Multiple flows over the same peice of copper is the entire POINT of digital communication and packet switching.
You realize of the packets and flows leaving your house don't go to the same destination. So why the *hell* would they be put into the same queues or policed the same way? Most of the work is done on flows (roughly tcp connections), not on physical network ports. So to use your example: > concurrently play a streamed game, stream a movie, and make a VoiP call, how does that ISP
The game has probably at least two flows, control and content. The control flow is all about latency. It requires nearly no bandwidth, the gamer doesn't care about jitter, they want the lowest possible latency above all else. Reliability definitely counts - packets should be retried. So you put that flow through the low-latency, low-bandwidth path. "Lowest possible latency" implies high jitter, and that's okay.
The voip call again uses damn little bandwidth, but this time jitter is the most important thing. Reliability doesn't count -
undeliverable packets should NOT be retried. Retrying would actually make the connection worse. For best voice quality, you want the ISP to *delay* each voip packet to make to take just as long as the last one. Otherwise you say "automobiles" and the person on the other end of the line hears "smoautobile". That's easily done by moving your game packet ahead of the voip packet, so that the voip packet doesn't arrive early.
Then you have the Netflix flow. For the Netflix flow, neither latency nor jitter matter. Reliability requirements are moderate - only retry recent packets. Only bandwidth really matters. So those go in the "high bandwidth, high latency" queue, to be delivered after your gaming and voip packets are delivered.
> Port throttling for all sources does that just fine. And if Comcast throttle http video, they either throttle their own VoD stream too, or they're committing a crime.
I think you just answered your own question. Most http requests, most port 80 flows, aren't video on demand. Therefore treating all http as if it were video means handling most of it *wrong*, creating a worse experience for the user. The delivery of a text-based site such as Slashdot has opposite performance metrics as pre-recorded video, and live video has different needs depending on if it's one-way of video conferencing.
Also, I guess it would be illegal for an ISP to store/cache their own videos at their POP for better efficiency and performance, since they can't possibly store every video from every web site at the POP? Unfair advantage to store the frequently-accessed stuff close to the users and make it faster, right?
It's possible to work toward net neutrality as a principle. As a law, I don't see how you could possibly write a law that didn't have major unintended consequences. Network optimization is just too complex for law makers to decide how it must be done five or ten years later, using technologies that don't even exist at the time they write the law.
That's a good question. Perhaps, if you managed to create an environment where tests are expected and used in useful way, one could add an expectation to have an equal number of "not" tests, of tests showing what happens when input is not good, that the software does not do things when it shouldn't. That may get developers more into that frame of mind. The famous "goto fail" might have been avoided.
Mature software development includes peer review followed by QA testing. Perhaps mature software development should include security review and security testing. Just as you do peer review, have a security-focused person look over the code and run a test. Not just to catch issues, though it'll do that, but so the feedback helps developers think about those types of issues in the future.
There is some truth to that. The thing is, while the *concept* of net neutrality is certainly good, and the *intent* is right, modern networks are extremely complex. Therefore writing a network neutrality LAW that is effective but doesn't seriously mess with the very useful management of complex networks is very difficult.
Cisco knows, because it's their entire business to know, that some flows need low jitter, and bandwidth isn't an issue (voip for example, 64Kbps bandwidth is plenty, any significant jitter is unacceptable). Other flows require high bandwidth, and don't care about jitter or latency (Netflix for example). Other flows need low latency, regardless of jitter (gaming for example). ISPs pay Cisco billions to deliver the type of flow you'll want for each aapplication. To the extent that new laws restrict how ISPs can manage flows, the user experience gets worse for everybody.
I don't know a single CCNP or CCIE (network expert) who supports any proposed network neutrality *law*. Most support the *concept*, but it's darn near impossible to write a law that does what we'd want it to do, without criminalizing proper network optimizations.
As an example, one early draft of network neutrality legislation actually made it illegal to refuse to accept spam. Later versions are slightly more sophisticated, but a networking expert certification requires roughly 12,000 pages of reading - ISP networks are really complex. Legislating technical details of routing and queuing is quite unlikely to work.
Cisco knows, because it's their entire business to know, that some flows need low jitter, and bandwidth isn't an issue (voip for example, 64Kbps bandwidth is plenty, any significant jitter is unacceptable). Other flows require high bandwidth, and don't care about jitter or latency (Netflix for example). Other flows need low latency, regardless of jitter (gaming for example). ISPs pay Cisco billions to deliver the type of flow you'll want for each application.
You can do almost nothing about any of those metrics on your local network. Its up to the ISP to route, queue, drop, and police packets in order to provide you the right flow parameters for each application.
This much more common mistake than one might think. A *lot* of applications will accept an empty password. It's one of the more common of the 90,000 or so vulnerabilities that we test for.
Programmers get so focused on making things work, 95% of the testing they do is geared toward that, toward doing whatever is supposed be used for, given correct input. They forget to test the negative - what does it do with incorrect input? If a program retrieves a web page, what if it's empty? What does a searching or sorting program do when asked to aort or search an empty list, or a list of just one item? That stuff doesn't get tested much.
It was easy to miss if you haven't heard of ReactOS any time in the last 19 years, so I don't blame you for missing it, but ReactOS is an alternate implementation of WINDOWS. The summary only mentioned that six times, so it was easy to overlook.
Of you've used FreeDOS (or more properly, if you were AWARE that you were using FreeDOS), it's like that. ReactOS has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux. The only relationship I can come up with there is that it's for people who don't want to use Linux, or can't, and don't want to use Microsoft Windows (or can't). It's non-Microsoft Windows.
> Rather than forking ALL OF DEBIAN so you can keep sysvinit, why not fork systemd to use only the init?
That's the entire problem with systemd - it forgot it was supposed to be an init. Systemd has consumed more and more of the OS, and in ways that require *applications* to have dependencies on systemd.
If it were just a bad init system, people would complain, but most would deal with it. Some would use a different init. Systemd doesn't work that way. Like a particularly nasty rootkit, you have to replace half the system to get rid of systemd.
> very invasive (phone number's often as good as a street address)
Yeah I bet the next step is when Syrians and Iranians try to fly into the US, the US government will start asking for their name and address! It's just like Hitler!
Damn we *must* do something about our schools. We spend twice as much on schools as other countries, yet we're raising a generation of idiots.
The stores' computers ALREADY have the data on which items were purchased with which debit/credit card. They *already know* what we buy.
I know that at some stores, if you don't have your receipt handy for a return, they can look up the purchase by swiping your credit card. Which proves that they do store the data, they are *already* saving the data about who buys what. They already know that we buy two gallons of milk from them every week.
They know that we buy product X every 4-8 weeks. The only additional information they'd get is whether I need to restock this week or next. Given that fact, it might be useful if, when I walk into Walmart, their app popped a notification saying "don't forget milk."
We seem to be on near opposite ends of the political spectrum, but on this I agree with you. If you're a leftist, a liberal, a person who can't get enough of Big Brother, you might enjoy living in state like that, and they might enjoy having you. You likely already live in one, so maybe stay there in California instead of moving to Texas. If you lean right, if you're conservative, if you want to make your own decisions, you might like Texas and Texas might like you.
It's a bit silly to argue about which is "better"; people have different preferences. That is unless you have a specific measurable goal in mind, such as economic growth. If you want economic growth, you can decide to look at the economic growth number from each state and find out which policies work well.
There are two things that a lot of people do which are silly, illogical, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on at the moment. The first illogical thing is to flee the effects of policies in one state, and bringing those failed policies with you. If you're leaving a state that has high unemployment and a ridiculously high cost of living, amd high taxes, going to a state with low costs, high pay, amd low taxes, recognize that those conditions were created by policies. Don't try to get the new, better state to start doing things the way the old, failed state did them. I'm sure it goes both ways, but here's the example I always see because I happen to be in Texas:
Me: Welcome, I hear you just from California?
Them: Yeah I got a much better job here in Texas. The salary is the same dollar amount, but in Texas that buys a big house. In California I could only get an efficiency apartment.
Me: I understand. I like that I bought a 3,500 sq foot house in Dallas for $243K.
Them: I hear you guys have NO state income tax here, so my take-home pay is more also.
Me: Yep, that's true.
Them: Just one thing I don't like about Texas, public transportation. In California we've been building this awesome $50 billion light rail line for the last 30 years. I can't understand why you guys in Texas won't do that. Your light rail here isn't as good as California's will be, when it's done. I'm going to start a petition for more light rail here in Dallas.
Me: Face-palm
Similarly, if you love doing things the liberal way, the Democrat way, in your Democrat state, why the HELL would you want the Republican Congress and Donald Trump to control more? Wouldn't you want your liberal state to be able to do things the liberal way? For example the latest health care bill is basically a list of things that each state can now decide for themselves. That's pretty awesome if you're a liberal in a liberal state.
Don't confuse theory often applied to computer science versus actual traffic. If you engage your common sense, it's quite obvious that a city with 100,000 people commuting will need more road lanes than a city with 10,000 commuters or 1,000. One reason for that is that affect you are probably thinking of has to do with average throughput over a long time. Actual traffic has rush hour - all the commuters get on the road at 5:00. You don't get to send some people home at 3:00, some at 4:00, and some at 5:00 when dealing with real traffic.
You need enough lanes near downtown for everyone to get into a lane at 5:00
You may have excellent hearing, and using hearing protection certainly seems like a good idea. The values I mentioned may also have been a tad low. You said you could hear 12K - that's of choose quite a bit less than 20K or 22K.
> I guess that those monitor speakers aren't as crappy as I thought.:)
Maybe, but actually maybe they are throwing off your test. Less expensive equipment has more harmonics, often called THD (total harmonic distortion). This is an effect where when you ask for 8Khz, your amp and speakers actually deliver 8Khz, 16Khz, 4Khz, and 2Khz.
> directly proportional to the mileage driven on all existing roads. (Naturally this does not account for when new construction or increased traffic necessitates improvements or widening of existing roads or the making of altogether new ones
Sure it does. The reason roads need to be widened for more lanes, or new roads need to be built, is BECAUSE the existing lanes are full. The vehicles filling up the existing lanes cause the need for more lanes. So it makes sense that they pay for more lanes, via gas taxes, permit fees for oversized loads , tolls, or whatever mechanism.
> 10K is an easy limit for most according to the charts I saw.
I can only guess the charts you saw didn't account for age, and maybe you're counting the range that we can only barely hear if it's really loud. For the same detection rate you get for 1 watt at 2K, you might need 1000 watts at 10K.
- Ears have some physiological limits due to how physics work (your ears can hear very approx in the 20-20'000Hz range.
And that's optimistic, for a young person. At the age when people have money for this stuff, a 45 year old man can generally hear up to about 4,000 Hz or so. Maybe barely hear 8,000 if they are lucky. So this 45,000Hz stuff is just plain stupid.
> This will last until people can't tell the difference between a format's video and their natural vision.
I predict it'll last much longer than that. Consider the audiophile scene. People spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on simple cables for digital, when it can be easily proven that any non-cable will deliver bit-for-bit identical data. They insist on clearly reproducing frequencies four times as high as they can hear.
> Trump didn't really consider ANY of that. He wouldn't have studied any of the rules, or considered any of the science. He wouldn't have assigned a researcher to look at it.
Pretty much right. Well he doesn't assign a specific researcher. There are two MILLION federal employees. The president doesn't assign research tasks - he doesn't even know the researchers' names. He knows the names of the department heads - a couple dozen of the millions of federal employees. What Trump did is he told all federal agencies, in one memo, "review all of the regulations that Obama made on his way out the door". Then Trump was off to deal with North Korea or the budget or health care or China or Russia or jobs or taxes or whatever. School lunch regulations are about number 5,762 on a president's priority list. So the agency head forwarded that memo "review all recent regulations" to his top management, who forwarded forwarded it to someone who deals with lunch standards. And this manager, who has never seen the president, undid some of the recent changes.
> It's not that lazy fucker Trump knows or cares about any of it.
Right. He's a little busy with trying to learn whose who in Chinese politics to prevent wars, find out what the federal reserve is up to trying to keep the economy afloat, have some general input on the federal budget, etc.
> He only knows it was an Obama rule.
He doesn't know or care if someone that Obama's wife talked to decided on skim milk or 1% or 2%. He likely doesn't know that school lunch standards were changed under Obama - those two million federal employees handle that stuff.
What the president knows is this: Obama's administration made a bunch of regulations that liberals like. In the final few months, knowing they would be replaced regardless, they went a little wild. So his team of more conservative people should tell their people to have a look the changes done by Obama's people and consider doing things differently.
That's what President Trump, or any president, knows. They don't read millions of pages of federal regulations.
Ps, until I find the document I read a few months ago and read it again, I may have to avoid commenting on the issue. At this point I've read two clearly authoritative sources that seem to conflict.
Thank you very much for both links, and for your analysis. It's much more informative and interesting, to me, to look at the actual laws and regulations and discuss them, rather than arguing about what someone remembers about what they heard from someone who read a headline.
At first I was rather confused because I definitely read, and posted here, FCC documents saying otherwise just a few months ago. I'm still not 100% clear and certain, but I think the cause of the conflicting information may be ome of two things. Possibly, the document was revised or superseded in the last twelve months since I looked, but that seems unlikely. It may be because the document you referenced is very clear that it applies only to multi-channel TV services and not to either telecommunications services or *any other service* provided by cable companies (such as internet service). The document you referenced doesn't prohibit a city from granting an exclusive monopoly on internet service over cable lines. I wish I had time right now to track down the FCC document I read and posted several months ago. It would be interesting for us to both read that one and discuss our interpretation.
Maybe I'll look for it this evening, after work, after I feed and bathe the kid and get her in bed, etc. You seem to be good at finding the relevant documents; maybe you'll find the other document before I do.
> Cities grant franchises, but they cannot be exclusive anymore, and haven't been so for a very long time.
Every so often somebody on Slashdot says that. But somebody lied. You can read the rule for yourself if you want to know the nitty-gritty details, but essentially the rule change said:
Before granting a new exclusive franchise, the city must hold a meeting.
Didn't affect the existing franchises at all, and nothing prohibits city and state politicians from granting new monopolies to their donors; they just have to hold a meeting first, at which they declare that granting a monopoly is in the city's best interest. That's it. A beautiful lie.
Have a glance at the New York City franchise map on their web site sometime. Each block is assigned to one ISP.
> would whole heartedly support another Ma Bell'esq forced breakup
I'm old enough to remember that. The government broke up a national monopoly into a set of regional monopolies. Long-distance calls were $1.25 / minute, under the government-enforced monopoly rate structure. Then the telcos were deregulated and the rate IMMEDIATELY dropped to 15 cents. Then within two years it was 10 cents. Rates dropped over 90% as soon as the FCC got out of the way. Now of course most people don't pay anything for long distance minutes. Why they would want to go back to the FCC regulation, with the FCC deciding $1.25/minute is fair, baffles me.
> You should be paying to lease a line from your cable company
Yet another regional monopoly, I guess, with rates set by the government again? So you can pay $1.25/minute again. In Texas we have overbuilders in many areas. Companies compete to build the fastest, most reliable network. Some areas have 4-6 competing companies to choose from and even some small towns of 20,000 people have two cable companies. To make money in that environment, the cable companies have to get customers to choose them, by offering a better service at a better price than the other companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Multiple flows over the same peice of copper is the entire POINT of digital communication and packet switching.
You realize of the packets and flows leaving your house don't go to the same destination. So why the *hell* would they be put into the same queues or policed the same way? Most of the work is done on flows (roughly tcp connections), not on physical network ports. So to use your example:
> concurrently play a streamed game, stream a movie, and make a VoiP call, how does that ISP
The game has probably at least two flows, control and content. The control flow is all about latency. It requires nearly no bandwidth, the gamer doesn't care about jitter, they want the lowest possible latency above all else. Reliability definitely counts - packets should be retried. So you put that flow through the low-latency, low-bandwidth path. "Lowest possible latency" implies high jitter, and that's okay.
The voip call again uses damn little bandwidth, but this time jitter is the most important thing. Reliability doesn't count -
undeliverable packets should NOT be retried. Retrying would actually make the connection worse. For best voice quality, you want the ISP to *delay* each voip packet to make to take just as long as the last one. Otherwise you say "automobiles" and the person on the other end of the line hears "smoautobile". That's easily done by moving your game packet ahead of the voip packet, so that the voip packet doesn't arrive early.
Then you have the Netflix flow. For the Netflix flow, neither latency nor jitter matter. Reliability requirements are moderate - only retry recent packets. Only bandwidth really matters. So those go in the "high bandwidth, high latency" queue, to be delivered after your gaming and voip packets are delivered.
> Port throttling for all sources does that just fine. And if Comcast throttle http video, they either throttle their own VoD stream too, or they're committing a crime.
I think you just answered your own question. Most http requests, most port 80 flows, aren't video on demand. Therefore treating all http as if it were video means handling most of it *wrong*, creating a worse experience for the user. The delivery of a text-based site such as Slashdot has opposite performance metrics as pre-recorded video, and live video has different needs depending on if it's one-way of video conferencing.
Also, I guess it would be illegal for an ISP to store/cache their own videos at their POP for better efficiency and performance, since they can't possibly store every video from every web site at the POP? Unfair advantage to store the frequently-accessed stuff close to the users and make it faster, right?
It's possible to work toward net neutrality as a principle. As a law, I don't see how you could possibly write a law that didn't have major unintended consequences. Network optimization is just too complex for law makers to decide how it must be done five or ten years later, using technologies that don't even exist at the time they write the law.
That's a good question. Perhaps, if you managed to create an environment where tests are expected and used in useful way, one could add an expectation to have an equal number of "not" tests, of tests showing what happens when input is not good, that the software does not do things when it shouldn't. That may get developers more into that frame of mind. The famous "goto fail" might have been avoided.
Mature software development includes peer review followed by QA testing. Perhaps mature software development should include security review and security testing. Just as you do peer review, have a security-focused person look over the code and run a test. Not just to catch issues, though it'll do that, but so the feedback helps developers think about those types of issues in the future.
There is some truth to that. The thing is, while the *concept* of net neutrality is certainly good, and the *intent* is right, modern networks are extremely complex. Therefore writing a network neutrality LAW that is effective but doesn't seriously mess with the very useful management of complex networks is very difficult.
Cisco knows, because it's their entire business to know, that some flows need low jitter, and bandwidth isn't an issue (voip for example, 64Kbps bandwidth is plenty, any significant jitter is unacceptable). Other flows require high bandwidth, and don't care about jitter or latency (Netflix for example). Other flows need low latency, regardless of jitter (gaming for example). ISPs pay Cisco billions to deliver the type of flow you'll want for each aapplication. To the extent that new laws restrict how ISPs can manage flows, the user experience gets worse for everybody.
I don't know a single CCNP or CCIE (network expert) who supports any proposed network neutrality *law*. Most support the *concept*, but it's darn near impossible to write a law that does what we'd want it to do, without criminalizing proper network optimizations.
As an example, one early draft of network neutrality legislation actually made it illegal to refuse to accept spam. Later versions are slightly more sophisticated, but a networking expert certification requires roughly 12,000 pages of reading - ISP networks are really complex. Legislating technical details of routing and queuing is quite unlikely to work.
Cisco knows, because it's their entire business to know, that some flows need low jitter, and bandwidth isn't an issue (voip for example, 64Kbps bandwidth is plenty, any significant jitter is unacceptable). Other flows require high bandwidth, and don't care about jitter or latency (Netflix for example). Other flows need low latency, regardless of jitter (gaming for example). ISPs pay Cisco billions to deliver the type of flow you'll want for each application.
You can do almost nothing about any of those metrics on your local network. Its up to the ISP to route, queue, drop, and police packets in order to provide you the right flow parameters for each application.
This much more common mistake than one might think. A *lot* of applications will accept an empty password. It's one of the more common of the 90,000 or so vulnerabilities that we test for.
Programmers get so focused on making things work, 95% of the testing they do is geared toward that, toward doing whatever is supposed be used for, given correct input. They forget to test the negative - what does it do with incorrect input? If a program retrieves a web page, what if it's empty? What does a searching or sorting program do when asked to aort or search an empty list, or a list of just one item? That stuff doesn't get tested much.
It was easy to miss if you haven't heard of ReactOS any time in the last 19 years, so I don't blame you for missing it, but ReactOS is an alternate implementation of WINDOWS. The summary only mentioned that six times, so it was easy to overlook.
Of you've used FreeDOS (or more properly, if you were AWARE that you were using FreeDOS), it's like that. ReactOS has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux. The only relationship I can come up with there is that it's for people who don't want to use Linux, or can't, and don't want to use Microsoft Windows (or can't). It's non-Microsoft Windows.
> Rather than forking ALL OF DEBIAN so you can keep sysvinit, why not fork systemd to use only the init?
That's the entire problem with systemd - it forgot it was supposed to be an init. Systemd has consumed more and more of the OS, and in ways that require *applications* to have dependencies on systemd.
If it were just a bad init system, people would complain, but most would deal with it. Some would use a different init. Systemd doesn't work that way. Like a particularly nasty rootkit, you have to replace half the system to get rid of systemd.
> very invasive (phone number's often as good as a street address)
Yeah I bet the next step is when Syrians and Iranians try to fly into the US, the US government will start asking for their name and address! It's just like Hitler!
Damn we *must* do something about our schools. We spend twice as much on schools as other countries, yet we're raising a generation of idiots.
Yes, they have many desalination plants, using several different technologies, and invest heavily in researching new desalination technology.
Desalination takes a lot of energy aka money. It should cost maybe 50% or 70% to tow the ice than to desalinate seawater.
The stores' computers ALREADY have the data on which items were purchased with which debit/credit card. They *already know* what we buy.
I know that at some stores, if you don't have your receipt handy for a return, they can look up the purchase by swiping your credit card. Which proves that they do store the data, they are *already* saving the data about who buys what. They already know that we buy two gallons of milk from them every week.
They know that we buy product X every 4-8 weeks. The only additional information they'd get is whether I need to restock this week or next. Given that fact, it might be useful if, when I walk into Walmart, their app popped a notification saying "don't forget milk."
If you hate Texas, why the hell are you moving there?
You're not moving there? Then why the hell do you care?
We seem to be on near opposite ends of the political spectrum, but on this I agree with you. If you're a leftist, a liberal, a person who can't get enough of Big Brother, you might enjoy living in state like that, and they might enjoy having you. You likely already live in one, so maybe stay there in California instead of moving to Texas. If you lean right, if you're conservative, if you want to make your own decisions, you might like Texas and Texas might like you.
It's a bit silly to argue about which is "better"; people have different preferences. That is unless you have a specific measurable goal in mind, such as economic growth. If you want economic growth, you can decide to look at the economic growth number from each state and find out which policies work well.
There are two things that a lot of people do which are silly, illogical, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on at the moment. The first illogical thing is to flee the effects of policies in one state, and bringing those failed policies with you. If you're leaving a state that has high unemployment and a ridiculously high cost of living, amd high taxes, going to a state with low costs, high pay, amd low taxes, recognize that those conditions were created by policies. Don't try to get the new, better state to start doing things the way the old, failed state did them. I'm sure it goes both ways, but here's the example I always see because I happen to be in Texas:
Me: Welcome, I hear you just from California?
Them: Yeah I got a much better job here in Texas. The salary is the same dollar amount, but in Texas that buys a big house. In California I could only get an efficiency apartment.
Me: I understand. I like that I bought a 3,500 sq foot house in Dallas for $243K.
Them: I hear you guys have NO state income tax here, so my take-home pay is more also.
Me: Yep, that's true.
Them: Just one thing I don't like about Texas, public transportation. In California we've been building this awesome $50 billion light rail line for the last 30 years. I can't understand why you guys in Texas won't do that. Your light rail here isn't as good as California's will be, when it's done. I'm going to start a petition for more light rail here in Dallas.
Me: Face-palm
Similarly, if you love doing things the liberal way, the Democrat way, in your Democrat state, why the HELL would you want the Republican Congress and Donald Trump to control more? Wouldn't you want your liberal state to be able to do things the liberal way? For example the latest health care bill is basically a list of things that each state can now decide for themselves. That's pretty awesome if you're a liberal in a liberal state.
Don't confuse theory often applied to computer science versus actual traffic. If you engage your common sense, it's quite obvious that a city with 100,000 people commuting will need more road lanes than a city with 10,000 commuters or 1,000. One reason for that is that affect you are probably thinking of has to do with average throughput over a long time. Actual traffic has rush hour - all the commuters get on the road at 5:00. You don't get to send some people home at 3:00, some at 4:00, and some at 5:00 when dealing with real traffic.
You need enough lanes near downtown for everyone to get into a lane at 5:00
You may have excellent hearing, and using hearing protection certainly seems like a good idea. The values I mentioned may also have been a tad low. You said you could hear 12K - that's of choose quite a bit less than 20K or 22K.
> I guess that those monitor speakers aren't as crappy as I thought. :)
Maybe, but actually maybe they are throwing off your test. Less expensive equipment has more harmonics, often called THD (total harmonic distortion). This is an effect where when you ask for 8Khz, your amp and speakers actually deliver 8Khz, 16Khz, 4Khz, and 2Khz.
> directly proportional to the mileage driven on all existing roads. (Naturally this does not account for when new construction or increased traffic necessitates improvements or widening of existing roads or the making of altogether new ones
Sure it does. The reason roads need to be widened for more lanes, or new roads need to be built, is BECAUSE the existing lanes are full. The vehicles filling up the existing lanes cause the need for more lanes. So it makes sense that they pay for more lanes, via gas taxes, permit fees for oversized loads , tolls, or whatever mechanism.
Quoting the summary:
can
A) use cloud services (like the new Google Assistant SDK or Cloud Speech API)
Or
B) run completely on-device
> 10K is an easy limit for most according to the charts I saw.
I can only guess the charts you saw didn't account for age, and maybe you're counting the range that we can only barely hear if it's really loud. For the same detection rate you get for 1 watt at 2K, you might need 1000 watts at 10K.
- Ears have some physiological limits due to how physics work (your ears can hear very approx in the 20-20'000Hz range.
And that's optimistic, for a young person. At the age when people have money for this stuff, a 45 year old man can generally hear up to about 4,000 Hz or so. Maybe barely hear 8,000 if they are lucky. So this 45,000Hz stuff is just plain stupid.
> This will last until people can't tell the difference between a format's video and their natural vision.
I predict it'll last much longer than that. Consider the audiophile scene. People spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on simple cables for digital, when it can be easily proven that any non-cable will deliver bit-for-bit identical data. They insist on clearly reproducing frequencies four times as high as they can hear.
> Trump didn't really consider ANY of that. He wouldn't have studied any of the rules, or considered any of the science. He wouldn't have assigned a researcher to look at it.
Pretty much right. Well he doesn't assign a specific researcher. There are two MILLION federal employees. The president doesn't assign research tasks - he doesn't even know the researchers' names. He knows the names of the department heads - a couple dozen of the millions of federal employees. What Trump did is he told all federal agencies, in one memo, "review all of the regulations that Obama made on his way out the door". Then Trump was off to deal with North Korea or the budget or health care or China or Russia or jobs or taxes or whatever. School lunch regulations are about number 5,762 on a president's priority list. So the agency head forwarded that memo "review all recent regulations" to his top management, who forwarded forwarded it to someone who deals with lunch standards. And this manager, who has never seen the president, undid some of the recent changes.
> It's not that lazy fucker Trump knows or cares about any of it.
Right. He's a little busy with trying to learn whose who in Chinese politics to prevent wars, find out what the federal reserve is up to trying to keep the economy afloat, have some general input on the federal budget, etc.
> He only knows it was an Obama rule.
He doesn't know or care if someone that Obama's wife talked to decided on skim milk or 1% or 2%. He likely doesn't know that school lunch standards were changed under Obama - those two million federal employees handle that stuff.
What the president knows is this:
Obama's administration made a bunch of regulations that liberals like. In the final few months, knowing they would be replaced regardless, they went a little wild. So his team of more conservative people should tell their people to have a look the changes done by Obama's people and consider doing things differently.
That's what President Trump, or any president, knows. They don't read millions of pages of federal regulations.
Ps, until I find the document I read a few months ago and read it again, I may have to avoid commenting on the issue. At this point I've read two clearly authoritative sources that seem to conflict.
Thank you very much for both links, and for your analysis. It's much more informative and interesting, to me, to look at the actual laws and regulations and discuss them, rather than arguing about what someone remembers about what they heard from someone who read a headline.
At first I was rather confused because I definitely read, and posted here, FCC documents saying otherwise just a few months ago. I'm still not 100% clear and certain, but I think the cause of the conflicting information may be ome of two things. Possibly, the document was revised or superseded in the last twelve months since I looked, but that seems unlikely. It may be because the document you referenced is very clear that it applies only to multi-channel TV services and not to either telecommunications services or *any other service* provided by cable companies (such as internet service). The document you referenced doesn't prohibit a city from granting an exclusive monopoly on internet service over cable lines. I wish I had time right now to track down the FCC document I read and posted several months ago. It would be interesting for us to both read that one and discuss our interpretation.
Maybe I'll look for it this evening, after work, after I feed and bathe the kid and get her in bed, etc. You seem to be good at finding the relevant documents; maybe you'll find the other document before I do.
> Cities grant franchises, but they cannot be exclusive anymore, and haven't been so for a very long time.
Every so often somebody on Slashdot says that. But somebody lied. You can read the rule for yourself if you want to know the nitty-gritty details, but essentially the rule change said:
Before granting a new exclusive franchise, the city must hold a meeting.
Didn't affect the existing franchises at all, and nothing prohibits city and state politicians from granting new monopolies to their donors; they just have to hold a meeting first, at which they declare that granting a monopoly is in the city's best interest. That's it. A beautiful lie.
Have a glance at the New York City franchise map on their web site sometime. Each block is assigned to one ISP.
> would whole heartedly support another Ma Bell'esq forced breakup
I'm old enough to remember that. The government broke up a national monopoly into a set of regional monopolies. Long-distance calls were $1.25 / minute, under the government-enforced monopoly rate structure. Then the telcos were deregulated and the rate IMMEDIATELY dropped to 15 cents. Then within two years it was 10 cents. Rates dropped over 90% as soon as the FCC got out of the way. Now of course most people don't pay anything for long distance minutes. Why they would want to go back to the FCC regulation, with the FCC deciding $1.25/minute is fair, baffles me.
> You should be paying to lease a line from your cable company
Yet another regional monopoly, I guess, with rates set by the government again? So you can pay $1.25/minute again. In Texas we have overbuilders in many areas. Companies compete to build the fastest, most reliable network. Some areas have 4-6 competing companies to choose from and even some small towns of 20,000 people have two cable companies. To make money in that environment, the cable companies have to get customers to choose them, by offering a better service at a better price than the other companies.