I think the countrywide marketplace IS open. There is no federal law stopping you from stringing fiber from point a to point b anywhere in the US. The real problem is that all the local municipalities in the middle look at anyone thinking about running any type of cable as a.) a potential cash cow and b.) a threat to the local cable company monopoly that they have already granted. The cable company, of course, threatens to sue the town if they even consider letting another company run fiber. The sole exception potentially being verizon because they are already there. So who wants to invest in new fiber with a limited prospect of a profit? I thought about doing it in my town but relaized that if I wanted to start turning a profit it'd be at 15 years that I break even (assuming 5-10% penetration growth per year starting at the 1% penetration that the cable company as ISP seems to have ). While wireless is easy to deploy it's not a good answer either.
If it's working for you then either you are using QoS to ensure that the VOIP traffic doesn't get bumped or you have a very low number of connections. If seen entire enterprise routers get cruched becuse half the company is running bitorrent or another p2p app.
I'm not an expert but I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of QoS. As I understand it it refers more to delivering time-critical packets within a maximum expected time. Clearly only a small portion of the traffic for an ISP can be time-critical. Assuming 'traffic for my customers' must always be handled faster than 'traffic for other customers' doesn't make sense from a networking standpoint and is unlikely to gain a competitive advantage for the service provider anyhow.
I picked a couple of them because it's a relativley complex topic ( and is I knew how to embed the google search I did I would have done so so you could examine more than that).
In a nutshell true QoS is end to end. Relevent to this discussion that's impossible. More importantly (and the reason why they have to hurt your traffic) is they they are (essentially) selling guaranteed bandwidth when they are selling VOIP. The assumption on their part is that each user at any given time will use x% of their available bandwidth at any given time (and that's not them overselling somehting that's beasic network design you can't and should assume that every user will use 100% of their bandwidth all the time, it would make networking impratically expensive). Since they can't respect your QoS tagging over their QoS tagging, yours has to get dropped, consequently your performance suffers.
I get that you're probably joking but QoS can make a huge difference from what I understand. And there are cases where providers have decided not to honour the QoS flags on voip protocols. Coincidentally these providers also have a voip offering of their own where they don't have a problem meeting QoS needs.
I'm not joking. Try running skype on the same network with the jerk running bitorrent. As far as QoS, AFAIK there is no official standard (nor does any ISP I know of even plan on honoring any of the interdomain QoS RFCs). You are right in that they have their own QOS and are required to meet their own QoS obligations. That means they have a contractual obligation to stomp your traffic into the dirt. Now if that was a single stream you wouldn't notice it. If it's p2p traffic then it's going to be alot more noticeable.
It's also not about the FCC. These guys own the cable between you and them. Only your local authoritiea have any standing in the matter. Until the FCC gets the ability to issue cable licenses, the only stick they have is to remove the CARS license (allowing them to rebroadcast over the air TV), and believe me being "forced" to only carry paying channels would not be much of a stick.
...However this is not likely to happen, if FOSS takes over from proprietary systems the market will adapt (Markets are very good at evolution, adapting to changing conditions), when software licenses are no longer the standard for trade the market will move to trade in a new product of value, such as skilled developers/admins. The software market will change radically but it wont die.
Licenses are the glue that holds the market together. If those die both FOSS and regular software go away as FOSS has a dependency on licensing. Moreover should the new commodity be developers/admins (a giant step backwards, but for the sake of argument..) the software market is then dead.
FOSS will take over from proprietary software, it may take another 20 or 50 years before proprietary operating systems become untenable to maintain under the current licensing structure.
An interesting proposition but I would submit that the likelihood of that happening without considerable business reform is negligible (and not even remotely trending toward it). Laws like SOX and various regulatory agencies usually demand solutions that are not impacted by licenses like GPL3
There's a lot of talk about why this won't work. So what. According to the proposal if it doesn't those ISPs that opt in to the program get fined. It's a designation you have to apply for. They are not saying all ISPs have to get it. They are saying that the government will be in charge of the certification. This seems like a bad idea for the ISPs to get in to but it's their choice.
... Open Source is the perfect example of the new "monetary" system that humans are progressing towards. It is not about the "things" that will determine wealth (since in the future everyone's basic needs will be met), but about what you can do for others.
Aren't you then agreeing that FOSS destroys the market?
If you start adding 'maybes' and 'possibly' to everything, or even some things, they very much get the idea you don't actually know anything. And that drives them to religions and whatnot where everything is a certainty.
Actually not adding the 'maybe' and 'possibly' is what turns good science into junk science. Folks get rather pissed when it turns out that you've been knowingly lying to them just to get them to believe you know more than you actually do.
The issue is science itself. Science itself is a method by which we observe facts, come up with hypotheses, test those against more data, if they stick they become theories, and undergo even more testing. Many times these theories eventually fail and new ideas have to come forth and match all of it. And the people who disproved it, and maybe the people whose theory it was in the first place, are pleased and science progresses.
That is what John Q. Public doesn't like. It's totally baffling to come up with answers, spend all your time figuring out why your answers are wrong, and end up happy that you were. That's why they like religion so much more. It's more or less totally static and understandable without having to think any.
Nonsense. First off the comparison that religion and science are somehow polar opposites is fallacious (although somewhat specious). John Q Public would be happy if John D Scientist said this is what we think is happening, we're doing more studies to confirm. Instead "Scientists" look like a jackasses when John D Scientist's pet theory has been shown to be at least partially incorrect by Joe D Scientist, and the establishment circles the wagons around John so he doesn't make them all look dumb. Real scientists do not give a rats ass about how they look. Real scientists believe the facts will speak for themselves. Sadly, once again, scientists are slipping into worrying about how many people believe in them rather than ensuring the validity of their theories. Much like many religious leaders.
It's not even dumbed down legacy speeds. Some "rural" providers (eg fairpoint)try to claim that a 150k dsl line is broadband. It's not entertainment that drives the crappy speeds we get, its pure greed. Putting up fiber costs cash. Sadly legislators won't even listen to technical folks on what broadband should be since we don't line their pockets and there are not enough of us to make a reasonable voting block come election time.
You mean the same FCC the majority of whose members are appointed by the president of the United States? Or how about the SEC that allowed all those baby bells to get back together again. The chairman of the SEC is appointed by the president as well.
Putting the bells back together and having the gov't take them over is essentialy what the article is saying is required. The baby bells getting back together was predicted way back in the 80's once people saw how things were falling out of the 74 decision.
You're right that Bush wasn't president from 1994-2000; however, the US was at the forefront of technology and internet access at that time. After the tech bust in 2000 (self-evidently obviously not Bush's fault since he wasn't president yet) there was the opportunity to invest in infrastructure and prepare for the eventual economic recovery. Actually the effort to do this cost effectivly would have had to have started in the eighties. Oddly enough when you have to worry about profit the last thing the shareholders care about is adding capital expenses that show little or no immediate return, and almost certainly will not pay for themselves before the depreciated value is null.
Instead Bush gave out tax cuts right and left. Nice idea for stimulus except that he gave mostly to the richest who, contrary to the revisionist history of the Reagan era, do not trickle those funds efficiently down to the working class. He then stacked the FCC, SEC, and many other agencies with party hacks who didn't know the first thing about the real world, only their ideology.
The purpose of tax cuts is (oddly enough) to cut the taxes of those who actually pay them. It is not to somehow transfer those funds in to the pockets of those who do not pay them. What the tax cuts do (and has been proven every single time they are enacted) is afford the folks that do have money the cash to buy more items which means that the otherwise unemployed (without enacting the tax cuts) working class get to keep their jobs. One of the quickest solutions to this problem would be tax incentives for the companies that invest in optical upgrades, but,of course, the democrats would have a cow about not being able to spend your money for you.
I do not blame the goverment for our current situation. I think that we as consumers put up with what we are given and just assume that that's the way it works. In addition while the average slashdot reader really wants highspeed broadband, Ma and Pa kettle will actively work against it if they are told it will raise their rates by a buck. My town actually voted against requiring verizon to install FIOS in my town.
Which ones? The ones who voted for the Iraq war, the new bankruptcy bill or the DMCA? Your assumption is that all of these particular topics are somehow indicators of leftist policy. They aren't necessarily. The leftists are the ones that want higher taxes, bigger government, and more government entitlements. You do have a choice. You simply have to exercise it. Most voters simply look at party lines rather than the substance of a candidate.
...only people on the latest office (or the ability to install the Windows-oriented Windows-installer for old Office for Windows) can even work with the files no, you can download the word viewer to view those files. You do not need to purchase anything to view them. However unless I know the person has windows I'd probably send a PDF instead.
They seem to be spedning money like they think they do. If you don't think that unions are socialist orgs why do they seem to all be lobbying left leaning politicos?
Funniest thing I've read all day. Try again you putz.
You should check your own link- 6 of the top 10 donors are socialist organizations (and that's w/o checking what the rest are supporting):
Top 10 donors: American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees AT&T Inc National Assn of Realtors American Assn for Justice National Education Assn Goldman Sachs Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Laborers Union Service Employees International Union Carpenters & Joiners Union
From the way it is taught, no. The children are reqd to add 8 and 4, carry the one (why? they don't tell you why, that is just what you do)..etc and whatever number you end up with is the answer.
You seem to think that the point of this is to make is less 'tedious' and enable the child to calculate faster. My opinion is that it is less important that the child calculates quickly and more important that they understand the ideas behind the math.
I will agree to disagree. I think that you can explain all of the concepts behind multiplication and division using the more efficient algorithm and as a bonus not require calculators to actually get answers to the problems. It's not about speed per se. It's about not making math so painfully tedious as to make a calculator the first choice for anything more complicated than baseball scores. Wanna have some fun- give the kid behind the counter a different amount of cash after he puts in what he thought you were gonna give him. IE the total is 8.45, you pull out a 20, after he puts in 20 and gets a change total say wait and give him 10.25. Be prepared to give a math lesson (or watch them pull out a calculator)
When I teach math to my niece, I make it a point to solve a problem with various approaches. She may not multiply or add fast (well she does, for a 5 year old), but she sure can explain how multiplying two numbers relates to addition or how it relates to area of a rectangle.
I would love if they were teaching multiple ways to solve the problem (in fact I vaguely remember the lattice method as a seperate note in one of my math primers). The issue is that the tedious method is the only way (non calculator) taught to perform simple mathematics
In europe people readily do force the government to work in and preserve their best intrests. When the government does something for the people it is the people doing something for the people, not some mysterious alien force.
When the government is corrupted it is private agencies, individuals who corrupt the government so it only serves the intrests of a greedy minority.
I agree - there are far too many socialist groups influencing congress.
Rampant capitalism is simply feudalism and bonded servants. In the US it has been the dismantling of the good work done at the end of the depressions
I'm not sure you understand either feudalism or capitalism. The "good work" I am guessing you refer to was the beginning of the welfare system- which is a cause of the corruption you previously complained about.
You can guarantee things will get worse if you create an even more ineffective social security net, allow fewer constraints upon the greed of corporations, less tax for the rich (they should pay the most, they benefit the most)
So your arguement is that because the rich somehow benefit by employing more workers and making money they should pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone that is not rich? How exactly is working hard benefitting more than someone that does less?
, fail to ensure free trade is actually fair trade (it ain't free trade if one side can cheat by underpaying workers, with poor and dangerous working conditions, use child slave labour, and polluting the environment).
While these seem to be interesting ideas what can be done to ensure that the conditions of workers in another sovreign country are up to your standards without crippling your own ability to trade in a world market?
Failure to turn things around will ensure a path to a more primitive Mexican economy of the previous century that the Mexicans are now endeavouring to leave behind.
They are? It's be news to the mexicans I know. The mexican goverment, instead of trying to be more productive or responsive, simply gives out maps to it's citizens to illegally enter the US to work in our sweatshops http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fisher/060125
The video is amazing... Although the woman comes to completely the wrong conclusion - all these methods are valuable. Children (no scratch that... people) who see the equivalence of all these methods are much more likely to be able to apply them in appropriate situations and really understand what they are doing.
You're forgetting that the students aren't taught these algorithms and then told to pick the best one to solve problem x, they're told this is the only way to multiply and divide. Note thhat if they do choose the quickest way to solve the problem- it's wrong. Simply ansering the problem 6*6 with 36 is wrong. it's 6*1+5*6. (note that I still haven't told you the answer but that's the acceptable answer.
I'd never seen the lattice method taught in school-maths but was extremely suprised to see her assert that people can't explain why it works? It's an array multiplier - 'My-First-Multiplication-Circuit' from digital hardware design 101
when I first saw this video ( a while back now) I asked the staff at a local school to explain it to me ( I have a friend that is a history teacher). Nobody could explain it to me either.
you mean adding 88+44 doesn't require you to understand place values? Turning every simple multiplication problem into a string of multiplication problems and addition problems makes math tedious. What irks me more howver is that instead of simply teaching the kids the normal way to multiply ( in order to speed things up), the next step is to teach calculator usage.
I don't see the problem with teaching the methods that are simpler first (Turk method multiplication, Java programming) and later going into more of what's going on.
I think you missed the bit where she explained that the next step is learning to use the calulator.
OK I'll bite, so what. If the 700 club decides to offer cash to not teach evolution today do you really think schools would all of a sudden just take the money and cut out the info? Maybe your analogy is bad but I don't see schools dumping stuff just to take cash.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the countrywide marketplace IS open. There is no federal law stopping you from stringing fiber from point a to point b anywhere in the US. The real problem is that all the local municipalities in the middle look at anyone thinking about running any type of cable as a.) a potential cash cow and b.) a threat to the local cable company monopoly that they have already granted. The cable company, of course, threatens to sue the town if they even consider letting another company run fiber. The sole exception potentially being verizon because they are already there. So who wants to invest in new fiber with a limited prospect of a profit? I thought about doing it in my town but relaized that if I wanted to start turning a profit it'd be at 15 years that I break even (assuming 5-10% penetration growth per year starting at the 1% penetration that the cable company as ISP seems to have ). While wireless is easy to deploy it's not a good answer either.
If it's working for you then either you are using QoS to ensure that the VOIP traffic doesn't get bumped or you have a very low number of connections. If seen entire enterprise routers get cruched becuse half the company is running bitorrent or another p2p app.
Here's a couple definitions of QOS:
http://www.axis.com/corporate/corp/glossary_video.htm
http://www.globalknowledge.net/help/glossary.aspx
I picked a couple of them because it's a relativley complex topic ( and is I knew how to embed the google search I did I would have done so so you could examine more than that).
In a nutshell true QoS is end to end. Relevent to this discussion that's impossible. More importantly (and the reason why they have to hurt your traffic) is they they are (essentially) selling guaranteed bandwidth when they are selling VOIP. The assumption on their part is that each user at any given time will use x% of their available bandwidth at any given time (and that's not them overselling somehting that's beasic network design you can't and should assume that every user will use 100% of their bandwidth all the time, it would make networking impratically expensive). Since they can't respect your QoS tagging over their QoS tagging, yours has to get dropped, consequently your performance suffers.
I'm not joking. Try running skype on the same network with the jerk running bitorrent. As far as QoS, AFAIK there is no official standard (nor does any ISP I know of even plan on honoring any of the interdomain QoS RFCs). You are right in that they have their own QOS and are required to meet their own QoS obligations. That means they have a contractual obligation to stomp your traffic into the dirt. Now if that was a single stream you wouldn't notice it. If it's p2p traffic then it's going to be alot more noticeable.
"My big concern with moving to voip-only is that Bell will abuse their position to degrade VoIP calls."
Don't worry. All the P2P traffic will do that for them.
Did you get it from windows update?
It's also not about the FCC. These guys own the cable between you and them. Only your local authoritiea have any standing in the matter. Until the FCC gets the ability to issue cable licenses, the only stick they have is to remove the CARS license (allowing them to rebroadcast over the air TV), and believe me being "forced" to only carry paying channels would not be much of a stick.
What does driver signing have to do with it? It's just a guarantee that the driver has not been compromised?
Licenses are the glue that holds the market together. If those die both FOSS and regular software go away as FOSS has a dependency on licensing. Moreover should the new commodity be developers/admins (a giant step backwards, but for the sake of argument..) the software market is then dead.
An interesting proposition but I would submit that the likelihood of that happening without considerable business reform is negligible (and not even remotely trending toward it). Laws like SOX and various regulatory agencies usually demand solutions that are not impacted by licenses like GPL3
There's a lot of talk about why this won't work. So what. According to the proposal if it doesn't those ISPs that opt in to the program get fined. It's a designation you have to apply for. They are not saying all ISPs have to get it. They are saying that the government will be in charge of the certification. This seems like a bad idea for the ISPs to get in to but it's their choice.
Aren't you then agreeing that FOSS destroys the market?
Actually not adding the 'maybe' and 'possibly' is what turns good science into junk science. Folks get rather pissed when it turns out that you've been knowingly lying to them just to get them to believe you know more than you actually do.
Nonsense. First off the comparison that religion and science are somehow polar opposites is fallacious (although somewhat specious). John Q Public would be happy if John D Scientist said this is what we think is happening, we're doing more studies to confirm. Instead "Scientists" look like a jackasses when John D Scientist's pet theory has been shown to be at least partially incorrect by Joe D Scientist, and the establishment circles the wagons around John so he doesn't make them all look dumb. Real scientists do not give a rats ass about how they look. Real scientists believe the facts will speak for themselves. Sadly, once again, scientists are slipping into worrying about how many people believe in them rather than ensuring the validity of their theories. Much like many religious leaders.
It's not even dumbed down legacy speeds. Some "rural" providers (eg fairpoint)try to claim that a 150k dsl line is broadband. It's not entertainment that drives the crappy speeds we get, its pure greed. Putting up fiber costs cash. Sadly legislators won't even listen to technical folks on what broadband should be since we don't line their pockets and there are not enough of us to make a reasonable voting block come election time.
My only guess for this behaviour ( desrcibed here: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/11/windows-vista-sp1-availability-for-technical-customers.aspx is that they either think (or know) that most of their MSDN and Technet customers are also VLP customers. Otherwise this is a completely assinine move on microsofts part.
Putting the bells back together and having the gov't take them over is essentialy what the article is saying is required. The baby bells getting back together was predicted way back in the 80's once people saw how things were falling out of the 74 decision.
You're right that Bush wasn't president from 1994-2000; however, the US was at the forefront of technology and internet access at that time. After the tech bust in 2000 (self-evidently obviously not Bush's fault since he wasn't president yet) there was the opportunity to invest in infrastructure and prepare for the eventual economic recovery.
Actually the effort to do this cost effectivly would have had to have started in the eighties. Oddly enough when you have to worry about profit the last thing the shareholders care about is adding capital expenses that show little or no immediate return, and almost certainly will not pay for themselves before the depreciated value is null.
The purpose of tax cuts is (oddly enough) to cut the taxes of those who actually pay them. It is not to somehow transfer those funds in to the pockets of those who do not pay them. What the tax cuts do (and has been proven every single time they are enacted) is afford the folks that do have money the cash to buy more items which means that the otherwise unemployed (without enacting the tax cuts) working class get to keep their jobs. One of the quickest solutions to this problem would be tax incentives for the companies that invest in optical upgrades, but
I do not blame the goverment for our current situation. I think that we as consumers put up with what we are given and just assume that that's the way it works. In addition while the average slashdot reader really wants highspeed broadband, Ma and Pa kettle will actively work against it if they are told it will raise their rates by a buck. My town actually voted against requiring verizon to install FIOS in my town.
Yes you should purchase windows to use windows...
Which ones? The ones who voted for the Iraq war, the new bankruptcy bill or the DMCA?
Your assumption is that all of these particular topics are somehow indicators of leftist policy. They aren't necessarily. The leftists are the ones that want higher taxes, bigger government, and more government entitlements. You do have a choice. You simply have to exercise it. Most voters simply look at party lines rather than the substance of a candidate.
...only people on the latest office (or the ability to install the Windows-oriented Windows-installer for old Office for Windows) can even work with the files
no, you can download the word viewer to view those files. You do not need to purchase anything to view them. However unless I know the person has windows I'd probably send a PDF instead.
They seem to be spedning money like they think they do. If you don't think that unions are socialist orgs why do they seem to all be lobbying left leaning politicos?
Funniest thing I've read all day. Try again you putz.
You should check your own link- 6 of the top 10 donors are socialist organizations (and that's w/o checking what the rest are supporting):
Top 10 donors:
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
AT&T Inc
National Assn of Realtors
American Assn for Justice
National Education Assn
Goldman Sachs
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Laborers Union
Service Employees International Union
Carpenters & Joiners Union
They do teach "why". I know I was, long before multiplication was explained. I couldn't find any of my old math books so it's the web to rescue (note the explanation of place value):
http://www.teach-nology.com/forum/showpost.php?s=693662959c4f03e8470834716c629237&p=14065&postcount=2
I will agree to disagree. I think that you can explain all of the concepts behind multiplication and division using the more efficient algorithm and as a bonus not require calculators to actually get answers to the problems. It's not about speed per se. It's about not making math so painfully tedious as to make a calculator the first choice for anything more complicated than baseball scores. Wanna have some fun- give the kid behind the counter a different amount of cash after he puts in what he thought you were gonna give him. IE the total is 8.45, you pull out a 20, after he puts in 20 and gets a change total say wait and give him 10.25. Be prepared to give a math lesson (or watch them pull out a calculator)
I would love if they were teaching multiple ways to solve the problem (in fact I vaguely remember the lattice method as a seperate note in one of my math primers). The issue is that the tedious method is the only way (non calculator) taught to perform simple mathematics
I would suggest you read a throne in brussels- then take another look at how wonderful the EU system is http://www.amazon.com/Throne-Brussels-Britain-Saxe-Coburgs-Belgianisation/dp/1845400658/ref=sr_1_1/102-5996052-4160116?ie=UTF8
I agree - there are far too many socialist groups influencing congress.
I'm not sure you understand either feudalism or capitalism. The "good work" I am guessing you refer to was the beginning of the welfare system- which is a cause of the corruption you previously complained about.
So your arguement is that because the rich somehow benefit by employing more workers and making money they should pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone that is not rich? How exactly is working hard benefitting more than someone that does less?
While these seem to be interesting ideas what can be done to ensure that the conditions of workers in another sovreign country are up to your standards without crippling your own ability to trade in a world market?
They are? It's be news to the mexicans I know. The mexican goverment, instead of trying to be more productive or responsive, simply gives out maps to it's citizens to illegally enter the US to work in our sweatshops http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fisher/060125
You're forgetting that the students aren't taught these algorithms and then told to pick the best one to solve problem x, they're told this is the only way to multiply and divide. Note thhat if they do choose the quickest way to solve the problem- it's wrong. Simply ansering the problem 6*6 with 36 is wrong. it's 6*1+5*6. (note that I still haven't told you the answer but that's the acceptable answer.
when I first saw this video ( a while back now) I asked the staff at a local school to explain it to me ( I have a friend that is a history teacher). Nobody could explain it to me either.
you mean adding 88+44 doesn't require you to understand place values? Turning every simple multiplication problem into a string of multiplication problems and addition problems makes math tedious. What irks me more howver is that instead of simply teaching the kids the normal way to multiply ( in order to speed things up), the next step is to teach calculator usage.
I think you missed the bit where she explained that the next step is learning to use the calulator.
OK I'll bite, so what. If the 700 club decides to offer cash to not teach evolution today do you really think schools would all of a sudden just take the money and cut out the info? Maybe your analogy is bad but I don't see schools dumping stuff just to take cash.