customers for internet access.
So 1600213 is an identifier and 46836941 is not.
They are both identifiers, one identifies a person, one identifies a post.
Why does anything besides the content of a post matter in the merit of an argument?
Because it's impossible to conduct any reasonable discussion with an AC since that "one" AC may be many different people with differing arguments.
TBH I would sign in but I've been effectively banned for arguing on a side that the mobs disagreed with. Not sure why I would log in anymore.
And now I have to wait how long - who knows? - to post again. Some open community!
I didn't even know Slashdot banned anyone except outright trolls and spammers. You can always sign in again if are going to complain about Ad Hominen attacks when you aren't even a Hominem, it's not like it's hard to use create Slashdot accounts. Quoting the point you're arguing against wouldn't hurt either.
Fewer people use high priority mailing. The costs don't scale as much. More empty space is on the planes that carry more of the priority packages. It costs more to deliver things faster.
Fewer people need fiber bandwidth at peak hours. It costs more per mile of cable to serve those people.
There's a scarce amount of things, and the price will have to go up in order for demand to shrink down.
I'm already paying taxes that cover the roads that Fedex uses to deliver my packages, why does Fedex have to pay more money to drive a priority package to my house when they've already flown the package (at their own cost) to within 20 miles of my house?
I've already paid Comcast for 20mbit of bandwidth, why does Netflix have to pay them money to send me data over a pipe that I've already paid for when Netflix is willing to drop that data off at Comcast's front door? If Comcast can't provide 20mbit of bandwidth at the price they sold it to me for, then it sounds like they've overpromised and underdelivered and they should adjust rates accordingly.
But they aren't using wireless for the backhaul, they're using it for the last mile. And they're doing it because it's cheaper and quicker to install than improved wireline connections.
So if they want to use wireless to meet this obligation they should be held to the same standard as if they had met it with wireline service.
My point is that wired gives dedicated bandwidth to the aggregation point. With wireles the bandwidth is shared, so the more users that use it, the more it degrades. I thought that was clear when I made the analogy with Wifi.
Oh, but in many rural areas they *do* use point-to-point wireless for the backhaul. Since it's point-to-point, it's not subject to the same sharing constraints, but it's not the same as a hardwired fiber connection.
again ad hominem
It's not ad hominem if there's no "hominem" -- sign in to an account if you want someone to argue the merits of your argument. When you post as an AC, you're just one of many anonymous voices shouting from the back of the auditorium.
Are you against overnight delivery options? This is propaganda against the same thing, except for bandwidth.
Companies offer expedited delivery because it increases the amount of business they can do. If it cost them customers to offer tiered services, they wouldn't do it. The internet will be larger and offer more options, not fewer, if Net Neutrality is kept out of the ISP industry.
The righteous indignation against internet freedom in this case is surprising for the community that wants so much choice in software.
Fedex doesn't pay more money to use the roads to deliver an overnight package than to deliver a 5 day ground package.
A more apt analogy to express delivery is that Netflix could opt for a slower service where you choose the movie you want to watch the day before, and they download it to you overnight, reducing their need for peak bandwidth. But that is not the same as paying the carriers more money to get the bits to you.
You obviously don't live in any densely populated enough area (say, Southern California) where there in fact are any car-pool lanes, do you? Where do you think that extra lane came from? The meta-plane of elemental freeway lanes? No, they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane and now, one-by-one, they're beginning to systematically charge you extra to use them .
Actually, CalTrans is not allowed to convert an existing lane to an HOV lane, only "new" lanes can become HOV lanes:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffa...
Regular "mixed-flow" lanes are never converted to HOV lanes. Rather, HOV lanes are always added to existing facilities.
There's no technical reason that good LTE coverage isn't going to give you a broadband experience. I've got 50/10 meg VDSL2, and three-bar LTE coverage provides similar downstream and way more upstream.
The problem, then, isn't the technology itself. The problem is the 1GB data cap and $15/GB overage fees. My VDSL2 connection comes with 300GB of data, on an LTE connection that'd cost me $4,500 a month. At those prices, even if LTE is capable of acting as broadband, you can't use it as such.
Well, there is one Technical reason -- the same reason that limits every wireless protocol -- there is a limited amount of frequency spectrum available to wireless signals, which puts a cap on the aggregate bandwidth available. Multiple sectors and channels can help, but it's still not the same as wireless -- just like how 300Mbit 802.11n Wifi in the office doesn't give everyone the same quality of service as 100mbit wired connections -- it's great when only a few people are using the Wifi, but when everyone tries to use the fileserver at once, they all have to share the same bandwidth.
Wired infrastructure is also aggregated and shared on the back end, but there are fewer limitations on available bandwidth since the fiber backhaul has a lot more capacity than the limited RF bandwidth available to carriers. Increasing LTE capacity often means installing a new cell site so each site serves fewer users, which can take years from planning to implementation. In comparison, adding additional wired backhaul capacity is often as easy as lighting up another fiber strand (or using faster transceivers).
They transcoded it a ton, don't expect FLAC or even mp3 v0. Seems more for publicity.
"...came from .ogg files that were encoded from .wav files that were created from .mp3 files that were encoded from the mastered .wav files which were generated from ProTools final mix .wav files that were created from 24-track analog tape."
Mod this insightful! I was tricked and thought that loadable kernel modules were going to be the music distribution format of the future... it seems so convenient! But it turns out that this was just about the publicity. How dissapointing!
...of what's to come.
This data's barely 50 years old, of extremely high value (thus worth the extraordinary effort), and relatively low Size.
We're talking about a couple of thousand high-resolution pictures, so what, each is perhaps what, 10 megabytes (they're all b&w)? So total of 20 gigs of images?
I know people that take more picture data than that in a single 1st birthday party.
And in 50 years, will it be gone?
When my grandmother died and we cleaned out her attic, we threw away a lot of old photos and 8mm movies because no one alive still knew who was in the pictures.
Someday my thousands of digital photos will suffer the same fate -- when my computer is sold off for scrap and the credit card that pays my dropbox bill is canceled, they will all dissappear except for images that I've specifically chosen to pass on... as they should.
...No card slot, no keyboard, no daylight readable screen, and therefore no sale.
Why do companies insist on copying the same lack of features of the big-name manufacturers while still calling themselves "revolutionary?" It's just another clone phone, the Toyota Camry of boring copycat "me too" featureless blank slates that already flood the marketplace.
Yawn.
No microSD card slot? A non-removable battery? Into the trash it goes.
I was a little disappointed when I found out that you had to be invited to have the option of buying one but I wasn't aware they had gotten rid of the microSD slot and removable battery so I guess I'll be looking at the Galaxy S5 instead even if I had an invite. For the life of me I don't understand why people consider a non-removable battery (and batteries are very prone to failures) to be a feature; I like to have spares in case I go somewhere charging is not possible or convenient or in the more likely case the original battery loses its ability to keep a charge like I've experienced with two different Li-Ion batteries.
While I don't necessarily consider a non-removable battery to be a "feature" (though maybe it is if manufacturer claims that it lets them create a thinner phone are true), I never removed the battery in my Galaxy Nexus after almost 2 years of use, and while the Nexus 5 battery is "non-removable", that only means that it'll take 20 minutes to change the battery if it fails, it's really not that hard to open the phone. I already carry a USB battery pack for recharging other USB devices, so I don't really need to be able to change batteries on the fly.
Given the choice between a MicroSD card slot and a removable battery, I'd opt for the MicroSD, since I like to load up movies for long trips and would love to be able to just pop in a 64GB MicroSD card with dozens of movies rather than downloading them on the phone.
I have a slightly more ambitious suggestion. We should make a list of every device that uses this 'sercomm' module and make a point never to buy them again.
Who is 'we'? The .01% of consumers that are tech savvy enough to know what a backdoor is and why we don't want one? Meanwhile everyone else will continue to buy routers based on which picture on the box looks better.
Testing department are useless when you can take a snapshot and rollback in case a problem is detected. Also, if you are into an organisation as big as you claim, your critical system run unecrypted behind an SSL accelerator&application firewall. Testing is so 200?ish...
Sure.... I've heard that before... rollback fixes everything... When the time clocks lose punches because they can't upload data to the attendance system you can just tell managers to manually reconcile timecards for 10,000 employees since IT didn't bother to test anything.
That's ridiculous. I download firmware patches, software patches, etc on a daily basis. Patching heartbleed wouldn't even be out of the ordinary for my job as CIO. It basically costs IT nothing.
If you are downloading patches,you are no CIO regardless of the the title you gave yourself. Any company large enough to need a real CIO would have a gone through an extensive testing/qualification process for an emergency out-of-band patch. You would be lamenting the many man hours your teams lost while testing the patch (which, due to the urgency, meant that it could not go through the normal QA process you use before deploying patches). It took Amazon all day to deploy the patch across their load balancers.
If clicking 'like' where I have no way to read to and agree to a contract stands up in court, can I also email them a contract of my own telling them that by accepting my 'like' then they are bound to the terms of my contract?
The huge problem with OSS is that if no one takes the responsibility to do a good code audit for a project, the NSA will do that independently, file the found exploits, and tell nobody.
Of course, the flip side is that if you *want* to do a good code audit for software you're using, you can do it on your own with open source software (and you can review code changes in patches before applying them). However, with closed source software, you can (usually) only take the word of the closed source company and have to trust that they haven't purposely inserted back doors into the code.
And once one company does the audit, they can share it with others (or a group of companies could share the costs of the audit), and all users, no matter how large or small, can validate that the code they are running matches the audited code.
Of course, an audit isn't a guarantee of finding a bug (which is just as true for closed source software as it is for open source software), but at least with open source code, a company that finds a bug can choose to fix it immediately without waiting for it to filter through a large company's release process.
I don't understand this:
Perl remediates 85% of all Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities, the highest rate among all languages but only 18% of SQL Injection.
There is no Perl language support to remediate cross site scripting. That's all done by the developer and/or framework he's using, so I don't see how it's useful to say that Perl remediates 85% of XSS vulnerabilities when the language itself has no idea what XSS is or how to remediate it.
I'm also having trouble reconciling this statement:
Perl has an observed rate of 67% Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities, over 17% more than any other language.
So Perl re mediates 85% of XSS vulnerabilities -- the highest rate of any language, yet it has a 17% higher rate of XSS vulnerabilities?
This study would be slightly more useful if they gave details on web frameworks instead of just languages.
I'm surprised Ruby and Python didn't make the list, I figured that either one of those languages would be more popular than Perl for web development today
Considering this is a non-problem to start with, we'd absolutely be doing more harm than good. This was the most brutal winter I've seen in over 20 years. It seems like every other day I was plowing more global warming off my driveway and we just got another 5" of global warming last night that I had to shovel off my walk.
Why do so many people confuse weather with climate?
would either Google or especially Facebook be buying drone companies? These companies obviously have WAY too much money and are WAY overvalued. I suppose it is smart that rather than wait for the bubble to burst and the share price to crash, wiping out billions in value, they're trying to get stuff that is worth something while they still can. Still, this is actually kind of unsettling to me and makes me wonder if we may cruising obliviously towards the next text meltdown, sooner rather than later?
It's alluded to in the summary, and spelled out in TFA - both companies have shown interest in providing internet access in underserved areas through aerial platforms:
Both Ascenta and Titan Aerospace are in the business of high altitude drones, which cruise nearer the edge of the earth’s atmosphere and provide tech that could be integral to blanketing the globe in cheap, omnipresent Internet connectivity to help bring remote areas online. According to the WSJ, Google will be using Titan Aerospace’s expertise and tech to contribute to Project Loon, the balloon-based remote Internet delivery project it’s currently working on along these lines.
The main goal, however, is likely spreading the potential reach of Google and its network, which is Facebook’s aim, too. When you saturate your market and you’re among the world’s most wealthy companies, you don’t go into maintenance mode; you build new ones.
The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?"
Why not let software engineers take responsibility for their work just like "real" engineers do when they sign off on a project?
The developer responsible for the Heartbleed bug that put the privacy of millions of users at risk stood up and took responsibility for his mistake.
If you know that the world is going to hear about it if you screw up, then maybe you'll take a little more time to vet your work before you sign off on it.
It was discovered and fixed so quickly *because* it's open source
For crikessakes, the heartbleed vulnerability existed for over 2 years before being discovered and fixed!
Sorry my bad, that sentence was confusing -- I meant the fix was fast, not finding the bug.
An exact timeline for Hearthbleed is hard to find, but it looks like there was some responsible disclosure of the bug to some large parties about a week before public disclosure and release of the fixed SSL library.
In contract, Apple learned of its SSL vulnerability over a month before they released an IOS patch and even after public disclosure of the bug, it was about a week before they released the OSX patch. And just like the OpenSSL bug, Apple's vulnerability was believed to have been in the wild for about 2 years before detection. (of course, since the library code was opensourced by Apple, several unofficial patches were released before Apple's official patch).