$200 billion by 2006? Lol I see you ran into a Bruce Kushnick article. I know you got that from Bruce because he's the only one who has ever come up with a number anywhere near that.
He's off by about two orders of magnitude. His reasoning is slightly less logical than the people who say income tax is illegal because they live in THE UNITED STATES, while the 16th amendment applies to the United States.
> They built none of the infrastructure they profit from. > They're rent seeking parasites.
Some of the cable companies are ASSHOLES. No doubt about that. Personally I've had pretty good experiences with them, but I'm Texas, where there's competition. I know that people on the coasts particularly often continue to live with the cable monopolies their government created years ago, and those monopoly providers sometimes suck, particularly, their customer service sucks and Comcast has questionable billing practices.
To be honest, however, those assholes DO each spend over a billion dollars every year upgrading their networks. Here's $300 million / year just in Chicago alone, for example:
Verizon has spent $15 billion on FIOS. Goldman calculated that for Google to become a national ISP, it would cost them $140 billion.
It is honest and right to criticize their customer service, and to point out Comcast's illegal billing. It is false, and makes one appear rather uninformed, to claim that they don't invest HUGE amounts of money in building and constantly upgrading the infrastructure. When you make a claim like that which is so easily shown to be absolutely false, you appear to be either clueless or disingenuous, at which point people stop listening to you and don't hear your legitimate complaints about customer service or other real issues.
> If you build something good, people that can afford it will pay for it.... > I remember copying 5.25" floppies with a simple copy protection removal program in the 80s.
You had $5,000 to spend on a home computer, yet you pirated/stole the software. Most Slashdot readers are in the top 2% richest people in the world. They are "people that can afford it", and most of them do not pay for it.
> DRM and it's ilk have never been effective and never will be effective.
This is certainly true. It didn't work in the 1980s, it doesn't work now. The music industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get DRM to work, then gave up. The vast majority of music today doesn't have DRM because DRM doesn't work. Mechnical or electronic locks can't prevent people from ripping you off. Self-centered slimeballs will always find a way to rip you off.
I totally agree with what you said. There's a related standard called RFC 3514. It's worth a quick look.
I thought I'd add thing other related point to the discussion. Assume we have some high-priority traffic. It can be routed over either a T1 connection at 1.54Mbps or a 10 Mbps satellite connection. Which is better? Of course we know by know the answer is "it depends". The satellite connection is much higher bandwidth (good) and much higher latency (bad). For best service, we should choose the route based on the application. Treating all flows the same would mean most of them end up worse off.
Of course within the carrier network we don't choose between satellite and T1, but we DO have the choice between an OC-48 directly between Tucson and Phoenix or a pair of OC-768s going through Los Angeles. The same principle applies - which route is best depends on the application.
I'd say one could, if you wished, de-prioritize 80% of video services (95% of bandwidth), with almost no false positives. So you could match almost all video traffic.
However, I'd say a key word in your post is "legislators". There are over a billion web sites. Of those billion, certainly at least a thousand offer video that wouldn't be detected. A de-prioritized service complaining could point to 1,000 sites with video that's not treated and such by the ISP. So if it were ILLEGAL to classify one video site differently than another, then classifying traffic at all would be illegal - because you're never going to positively identify ALL of the sites with video.
You can easily lie about the type of data, and it's common for all sorts of things to "look like" http in order to traverse firewalls, etc. In general, it's self-defeating to have it appear to be anything other than what it is.
Suppose you have a flow that appears to be voip. You want to give that flow a steady 64Kbps, and low latency, but most importantly the lowest possible jitter. Quality is improved by *slowing down* any packets that would arrive more quickly than their neighbors*.
Suppose you have a Netflix stream and pretend it's voip. You'll end up with 64 Kbps, which is perfect for voip but unusable for video. Sure, you have low jitter, which does you absolutely no good whatsoever. So you've completely shot yourself in the foot.
Suppose you do it the other way around. It's actually voip, but it looks like Netflix, and we're on a cable modem. Netflix wants high bandwidth as measured in megabytes per minute. With normal settings, the cable modem will get high bandwidth for a couple seconds, then turn off for a couple of seconds, then high for a couple of seconds, alternating. That's perfect for Netflix - the application has several seconds of buffer. If you've lied and it's really voip, you've caused your audio to stop and start every second or two, which is horrible for voip.
The "SSL everywhere" movement (who apparently doesn't know SSL was deprecated seventeen years ago) along with TCP port 80 being abused for non-http communication does make things a *bit* harder. You still see small packets vs large, which tells you a lot. generally, applications wanting bulk bandwidth use large packets, applications wanting low latency use small packets. If you also recognize that packets from Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube are probably video, etc, you can get the job done despite the encryption.
* Why you slowing down VOIP packets can improve service: A voip packet contains roughly 30ms of audio, depending on codec. It takes roughly 120ms for the packet to travel to the person you are talking to. Therefore, the recipient hears packet #1 while packet #5 is being spoken, like this:
send 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 recv * * * * 1 2 3 4 5
Suppose packet #3 doesn't take the full 120ms. Perhaps it arrives in 70ms. The diagram would look this: send 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 recv * * * * 31 2 * 4
Audio received out of order means I say "1 2 3 4" and you hear "31 2 4". I hope you're not calling in a bank transfer.:) That reminds me of another interesting thing good for both voip and streaming music and video, which would be very bad for most other applications. For live-consumption (streaming) A/V, any slow packets should be completely dropped, not delivered late. Better to hear "1 2 * 4" than "1 2 * 4 3". For most non-live use, of course, you'd want the packet delivered whenever it could be, including resending several times if needed.
The EU rules say that ISPs may *not* consider the content (Viagra spam is equal to a legit invoice) and it must all be non-discriminatory based on source or other factors, all parameters must be *objective* rules. Treating a Viagra spammer differently from a doctor's office would of course be discriminatory. It would certainly be *reasonable* to allow for blocking spam, making Skype and Vonage work better by slowing down any packets that are ahead of schedule, etc, but I've never seen a NN proposal that does so, while still providing meaningful protection against the things NN proponents wish to outlaw. The EU document is 45 pages and in order to be specific enough to be effective without being damaging it would need to be a hundred times as long. Of course, just about the time a government finally finishes a 4,500-page document, a different protocol will become popular which needs to be handled in a different way.
I love the idea of net neutrality, I really do, so I hope that some effective and efficient means can be found to encourage those goals. The best I can think of is that some geographic locations have five or six ISPs to choose from, so if one ISP doesn't provide quality service for the application and content you care about, you can choose a different provider who will. I wish all locations had that type of competition, but most places in the US still have near monopolies left over from when most places had absolutely laws absolutely enforcing monopolies.
I should start by saying I support the CONCEPT of network neutrality. It's just very, very hard to write precise wording that accomplishes the NN goal without making it illegal to do basic network management required to have the service work well.
Strict, poorly thought out network neutrality means the service completely sucks, even as it gets more expensive.
One very simple example which doesn't require any understanding of networks is this:
Dumb NN says "all packets for the same protocol must be treated equally". In other words, you can't accept some email and not other email. Also the millionth copy of the same email is treated the same as the first copy. So you have to handle, and try to deliver, a thousand times more spam - a Viagra sales pitch sent to aaaa@yahoo.com, aaab@yahoo.com, aaac@yahoo.com etc from a known spammer is no less prioritized than an email sent to one, correctly addressed, recipient from a network with no spam issues. That means consumers get far more spam (if you deliver one email you have to deliver them all) and email slows down (the server has to process the 10 million bogus emails before processing the one valid email - you can't just block the spammer's IP).
You can read 2,000 pages about carrier networking and still not know everything, and with each thing you learn you'll learn another way that NN can go wrong. To give you a taste, there are four major measurements of the quality of a connection. When I'm using SSH, latency is the one that matters; I want my keystrokes to show up right away, not a hundred milliseconds later. I don't care at all about bandwidth in that connection, I only want less than 1Kbps anyway. I also don't care about jitter. I care very much about losing packets, which could change "rm -i" to just "rm".
For Netflix, I don't care about latency at all, I don't care about jitter, I don't care about dropped packets. I only care about the average bandwidth of that flow. I want at least X MBs/minute. I don't even care if it stops for 1 second, then goes for one second, back and forth, because Netflix and Youtube bufffer. While watching the video, I make a Skype voice call. For the Skype flow, I only want 64Kbps, but I need consistent latency. If one packet takes 40ms to make the trip, I want them all to take 40ms. I do not want the next packet to arrive sooner, in only 10ms, because that would turn my voice saying "no" into "own". For different flows to different people, I want very different service. Sometimes, such as voip, faster is BAD. I'd prefer my voip packets be *slowed down* in order to have low jitter (consistent latency). I think you can start to see that "a packet is a packet, nobpacket is different than any other" is a terribly naive view. "Good" service has a very different meaning for different packets.
The whole discussion of "good" as bandwidth, latency, jitter, and dropped packets is just one example. The more you learn about networking, the more ways you learn to improve the user experience, and many of those are impacted or prohibited by simplistic NN.
If there's not a ready-made extension, Tampermonkey will run the Javascript of your choice. I imagine it would take several minutes to write the Javascript to switch the Flash embed to html5. Tampermonkey is useful for all sorts of things. I have a TM script for Slashdot that gets rid of that "hosts file" guy who used to be on here. Any post that mentions that file name more than once, or has certain other strings, disappears for me.
I'm new to Dallas, so thanks for the Waze routes. Preston northbound to the Bush was always 15 minutes to go two or three miles. Now Waze sends me over to Campbell, which saves several minutes.
> How do you protect yourself? Again, no one solution.
Actually Amazon's APIs can be used to watch for the kinds of things you listed, and security providers such as Alert Logic have security suites built around those APIs.
For pure consumer-like cloud *storage* ala Dropbox, scanning on upload and download is probably fine. You *could* map it it as a drive and scan it.
In the enterprise, I think more of cloud-hosted applications and cloud servers, not files. One company that specializes in security for cloud is Alert Logic. When you get cloud services from Amazon, there is a checkbox to add Alert Logic security services (and they have other services not directly through Amazon).
Thanks for the info and picture of the mesh. Looks like your team did a pretty good job. Nothing is impenetrable of course, but nice work.
From the pic, that looks like a micro USB? I have one here where I pulled out the board/contacts portion, leaving the metal shell, then drilled the top 1/3rd deeper to provide room for an extra chip attached to the replacement contacts. The assembly method used for some micro ports make it easy to pull out and replace the contacts portion- they hold the new contacts in with spring pressure. However, there's little room for adding a chip in a micro. Next I'm curious to see if any full-sized type A ports will allow the contact insert to be removed and replaced externally - there's a lot more room in a type A.
Like most of the petty "fines" the FTC have been crowing about about the last few years, this is a consent decree - Comcast AGREED to pay $2.3 million.
A consent decree / plea bargain can make sense if the prosecuting agency and the defendant agree to a reasonable penalty, but since the current FTC never prosecutes these cases, Comcast knows they can offer peanuts and the FTC will take it. If the adminsitration would say "no" to a deal once in a while and get verdicts for $20 billion, they'd be able to get negotiate consent decrees for $2 billion.
Once you have probes on the SATA pins, you can read the entire drive. Just plug the other end into the USB-SATA adapter on your laptop and dump the drive with ddrescue. If the ORWL isn't busy reading and writing to the drive at the same time, you won't even get errors causing ddrescue to retry those sectors.
> The encryption for the SSD is not stored in main RAM, it's stored in the SSD
Which is good in some ways, but bad in this case because as long as the drive is powered up, it remembers the key internally and decrypts the data for you - and you don't need to know the key in order to read the data after boot, only to boot.
If there aren't ways to get data in and out, it's kinda pointless as a computer. That's what computers do, of course, they accept input, process it, and produce output. So yeah, there are ways in.
Physically haven't seen the hardware, so we don't know what the "wire mesh" looks like - perhaps you could drill a couple of half inch holes through the case. Every $10,000 safe can be drilled without triggering the relockers, so you can bet that this can be as well. Most locksmiths drill to just unlock a safe; I drilled holes in the bottom of one and then completely disassembled the mechanism using long tools, like building a ship in a bottle.
For example, this computer has an HDMI port and two USB ports. I bet those aren't covered with a fine mesh screen, so you can probably drill them out and and start working from there.
> if they stay true to their party [not bloody likely], then you get Trump
Many representatives (most?) would probably saying that "staying true to the party" would mean picking someone who embodies what the GOP represents - not Trump. If they stayed true to the fucked up results of a failed primary process instituted by the party, yes that would be Trump. If they wanted to stay true to the ideas the party puts forward, they could very well coalesce behind the one guy who is respected by almost every Republican - Speaker Paul Ryan. That would be "true to the party" for some definition of the phrase (and a much, much better choice than Trump).
> If people want to get a third party elected, then it must start at the Congressional level, if not the state level.
That's true.
> I don't understand the third party voter fixation during a Presidential election. It's the most unlikely to make a difference
The calculus is completely different between swing states and non-swing states. If your state is a swing state this year, you vote hoping to influence the direct outcome of that election. That seems to be the case you have in mind. If your state is solidly red or blue, there's no chance you'll influence the direct outcome this time around. The best you can do is send a signal - in an election with a 2% difference between winning and losing, the major parties DO notice when 10%-15% is "lost" to third parties.
> currently serves *solely* to steal votes from one party or another (Bush Sr. in 1992, Gore in 2000, and most likely Trump in 2016). [emphasis added]
In swing states, yes. In non-swing states, there an no electoral votes in play, only popular votes, and those popular votes *solely* inform the parties as to what to do differently next time.
Johnson looks to get 10%-15% this time around. If doing X will get either major party even 5% of the vote, without losing any significant amount, they HAVE to consider doing X. That's enough to swing the entire election.
Gary Johnson's qualifications don't matter because there is a 0.000000% chance he'll be elected. I'm marking his name on my ballot because that's how I can tell the Rs & Ds "nope, gotta do better next time if you want my vote". Suppose the Libertarians get 10% of the vote, which seems likely. Next election, the Rs and Ds, if they are smart, will want some of that 10%, so they'll look at the Libertarian platform and consider adopting some of the positions that make sense.
Johnson absolutely will not be elected, but a vote for him sends a message to the major parties. Maybe in the future some Libertarian presidential candidate will actually be in the running, but not this time.
Pretending that she's not very good at "staying on message" (the calculated message) is denying her one of her greatest strengths vs Chris Christie, Trump, and to a lesser extent Joe Biden and Bush Jr. You don't WANT the president saying whatever crosses their mind to Putin. That's the problem with a Trump / Chris Christie type communicator - he'd say shit at the UN that he shouldn't say. Clinton will say exactly what State Department staff have calculated should be said.
There are other sides of the exact same coin. Because Bush Jr and Joe Biden say whatever crosses their minds, sometimes they say dumb shit. Hillary doesn't say dumb shit, because what she says has been proofread by two or three staffers. On the other hand, you know what Chris Christie believes, Bush Jr, because they say it - even if it's dumb.
Just in the few days we've seen emails released where HRC herself says sometimes she needs to take different positions on an issue depending on the audience. Did you already forget yesterday's headlines? If so, check out a few of the emails from the DNC hack where everything HRC says, does, or wears is carefully polled. That's more professional, in a way, than Trump where he still won't stop spray tanning himself orange, despite the fact that it has clearly not helped his optics. Perhaps Trump figures that people voted for the first black president and "orange is the new black", but he's clearly not paying attention to the polls on that one.
If you'd like *watch* Clinton say one thing, then the opposite, then a week later deny she said either, hop on Youtube and type in "Clinton flip-flops", "Hillary lies" or any other relevant search and you can watch her do it for hours, on issue after issue. PR spin and saying what people want to hear is perhaps her biggest strength, prete
> When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction
I don't think that in itself is a distinction - everything Clinton says is also carefully crafted PR. Hers is crafted by a team of professionals based on polls; his is more of a natural talent. Both are full of shit. He says whatever crosses his mind that will get attention, she says whatever today's polls indicate the particular audience wants to hear.
Both are bad in different ways. With Trump, you have a pretty good idea of what he's actually thinking, that's good as a someone who is supposed to represent you, bad as chief diplomat. Clinton is better at lying to Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and us.
> You're not less valuable if you're not present in the room. But it's easier for people who are in the room to make themselves more valuable.
Good point.
> but a lot of our children pretend to be American these days
My two year old could be mistaken for British, she puts the "rubbish in the bin", because she loved Peppa Pig. I'll have to be sure to tell her it's okay for her to play with a FLASHLIGHT, not with a TORCH (which is 2,500 degrees here).
Slashdot Mirror
$200 billion by 2006? Lol I see you ran into a Bruce Kushnick article. I know you got that from Bruce because he's the only one who has ever come up with a number anywhere near that.
He's off by about two orders of magnitude. His reasoning is slightly less logical than the people who say income tax is illegal because they live in THE UNITED STATES, while the 16th amendment applies to the United States.
> They built none of the infrastructure they profit from.
> They're rent seeking parasites.
Some of the cable companies are ASSHOLES. No doubt about that. Personally I've had pretty good experiences with them, but I'm Texas, where there's competition. I know that people on the coasts particularly often continue to live with the cable monopolies their government created years ago, and those monopoly providers sometimes suck, particularly, their customer service sucks and Comcast has questionable billing practices.
To be honest, however, those assholes DO each spend over a billion dollars every year upgrading their networks. Here's $300 million / year just in Chicago alone, for example:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
Verizon has spent $15 billion on FIOS. Goldman calculated that for Google to become a national ISP, it would cost them $140 billion.
It is honest and right to criticize their customer service, and to point out Comcast's illegal billing. It is false, and makes one appear rather uninformed, to claim that they don't invest HUGE amounts of money in building and constantly upgrading the infrastructure. When you make a claim like that which is so easily shown to be absolutely false, you appear to be either clueless or disingenuous, at which point people stop listening to you and don't hear your legitimate complaints about customer service or other real issues.
> If you build something good, people that can afford it will pay for it. ...
> I remember copying 5.25" floppies with a simple copy protection removal program in the 80s.
You had $5,000 to spend on a home computer, yet you pirated/stole the software. Most Slashdot readers are in the top 2% richest people in the world. They are "people that can afford it", and most of them do not pay for it.
> DRM and it's ilk have never been effective and never will be effective.
This is certainly true. It didn't work in the 1980s, it doesn't work now. The music industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get DRM to work, then gave up. The vast majority of music today doesn't have DRM because DRM doesn't work. Mechnical or electronic locks can't prevent people from ripping you off. Self-centered slimeballs will always find a way to rip you off.
I totally agree with what you said. There's a related standard called RFC 3514. It's worth a quick look.
I thought I'd add thing other related point to the discussion. Assume we have some high-priority traffic. It can be routed over either a T1 connection at 1.54Mbps or a 10 Mbps satellite connection. Which is better? Of course we know by know the answer is "it depends". The satellite connection is much higher bandwidth (good) and much higher latency (bad). For best service, we should choose the route based on the application. Treating all flows the same would mean most of them end up worse off.
Of course within the carrier network we don't choose between satellite and T1, but we DO have the choice between an OC-48 directly between Tucson and Phoenix or a pair of OC-768s going through Los Angeles. The same principle applies - which route is best depends on the application.
I'd say one could, if you wished, de-prioritize 80% of video services (95% of bandwidth), with almost no false positives. So you could match almost all video traffic.
However, I'd say a key word in your post is "legislators". There are over a billion web sites. Of those billion, certainly at least a thousand offer video that wouldn't be detected. A de-prioritized service complaining could point to 1,000 sites with video that's not treated and such by the ISP. So if it were ILLEGAL to classify one video site differently than another, then classifying traffic at all would be illegal - because you're never going to positively identify ALL of the sites with video.
You can easily lie about the type of data, and it's common for all sorts of things to "look like" http in order to traverse firewalls, etc. In general, it's self-defeating to have it appear to be anything other than what it is.
Suppose you have a flow that appears to be voip. You want to give that flow a steady 64Kbps, and low latency, but most importantly the lowest possible jitter. Quality is improved by *slowing down* any packets that would arrive more quickly than their neighbors*.
Suppose you have a Netflix stream and pretend it's voip. You'll end up with 64 Kbps, which is perfect for voip but unusable for video. Sure, you have low jitter, which does you absolutely no good whatsoever. So you've completely shot yourself in the foot.
Suppose you do it the other way around. It's actually voip, but it looks like Netflix, and we're on a cable modem. Netflix wants high bandwidth as measured in megabytes per minute. With normal settings, the cable modem will get high bandwidth for a couple seconds, then turn off for a couple of seconds, then high for a couple of seconds, alternating. That's perfect for Netflix - the application has several seconds of buffer. If you've lied and it's really voip, you've caused your audio to stop and start every second or two, which is horrible for voip.
The "SSL everywhere" movement (who apparently doesn't know SSL was deprecated seventeen years ago) along with TCP port 80 being abused for non-http communication does make things a *bit* harder. You still see small packets vs large, which tells you a lot. generally, applications wanting bulk bandwidth use large packets, applications wanting low latency use small packets. If you also recognize that packets from Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube are probably video, etc, you can get the job done despite the encryption.
* Why you slowing down VOIP packets can improve service:
A voip packet contains roughly 30ms of audio, depending on codec.
It takes roughly 120ms for the packet to travel to the person you are talking to.
Therefore, the recipient hears packet #1 while packet #5 is being spoken, like this:
send 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
recv * * * * 1 2 3 4 5
Suppose packet #3 doesn't take the full 120ms. Perhaps it arrives in 70ms. The diagram would look this:
send 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
recv * * * * 31 2 * 4
Audio received out of order means I say "1 2 3 4" and you hear "31 2 4". I hope you're not calling in a bank transfer. :) That reminds me of another interesting thing good for both voip and streaming music and video, which would be very bad for most other applications. For live-consumption (streaming) A/V, any slow packets should be completely dropped, not delivered late. Better to hear "1 2 * 4" than "1 2 * 4 3". For most non-live use, of course, you'd want the packet delivered whenever it could be, including resending several times if needed.
Where do you see that clause? In the Dutch law? In your own head? I sure see the exact opposite in the EU guidelines.
http://berec.europa.eu/eng/doc...
The EU rules say that ISPs may *not* consider the content (Viagra spam is equal to a legit invoice) and it must all be non-discriminatory based on source or other factors, all parameters must be *objective* rules. Treating a Viagra spammer differently from a doctor's office would of course be discriminatory. It would certainly be *reasonable* to allow for blocking spam, making Skype and Vonage work better by slowing down any packets that are ahead of schedule, etc, but I've never seen a NN proposal that does so, while still providing meaningful protection against the things NN proponents wish to outlaw. The EU document is 45 pages and in order to be specific enough to be effective without being damaging it would need to be a hundred times as long. Of course, just about the time a government finally finishes a 4,500-page document, a different protocol will become popular which needs to be handled in a different way.
I love the idea of net neutrality, I really do, so I hope that some effective and efficient means can be found to encourage those goals. The best I can think of is that some geographic locations have five or six ISPs to choose from, so if one ISP doesn't provide quality service for the application and content you care about, you can choose a different provider who will. I wish all locations had that type of competition, but most places in the US still have near monopolies left over from when most places had absolutely laws absolutely enforcing monopolies.
I should start by saying I support the CONCEPT of network neutrality. It's just very, very hard to write precise wording that accomplishes the NN goal without making it illegal to do basic network management required to have the service work well.
Strict, poorly thought out network neutrality means the service completely sucks, even as it gets more expensive.
One very simple example which doesn't require any understanding of networks is this:
Dumb NN says "all packets for the same protocol must be treated equally". In other words, you can't accept some email and not other email. Also the millionth copy of the same email is treated the same as the first copy. So you have to handle, and try to deliver, a thousand times more spam - a Viagra sales pitch sent to aaaa@yahoo.com, aaab@yahoo.com, aaac@yahoo.com etc from a known spammer is no less prioritized than an email sent to one, correctly addressed, recipient from a network with no spam issues. That means consumers get far more spam (if you deliver one email you have to deliver them all) and email slows down (the server has to process the 10 million bogus emails before processing the one valid email - you can't just block the spammer's IP).
You can read 2,000 pages about carrier networking and still not know everything, and with each thing you learn you'll learn another way that NN can go wrong. To give you a taste, there are four major measurements of the quality of a connection. When I'm using SSH, latency is the one that matters; I want my keystrokes to show up right away, not a hundred milliseconds later. I don't care at all about bandwidth in that connection, I only want less than 1Kbps anyway. I also don't care about jitter. I care very much about losing packets, which could change "rm -i" to just "rm".
For Netflix, I don't care about latency at all, I don't care about jitter, I don't care about dropped packets. I only care about the average bandwidth of that flow. I want at least X MBs/minute. I don't even care if it stops for 1 second, then goes for one second, back and forth, because Netflix and Youtube bufffer. While watching the video, I make a Skype voice call. For the Skype flow, I only want 64Kbps, but I need consistent latency. If one packet takes 40ms to make the trip, I want them all to take 40ms. I do not want the next packet to arrive sooner, in only 10ms, because that would turn my voice saying "no" into "own". For different flows to different people, I want very different service. Sometimes, such as voip, faster is BAD. I'd prefer my voip packets be *slowed down* in order to have low jitter (consistent latency). I think you can start to see that "a packet is a packet, nobpacket is different than any other" is a terribly naive view. "Good" service has a very different meaning for different packets.
The whole discussion of "good" as bandwidth, latency, jitter, and dropped packets is just one example. The more you learn about networking, the more ways you learn to improve the user experience, and many of those are impacted or prohibited by simplistic NN.
If there's not a ready-made extension, Tampermonkey will run the Javascript of your choice. I imagine it would take several minutes to write the Javascript to switch the Flash embed to html5. Tampermonkey is useful for all sorts of things. I have a TM script for Slashdot that gets rid of that "hosts file" guy who used to be on here. Any post that mentions that file name more than once, or has certain other strings, disappears for me.
I'm new to Dallas, so thanks for the Waze routes. Preston northbound to the Bush was always 15 minutes to go two or three miles. Now Waze sends me over to Campbell, which saves several minutes.
> How do you protect yourself? Again, no one solution.
Actually Amazon's APIs can be used to watch for the kinds of things you listed, and security providers such as Alert Logic have security suites built around those APIs.
For pure consumer-like cloud *storage* ala Dropbox, scanning on upload and download is probably fine. You *could* map it it as a drive and scan it.
In the enterprise, I think more of cloud-hosted applications and cloud servers, not files. One company that specializes in security for cloud is Alert Logic. When you get cloud services from Amazon, there is a checkbox to add Alert Logic security services (and they have other services not directly through Amazon).
Thanks for the info and picture of the mesh. Looks like your team did a pretty good job. Nothing is impenetrable of course, but nice work.
From the pic, that looks like a micro USB? I have one here where I pulled out the board/contacts portion, leaving the metal shell, then drilled the top 1/3rd deeper to provide room for an extra chip attached to the replacement contacts. The assembly method used for some micro ports make it easy to pull out and replace the contacts portion- they hold the new contacts in with spring pressure. However, there's little room for adding a chip in a micro. Next I'm curious to see if any full-sized type A ports will allow the contact insert to be removed and replaced externally - there's a lot more room in a type A.
Like most of the petty "fines" the FTC have been crowing about about the last few years, this is a consent decree - Comcast AGREED to pay $2.3 million.
A consent decree / plea bargain can make sense if the prosecuting agency and the defendant agree to a reasonable penalty, but since the current FTC never prosecutes these cases, Comcast knows they can offer peanuts and the FTC will take it. If the adminsitration would say "no" to a deal once in a while and get verdicts for $20 billion, they'd be able to get negotiate consent decrees for $2 billion.
> attach some probe wires to the SATA
Once you have probes on the SATA pins, you can read the entire drive. Just plug the other end into the USB-SATA adapter on your laptop and dump the drive with ddrescue. If the ORWL isn't busy reading and writing to the drive at the same time, you won't even get errors causing ddrescue to retry those sectors.
> The encryption for the SSD is not stored in main RAM, it's stored in the SSD
Which is good in some ways, but bad in this case because as long as the drive is powered up, it remembers the key internally and decrypts the data for you - and you don't need to know the key in order to read the data after boot, only to boot.
Thanks for the info.
> There's got to be a way into this thing.
If there aren't ways to get data in and out, it's kinda pointless as a computer. That's what computers do, of course, they accept input, process it, and produce output. So yeah, there are ways in.
Physically haven't seen the hardware, so we don't know what the "wire mesh" looks like - perhaps you could drill a couple of half inch holes through the case. Every $10,000 safe can be drilled without triggering the relockers, so you can bet that this can be as well. Most locksmiths drill to just unlock a safe; I drilled holes in the bottom of one and then completely disassembled the mechanism using long tools, like building a ship in a bottle.
For example, this computer has an HDMI port and two USB ports. I bet those aren't covered with a fine mesh screen, so you can probably drill them out and and start working from there.
> if they stay true to their party [not bloody likely], then you get Trump
Many representatives (most?) would probably saying that "staying true to the party" would mean picking someone who embodies what the GOP represents - not Trump. If they stayed true to the fucked up results of a failed primary process instituted by the party, yes that would be Trump. If they wanted to stay true to the ideas the party puts forward, they could very well coalesce behind the one guy who is respected by almost every Republican - Speaker Paul Ryan. That would be "true to the party" for some definition of the phrase (and a much, much better choice than Trump).
> If people want to get a third party elected, then it must start at the Congressional level, if not the state level.
That's true.
> I don't understand the third party voter fixation during a Presidential election. It's the most unlikely to make a difference
The calculus is completely different between swing states and non-swing states. If your state is a swing state this year, you vote hoping to influence the direct outcome of that election. That seems to be the case you have in mind. If your state is solidly red or blue, there's no chance you'll influence the direct outcome this time around. The best you can do is send a signal - in an election with a 2% difference between winning and losing, the major parties DO notice when 10%-15% is "lost" to third parties.
> currently serves *solely* to steal votes from one party or another (Bush Sr. in 1992, Gore in 2000, and most likely Trump in 2016). [emphasis added]
In swing states, yes. In non-swing states, there an no electoral votes in play, only popular votes, and those popular votes *solely* inform the parties as to what to do differently next time.
Johnson looks to get 10%-15% this time around. If doing X will get either major party even 5% of the vote, without losing any significant amount, they HAVE to consider doing X. That's enough to swing the entire election.
Gary Johnson's qualifications don't matter because there is a 0.000000% chance he'll be elected. I'm marking his name on my ballot because that's how I can tell the Rs & Ds "nope, gotta do better next time if you want my vote". Suppose the Libertarians get 10% of the vote, which seems likely. Next election, the Rs and Ds, if they are smart, will want some of that 10%, so they'll look at the Libertarian platform and consider adopting some of the positions that make sense.
Johnson absolutely will not be elected, but a vote for him sends a message to the major parties. Maybe in the future some Libertarian presidential candidate will actually be in the running, but not this time.
I accidentally hit submit to soon.
Pretending that she's not very good at "staying on message" (the calculated message) is denying her one of her greatest strengths vs Chris Christie, Trump, and to a lesser extent Joe Biden and Bush Jr. You don't WANT the president saying whatever crosses their mind to Putin. That's the problem with a Trump / Chris Christie type communicator - he'd say shit at the UN that he shouldn't say. Clinton will say exactly what State Department staff have calculated should be said.
There are other sides of the exact same coin. Because Bush Jr and Joe Biden say whatever crosses their minds, sometimes they say dumb shit. Hillary doesn't say dumb shit, because what she says has been proofread by two or three staffers. On the other hand, you know what Chris Christie believes, Bush Jr, because they say it - even if it's dumb.
Just in the few days we've seen emails released where HRC herself says sometimes she needs to take different positions on an issue depending on the audience. Did you already forget yesterday's headlines? If so, check out a few of the emails from the DNC hack where everything HRC says, does, or wears is carefully polled. That's more professional, in a way, than Trump where he still won't stop spray tanning himself orange, despite the fact that it has clearly not helped his optics. Perhaps Trump figures that people voted for the first black president and "orange is the new black", but he's clearly not paying attention to the polls on that one.
If you'd like *watch* Clinton say one thing, then the opposite, then a week later deny she said either, hop on Youtube and type in "Clinton flip-flops", "Hillary lies" or any other relevant search and you can watch her do it for hours, on issue after issue. PR spin and saying what people want to hear is perhaps her biggest strength, prete
> When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction
I don't think that in itself is a distinction - everything Clinton says is also carefully crafted PR. Hers is crafted by a team of professionals based on polls; his is more of a natural talent. Both are full of shit. He says whatever crosses his mind that will get attention, she says whatever today's polls indicate the particular audience wants to hear.
Both are bad in different ways. With Trump, you have a pretty good idea of what he's actually thinking, that's good as a someone who is supposed to represent you, bad as chief diplomat. Clinton is better at lying to Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and us.
> You're not less valuable if you're not present in the room. But it's easier for people who are in the room to make themselves more valuable.
Good point.
> but a lot of our children pretend to be American these days
My two year old could be mistaken for British, she puts the "rubbish in the bin", because she loved Peppa Pig. I'll have to be sure to tell her it's okay for her to play with a FLASHLIGHT, not with a TORCH (which is 2,500 degrees here).
My fingers do vim automatically too, sometimes when I don't even want them to. :wq