There is closed hardware in networking. Any monkey can do that. They are glorified old PC's and all their value is in the software anyway. Hell there is no such thing as a "hardware networking appliance". Those only exist in the imagination of people that think learning to configure an IP stack is a somehow complex ordeal.
Some more than a hundred billion dollars beg to disagree with your statement there, sir. As for your final question, I propose as an answer "Who cares?". Nobody cares about intrinsic built-in trust of a civilised society. All they want is profit to have as many bitches sucking on their dicks and their kids dicks. Human lifespan is short and the rich are accutely aware of this. This is why they take what they can when they can.
You seem to believe someone out there in industryland cares even a little bit about the rest of society and their future: good luck with that.
Okay, point granted on rural access, but I think you miss the important part. WE pay for access. WE have a contract for speed delivered. ISPs make deals or charge for access and interconections: the value of their bussiness is the bandwidth.
I dont give a flying fuck if Mary McBrotherFuck up in the Kentucky mountains cant see House of Cards because she doesnt have the bandwidth: if she wants more bandwidth so much, then she should pay for it or move to civilization. I pay for bandwidth, netflix pays for bandwidth. Why in the world would they, or us, have to pay for 'heavyer content' like high resolution video? If the video rate is more than my bandwith, then I cant see it instantly. Period. If I want to see it instantly, then I should pay more and thus, the incentive of the ISP is merely mantaining infrastructure and its growth: a low margin bussiness it is, but a huge profit cow in the long run.
Why in the world should I, or netflix, pay more than our bandwith usage? Because ISPs, on the one hand, FAILED in the projection of bandwidth demand and thus heavyer content eats into their projected profits. On the other, because ISPs are also cable companies, and to them the cable bussiness, which is clearly a content-control racket, is more profitable than a flat internet.
And this is what is in front of us: the 'channelization' of internet content. They want it to be like cable tv.
Well yeah. But if this was the case, then the buyers are to blame: if they were going to wing it, they would have been way, way better hiring opensource consultants and an open source database and then get to coding like hell and even open source their whole op. If the case is that the state didnt purchase a fire and forget project, then they are as stupid as the oracle salesmen is a ghoul.
A word for 'buyers': if you are going to go macho on a thing like this, you cant be a little bitch and buy oracle. You go at it like a man and actually learn to code.
I believe you, but i think youd agree that arround that, lies the problem. Its not an easy problem, but I dont think liberally charging whomever is to blame for extra demand than planned is a good solution either. Thats why I say '*or* be agressively and intelligently modified is the oversubscription model'. Hey, if we all have to pay for the extra demand, then we should: be transparent and fair about it and maybe it can be handled.
And yeah, maybe some small ISP's can't handle the increase in demand and yeah I feel shitty for thiking this, but hey, the market is obviously different than what the current model can handle.
How about you guys actually plan for your infrastructure to meet demand and charge accordingly. What needs to go, or be aggressively and intelligently modified is the oversubscription model.
Its not appropriate: bytes arent cars. Bytes are bytes, 8 bits the last time I checked, and they dont 'damage' anything. For example, ISP's promise to the customer 1mbit on delivery, and they charge for it. Netflix's ISPs (they are probably many and/or all of them) promises, for example, 1tbits/s and charges for it. If there is enough infrastructure to comply with the promise, then why would you need to charge any of your good customers anything?
Thats the thing: its called oversuscription. They NEVER have the infrastructure to actually give all that bandwidth to everyone that pays them. It used to be you only had 30% of the absolute full use of your network. I dont know now, but that used to be the number back in the day (it worked fine with phonelines for example). That model, now that demand of bandwidth is growing much faster than they expected, needs to change. Simply, they didnt expect that people would actually demand, en masse, what they bought. And now they want us to pay for it and we will, because somebody has to and it sure as fuck isnt going to be them.
This is pure FUD: nothing can "generate" "humnoungous" quantities of bitcoin on demand. The coins got stolen or didnt, but nothing was "generated" in a faster pace than it can be generated by whatever mining farm they had in gox.
Why do you think nothing of value is being created? Work is work and LSD doesnt make nor distribute itself. I only wish it did. Goods that are bought and sold in bitcoin arent "nothing". That it is now in a speculative bubble only confirms the fact that well, all money is subject to that posibility. The cool thing about bitcoin is that nobody saves anyone from bad investments, nobody forces anyone to use it, nobody prints more to finance idiotic projects that give no value back but instead cost the next generation their credit.
I like the damned thing. I only wish the whole fucking world would switch to something like it.
So we build a computer that perfectly does vector-style intelligence, one that perfectly does bitmap-style intelligence, and then we force them to mate... or just build a perfect computer and kick it in the head when it cries: that'l teach it to be human for sure.
I propose, en the other (third) hand, that reliably educating humans to be smart should be the first step. We will only do the artificial intelligence bit when we actually get the human intelligence angle.... and that will not, for sure, happen any time soon.
Totally agree, but I should note that it happens the exact same thing in the private sector. Ive seen salesmen threatening customers to with dropping support for, say, the ERP, if they did not push a competitor out in an altogether unrelated section of the business like hardware, OS or even collaboration tools.
Oracle has a well earned reputation for being a company of assholes from the utter top to the lowest bottom (okay, i should probably exclude the cleaning staff): it shows in their sales but, worse, it shows in their service.
Ive worked with several fortune 500 companies that got into Oracle's Black Hole of DEATH. Classic propietary setup, even if you are purchasing open source service and expertiese. They do have the toughest salesmen youve ever seen since Saint Paul, ill grant them that, and the technology is not necesarily FUBAR. Much of it is FOSS or has a FOSS equivalent and it is standard's compliant if the end customer demands it (and they do: we have won that battle at least). And some of it is supperb, but not without plenty possible substitutes.
The problem with oracle is their ABISMAL service. My customers had (I quit this job fairly recently as an infrastructure expert after 14 years) multimillion, multiyear dollar contracts with them and still they pushed to sell more and more elements of their infrastructure products (even the fucking OS: some traded RHEL for Oracle's clone against our recomendation) toughly leveraging their products running critical bussiness applications to the point of threatening to suspend support for the apps if the client did not buy this or that other shitty thing.
I dont even mind the tough salesmanship. Bussiness is bussiness and salesmen will do their worst if they are any good at their job. In the end its very simple: oracle does not even try to build a decent channel and in my experience, does not have the staff to take care of their customers like they deserve (since, i mean, they paid). I wouldnt recomend them for anything else than the foss version of mysql but then there is mariadb....
Slashdot Mirror
I dont see a place for analysts and architects. Well. Architects that design buildings maybe. But not in software.
And i have never, ever met a competent Project Manager that boasts the title.
Just my 10 bits.
There is closed hardware in networking. Any monkey can do that. They are glorified old PC's and all their value is in the software anyway. Hell there is no such thing as a "hardware networking appliance". Those only exist in the imagination of people that think learning to configure an IP stack is a somehow complex ordeal.
Oh for fucks sake.
The greatest ireland gave to the world is the best artists and scientists that shat on the face of the idea of race.
I have not a hair of irish, and i can see this. Why cant you?
....was eager to know... :/
Of course. By now, they dont need cookies: they have all the data they need already through simple transparent snort and span ports.... man oh man....
Some more than a hundred billion dollars beg to disagree with your statement there, sir. As for your final question, I propose as an answer "Who cares?". Nobody cares about intrinsic built-in trust of a civilised society. All they want is profit to have as many bitches sucking on their dicks and their kids dicks. Human lifespan is short and the rich are accutely aware of this. This is why they take what they can when they can.
You seem to believe someone out there in industryland cares even a little bit about the rest of society and their future: good luck with that.
Okay, point granted on rural access, but I think you miss the important part. WE pay for access. WE have a contract for speed delivered. ISPs make deals or charge for access and interconections: the value of their bussiness is the bandwidth.
I dont give a flying fuck if Mary McBrotherFuck up in the Kentucky mountains cant see House of Cards because she doesnt have the bandwidth: if she wants more bandwidth so much, then she should pay for it or move to civilization. I pay for bandwidth, netflix pays for bandwidth. Why in the world would they, or us, have to pay for 'heavyer content' like high resolution video? If the video rate is more than my bandwith, then I cant see it instantly. Period. If I want to see it instantly, then I should pay more and thus, the incentive of the ISP is merely mantaining infrastructure and its growth: a low margin bussiness it is, but a huge profit cow in the long run.
Why in the world should I, or netflix, pay more than our bandwith usage? Because ISPs, on the one hand, FAILED in the projection of bandwidth demand and thus heavyer content eats into their projected profits. On the other, because ISPs are also cable companies, and to them the cable bussiness, which is clearly a content-control racket, is more profitable than a flat internet.
And this is what is in front of us: the 'channelization' of internet content. They want it to be like cable tv.
Well yeah. But if this was the case, then the buyers are to blame: if they were going to wing it, they would have been way, way better hiring opensource consultants and an open source database and then get to coding like hell and even open source their whole op. If the case is that the state didnt purchase a fire and forget project, then they are as stupid as the oracle salesmen is a ghoul.
A word for 'buyers': if you are going to go macho on a thing like this, you cant be a little bitch and buy oracle. You go at it like a man and actually learn to code.
Why you trollin? Everything is flammable.
Whats the recoil on this thing?
I believe you, but i think youd agree that arround that, lies the problem. Its not an easy problem, but I dont think liberally charging whomever is to blame for extra demand than planned is a good solution either. Thats why I say '*or* be agressively and intelligently modified is the oversubscription model'. Hey, if we all have to pay for the extra demand, then we should: be transparent and fair about it and maybe it can be handled.
And yeah, maybe some small ISP's can't handle the increase in demand and yeah I feel shitty for thiking this, but hey, the market is obviously different than what the current model can handle.
How about you guys actually plan for your infrastructure to meet demand and charge accordingly. What needs to go, or be aggressively and intelligently modified is the oversubscription model.
Your low ID attests to your wisdom, oh elder of the internet. It cannot be said any better (or in a shorter sentence for that matter).
Its not appropriate: bytes arent cars. Bytes are bytes, 8 bits the last time I checked, and they dont 'damage' anything. For example, ISP's promise to the customer 1mbit on delivery, and they charge for it. Netflix's ISPs (they are probably many and/or all of them) promises, for example, 1tbits/s and charges for it. If there is enough infrastructure to comply with the promise, then why would you need to charge any of your good customers anything?
Thats the thing: its called oversuscription. They NEVER have the infrastructure to actually give all that bandwidth to everyone that pays them. It used to be you only had 30% of the absolute full use of your network. I dont know now, but that used to be the number back in the day (it worked fine with phonelines for example). That model, now that demand of bandwidth is growing much faster than they expected, needs to change. Simply, they didnt expect that people would actually demand, en masse, what they bought. And now they want us to pay for it and we will, because somebody has to and it sure as fuck isnt going to be them.
YES!: really man, are there ANY hackers left on slashdot?
All languages share that characteristic, you insensitive clod.
I have one word for your feeble heart, infidel: Cthulhu.
This is pure FUD: nothing can "generate" "humnoungous" quantities of bitcoin on demand. The coins got stolen or didnt, but nothing was "generated" in a faster pace than it can be generated by whatever mining farm they had in gox.
Why do you think nothing of value is being created? Work is work and LSD doesnt make nor distribute itself. I only wish it did. Goods that are bought and sold in bitcoin arent "nothing". That it is now in a speculative bubble only confirms the fact that well, all money is subject to that posibility. The cool thing about bitcoin is that nobody saves anyone from bad investments, nobody forces anyone to use it, nobody prints more to finance idiotic projects that give no value back but instead cost the next generation their credit.
I like the damned thing. I only wish the whole fucking world would switch to something like it.
So we build a computer that perfectly does vector-style intelligence, one that perfectly does bitmap-style intelligence, and then we force them to mate... or just build a perfect computer and kick it in the head when it cries: that'l teach it to be human for sure.
Well then, eat it bro.
I propose, en the other (third) hand, that reliably educating humans to be smart should be the first step. We will only do the artificial intelligence bit when we actually get the human intelligence angle.... and that will not, for sure, happen any time soon.
Totally agree, but I should note that it happens the exact same thing in the private sector. Ive seen salesmen threatening customers to with dropping support for, say, the ERP, if they did not push a competitor out in an altogether unrelated section of the business like hardware, OS or even collaboration tools.
Oracle has a well earned reputation for being a company of assholes from the utter top to the lowest bottom (okay, i should probably exclude the cleaning staff): it shows in their sales but, worse, it shows in their service.
Marijuana unpleasant due to excess?
I think you need to try again, sir.
Ive worked with several fortune 500 companies that got into Oracle's Black Hole of DEATH. Classic propietary setup, even if you are purchasing open source service and expertiese. They do have the toughest salesmen youve ever seen since Saint Paul, ill grant them that, and the technology is not necesarily FUBAR. Much of it is FOSS or has a FOSS equivalent and it is standard's compliant if the end customer demands it (and they do: we have won that battle at least). And some of it is supperb, but not without plenty possible substitutes.
The problem with oracle is their ABISMAL service. My customers had (I quit this job fairly recently as an infrastructure expert after 14 years) multimillion, multiyear dollar contracts with them and still they pushed to sell more and more elements of their infrastructure products (even the fucking OS: some traded RHEL for Oracle's clone against our recomendation) toughly leveraging their products running critical bussiness applications to the point of threatening to suspend support for the apps if the client did not buy this or that other shitty thing.
I dont even mind the tough salesmanship. Bussiness is bussiness and salesmen will do their worst if they are any good at their job. In the end its very simple: oracle does not even try to build a decent channel and in my experience, does not have the staff to take care of their customers like they deserve (since, i mean, they paid). I wouldnt recomend them for anything else than the foss version of mysql but then there is mariadb....