Network neutrality was created at the inception of the Internet, as it was classed as Title 2. Executive orders overrode Congress. No President, Bush or any other, had the authority to override Congress. The law is clear. Ignorance of it is not an excuse.
Sorry, you're wrong. The Internet was created under Title 2. The distinction of data is by executive order, not law. Law requires net neutrality. The courts are entitled to impose law on the lawless. That is their job.
Network neutrality was assigned to the Internet under Title 2 at the point of origin. Not by committee, but by Congress. I assume you believe in the rule of law.
You need to track connections, accounts, logical device interfaces and logical user instances, but not physical people or physical things. Even a license plate just correlates a registration of a logical notion of a car with a registration of a logical notion of the owner. Not a physical thing.
The physical world is not related to the logical world. You don't need to track physical people and there need not be a 1:1 relationship to logical data. So a logical person entity can be multiple physical people, and a physical person can have multiple logical person entities.
As long as what is needed is present, that's fine. It's also more secure.
We can dispense with the idea of individuals, at the data level, eliminating the need for IDs that correspond to specific things in meatspace.
Linux has been modular for decades, so you only include what you use. So if you don't use the filesystem or the patch, you don't install the filesystem or patch.
Interactions should only be with the local subsystem, so a hundred modules of a hundred thousand makes no difference. You're still only looking at core functions (kernel core functions plus local API). The subsystem takes care of security, etc.
With kernel threads, non-interacting code blocks don't need to risk blocking each other.
Because context switches are the things that kill performance, reducing context switches by having all of a module in the kernel rather than half in is a good approach. Exokernels (where only essential code is ring 0) are only faster if you're not having to make a lot of calls across. Microkernels are generally slower than monolithic, modular or eco.
At this point, the cost of mitigating the Intel bugs is more than the cost of recalling the chips or the cost of using formal methods to prevent such bugs arising to begin with. This shows why doing it right is better than doing it cheaply. (Something I've said for the past 30 years.)
Frankly, I'm not impressed with the improvements of the last few releases. Zero copy was introduced both with Von Jacobson Channels and the RDMA Consortium, again many decades ago. It should be standard for all I/O subsystems. I'm also still waiting for the plugable scheduler, as no individual scheduler is right for all systems.
And if people really want a lighter kernel, then have the filesystem and network subsystems standalone. If you can upload them on to a sufficiently advanced disk controer/network card respectively, you can offload all that work and use message passing to mask where it's running. Decentralization. Reduces the consequence of bad CPUs, you can't interfere with code that isn't running on it, and might improve performance as the CPU isn't hogged.
Some parts of the kernel may be buggy or vulnerable to regression. If they can be rewritten in Verified C, or so that they can be praised with Why3, you can start to develop theorems that will establish if the code is behaving as you'd expect.
Lost track of whether SGI's kernel debugger was fully integrated with the mainline. If not, why not and can someone please bring it up to date and get it looked at properly?
Same with Web10g, the network profiling system. We could do a lot with that if it were, ummm, used by people and not hiding in obscurity.
What's the story with badmem? Now that cheapo space missions are going to be common, Linux needs to support the ability to be used in a slowly degrading computer.
If they wanted to prevent abuse, weighted round robin and ECN take a few seconds to activate and guarantee heavy users can't take more than their fair share if others are trying to use it.
They didn't. They chose a system that required a lot of implementing and a lot of auditing, along with space to track things. This is potentially much more dangerous, there may well have been fatalities from throttling as medical implants are updated remotely. It's certainly less fair. But it does.take a whole bucketload more money.
Conclusion: this has nothing to do with abuse or heavy users, this is about profiteering.
But total money and total quality writing talent are fixed. (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)
So greater choice must either divide these pools over more programs or a greater percentage of shows must have no budget or talent. This only matters once you reach some critical value - budget left over simply becomes profit, not better shows, and writing talent left over becomes skid row. Though, not necessarily their lyricist.
So you can expand without harmful impact, and get greater choice, up to a point. After that, quality drops like a stone.
Britain had better programs when it had four or five TV channels. These days, quality is terrible. The U.S. and Australia have abysmal TV. You might feel like you've something to watch, now, and you do - but far from being the creme a la creme of TV, it's simply adequate. Your expectations have fallen.
This doesn't mean there weren't bad shows way back. Most were terrible, because good talent is extremely scarce and there wasn't enough material to create the profits needed to utilize the talent they had well. There's a sweet spot, where you get the money to make many good new shows. You are no closer to it with 1,000 channels as you are with 1. But you can't average them, it's not a Gaussian distribution. The maximum could be anywhere.
As evidence, I offer Megalodon (a fake documentary by the History channel), Ancient Aliens (a fake documentary by the History channel) and Human Planet (a fake documentary by the BBC).
Since when has the BBC needed to fake documentaries?
Since competition and commercial pressures made doing it right an unaffordable luxury.
My understanding is pretty much as you say plus the failure to honour comes only after NN was abandoned, tying the two together.
Verizon has the capacity to guarantee an emergency lane over the Internet, with RSVP, MPLS or DiffServ. Options are something they're not short of. A lane on the Internet that could be switched to a fire lane only in a catastrophe. It has been done before, with long-distance (as in between continents) robotic surgery.
I don't know how much bandwidth you need, you're a volunteer firefighter so may be able to guess. I don't see why you couldn't be given a panic button that cleared that space and guaranteed it in the event of a declared disaster.
There are several forms, staring with Weighted Round Robin, but basically if you have X% of the total downstream pipe, you are allocated X% of the total upstream pipe. Anything you don't use gets shared with the others.
In the case of emergency services, I would argue a case for RSVP. This protocol guarantees a certain amount of bandwidth end-to-end and is designed for this kind of emergency use. I think the fire services should have to pay a sensible amount for such an emergency lane, but I think they should have the option.
Hospitals have used RSVP over the Internet for telesurgery - robotic surgery between hospitals in different counties, sometimes continents. It is used, it does work.
As long as it's not abused and the total emergency reallocation doesn't prevent society functioning, I don't see a problem with this. The Internet should have enough redundancy and spare capacity to handle a nuclear bomb, which means it should be able to handle a forest fire or a medical procedure.
Verizon introduced caps for the firefighters at the same time as they stopped network neutrality. That is the basis for the lawsuit demanding the reintroduction of net neutrality.
They may not be related in fact, but Verizon linked them in law.
Ars Technica covered this some time back. Rival ISPs get their wires cut. ISPs have no-compete agreements with each other wherever possible and make it very expensive to compete in other circumstances. ISPs have gone bankrupt repairing mysteriously destroyed infrastructure in Comcast and Verizon territory.
There is no such thing as "your own Internet". If you're going to be abusive, at east use the correct terminology. Actually, don't be abusive, it makes you look like a spotty teenager.
Also, they were paying their bills, Verizon just weren't delivering. The cap was without warning, not based on anything in writing and originally denied by the company.
When the lives of millions of registered voters are at stake, politicians are going to lay attention.
The relationship comes from the cap being imposed along with the elimination of net neutrality. Verizon treated them as the same. There had not been a cap, previously.
Probability of success and effort required will be some function of time f(t) such that the longer a crisis/stressor has been ongoing, the greater the effort and the lower the probability of success.
Ergo, as t approaches zero (fixing the problem essentially as it happens or shortly after), probability is high and effort is low.
The problem is what effort is required. The brain is just a machine, there is no soul. Nothing is committed to long-term memory for about 30 minutes. We know how to turn the brain off and then back on again, so as long as this takes place inside 30 minutes, there is no psychological impact.
After that time? Well, there can be no psychological change without neurological change. The brain is just a machine. We don't actually know the relationship terribly well, or how to reverse all of those changes, but you know that there IS a relationship and that there IS an input that will roll back any given change. The fact that you don't know it doesn't matter. We can apply early Greek medical philosophy here, which isn't really any different from the strategy of genetic algorithms - we can inspect beforehand, we can try things out, we can inspect the results, we can then use the things that worked as a starting point for the next attempts, dropping the things that failed. Repeat until you've got something that works reliably. It should converge fairly quickly.
We have some good starting points - R. D. Laing showed how a lot of problems stem from incorrect mappings between inputs from the senses and the processing from the internal models in the brain to the cognitive functions. More recent research has shown that overdevelopment and underdevelopment of key parts of the brain is critical to how the brain interprets stimuli. We know a fair amount about how to stimulate development of underdeveloped parts of the brain, and as it's crises that cause overdevelopment, shutting down the problems quickly should prevent that happening.
Ergo, we've a decent starting point.
So some things can be cured completely within half an hour and other things should be manageable within days and curable inside 4 years. Given many people see pdocs and psychiatrists for decades or even the rest of their lives, 4 years is negligible time and effort.
There are excessive planes. They cause a lot of noise and air pollution. We'd be far better off replacing many of the midsized planes with A380s, A400s and other aircraft of similar size.
This would reduce the number of accidents (since ATC would be less stressed and a stressed ATC is responsible for many air crashes of significance).
Microlights aren't an issue. They're not exactly 1.1 tonne vehicles travelling at 240 MPH (the McLaren F1 is a fast car) and the sky is just a little bit bigger than a road, with this added benefit of an added dimension.
Sorry, I will have to call bogus comparison, but even if you reject that, you can't reject the fact that the sky is stupidly busy given that we can halve the congestion with next to no effort, thus halving the risk of a major accident. By accepting that there are too many aircraft.
Legs are natural. Cars.... you have to show me a gene for them before I'll be convinced they get equal status.
Besides, you still haven't offered a single reason why mass transit isn't equally good to get you to the general place and why walking isn't equally good to get you the rest of the way. I walk 20 miles a day for fun, which is why I'm not a gelatinous blob like some of these millionaires.
Money is a status symbol. It's a surrogate for having any kind of sense. If he wasn't capable of earning millions - if total earnings are capped per unit time, along with total wealth, as per Plato's suggestion, he wouldn't have become addicted.
Nobody becomes suicidal overnight. If instead of holding to some outmoded macho image that was out of style in the 60s and an insurance system that makes mental healthcare highly profitable by doing little and charging a lot, there was a system in place that corrected issues early, quickly, cheaply and effectively, he might never have become addicted to power, glamour and money in the first place, or treated when depression set in.
If there had been more police on the beat, in the community, working with people rather than shooting them, he could have been stopped by the time he attacked the school.
If mass transit was commonplace, convenient and cheap and if there wasn't so much hostility to talking, then you could seriously restrict driving and pedestrianise large areas without inconveniencing anyone.
That might have meant the girl was on a bus, tram or train rather than vulnerable car.
That might also have meant the lunatic wasn't able to buy a car or didn't want one as it wasn't a status symbol.
Slashdot Mirror
Network neutrality was created at the inception of the Internet, as it was classed as Title 2. Executive orders overrode Congress. No President, Bush or any other, had the authority to override Congress. The law is clear. Ignorance of it is not an excuse.
Sorry, you're wrong. The Internet was created under Title 2. The distinction of data is by executive order, not law. Law requires net neutrality. The courts are entitled to impose law on the lawless. That is their job.
No, he did not create them. They already existed. Net neutrality existed from inception as the Internet is Title 2.
The distinction of data was made by executive order. It usurps Congressional authority. Congress originally had the Internet under Title 2.
So the question is, are the courts investigating the illegal cancelling of Title 2 without proper authority or some other issue?
That usurps the Federal law passed by Congress that places the Internet under Title 2.
It was decided by Congress. Congress ruled that data traffic was no different from any other, placing the Internet under Title 2.
Bush decided unilaterally to overrule the law.
It is right and proper to overturn illegal decisions in the court. That is their function.
Network neutrality was assigned to the Internet under Title 2 at the point of origin. Not by committee, but by Congress. I assume you believe in the rule of law.
Why should anyone care?
You need to track connections, accounts, logical device interfaces and logical user instances, but not physical people or physical things. Even a license plate just correlates a registration of a logical notion of a car with a registration of a logical notion of the owner. Not a physical thing.
The physical world is not related to the logical world. You don't need to track physical people and there need not be a 1:1 relationship to logical data. So a logical person entity can be multiple physical people, and a physical person can have multiple logical person entities.
As long as what is needed is present, that's fine. It's also more secure.
We can dispense with the idea of individuals, at the data level, eliminating the need for IDs that correspond to specific things in meatspace.
Linux has been modular for decades, so you only include what you use. So if you don't use the filesystem or the patch, you don't install the filesystem or patch.
Interactions should only be with the local subsystem, so a hundred modules of a hundred thousand makes no difference. You're still only looking at core functions (kernel core functions plus local API). The subsystem takes care of security, etc.
With kernel threads, non-interacting code blocks don't need to risk blocking each other.
Because context switches are the things that kill performance, reducing context switches by having all of a module in the kernel rather than half in is a good approach. Exokernels (where only essential code is ring 0) are only faster if you're not having to make a lot of calls across. Microkernels are generally slower than monolithic, modular or eco.
At this point, the cost of mitigating the Intel bugs is more than the cost of recalling the chips or the cost of using formal methods to prevent such bugs arising to begin with. This shows why doing it right is better than doing it cheaply. (Something I've said for the past 30 years.)
Frankly, I'm not impressed with the improvements of the last few releases. Zero copy was introduced both with Von Jacobson Channels and the RDMA Consortium, again many decades ago. It should be standard for all I/O subsystems. I'm also still waiting for the plugable scheduler, as no individual scheduler is right for all systems.
And if people really want a lighter kernel, then have the filesystem and network subsystems standalone. If you can upload them on to a sufficiently advanced disk controer/network card respectively, you can offload all that work and use message passing to mask where it's running. Decentralization. Reduces the consequence of bad CPUs, you can't interfere with code that isn't running on it, and might improve performance as the CPU isn't hogged.
Some parts of the kernel may be buggy or vulnerable to regression. If they can be rewritten in Verified C, or so that they can be praised with Why3, you can start to develop theorems that will establish if the code is behaving as you'd expect.
Lost track of whether SGI's kernel debugger was fully integrated with the mainline. If not, why not and can someone please bring it up to date and get it looked at properly?
Same with Web10g, the network profiling system. We could do a lot with that if it were, ummm, used by people and not hiding in obscurity.
What's the story with badmem? Now that cheapo space missions are going to be common, Linux needs to support the ability to be used in a slowly degrading computer.
If they wanted to prevent abuse, weighted round robin and ECN take a few seconds to activate and guarantee heavy users can't take more than their fair share if others are trying to use it.
They didn't. They chose a system that required a lot of implementing and a lot of auditing, along with space to track things. This is potentially much more dangerous, there may well have been fatalities from throttling as medical implants are updated remotely. It's certainly less fair. But it does .take a whole bucketload more money.
Conclusion: this has nothing to do with abuse or heavy users, this is about profiteering.
But total money and total quality writing talent are fixed. (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)
So greater choice must either divide these pools over more programs or a greater percentage of shows must have no budget or talent. This only matters once you reach some critical value - budget left over simply becomes profit, not better shows, and writing talent left over becomes skid row. Though, not necessarily their lyricist.
So you can expand without harmful impact, and get greater choice, up to a point. After that, quality drops like a stone.
Britain had better programs when it had four or five TV channels. These days, quality is terrible. The U.S. and Australia have abysmal TV. You might feel like you've something to watch, now, and you do - but far from being the creme a la creme of TV, it's simply adequate. Your expectations have fallen.
This doesn't mean there weren't bad shows way back. Most were terrible, because good talent is extremely scarce and there wasn't enough material to create the profits needed to utilize the talent they had well. There's a sweet spot, where you get the money to make many good new shows. You are no closer to it with 1,000 channels as you are with 1. But you can't average them, it's not a Gaussian distribution. The maximum could be anywhere.
As evidence, I offer Megalodon (a fake documentary by the History channel), Ancient Aliens (a fake documentary by the History channel) and Human Planet (a fake documentary by the BBC).
Since when has the BBC needed to fake documentaries?
Since competition and commercial pressures made doing it right an unaffordable luxury.
My understanding is pretty much as you say plus the failure to honour comes only after NN was abandoned, tying the two together.
Verizon has the capacity to guarantee an emergency lane over the Internet, with RSVP, MPLS or DiffServ. Options are something they're not short of. A lane on the Internet that could be switched to a fire lane only in a catastrophe. It has been done before, with long-distance (as in between continents) robotic surgery.
I don't know how much bandwidth you need, you're a volunteer firefighter so may be able to guess. I don't see why you couldn't be given a panic button that cleared that space and guaranteed it in the event of a declared disaster.
I'd use a variant of the divide by X model.
There are several forms, staring with Weighted Round Robin, but basically if you have X% of the total downstream pipe, you are allocated X% of the total upstream pipe. Anything you don't use gets shared with the others.
In the case of emergency services, I would argue a case for RSVP. This protocol guarantees a certain amount of bandwidth end-to-end and is designed for this kind of emergency use. I think the fire services should have to pay a sensible amount for such an emergency lane, but I think they should have the option.
Hospitals have used RSVP over the Internet for telesurgery - robotic surgery between hospitals in different counties, sometimes continents. It is used, it does work.
As long as it's not abused and the total emergency reallocation doesn't prevent society functioning, I don't see a problem with this. The Internet should have enough redundancy and spare capacity to handle a nuclear bomb, which means it should be able to handle a forest fire or a medical procedure.
Verizon introduced caps for the firefighters at the same time as they stopped network neutrality. That is the basis for the lawsuit demanding the reintroduction of net neutrality.
They may not be related in fact, but Verizon linked them in law.
Ars Technica covered this some time back. Rival ISPs get their wires cut. ISPs have no-compete agreements with each other wherever possible and make it very expensive to compete in other circumstances. ISPs have gone bankrupt repairing mysteriously destroyed infrastructure in Comcast and Verizon territory.
There is no such thing as "your own Internet". If you're going to be abusive, at east use the correct terminology. Actually, don't be abusive, it makes you look like a spotty teenager.
Also, they were paying their bills, Verizon just weren't delivering. The cap was without warning, not based on anything in writing and originally denied by the company.
When the lives of millions of registered voters are at stake, politicians are going to lay attention.
The relationship comes from the cap being imposed along with the elimination of net neutrality. Verizon treated them as the same. There had not been a cap, previously.
Probability of success and effort required will be some function of time f(t) such that the longer a crisis/stressor has been ongoing, the greater the effort and the lower the probability of success.
Ergo, as t approaches zero (fixing the problem essentially as it happens or shortly after), probability is high and effort is low.
The problem is what effort is required. The brain is just a machine, there is no soul. Nothing is committed to long-term memory for about 30 minutes. We know how to turn the brain off and then back on again, so as long as this takes place inside 30 minutes, there is no psychological impact.
After that time? Well, there can be no psychological change without neurological change. The brain is just a machine. We don't actually know the relationship terribly well, or how to reverse all of those changes, but you know that there IS a relationship and that there IS an input that will roll back any given change. The fact that you don't know it doesn't matter. We can apply early Greek medical philosophy here, which isn't really any different from the strategy of genetic algorithms - we can inspect beforehand, we can try things out, we can inspect the results, we can then use the things that worked as a starting point for the next attempts, dropping the things that failed. Repeat until you've got something that works reliably. It should converge fairly quickly.
We have some good starting points - R. D. Laing showed how a lot of problems stem from incorrect mappings between inputs from the senses and the processing from the internal models in the brain to the cognitive functions. More recent research has shown that overdevelopment and underdevelopment of key parts of the brain is critical to how the brain interprets stimuli. We know a fair amount about how to stimulate development of underdeveloped parts of the brain, and as it's crises that cause overdevelopment, shutting down the problems quickly should prevent that happening.
Ergo, we've a decent starting point.
So some things can be cured completely within half an hour and other things should be manageable within days and curable inside 4 years. Given many people see pdocs and psychiatrists for decades or even the rest of their lives, 4 years is negligible time and effort.
There are excessive planes. They cause a lot of noise and air pollution. We'd be far better off replacing many of the midsized planes with A380s, A400s and other aircraft of similar size.
This would reduce the number of accidents (since ATC would be less stressed and a stressed ATC is responsible for many air crashes of significance).
Microlights aren't an issue. They're not exactly 1.1 tonne vehicles travelling at 240 MPH (the McLaren F1 is a fast car) and the sky is just a little bit bigger than a road, with this added benefit of an added dimension.
Sorry, I will have to call bogus comparison, but even if you reject that, you can't reject the fact that the sky is stupidly busy given that we can halve the congestion with next to no effort, thus halving the risk of a major accident. By accepting that there are too many aircraft.
I don't see the problem.
I see your weebles and raise you a wheelie. It's still a community without legs, even if it has been invaded by a witch and a dragon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Legs are natural. Cars.... you have to show me a gene for them before I'll be convinced they get equal status.
Besides, you still haven't offered a single reason why mass transit isn't equally good to get you to the general place and why walking isn't equally good to get you the rest of the way. I walk 20 miles a day for fun, which is why I'm not a gelatinous blob like some of these millionaires.
France. Britain used to, before raising the minimum age to 5.
SCOTUS long ago agreed that commercial speech is not protected. So, no.
Money is a status symbol. It's a surrogate for having any kind of sense. If he wasn't capable of earning millions - if total earnings are capped per unit time, along with total wealth, as per Plato's suggestion, he wouldn't have become addicted.
Nobody becomes suicidal overnight. If instead of holding to some outmoded macho image that was out of style in the 60s and an insurance system that makes mental healthcare highly profitable by doing little and charging a lot, there was a system in place that corrected issues early, quickly, cheaply and effectively, he might never have become addicted to power, glamour and money in the first place, or treated when depression set in.
If there had been more police on the beat, in the community, working with people rather than shooting them, he could have been stopped by the time he attacked the school.
Lots of places to stop the perfect storm.
If mass transit was commonplace, convenient and cheap and if there wasn't so much hostility to talking, then you could seriously restrict driving and pedestrianise large areas without inconveniencing anyone.
That might have meant the girl was on a bus, tram or train rather than vulnerable car.
That might also have meant the lunatic wasn't able to buy a car or didn't want one as it wasn't a status symbol.