Sure, there are the those. But I'm talking about lawyers with extra awesome security clearance! They would have access to the secret government hideout, lots of cool weapons and transportation, and, of course, they would be combat trained. It goes without saying they would look and act well in tuxedos, kind of like James Bond but with a healthy dose of American swagger. Think Jay Bourne with ballroom manners.
1. send undercover agent with Child Porn on X, where X is the desired search target 2. pretend to succeed in apprehending the evil child pornographer 3. profit!
(Not that I don't agree with smacking down pedophiles--even executing them.)
Maybe not everyone, but many did. We're talking pre-farming, which would count as business. Even then I bet there were "businessmen" who could survive even while doing less actual hunting or gathering than would normally sustain an individual.
Well, presumably with Jackson it *would* be different. Boll, on the other hand, would faithfully reproduce what you said--just look at his other FPS movies.
*run around in the dark* *shoot a bunch of monsters* *run around more* *shoot more monsters* etc.
Another big usage people are missing (no doubt because it doesn't occur to them/they don't get the opportunity) is working outdoors. It's amazing how thoroughly sunlight *destroys* any visibility on non-reflective screens; it's as if the screen wasn't turned on! Meanwhile, the glossy ones at least retain some visibility.
My gut feeling is that the universe is a discrete process, like in Wolfram's book, our actions are deterministic, and as such there is no free will. However, that really doesn't say much, since there is a small practical difference between a obscenely, insanely huge search space and an infinite one. It is still extremely rare for something like the human brain to arise, that can operate on that search space continuously and with such capacity.
You guys need to relax. Complaining about exterminating animal species is really quite selfish; people want to preserve them so there is more to look at in TV shows, zoos, more stuff to eat, etc. etc. But nature doesn't really care one way or the other; if humans disappear the suppressed animal species will evolve back again just like after dinosaurs. Learn to quit worrying and love the bomb!
actually the wiki says 22 MHZ and there are 13 channels with 2mhz apart from each other and many devices can produce interference.. (microwaves most notably, other 2.4 ghz stuff like phones etc s well) Point being?
so they can't get the full 54 mbits because of interference. This simply does not follow from above. My 802.11g hardware gets the full capacity all the time, how do you explain that?
I was being generous when I mentioned 54Mbps. With more recent 11n equipment you can get far more in the same bandwidth.
The point is to figure out what kind of throughputs we can expect from the C-blocks, so let's not compare with fancy short-range modulations.
so if they were using the same technology and had less interference they would get roughly 150 mbit/second a far cry from the 500 mbit suggested by vague non specific wiki's on broadcast technologies. Interference has nothing to do with it. If they use the same technology they would get the same bitrate. For a different bitrate they need a different technology (specifically, modulation). To get the modulation to work error-free, they need enough power. Very simple.
I'd think the 700-800 mhz bandwidth is significantly clearer than the widely used 2.4 ghz it was originally slotted as channels 52-69 UHF You can't know until you measure this stuff. 700MHz waves propagate through walls like they aren't there, and 700MHz equipment tends to emit at large powers, so it could well be you'd see more interference there. 2.4GHz stops at walls and transmitters are largely very low-power, so interference is no issue.
106 megabits per 22 mhz of bandwidth I don't know much about broadcast TV but those numbers look suspicious. I would suggest you to doublecheck very carefully.
either that or TV channels are so clear due to FCC regs that they get double the bandwidth of a polluted 2.4 ghz frequency 2.4 is not polluted. The 802.11 tech was designed to get what it gets.
Destroying the user's system is no longer the goal of an attack you know. Crap. What about every now and then writing random characters to the screen to fool the user into thinking their graphics card is worn out? </goodoldtimes>
Ultimately, cheating doesn't help if enough people do it, whether it's by using hacked TCP stacks, or roll-your-own UDP protocols. The only real way to improve performance is to grow the network capacity.
Good luck doing that on a core router passing millions of flows, like another comment above said.
Another point is that TFA seems to imply that fixing TCP, whatever that means, will somehow solve the network congestion problems. However, the only real way to fix congestion is to grow capacity, which seems to have worked thus far.
Yes, TCP congestion control relies on everyone following the protocol. If you hack your TCP stack to send each packet twice, not cut down the congestion window, etc., you can get better performance. In practice, anyone doing this on a scale large enough to be noticed (think Apple) would get yelled at by the ISPs. Big players wouldn't do it because if the majority of users tried to cheat their performance would get worse.
IMHO hacks like this don't help enough to go through the trouble of installing, and if they do help, they likely need both endpoints to cooperate in which case you might as well use a custom UDP protocol.
Routing does not change based on traffic on that short a timescale, it changes if a link goes down, or a policy agreement changes, an engineer changes some link allocation, etc. Doing traffic-sensitive routing is hard because of oscillations; in your example, would the perimeter nodes switch back to the now congestion-free router?
It seems logical the telcos will try to hamper the unwanted participants on their network, just like they did with the DSL resellers. Nothing like being the operator.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, there are the those. But I'm talking about lawyers with extra awesome security clearance! They would have access to the secret government hideout, lots of cool weapons and transportation, and, of course, they would be combat trained. It goes without saying they would look and act well in tuxedos, kind of like James Bond but with a healthy dose of American swagger. Think Jay Bourne with ballroom manners.
That'd be a cool job... suave lawyer type during the day, secret agent spy CIA-type at night! Like a corporate Indiana Jones.
Heh I just had to prematurely end my dinner--that will teach me to read IAA*S posts while eating!
Heh, wonder if they were keen on checking out some racy spring break shots ;)
1. send undercover agent with Child Porn on X, where X is the desired search target
2. pretend to succeed in apprehending the evil child pornographer
3. profit!
(Not that I don't agree with smacking down pedophiles--even executing them.)
Maybe not everyone, but many did. We're talking pre-farming, which would count as business. Even then I bet there were "businessmen" who could survive even while doing less actual hunting or gathering than would normally sustain an individual.
Well, presumably with Jackson it *would* be different. Boll, on the other hand, would faithfully reproduce what you said--just look at his other FPS movies.
*run around in the dark*
*shoot a bunch of monsters*
*run around more*
*shoot more monsters*
etc.
Any of you seen "Bad Taste?" :)
They are talking about countries without land to build power plants on. Mountainous, densely populated, etc.
Another big usage people are missing (no doubt because it doesn't occur to them/they don't get the opportunity) is working outdoors. It's amazing how thoroughly sunlight *destroys* any visibility on non-reflective screens; it's as if the screen wasn't turned on! Meanwhile, the glossy ones at least retain some visibility.
My gut feeling is that the universe is a discrete process, like in Wolfram's book, our actions are deterministic, and as such there is no free will. However, that really doesn't say much, since there is a small practical difference between a obscenely, insanely huge search space and an infinite one. It is still extremely rare for something like the human brain to arise, that can operate on that search space continuously and with such capacity.
Hopefully they will officially GPL their wireless drivers too. They have source code for a nice, hackable, soft-MAC driver right now but no license.
You guys need to relax. Complaining about exterminating animal species is really quite selfish; people want to preserve them so there is more to look at in TV shows, zoos, more stuff to eat, etc. etc. But nature doesn't really care one way or the other; if humans disappear the suppressed animal species will evolve back again just like after dinosaurs. Learn to quit worrying and love the bomb!
I was being generous when I mentioned 54Mbps. With more recent 11n equipment you can get far more in the same bandwidth.
The point is to figure out what kind of throughputs we can expect from the C-blocks, so let's not compare with fancy short-range modulations. so if they were using the same technology and had less interference they would get roughly 150 mbit/second a far cry from the 500 mbit suggested by vague non specific wiki's on broadcast technologies. Interference has nothing to do with it. If they use the same technology they would get the same bitrate. For a different bitrate they need a different technology (specifically, modulation). To get the modulation to work error-free, they need enough power. Very simple. I'd think the 700-800 mhz bandwidth is significantly clearer than the widely used 2.4 ghz
it was originally slotted as channels 52-69 UHF You can't know until you measure this stuff. 700MHz waves propagate through walls like they aren't there, and 700MHz equipment tends to emit at large powers, so it could well be you'd see more interference there. 2.4GHz stops at walls and transmitters are largely very low-power, so interference is no issue. 106 megabits per 22 mhz of bandwidth I don't know much about broadcast TV but those numbers look suspicious. I would suggest you to doublecheck very carefully. either that or TV channels are so clear due to FCC regs that they get double the bandwidth of a polluted 2.4 ghz frequency 2.4 is not polluted. The 802.11 tech was designed to get what it gets.
</goodoldtimes>
Here's a picture. For comparison, 802.11a/g gets up to ~48 megabits/s out of 20MHz of bandwidth.
I get it, anyone has the right to board the bus, so it's fair.
Ultimately, cheating doesn't help if enough people do it, whether it's by using hacked TCP stacks, or roll-your-own UDP protocols. The only real way to improve performance is to grow the network capacity.
Good luck doing that on a core router passing millions of flows, like another comment above said.
Another point is that TFA seems to imply that fixing TCP, whatever that means, will somehow solve the network congestion problems. However, the only real way to fix congestion is to grow capacity, which seems to have worked thus far.
Good post. Another issue is that many flows are way too short for flow-tracking to help.
Yes, TCP congestion control relies on everyone following the protocol. If you hack your TCP stack to send each packet twice, not cut down the congestion window, etc., you can get better performance. In practice, anyone doing this on a scale large enough to be noticed (think Apple) would get yelled at by the ISPs. Big players wouldn't do it because if the majority of users tried to cheat their performance would get worse.
IMHO hacks like this don't help enough to go through the trouble of installing, and if they do help, they likely need both endpoints to cooperate in which case you might as well use a custom UDP protocol.
Routing does not change based on traffic on that short a timescale, it changes if a link goes down, or a policy agreement changes, an engineer changes some link allocation, etc. Doing traffic-sensitive routing is hard because of oscillations; in your example, would the perimeter nodes switch back to the now congestion-free router?
It seems logical the telcos will try to hamper the unwanted participants on their network, just like they did with the DSL resellers. Nothing like being the operator.
*text* games, you insensitive clod!
You sound like a good engineer. Would you like to join our club to design remote controlled, um, toy cars?