Semantics. If the network is full, trying to cram more packets into it doesn't work.
Sure, and trying to fill a 1 gallon bucket with 2 gallons of water doesn't work. But that's not a reason to under-fill the bucket. The bucket still holds one gallon.
Crap, I used a water analogy for bandwidth.
The net effect of dropping packets is the equivalent to slowing down. 1MB takes longer to transfer.
The net effect of data caps is equivalent to slowing down too. 1TB takes longer to transfer.
Would it somehow support an argument to saturate the highway system? No. Its not relevant. Feel free to assume your car is free to drive for the sake of the argument it doesn't change anything with respect to the analogy.
Yes, yes it would. If transportation were cost free, there would be no reason not to saturate the transportation network.
Incentives to reduce use of capacity allow the provider to delay such an upgrade from one date to a later date
That's exactly the problem with caps. Everyone gets worse service because the ISP refuses to build out capacity when they can just get paid extra for overages instead.
People want high speeds, but you don't want them going at full speed for the entire month, or they will over-utilize your network. Can you propose a better billing solution then billing them by throughput?
There's no such thing as "over-utilization". There's maximum utilization, and under-utilization. TCP/IP has mechanisms to handle the case where too many people want to use a link. If 10 people each want to saturate your outbound connection, they'll each get 1/10th of the available bandwidth. That sounds fair to me.
I can propose a better billing solution. One flat monthly fee for network access, use all you want. This is how it's been with most ISPs for 20 years and it has worked well.
But as an ISP, if you want that "water" delivered to your doorstep and I have to pipe it uphill, 50miles from the source, the water is no longer "free". It costs real money to distribute...
Not really. Sure, building and maintaing the *capacity* costs money. But that's a fixed cost regardless of how much of that capacity you actually use. That's very different from water.
Q: And what exactly happens if it is maximally utilized and you want to send 1 more packet?
A: It doesn't go through.
Or rather, it doesn't go through with an equal probability that other packets won't go through. We all get our fair share of the network, regardless of oversubscription.
Sure, perpetual gridlock maximizes the 'cars per unit of pavement' metric, and in some twisted logic divides the cost of the pavement between the most vehicles... hurrah!... but only a complete idiot
Only a complete idiot would compare IP networks to the roads. Packets don't slow down when there's not enough room. The cost of fuel per packet is negligible, not so with cars. It's not the same at all.
Because you're not really paying for data, you're paying for network access. It's more like local calling, where both sender and receiver pay a flat charge to get access to the network. Since the local network is owned by the telco, they don't have to pay anyone for usage, so you get to use it as much as you want once you have access.
With ISPs it's similar. They have to pay for what exits their network and goes to the internet, but that's pretty much a flat cost. That link should stay saturated. If you're sending too much data to Japan or wherever, TCP/IP has mechanisms to limit that. There's absolutely no reason to charge per byte for internet access.
Bandwith is not a commodity like water. We don't save anything when we under utilize it. The cheapest per bit cost is when the network is maximally utilized. Incentives that encourage people to use less bandwith are economically unsound.
If all the CPAN stuff would just work with other languages
Couldn't it? Would it be possible, at least in theory, to compile CPAN modules to a binary format that could be linked to other programming languages? Is there any reason that CPAN couldn't be turned into something more like a shared library?
Re:I used it. Once.
on
Perl Turns 25
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sounds like Perl. Powerful, accessible to a complete beginner, reliable, and practically unmodifiable once written.
Sure, if you're talking spinning metal platters, there's a significant cost in just providing the physical package, regardless of how dense the bits are packed onto the platters. But when you're just talking some silicon for storage and a little more silicon for logic, production is cheap, dirt cheap.
Yes, but you need to buy a controller/adaptor in that case. At least CF-IDE adaptors are passive, so they're stupidly cheap. I only have to wait for the price/gb to halve once more and 32GB CF should be about what I want to pay for it.
If you want to keep something private, don't do it in public. There's your right to privacy. What you really mean is you want the right to do something private publically, and then force the general public to protect your privacy for you. That's not a right, that's just you being irresponsible.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
That's the difference. In Germany, your rights end wherever they've passed a law abridging them. In the US, at least in theory, if they pass a law abridging your rights that law is null and void, not your rights.
Oh, and they've got a "think of the children" clause built right in. And wtf does "personal honor" mean?
He probably made random rants, but I don't think they'll find much.
I'm not even sure what of value they could expect to find. We know who he was, and we know that he's dead. We don't need evidence to present at court. Case closed.
And the ones that have, have done so due to negligence. It's not nuclear energy that's the problem. It's the inability of society to force powerful people (such as the operators of nuclear power plants) to play by the rules.
According to the Supreme Court military veterans are not defending fighting words.
Nor are the WBC speaking fighting words. What the WBC may be hateful, but they do not incite imminent lawless action. The legality of what the WBC does has been upheld by the Supreme Court before. Do some research.
Also, you realize that combat veterans have demonstrated the ability to do what is right, to protect others, rather than what is in their personal best interest?
No, I don't realize that at all. I realize that combat veterans are foolish enough to believe that's what's good for Halliburton is good for America. There hasn't been a war since WWII that's actually been about protecting Americans and their freedom. If veterans were wise enough to see the value in speaking truth to power, they would have never joined the military.
The Bush administration did in fact make a similar argument that protestors with a different message and agenda would be disruptive to the purpose of the events that the administration was organizing.
Which totally misses the point of protests. They are supposed to be disruptive. If everyone can go about their day as if there were no protests, what would be the point of protesting? If your protest isn't causing problems for people in power, then you have no leverage to get them to change.
Slashdot Mirror
Semantics. If the network is full, trying to cram more packets into it doesn't work.
Sure, and trying to fill a 1 gallon bucket with 2 gallons of water doesn't work. But that's not a reason to under-fill the bucket. The bucket still holds one gallon.
Crap, I used a water analogy for bandwidth.
The net effect of dropping packets is the equivalent to slowing down. 1MB takes longer to transfer.
The net effect of data caps is equivalent to slowing down too. 1TB takes longer to transfer.
Would it somehow support an argument to saturate the highway system? No. Its not relevant. Feel free to assume your car is free to drive for the sake of the argument it doesn't change anything with respect to the analogy.
Yes, yes it would. If transportation were cost free, there would be no reason not to saturate the transportation network.
Incentives to reduce use of capacity allow the provider to delay such an upgrade from one date to a later date
That's exactly the problem with caps. Everyone gets worse service because the ISP refuses to build out capacity when they can just get paid extra for overages instead.
People want high speeds, but you don't want them going at full speed for the entire month, or they will over-utilize your network. Can you propose a better billing solution then billing them by throughput?
There's no such thing as "over-utilization". There's maximum utilization, and under-utilization. TCP/IP has mechanisms to handle the case where too many people want to use a link. If 10 people each want to saturate your outbound connection, they'll each get 1/10th of the available bandwidth. That sounds fair to me.
I can propose a better billing solution. One flat monthly fee for network access, use all you want. This is how it's been with most ISPs for 20 years and it has worked well.
But as an ISP, if you want that "water" delivered to your doorstep and I have to pipe it uphill, 50miles from the source, the water is no longer "free". It costs real money to distribute...
Not really. Sure, building and maintaing the *capacity* costs money. But that's a fixed cost regardless of how much of that capacity you actually use. That's very different from water.
Q: And what exactly happens if it is maximally utilized and you want to send 1 more packet?
A: It doesn't go through.
Or rather, it doesn't go through with an equal probability that other packets won't go through. We all get our fair share of the network, regardless of oversubscription.
Sure, perpetual gridlock maximizes the 'cars per unit of pavement' metric, and in some twisted logic divides the cost of the pavement between the most vehicles... hurrah!... but only a complete idiot
Only a complete idiot would compare IP networks to the roads. Packets don't slow down when there's not enough room. The cost of fuel per packet is negligible, not so with cars. It's not the same at all.
Because you're not really paying for data, you're paying for network access. It's more like local calling, where both sender and receiver pay a flat charge to get access to the network. Since the local network is owned by the telco, they don't have to pay anyone for usage, so you get to use it as much as you want once you have access.
With ISPs it's similar. They have to pay for what exits their network and goes to the internet, but that's pretty much a flat cost. That link should stay saturated. If you're sending too much data to Japan or wherever, TCP/IP has mechanisms to limit that. There's absolutely no reason to charge per byte for internet access.
Waiting until I get home is free. Have some patience.
Bandwith is not a commodity like water. We don't save anything when we under utilize it. The cheapest per bit cost is when the network is maximally utilized. Incentives that encourage people to use less bandwith are economically unsound.
If all the CPAN stuff would just work with other languages
Couldn't it? Would it be possible, at least in theory, to compile CPAN modules to a binary format that could be linked to other programming languages? Is there any reason that CPAN couldn't be turned into something more like a shared library?
Sounds like Perl. Powerful, accessible to a complete beginner, reliable, and practically unmodifiable once written.
Sure, if you're talking spinning metal platters, there's a significant cost in just providing the physical package, regardless of how dense the bits are packed onto the platters. But when you're just talking some silicon for storage and a little more silicon for logic, production is cheap, dirt cheap.
Yes, but you need to buy a controller/adaptor in that case. At least CF-IDE adaptors are passive, so they're stupidly cheap. I only have to wait for the price/gb to halve once more and 32GB CF should be about what I want to pay for it.
I asked a shark, but he just told me to suck his dick.
Let me know when I can get a 32GB SSD for $20 or less.
No, as an esteemed Dutch legal professor recently explained to me: privacy is the right to be left alone if you so choose.
Great, then choose not to give Facebook your information, and you'll be left alone. No government intervention needed.
If you want to keep something private, don't do it in public. There's your right to privacy. What you really mean is you want the right to do something private publically, and then force the general public to protect your privacy for you. That's not a right, that's just you being irresponsible.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
That's the difference. In Germany, your rights end wherever they've passed a law abridging them. In the US, at least in theory, if they pass a law abridging your rights that law is null and void, not your rights.
Oh, and they've got a "think of the children" clause built right in. And wtf does "personal honor" mean?
He probably made random rants, but I don't think they'll find much.
I'm not even sure what of value they could expect to find. We know who he was, and we know that he's dead. We don't need evidence to present at court. Case closed.
I have a rock that repels mass murderers.
And the ones that have, have done so due to negligence. It's not nuclear energy that's the problem. It's the inability of society to force powerful people (such as the operators of nuclear power plants) to play by the rules.
Why not issue blanket pardons to anyone convicted of a law that has been repealed?
Why do anything? Destroy the secure passphrase in your brain and your encrypted storage is as good as gone.
According to the Supreme Court military veterans are not defending fighting words.
Nor are the WBC speaking fighting words. What the WBC may be hateful, but they do not incite imminent lawless action. The legality of what the WBC does has been upheld by the Supreme Court before. Do some research.
Also, you realize that combat veterans have demonstrated the ability to do what is right, to protect others, rather than what is in their personal best interest?
No, I don't realize that at all. I realize that combat veterans are foolish enough to believe that's what's good for Halliburton is good for America. There hasn't been a war since WWII that's actually been about protecting Americans and their freedom. If veterans were wise enough to see the value in speaking truth to power, they would have never joined the military.
If he was never convicted, he wouldn't need a pardon would he?
The Bush administration did in fact make a similar argument that protestors with a different message and agenda would be disruptive to the purpose of the events that the administration was organizing.
Which totally misses the point of protests. They are supposed to be disruptive. If everyone can go about their day as if there were no protests, what would be the point of protesting? If your protest isn't causing problems for people in power, then you have no leverage to get them to change.