About the time I was born, Schwinn was THE brand of bicycles in the US. Every kid wanted a Schwinn. Part of that was marketing, part of it was their production expertise. Schwinn had a lot of "tricks of the trade" to make great bikes.
To cut costs, Schwinn made a deal with a company I Taiwan to actually manufacture the bikes. They sent their experts to Taiwan to teach the workers there how to do it. After the Taiwanese company started using those techniques to build and sell non-Schwinn bikes, Schwinn switched to a new, small company in China. Again their entire their experts to Asia to teach the workers there all the tricks and techniques.
The little Chinese company is now the world's largest manufacturer of bikes. Schwinn declared bankruptcy in 1992, and by the time I was 7 years old the bike to have was Diamondback - one of several brands produced and sold by the company in Taiwan.
Schwinn had taught the Asian manufacturers how to put Schwinn out of business.
American companies are still doing that. Apple has been very, very good to Foxconn, for example. Foxconn no longer needs Apple, or soon won't. They are now selling direct, using everything they learned from building Apple's products, and can cut Apple off any time they decide it's advantageous to do so.
TFS says: -- If Comcast throttles YouTube, then Alphabet can propose launching in a critical. --
Alternatively, YouTube could display that fact, honestly, with text such as: -- Comcast is degrading the quality of this video. To speak to Comcast about that, call them at Call (866) 828-4407
For full quality YouTube videos, you can switch to LocalISP.net --
Most of Comcast's customers use YouTube, so they'd get calls from a million customers within hours.
> When it's brought up folks say you shouldn't pick winners and losers. They might have a point about picking winners
If politicians weren't picking winners and losers, we wouldn't be focused NEARLY so much on solar-electric, which is about the fourth-best renewable energy source overall. We don't even use solar heating - a simple black tank sitting in the sun is pretty darn effective water heater nine months out of the year. Instead of cheap and effective solar energy, we're 100% focused on the complex and expensive way. That's just *solar*. Compare solar-electric with wind, battery storage with hydro. Our government policy, including billions in handouts of taxpayer money, over the last 15 years has been ridiculously on favor of solar-electric, practically ignoring better, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly options.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a powerful senator and vice president made hundreds of millions of dollars on solar electric. It's not at all related to the fact that the people funding the politicians, their donors, were also the ones getting billions of dollars from tax payers for putting a sign that said "solar panels" on an empty building that didn't ever produce solar panels.
You don't have to pick winners and losers in order to have a gradual transition to better technologies. *NOT* picking winners and losers would have done that.
Unfortunately, politicians discovered that calling your kickback slush fund "green energy" was very effective at keeping voters and others from asking why exactly the politician is handing a a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money to their friend and largest donor.
That's cool you saw right away (or knew) *both* ways to convert. When I pose that question, a couple of people have thought of sha(md5(P)), but everyone insists it's impossible to actually convert md5(P) to sha(P). The more they know about cryptography, the more certain they are that it's impossible.
That's the thing about security - just because something is mathematically impossible doesn't mean we can't do it, or an attacker can't do it. Heat death of the universe blah blah, a well-worded phone call beats fundamental physics most of the time.
We have several Fortune 50 customers, companies as big as Yahoo or bigger. Most of their security needs aren't that special. Securing a database isn't much different whether it has a 1,000 records or 100 million records. All the companies have their corporate email system, VPN, etc, that all need pretty much the same security treatment. The custom part is identifying the critical assets, a topic I shall return to shortly.
Several years ago, I owned a security company which specialized in serving VERY small web companies, 20 employees or fewer. For $250 we'd go through a checklist of basic, important things like making sure passwords were stored as a salted hash, not plaintext. If we found you were not using salted SHA-1 or better*, we had a simple solution. We had a little module that integrated with most popular software to use strong encryption. The cost was $35. To instead add our password hash function to your custom-written software, the cost would be closer to $70. We also had code to convert old, unsalted hashes to salted, or weak hashes to strong.** Another $35 for that.
That $250 checklist certainly didn't cover everything a company like Yahoo should do! It DID, however, cover "does your database use strong salted hashes for passwords?". It would have identified the problem that took down Yahoo, for $250. The cost to look at the password column was the same whether there are 200 users or 2 million users - either way we're just checking to see how the passwords are stored, which is generally going to be the same for all users. After $250 to find the problem with the most basic of security checks, our standard book rate to fix the problem Yahoo had, in the "deluxe", most expensive way, was $105. So $355 total to find and fix that most obvious problem. Of course since it's Yahoo and they would probably have a lot of bureaucracy to deal with maybe we'd charge them ten times as much, $3,550.
I'm totally serious, that's one of the 40 or so items we checked, for $250. Any of the 250,000 mom & mom web sites displaying "Security by Strongbox (tm)" has taken care of that, so they don't have the major, obvious security problem that was the Yahoo debacle.
* We'd now use something stronger. ** You might think it's impossible to convert salted MD5 hashes to SHA-256. I'll be impressed if you figure out the trick I used to do it.
Thinking about Yahoo's cost for security, vs fines and penalities, this fine is UK only. They had at least an $80 million class action settlement and $35 million fine in the US, and probably other penalties that I don't know offhand, then this $350K or whatever additional for the UK. If UK is fining them, I imagine other countries may as well. So the size of Yahoo as a whole shouldn't be compared to this one small part of the fines. The comparison would be: I'd they had spent $115 million (or whatever) on securing their operations generally, which are based in the US, how much EXTRA would securing their UK operations cost?
Most of their security needs would be served just fine by off-the-shelf solutions. Their Active Directory server needs to be secured the same way every other company needs to secure their Active Directory. Nothing special about Yahoo's VPN for travelling workers, it's a standard set of Cisco ASAs just like every other company. They need to turn off TLS 1.0 just like everyone else. They need to install the same OS security updates on all their servers and workstations just like everyone else. Whether their database has 40 million records or 4,000 records, the cost to check the security of the database server and the schema isn't much different. (We just have to check that all the servers in the cluster have the same configuration)..We have software that checks all these things. Given scale, it costs pennies per asset to scan them. My current company checks for over 100,000 different vulnerabilities, and a company with operations the size of Yahoo would cost a few thousand per month, if that much. (If you look at Yahoo's market c
Based on the higher end you suggested, I wonder if you've looked at some of the newer security solutions that have come out in the last few years. As certain types of security solutions have been scaled, companies like Alert Logic now offer solutions at perhaps 1% of what similar things would have cost a few years ago.
I really, really wonder how people who absolutely refuse to ever learn anything make it past first grade.
No, I don't have the customer tell me, via QOS bits, how to shape and police traffic. That does not mean our $100 billion network is nothing but a dumb cable.
Telling us how to shape traffic is not the customer's job.
The customer's job is to act like a complete asshat moron on the web. It is our network engineers who decide how we route, queue, police, and shape traffic. You REALLY really still think ISPs don't have network engineers? We in fact have extremely well paid, expert network engineers, and our network management is far, far beyond you setting QOS bits.
Of course, you can't accept that, because one day long ago you pictured the backbones as being simple cables. Since you got that picture in your head once, it HAS to be true, it must be perfectly accurate because you once imagined it. Changing your understanding, learning anything, would mean admitting your first guess was WRONG - that you weren't born knowing everything. Can't have that. So whatever you DID think when you were two years old must be correct!
This will really piss you off - you know that picture you had in your head of Santa Claus? That's not real either. You were wrong about Santa Claus AND about the backbone networks being really, really long CAT6 cables.
2. The person saw it or had it explained, but couldn't understand.
3. The person saw it, it didn't match the guess they had previously made, so they actively choose to remain ignorant, rejecting the plain facts put before them.
#1 is easily solved, a person can learn simply be looking up the relevant information.
#2 may require some remedial education, or different methods of learning, in order to understand.
#3 is doomed to live in everlasting ignorance.
Here you're having a conversation with me, and still insisting that my co-workers and I don't exist. That's pretty special.
PS, if you're sending all of your packets through the anti-jitter buffer, not distinguishing between different types of flows, you're Doing It Wrong. You wouldn't get past the interview here, but if you did, you'd get fired pretty quick treating all packets the same.
>Oh yea, and the #1 method used to reduce the jitter is the use of the playout delay buffer in the case of Cisco gear.
Omg! Wow! I'm going to have to tell all my colleagues about this because my employer has been paying us $3 million / year to NOT no about basic features that were pretty helpful a decade ago!
> Can the handlers have an influence on the dog? Absolutely. That is likely poor training of the handler, though.
Cop wants to search your car. The cop has been trained that if he says the dog alerted on your car, the court will allow the search. Cop says the dog alerted on your car, and gets to search it. That's totally successful as far as the cops are concerned.
The cops have no incentive to refrain from arbitrary searches.
HSN purchasers don't plan to resell the stuff within 30 days at a profit and use the proceeds to pay the credit card bill?*
If HSN had people spending thousands of dollars on commemorative Obama coins and 22% didn't pay the bill, I wouldn't be surprised if Wells Fargo noticed that and either put the screws to HSN via their merchant account, or banned payments to HSN.
To put it another way, yes you're right Bitcoin wastes a TON of energy and it's really, really bad for the environment. Wells Fargo doesn't care about that. Of course Bitcoin is used by criminals. Wells Fargo doesn't care, Wells Fargo is criminals. Wells isn't doing this for any reason but one - because they lose money on it.
Do you really think Wells Fargo's 10,000 accountants can't do basic arithmetic? Well Fargo makes money when people use their cards, then pay off the purchases, with interest. Wells Fargo WANTS people to use their cards, as much as possible. That's why they spend millions on marketing, to get people to use their cards.
If Wells Fargo doesn't want their cards uses for X, it's because they are losing money on X. This isn't a company that takes the moral high ground, ever.
Someone did an interesting experiment. They invited police dogs, with their handlers, to an experiment. There were drugs hidden in certain places in a room. The test was explained to the cops "we want to see if your dog finds the drugs hidden under the blue bowl". The dogs all reliably signaled on the blue bowl.
The drugs were, of course, under the red bowl. The dog/handlers reliably signaled where the handler wanted them to, and not where the drugs were.
That's not to say there aren't a FEW dogs and handlers who are very good. The majority of them completely fail basic tests.
I can see why you might think so. In fact, we have entire TEAMS of network engineers constantly working to improve how different packets are queued and routed in order to match their needs bandwidth, latency, packet loss, and jitter. Some of our routers have a dozen different queues.
Your local router can do very little about any of those. You have no control of which queues I put any of your packets in. You could have a SMALL amount of control with certain large contracts, but it's clear those are way beyond the scope of your experience. For your little home connection, you, via your local router, can only manage the tradeoffs of bandwidth, loss, jitter, and latency that occurs on your own home network - which is an insignificant part of it 95% of what can be done, we do, on the carrier network.
Please don't keep saying our jobs don't exist - it only makes you look really stupid to keep saying that after you've been informed otherwise.
That makes perfect sense to me. They still have free speech. Just a little registration form and a small fee. Very similar to how the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms is handled in some US states. Registration and fees don't count as "shall not be infringed", right? That's what Hillary said, anyway.
You do understand it's Wells Fargo that's paying for the Bitcoins, right? Also 22% of the time, they never get paid back.
> Image Wells Fargo prohibiting purchases of Girl Scout Cookies, or changes to grocery stores that Wells Fargo doesn't own.
Yes, imagine if I could only use my Lowe's credit card at Lowe's, and not at Home Depot. Or if my Sears card could only be used at Sears, not at Dillard's.
If 22% of TV purchasers defaulted, leaving Wells Fargo to pay the bill, you bet your ass Wells Fargo would stop paying for TVs.
The problem is people think they can later resell the Bitcoins in order to pay back Wells Fargo, so they buy more than they can afford to pay back from the paycheck. When Bitcoin prices drop to half of what they were a few months earlier, people can't pay the bill. People don't buy TVs with the thought they can resell it later and thereby pay off the debt.
I've spent literally years studying traffic prioritization and queueing, in order to earn multiple certifications on the topic, including two from Cisco. For Cisco alone, I studied over 4,000 pages of material, because the topic is THAT complex.
Here's a very, very basic gist of the problem:
For VoIP, you have one major parameter you care about - jitter. You must have the lowest possible jitter, so that when you say "hello Bob", the listener doesn't hear "ob lloheb". Bandwidth isn't a concern, 64Kbps is plenty. Latency needs to be reasonable, but isn't as important as jitter. Reasonable packet loss is okay, and delayed packets must NOT be re-sent late.
For Netflix, only bandwidth matters, and you want a lot.of it. You don't care at all about jitter, or about latency, because it's going to be buffered a few seconds anyway. 1000ms latency is just fine.
Email or general web browsing has a different set of parameters you want. Delayed or lost packets MUST be sent, no matter how late, and no matter how many retries up to the window.
The definition of a "good" connection for Netflix is the precise opposite of the "good" for VoIP. I may route the two across entirely different paths. A high bandwidth, long and congested route with large queues is perfect for your Netflix viewing. A low-bandwidth route with small buffers and queues is needed for your VoIP. If I treated your VoIP packets as if they were Netflix, your call would be mostly unintelligible.
If your old enough, you may remember old news broadcasts where the correspondent was on location and there was a three-second delay between when the anchor asked a question and the correspondent in the field started to answer. The anchor would repeat back the answer because it was often somewhat garbled. The correspondent and the anchor were trained to anticipate the three-second delay and not talk over each other. That's what you get when you send voice packets without the special handling we use now.
MV = PQ is called The Equation of Exchange. Exchange, not existence. Q is the amount of stuff PURCHASED in a given year or quarter, not the amount of stuff that EXISTS.
So it's not "all the things in the world", but rather "all the things that were bought and sold today".
Slashdot Mirror
About the time I was born, Schwinn was THE brand of bicycles in the US. Every kid wanted a Schwinn. Part of that was marketing, part of it was their production expertise. Schwinn had a lot of "tricks of the trade" to make great bikes.
To cut costs, Schwinn made a deal with a company I Taiwan to actually manufacture the bikes. They sent their experts to Taiwan to teach the workers there how to do it. After the Taiwanese company started using those techniques to build and sell non-Schwinn bikes, Schwinn switched to a new, small company in China. Again their entire their experts to Asia to teach the workers there all the tricks and techniques.
The little Chinese company is now the world's largest manufacturer of bikes. Schwinn declared bankruptcy in 1992, and by the time I was 7 years old the bike to have was Diamondback - one of several brands produced and sold by the company in Taiwan.
Schwinn had taught the Asian manufacturers how to put Schwinn out of business.
American companies are still doing that. Apple has been very, very good to Foxconn, for example. Foxconn no longer needs Apple, or soon won't. They are now selling direct, using everything they learned from building Apple's products, and can cut Apple off any time they decide it's advantageous to do so.
TFS says:
--
If Comcast throttles YouTube, then Alphabet can propose launching in a critical.
--
Alternatively, YouTube could display that fact, honestly, with text such as:
--
Comcast is degrading the quality of this video.
To speak to Comcast about that, call them at Call (866) 828-4407
For full quality YouTube videos, you can switch to LocalISP.net
--
Most of Comcast's customers use YouTube, so they'd get calls from a million customers within hours.
> When it's brought up folks say you shouldn't pick winners and losers. They might have a point about picking winners
If politicians weren't picking winners and losers, we wouldn't be focused NEARLY so much on solar-electric, which is about the fourth-best renewable energy source overall. We don't even use solar heating - a simple black tank sitting in the sun is pretty darn effective water heater nine months out of the year. Instead of cheap and effective solar energy, we're 100% focused on the complex and expensive way. That's just *solar*. Compare solar-electric with wind, battery storage with hydro. Our government policy, including billions in handouts of taxpayer money, over the last 15 years has been ridiculously on favor of solar-electric, practically ignoring better, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly options.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a powerful senator and vice president made hundreds of millions of dollars on solar electric. It's not at all related to the fact that the people funding the politicians, their donors, were also the ones getting billions of dollars from tax payers for putting a sign that said "solar panels" on an empty building that didn't ever produce solar panels.
You don't have to pick winners and losers in order to have a gradual transition to better technologies. *NOT* picking winners and losers would have done that.
Unfortunately, politicians discovered that calling your kickback slush fund "green energy" was very effective at keeping voters and others from asking why exactly the politician is handing a a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money to their friend and largest donor.
That's cool you saw right away (or knew) *both* ways to convert. When I pose that question, a couple of people have thought of sha(md5(P)), but everyone insists it's impossible to actually convert md5(P) to sha(P). The more they know about cryptography, the more certain they are that it's impossible.
That's the thing about security - just because something is mathematically impossible doesn't mean we can't do it, or an attacker can't do it. Heat death of the universe blah blah, a well-worded phone call beats fundamental physics most of the time.
We have several Fortune 50 customers, companies as big as Yahoo or bigger. Most of their security needs aren't that special. Securing a database isn't much different whether it has a 1,000 records or 100 million records. All the companies have their corporate email system, VPN, etc, that all need pretty much the same security treatment. The custom part is identifying the critical assets, a topic I shall return to shortly.
Several years ago, I owned a security company which specialized in serving VERY small web companies, 20 employees or fewer. For $250 we'd go through a checklist of basic, important things like making sure passwords were stored as a salted hash, not plaintext. If we found you were not using salted SHA-1 or better*, we had a simple solution. We had a little module that integrated with most popular software to use strong encryption. The cost was $35. To instead add our password hash function to your custom-written software, the cost would be closer to $70. We also had code to convert old, unsalted hashes to salted, or weak hashes to strong.** Another $35 for that.
That $250 checklist certainly didn't cover everything a company like Yahoo should do! It DID, however, cover "does your database use strong salted hashes for passwords?". It would have identified the problem that took down Yahoo, for $250. The cost to look at the password column was the same whether there are 200 users or 2 million users - either way we're just checking to see how the passwords are stored, which is generally going to be the same for all users. After $250 to find the problem with the most basic of security checks, our standard book rate to fix the problem Yahoo had, in the "deluxe", most expensive way, was $105. So $355 total to find and fix that most obvious problem. Of course since it's Yahoo and they would probably have a lot of bureaucracy to deal with maybe we'd charge them ten times as much, $3,550.
I'm totally serious, that's one of the 40 or so items we checked, for $250. Any of the 250,000 mom & mom web sites displaying "Security by Strongbox (tm)" has taken care of that, so they don't have the major, obvious security problem that was the Yahoo debacle.
* We'd now use something stronger.
** You might think it's impossible to convert salted MD5 hashes to SHA-256. I'll be impressed if you figure out the trick I used to do it.
Thinking about Yahoo's cost for security, vs fines and penalities, this fine is UK only. They had at least an $80 million class action settlement and $35 million fine in the US, and probably other penalties that I don't know offhand, then this $350K or whatever additional for the UK. If UK is fining them, I imagine other countries may as well. So the size of Yahoo as a whole shouldn't be compared to this one small part of the fines. The comparison would be:
I'd they had spent $115 million (or whatever) on securing their operations generally, which are based in the US, how much EXTRA would securing their UK operations cost?
Most of their security needs would be served just fine by off-the-shelf solutions. Their Active Directory server needs to be secured the same way every other company needs to secure their Active Directory. Nothing special about Yahoo's VPN for travelling workers, it's a standard set of Cisco ASAs just like every other company. They need to turn off TLS 1.0 just like everyone else. They need to install the same OS security updates on all their servers and workstations just like everyone else. Whether their database has 40 million records or 4,000 records, the cost to check the security of the database server and the schema isn't much different. (We just have to check that all the servers in the cluster have the same configuration)..We have software that checks all these things. Given scale, it costs pennies per asset to scan them. My current company checks for over 100,000 different vulnerabilities, and a company with operations the size of Yahoo would cost a few thousand per month, if that much. (If you look at Yahoo's market c
Based on the higher end you suggested, I wonder if you've looked at some of the newer security solutions that have come out in the last few years. As certain types of security solutions have been scaled, companies like Alert Logic now offer solutions at perhaps 1% of what similar things would have cost a few years ago.
I really, really wonder how people who absolutely refuse to ever learn anything make it past first grade.
No, I don't have the customer tell me, via QOS bits, how to shape and police traffic. That does not mean our $100 billion network is nothing but a dumb cable.
Telling us how to shape traffic is not the customer's job.
The customer's job is to act like a complete asshat moron on the web. It is our network engineers who decide how we route, queue, police, and shape traffic. You REALLY really still think ISPs don't have network engineers? We in fact have extremely well paid, expert network engineers, and our network management is far, far beyond you setting QOS bits.
Of course, you can't accept that, because one day long ago you pictured the backbones as being simple cables. Since you got that picture in your head once, it HAS to be true, it must be perfectly accurate because you once imagined it. Changing your understanding, learning anything, would mean admitting your first guess was WRONG - that you weren't born knowing everything. Can't have that. So whatever you DID think when you were two years old must be correct!
This will really piss you off - you know that picture you had in your head of Santa Claus? That's not real either. You were wrong about Santa Claus AND about the backbone networks being really, really long CAT6 cables.
There are three categories of knowing something;
1. The person hasn't heard / seen it, ignorance.
2. The person saw it or had it explained, but couldn't understand.
3. The person saw it, it didn't match the guess they had previously made, so they actively choose to remain ignorant, rejecting the plain facts put before them.
#1 is easily solved, a person can learn simply be looking up the relevant information.
#2 may require some remedial education, or different methods of learning, in order to understand.
#3 is doomed to live in everlasting ignorance.
Here you're having a conversation with me, and still insisting that my co-workers and I don't exist. That's pretty special.
PS, if you're sending all of your packets through the anti-jitter buffer, not distinguishing between different types of flows, you're Doing It Wrong. You wouldn't get past the interview here, but if you did, you'd get fired pretty quick treating all packets the same.
>Oh yea, and the #1 method used to reduce the jitter is the use of the playout delay buffer in the case of Cisco gear.
Omg! Wow! I'm going to have to tell all my colleagues about this because my employer has been paying us $3 million / year to NOT no about basic features that were pretty helpful a decade ago!
> Can the handlers have an influence on the dog? Absolutely. That is likely poor training of the handler, though.
Cop wants to search your car. The cop has been trained that if he says the dog alerted on your car, the court will allow the search. Cop says the dog alerted on your car, and gets to search it. That's totally successful as far as the cops are concerned.
The cops have no incentive to refrain from arbitrary searches.
Here's an article:
http://bigthink.com/neurobonke...
About this similar study:
https://link.springer.com/arti...
I'm sure you can find more with about 60 seconds on Google.
HSN purchasers don't plan to resell the stuff within 30 days at a profit and use the proceeds to pay the credit card bill?*
If HSN had people spending thousands of dollars on commemorative Obama coins and 22% didn't pay the bill, I wouldn't be surprised if Wells Fargo noticed that and either put the screws to HSN via their merchant account, or banned payments to HSN.
* We are talking about Obama fans, so who knows.
To put it another way, yes you're right Bitcoin wastes a TON of energy and it's really, really bad for the environment. Wells Fargo doesn't care about that. Of course Bitcoin is used by criminals. Wells Fargo doesn't care, Wells Fargo is criminals. Wells isn't doing this for any reason but one - because they lose money on it.
I didn't say it's immoral for them to not lose money on cryptocurrency.
I said the REASON they don't want to buy cryptocurrency is because they lose money that way, not because they have some moralistic reason.
Is that the code used by a lot of meth users, or just that one?
Do you really think Wells Fargo's 10,000 accountants can't do basic arithmetic? Well Fargo makes money when people use their cards, then pay off the purchases, with interest. Wells Fargo WANTS people to use their cards, as much as possible. That's why they spend millions on marketing, to get people to use their cards.
If Wells Fargo doesn't want their cards uses for X, it's because they are losing money on X. This isn't a company that takes the moral high ground, ever.
That is indeed a claim. It'll be interesting to see how a judge or jury decides after looking at the evidence.
Someone did an interesting experiment. They invited police dogs, with their handlers, to an experiment. There were drugs hidden in certain places in a room. The test was explained to the cops "we want to see if your dog finds the drugs hidden under the blue bowl". The dogs all reliably signaled on the blue bowl.
The drugs were, of course, under the red bowl. The dog /handlers reliably signaled where the handler wanted them to, and not where the drugs were.
That's not to say there aren't a FEW dogs and handlers who are very good. The majority of them completely fail basic tests.
I can see why you might think so. In fact, we have entire TEAMS of network engineers constantly working to improve how different packets are queued and routed in order to match their needs bandwidth, latency, packet loss, and jitter. Some of our routers have a dozen different queues.
Your local router can do very little about any of those. You have no control of which queues I put any of your packets in. You could have a SMALL amount of control with certain large contracts, but it's clear those are way beyond the scope of your experience. For your little home connection, you, via your local router, can only manage the tradeoffs of bandwidth, loss, jitter, and latency that occurs on your own home network - which is an insignificant part of it 95% of what can be done, we do, on the carrier network.
Please don't keep saying our jobs don't exist - it only makes you look really stupid to keep saying that after you've been informed otherwise.
That makes perfect sense to me. They still have free speech. Just a little registration form and a small fee.
Very similar to how the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms is handled in some US states. Registration and fees don't count as "shall not be infringed", right? That's what Hillary said, anyway.
You do understand it's Wells Fargo that's paying for the Bitcoins, right? Also 22% of the time, they never get paid back.
> Image Wells Fargo prohibiting purchases of Girl Scout Cookies, or changes to grocery stores that Wells Fargo doesn't own.
Yes, imagine if I could only use my Lowe's credit card at Lowe's, and not at Home Depot. Or if my Sears card could only be used at Sears, not at Dillard's.
If 22% of TV purchasers defaulted, leaving Wells Fargo to pay the bill, you bet your ass Wells Fargo would stop paying for TVs.
The problem is people think they can later resell the Bitcoins in order to pay back Wells Fargo, so they buy more than they can afford to pay back from the paycheck. When Bitcoin prices drop to half of what they were a few months earlier, people can't pay the bill. People don't buy TVs with the thought they can resell it later and thereby pay off the debt.
I've spent literally years studying traffic prioritization and queueing, in order to earn multiple certifications on the topic, including two from Cisco. For Cisco alone, I studied over 4,000 pages of material, because the topic is THAT complex.
Here's a very, very basic gist of the problem:
For VoIP, you have one major parameter you care about - jitter. You must have the lowest possible jitter, so that when you say "hello Bob", the listener doesn't hear "ob lloheb". Bandwidth isn't a concern, 64Kbps is plenty. Latency needs to be reasonable, but isn't as important as jitter. Reasonable packet loss is okay, and delayed packets must NOT be re-sent late.
For Netflix, only bandwidth matters, and you want a lot.of it. You don't care at all about jitter, or about latency, because it's going to be buffered a few seconds anyway. 1000ms latency is just fine.
Email or general web browsing has a different set of parameters you want. Delayed or lost packets MUST be sent, no matter how late, and no matter how many retries up to the window.
The definition of a "good" connection for Netflix is the precise opposite of the "good" for VoIP. I may route the two across entirely different paths. A high bandwidth, long and congested route with large queues is perfect for your Netflix viewing. A low-bandwidth route with small buffers and queues is needed for your VoIP. If I treated your VoIP packets as if they were Netflix, your call would be mostly unintelligible.
If your old enough, you may remember old news broadcasts where the correspondent was on location and there was a three-second delay between when the anchor asked a question and the correspondent in the field started to answer. The anchor would repeat back the answer because it was often somewhat garbled. The correspondent and the anchor were trained to anticipate the three-second delay and not talk over each other. That's what you get when you send voice packets without the special handling we use now.
MV = PQ is called The Equation of Exchange. Exchange, not existence. Q is the amount of stuff PURCHASED in a given year or quarter, not the amount of stuff that EXISTS.
So it's not "all the things in the world", but rather "all the things that were bought and sold today".