It seems like in an ideal world there would be different classes of packet priorities (I think QOS is the term, maybe), but the priority of a given packet would be decided by the user.
Very good guess, that's precisely how IPv4 and IPv6 work.
In the IPv4 world, this is implemented in the TOS (type of service) flags in the IP header, and in IPv6, it's the DSCP field (differentiated service code points).
In effect, these bits allow the client to tack metadata to their traffic to indicate the optimal way to route it. In the case of the TOS flags, the number of traffic profiles is limited to: low delay, high throughput, and high reliability. By contrast, DSCP offers a fairly wide range of characteristics that one can attach to the IP header.
With this metadata, the network operator can then tune the behaviour of their routers in order to optimize performance for each traffic class, and can do so regardless of what's going on higher up in the protocol stack. So there's no need for specific treatment of, say, bittorrent or Skype traffic. Instead, the client simple tags their packets as "high throughput" or "low latency", and the network routes the traffic accordingly.
In fact, many IPv4 clients, today, allow one to set the TOS bits. As it happens, this includes many bittorrent clients, and I've actually configured my router to make use of the TOS field when shaping outbound traffic, in order to maximize throughput for bittorrent traffic, while still providing good interactive performance for other applications (eg, HTTP).
I sometimes think Apple is a social experiment that is trying to see how far it can push people to buy things they didn't ask for but now want because they've seen them.
Pro-tip: "you" are not "people". "People" clearly want these things. "You" don't. That's fine, but don't presume you know what other people want or need. That's enormously arrogant, and you wouldn't want to be arrogant, would you?
Did anybody want a touchscreen Nano? Better yet, what good does a touch screen that's about an inch and a half square do anybody?
That's dead easy for anyone who spends more than 10 seconds thinking about it: how else do you build a device that compact with both a display *and* a control interface, save by combining the two?
Not at all, as there's no way they're writing this law to specifically target the organization known as "Wikileaks", despite what the article summary may claim. Why? Because that would be *really fucking stupid*. It'd make a hell of a lot more sense, from the government's perspective, to write this law to carve out as wide a niche as possible, covering blogging, wikis, and other forms of online media, while still protecting traditional journalists.
Their opponents argue, essentially, that the service classes are there for a given end user entity to prioritize traffic by class if they choose, not for the telecom companies to do so.
If that's what they're arguing, frankly, they're absolutely full of shit.
Go read the RFCs. The entire point of TOS flags and DSCP bits is to give traffic engineers *in the network* the flexibility to manage traffic as needed to optimize service for various traffic classes. Of course, this requires cooperation between network operators *and* end users, but it benefits everyone, as everyone gets the best service for the type of application they're using.
Is this mechanism open for abuse? Absolutely. But AT&T is *partially* correct, in that 100% neutral packet routing has never been a core principle in the architecture of the internet. *However*, the idea that clients and servers are equal peers, and that traffic should be treated fairly regardless of source or destination, *absolutely* is, and to conclude that network neutrality is invalid based on the presence of IP-level traffic classes, is, to say the least, a twisting of the facts and the history of the internet.
As such, I think network neutrality is vitally important, and should be regulated, to ensure that everyone is routed fairly. *However*, that same regulation should not preclude the use of valid traffic engineering techniques for optimizing network performance.
Almost, but not quite. In Squeak, the VM itself is statically compiled (via C), so you can't modify that at run time.
Eh, that's largely picking nits. Did the Lisp machine let you change the hardware running those lisp expressions? No? Then why would you expect to be able to modify the virtual machine running compiled Smalltalk bytecodes?
With LanguageKit, we can replace methods written in Objective-C with methods written in Smalltalk or JavaScript at run time too.
Interesting... I've fiddled with Objective-C a little, here and there, and as a Smalltalk wanker, I quite like it. I might have to go back and take another look, assuming I can find some time when I'm not oscillating between writing experimental webapps in Seaside on Squeak, and giving myself migraines with Haskell...:)
Are you, perhaps... drinking right now? Now, wait wait... cocaine, right? Meth? I mean, it's gotta be something... you can't *naturally* be this, I dunno, psychotic, can you?
And, as it happens, I agree, I would prefer it if nothing were, as you say, "blown around" me.
Your mother, OTOH, took it like a trooper, let me tell ya...
I did have a few such filters... But for the most part I never read the messages. What's the point of receiving an email if I'm never going to look at it
I totally agree, I was just reacting to this statement:
I think I removed 7,000 'conversations' from my gmail inbox in an hour.
Which is an easily solved problem, assuming you actually cared about the content of those emails.
"the environment is made less hospitable to bacteria"
Citation needed.
"weak cells that might turn cancerous or otherwise cause problems"
Citation needed.
"booze comes in and kills the weakest link."
Citation needed.
Hey, I know, let me make up some bullshit:
Alcohol makes us healthier because all the bacteria and bad cells and shit start having a party, but then they drink too much, and then they get a hang over, and then the big bad immune system comes along and beats them with a baseball bat while they're throwing up on their little bacteria toilets!
It saddens me that it takes an AC to point all this out. The linked article is utter garbage, and does more to cloud the issue than the MPEG-LA's original announcement...
I'm more worried about this from a libertarian perspective. Once the cost of "imprisoning" someone is low enough, then its a lot easier to increase sentences and criminalize a lot more stuff.
I was thinking the same thing. Make the technology cheap enough, and lower people's expectations far enough, and you might as well just tag everyone and be done with it... hey, at least then we can PROTECT THE CHILDREN!
Is it really so hard for you to see why some people might not see anything wrong with that statement? That treatments may yet become available that will someday restore that person to life?
Uh, if the brain is dead, its dead. That's my point. If you "restore that... to life", you won't get the same person back. The brain is the seat of personality, and if you somehow manage to restore damaged neurons, replace atrophied brain matter, reconnect dead nerve endings, the best you've done is manufactured a new person from spare parts.
You should go back and have a look at the Terri Schiavo case.
You mean the case where they had a dead brain housed in a body whose organs were kept functioning with machines? The case where pro-lifers tried to manufacture the idea that she might come back, even though no sensible doctor believed that for a second? *That* case? *That's* the one you're going to hold up as a symbol?
Oy.
You're going to find a large range of positions both pro and against embryonic stem cell research
Of course. But none of those issues should be definitional. We have a very well-defined definition for when someone is alive (their brain is functioning). So at best, a pro-lifer can fall back on the "potentiality" argument. But without falling back on spirituality, it's impossible to reasonably hold the position that a) a newly fertilized egg is alive, while b) a brain-dead, still-living corpse is not.
Unless the person has already agreed to a living will stating otherwise, then yes I do agree that it is wrong, because it's still a human life.
Fair enough, just curious.
I'm not sure how you think it so incomprehensible to think that to some people a human life is to be protected,
Now now, no need to get rhetorical. Step down off your moral high horse and use your brain for a second. Demonizing one side or the other as being "anti-life", or lauding yourself for supposedly wanting "human life is to be protected", helps no one, although I'm sure it makes you feel very comfortable and morally superior.
I'm personally not religious, but I do hold that belief.
So I suppose we should keep the shell that once held a now-dead brain alive via life support for as long as possible? I mean, according to your definition it's a human life, right? It still has "a unique DNA sequence". So "pulling the plug" should be universally wrong, period.
and honestly, if you take exception to this description, i will go so far as to say you aren't a real programmer. you haven't pored over a piece of code, and, after cognitively digesting it, sat back and thought: "beautiful". that's an aesthetic description.
And that's a *very* silly predicate for defining "art".
Many people would describe a well-written mathematical proof as "beautiful". Many would describe a well-engineered bridge as "beautiful". Does that make math or engineering "arts and crafts"? I would hope not...
programmers should be thought of like movie directors
No, they *should* be thought of like engineers, and like in engineering, real-world experience is irreplaceable. Alas, unfortunately our industry hasn't sufficiently matured to the point where that's anything more than laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like in an ideal world there would be different classes of packet priorities (I think QOS is the term, maybe), but the priority of a given packet would be decided by the user.
Very good guess, that's precisely how IPv4 and IPv6 work.
In the IPv4 world, this is implemented in the TOS (type of service) flags in the IP header, and in IPv6, it's the DSCP field (differentiated service code points).
In effect, these bits allow the client to tack metadata to their traffic to indicate the optimal way to route it. In the case of the TOS flags, the number of traffic profiles is limited to: low delay, high throughput, and high reliability. By contrast, DSCP offers a fairly wide range of characteristics that one can attach to the IP header.
With this metadata, the network operator can then tune the behaviour of their routers in order to optimize performance for each traffic class, and can do so regardless of what's going on higher up in the protocol stack. So there's no need for specific treatment of, say, bittorrent or Skype traffic. Instead, the client simple tags their packets as "high throughput" or "low latency", and the network routes the traffic accordingly.
In fact, many IPv4 clients, today, allow one to set the TOS bits. As it happens, this includes many bittorrent clients, and I've actually configured my router to make use of the TOS field when shaping outbound traffic, in order to maximize throughput for bittorrent traffic, while still providing good interactive performance for other applications (eg, HTTP).
I sometimes think Apple is a social experiment that is trying to see how far it can push people to buy things they didn't ask for but now want because they've seen them.
Pro-tip: "you" are not "people". "People" clearly want these things. "You" don't. That's fine, but don't presume you know what other people want or need. That's enormously arrogant, and you wouldn't want to be arrogant, would you?
Did anybody want a touchscreen Nano? Better yet, what good does a touch screen that's about an inch and a half square do anybody?
That's dead easy for anyone who spends more than 10 seconds thinking about it: how else do you build a device that compact with both a display *and* a control interface, save by combining the two?
Not at all, as there's no way they're writing this law to specifically target the organization known as "Wikileaks", despite what the article summary may claim. Why? Because that would be *really fucking stupid*. It'd make a hell of a lot more sense, from the government's perspective, to write this law to carve out as wide a niche as possible, covering blogging, wikis, and other forms of online media, while still protecting traditional journalists.
If these protections - like being able to film cops at demonstrations - apply only to "accredited journalists"
I'm sorry, which protections are you talking about, exactly?
See, *this* story is specifically about the right of journalists to shield their sources.
Besides which, *everyone* has the right to "film cops at demonstrations", journalist or no.
So... what the fuck are *you* talking about?
But... but... the kids these days! When I was a boy! The good ol' days! They don't make <blank> like they used to!
Their opponents argue, essentially, that the service classes are there for a given end user entity to prioritize traffic by class if they choose, not for the telecom companies to do so.
If that's what they're arguing, frankly, they're absolutely full of shit.
Go read the RFCs. The entire point of TOS flags and DSCP bits is to give traffic engineers *in the network* the flexibility to manage traffic as needed to optimize service for various traffic classes. Of course, this requires cooperation between network operators *and* end users, but it benefits everyone, as everyone gets the best service for the type of application they're using.
Is this mechanism open for abuse? Absolutely. But AT&T is *partially* correct, in that 100% neutral packet routing has never been a core principle in the architecture of the internet. *However*, the idea that clients and servers are equal peers, and that traffic should be treated fairly regardless of source or destination, *absolutely* is, and to conclude that network neutrality is invalid based on the presence of IP-level traffic classes, is, to say the least, a twisting of the facts and the history of the internet.
As such, I think network neutrality is vitally important, and should be regulated, to ensure that everyone is routed fairly. *However*, that same regulation should not preclude the use of valid traffic engineering techniques for optimizing network performance.
Bizarre that you got modded flamebait, but...
Almost, but not quite. In Squeak, the VM itself is statically compiled (via C), so you can't modify that at run time.
Eh, that's largely picking nits. Did the Lisp machine let you change the hardware running those lisp expressions? No? Then why would you expect to be able to modify the virtual machine running compiled Smalltalk bytecodes?
With LanguageKit, we can replace methods written in Objective-C with methods written in Smalltalk or JavaScript at run time too.
Interesting... I've fiddled with Objective-C a little, here and there, and as a Smalltalk wanker, I quite like it. I might have to go back and take another look, assuming I can find some time when I'm not oscillating between writing experimental webapps in Seaside on Squeak, and giving myself migraines with Haskell... :)
Are you, perhaps... drinking right now? Now, wait wait... cocaine, right? Meth? I mean, it's gotta be something... you can't *naturally* be this, I dunno, psychotic, can you?
And, as it happens, I agree, I would prefer it if nothing were, as you say, "blown around" me.
Your mother, OTOH, took it like a trooper, let me tell ya...
Incidentally, Smalltalk images work similar. For a fun time, open up a Squeak image and start digging around. Now *that* is open source software.
I never said anything of the kind.
But hey, you got to show off that you know what a lisp machine is, so bully for you.
Did you just equate hot-replacing a kernel with adding a function to a runtime environment?
No, he equated hot-replacing a kernel with hot-replacing a function in a piece of software while the software was still running.
Oh come on, if you're gonna sink to that level, at least put some creativity into it. eg:
Blowing my wad in your mom, thus leading to your conception, was *definitely* an accident.
I did have a few such filters... But for the most part I never read the messages. What's the point of receiving an email if I'm never going to look at it
I totally agree, I was just reacting to this statement:
I think I removed 7,000 'conversations' from my gmail inbox in an hour.
Which is an easily solved problem, assuming you actually cared about the content of those emails.
ROFL, wow...
"alcohol kills cells"
Citation needed.
"the environment is made less hospitable to bacteria"
Citation needed.
"weak cells that might turn cancerous or otherwise cause problems"
Citation needed.
"booze comes in and kills the weakest link."
Citation needed.
Hey, I know, let me make up some bullshit:
Alcohol makes us healthier because all the bacteria and bad cells and shit start having a party, but then they drink too much, and then they get a hang over, and then the big bad immune system comes along and beats them with a baseball bat while they're throwing up on their little bacteria toilets!
Should I ask why you didn't just create filters to have traffic from those lists automatically tagged appropriately and removed from your inbox?
It saddens me that it takes an AC to point all this out. The linked article is utter garbage, and does more to cloud the issue than the MPEG-LA's original announcement...
I'm more worried about this from a libertarian perspective. Once the cost of "imprisoning" someone is low enough, then its a lot easier to increase sentences and criminalize a lot more stuff.
I was thinking the same thing. Make the technology cheap enough, and lower people's expectations far enough, and you might as well just tag everyone and be done with it... hey, at least then we can PROTECT THE CHILDREN!
Is it really so hard for you to see why some people might not see anything wrong with that statement? That treatments may yet become available that will someday restore that person to life?
Uh, if the brain is dead, its dead. That's my point. If you "restore that ... to life", you won't get the same person back. The brain is the seat of personality, and if you somehow manage to restore damaged neurons, replace atrophied brain matter, reconnect dead nerve endings, the best you've done is manufactured a new person from spare parts.
You should go back and have a look at the Terri Schiavo case.
You mean the case where they had a dead brain housed in a body whose organs were kept functioning with machines? The case where pro-lifers tried to manufacture the idea that she might come back, even though no sensible doctor believed that for a second? *That* case? *That's* the one you're going to hold up as a symbol?
Oy.
You're going to find a large range of positions both pro and against embryonic stem cell research
Of course. But none of those issues should be definitional. We have a very well-defined definition for when someone is alive (their brain is functioning). So at best, a pro-lifer can fall back on the "potentiality" argument. But without falling back on spirituality, it's impossible to reasonably hold the position that a) a newly fertilized egg is alive, while b) a brain-dead, still-living corpse is not.
Unless the person has already agreed to a living will stating otherwise, then yes I do agree that it is wrong, because it's still a human life.
Fair enough, just curious.
I'm not sure how you think it so incomprehensible to think that to some people a human life is to be protected,
Now now, no need to get rhetorical. Step down off your moral high horse and use your brain for a second. Demonizing one side or the other as being "anti-life", or lauding yourself for supposedly wanting "human life is to be protected", helps no one, although I'm sure it makes you feel very comfortable and morally superior.
I'm personally not religious, but I do hold that belief.
So I suppose we should keep the shell that once held a now-dead brain alive via life support for as long as possible? I mean, according to your definition it's a human life, right? It still has "a unique DNA sequence". So "pulling the plug" should be universally wrong, period.
Right?
Strange, by this time I would think they would have come up with something for all the hype made over them.
I'm sure the lack of federal funding for the work has nothing to do with this...
and honestly, if you take exception to this description, i will go so far as to say you aren't a real programmer. you haven't pored over a piece of code, and, after cognitively digesting it, sat back and thought: "beautiful". that's an aesthetic description.
And that's a *very* silly predicate for defining "art".
Many people would describe a well-written mathematical proof as "beautiful". Many would describe a well-engineered bridge as "beautiful". Does that make math or engineering "arts and crafts"? I would hope not...
programmers should be thought of like movie directors
No, they *should* be thought of like engineers, and like in engineering, real-world experience is irreplaceable. Alas, unfortunately our industry hasn't sufficiently matured to the point where that's anything more than laughable.
It sounds like very large cats be raped with very large baseball bats.
No no, you're thinking of German!
Being said, if your first language was cold fusion and it is all you have done for the last 12 years, you may have a difficult time switching to C!
'course, if that's the case, you have bigger problems, not the least of which being uncontrollable, homicidal tendencies...