"i humbly submit this isn't possible anymore...all advances today are not simple, but require the support of an advanced facility, simply because all of the fundamental, simple advances in chemistry have already been scoured"
I'm not sure that is the case. There is an almost infinite number of chemical processes that have not yet been explored. The 'problem domain' of chemistry is staggeringly large. I think there are still a great many useful substances and processes yet to be discovered.
In fact, I can't even figure out the theoretical maximum number of distinct chemical compounds. We know about all the stable elements, do we know all the ways in which they can bond?
then connect to localhost with your RDP client to access the XP machine behind the firewall at your remote site.
also very useful for getting out from underneath corporate firewalls. ssh -L localhost:3128:localhost:3128 user@myremotelinuxserver.com configure squid on your linux server to bind only to localhost for security.
swiss army knife commands: cat cut grep awk sort tail head uniq
for example: cat/var/log/apache2/access.log | grep/mystuff/myvideo.avi | cut -d " " -f 1 | sort | uniq should give you a list of the unique IPs that accessed that file on your web server.
except for on ubuntu where the brain-dead shell tries to be smart about it. It actually tries to choose which filename to autocomplete by looking at file extensions! drives me freaking nuts.
in related news, researchers have discovered that if you open a root console on any flavour of linux and stick the keyboard out a window anyone walking by will be able to gain root access to you machine.
peering with settlement fees == might means right.
settlement fees for peering is just bullying. sprint peering with cogent is from an engineering perspective an efficiency. The only reason for money to change hands is if one party has enough power to force the other to pay them.
Nice post but you've got it wrong. You've described a transit agreement not a peering agreement.
A peering agreement would cover traffic between computer on yours and my networks. It would not cover you passing along my traffic destined for some other part of the Internet, that is 'transit'.
In your example it would be when we have our cat-5 connection and it turns out that after a month of measuring the traffic we learn that most of the traffic (80%) is me downloading from your personal web server. Now you start demanding money from me because I'm not sending as much traffic across our peering link as you are. THAT is what is happening between sprint and cogent right now.
"By your rationale, any company or person that sets up a small network (e.g. 3 computers) should be able to get free connectivity from sprint or another backbone provider."
Sure, why not? We're talking about peering, not IP transit. You exchange traffic where the source and destination are on your network and theirs. They would not carry your traffic through to the rest of Internet.
If you want to pay the contractors to build the fiber out from your 3 PC lan to a public peering point then you can exchange traffic for free with the other networks at that peering point.
You can do that today actually. You can get a dry copper line from your house to a public exchange like TORIX, buy some used DSL gear off ebay and exchange traffic for free with all* the networks that are in there.
What is the deal with this 'equal traffic' nonsense. It keeps coming up and I have no idea why a network operator would want the traffic across a link to be equal in both directions.
Every packet that passes (in either direction) is for the use of one user on each network. (generally speaking). The only traffic flowing across that link will be Sprint customers interacting with Cogent customers.
What possible difference could it make if a sprint customer is downloading from a cogent customer or if it is the other way around?
The reason this is different than a hair cut is that in 199X a 10Gb/s router costs (made up numbers) $40,000 then in 2008 a 40Gb/s router costs $15,000 Company A built their network in 199X company B built it in 2008.
hair-cutting scissors don't get 10X speed upgrades every few years. (as far as I know)
"This reader might find some guidance in what to focus on, when, in a video produced by reader (and data modeler) Bruce Nash that lays out a predicted timeline for when the media will call each state, depending on when the polls close and how tight each race is expected to be. "
Kdawson your english teacher is spinning in his or her grave. That paragraph sized sentence is a crime against humanity.
Actually Cogent's best price is $4/Mbps for 10Gb/s links. Cogent's business model is much simpler than the other big ISPs. Unmetered IP transit. That's it. No complex metering and billing and 10,000 products and services. You can buy 10/100/1000/10000/40000 Mb/s ip transit blocks. that's it.
They are also not making any money. That's the real problem. The other big ISPs are used to fat profit margins while Cogent is apparently happy to break even (at best). There is also a timing factor... while some other tier-1s were still grinning about their shiny new 10Gb/s backbones Cogent was lighting theirs at 40Gb/s across the board. Being a late-comer made their network cheaper to build. That and snapping up dark fiber on the cheap from bankrupt companies.
All in all, Cogent is fucking fantastic for the consumer.
poor quality bandwidth? that is nonsense. Aside form being wrong, how would 'poor quality bandwidth' in cogent's network give Sprint a reason to cut them off?
Cogent pissed off Sprint by being too fast and too cheap.
It is not Cogent's fault. This is (yet again) a case of the incumbent telecoms companies having a hissy fit because Cogent's prices are so much lower than theirs. They are trying to damage Cogent's reputation as a business tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
You know it is people like you that have created this scarcity of mutant superheroes.
"i humbly submit this isn't possible anymore...all advances today are not simple, but require the support of an advanced facility, simply because all of the fundamental, simple advances in chemistry have already been scoured"
I'm not sure that is the case.
There is an almost infinite number of chemical processes that have not yet been explored.
The 'problem domain' of chemistry is staggeringly large. I think there are still a great many useful substances and processes yet to be discovered.
In fact, I can't even figure out the theoretical maximum number of distinct chemical compounds.
We know about all the stable elements, do we know all the ways in which they can bond?
George Bush; great president or greatest president?
you can open a directory instead of a file.
vim /var/log/
then navigate to the file you want to edit.
can be useful sometimes.
or if you know the number of lines
d10 down arrow
or d/regex to delete until regex match
I've been doing d/" then having to enter insert mode with another keystroke. thanks for the tip!
i don't know if this is of any interest but...
secure ad-hoc on-demand port forwarding
ssh -L localhost:3389:192.168.1.5:3389 user@remotefirewall.com
then connect to localhost with your RDP client to access the XP machine behind the firewall at your remote site.
also very useful for getting out from underneath corporate firewalls.
ssh -L localhost:3128:localhost:3128 user@myremotelinuxserver.com
configure squid on your linux server to bind only to localhost for security.
swiss army knife commands:
cat cut grep awk sort tail head uniq
for example: /var/log/apache2/access.log | grep /mystuff/myvideo.avi | cut -d " " -f 1 | sort | uniq
cat
should give you a list of the unique IPs that accessed that file on your web server.
except for on ubuntu where the brain-dead shell tries to be smart about it.
It actually tries to choose which filename to autocomplete by looking at file extensions!
drives me freaking nuts.
in related news, researchers have discovered that if you open a root console on any flavour of linux and stick the keyboard out a window anyone walking by will be able to gain root access to you machine.
"Its the next best thing to being there..."
except for when you are on a low-speed link in which case it is the worst possible solution.
Vote for Kang or you are stupid!
Kodos will ruin this country and he is a secret space-muslim!
No, that post does not describe peering.
That post describes a transit agreement.
peering is like a conversation between two people.
Transit is when I pass your message along to a third person for you.
peering != freeloading.
peering == The Internet.
peering with settlement fees == might means right.
settlement fees for peering is just bullying.
sprint peering with cogent is from an engineering perspective an efficiency. The only reason for money to change hands is if one party has enough power to force the other to pay them.
Nice post but you've got it wrong.
You've described a transit agreement not a peering agreement.
A peering agreement would cover traffic between computer on yours and my networks. It would not cover you passing along my traffic destined for some other part of the Internet, that is 'transit'.
In your example it would be when we have our cat-5 connection and it turns out that after a month of measuring the traffic we learn that most of the traffic (80%) is me downloading from your personal web server.
Now you start demanding money from me because I'm not sending as much traffic across our peering link as you are.
THAT is what is happening between sprint and cogent right now.
"By your rationale, any company or person that sets up a small network (e.g. 3 computers) should be able to get free connectivity from sprint or another backbone provider."
Sure, why not?
We're talking about peering, not IP transit.
You exchange traffic where the source and destination are on your network and theirs. They would not carry your traffic through to the rest of Internet.
If you want to pay the contractors to build the fiber out from your 3 PC lan to a public peering point then you can exchange traffic for free with the other networks at that peering point.
You can do that today actually.
You can get a dry copper line from your house to a public exchange like TORIX, buy some used DSL gear off ebay and exchange traffic for free with all* the networks that are in there.
What is the deal with this 'equal traffic' nonsense.
It keeps coming up and I have no idea why a network operator would want the traffic across a link to be equal in both directions.
Every packet that passes (in either direction) is for the use of one user on each network. (generally speaking).
The only traffic flowing across that link will be Sprint customers interacting with Cogent customers.
What possible difference could it make if a sprint customer is downloading from a cogent customer or if it is the other way around?
The reason this is different than a hair cut is that in 199X a 10Gb/s router costs (made up numbers) $40,000 then in 2008 a 40Gb/s router costs $15,000
Company A built their network in 199X company B built it in 2008.
hair-cutting scissors don't get 10X speed upgrades every few years. (as far as I know)
Sprint seems to be saying that there WAS a settlement free peering agreement but that it was a 'trial' and now it is over.
"This reader might find some guidance in what to focus on, when, in a video produced by reader (and data modeler) Bruce Nash that lays out a predicted timeline for when the media will call each state, depending on when the polls close and how tight each race is expected to be. "
Kdawson your english teacher is spinning in his or her grave.
That paragraph sized sentence is a crime against humanity.
You're right. I was on my way back to this thread to post a correction.
Though those three links are all about the same incident.
Actually Cogent's best price is $4/Mbps for 10Gb/s links.
Cogent's business model is much simpler than the other big ISPs. Unmetered IP transit. That's it.
No complex metering and billing and 10,000 products and services.
You can buy 10/100/1000/10000/40000 Mb/s ip transit blocks. that's it.
They are also not making any money.
That's the real problem.
The other big ISPs are used to fat profit margins while Cogent is apparently happy to break even (at best).
There is also a timing factor... while some other tier-1s were still grinning about their shiny new 10Gb/s backbones Cogent was lighting theirs at 40Gb/s across the board. Being a late-comer made their network cheaper to build. That and snapping up dark fiber on the cheap from bankrupt companies.
All in all, Cogent is fucking fantastic for the consumer.
poor quality bandwidth? that is nonsense.
Aside form being wrong, how would 'poor quality bandwidth' in cogent's network give Sprint a reason to cut them off?
Cogent pissed off Sprint by being too fast and too cheap.
"...and several others over the years have disconnected them for various reasons."
Which all boiled down to: "We don't want you as a tier-1 competitor because your business model kicks our business model's ass."
Umm, I know something about network engineering... what's your point?
You cite past examples of other incumbent ISPs de-peering with Cogent...
show me an example of Cogent initiating a de-peering...
Sprint, just like the others is just trying to undercut a competitor that is kicking their ass.
WE need Cogent, they are forcing bandwidth prices down.
Sprint is just jealous because they can't sell 10Gb/s of transit for $40,000/month
It is not Cogent's fault.
This is (yet again) a case of the incumbent telecoms companies having a hissy fit because Cogent's prices are so much lower than theirs.
They are trying to damage Cogent's reputation as a business tactic.