A primary is an election to determine who gets to wear the party label in the actual election. In this case more than 1 Republican wanted to run for the office in November so to decide which one got to say I am the official Republican candidate they have a primary election in the spring where only registered Republicans are supposed to vote. IIANM the state in question doesn't require proof of party affiliation to vote so in reality it could have been anyone voting. Now the winner of the primary gets to run as a Republican and the loser must either not run or choose a different party or run as an independent candidate. The loser seldom runs as they understand it weakens their chances and that of the party by splitting the vote between candidates and gives the opposing party a better chance to defeat them. And in this case the guy that lost has even stepped down from his position as House Majority leader months ahead of the end of his term.
Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair.
What isn't fair is taxpayers footing the bill for internal parties elections. Does the Libertarian party get to use the electorate? or the Tea Party? Why do the Democrats and Republicans get to?
You can whine and bitch and proclaim all you want it still doesn't make it so. Your ISP sells you "up to x mbps" meaning they can provide anything they want and may occasionally actually give you the top speed you are paying for but unless your contract has a best minimum speed clause you aren't guaranteed anything faster than their slowest connection speed. And if you haven't already read this and this do yourself a favor and take the time. It is enlightening.
Actually with TOECDN it goes from 14 to 1 solution.
No, no it doesn't. Unless you mean have the government force everybody to use YOUR solution over all the others which is anything BUT neutral. We don't live in a perfect world and Netflix is by no means a benevolent entity that will solve your problems but they are attempting to provide a solution to the problem their success has caused which is more than any of the cable cos are doing.
No need to get mad at me...I'm just the messenger. If you don't like the truth of it you might want to add your voice to those trumpeting Net Neutrality. What An ISP tells you and what they give you aren't necessarily the same thing.
I'm confused. First you say caching is a solution but nobody is interested then you admit several streaming sites already use caching and provide 2 links to site mirrors. Then you reference some nebulous utopian solution like I should know what you are talking about. Please enlighten me to this panacea.
I have both Verizon FIOS and Netflix. Here is what I, as a user/subscriber, expect. I pay Netflix to stream movies. I pay Verizon to provide me bandwidth and internet/web access. I don't pay either of them to throttle my connection or do what they want to quality. I pay for X amount, and expect to get it. If Verizon cannot hold up their end of the deal to provide me a pipe, then they aren't doing their job.
You pay for X amount from Verizon down to you. As long as the content is on Verizon's network no problem. Netflix isn't on Verizon's network so Verizon has to get it from the network it is on. Verizon has paid for W not X to that tier A provider so you still get X just not from Netflix because Verizon is only allowed W from the network Netflix is on. you're still getting X from Verizon so you can watch Netflix at W and download something else until you reach X but you will never get X from Netflix as long as Verizon refuses to pay for X from their tier A.
Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.
If Verizon wanted to offer the best experience to their Netflix subscribing users they would allow Netflix to install a streaming server in their server farm. This would save Verizon money and prevent the throttling that happens at the peer junction.
To illustrate imagine 40% of Verizon ISP customers are streaming a movie from Netflix. Without the streaming server the entire 40% have to traverse the backbone which Verizon pays a tier A provider like Level 3 for. Now Verizon, like most USA ISPs oversells the capacity they can accommodate because they don't expect everybody to use their full bandwidth portion simultaneously so to save money they also under purchase back end peering connections so that 40% of traffic just slammed all the connection going from Verizon to their tier A provider slowing traffic for everyone trying to access a connection not on Verizon's network. If you add the streaming server inside Verizon's network that 40% of traffic never leaves Verizon's infrastructure thus negating the need to upgrade their back end connection to accommodate the load. Netflix simply sends any new content to the streaming server when it becomes available. Now this scenario SAVES Verizon/Comcast/etc. money but they insist Netflix pay for the privilege of putting the server inside their network. The only reason they would pass up the opportunity to save money is if they also had a streaming service that competes with Netflix which could potentially make them more than they would save. VOD (Video on Demand) and RedBox Instant are just such services. This is why ISPs should not be content providers.
Did you copy that from ThatAblaze? It looks like the same post I expounded upon here
TBH Windows 8 is the same as Windows 98 to ME. ME was Microsoft's attempt to kill the CLI (AKA DOS Prompt). ME was Windows 98 with all of the CLI tools ripped out and a few improved image editing tools. I installed it on a PC and was utterly frustrated at the fact nothing I knew about Windows 98 troubleshooting would work on ME and that is the exact same feeling I get working on 8. None of the shortcuts or solutions I would normally use to fix an issue in Windows seems to work in 8. Most are still there it is just that many of the keyboard shortcuts have been removed and figuring out the new method for accessing them is not immediately apparent. And as with ME Windows 8 in many places actively discourages using these tools when you do actually find them.
Microsoft had an epiphany. That epiphany was called iTunes and later spun off as the App Store. You see Apple gets a cut of EVERY APP SOLD via their marketplace and I believe they might even share in revenue from ads in ad supported apps as well. Since it is impossible to sideload apps without jailbreaking an iOS device they have ISV's over a barrel if they want to sell to Apple's customers. Microsoft decided they liked Steve Job's decidedly Gatesesque business model. They knew their mobile devices would be a hard sell given the saturation of iOS/Android so they decided they could back door their model into their desktop OS. It has been a multi-tiered approach but non of their vectors has gotten much traction. Surface RT was DOA and Surface Pro and desktop users continue to use traditional Windows apps. If Microsoft brings the start menu back it would delay even further Metro App adoption and Microsoft's newest revenue stream. So they will continue to promise to bring it back so people won't just throw Windows 7 on their new PC but keep delaying it as long as they can in hopes Metro App use continues to climb.
Suppose an organization decides that they've had enough of trojans, so they l decree that everyone gets the approved desktop image and noone may install the software they need to do their job effectively and efficiently. To enforce this, employees get only a very limited account on the machine, similar to the default Guest account in Windows.
The result? The IT department no longer knows what software is being used since employees have to keep it secret (or be unable to do their job effectively). They don't know how the software got there. Maybe a lot of people are doing their work on personally-owned laptops or tablets, so company data is now handled on the same system their kids use to play online games.
BINGO!
That is exactly what they do. I stopped carrying a laptop a couple of years ago and just set up a VM I use to VPN in to the office from my home PC.
I recently popped Cyanogenmod 11(KitKat ROM) on my Nook Color and use it as a remote control for my Chromecast. It's amazing the utility in a device that isn't locked down with hardware that isn't black boxed. I must say when it was originally announced that KitKat was optimized to make slower systems perform better I was skeptical but it is noticeably faster and consumes less battery than any version I have ever used.
I was willing to believe you were genuinely discussing this topic with little to no bias but this comment reeks of doublespeak. You don't happen to work for a major US ISP do you?
If you read the followup post from Level 3 the average utilization across all of its peers is 36%. Level 3 has 51 entities they peer with. Of those 12 are currently saturated. Of the 12, 6 are working with Level 3 to upgrade. 5 of the remaining 6 are major US ISP's who have been saturated at 90+% 24/7 for over a year and refuse to upgrade their circuit. This is not just affecting Netflix traffic this affects all of that ISP's traffic to its customers. You say correctly that peering is not free but turn around and say it's OK for them to sell something they don't own (oversell capacity) and then charge a third party to cover the extra cost despite the fact you got paid for something you can't deliver. You also rightly said deploying infrastructure is expensive but the cost to maintain it is substantially less so the existing infrastructure costs have gone down but customer costs have gone up with no upgrades planned but a customer base that has expanded. No matter how you try to spin it ISP's are double dipping at best and committing outright fraud at worst. If they cannot sustain the all you can eat buffet they need to switch to per bit billing as much weeping and gnashing of teeth as that will cause and charge the biggest users the largest fees.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what Bracha has up his sleeve but I know if he's recommending it it won't be good for the rest of us!
A primary is an election to determine who gets to wear the party label in the actual election. In this case more than 1 Republican wanted to run for the office in November so to decide which one got to say I am the official Republican candidate they have a primary election in the spring where only registered Republicans are supposed to vote. IIANM the state in question doesn't require proof of party affiliation to vote so in reality it could have been anyone voting. Now the winner of the primary gets to run as a Republican and the loser must either not run or choose a different party or run as an independent candidate. The loser seldom runs as they understand it weakens their chances and that of the party by splitting the vote between candidates and gives the opposing party a better chance to defeat them. And in this case the guy that lost has even stepped down from his position as House Majority leader months ahead of the end of his term.
Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair.
What isn't fair is taxpayers footing the bill for internal parties elections. Does the Libertarian party get to use the electorate? or the Tea Party? Why do the Democrats and Republicans get to?
Sounds like what FON has been doing for years except on an opt-in basis.
Ok, I'm generally on the side of the ISPs (I work for one) but this is nuts.
On another note, I totally want this. It immunizes you from DMCA letters. "Sorry Comcast, I'm not pirating movies. It could have been anyone!"
You missed the part where you have to log in using your Comcast account to access them.
You can whine and bitch and proclaim all you want it still doesn't make it so. Your ISP sells you "up to x mbps" meaning they can provide anything they want and may occasionally actually give you the top speed you are paying for but unless your contract has a best minimum speed clause you aren't guaranteed anything faster than their slowest connection speed. And if you haven't already read this and this do yourself a favor and take the time. It is enlightening.
Actually with TOECDN it goes from 14 to 1 solution.
No, no it doesn't. Unless you mean have the government force everybody to use YOUR solution over all the others which is anything BUT neutral. We don't live in a perfect world and Netflix is by no means a benevolent entity that will solve your problems but they are attempting to provide a solution to the problem their success has caused which is more than any of the cable cos are doing.
Now there you go confusing him with semantics. I 100% agree which pains me after the mean spirited reply you gave to my other post ;)
AH! I see you are unfamiliar with "How Standards Proliferate".
Netflix provides TOECDN to anyone they just call it Open Connect CDN.
Had you actually clicked the link instead of staring at it you would have been greeted with several pages of peers.
No need to get mad at me...I'm just the messenger. If you don't like the truth of it you might want to add your voice to those trumpeting Net Neutrality. What An ISP tells you and what they give you aren't necessarily the same thing.
I'm confused. First you say caching is a solution but nobody is interested then you admit several streaming sites already use caching and provide 2 links to site mirrors. Then you reference some nebulous utopian solution like I should know what you are talking about. Please enlighten me to this panacea.
I have both Verizon FIOS and Netflix. Here is what I, as a user/subscriber, expect. I pay Netflix to stream movies. I pay Verizon to provide me bandwidth and internet/web access. I don't pay either of them to throttle my connection or do what they want to quality. I pay for X amount, and expect to get it. If Verizon cannot hold up their end of the deal to provide me a pipe, then they aren't doing their job.
You pay for X amount from Verizon down to you. As long as the content is on Verizon's network no problem. Netflix isn't on Verizon's network so Verizon has to get it from the network it is on. Verizon has paid for W not X to that tier A provider so you still get X just not from Netflix because Verizon is only allowed W from the network Netflix is on. you're still getting X from Verizon so you can watch Netflix at W and download something else until you reach X but you will never get X from Netflix as long as Verizon refuses to pay for X from their tier A.
Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.
If Verizon wanted to offer the best experience to their Netflix subscribing users they would allow Netflix to install a streaming server in their server farm. This would save Verizon money and prevent the throttling that happens at the peer junction.
To illustrate imagine 40% of Verizon ISP customers are streaming a movie from Netflix. Without the streaming server the entire 40% have to traverse the backbone which Verizon pays a tier A provider like Level 3 for. Now Verizon, like most USA ISPs oversells the capacity they can accommodate because they don't expect everybody to use their full bandwidth portion simultaneously so to save money they also under purchase back end peering connections so that 40% of traffic just slammed all the connection going from Verizon to their tier A provider slowing traffic for everyone trying to access a connection not on Verizon's network. If you add the streaming server inside Verizon's network that 40% of traffic never leaves Verizon's infrastructure thus negating the need to upgrade their back end connection to accommodate the load. Netflix simply sends any new content to the streaming server when it becomes available. Now this scenario SAVES Verizon/Comcast/etc. money but they insist Netflix pay for the privilege of putting the server inside their network. The only reason they would pass up the opportunity to save money is if they also had a streaming service that competes with Netflix which could potentially make them more than they would save. VOD (Video on Demand) and RedBox Instant are just such services. This is why ISPs should not be content providers.
Did you copy that from ThatAblaze? It looks like the same post I expounded upon here
TBH Windows 8 is the same as Windows 98 to ME. ME was Microsoft's attempt to kill the CLI (AKA DOS Prompt). ME was Windows 98 with all of the CLI tools ripped out and a few improved image editing tools. I installed it on a PC and was utterly frustrated at the fact nothing I knew about Windows 98 troubleshooting would work on ME and that is the exact same feeling I get working on 8. None of the shortcuts or solutions I would normally use to fix an issue in Windows seems to work in 8. Most are still there it is just that many of the keyboard shortcuts have been removed and figuring out the new method for accessing them is not immediately apparent. And as with ME Windows 8 in many places actively discourages using these tools when you do actually find them.
Microsoft had an epiphany. That epiphany was called iTunes and later spun off as the App Store. You see Apple gets a cut of EVERY APP SOLD via their marketplace and I believe they might even share in revenue from ads in ad supported apps as well. Since it is impossible to sideload apps without jailbreaking an iOS device they have ISV's over a barrel if they want to sell to Apple's customers. Microsoft decided they liked Steve Job's decidedly Gatesesque business model. They knew their mobile devices would be a hard sell given the saturation of iOS/Android so they decided they could back door their model into their desktop OS. It has been a multi-tiered approach but non of their vectors has gotten much traction. Surface RT was DOA and Surface Pro and desktop users continue to use traditional Windows apps. If Microsoft brings the start menu back it would delay even further Metro App adoption and Microsoft's newest revenue stream. So they will continue to promise to bring it back so people won't just throw Windows 7 on their new PC but keep delaying it as long as they can in hopes Metro App use continues to climb.
Scientists have found that replacing one of DNA's four letters
DNA is only three letters.
Suppose an organization decides that they've had enough of trojans, so they l decree that everyone gets the approved desktop image and noone may install the software they need to do their job effectively and efficiently. To enforce this, employees get only a very limited account on the machine, similar to the default Guest account in Windows.
The result? The IT department no longer knows what software is being used since employees have to keep it secret (or be unable to do their job effectively). They don't know how the software got there. Maybe a lot of people are doing their work on personally-owned laptops or tablets, so company data is now handled on the same system their kids use to play online games.
BINGO!
That is exactly what they do. I stopped carrying a laptop a couple of years ago and just set up a VM I use to VPN in to the office from my home PC.
First, if anyone can get to your "shit-ton of data" you are not doing it right
Then my company is doing it right...Not even the employees can access their own data.
What claim? I simply suggested a possibility.
Perhaps it's even worse on the other side?
I recently popped Cyanogenmod 11 (KitKat ROM) on my Nook Color and use it as a remote control for my Chromecast. It's amazing the utility in a device that isn't locked down with hardware that isn't black boxed. I must say when it was originally announced that KitKat was optimized to make slower systems perform better I was skeptical but it is noticeably faster and consumes less battery than any version I have ever used.
I was willing to believe you were genuinely discussing this topic with little to no bias but this comment reeks of doublespeak. You don't happen to work for a major US ISP do you?
If you read the followup post from Level 3 the average utilization across all of its peers is 36%. Level 3 has 51 entities they peer with. Of those 12 are currently saturated. Of the 12, 6 are working with Level 3 to upgrade. 5 of the remaining 6 are major US ISP's who have been saturated at 90+% 24/7 for over a year and refuse to upgrade their circuit. This is not just affecting Netflix traffic this affects all of that ISP's traffic to its customers. You say correctly that peering is not free but turn around and say it's OK for them to sell something they don't own (oversell capacity) and then charge a third party to cover the extra cost despite the fact you got paid for something you can't deliver. You also rightly said deploying infrastructure is expensive but the cost to maintain it is substantially less so the existing infrastructure costs have gone down but customer costs have gone up with no upgrades planned but a customer base that has expanded. No matter how you try to spin it ISP's are double dipping at best and committing outright fraud at worst. If they cannot sustain the all you can eat buffet they need to switch to per bit billing as much weeping and gnashing of teeth as that will cause and charge the biggest users the largest fees.