1. If you have side to side problems, there is something wrong with the lens. There isn't supposed to be any difference side to side. If your vendor can't fix it, go someplace else.
2. I find that my progressives are OK to use with LCDs for a while, but not with analog monitors. If you are still using analog monitors, get rid of them.
3. For long term use, I have some fixed glasses that are just for the computer distance (which is not the same as the reading distance). I keep a pair at work and a pair at home. At least for me, the computer prescription doesn't change much; so, the frames actually wear out before the lenses need changing.
4. If you need progressives, it is probably unreasonable to expect a bargain basement chain supplier to supply decent lenses. There is definitely a quality difference in lenses.
The first time, I asked which IP address the DOS was coming from. They gave me a 192.168.x.x address (which is, of course impossible), but I pretended to be looking it up in the router for 5 minutes to keep them on the line. Of course, I told him there was no computer with that address here. After wasting 5 minutes of his time, I told him there weren't any PCs here. That actually didn't stop him, he switched to a Mac script. Then I asked if the DOS was IP or TCP and he said neither. So I said that proved he didn't know what he was talking about; so, he put on his supervisor. After yanking the supervisor around with technical questions he couldn't answer (but tried to), I revealed that I knew it was a scam and was intentionally trying to waste his time. I also mentioned that he was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about (with the other scammer listening in, no doubt). Who knew that Indians know so many English swear words (which actually might mean they aren't really in India).
That does get one put on their do not call list:-)
The actual announcement has this phrase in it: "... the following individuals are not currently on the No Fly List as of the date of this letter". They explicitly go on to state that "we make no other representations with respect to past or future travel". In other words, as soon as the court case is over, they go right back on the list...
Devices designed for standard outlets in the US aren't allowed to draw more than 12 amps continuous. At 120V (the standard voltage), that works out to 1440 Watts. One will find that many things are rated at that wattage, because one has to use a different plug to go beyond that. The outlet circuits are generally fused at 20 amps to allow more than one device to be plugged in (and there can be more than one outlet on the 20A circuit).
Large window sizes only help when there is absolutely no packet loss (which is not the Internet) and even then it takes a long time to scale up.
When packet loss is significant, it will indicate congestion or a network issue and be a more important factor than latency.
Packet loss and latency are both significant. The recovery time from a single packet loss is proportional to the latency.
Large windows still help. Packet losses are usually less than 0.01%. Anything above approximately.1% is a strong indication of a possible issue.
Large windows should still help; although, there might be some rare situations where they make performance worse (if the network they are on is saturated and the extra traffic pushes it past a tipping point so packet loss increases).
When one is dealing with large windows, even 0.01% packet loss hurts. This is because it takes longer to get back up to full speed after a packet loss. It will still be faster than a smaller window size, but the packet loss will eat away more overall throughput than it would with a smaller window size.
Often websites are bypassing slow start by starting with an expanded initial congestion window.
Yes, if they are following the RFCs, they can use up to 4 packets (assuming the MTU is small) for the initial congestion window. That cuts two RTTs off the ramp up time (very roughly 10%). The last time I checked, web sites were usually transferring less than 100K bytes -- The use of 4 packets for the initial congestion window should actually help them a lot more than having a large window size (that they will never actually ramp up to). Where the large window sizes really help are large uni-directional transfers (ftp, sftp, etc).
Large window sizes only help when there is absolutely no packet loss (which is not the Internet) and even then it takes a long time to scale up. Even when there is a large window size, the slow start mechanism is really really slow when the RTT is in the 100 msec range (the Internet). If you have regular low level packet loss, the actual throughput plot looks like a sawtooth wave and the upward ramp is very slow. The congestion window rarely even gets close the max allowed by the window size in the TCP header. It can take several minutes for the congestion window to ramp up with 100msec latency.
SACK might help a little bit if implemented properly, but even SACK is still required to do the slow start congestion avoidance.
There are RFCs (I haven't had time to read, yet) where routers get involved with congestion control. But the RFCs haven't become standard, yet, and the chances that every router in an Internet path supports them is probably negligible.
The kind of cryptography you would need to make this safe (as posted earlier) is Public Key. The big problem with that is teaching ALL the voters how to use it. And we aren't even talking about distributing the software or handing out keys: That's easy compared to the training...
Verizon's analysis would indicate that's not the case, unless the Netflix traffic is multicast, but the traffic is on demand; so, I kind of doubt much of it is multicast.
Even if it is, Verizon's customers are paying for for bandwidth at the edge of the network; so, they should be getting internal network support for that.
We don't have all the information here. The Level 3 post only talks about how much the hardware costs.
Level 3 very explicitly avoided mentioning services charges which Level 3 may (or may not) have been trying to get from Verizon. Note that Level 3 didn't explicitly say they would provide the extra connection bandwidth free of charge, only the hardware. I think there is more going on here than we know...
Of course, it could also be that Verizon is trying to get money from Level 3 because Level 3 was sending so much more traffic than Verizon. I am a very experienced network software designer and it is more expensive to receive IP traffic than to transmit it -- especially non-TCP traffic, because there is no flow control -- you need a lot of extra hardware capacity to handle bursts (buffering and CPU). From a technical standpoint, it makes a lot more sense for Level 3 to pay Verizon to handle the extra traffic.
BUT, compared to the cost of the entire network, the real cost of the peering is probably pretty insignificant for both parties. The only conclusion here is that they are probably both spinning the message by leaving out the unflattering information.
Nothing says Google couldn't publish the list of takedown requests. As long as they don't appear in search results, they would probably be complying with the court order..
Write down your experience (the offer from Microsoft to sell you a replacement service), get it notarized, and send it to the No-IP folks. M$ probably didn't do that on purpose, but it sounds like something that would really piss off the judge that issued that restraining order.
This command line interface was designed around 1980 and attempts to be more user friendly by using recognizable command names and has both lineal and form oriented methods for specifying command arguments.
Technically, it's not unconstitutional. It's been thought of before: Many years ago, I asked my Congressman why the House didn't block funding the 2nd Iraq war (the Dems had a majority at the time) and the response could be paraphrased that while it was possible, it simply wasn't done, because in the long run we need to put the country's interest in front or our own. Other than that, you have it spot on.
What's happening now is the rich.1%ers who actually pay for the Tea party don't want to pay their fair share of taxes (which eventually has to happen to pay for health care -- irrespective of whether you are talking about Medicare, Medicaid or Obamacare) and they simply don't care what happens to the rest of us.
Dont forget the lockdown was voluntary. One would have to have been pretty nuts to open a business in that scenario, but nobody was actually forced to stay home. I live in the locked down area and I was half way to work before I even heard about it. The only effort they actually made to contact ordinary citizens was via press releases and an e-mail (which in my case ended up in the junk mail account -- didn't find it until I got home that night and looked for it). Of course, I was a good 5 miles from where anything was actually happening.
They did announce the end of the lockdown with two robocalls. I suspect they did get a lot of complaints.
But party membership isn't private (at least in Massachusetts). Anyone can join a party by going to the town/city clerk and registering as a member of the party (as simple as checking a checkbox when you register to vote). All of the meetings are open to the public. Membership in the Ward/Town/City/State committees is voted on in the primaries (although, it comes with a time commitment; so, it's often not contested). It's not some secret club that nobody can belong to. The reality is that participation is low because most people are too lazy to get involved.
What's not open is how candidates get money (for the most part, that's not from the party).
They aren't totally private. In theory, anyone who is registered in the party should be able to run. For example in Massachusetts, one can get on the primary ballot for Congress by registering in the party (anybody can do that) and getting 2000 signatures on nominating petitions. Getting 2000 signatures isn't easy, but it is possible. There is an open house seat this year and there are 6 candidates but only one Democrat and one Republican are career politicians. The rest are all people who are ticked off at Congress just as much as everybody else is.
Of course, actually winning the primary is a good bit more difficult. The real thing that keeps the career politicians in control is insider money.
If most voters took the time to actually research the candidates, make up their mind intelligently AND remember to vote on election day, politicians wouldn't do any of this (because they wouldn't get any more votes by doing it).
Believe it or not, the most effective way to win an election is to figure out who is going to vote for you (ahead of time) and nagging them to actually go out on vote on election day!
I've been doing this for a few years, now, and I haven't seen one election where I didn't encounter people (registered voters) who didn't know there was an election that day.
The databases behind these tools have all registered voters. If you don't register in a party, ALL the parties will be after you.
And the best way to get them to stop coming around is to say you will never tell them who you are going to vote for. They won't be offended, you are just telling them they will be wasting their time by returning. The worst thing you can do is say you are undecided, because they will keep coming (or calling) back to see if you have made up your mind.
You are probably overstating the dangers of nuclear warming a bit (but not that much). But there is certainly nothing we can't adapt to if we have to. And of course "civilization as we know it" isn't going to be around 20 years from now no matter what happens: 20 years ago, we didn't have the Internet, Cell Phones, GPS and it just took me 20 seconds to think of that. My mother's house didn't have indoor plumbing when she was a girl!
But the important point is that you have no idea how dangerous nuclear waste really is.
Nuclear waste remains dangerous for more than million years. The "design" of nuclear waste disposal facilities involves making an educated guess as to how long it will be before the containers break down and then guessing whether the waste will decay enough before it gets into the water supply. So we are talking about the water supply for a huge geographical area being poisoned essentially forever, not a few people ignoring signs.
Speaking of signs, how do you write a sign an average person will be able to read 100,000 years from now (or even 1000 years from now)? You would need to predict 100,000 years of language evolution! The reality is that even within 1000 years, the only people who can read what we now call English will be scholars!
This just demonstrates how naive it is to assume we can construct anything that lasts for a million years.
In case you are curious, the Yucca Mountain plan was clever enough to realize they couldn't label the site as dangerous; so, they decided it was good enough if a typical drill bit wasn't likely to penetrate the containers when somebody drilled into the waste disposal site -- Mind you these are the same containers they know will deteriorate within one or two half-lives of the stuff inside.
You are forgetting to consider the waste problem. The other life threatening issues pale in comparison. Waste from Uranium fueled reactors is dangerous for more than a million years -- I waded through the licensing materials for Yucca Mountain to find that little gem -- AFIK how much more than a million years is classified because the DOE doesn't want us to know. The Yucca Mountain depository was canceled because any sane (and uncorrupted) engineer reading the plans realized it was brain-dead.
The claim by the thorium reactor proponents is that there is less waste and waste products are safe within a few hundred years. If this is really true, they have a solution to the waste problem. That is a huge deal. Of course, it would be good to find confirmation of the waste claim: Inquiring minds want to know.
My group maintains and enhances an operating system. Obviously, we need full access on the machines we debug on. We also have separate "production" machines used for builds and source control where developers don't default to having admin privileges (and admin privs are generally reserved for the people less likely to break things). We used to give all the new developers admin privs from day 1, but that almost led to a few disasters (new people with full admin privs on an unfamiliar OS is not a good idea).
We generally try to let the admins take care of the production systems and only take over when they aren't around (it's only two people). And we let them know what we fixed because we appreciate the fact that they are normally dealing with it for us...
OTOH, one doesn't need any sort of special access to develop simple applications on decent operating systems like Unix or Max OS. One only needs special access when one starts installing shared libraries, doing kernel work, or setting up shared source control systems (although, it's generally not a good idea to let all the developers have uncontrolled access to the source control system, either).
Slashdot Mirror
I have several comments:
1. If you have side to side problems, there is something wrong with the lens. There isn't supposed to be any difference side to side. If your vendor can't fix it, go someplace else.
2. I find that my progressives are OK to use with LCDs for a while, but not with analog monitors. If you are still using analog monitors, get rid of them.
3. For long term use, I have some fixed glasses that are just for the computer distance (which is not the same as the reading distance). I keep a pair at work and a pair at home. At least for me, the computer prescription doesn't change much; so, the frames actually wear out before the lenses need changing.
4. If you need progressives, it is probably unreasonable to expect a bargain basement chain supplier to supply decent lenses. There is definitely a quality difference in lenses.
The first time, I asked which IP address the DOS was coming from. They gave me a 192.168.x.x address (which is, of course impossible), but I pretended to be looking it up in the router for 5 minutes to keep them on the line. Of course, I told him there was no computer with that address here. After wasting 5 minutes of his time, I told him there weren't any PCs here. That actually didn't stop him, he switched to a Mac script. Then I asked if the DOS was IP or TCP and he said neither. So I said that proved he didn't know what he was talking about; so, he put on his supervisor. After yanking the supervisor around with technical questions he couldn't answer (but tried to), I revealed that I knew it was a scam and was intentionally trying to waste his time. I also mentioned that he was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about (with the other scammer listening in, no doubt). Who knew that Indians know so many English swear words (which actually might mean they aren't really in India).
That does get one put on their do not call list :-)
a) Longer cables do increase the noise on the line -- especially if they are cheap ones. That would explain tearing effects due to drop-opts.
c) Nothing wireless will be with 3 orders of magnitude fast enough to do this...
The actual announcement has this phrase in it: "... the following individuals are not currently on the No Fly List as of the date of this letter". They explicitly go on to state that "we make no other representations with respect to past or future travel". In other words, as soon as the court case is over, they go right back on the list...
Devices designed for standard outlets in the US aren't allowed to draw more than 12 amps continuous. At 120V (the standard voltage), that works out to 1440 Watts. One will find that many things are rated at that wattage, because one has to use a different plug to go beyond that. The outlet circuits are generally fused at 20 amps to allow more than one device to be plugged in (and there can be more than one outlet on the 20A circuit).
Large window sizes only help when there is absolutely no packet loss (which is not the Internet)
and even then it takes a long time to scale up.
When packet loss is significant, it will indicate congestion or a network issue and be a more important factor than latency.
Packet loss and latency are both significant. The recovery time from a single packet loss is proportional to the latency.
Large windows still help. Packet losses are usually less than 0.01%. Anything above approximately .1% is a strong indication of a possible issue.
Large windows should still help; although, there might be some rare situations where they make performance worse (if the network they are on is saturated and the extra traffic pushes it past a tipping point so packet loss increases).
When one is dealing with large windows, even 0.01% packet loss hurts. This is because it takes longer to get back up to full speed after a packet loss. It will still be faster than a smaller window size, but the packet loss will eat away more overall throughput than it would with a smaller window size.
Often websites are bypassing slow start by starting with an expanded initial congestion window.
Yes, if they are following the RFCs, they can use up to 4 packets (assuming the MTU is small) for the initial congestion window. That cuts two RTTs off the ramp up time (very roughly 10%). The last time I checked, web sites were usually transferring less than 100K bytes -- The use of 4 packets for the initial congestion window should actually help them a lot more than having a large window size (that they will never actually ramp up to). Where the large window sizes really help are large uni-directional transfers (ftp, sftp, etc).
Large window sizes only help when there is absolutely no packet loss (which is not the Internet) and even then it takes a long time to scale up. Even when there is a large window size, the slow start mechanism is really really slow when the RTT is in the 100 msec range (the Internet). If you have regular low level packet loss, the actual throughput plot looks like a sawtooth wave and the upward ramp is very slow. The congestion window rarely even gets close the max allowed by the window size in the TCP header. It can take several minutes for the congestion window to ramp up with 100msec latency.
SACK might help a little bit if implemented properly, but even SACK is still required to do the slow start congestion avoidance.
There are RFCs (I haven't had time to read, yet) where routers get involved with congestion control. But the RFCs haven't become standard, yet, and the chances that every router in an Internet path supports them is probably negligible.
The kind of cryptography you would need to make this safe (as posted earlier) is Public Key. The big problem with that is teaching ALL the voters how to use it. And we aren't even talking about distributing the software or handing out keys: That's easy compared to the training...
TCP performance on the Internet is almost totally limited by latency (AKA RTT or round trip time for the ACKs), not the bandwidth.
Streaming data isn't limited by the latency -- totally different beast.
Verizon's analysis would indicate that's not the case, unless the Netflix traffic is multicast, but the traffic is on demand; so, I kind of doubt much of it is multicast.
Even if it is, Verizon's customers are paying for for bandwidth at the edge of the network; so, they should be getting internal network support for that.
We don't have all the information here. The Level 3 post only talks about how much the hardware costs.
Level 3 very explicitly avoided mentioning services charges which Level 3 may (or may not) have been trying to get from Verizon. Note that Level 3 didn't explicitly say they would provide the extra connection bandwidth free of charge, only the hardware. I think there is more going on here than we know...
Of course, it could also be that Verizon is trying to get money from Level 3 because Level 3 was sending so much more traffic than Verizon. I am a very experienced network software designer and it is more expensive to receive IP traffic than to transmit it -- especially non-TCP traffic, because there is no flow control -- you need a lot of extra hardware capacity to handle bursts (buffering and CPU). From a technical standpoint, it makes a lot more sense for Level 3 to pay Verizon to handle the extra traffic.
BUT, compared to the cost of the entire network, the real cost of the peering is probably pretty insignificant for both parties. The only conclusion here is that they are probably both spinning the message by leaving out the unflattering information.
Nothing says Google couldn't publish the list of takedown requests. As long as they don't appear in search results, they would probably be complying with the court order..
What exactly is a 20 degree radius? One wonders about that article.
Write down your experience (the offer from Microsoft to sell you a replacement service), get it notarized, and send it to the No-IP folks. M$ probably didn't do that on purpose, but it sounds like something that would really piss off the judge that issued that restraining order.
Every operating system I know of (except maybe BeOS) has at least one command line interface. Many operating systems have more than one.
For example, the Stratus VOS operating system supports this command line interface:
http://stratadoc.stratus.com/vos/17.2.0/r089-06/wwhelp/wwhimpl/js/html/wwhelp.htm?context=r089-06&file=ch1r089-06.html
This command line interface was designed around 1980 and attempts to be more user friendly by using recognizable command names and has both lineal and form oriented methods for specifying command arguments.
The VOS operating system also supports bash...
Technically, it's not unconstitutional. It's been thought of before: Many years ago, I asked my Congressman why the House didn't block funding the 2nd Iraq war (the Dems had a majority at the time) and the response could be paraphrased that while it was possible, it simply wasn't done, because in the long run we need to put the country's interest in front or our own. Other than that, you have it spot on.
What's happening now is the rich .1%ers who actually pay for the Tea party don't want to pay their fair share of taxes (which eventually has to happen to pay for health care -- irrespective of whether you are talking about Medicare, Medicaid or Obamacare) and they simply don't care what happens to the rest of us.
Exactly.
Dont forget the lockdown was voluntary. One would have to have been pretty nuts to open a business in that scenario, but nobody was actually forced to stay home. I live in the locked down area and I was half way to work before I even heard about it. The only effort they actually made to contact ordinary citizens was via press releases and an e-mail (which in my case ended up in the junk mail account -- didn't find it until I got home that night and looked for it). Of course, I was a good 5 miles from where anything was actually happening.
They did announce the end of the lockdown with two robocalls. I suspect they did get a lot of complaints.
But party membership isn't private (at least in Massachusetts). Anyone can join a party by going to the town/city clerk and registering as a member of the party (as simple as checking a checkbox when you register to vote). All of the meetings are open to the public. Membership in the Ward/Town/City/State committees is voted on in the primaries (although, it comes with a time commitment; so, it's often not contested). It's not some secret club that nobody can belong to. The reality is that participation is low because most people are too lazy to get involved.
What's not open is how candidates get money (for the most part, that's not from the party).
They aren't totally private. In theory, anyone who is registered in the party should be able to run. For example in Massachusetts, one can get on the primary ballot for Congress by registering in the party (anybody can do that) and getting 2000 signatures on nominating petitions. Getting 2000 signatures isn't easy, but it is possible. There is an open house seat this year and there are 6 candidates but only one Democrat and one Republican are career politicians. The rest are all people who are ticked off at Congress just as much as everybody else is.
Of course, actually winning the primary is a good bit more difficult. The real thing that keeps the career politicians in control is insider money.
If most voters took the time to actually research the candidates, make up their mind intelligently AND remember to vote on election day, politicians wouldn't do any of this (because they wouldn't get any more votes by doing it).
Believe it or not, the most effective way to win an election is to figure out who is going to vote for you (ahead of time) and nagging them to actually go out on vote on election day!
I've been doing this for a few years, now, and I haven't seen one election where I didn't encounter people (registered voters) who didn't know there was an election that day.
Not really.
The databases behind these tools have all registered voters. If you don't register in a party, ALL the parties will be after you.
And the best way to get them to stop coming around is to say you will never tell them who you are going to vote for. They won't be offended, you are just telling them they will be wasting their time by returning. The worst thing you can do is say you are undecided, because they will keep coming (or calling) back to see if you have made up your mind.
You are probably overstating the dangers of nuclear warming a bit (but not that much). But there is certainly nothing we can't adapt to if we have to. And of course "civilization as we know it" isn't going to be around 20 years from now no matter what happens: 20 years ago, we didn't have the Internet, Cell Phones, GPS and it just took me 20 seconds to think of that. My mother's house didn't have indoor plumbing when she was a girl!
But the important point is that you have no idea how dangerous nuclear waste really is.
Nuclear waste remains dangerous for more than million years. The "design" of nuclear waste disposal facilities involves making an educated guess as to how long it will be before the containers break down and then guessing whether the waste will decay enough before it gets into the water supply. So we are talking about the water supply for a huge geographical area being poisoned essentially forever, not a few people ignoring signs.
Speaking of signs, how do you write a sign an average person will be able to read 100,000 years from now (or even 1000 years from now)? You would need to predict 100,000 years of language evolution! The reality is that even within 1000 years, the only people who can read what we now call English will be scholars!
This just demonstrates how naive it is to assume we can construct anything that lasts for a million years.
In case you are curious, the Yucca Mountain plan was clever enough to realize they couldn't label the site as dangerous; so, they decided it was good enough if a typical drill bit wasn't likely to penetrate the containers when somebody drilled into the waste disposal site -- Mind you these are the same containers they know will deteriorate within one or two half-lives of the stuff inside.
You are forgetting to consider the waste problem. The other life threatening issues pale in comparison. Waste from Uranium fueled reactors is dangerous for more than a million years -- I waded through the licensing materials for Yucca Mountain to find that little gem -- AFIK how much more than a million years is classified because the DOE doesn't want us to know. The Yucca Mountain depository was canceled because any sane (and uncorrupted) engineer reading the plans realized it was brain-dead.
The claim by the thorium reactor proponents is that there is less waste and waste products are safe within a few hundred years. If this is really true, they have a solution to the waste problem. That is a huge deal. Of course, it would be good to find confirmation of the waste claim: Inquiring minds want to know.
And it's also guaranteed to produce more nuclear waste than any other kind of reactor.
My group maintains and enhances an operating system. Obviously, we need full access on the machines we debug on. We also have separate "production" machines used for builds and source control where developers don't default to having admin privileges (and admin privs are generally reserved for the people less likely to break things). We used to give all the new developers admin privs from day 1, but that almost led to a few disasters (new people with full admin privs on an unfamiliar OS is not a good idea).
We generally try to let the admins take care of the production systems and only take over when they aren't around (it's only two people). And we let them know what we fixed because we appreciate the fact that they are normally dealing with it for us...
OTOH, one doesn't need any sort of special access to develop simple applications on decent operating systems like Unix or Max OS. One only needs special access when one starts installing shared libraries, doing kernel work, or setting up shared source control systems (although, it's generally not a good idea to let all the developers have uncontrolled access to the source control system, either).