One can SET the table, have a SET of tools, or SET something down. These are unrelated meanings which happen to have the same spelling, mostly because English speakers prefer their words to be shorter than the Latin and Greek from which they derive.
PUSI-ll-animous is latin for cowardly. A long time ago it was brought into English as "pussy" (other origins are also possible, it was a long time ago).
Some time later, cat or pussy was separately used as slang for vagina.
Two unrelated meanings that happen to have the same spelling because pusillanimous is "too long; didn't say".
ESR didn't say "given enough eyeballs, no bugs exist." He said they are -shallow-. "The fix will be obvious to someone". That is, you won't spend a month trying to to figure out exactly why foo sometimes conflicts with widget - with with several people looking at the source (not just the output of the binary), someone will more quickly see why foo conflicts with widget and how to fix it.
It looks like in this case it was about 48 hours or so to characterize the problem, agree on the proper fix, code it, test, patch the major public clouds, and release it publicly. Guessing that patching the public clouds took 24 hours, that's about 24 hours for understanding the problem, discussing it fixing it, and testing. Not bad. Here's a quote from CATB with the context of the "bugs are shallow" part:
----... if any serious bug proved intractable. Linus was behaving as though he believed something like this:
8. Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.
Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.
My original formulation was that every problem ``will be transparent to somebody''. Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it. ``Somebody finds the problem,'' he says, ``and somebody else understands it.
----
It's about bugs not being intractable - they aren't extremely hard to figure out, "the fix will be obvious to someone". That doesn't mean they never existed.
That's certainly true. Mars isn't in the top three priorities for NASA under the current administration. Mr. Bolden (the head of NASA), said these are the three things Obama asked him to do with NASA:
When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Obama] charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
Personally, when I vacationed in Jamaica I set the bootloader to default to Windows rather than a serious OS with anything important on it. That should take care of 99% of TSA employees making $12/hour, and front-line customs clerks. The people I dealt with were probably working at Taco Bell the month before, they weren't top-tier forensic scientists.
You hear about looting and crap like that happening in New York and California. Not really in the vast majority of the country, just the coasts. When is the last time you heard about looting and rioing in Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, or Kentucky?
It doesn't matter a bit who signs the pay check. What matters is who controls when, where, and how the work is done. Control is what matters under employment law.
If you contract with someone to have your house painted , they can hire helpers if they want to, they can use whatever tools they want, etc, and generally you pay for results- they get paid when the houee is painted. You don't care whether they work from 8AM to 3PM or noon to 8PM. The contract is "I pay $x,000, you get the house painted within 10 days."
If you have someone show up at 8:00, you hand them a roller, and tell them to start with the ceiling in the bedroom, and tell them to use the Scotch Blue tape, that's an employee.
I don't know about where you live, but here in Texas gas stations are starting people at $11/hour and the mortgage on my house is $626. In other words, a teenager can damn near buy a house if they simply _show_up_to_work_on_time. Just about anyone sit behind a cash register, so the whole "living on the streets with no food" thing - not if you show up.
Maybe the party for you actually is the particular flavor that's been running Texas for the last 20 years and you just didn't know it.
That's not what the head of NASA, Charles Bolden says. Mr. Bolden explains their top three priorities as:
When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Obama] charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
My original post was about unions for highly skilled professionals, so I didn't get off-topic going into detail in my example. Later, it occurred to me that my example could give a misleading impression about why, in that example, I presented another proposed solution. It isn't just study. Of course everyone is different and everyone does things differently.
I also took a big risk that could have hurt me. I was fresh into a new company and hadn't established a solid relationship with my boss. He gave me very specific, step-by-step directions for how they wanted me to do the task. After a half-day of following (and misunderstanding) the directions, I stopped and looked at the problem for the rest of the day and and most of the next day. I then went in and presented to my brand new boss and his boss why I thought "their" solution was suboptimal. Had my boss and his boss not been so gracious and willing to listen, that move could have damaged my career. Fortunately, my boss (and his) feel that since -they- hired me, if their hire contributes something that means they've done well. Of course there are other variables. My willingness to piss you off in order to accomplish your goals is just one of several things.
Unions assume that workers are more or less interchangeable. Everybody with the same paper qualifications does gets paid the same and they do approximately the same quality of work.
I study every week and I've been doing so for 30 years. Recently I joined a company. Several of their top people had planned a project to take a few months, with a lot of painstaking work. I looked at it for a day or two and demonstrated a way to get it done in weeks, not months, and more reliably by doing mechanical transformations in the database instead . My one day analyzing the problem and applying what I've learned saved the company perhaps $60,000. Because I study and figure out how to save a lot of money and and prevent a lot of problems, I earn twice as much as many of my peers do (who don't study constantly) .
I don't see any reason I'd want to give another half of my earnings to you. (I say "another half" because after payroll taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, bpp taxes, etc I already give up half my income.)
> fossil carbon emissions would also shrink by 82-86% below their 2000 levels despite the assumed 2.58-fold bigger economy than in 2010.
So even if we assume EVERYTHING can be three times more efficient (good luck) AND we ignore the costs of trying to a accomplish that, STILL 15% of total energy can't come from renewables. And this is assuming renewable technology that doesn't actually exist, so it's really not an option right now, is it? Maybe it'll be available in 2050, but if we don't do anything until 2050 we'll be fucked by then. We need to act now. For that 15% (actually 85%) do you want fossil fuels or clean nuclear? Because those are the two choices. Maybe in 40 years we'll have other choices too.
>We have local monopolies and oligarchies, horrible service, and obscene prices.
Yep. Why? Section 622 of the Cable Communications Act of 1984 allows local governments to collect 5% of cable company revenue to the city (plus campaign contributions) in exchange for granting an exclusive monopoly in an area, disallowing competition. This is known as a franchise.
In some cases, such as New York (where this investigation is occurring), the franchise is carved up neighborhood by neighborhood. Time Warner pays a bribe^H^H^H^H^H fee to local politicians for their monopoly north of 86th street, Cablevision owns the Bronx via political decree. Here's the map from NYC.gov: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/...
Given the fact that the New York government created the monopolies and enforces them, I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to fix it. I don't expect that will happen until the CCA is amended to prevent state and local governments from granting monopolies in exchange for kickbacks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fees.
Perhaps you didn't note the asterisk in my post. Yes, redundant identical parts often increase overall system reliability (though they create new modes of failure - ie load balancers can have problems).
As I said the reactor designs BOTH incorporate redundancy, so that doesn't account for the difference in parts count. The newer design is truly _simpler_ with fewer interactions that can go wrong.
Argument? Still? Are you almost done arguing yet? Coal produces far more radiation than nuclear and far more CO2 than anything. Everybody pretty much agrees coal is the worst choice. So long as we continue arguing about how to stop using coal, we're largely stuck with coal until we decide. We've known this for a few decades, so I'd say it's about time we stop arguing and start doing the things we all know are better. Let me know when you're done with your mental masturbation and ready to get busy.
I had said "the odds you'll have a door fail". You gave the odds that you'll either have A door fail, or have TWO doors fail.:)
That's actually my favorite question in probability: You enter two contests. You have a 1/10 chanfe of winning each contest. What is your overall chance of winning?
It sounds so simple, yet it's devilishly difficult to figure out if you don't already know the trick, that you have to instead figure out the overall odds of LOSING both.
Here are full details, with appropriate references, about the idea ending the reliance on fossil fuels in the US requires nuclear to be a significant part of the energy mix: https://docs.google.com/docume...
The summary is that solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal can make an important contribution, providing a significant portion of our energy needs. A very significant portion cannot be solved by those four choices - for reliable, steady power in huge amounts the choices are fossil fuels or nuclear.
The other way around. Simpler is more reliable. Suppose that each year, 1 door of 1,000 fails. Your car has two doors, so the odds you'll have a door failure are 2/1000, or 1/500. My car has four doors, so the odds that one of mine will fail is 4/1,000, or 1/250.
It may be easier to see with more extreme numbers. Your car engine probably didn't fail this year. Dallas Texas has a couple million car engines. It's virtually certain that some failed.
More parts means more chances for failure. Perhaps more importantly, it means more connections and interactions between parts. More interactions means more opportunities for things to go wrong. To expand on that a bit more, more complex systems are also more difficult for engineers to fully understand, so not only are there more opportunities for the same types of failures, there's also a much higher likelihood of a potential failure scenario that wasn't predicted.
All in all, a fork is much more reliable than a computer, because simpler things with fewer parts are more reliable in many ways.
* Obviously -redundant- parts can make things more reliable, but both designs have redundancy built-in.
I don't like the outcome. I'd much prefer the people responsible be convicted of criminal charges.
However, consider this. It's widely believed that Johhny siphons gas out of people's cars. He does that a lot. He probably stole gas out of your car. I sue him. I don't know if -anyone- stole gas of my car, much less if Johnny did. Why should he have to pay ME? Shouldn't he have to pay back the people he stole from? And perhaps be prosecuted for theft?
This is a well-established and very reasonable legal principle. To sue someone for damages, you have to show that they harmed -you-. Just because they're a bad guy doesn't mean they can be sued by any random person who decides to sue them.
Given that reasonable bit of law, this case is a bit difficult. Wikipedia doesn't know if the NSA did anything to them. The NSA are bad guys and should go to jail, but it's questionable what Wikimedia has to do with it.
I buy dedicated, guaranteed bandwidth from more than one provider. The cost is around $20/Mbps, at the provider's POP. A line from my office to the POP is quite a bit more expensive.
Since at home I'm only using bandwidth 5% of the time, it would be silly to pay for it 100% of the time. It makes much more sense to share the cost with my neighbors , who also need it only occasionally. Remember on the web you're only using bandwidth while the page is loading, so if my neighbor spends an hour a day surfing the internet, they might be actually loading pages for ten minutes per day. If you're going use the pipe 10 minutes per day, why would you pay for it 24 hours a day? That would be silly. Sharing makes sense, big time. Sharing also means that occasionally multiple people will want to uee it at the same time. I'm fine with that since it's the sharing that makes my home connection $1/Mbps rather than the $20/Mbps I pay for dedicated.
Routing packets in the order the arrive makes it worse for EVERBODY, and makes very low bandwidth uses like ssh and voip more or less useless.
Streaming video (Netflix) requires a certain (high) BANDWIDTH to avoid repeated buffering. Any more than what it requires does little good, but it needs to transfer X MBs per minute in order to keep up. Latency and jitter do no matter at all for Netflix. It's purely MB per minute- packets can be delayed 200ms and it doesn't matter as long as they arrive before the buffer runs out.
Voip needs very, very little bandwidth- 64Kbps is enough. That's 1% of what video uses. But voip can't have high jitter (variation in latency). It also requires reasonable latency, but jitter is the main issue.
If you have Netflix and voip traffic going through the same router, it doesn't affect the video viewer AT ALL to have a 64 byte voip packet occasionally jump to the front of the queue if it's been waiting too long. Having the voip wait for three seconds of video -would- mean the call goes silent for three seconds. That would be stupid. Really stupid.
Ssh needs virtually zero bandwidth- bytes per second, 1/1,000th as much as video needs. Ssh doesn't care about jitter. But it DOES care very much about latency. When you try type "cat/etc/resolv.conf" it's really annoying to have delays between each character. But the ssh packets are tiny - just a few bytes, so they don't effect anyone else on the network. Again, leaving them waiting in line hurts the ssh user with absolutely no benefit to anyone - it's only damaging. Doing that would again be really dumb.
Suppose a provider has incompetent admins and does ruin ssh, voip, and other low-bandwidth highly interactive traffic by making those packets wait for high-bandwidth non-interactive traffic. People who care about interactive traffic will find that provider's service more or less unusable and switch. So here's a guy (like me) who was using less than 1kbps for ssh while paying the same $45 you pay while you use Netflix. The ISPs cost to service both of us is $70 ($10 for me and $60 for you). Guess what happens when the voip and ssh users leave for a different ISP? We're not there to subsidize your cost anymore, so your bill goes from $45 to $70.
To turn back to your road analogy, you may have noticed that in many places trucks aren't allowed in the left (fast) lane and in most places the left lane is for faster traffic only. If on one tollway all the cars had to line up behind the semis, while another road allowed them to go faster, which road do you think the cars would use? Once the trucks had to pay the full cost of the road by themselves, do you think their toll rates would go down or up? Would the trucks somehow benefit from making it illegal for a car to pass a truck?
> Can't be that bad, and it definitely will be brief.
A friend of mine stuck a gun in his mouth. Splattered across the wall was the part of his brain that controls muscle function. Now he's a prisoner of paralysis.
To anyone seriously thinking along these lines, that's a very permanent solution to a temporary problem. Remember in high school it was the end of the world when that girl or guy you liked went to the prom with someone else or whatever? Now, it doesn't seem to matter at all. Whatever today's problem is, whatever is the end of the world today, will seem almost as unimportant after a while.
This also isn't really a case of balancing the pros and cons. The justification is to allow private business to share information about emerging security threats. Just like Alert Logic's existing weekly threat report, which they manage to produce without any legislation or special protections from privacy laws: https://www.alertlogic.com/res...
There are of course many other companies and organizations already compiling and sharing information about emerging threats - no special laws required.
Slashdot Mirror
One can SET the table, have a SET of tools, or SET something down. These are unrelated meanings which happen to have the same spelling, mostly because English speakers prefer their words to be shorter than the Latin and Greek from which they derive.
PUSI-ll-animous is latin for cowardly. A long time ago it was brought into English as "pussy" (other origins are also possible, it was a long time ago).
Some time later, cat or pussy was separately used as slang for vagina.
Two unrelated meanings that happen to have the same spelling because pusillanimous is "too long; didn't say".
ESR didn't say "given enough eyeballs, no bugs exist."
He said they are -shallow-. "The fix will be obvious to someone". That is, you won't spend a month trying to to figure out exactly why foo sometimes conflicts with widget - with with several people looking at the source (not just the output of the binary), someone will more quickly see why foo conflicts with widget and how to fix it.
It looks like in this case it was about 48 hours or so to characterize the problem, agree on the proper fix, code it, test, patch the major public clouds, and release it publicly. Guessing that patching the public clouds took 24 hours, that's about 24 hours for understanding the problem, discussing it fixing it, and testing. Not bad. Here's a quote from CATB with the context of the "bugs are shallow" part:
---- ... if any serious bug proved intractable. Linus was behaving as though he believed something like this:
8. Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.
Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.
My original formulation was that every problem ``will be transparent to somebody''. Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it. ``Somebody finds the problem,'' he says, ``and somebody else understands it.
----
It's about bugs not being intractable - they aren't extremely hard to figure out, "the fix will be obvious to someone". That doesn't mean they never existed.
That's certainly true. Mars isn't in the top three priorities for NASA under the current administration. Mr. Bolden (the head of NASA), said these are the three things Obama asked him to do with NASA:
When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Obama] charged me with three things.
One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math;
he wanted me to expand our international relationships;
and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
Personally, when I vacationed in Jamaica I set the bootloader to default to Windows rather than a serious OS with anything important on it. That should take care of 99% of TSA employees making $12/hour, and front-line customs clerks. The people I dealt with were probably working at Taco Bell the month before, they weren't top-tier forensic scientists.
You hear about looting and crap like that happening in New York and California. Not really in the vast majority of the country, just the coasts. When is the last time you heard about looting and rioing in Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, or Kentucky?
Interestingly:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
It doesn't matter a bit who signs the pay check. What matters is who controls when, where, and how the work is done. Control is what matters under employment law.
If you contract with someone to have your house painted , they can hire helpers if they want to, they can use whatever tools they want, etc, and generally you pay for results- they get paid when the houee is painted. You don't care whether they work from 8AM to 3PM or noon to 8PM. The contract is "I pay $x,000, you get the house painted within 10 days."
If you have someone show up at 8:00, you hand them a roller, and tell them to start with the ceiling in the bedroom, and tell them to use the Scotch Blue tape, that's an employee.
I don't know about where you live, but here in Texas gas stations are starting people at $11/hour and the mortgage on my house is $626. In other words, a teenager can damn near buy a house if they simply _show_up_to_work_on_time. Just about anyone sit behind a cash register, so the whole "living on the streets with no food" thing - not if you show up.
Maybe the party for you actually is the particular flavor that's been running Texas for the last 20 years and you just didn't know it.
That's not what the head of NASA, Charles Bolden says. Mr. Bolden explains their top three priorities as:
When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Obama] charged me with three things.
One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math;
he wanted me to expand our international relationships;
and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good
My original post was about unions for highly skilled professionals, so I didn't get off-topic going into detail in my example. Later, it occurred to me that my example could give a misleading impression about why, in that example, I presented another proposed solution. It isn't just study.
Of course everyone is different and everyone does things differently.
I also took a big risk that could have hurt me. I was fresh into a new company and hadn't established a solid relationship with my boss. He gave me very specific, step-by-step directions for how they wanted me to do the task. After a half-day of following (and misunderstanding) the directions, I stopped and looked at the problem for the rest of the day and and most of the next day. I then went in and presented to my brand new boss and his boss why I thought "their" solution was suboptimal. Had my boss and his boss not been so gracious and willing to listen, that move could have damaged my career. Fortunately, my boss (and his) feel that since -they- hired me, if their hire contributes something that means they've done well. Of course there are other variables. My willingness to piss you off in order to accomplish your goals is just one of several things.
Unions assume that workers are more or less interchangeable. Everybody with the same paper qualifications does gets paid the same and they do approximately the same quality of work.
I study every week and I've been doing so for 30 years. Recently I joined a company. Several of their top people had planned a project to take a few months, with a lot of painstaking work. I looked at it for a day or two and demonstrated a way to get it done in weeks, not months, and more reliably by doing mechanical transformations in the database instead . My one day analyzing the problem and applying what I've learned saved the company perhaps $60,000. Because I study and figure out how to save a lot of money and and prevent a lot of problems, I earn twice as much as many of my peers do (who don't study constantly) .
I don't see any reason I'd want to give another half of my earnings to you. (I say "another half" because after payroll taxes, income taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, bpp taxes, etc I already give up half my income.)
> fossil carbon emissions would also shrink by 82-86% below their 2000 levels despite the assumed 2.58-fold bigger economy than in 2010.
So even if we assume EVERYTHING can be three times more efficient (good luck) AND we ignore the costs of trying to a accomplish that, STILL 15% of total energy can't come from renewables. And this is assuming renewable technology that doesn't actually exist, so it's really not an option right now, is it? Maybe it'll be available in 2050, but if we don't do anything until 2050 we'll be fucked by then. We need to act now. For that 15% (actually 85%) do you want fossil fuels or clean nuclear? Because those are the two choices. Maybe in 40 years we'll have other choices too.
>We have local monopolies and oligarchies, horrible service, and obscene prices.
Yep. Why? Section 622 of the Cable Communications Act of 1984 allows local governments to collect 5% of cable company revenue to the city (plus campaign contributions) in exchange for granting an exclusive monopoly in an area, disallowing competition. This is known as a franchise.
In some cases, such as New York (where this investigation is occurring), the franchise is carved up neighborhood by neighborhood. Time Warner pays a bribe^H^H^H^H^H fee to local politicians for their monopoly north of 86th street, Cablevision owns the Bronx via political decree. Here's the map from NYC.gov:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/...
Given the fact that the New York government created the monopolies and enforces them, I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to fix it. I don't expect that will happen until the CCA is amended to prevent state and local governments from granting monopolies in exchange for kickbacks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fees.
Perhaps you didn't note the asterisk in my post. Yes, redundant identical parts often increase overall system reliability (though they create new modes of failure - ie load balancers can have problems).
As I said the reactor designs BOTH incorporate redundancy, so that doesn't account for the difference in parts count. The newer design is truly _simpler_ with fewer interactions that can go wrong.
Argument? Still? Are you almost done arguing yet? Coal produces far more radiation than nuclear and far more CO2 than anything. Everybody pretty much agrees coal is the worst choice. So long as we continue arguing about how to stop using coal, we're largely stuck with coal until we decide. We've known this for a few decades, so I'd say it's about time we stop arguing and start doing the things we all know are better. Let me know when you're done with your mental masturbation and ready to get busy.
I had said "the odds you'll have a door fail". You gave the odds that you'll either have A door fail, or have TWO doors fail. :)
That's actually my favorite question in probability:
You enter two contests. You have a 1/10 chanfe of winning each contest. What is your overall chance of winning?
It sounds so simple, yet it's devilishly difficult to figure out if you don't already know the trick, that you have to instead figure out the overall odds of LOSING both.
Here are full details, with appropriate references, about the idea ending the reliance on fossil fuels in the US requires nuclear to be a significant part of the energy mix:
https://docs.google.com/docume...
The summary is that solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal can make an important contribution, providing a significant portion of our energy needs. A very significant portion cannot be solved by those four choices - for reliable, steady power in huge amounts the choices are fossil fuels or nuclear.
The other way around. Simpler is more reliable. Suppose that each year, 1 door of 1,000 fails. Your car has two doors, so the odds you'll have a door failure are 2/1000, or 1/500. My car has four doors, so the odds that one of mine will fail is 4/1,000, or 1/250.
It may be easier to see with more extreme numbers. Your car engine probably didn't fail this year. Dallas Texas has a couple million car engines. It's virtually certain that some failed.
More parts means more chances for failure. Perhaps more importantly, it means more connections and interactions between parts. More interactions means more opportunities for things to go wrong. To expand on that a bit more, more complex systems are also more difficult for engineers to fully understand, so not only are there more opportunities for the same types of failures, there's also a much higher likelihood of a potential failure scenario that wasn't predicted.
All in all, a fork is much more reliable than a computer, because simpler things with fewer parts are more reliable in many ways.
* Obviously -redundant- parts can make things more reliable, but both designs have redundancy built-in.
I don't like the outcome. I'd much prefer the people responsible be convicted of criminal charges.
However, consider this. It's widely believed that Johhny siphons gas out of people's cars. He does that a lot. He probably stole gas out of your car. I sue him. I don't know if -anyone- stole gas of my car, much less if Johnny did. Why should he have to pay ME? Shouldn't he have to pay back the people he stole from? And perhaps be prosecuted for theft?
This is a well-established and very reasonable legal principle. To sue someone for damages, you have to show that they harmed -you-. Just because they're a bad guy doesn't mean they can be sued by any random person who decides to sue them.
Given that reasonable bit of law, this case is a bit difficult. Wikipedia doesn't know if the NSA did anything to them. The NSA are bad guys and should go to jail, but it's questionable what Wikimedia has to do with it.
e.
I buy dedicated, guaranteed bandwidth from more than one provider. The cost is around $20/Mbps, at the provider's POP. A line from my office to the POP is quite a bit more expensive.
Since at home I'm only using bandwidth 5% of the time, it would be silly to pay for it 100% of the time. It makes much more sense to share the cost with my neighbors , who also need it only occasionally. Remember on the web you're only using bandwidth while the page is loading, so if my neighbor spends an hour a day surfing the internet, they might be actually loading pages for ten minutes per day. If you're going use the pipe 10 minutes per day, why would you pay for it 24 hours a day? That would be silly. Sharing makes sense, big time. Sharing also means that occasionally multiple people will want to uee it at the same time. I'm fine with that since it's the sharing that makes my home connection $1/Mbps rather than the $20/Mbps I pay for dedicated.
The Walmart app tells you not only which store has it in stock, but which aisle it's on.
Btw they dropped the hyphen from their name about 15 years ago.
This browser likes to make the on-screen keyboard disappear as I type, meaning the "submit" button is suddenly where the "d" key was 3ms earlier.
Along with your confusion about adjectives, how exactly does one spectate IN?
If you're going to lecture someone about proper English, please kindly use proper English to do so.
I've not heard of a sport which grades consumers. You probably meant consumer-grade sports. You also probably didn't mean to have the wor
Routing packets in the order the arrive makes it worse for EVERBODY, and makes very low bandwidth uses like ssh and voip more or less useless.
Streaming video (Netflix) requires a certain (high) BANDWIDTH to avoid repeated buffering. Any more than what it requires does little good, but it needs to transfer X MBs per minute in order to keep up. Latency and jitter do no matter at all for Netflix. It's purely MB per minute- packets can be delayed 200ms and it doesn't matter as long as they arrive before the buffer runs out.
Voip needs very, very little bandwidth- 64Kbps is enough. That's 1% of what video uses. But voip can't have high jitter (variation in latency). It also requires reasonable latency, but jitter is the main issue.
If you have Netflix and voip traffic going through the same router, it doesn't affect the video viewer AT ALL to have a 64 byte voip packet occasionally jump to the front of the queue if it's been waiting too long. Having the voip wait for three seconds of video -would- mean the call goes silent for three seconds. That would be stupid. Really stupid.
Ssh needs virtually zero bandwidth- bytes per second, 1/1,000th as much as video needs. Ssh doesn't care about jitter. But it DOES care very much about latency. When you try type "cat /etc/resolv.conf" it's really annoying to have delays between each character. But the ssh packets are tiny - just a few bytes, so they don't effect anyone else on the network. Again, leaving them waiting in line hurts the ssh user with absolutely no benefit to anyone - it's only damaging. Doing that would again be really dumb.
Suppose a provider has incompetent admins and does ruin ssh, voip, and other low-bandwidth highly interactive traffic by making those packets wait for high-bandwidth non-interactive traffic. People who care about interactive traffic will find that provider's service more or less unusable and switch. So here's a guy (like me) who was using less than 1kbps for ssh while paying the same $45 you pay while you use Netflix. The ISPs cost to service both of us is $70 ($10 for me and $60 for you). Guess what happens when the voip and ssh users leave for a different ISP? We're not there to subsidize your cost anymore, so your bill goes from $45 to $70.
To turn back to your road analogy, you may have noticed that in many places trucks aren't allowed in the left (fast) lane and in most places the left lane is for faster traffic only. If on one tollway all the cars had to line up behind the semis, while another road allowed them to go faster, which road do you think the cars would use? Once the trucks had to pay the full cost of the road by themselves, do you think their toll rates would go down or up? Would the trucks somehow benefit from making it illegal for a car to pass a truck?
> Can't be that bad, and it definitely will be brief.
A friend of mine stuck a gun in his mouth. Splattered across the wall was the part of his brain that controls muscle function. Now he's a prisoner of paralysis.
To anyone seriously thinking along these lines, that's a very permanent solution to a temporary problem. Remember in high school it was the end of the world when that girl or guy you liked went to the prom with someone else or whatever? Now, it doesn't seem to matter at all. Whatever today's problem is, whatever is the end of the world today, will seem almost as unimportant after a while.
This also isn't really a case of balancing the pros and cons. The justification is to allow private business to share information about emerging security threats. Just like Alert Logic's existing weekly threat report, which they manage to produce without any legislation or special protections from privacy laws:
https://www.alertlogic.com/res...
They also manage to do longer term analysis and share it, without revealing personal information:
https://www.alertlogic.com/res...
There are of course many other companies and organizations already compiling and sharing information about emerging threats - no special laws required.