Assuming a 30 minute daily commute and a normal full-time schedule, 42.5 hours per week * 47 weeks per year (10 holidays and 3 weeks combined vacation and sick leave) works out to a hair under 2000 hours.
In a large company, you are a specialist. You will have the opportunity to become a specialist in another area of the work if you want, but nobody gets to be a soup to nuts guy. The grass may look greener on the designers' side of the fence but it isn't. They're just as constrained as you are.
On the other hand, it's stable. They'll pay you reliably and well.
In a small startup, you are a generalist. You won't just have the opportunity to do everything, you'll have to. And you have to get good enough at it to be effective. Like everyone else in the company, you're responsible for the bottom line. Your work is complementary or else you pound pavement.
Risky. But you won't be pigeonholed.
At the end of the day it's not about the salary. You'll spend more than 2,000 hours at work this year. That's a heck of a lot of time. Will working as a specialist make that time more enjoyable? Will working as a generalist?
The divide is based on the ownership of content or the rights to distribute that content. Netflix owns rights to distribute the content. Cogent does not.
The OP was complaining about Verizon. Verizon's cable TV service is a content provider. Verizon owns the rights to distribute that content. Verizon is also a network provider, delivering Internet access service. OP implies that Verizon's conflict of interest leads them to intentionally impair Netflix's competing content service.
In principle, you're right. Demanding payment for peering which exceeds the cost of establishing the immediate connection amounts to double-billing which is at the very least unethical.
However, we're talking about Cogent here. They aren't just demanding the right to send lots of packets to Verizon's customers. They're demanding the right to send lots of packets to Verizon's customers interfacing at the Verizon locations of their choice.
I'd have more sympathy for Verizon is they were offering to let Cogent connect at locations convenient to Verizon. But I have no sympathy for Cogent at all.
The currently accurate term for "tier 1" is "transit-free network." A network which purchases no Internet transit service is transit-free. All packets entering or leaving their network are to customers or to peers.
The distinction between a "transit" connection and a "peering" connection is that a transit connection is to "the rest of the Internet" while a peering connection is only to "you and your customers."
The solution is: Netflix should know better than to rely on Cogent to deliver their data. Cogent has a long history of dropping packets, undersizing connections and blaming everybody else for it. Some folks will be able to stream data from Cogent and some won't. Without an alternative path to Verizon customers, this is 100% Netflix's fault.
I created a web app. The password (decyption key) is sent on every request, so it's never at rest. Under the hood, entries are encrypted and decrypted with openssl using a reasonably secure algorithm. Each entry in the database is just a plain text file. I can include passwords, accounting information, URLs, whatever I want.
Cogent has a long history of instigating peering disputes with other networks. Normally I'd complain about Verizon's behavior but this is Cogent we're talking about. They have -zero- credibility.
Congratulations. You've demonstrated exactly why school boards can't give science teachers a free hand in how they teach evolution.
Teaching that believers in Intelligent Design are kooks is teaching that science has no error bars. Much of Evolutionary theory is solid, but it isn't gravity solid or electromagnetism solid. Teaching Evolutionary theory as fact indoctrinates children into faith in scientists instead of teaching them the methods of science and critical thinking. That sort of indoctrination perverts science, turning it into just another belief system, a religion of rationalism.
You have to understand that to an atheist, its very easy to sit back and "respect everyone's beliefs".
In my experience, that's true of self-identified "agnostics" but rarely true of those who define themselves as "atheist." I call it "evangelical athiesm." They'll have none of that God talk around them and theirs! The faintest whiff of it must be challenged with rationalism.
This word "proof." I don't think it means what you think it means.
If intelligent design was subject to disproof, we'd no more be having this conversation than we'd have a conversation about whether the Earth is flat.
This is unfortunate, because if you can't tell the difference between disproven and untestable then all of your statements about proof or disproof become suspect.
Actually, according to your reference there is both a theory of gravity and a law of gravity.
The law quantitatively documents what happens.
The theory attempts to explain why.
There is no law of evolution. We can't reliably quantify it. If that tells you nothing else, it should tell you to place much greater confidence in gravity than evolution. Which returns us to my thesis: that arguing equivalent confidence in evolution and gravity is as oafish as arguing equivalent confidence in creationism and evolution.
A scientific theory makes testable predictions. Experiments can be devised whose results confirm or refute the predictions. Knowledge can be collected from the environment which either fits or refutes the predictions. That's what makes it science.
Creationism and it's stepchild Intelligent Design make no testable predictions. Therefore they are not science. Therefore they do not belong in a science curriculum.
Actually, it's the "law of gravity," not the "theory." As it should be with something that can be demonstrated by experiment, is reproducible and despite centuries of effort hasn't been refuted by experiment.
Please don't compare experimental science with historical evidence science. Their conclusions don't have the same level of confidence and shouldn't be taught as if they do.
It's a GIANT problem right now. My parents worked for the EPA before they retired. Most of the regs were good but they were endlessly frustrated by some of the junk science used to support them.
Whatever you want to read in to Rep Schweikert's motivations, he's not wrong on the facts.
Folks, it's like you're trying to redesign the hammer. Don't. The hammer has been perfected. Any but the slightest of changes will make it worse, not better.
This is not a comment on your skills as web developers. You're quite good. But your new site isn't what your audience wants. They want the site they liked enough to stay and keep visiting. They don't want something that "looks" like it. They want *that site*.
You don't get to intentionally divulge classified information and walk away. Even if it's patriotism instead of treason. The plea deal should be 3 to 5 years, minimum security prison.
It isn't the library's job to foster innovation and technology. That's a good thing to do but it's not what the library is for. The library's job is to make knowledge and culture accessible to its patrons. Play at being an innovation center and you'll surrender the library's task to the Internet.
So, here's an easy one: stock some of the popular Japanese graphic novels. If the shelf space in Barnes & Noble is to be believed, the kids *want* these. But stock the ones in Japanese, maybe including the English translation, maybe not. And buy the Rosetta Stone software for Japanese and install it on one of the library computers so that any kid who wants to learn to read the novels...
Hence the court ruling that it was, in fact, not fair. Which is why the FCC should redefine Internet transit services (services which "connect" you to the Internet) as common carriers.
The legislation required was passed decades ago. The FCC has the authority to designate a communications service either a common carrier or an information service.
It isn't 100% clear that an ISP would have the authority to boot spammers if it was classified as a common carrier. They probably would but it isn't certain.
Slashdot Mirror
The MtGox failure is worse, your coins are in there, but can you get them out now?
Are you sure? I thought the reason they stopped trading was alleged software flaws which were siphoning the coins out.
Assuming a 30 minute daily commute and a normal full-time schedule, 42.5 hours per week * 47 weeks per year (10 holidays and 3 weeks combined vacation and sick leave) works out to a hair under 2000 hours.
In a large company, you are a specialist. You will have the opportunity to become a specialist in another area of the work if you want, but nobody gets to be a soup to nuts guy. The grass may look greener on the designers' side of the fence but it isn't. They're just as constrained as you are.
On the other hand, it's stable. They'll pay you reliably and well.
In a small startup, you are a generalist. You won't just have the opportunity to do everything, you'll have to. And you have to get good enough at it to be effective. Like everyone else in the company, you're responsible for the bottom line. Your work is complementary or else you pound pavement.
Risky. But you won't be pigeonholed.
At the end of the day it's not about the salary. You'll spend more than 2,000 hours at work this year. That's a heck of a lot of time. Will working as a specialist make that time more enjoyable? Will working as a generalist?
It's because we have so much freedom that we know enough to be alarmed by how much government intrusion there is.
Cogent is a network provider.
The divide is based on the ownership of content or the rights to distribute that content. Netflix owns rights to distribute the content. Cogent does not.
The OP was complaining about Verizon. Verizon's cable TV service is a content provider. Verizon owns the rights to distribute that content. Verizon is also a network provider, delivering Internet access service. OP implies that Verizon's conflict of interest leads them to intentionally impair Netflix's competing content service.
Yes and no.
In principle, you're right. Demanding payment for peering which exceeds the cost of establishing the immediate connection amounts to double-billing which is at the very least unethical.
However, we're talking about Cogent here. They aren't just demanding the right to send lots of packets to Verizon's customers. They're demanding the right to send lots of packets to Verizon's customers interfacing at the Verizon locations of their choice.
I'd have more sympathy for Verizon is they were offering to let Cogent connect at locations convenient to Verizon. But I have no sympathy for Cogent at all.
The currently accurate term for "tier 1" is "transit-free network." A network which purchases no Internet transit service is transit-free. All packets entering or leaving their network are to customers or to peers.
The distinction between a "transit" connection and a "peering" connection is that a transit connection is to "the rest of the Internet" while a peering connection is only to "you and your customers."
The solution is: Netflix should know better than to rely on Cogent to deliver their data. Cogent has a long history of dropping packets, undersizing connections and blaming everybody else for it. Some folks will be able to stream data from Cogent and some won't. Without an alternative path to Verizon customers, this is 100% Netflix's fault.
I created a web app. The password (decyption key) is sent on every request, so it's never at rest. Under the hood, entries are encrypted and decrypted with openssl using a reasonably secure algorithm. Each entry in the database is just a plain text file. I can include passwords, accounting information, URLs, whatever I want.
Cogent has a long history of instigating peering disputes with other networks. Normally I'd complain about Verizon's behavior but this is Cogent we're talking about. They have -zero- credibility.
not emulating their parents' psychosis
Congratulations. You've demonstrated exactly why school boards can't give science teachers a free hand in how they teach evolution.
Teaching that believers in Intelligent Design are kooks is teaching that science has no error bars. Much of Evolutionary theory is solid, but it isn't gravity solid or electromagnetism solid. Teaching Evolutionary theory as fact indoctrinates children into faith in scientists instead of teaching them the methods of science and critical thinking. That sort of indoctrination perverts science, turning it into just another belief system, a religion of rationalism.
You have to understand that to an atheist, its very easy to sit back and "respect everyone's beliefs".
In my experience, that's true of self-identified "agnostics" but rarely true of those who define themselves as "atheist." I call it "evangelical athiesm." They'll have none of that God talk around them and theirs! The faintest whiff of it must be challenged with rationalism.
This word "proof." I don't think it means what you think it means.
If intelligent design was subject to disproof, we'd no more be having this conversation than we'd have a conversation about whether the Earth is flat.
This is unfortunate, because if you can't tell the difference between disproven and untestable then all of your statements about proof or disproof become suspect.
Actually, according to your reference there is both a theory of gravity and a law of gravity.
The law quantitatively documents what happens.
The theory attempts to explain why.
There is no law of evolution. We can't reliably quantify it. If that tells you nothing else, it should tell you to place much greater confidence in gravity than evolution. Which returns us to my thesis: that arguing equivalent confidence in evolution and gravity is as oafish as arguing equivalent confidence in creationism and evolution.
Creationism is not a theory.
Sure it is. It just isn't a *scientific* theory.
A scientific theory makes testable predictions. Experiments can be devised whose results confirm or refute the predictions. Knowledge can be collected from the environment which either fits or refutes the predictions. That's what makes it science.
Creationism and it's stepchild Intelligent Design make no testable predictions. Therefore they are not science. Therefore they do not belong in a science curriculum.
Actually, it's the "law of gravity," not the "theory." As it should be with something that can be demonstrated by experiment, is reproducible and despite centuries of effort hasn't been refuted by experiment.
Please don't compare experimental science with historical evidence science. Their conclusions don't have the same level of confidence and shouldn't be taught as if they do.
It's a GIANT problem right now. My parents worked for the EPA before they retired. Most of the regs were good but they were endlessly frustrated by some of the junk science used to support them.
Whatever you want to read in to Rep Schweikert's motivations, he's not wrong on the facts.
Folks, it's like you're trying to redesign the hammer. Don't. The hammer has been perfected. Any but the slightest of changes will make it worse, not better.
This is not a comment on your skills as web developers. You're quite good. But your new site isn't what your audience wants. They want the site they liked enough to stay and keep visiting. They don't want something that "looks" like it. They want *that site*.
You don't get to intentionally divulge classified information and walk away. Even if it's patriotism instead of treason. The plea deal should be 3 to 5 years, minimum security prison.
It isn't the library's job to foster innovation and technology. That's a good thing to do but it's not what the library is for. The library's job is to make knowledge and culture accessible to its patrons. Play at being an innovation center and you'll surrender the library's task to the Internet.
So, here's an easy one: stock some of the popular Japanese graphic novels. If the shelf space in Barnes & Noble is to be believed, the kids *want* these. But stock the ones in Japanese, maybe including the English translation, maybe not. And buy the Rosetta Stone software for Japanese and install it on one of the library computers so that any kid who wants to learn to read the novels...
You're right. I forgot about that.
Hence the court ruling that it was, in fact, not fair. Which is why the FCC should redefine Internet transit services (services which "connect" you to the Internet) as common carriers.
The legislation required was passed decades ago. The FCC has the authority to designate a communications service either a common carrier or an information service.
It isn't 100% clear that an ISP would have the authority to boot spammers if it was classified as a common carrier. They probably would but it isn't certain.
It's past time to just classify them as common carriers and stop trying to make an end-run around the rules.