Except "Clear Type" font anti-aliasing doesn't support rotated displays (at least on Microsoft operating systems). So font rendering looks awful on a rotated display.
What about tickets issued in a location far from your home? Like, you are on vacation across the country and you get a speeding ticket. Should you have to spend thousands of dollars to return to the city of the 'crime' to do 5 hours of community service?
Yeah, but what happens to the deposit money for containers that are not returned? It goes into someone's pocket. And that person has a vested interest in people NOT recycling. This exact scheme was tried in New Brunswick (Canada). It failed. It failed miserably. Some guys got rich off of it and refillable bottles completely disappeared.
You're right, but what I really *meant* to say was that I suspect that manufacturing of a single kindle requires more resources than printing every book/paper you could reasonably read on it before it breaks/has it's DRM discontinued.
You ignore the environmental cost of manufacturing the Kindle. I suspect that building 1 million of them (one for each NYT reader), would cause more environmental problems than printing all 365 million papers combined.
Your airline analogy breaks down when you think about constant traffic. For it to work, the airline would have to [only] sell monthly, "all-you-can-fly" tickets. You pay a reasonably low fee, say $100/month, and you can fly anywhere you want, anytime you want. It works fine if each of us fly once a year, but when some guy decides to fly back-and-forth to Australia each day, then they would have to say, "During peak travel times, you can only fly once per day/week/month" or something.
While I abstractly agree with your argument, this problem is not preventing people from voting, it's casting their vote for the wrong candidate/party.
Now, if your argument is: "Good! Having every stupid voter accidentally vote for the wrong person guarantees McCain's failure."...
Well then... I abstractly agree again, except all the people in TFA were trying to vote for Obama. Where are the roving bands of idiots who tried to vote for McCain but pushed the wrong buttons?
Dude, I don't know what kind of lock you think you have on your front door, but locks only make it more difficult to break into your house. They won't stop a determined person. The "security vulnerability" in your home is your need to have glass windows that I can throw my malware-rock through.
We *can* design houses that are less vulnerable to attack (a solid, concrete exoshell would work), but we don't want to feel like prisoners in our own homes, so we take risks with our designs. Same thing with our computers.
That being said, I don't run AV software on my home XP box. Never have. And to my knowledge, I've never been infected with anything. Probably because I don't run silly email attachments or try to install "smiley packs".
If they only thottled on their backbone, then they would not be able to throttle their competition. They are throttling on the "last mile" so they can level the playing field to avoid losing customers. The only problem is that it's likely against the CRTC regulations that forced them to lease out their wholesale network access.
I was talking about the network between the Teksavvy peering point and my house. You are correct that it is not exclusively DSL. It's only DSL for the first 5km, then it gets aggregated for the next 5km before reaching Teksavvy's equipment. I consider anything between me and the Bell office downtown as "last-mile".
You are correct that Bell is not touching the DSL connection. Teksavvy has a single connection to Bell's network (in their O'Connor Street office, I believe), and so Bell is doing the routing from the DSLAM to downtown. But that intra-city link is a high-bandwidth link, and the amount of bandwidth on that link has no monetary impact on Bell. Bell's only real concern is the data after it leaves the O'Connor Street office. They pay for that bandwidth, and it's on lower-bandwidth link (lower than all the other links combined). So, it pays for Bell to throttle their own customers who's traffic will end up costing them money (and conjesting their backbone connectivity), but the Teksavvy traffic is siphoned off at the CO, which has no impact on Bell's backbone connection.
The only reason why Bell is throttling their competitor's traffic is because their customers have been leaving them for other ISPs that do not throttle. This way Bell levels the paying field, by crippling their competitors.
That's just there to stop people from complaining that Bell has blocked their porn site, or throttled their _own_ customers. It's not to say that the CRTC does not regulate the industry at all. They already do. The only reason why 3rd party DSL providers exist is because the CRTC forced BELL to lease their network access out. If Bell stopped allowing those 3rd party DSL providers any network access at all, then the CRTC would be all over them. What they are doing now is half-blocking them. It is completely their jurisdiction to enforce their own regulations forcing Bell to give last-mile access. Now, independent of that, we can argue as to whether Bell is allowed to do what they are doing. And the CRTC gets to make that decision. But consumer feedback is one way they will judge the impact. Besides, after warning you about internet regulations, they still let you file a complaint. So COMPLAIN!! EVERYONE COMPLAIN!
Sorta. They didn't do it intentionally today. And if you are not using P2P at the same time, there is no current impact on VoIP. What I worry about is the day when the specifically target VoIP. Or YouTube. Or Slashdot.
I complained to the CRTC this morning about shaping the traffic they wholesale resell. I agree that Bell should be able to throttle their own customers as much as they like. But the whole point of forcing them to resell their network access was to create competition -- to give us our choice about what ISP offers which features that we like. But now they are throttling their competition. We don't have a choice. Everyone touched by this should be complaining to the CRTC about this.
I've tested SSH tunnels and VPN connections. Neither one of them are affected. In contrast to what your friend says, I've only detected it throttling P2P applications (encrypted or not).
Your argument makes sense for some ISPs, but not for this specific situation: 1) Teksavvy supplies it's own bandwidth, and only leases the 'last-mile' connection from Bell Canada. 2) Teksavvy does oversell, but currently keeps up with it's traffic even at peak times. 3) Bell is throttling P2P on Teksavvy's last-mile, even though it has little impact on their ability to provide service to it's own customers. 4) The type of throttling they are doing is interfearing with QoS systems in routers that ensure VoIP works. It is causing reduced quality in VoIP services. 5) Selectively throttling specific protocols is a slippery slope. What's to say that they don't decide that VoIP is the next service that gets eliminated because it competes with their local phone service?
This is a blatant attempt by Bell to remove a competitive advantage from competing ISPs.
Please check your information before posting inaccurate information. This ONLY throttles P2P traffic. I have 6Mbit service from a competing ISP, which can typically get 600kbyte/s on Torrents. I was limited to 30kbytes/s yesterday. But at the SAME TIME, I could download anything off the web at 500kbyte/s.
How do you know this is actually illegal? As a customer of an alternate ISP, I am directly affected by this and I think this violates the spirit of wholesale reselling of DSL. But is it actually illegal? Please site the law this is breaking. You don't know the contract that Bell(nexxia) made Teksavvy sign to get the traffic. It may have had provisions for this type of throttling.
The reason why it needs the second run for a big file full of zeros is because of how that style of compressor works. It looks for all repeated patterns in the file and replaces them with references to each other. But, after a while the pattern list gets so big that it gives up that block and starts from scratch for the next block. But, with your file, ever block ends up being the same "9000 zeros", so the second time through, it sees each block as a repeated pattern and can compress that.
I theory, increasing the block size (up to 2Gigs) would make it work on the first pass, but it would also make it impractically slow (years to compress). There are other compressors that do better with this style of pattern. This is just a quirk of zip (and some others).
You seem to be confusing the word "right" with "ability". Just because we have the capacity to do something does not mean it's a right. Rights are dictated by law. No law means no rights. In a situation where there is no law, I have the capacity to speak freely, but nothing protects me from being attacked for doing so. You talk about the right to punch someone in the face. You've got it completely backwards. I have the right to not *be punched* in the face. I'm given that right only after agreeing to not punch anyone else in the face.
Slashdot Mirror
Except "Clear Type" font anti-aliasing doesn't support rotated displays (at least on Microsoft operating systems). So font rendering looks awful on a rotated display.
What about tickets issued in a location far from your home? Like, you are on vacation across the country and you get a speeding ticket. Should you have to spend thousands of dollars to return to the city of the 'crime' to do 5 hours of community service?
Yeah, but what happens to the deposit money for containers that are not returned? It goes into someone's pocket. And that person has a vested interest in people NOT recycling. This exact scheme was tried in New Brunswick (Canada). It failed. It failed miserably. Some guys got rich off of it and refillable bottles completely disappeared.
You're right, but what I really *meant* to say was that I suspect that manufacturing of a single kindle requires more resources than printing every book/paper you could reasonably read on it before it breaks/has it's DRM discontinued.
You ignore the environmental cost of manufacturing the Kindle. I suspect that building 1 million of them (one for each NYT reader), would cause more environmental problems than printing all 365 million papers combined.
Your airline analogy breaks down when you think about constant traffic. For it to work, the airline would have to [only] sell monthly, "all-you-can-fly" tickets. You pay a reasonably low fee, say $100/month, and you can fly anywhere you want, anytime you want. It works fine if each of us fly once a year, but when some guy decides to fly back-and-forth to Australia each day, then they would have to say, "During peak travel times, you can only fly once per day/week/month" or something.
While I abstractly agree with your argument, this problem is not preventing people from voting, it's casting their vote for the wrong candidate/party. Now, if your argument is: "Good! Having every stupid voter accidentally vote for the wrong person guarantees McCain's failure." ...
Well then... I abstractly agree again, except all the people in TFA were trying to vote for Obama. Where are the roving bands of idiots who tried to vote for McCain but pushed the wrong buttons?
Patents are made available to the public. So even if it was innovative, lots of companies could copy it and *say* they thought it up on their own.
Dude, I don't know what kind of lock you think you have on your front door, but locks only make it more difficult to break into your house. They won't stop a determined person. The "security vulnerability" in your home is your need to have glass windows that I can throw my malware-rock through. We *can* design houses that are less vulnerable to attack (a solid, concrete exoshell would work), but we don't want to feel like prisoners in our own homes, so we take risks with our designs. Same thing with our computers. That being said, I don't run AV software on my home XP box. Never have. And to my knowledge, I've never been infected with anything. Probably because I don't run silly email attachments or try to install "smiley packs".
Global average temperature is approximately 15C, NOT ZERO! Even during ice-ages, it averages around 10C.
If they only thottled on their backbone, then they would not be able to throttle their competition. They are throttling on the "last mile" so they can level the playing field to avoid losing customers. The only problem is that it's likely against the CRTC regulations that forced them to lease out their wholesale network access.
I was talking about the network between the Teksavvy peering point and my house. You are correct that it is not exclusively DSL. It's only DSL for the first 5km, then it gets aggregated for the next 5km before reaching Teksavvy's equipment. I consider anything between me and the Bell office downtown as "last-mile".
You are correct that Bell is not touching the DSL connection. Teksavvy has a single connection to Bell's network (in their O'Connor Street office, I believe), and so Bell is doing the routing from the DSLAM to downtown. But that intra-city link is a high-bandwidth link, and the amount of bandwidth on that link has no monetary impact on Bell. Bell's only real concern is the data after it leaves the O'Connor Street office. They pay for that bandwidth, and it's on lower-bandwidth link (lower than all the other links combined). So, it pays for Bell to throttle their own customers who's traffic will end up costing them money (and conjesting their backbone connectivity), but the Teksavvy traffic is siphoned off at the CO, which has no impact on Bell's backbone connection.
The only reason why Bell is throttling their competitor's traffic is because their customers have been leaving them for other ISPs that do not throttle. This way Bell levels the paying field, by crippling their competitors.
That's just there to stop people from complaining that Bell has blocked their porn site, or throttled their _own_ customers. It's not to say that the CRTC does not regulate the industry at all. They already do. The only reason why 3rd party DSL providers exist is because the CRTC forced BELL to lease their network access out. If Bell stopped allowing those 3rd party DSL providers any network access at all, then the CRTC would be all over them. What they are doing now is half-blocking them. It is completely their jurisdiction to enforce their own regulations forcing Bell to give last-mile access. Now, independent of that, we can argue as to whether Bell is allowed to do what they are doing. And the CRTC gets to make that decision. But consumer feedback is one way they will judge the impact. Besides, after warning you about internet regulations, they still let you file a complaint. So COMPLAIN!! EVERYONE COMPLAIN!
Sorta. They didn't do it intentionally today. And if you are not using P2P at the same time, there is no current impact on VoIP. What I worry about is the day when the specifically target VoIP. Or YouTube. Or Slashdot.
Complain here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/Register.asp?lang=E
I complained to the CRTC this morning about shaping the traffic they wholesale resell. I agree that Bell should be able to throttle their own customers as much as they like. But the whole point of forcing them to resell their network access was to create competition -- to give us our choice about what ISP offers which features that we like. But now they are throttling their competition. We don't have a choice. Everyone touched by this should be complaining to the CRTC about this.
I've tested SSH tunnels and VPN connections. Neither one of them are affected. In contrast to what your friend says, I've only detected it throttling P2P applications (encrypted or not).
Your argument makes sense for some ISPs, but not for this specific situation:
1) Teksavvy supplies it's own bandwidth, and only leases the 'last-mile' connection from Bell Canada.
2) Teksavvy does oversell, but currently keeps up with it's traffic even at peak times.
3) Bell is throttling P2P on Teksavvy's last-mile, even though it has little impact on their ability to provide service to it's own customers.
4) The type of throttling they are doing is interfearing with QoS systems in routers that ensure VoIP works. It is causing reduced quality in VoIP services.
5) Selectively throttling specific protocols is a slippery slope. What's to say that they don't decide that VoIP is the next service that gets eliminated because it competes with their local phone service?
This is a blatant attempt by Bell to remove a competitive advantage from competing ISPs.
Bell Canada throttles P2P with randomized ports and encryption turned on. What we really need is to tunnel bit-torrent over http.
Please check your information before posting inaccurate information. This ONLY throttles P2P traffic. I have 6Mbit service from a competing ISP, which can typically get 600kbyte/s on Torrents. I was limited to 30kbytes/s yesterday. But at the SAME TIME, I could download anything off the web at 500kbyte/s.
How do you know this is actually illegal? As a customer of an alternate ISP, I am directly affected by this and I think this violates the spirit of wholesale reselling of DSL. But is it actually illegal? Please site the law this is breaking. You don't know the contract that Bell(nexxia) made Teksavvy sign to get the traffic. It may have had provisions for this type of throttling.
The reason why it needs the second run for a big file full of zeros is because of how that style of compressor works. It looks for all repeated patterns in the file and replaces them with references to each other. But, after a while the pattern list gets so big that it gives up that block and starts from scratch for the next block. But, with your file, ever block ends up being the same "9000 zeros", so the second time through, it sees each block as a repeated pattern and can compress that.
I theory, increasing the block size (up to 2Gigs) would make it work on the first pass, but it would also make it impractically slow (years to compress). There are other compressors that do better with this style of pattern. This is just a quirk of zip (and some others).
You seem to be confusing the word "right" with "ability". Just because we have the capacity to do something does not mean it's a right. Rights are dictated by law. No law means no rights. In a situation where there is no law, I have the capacity to speak freely, but nothing protects me from being attacked for doing so. You talk about the right to punch someone in the face. You've got it completely backwards. I have the right to not *be punched* in the face. I'm given that right only after agreeing to not punch anyone else in the face.