Ding-ding-ding! My most fun adventures with RIP were about routing private space over an iDirect link. iDirect may have finally made it into the 1990s, but a nonzero number of service providers still only provide RIP handoffs, and you have to redistribute yourself. Architecturally, it makes you want to cry, but having seen examples before made getting it working fairly easy.
I don't know why anyone tests on RIP anymore. I haven't seen anyone using it. Ever.
Lucky you. There's still plenty of special-purpose gear that can't speak anything but RIP (a number of satellite frontends, for example). I've never seen it in an office or generic ISP network, but embedded devices can get out in the weeds fast.
Saying "a router" is like saying "a computer" or "a car"; they're not all the same, and while you can get "a computer" for $300 at Best Buy, you probably wouldn't blink at seeing a price in the mid 4 figures for a decent server. The beefy ISP or big-corporation-datacenter routers can quite easily go for 6 figures. Apparently, in this case the $20k figure was a combination of a bad RFP that demanded an all-in-one device (ports on routers are much, much more expensive than the same ports on switches) with addons like local Web caching, the Cisco-brand premium, and the equivalent of walking onto a car lot and offering the sticker price.
I have no idea why this is modded flamebait; it's quite accurate. Cisco's N-series exams are about half Cisco-specific UI and behavior and half generic networking issues (switching, routing, etc.), and the D-series are about 90% generic (network organization, capacity planning, QoS). Even most of the Cisco-specific UI knowledge is pretty widely applicable; many vendors copy enough of it that it's about like moving between Linux and Solaris.
Cisco does tout EIGRP, but my "internal" exams gave about equal weight to EIGRP and OSPF, with some RIP thrown in just for grief.
Sure, a modern x86 (or even ARM) CPU is overkill, but that's not the same thing as saying it doesn't make the most sense economically. It's the same reason that manufacturers use identical PCBs for whole lines of motherboards and graphics cards even if the lower-end models leave half the pads empty: It's cheaper to waste a bit on overkill than to make a special-purpose product that requires different tooling/NRE. Compare what an entry-level Ethernet-only ISR costs to the x86 computer you'd need to do the same job.
And, relevant to the original question, there really are two very different use cases: What people traditionally think of as "routers" usually aren't a bottleneck, but that's because these days "routers" are typically glorified media converters. Internal to a network, most routing takes place on layer-3 switches, and the routing engine absolutely is a bottleneck there (try setting up a segmented IPv6 network on a 48-port 3560). That's where custom silicon still makes sense.
Skipping the former-Linksys-style low-low end, the ISRs have an unusual hybrid processing strategy; most routing in even a 2900 is done in custom hardware rather than on the processor (which is, IIRC, a PowerPC 700-series), which couldn't handle the throughput that the ISRs can. This does have the advantage of lower power consumption/heat and thus greater reliability, but if someone starts producing a generic TCAM-based forwarding plane that can be programmed via OpenFlow, Cisco's low-end lunch is eaten.
Both, depending largely on the particular devices in question. In recent years, general-purpose CPUs have gotten so fast and buses so efficient that a quad-core Xeon running a Linux-based routing system (such as Vyatta) can allegedly handle 10G line speed for a few ports, and PCI cards are widely available for DSx and other interfaces that used to require standalone routers. That said, you can't do line-speed 10G to 720 ports without serious custom hardware, and while Cisco's stuff is still overpriced for the capability compared to HP or Juniper, it's not the sort of outrageous ripoff that the ISR series is.
If you're talking about steps to fix this specific situation in China, where there haven't ever been clear property rights and reasonably-fair courts, then you're absolutely right that a free market can't handle the problem, any more than you can let AT&T build a nationwide network on the back of a government-mandated monopoly and then pretend that "deregulation" means a level playing field for competition. I was responding to what I understood to be a question about handling pollution in general; mea culpa if I misunderstood your scope.
Mu. Your question is nonsensical because China doesn't pretend to be a free market or to respect property rights. Furthermore, even if it were to fully embrace both tomorrow, blaming the existing situation on the new market system would be about as reasonable as the widespread to credit/blame the president for gasoline prices the day after inauguration.
You picked a conveniently large and heterogeneous sample, but let's say you intended to discuss industrial centers toward the end of the century.
My reply is that once again you're comparing situations you don't like to an unrealistic ideal; in this case, a society with modern technology to that in the 1880s. The fair comparison is to the other options in the 1880s, and while reducing options to a scalar value is subjective in the extreme, perhaps the closest we can get is to observe that for all of the downsides of industrial work at the time, people were pouring out of the countrysides into the cities. Of course it wasn't perfect, but the workers' choices indicate that on the whole, industrial work was better than the alternatives.
And checks against FDR? Let me know when you can explain the legitimacy of Wickard v. Filburn with a straight face.
This reply is so full of evidence-free Marxist cant that I'm not going to fisk it, but (a) I already provided a number of examples where "the poor" prevailed over "the rich" in such cases, and (b) the discussion isn't between private legal action and perfection, it's between private legal action and action taken at the discretion of a government agency who has no skin in the game and who is predictably coopted by your oligarchs.
I interpreted your phrasing as snide rather than joking. As a reply to this comment itself, an honest supporter of free markets will note that the very existence of corporations is a government intervention in the market.
The case of pollution is an excellent example of the utilitarian rationale behind a market economy, which mostly boils down to the agency problem: The EPA (meaning, of course, the individuals employed there) doesn't have much direct incentive to prevent pollution, and people are always more vigilant about their own interests than about the interests of those whom they're supposedly working for. By preventing individuals from immediately seeking court orders stopping pollution, the government-will-handle-it system tends to let known pollution drag on for months or years, and finally to leave the directly harmed with little or no compensation.
The citation you quoted described how, contrary to the usual narrative, the Cuyahoga had been improving for several years before the passage of the Clean Water Act and how efforts by individuals to stop pollution had been preempted by state and federal permitting agencies. The one you didn't quote gave a number of examples of what you "just don't see [...] happening", including the very successful Angler's Co-operative Association, a fishing club in England that had a highly successful record of stopping pollution through fishing-rights lawsuits.
Because I just can't resist feeding trolls, a free market is dependent on property rights. In a free market, those whose air, water, or land was polluted could take the polluters to court, and in fact government protection of polluters has been a consistent feature in wide-scale environmental problems.
So the gist is that the basic principles ought to work but that the advances in ASIC manufacturing between the 8085 and Raiden II mean that it's not feasible now to reverse-engineer the coprocessor?
My understanding was that the issue wasn't that they didn't have a dump but that there was a one-off coprocessor that nobody had specs for. Would this not be of any assistance reverse-engineering such a chip?
The whole point of having a privacy policy is that people can see that Delta is at least meeting their obligations to inform its customers. It's not about what Delta already has on them. It's about showing some basic, minimum level of responsibility--and they apparently can't even do that. It's NOT hard for them to do, and it IS the law.
And if you haven't noticed, the lack of a privacy policy does mean that Delta could technically store all your photos taken with your phone through their app, and potentially use them for marketing purposes--your consent having been implicitly given as part of your usage of the application. That isn't something that SkyMiles customers would or *should* be expected to know, nor is it information that Delta already has.
Spoken like someone who assumes that a government official should be taken on faith. In the real world, having a privacy policy means having several pages of fine-print legalese that basically means "we get whatever information we can on you and do whatever we want with it". The (existing but pointless) legal requirement to have a privacy policy says absolutely nothing about the contents of that policy, which could entirely legally read "Delta can use any of your photos for marketing purposes", and chances are no one would ever read that far.
Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
This lawsuit is nothing but more pointless grandstanding by an attorney general. Privacy policies are pointless and may actually be counterproductive; they're written by lawyers for no one and typically simply say "we can do whatever we want with the information we get from you", because the requirement to have a policy doesn't provide any restrictions on what that policy says.
Nevertheless, "for your privacy" is right behind "for the children" and "for your safety" as a rationale to shut down legitimate objections, and surely California doesn't have anything better to do to protect citizens' privacy; after all, it only lost two SSN databases this year!
"Justified" doesn't mean "fair"; it means reasonable or adequately supported by evidence. The question is whether Microsoft's pricing the Surface the same as the iPad is a wise business move.
I was rather skeptical as well, but I bought a Toshiba Thrive (10") when it came out about a year ago, and I've been quite pleased with it. In particular, the taller aspect ratio makes reading text more convenient, since 6" is a bit wide of a column width, and a 16:9 screen gives a narrower column and a longer page.
Beyond just going to 1TB, the other thing Seagate could do is go with massively increasing the SSD portion, and making it a full volume instead of cache, say, 128GB or more, and then allowing us to use that as a boot/app volume.
This would defeat the purpose of having the acceleration for the massive storage; if you really want that much flash, just buy the SSD--why have the platters at all? Additionally, the XT's flash is SLC, and buying 128GB of that seems to be going for around $1k these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Ding-ding-ding! My most fun adventures with RIP were about routing private space over an iDirect link. iDirect may have finally made it into the 1990s, but a nonzero number of service providers still only provide RIP handoffs, and you have to redistribute yourself. Architecturally, it makes you want to cry, but having seen examples before made getting it working fairly easy.
Lucky you. There's still plenty of special-purpose gear that can't speak anything but RIP (a number of satellite frontends, for example). I've never seen it in an office or generic ISP network, but embedded devices can get out in the weeds fast.
Saying "a router" is like saying "a computer" or "a car"; they're not all the same, and while you can get "a computer" for $300 at Best Buy, you probably wouldn't blink at seeing a price in the mid 4 figures for a decent server. The beefy ISP or big-corporation-datacenter routers can quite easily go for 6 figures. Apparently, in this case the $20k figure was a combination of a bad RFP that demanded an all-in-one device (ports on routers are much, much more expensive than the same ports on switches) with addons like local Web caching, the Cisco-brand premium, and the equivalent of walking onto a car lot and offering the sticker price.
I have no idea why this is modded flamebait; it's quite accurate. Cisco's N-series exams are about half Cisco-specific UI and behavior and half generic networking issues (switching, routing, etc.), and the D-series are about 90% generic (network organization, capacity planning, QoS). Even most of the Cisco-specific UI knowledge is pretty widely applicable; many vendors copy enough of it that it's about like moving between Linux and Solaris.
Cisco does tout EIGRP, but my "internal" exams gave about equal weight to EIGRP and OSPF, with some RIP thrown in just for grief.
Sure, a modern x86 (or even ARM) CPU is overkill, but that's not the same thing as saying it doesn't make the most sense economically. It's the same reason that manufacturers use identical PCBs for whole lines of motherboards and graphics cards even if the lower-end models leave half the pads empty: It's cheaper to waste a bit on overkill than to make a special-purpose product that requires different tooling/NRE. Compare what an entry-level Ethernet-only ISR costs to the x86 computer you'd need to do the same job.
And, relevant to the original question, there really are two very different use cases: What people traditionally think of as "routers" usually aren't a bottleneck, but that's because these days "routers" are typically glorified media converters. Internal to a network, most routing takes place on layer-3 switches, and the routing engine absolutely is a bottleneck there (try setting up a segmented IPv6 network on a 48-port 3560). That's where custom silicon still makes sense.
Skipping the former-Linksys-style low-low end, the ISRs have an unusual hybrid processing strategy; most routing in even a 2900 is done in custom hardware rather than on the processor (which is, IIRC, a PowerPC 700-series), which couldn't handle the throughput that the ISRs can. This does have the advantage of lower power consumption/heat and thus greater reliability, but if someone starts producing a generic TCAM-based forwarding plane that can be programmed via OpenFlow, Cisco's low-end lunch is eaten.
Both, depending largely on the particular devices in question. In recent years, general-purpose CPUs have gotten so fast and buses so efficient that a quad-core Xeon running a Linux-based routing system (such as Vyatta) can allegedly handle 10G line speed for a few ports, and PCI cards are widely available for DSx and other interfaces that used to require standalone routers. That said, you can't do line-speed 10G to 720 ports without serious custom hardware, and while Cisco's stuff is still overpriced for the capability compared to HP or Juniper, it's not the sort of outrageous ripoff that the ISR series is.
If you're talking about steps to fix this specific situation in China, where there haven't ever been clear property rights and reasonably-fair courts, then you're absolutely right that a free market can't handle the problem, any more than you can let AT&T build a nationwide network on the back of a government-mandated monopoly and then pretend that "deregulation" means a level playing field for competition. I was responding to what I understood to be a question about handling pollution in general; mea culpa if I misunderstood your scope.
Mu. Your question is nonsensical because China doesn't pretend to be a free market or to respect property rights. Furthermore, even if it were to fully embrace both tomorrow, blaming the existing situation on the new market system would be about as reasonable as the widespread to credit/blame the president for gasoline prices the day after inauguration.
You picked a conveniently large and heterogeneous sample, but let's say you intended to discuss industrial centers toward the end of the century.
My reply is that once again you're comparing situations you don't like to an unrealistic ideal; in this case, a society with modern technology to that in the 1880s. The fair comparison is to the other options in the 1880s, and while reducing options to a scalar value is subjective in the extreme, perhaps the closest we can get is to observe that for all of the downsides of industrial work at the time, people were pouring out of the countrysides into the cities. Of course it wasn't perfect, but the workers' choices indicate that on the whole, industrial work was better than the alternatives.
And checks against FDR? Let me know when you can explain the legitimacy of Wickard v. Filburn with a straight face.
This reply is so full of evidence-free Marxist cant that I'm not going to fisk it, but (a) I already provided a number of examples where "the poor" prevailed over "the rich" in such cases, and (b) the discussion isn't between private legal action and perfection, it's between private legal action and action taken at the discretion of a government agency who has no skin in the game and who is predictably coopted by your oligarchs.
I interpreted your phrasing as snide rather than joking. As a reply to this comment itself, an honest supporter of free markets will note that the very existence of corporations is a government intervention in the market.
The case of pollution is an excellent example of the utilitarian rationale behind a market economy, which mostly boils down to the agency problem: The EPA (meaning, of course, the individuals employed there) doesn't have much direct incentive to prevent pollution, and people are always more vigilant about their own interests than about the interests of those whom they're supposedly working for. By preventing individuals from immediately seeking court orders stopping pollution, the government-will-handle-it system tends to let known pollution drag on for months or years, and finally to leave the directly harmed with little or no compensation.
The citation you quoted described how, contrary to the usual narrative, the Cuyahoga had been improving for several years before the passage of the Clean Water Act and how efforts by individuals to stop pollution had been preempted by state and federal permitting agencies. The one you didn't quote gave a number of examples of what you "just don't see [...] happening", including the very successful Angler's Co-operative Association, a fishing club in England that had a highly successful record of stopping pollution through fishing-rights lawsuits.
Because I just can't resist feeding trolls, a free market is dependent on property rights. In a free market, those whose air, water, or land was polluted could take the polluters to court, and in fact government protection of polluters has been a consistent feature in wide-scale environmental problems.
So the gist is that the basic principles ought to work but that the advances in ASIC manufacturing between the 8085 and Raiden II mean that it's not feasible now to reverse-engineer the coprocessor?
My understanding was that the issue wasn't that they didn't have a dump but that there was a one-off coprocessor that nobody had specs for. Would this not be of any assistance reverse-engineering such a chip?
*crosses fingers* Please, Raiden II, please, Raiden II...
Not this crap again.
Spoken like someone who assumes that a government official should be taken on faith. In the real world, having a privacy policy means having several pages of fine-print legalese that basically means "we get whatever information we can on you and do whatever we want with it". The (existing but pointless) legal requirement to have a privacy policy says absolutely nothing about the contents of that policy, which could entirely legally read "Delta can use any of your photos for marketing purposes", and chances are no one would ever read that far.
Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
This lawsuit is nothing but more pointless grandstanding by an attorney general. Privacy policies are pointless and may actually be counterproductive; they're written by lawyers for no one and typically simply say "we can do whatever we want with the information we get from you", because the requirement to have a policy doesn't provide any restrictions on what that policy says.
Nevertheless, "for your privacy" is right behind "for the children" and "for your safety" as a rationale to shut down legitimate objections, and surely California doesn't have anything better to do to protect citizens' privacy; after all, it only lost two SSN databases this year!
"Justified" doesn't mean "fair"; it means reasonable or adequately supported by evidence. The question is whether Microsoft's pricing the Surface the same as the iPad is a wise business move.
What app(s) do you use for a serial terminal?
I was rather skeptical as well, but I bought a Toshiba Thrive (10") when it came out about a year ago, and I've been quite pleased with it. In particular, the taller aspect ratio makes reading text more convenient, since 6" is a bit wide of a column width, and a 16:9 screen gives a narrower column and a longer page.
If you can prove that, there's a Nobel in it for you. As of right now, the evidence seems against it.
This would defeat the purpose of having the acceleration for the massive storage; if you really want that much flash, just buy the SSD--why have the platters at all? Additionally, the XT's flash is SLC, and buying 128GB of that seems to be going for around $1k these days.