Faster is best done in Space. Hence the spaceplane concepts that keep being bandied about. Even Super Sonic Aircraft looks slow by comparison.
Between HyperLoop and Spaceplanes, we should really be trying to bypass the whole jet plane thing. Hyperloop for over land, and Spaceplane for trans-oceanic transports.
Yeah, Snopes is caught again being biased. The other side of the story is that they don't have controlling interest in SNOPES.COM anymore. They gave that up. It would be nice to know that this is a divorce in business, and it is gonna get really nasty.
Can you do whatever you want on your networks, but want Comcast limited to what it can do on its networks that it owns? You want the ability to control other peoples networks, please expect them to want to control yours.
Or would you accept Comcast saying "network congestion" as an excuse why your VOIP service doesn't work because your neighbor down the street is running several Torrents of porn out of his mom's basement? Because after all "Net Neutrality" says that every packet on Comcast Network is the same. No QOS allowed because that is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a good idea. However draconian rules and a million micro regulations designed for exceptions because it was short sighted and didn't account for assholes of the world aren't the solution it is going to be .
Seriously, the FIX for this is fixing where the problem actually resides, at the last mile. Fix last mile micro monopolies and you'll solve all Net Neutrality problems in such a way that everyone gets exactly what they want.
You think so. I think so. Some asshole will find a stupid judge and jury and sue your for not allowing his packets on your network, or worse, because you block your network from sending to his network. After all, net neutrality is about equal packets everywhere!
Don't believe me, assholes know how to ruin things for everyone.
Right, the problem is the theory and practice aren't the same, because in practice we fuck things up with all sorts of goofy permanent rules for things that we can't get rid of, because people will die...
blocking what? Packets? Exactly what do you think firewalls do? Seriously, this kind of rule sound fantastic, until some Asshole ruins it for everyone.
But even now, even with Net Neutrality in full force, all traffic cannot be "equal". Net Neutrality would ban traffic shaping of any sort, and probably including firewalls and traffic shaping on servers.
For instance, we ban all traffic from hi Spam and malware addresses, Net Neutrality would require us to open that traffic up, as "all traffic is equal". The point being, whatever you think is good about Net Neutrality is gonna be worse. The problem is, instead of reverting back to how it is now, they will keep tweaking the law until it is really fucked up and only special interests will have their way. AND we'll be all using Comcast because they got a Franchise agreement for the whole of the USA (single payer internet!)
In theory, when a vendor's product or service is defective, consumers have a right to sue and recover damages. The problem still isn't the Free Market, it is the rule and regulations placed on it by Government that limits the natural options.
Trade imbalances are simply market driving efficiencies. Nothing new there. Real wealth is created by work, some work is cheaper to produce elsewhere, then elsewhere it will go.China, is using its 3x population size to leverage wealth creation. Americans cannot compete against that. Add in India with its 3x population size and suddenly China and India become the labor force of the future. Tariffs only hurt everyone involved.
But they look good on paper, and sound good to the ears, so lets do that!
Apple does not have an edge. If you download PokemonGo from someone other than Niantic off the Play Store, you're an idiot. I don't care if it is "super modified to spoof GPS legitimately!" version of PokemonGo. This is nothing more than Cellphone Darwin award winning material here.
The 2007 PC("custom built" non-laptop) was tethered to a wall. It didn't have Cell service It didn't have GPS It didn't have a lot of things a Cell Phone has.
It did have things that a Cell Phone doesn't.
My point is, that the 2007 PC and the Cell Phone of today (Flagship) are close enough to power / capability, trade off for trade off that we don't recognize the Cell phone for what it actually is, a full computer replacement in the palm of your hand. Of course the GP is also right, in that a custom rig from 2007 is likely to be able to do things a Cell Phone of today can't, but those things are trade offs for what a Cell phone can do, that a Custom Desktop can't (like portability).
Wouldn't every ISP have the exact network capacity, same up time, same cost, etc?
Not necessarily. A fiber line in most locations can offer up to 10GB (or more soon) data connection. I can assure you that currently, that level service is MORE than enough for a household of connected gadgets. That link would be from On Premises to the COLO facility. Depending on the switching capability at the COLO that could be switched by the Municipality (controlled VLAN) or Switched to the Provider (Physical handoff) , depending on how the COLO is setup.
So the answer is, it depends. It could have the same Last Mile speed (1G, 10G, 40G whatever) for everyone, or it could be I have 1G max, you have 10G max (last mile).
Once in the datacenter it is easy to control speeds with QOS, Traffic Shaping, packet inspection (and more) along with actual physical constraints.
The issue again is that the LAST mile is not controlled by the entity that should be controlling it, the municipality. It is leased via Franchise Agreement and is the basic monopoly where we are having the issues.
The idea of the COLO is that Comcast, Verizon, ATT, and whatever else is housed THERE, not at your "driveway". Our Current ISP system is like saying "FedEX has exclusive rights to package delivery to your address. You cannot use DHL, UPS, or even the USPS to deliver packages, only FedEX. Because they own the roads under our Franchise Agreement". By moving the last mile to Municipal Owned and maintained, it would be like the city owns the roads and anyone can deliver packages to your home.
Nope, that's Tyranny and Nanny State legislation. But I recognize the sarcasm.
The problem we have is that we think we can legislate problems away, without creating worse problems that we can't fix. We're failing as a people to locate the source of the problem (Franchise Agreements with Local Municipalities) and are trying to get the state and federal levels to solve this problem via draconian rules that will not actually produce the result intended, while simultaneously causing additional problems.
The source of the problem here, is that the consumer has no choice in ISP. Most places have One, a few have two. You fix this by having the local municipality be the TRANSIT layer (fiber). Bring the fiber to a COLO facility where vendors(Comcast, ATT, Verizon, Netflix etc) have access to every customer and offer their services to everyone.
This doesn't require any legislation at all. I have no idea who thinks government can solve market demand problems via draconian rules that will eventually backfire or become otherwise useless.
I've been told the responsibility of being offended lies completely upon the person (me in my case) that is offended. It is said that nobody has any control over what offends or doesn't offend someone else. Personally, I find manbuns offensive.
I would class that as "If a company fudges on their responsibility..." so you are correct "thrown to the wolves". The problem is, Symantec is trusted by people who don't know any better (CEO/PHB)
Humans migrate all the time, for reasons other than war. Resources become scarce, humans will war until the demand changes. The rich and powerful will always control the weak and poor, and it doesn't matter what political philosophy you embrace, this is true of all of them.
Been tried, communications companies have fought it tooth and nail (and often won) pretty much every-time
And thus ends Net Neutrality.
And it hasn't been tried exactly the way I am proposing. This isn't "Local Municipality Internet" this is Fiber brought to a COLO where Comcast/NBC/Universal, Netflix, Verizon/Yahoo, ATT/DirectTV, and the rest compete for my business. The fiber is maintained by the local Municipality, and only provides last mile transport.
This is decoupling the last mile transport from that which actually transits it.
I think most people would. Imagine the resulting proliferation of services being offered, that people seem to want, but no service provider is willing to provide?
Providing CHOICE in the market makes the market most efficient, right now, I have ONE "Choice" for Internet. That is the problem, because I have the choice of "Take it or Leave it" with Comcast laughing "Suck it" at me.
So, what? It should be on the table, because knowing where the actual problem is, allows us to fix the problem CORRECTLY. Saying corrupt politicians should be in charge of defining net neutrality laws is simply asking for more problems and worse outcome than leaving things as is. Why can't people see that franchise agreements (governmental) are the root cause of Net Neutrality issues to this day? The fix isn't more of what caused it, it is less.
TBH a Cert Authority cannot validate 100% of Certs 100% of the time. The issue is, what is the resolution/procedure when the inevitable happens. The way to maintain trust when failure happens is, work to solve the issue in a way that designed to restore trust as quickly as possible.
If a company fudges on their responsibility to save money and hide their culpability, then yeah, I would agree with you. But if they go out of their way to solve the problem, and work on making things right, then that exudes trust IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Faster is best done in Space. Hence the spaceplane concepts that keep being bandied about. Even Super Sonic Aircraft looks slow by comparison.
Between HyperLoop and Spaceplanes, we should really be trying to bypass the whole jet plane thing. Hyperloop for over land, and Spaceplane for trans-oceanic transports.
There's almost always 2 sides of the story
Yeah, Snopes is caught again being biased. The other side of the story is that they don't have controlling interest in SNOPES.COM anymore. They gave that up. It would be nice to know that this is a divorce in business, and it is gonna get really nasty.
http://www.poynter.org/wp-cont...
The title kind of reminded me of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Can you do whatever you want on your networks, but want Comcast limited to what it can do on its networks that it owns? You want the ability to control other peoples networks, please expect them to want to control yours.
Or would you accept Comcast saying "network congestion" as an excuse why your VOIP service doesn't work because your neighbor down the street is running several Torrents of porn out of his mom's basement? Because after all "Net Neutrality" says that every packet on Comcast Network is the same. No QOS allowed because that is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a good idea. However draconian rules and a million micro regulations designed for exceptions because it was short sighted and didn't account for assholes of the world aren't the solution it is going to be .
Seriously, the FIX for this is fixing where the problem actually resides, at the last mile. Fix last mile micro monopolies and you'll solve all Net Neutrality problems in such a way that everyone gets exactly what they want.
net neutrality. This is false.
You think so. I think so. Some asshole will find a stupid judge and jury and sue your for not allowing his packets on your network, or worse, because you block your network from sending to his network. After all, net neutrality is about equal packets everywhere!
Don't believe me, assholes know how to ruin things for everyone.
Right, the problem is the theory and practice aren't the same, because in practice we fuck things up with all sorts of goofy permanent rules for things that we can't get rid of, because people will die ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
blocking what? Packets? Exactly what do you think firewalls do? Seriously, this kind of rule sound fantastic, until some Asshole ruins it for everyone.
But even now, even with Net Neutrality in full force, all traffic cannot be "equal". Net Neutrality would ban traffic shaping of any sort, and probably including firewalls and traffic shaping on servers.
For instance, we ban all traffic from hi Spam and malware addresses, Net Neutrality would require us to open that traffic up, as "all traffic is equal". The point being, whatever you think is good about Net Neutrality is gonna be worse. The problem is, instead of reverting back to how it is now, they will keep tweaking the law until it is really fucked up and only special interests will have their way. AND we'll be all using Comcast because they got a Franchise agreement for the whole of the USA (single payer internet!)
In theory, when a vendor's product or service is defective, consumers have a right to sue and recover damages. The problem still isn't the Free Market, it is the rule and regulations placed on it by Government that limits the natural options.
Robots!
Trade imbalances are simply market driving efficiencies. Nothing new there. Real wealth is created by work, some work is cheaper to produce elsewhere, then elsewhere it will go.China, is using its 3x population size to leverage wealth creation. Americans cannot compete against that. Add in India with its 3x population size and suddenly China and India become the labor force of the future. Tariffs only hurt everyone involved.
But they look good on paper, and sound good to the ears, so lets do that!
Apple does not have an edge. If you download PokemonGo from someone other than Niantic off the Play Store, you're an idiot. I don't care if it is "super modified to spoof GPS legitimately!" version of PokemonGo. This is nothing more than Cellphone Darwin award winning material here.
You mean like on Chrome?
https://chrome.google.com/webs...
The 2007 PC("custom built" non-laptop) was tethered to a wall.
It didn't have Cell service
It didn't have GPS
It didn't have a lot of things a Cell Phone has.
It did have things that a Cell Phone doesn't.
My point is, that the 2007 PC and the Cell Phone of today (Flagship) are close enough to power / capability, trade off for trade off that we don't recognize the Cell phone for what it actually is, a full computer replacement in the palm of your hand. Of course the GP is also right, in that a custom rig from 2007 is likely to be able to do things a Cell Phone of today can't, but those things are trade offs for what a Cell phone can do, that a Custom Desktop can't (like portability).
I would suggest to you, that people are buying new "PCs" every couple years, its just that most people don't see it that way.
Your Android / iPhone has more capability than full computer from 10 years ago. Our desktops have moved to our pockets and to the web.
I hear this idea allot
I hear this idea rarely.
Wouldn't every ISP have the exact network capacity, same up time, same cost, etc?
Not necessarily. A fiber line in most locations can offer up to 10GB (or more soon) data connection. I can assure you that currently, that level service is MORE than enough for a household of connected gadgets. That link would be from On Premises to the COLO facility. Depending on the switching capability at the COLO that could be switched by the Municipality (controlled VLAN) or Switched to the Provider (Physical handoff) , depending on how the COLO is setup.
So the answer is, it depends. It could have the same Last Mile speed (1G, 10G, 40G whatever) for everyone, or it could be I have 1G max, you have 10G max (last mile).
Once in the datacenter it is easy to control speeds with QOS, Traffic Shaping, packet inspection (and more) along with actual physical constraints.
The issue again is that the LAST mile is not controlled by the entity that should be controlling it, the municipality. It is leased via Franchise Agreement and is the basic monopoly where we are having the issues.
The idea of the COLO is that Comcast, Verizon, ATT, and whatever else is housed THERE, not at your "driveway". Our Current ISP system is like saying "FedEX has exclusive rights to package delivery to your address. You cannot use DHL, UPS, or even the USPS to deliver packages, only FedEX. Because they own the roads under our Franchise Agreement". By moving the last mile to Municipal Owned and maintained, it would be like the city owns the roads and anyone can deliver packages to your home.
Nope, that's Tyranny and Nanny State legislation. But I recognize the sarcasm.
The problem we have is that we think we can legislate problems away, without creating worse problems that we can't fix. We're failing as a people to locate the source of the problem (Franchise Agreements with Local Municipalities) and are trying to get the state and federal levels to solve this problem via draconian rules that will not actually produce the result intended, while simultaneously causing additional problems.
The source of the problem here, is that the consumer has no choice in ISP. Most places have One, a few have two. You fix this by having the local municipality be the TRANSIT layer (fiber). Bring the fiber to a COLO facility where vendors(Comcast, ATT, Verizon, Netflix etc) have access to every customer and offer their services to everyone.
This doesn't require any legislation at all. I have no idea who thinks government can solve market demand problems via draconian rules that will eventually backfire or become otherwise useless.
I've been told the responsibility of being offended lies completely upon the person (me in my case) that is offended. It is said that nobody has any control over what offends or doesn't offend someone else. Personally, I find manbuns offensive.
I would class that as "If a company fudges on their responsibility ..." so you are correct "thrown to the wolves". The problem is, Symantec is trusted by people who don't know any better (CEO/PHB)
Humans migrate all the time, for reasons other than war. Resources become scarce, humans will war until the demand changes. The rich and powerful will always control the weak and poor, and it doesn't matter what political philosophy you embrace, this is true of all of them.
Been tried, communications companies have fought it tooth and nail (and often won) pretty much every-time
And thus ends Net Neutrality.
And it hasn't been tried exactly the way I am proposing. This isn't "Local Municipality Internet" this is Fiber brought to a COLO where Comcast/NBC/Universal, Netflix, Verizon/Yahoo, ATT/DirectTV, and the rest compete for my business. The fiber is maintained by the local Municipality, and only provides last mile transport.
This is decoupling the last mile transport from that which actually transits it.
I think most people would. Imagine the resulting proliferation of services being offered, that people seem to want, but no service provider is willing to provide?
Providing CHOICE in the market makes the market most efficient, right now, I have ONE "Choice" for Internet. That is the problem, because I have the choice of "Take it or Leave it" with Comcast laughing "Suck it" at me.
So, what? It should be on the table, because knowing where the actual problem is, allows us to fix the problem CORRECTLY. Saying corrupt politicians should be in charge of defining net neutrality laws is simply asking for more problems and worse outcome than leaving things as is. Why can't people see that franchise agreements (governmental) are the root cause of Net Neutrality issues to this day? The fix isn't more of what caused it, it is less.
TBH a Cert Authority cannot validate 100% of Certs 100% of the time. The issue is, what is the resolution/procedure when the inevitable happens. The way to maintain trust when failure happens is, work to solve the issue in a way that designed to restore trust as quickly as possible.
If a company fudges on their responsibility to save money and hide their culpability, then yeah, I would agree with you. But if they go out of their way to solve the problem, and work on making things right, then that exudes trust IMHO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...