Because, I don't know, suggesting this design is indicative that the people involved have no idea how TCP/IP or networks in general work.
The old solution, which is the hands-down best solution to any network congestion issue, is to increase the size of the pipe! Playing games with QoS and other attempts to 'fix' things are just band-aids to problems that should be solved upstream.
You see, TCP/IP is by its very nature fair; Why? Because it doesn't know what is contained in the data packet it received, only that it is to route it to its intended destination as quickly as possible. It's blind to the packet's contents! Everything is FedEx / UPS / DHL Same Day delivery, so far as it's concerned, and it couriers the data in the order it's received in! You don't get any more fair than that!
Congestion issues with your VOIP or (God help me) streaming video site? Tell your Bit Torrent client to throttle back a little bit. And / or get a bigger pipe. So you can download stuff @ 50MB/s, and still video chat with someone in Hong Kong at full HD.
"They shout at each other across the aisle during the day" -> Of course they do. The Democrats are trying to broker a compromise with the Republicans whereby they can get access to the 'Candy Desk,' and the Republicans want nothing to do with it, because Senator What's-His-Face ends up eating all the cherry licorice.
If you want to nuke corporatism, then you need to poison the relationships between lobbyists and politicians. Either that, or find a politician that is willing to say no to a large pile of money.
"It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves." -> I am far from wealthy, and yet am libertarian. I spent years perusing the various ideologies offered by, well, everyone; with each of them, I perform a test to see if what they were selling was true. Granted, it is a painstaking endeavor, as you have to actually read the treatises and materials from these ideologies, which for the lesser of minds can be quite frightening and true objectivity is something difficult to measure. However, it is well worth it all, as you acquire first-hand knowledge of where the faults of each ideology actually lies, as well as an encyclopedic amount of information on disinformation. The amount of lies out there that each ideology promotes about the others is greater than the stars in the sky. I am thoroughly convinced that the problem with humanity isn't humanity itself, but the languages used; they are...heavily context-based, and invite a certain amount of imprecision inadequate to storing knowledge / wisdom past a certain level.
How did you come to choose your ideology (if you have one)? Have you performed experiments to see if what you believe is actually true, or do you simply accept it as self-evident? Are you willing to throw the entire ideology out if it's proven false, or would you attempt to modify your beliefs / explain away the erroneous data? At what point do you say "Enough"? Do you believe it's important to have an ideology even if it's a broken / imperfect one? Are you okay with one that works in 90% of all cases, or do you slave away in your mental workshop until it covers 100% of all cases?
I nominate '703 - Your government is being a twat.'
Some others: 701 - Your ISP is being a twat. 702 - Your organization is being a twat. 704 - Your ISP is being a twat, and has messed with your DNS request, sending you to a spamvertizement for the domain requested. 705 - Your ISP is throttling / packet shaping the living hell out of your connection. 706 - Variant HTML requested (mobile, Flash-free....lots of flags in here). 707 - The current server time (in ticks since the epoch) & the server's time zone.
Indeed. The technology itself is non-transferable (it's probably faster to write new apps for a Windows phone than to attempt to port either company's vast repositories of applications). The employees might be worth something, in that their expertise with creating phones makes them a valuable asset; however, since they are not owned by the company, and can easily resign / retire if / when MS attempts to acquire either company, it's probably best to approach them individually, and offer them a job with better pay (which, on the whole, also happens to be cheaper than buying the company).
So yeah, the employees and the IP are the most valuable items of either company. Their current customers will jump ship as soon as MS announces an intent to acquire the company (no loyalty, haha), and the software is for a platform that MS does not intend to run or emulate on its phones, making it worthless. Its manufacturing assets are also relatively worthless, as they are probably out of date, and would require pointless amounts of capital to bring them up to a competitive position; remember, they're competing against the likes of Foxconn & TSMC, who are somewhat brutal in their controlled costs areas and general inefficiencies.
That said, the Nokia name is probably the better buy; Nokia has been, in times past, associated with indestructible cellphones (there is a meme about it), and a fair amount of quality control (currently, they are associated with 'not getting their acts together / an inability to fix minor software issues,' which while being bad, is nothing compared to RIM's stupidity). RIM, on the other hand, has had its name dragged through the dirt over any number of software / government issues, which leaves a stench. If MS buys RIM, the Canadian government will love them for a bit, then probably try to tax them more / ask them to 'increase jobs' at the acquired locations (politics). If MS buys Nokia, Finnish government will love them for a bit, then probably try to tax them more / ask them to 'increase jobs' at the acquired locations (politics).
There is, however, an issue that no one has touched -> is it a good idea for MS to acquire either of them? And the answer is no. For MS to dominate, let alone be competitive, in the phone market, it needs to get in shape; you don't lose weight by eating more. Any merger by MS, of either or both of these companies will result in two things: 1.) the M&A guys patting each other on the back, as they will make out like kings (the WSJ & Reuters will trumpet that the merger is bringing in a new era of 'Mobile Synergy' or some other bullsh*t, only to recant it all later when it's found that 'MS didn't properly integrate the Nokia / RIM units, which is why the gains were never realized'), and 2.) it will be revealed as a failure of leadership when a year later, the news reports that MS overpaid for its acquisitions (compounded by the number of Nokia / RIM employees who, having spent a year at MS, spread their wings for clearer skies...which will be several months before the Windows Mobile unit reports a catastrophic loss of income).
"You do not really believe what you say - that trade barriers directly cause economic self-decline." -> Indeed I do. Protectionist doctrine is nice if you are a politician on the campaign trail, talking about 'saving people's jobs' from foreigners / the market / the machines, but the reality is that they all backfire.
The economy from one country is linked with the economy from another; as such, when a trade barrier is introduced, the gesture is typically reciprocated. You begin spending more and more resources artificially propping up that business up. And those resources must come from somewhere else.
"If you do believe that honestly, then you have not heard of "China", which would be a bit incredible." -> And with all the trade barriers that China employed for centuries, nay, millenia, would you be so blind as to argue they didn't suffer?
"Economic absolut-isms serve only to chain you to an ideology that puts you at an economic disadvantage to someone else." -> 'Tis not an absolutism, it's only an observation that has proven true so far (as per world history).
I agree with your assessment, but damn is that depressing to read at 4 AM.
Still the idea of bringing war to the internet is...well, you don't want to know what I think about it. Caricatures of Officer Farva (from Super Troopers, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_a1Gr4UKmN6Y/S-nv_mdqNvI/AAAAAAAACTM/dQ0-RwCCau8/s1600/largefarva.png) come to mind when I think of the kinds of people training to be 'cyber-commandos.' The idea that they want to turn our playground into a battlefield...
Exactly. They seem painfully unaware of the obtuseness of their ideas. Or how trivial it is to create a new network that, as it grows, can become a new Internet; completely private, and completely untouchable.
But I digress, since they probably think the Internet is some kind of fad, held together by magic, and is somewhat unique, they think they can control things. Things they do not understand.
Tier 1 providers (aka the Internet, so far as anyone is concerned), typically are not nationalized telecos. I am reading on Wikipedia about 'regional Tier 1s', of which a number are made up of local telecoms, but they are, as I have stated elsewhere, the smaller of fish in the pond.
The internet is made up of Tier 1 providers linked together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network). All it is is a bunch of networks, the vast majority private, meshed together. Tier 1 providers handle the big pipe stuff, and have agreements with each other, that allow them to send and receive data on each others' networks for free. They, in turn, sell access to the lower Tiers, and so on, and so on, until you get to the consumer. Tier 1 providers usually have names that no one has heard of before; yes, you have 'regional Tier 1s' like Verizon or AT&T, but they are small fish in comparison to others. And they are all insanely profitable while constantly dropping prices / increasing network speed / upgrading equipment, assuming the company's finances aren't being mishandled (a common hazard these days).
Which part do you not understand? The lack of taxation as a business model, or that with the exception of Arpanet & the internet's very beginnings as a DoD project, there really hasn't been anything that qualifies as subsidization?
Indeed, but human beings typically assign priorities to the ability of a weapon to deal damage.
Let me explain:
Nuclear / Chemical / Biological weapons score a 10 / 10. Your average military fighter / bomber / tank...gets a 7 / 10. Your average gun, a 5 / 10. Your average knife, a 3/ 10. Your average computer virus, maybe a 0.5 / 10.
Hmm. "Cyber weapons," specially designed, might be able to kill people, but only as a side effect. It all comes down to what the system is connected to, and you need to get the 'enemy' to connect an internet enabled computer to it first.
Of course, there are other methods, but it's easier to usually do it without resorting to 'cyber' weaponry.
If I want to kill a regiment of soldiers, do I a.) hack into a satellite, plot a trajectory that would give a super-computer a head-ache, and drop it on them? or b.) dig a hole about 5 feet deep, sight the 'enemy,' and deploy the Davey Crockett?
Indeed. Were I in the military, I'd personally ensure that any computer connected to anything remotely important did not even have an Ethernet connector.
The sad part is, the military probably thinks we are joking when IT people tell them "No, really. Just don't connect anything important to the internet. It will be cracked, no matter what the security vendor / sales guy is telling you." It can be running the most harden variant of Unix you know of, with all sorts of security schemes; but if you put it on the internet, it will be found, with people lining up to try and get in.
But I digress. The entire computer 'security' industry that has sprouted up over night is headed by people who couldn't make it as network admins, but want the same rights and privileges. Whole corporations following the advice that is found on page 209 in most 'Welcome to {insert name} Operating Systems: An Administration Guide'
I guess they need to see it from our stand-point: it's a triple face-palming (when it's so bad, you need a friend to lend you a hand) event. However, they probably just hear cursing that would make a sailor blush, and think it's those 'discontent' tech people.
No. The rights of the creators, and their creations must be preserved, or we sever the contract society has with them, with all the evils that follow. Mind you, some of the creators have gone too far recently, with ACTA and a handful of other annoyances. However, this is not an opportunity for us to 'f*ck them' back; it's an opportunity to pause for a moment, reflect on what has lead us to this situation, and devise a new solution.
As for data, the world has prospered for many years without an internet tax. I see no reason to add a new one, if only because some people slept through General Accounting 101. It's...peculiar to see so many countries counting liabilities as assets.
Finally, this notion of 'don't tax us, tax {blank} instead!' makes me want to throw up. What weak-minded fools would throw their neighbors under the bus if it saves them a few nickels? Tell me that mankind has not fallen so far.
So was Intel Pentium, but that didn't stop people from filing a lawsuit and getting replacements.
Some people are happy with a flawed universe, some people are not. If the UN, like the US, is suffering from corruption, the first order is to try and remove the problem; if that fails, destroying it, and replacing it with a better model (if needed) is the only option.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, I don't know, suggesting this design is indicative that the people involved have no idea how TCP/IP or networks in general work.
The old solution, which is the hands-down best solution to any network congestion issue, is to increase the size of the pipe! Playing games with QoS and other attempts to 'fix' things are just band-aids to problems that should be solved upstream.
You see, TCP/IP is by its very nature fair; Why? Because it doesn't know what is contained in the data packet it received, only that it is to route it to its intended destination as quickly as possible. It's blind to the packet's contents! Everything is FedEx / UPS / DHL Same Day delivery, so far as it's concerned, and it couriers the data in the order it's received in! You don't get any more fair than that!
Congestion issues with your VOIP or (God help me) streaming video site? Tell your Bit Torrent client to throttle back a little bit. And / or get a bigger pipe. So you can download stuff @ 50MB/s, and still video chat with someone in Hong Kong at full HD.
"They shout at each other across the aisle during the day" -> Of course they do. The Democrats are trying to broker a compromise with the Republicans whereby they can get access to the 'Candy Desk,' and the Republicans want nothing to do with it, because Senator What's-His-Face ends up eating all the cherry licorice.
"your ad flashes yellow flying monkeys and blares music" -> But, then, how is it going to get your attention that you're their one millionth winner?
If you want to nuke corporatism, then you need to poison the relationships between lobbyists and politicians. Either that, or find a politician that is willing to say no to a large pile of money.
"It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves." -> I am far from wealthy, and yet am libertarian. I spent years perusing the various ideologies offered by, well, everyone; with each of them, I perform a test to see if what they were selling was true. Granted, it is a painstaking endeavor, as you have to actually read the treatises and materials from these ideologies, which for the lesser of minds can be quite frightening and true objectivity is something difficult to measure. However, it is well worth it all, as you acquire first-hand knowledge of where the faults of each ideology actually lies, as well as an encyclopedic amount of information on disinformation. The amount of lies out there that each ideology promotes about the others is greater than the stars in the sky. I am thoroughly convinced that the problem with humanity isn't humanity itself, but the languages used; they are...heavily context-based, and invite a certain amount of imprecision inadequate to storing knowledge / wisdom past a certain level.
How did you come to choose your ideology (if you have one)? Have you performed experiments to see if what you believe is actually true, or do you simply accept it as self-evident? Are you willing to throw the entire ideology out if it's proven false, or would you attempt to modify your beliefs / explain away the erroneous data? At what point do you say "Enough"? Do you believe it's important to have an ideology even if it's a broken / imperfect one? Are you okay with one that works in 90% of all cases, or do you slave away in your mental workshop until it covers 100% of all cases?
I nominate '703 - Your government is being a twat.'
Some others:
701 - Your ISP is being a twat.
702 - Your organization is being a twat.
704 - Your ISP is being a twat, and has messed with your DNS request, sending you to a spamvertizement for the domain requested.
705 - Your ISP is throttling / packet shaping the living hell out of your connection.
706 - Variant HTML requested (mobile, Flash-free....lots of flags in here).
707 - The current server time (in ticks since the epoch) & the server's time zone.
Indeed. The technology itself is non-transferable (it's probably faster to write new apps for a Windows phone than to attempt to port either company's vast repositories of applications). The employees might be worth something, in that their expertise with creating phones makes them a valuable asset; however, since they are not owned by the company, and can easily resign / retire if / when MS attempts to acquire either company, it's probably best to approach them individually, and offer them a job with better pay (which, on the whole, also happens to be cheaper than buying the company).
So yeah, the employees and the IP are the most valuable items of either company. Their current customers will jump ship as soon as MS announces an intent to acquire the company (no loyalty, haha), and the software is for a platform that MS does not intend to run or emulate on its phones, making it worthless. Its manufacturing assets are also relatively worthless, as they are probably out of date, and would require pointless amounts of capital to bring them up to a competitive position; remember, they're competing against the likes of Foxconn & TSMC, who are somewhat brutal in their controlled costs areas and general inefficiencies.
That said, the Nokia name is probably the better buy; Nokia has been, in times past, associated with indestructible cellphones (there is a meme about it), and a fair amount of quality control (currently, they are associated with 'not getting their acts together / an inability to fix minor software issues,' which while being bad, is nothing compared to RIM's stupidity). RIM, on the other hand, has had its name dragged through the dirt over any number of software / government issues, which leaves a stench. If MS buys RIM, the Canadian government will love them for a bit, then probably try to tax them more / ask them to 'increase jobs' at the acquired locations (politics). If MS buys Nokia, Finnish government will love them for a bit, then probably try to tax them more / ask them to 'increase jobs' at the acquired locations (politics).
There is, however, an issue that no one has touched -> is it a good idea for MS to acquire either of them? And the answer is no. For MS to dominate, let alone be competitive, in the phone market, it needs to get in shape; you don't lose weight by eating more. Any merger by MS, of either or both of these companies will result in two things: 1.) the M&A guys patting each other on the back, as they will make out like kings (the WSJ & Reuters will trumpet that the merger is bringing in a new era of 'Mobile Synergy' or some other bullsh*t, only to recant it all later when it's found that 'MS didn't properly integrate the Nokia / RIM units, which is why the gains were never realized'), and 2.) it will be revealed as a failure of leadership when a year later, the news reports that MS overpaid for its acquisitions (compounded by the number of Nokia / RIM employees who, having spent a year at MS, spread their wings for clearer skies...which will be several months before the Windows Mobile unit reports a catastrophic loss of income).
"You do not really believe what you say - that trade barriers directly cause economic self-decline." -> Indeed I do. Protectionist doctrine is nice if you are a politician on the campaign trail, talking about 'saving people's jobs' from foreigners / the market / the machines, but the reality is that they all backfire.
The economy from one country is linked with the economy from another; as such, when a trade barrier is introduced, the gesture is typically reciprocated. You begin spending more and more resources artificially propping up that business up. And those resources must come from somewhere else.
"If you do believe that honestly, then you have not heard of "China", which would be a bit incredible." -> And with all the trade barriers that China employed for centuries, nay, millenia, would you be so blind as to argue they didn't suffer?
"Economic absolut-isms serve only to chain you to an ideology that puts you at an economic disadvantage to someone else." -> 'Tis not an absolutism, it's only an observation that has proven true so far (as per world history).
*facepalms*
I agree with your assessment, but damn is that depressing to read at 4 AM.
Still the idea of bringing war to the internet is...well, you don't want to know what I think about it. Caricatures of Officer Farva (from Super Troopers, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_a1Gr4UKmN6Y/S-nv_mdqNvI/AAAAAAAACTM/dQ0-RwCCau8/s1600/largefarva.png) come to mind when I think of the kinds of people training to be 'cyber-commandos.' The idea that they want to turn our playground into a battlefield...
Exactly. They seem painfully unaware of the obtuseness of their ideas. Or how trivial it is to create a new network that, as it grows, can become a new Internet; completely private, and completely untouchable.
But I digress, since they probably think the Internet is some kind of fad, held together by magic, and is somewhat unique, they think they can control things. Things they do not understand.
Tier 1 providers (aka the Internet, so far as anyone is concerned), typically are not nationalized telecos. I am reading on Wikipedia about 'regional Tier 1s', of which a number are made up of local telecoms, but they are, as I have stated elsewhere, the smaller of fish in the pond.
The internet is made up of Tier 1 providers linked together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network). All it is is a bunch of networks, the vast majority private, meshed together. Tier 1 providers handle the big pipe stuff, and have agreements with each other, that allow them to send and receive data on each others' networks for free. They, in turn, sell access to the lower Tiers, and so on, and so on, until you get to the consumer. Tier 1 providers usually have names that no one has heard of before; yes, you have 'regional Tier 1s' like Verizon or AT&T, but they are small fish in comparison to others. And they are all insanely profitable while constantly dropping prices / increasing network speed / upgrading equipment, assuming the company's finances aren't being mishandled (a common hazard these days).
Which part do you not understand? The lack of taxation as a business model, or that with the exception of Arpanet & the internet's very beginnings as a DoD project, there really hasn't been anything that qualifies as subsidization?
Hmm. A particle accelerator...you know what, that might work.
Cancer for everyone!
Movies != TV.
Indeed. 1080p is kind of a downgrade for those of us who had higher resolution monitors from yesteryear.
Sorry, just realized it was 'circletimessquare' I was talking to.
Indeed, but human beings typically assign priorities to the ability of a weapon to deal damage.
Let me explain:
Nuclear / Chemical / Biological weapons score a 10 / 10.
Your average military fighter / bomber / tank...gets a 7 / 10.
Your average gun, a 5 / 10.
Your average knife, a 3/ 10.
Your average computer virus, maybe a 0.5 / 10.
The whip gets a 1 / 10.
Yes, but it's time consuming, and far too much effort for what it's worth.
Hmm. "Cyber weapons," specially designed, might be able to kill people, but only as a side effect. It all comes down to what the system is connected to, and you need to get the 'enemy' to connect an internet enabled computer to it first.
Of course, there are other methods, but it's easier to usually do it without resorting to 'cyber' weaponry.
If I want to kill a regiment of soldiers, do I
a.) hack into a satellite, plot a trajectory that would give a super-computer a head-ache, and drop it on them? or
b.) dig a hole about 5 feet deep, sight the 'enemy,' and deploy the Davey Crockett?
Macs. Everyone must use Facebook, and own a Mac. Check out the number of Macs prominently displayed in the latest movies.
Indeed. Were I in the military, I'd personally ensure that any computer connected to anything remotely important did not even have an Ethernet connector.
The sad part is, the military probably thinks we are joking when IT people tell them "No, really. Just don't connect anything important to the internet. It will be cracked, no matter what the security vendor / sales guy is telling you." It can be running the most harden variant of Unix you know of, with all sorts of security schemes; but if you put it on the internet, it will be found, with people lining up to try and get in.
But I digress. The entire computer 'security' industry that has sprouted up over night is headed by people who couldn't make it as network admins, but want the same rights and privileges. Whole corporations following the advice that is found on page 209 in most 'Welcome to {insert name} Operating Systems: An Administration Guide'
I guess they need to see it from our stand-point: it's a triple face-palming (when it's so bad, you need a friend to lend you a hand) event. However, they probably just hear cursing that would make a sailor blush, and think it's those 'discontent' tech people.
There is no freedom where there is taxation.
No. The rights of the creators, and their creations must be preserved, or we sever the contract society has with them, with all the evils that follow. Mind you, some of the creators have gone too far recently, with ACTA and a handful of other annoyances. However, this is not an opportunity for us to 'f*ck them' back; it's an opportunity to pause for a moment, reflect on what has lead us to this situation, and devise a new solution.
As for data, the world has prospered for many years without an internet tax. I see no reason to add a new one, if only because some people slept through General Accounting 101. It's...peculiar to see so many countries counting liabilities as assets.
Finally, this notion of 'don't tax us, tax {blank} instead!' makes me want to throw up. What weak-minded fools would throw their neighbors under the bus if it saves them a few nickels? Tell me that mankind has not fallen so far.
So was Intel Pentium, but that didn't stop people from filing a lawsuit and getting replacements.
Some people are happy with a flawed universe, some people are not. If the UN, like the US, is suffering from corruption, the first order is to try and remove the problem; if that fails, destroying it, and replacing it with a better model (if needed) is the only option.
There are no sacred cows in my universe.
And in doing so, unravel all the efforts of the human race to think as one. All so a bunch of petty bureaucrats can serve their dark masters.