Uh, are you unaware of where the root servers are currently?
Hint: They are all geographically dispersed. The root server assignments are dispersed, and each of them are mirrored and load balanced to a large number of actual machines all over the globe.
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 1
Where's that? I think maybe I need to relocate.
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 1
China setting up their own internet? Oh my goodness - no more spam from China, no more security probes, whatever shall we do?
That would be a disaster of the highest order. NOT.
I'm on Comcast and run Azureus 24/7. So far no bandwidth related complaints.
My download rates seldom get anywhere near 1Mbps, though, so I assume they are throttling. Nothing I have done (encryption, port changes, etc) has managed to improve this much.
I have gotten 2 DMCA notices, but none since I started running peerguardian 2 (and carefully selecting those torrents I seed).
I see no problem with taking a mixed approach - Fiber in the dense areas, and Wi-Fi in those less developed areas. As an area builds up, or if the demand dictates it, the capacity can be upgraded by adding more radios or selectively running fiber. It's not rocket science.
Until capitalizing on the innovation was deemed lucrative. Corporations don't exist to eat your children and pee in your milk. They exist to make money.
And of course the next step to that is if eating your children and pissing in your milk becomes profitable somehow, and the negative publicity/consequences is insufficient to deter them, then they will do exactly that. Corporations are indeed soulless - sooner or later.
You know what? Fuck you. I have had to work hard for everything I have, and I'm sure that applies to most of the people who come to slashdod. The people you are addressing couldn't be bothered to come here because they are living a life of leasure somewhere and the concerns of us proles are below their radar.
Ok, that said, the purpose of minimum wage has always escaped me. You work for whoever is going to pay you the most for your skills. If you don't have any skills, you sure as shit should be aware that getting some will mean being able to get a better paying job. And if you have skills you certainly should know that getting more in demand skills will get you paid even more.
And from an employer's side, why would you pay a subsistence wage to a skilled worker? It's just asking for someone else to come along and hire them away from you.
The dept of commerce only controls the root zone file, which is distributed nightly to the root name servers, which are located all over the world.
The only traffic that goes to the root name servers is from your ISP which most likely will cache it and deliver it to you without even querying the root servers.
Your data is then routed directly as possible to the destination.
You can use the tracert command to see what machines your data traverses. I guarantee the commerce dept of the US is not to be found in your tracert, unless you or your destination are in that office.
Probably not, that would look weird. But the fidelity and range would potentially improve most of todays media - via upscaling mostly. Assuming a better video processor than currently exists and massive bits per pixel that is. This type of TV's cost would be due more to the price of RAMs than to anything else.
Let's make one thing extremely clear here - when a company markets something called "internet access" and a consumer purchases said service, there is a certain expectation of service. If you are limited to outgoing connections to web addresses, then you don't have an "internet connection" , you have a "web browsing connection".
If they are marketing and selling one thing and delivering another, we have a problem, and that is why us techno geeks have pushed this definition. Not to force them to make all connections the same, but to be up front about it and not market and sell a limited connection as a full-on "internet connection."
For example, I have internet service through Comcast - you don't see them marketing this as a browse only internet connection, though that is in fact what it is. They restrict the use of servers to their "business class" service. So I don't really have a real "internet connection" unless I pay more money. Again, you aren't ever going to see them state that upfront in any presentations they make to the public.
Call it "truth in advertising" if you will. If they want to create different classes/speeds/whatever of internet service, they have to clearly differentiate them so people will know what they are getting. They need to be upfront and honest.
Irrespective of all that, if one takes the view that the fundamental unit of communication on the internet is the packet, then one can easily take the view that all these packets should be treated the same by all involved in their transport (ISPs and backbone folks). Call it an egalitarian viewpoint if you will that all packets are created equal. This is clearly not a POV these folks are willing to even discuss, because all their plans are based on being able to prioritize different types of traffic. Plans that are fundamentally grounded in the telco/cable mindset of establishing marketing differentialized direct connections from a source to a destination and, most importantly, charging more for them.
Everyone involved in this knows that the only reason one could make the case for charging users (or providers) more for this type of service is if it offers something above and beyond a stock internet connection. And since they can't sell long distance, or 800 lines or premium channels or pay-per-view the only thing that could possibly be is speed/priority. They aren't providing the content, just the connection - they have no other way to "add value" to the "consumer experience" beyond selling the base internet access. And they are SO jealous of all the money being made over "their pipes."
Everyone also knows that the experience of the folks implementing Internet2 is that the only reason for packet prioritization is if you are NOT going to upgrade your "tubes" to make more bandwidth available all around. And THAT my friends is the 2000 lb gorilla they WILL NOT talk about. If there is enough bandwidth there is no need for packet prioritization - beyond artificial marketing based ones, that is.
So do we have an internet whose structure is robust and determined by technical considerations or one that is a craven creature bowed and bent by marketing droids?
Slashdot Mirror
All complex microchips have one or more metal layers. Look it up.
Ugly, ugly, ugly
int allocstuff(void)
{
char *a = 0;
char *b = 0;
do
{
if (!(a = malloc(100)))
break;
if (!(b = malloc(100)))
break;
return 0;
} while(0);
if (b)
free(b);
if (a)
free(a);
return -1;
}
It seems to me that the simple fix would be to not allow the entry into the DNS servers until the "tasting" period has passed.
If the purpose is indeed to allow people to change their minds, fix mistakes, or whatever, then this would not in any way cause them problems.
If they want to live test, they can set the IP address in their local DNS. Hell, they can do that without even registering.
Uh, are you unaware of where the root servers are currently?
Hint: They are all geographically dispersed. The root server assignments are dispersed, and each of them are mirrored and load balanced to a large number of actual machines all over the globe.
Where's that? I think maybe I need to relocate.
China setting up their own internet? Oh my goodness - no more spam from China, no more security probes, whatever shall we do?
That would be a disaster of the highest order. NOT.
I ran FDISK and deleted the C drive.
Lol.
??????????
Someone forgot to take their meds?
I'm on Comcast and run Azureus 24/7. So far no bandwidth related complaints.
.02 cents! ^_^
My download rates seldom get anywhere near 1Mbps, though, so I assume they are throttling.
Nothing I have done (encryption, port changes, etc) has managed to improve this much.
I have gotten 2 DMCA notices, but none since I started running peerguardian 2 (and carefully selecting those torrents I seed).
Just my $.02 - yes, 2 cents, not
I see no problem with taking a mixed approach - Fiber in the dense areas, and Wi-Fi in those less developed areas. As an area builds up, or if the demand dictates it, the capacity can be upgraded by adding more radios or selectively running fiber. It's not rocket science.
Redirection at the DNS level? Can you say OpenDNS? I knew you could!
And of course the next step to that is if eating your children and pissing in your milk becomes profitable somehow, and the negative publicity/consequences is insufficient to deter them, then they will do exactly that. Corporations are indeed soulless - sooner or later.
No, actually the word IS "whinging", except they use it over in "Jolly-Olde-England" - you know, the cradle of our language?
http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/whinging
Don't be so provincial.
Sunofa...
I was 35 in line when they told us there were only 30 in store. #^$^%%*#^%
Wound up spending a cold night in front of the new Target in Bedford, but I did get ma Wii!!! ^_^
You know what? Fuck you. I have had to work hard for everything I have, and I'm sure that applies to most of the people who come to slashdod. The people you are addressing couldn't be bothered to come here because they are living a life of leasure somewhere and the concerns of us proles are below their radar.
Ok, that said, the purpose of minimum wage has always escaped me. You work for whoever is going to pay you the most for your skills. If you don't have any skills, you sure as shit should be aware that getting some will mean being able to get a better paying job. And if you have skills you certainly should know that getting more in demand skills will get you paid even more.
And from an employer's side, why would you pay a subsistence wage to a skilled worker? It's just asking for someone else to come along and hire them away from you.
AC, you aren't implying that there is a problem with the address allocation system, are you?
I am not aware of any real concerns in this area. Anyone else?
Man, so many clueless know-it-all's in this article.
:p
Makes it hard for those of us who really do know everything.
The dept of commerce only controls the root zone file, which is distributed nightly to the root name servers, which are located all over the world.
The only traffic that goes to the root name servers is from your ISP which most likely will cache it and deliver it to you without even querying the root servers.
Your data is then routed directly as possible to the destination.
You can use the tracert command to see what machines your data traverses. I guarantee the commerce dept of the US is not to be found in your tracert, unless you or your destination are in that office.
Moron.
It's times like this that I wish I had mod points!!!
doesn't make it wrong
Hey, you got a link to that???
Probably not, that would look weird.
But the fidelity and range would potentially improve most of todays media - via upscaling mostly.
Assuming a better video processor than currently exists and massive bits per pixel that is.
This type of TV's cost would be due more to the price of RAMs than to anything else.
Yes, that really is how the system works.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Let's make one thing extremely clear here - when a company markets something called "internet access" and a consumer purchases said service, there is a certain expectation of service. If you are limited to outgoing connections to web addresses, then you don't have an "internet connection" , you have a "web browsing connection".
If they are marketing and selling one thing and delivering another, we have a problem, and that is why us techno geeks have pushed this definition. Not to force them to make all connections the same, but to be up front about it and not market and sell a limited connection as a full-on "internet connection."
For example, I have internet service through Comcast - you don't see them marketing this as a browse only internet connection, though that is in fact what it is. They restrict the use of servers to their "business class" service. So I don't really have a real "internet connection" unless I pay more money. Again, you aren't ever going to see them state that upfront in any presentations they make to the public.
Call it "truth in advertising" if you will. If they want to create different classes/speeds/whatever of internet service, they have to clearly differentiate them so people will know what they are getting. They need to be upfront and honest.
Irrespective of all that, if one takes the view that the fundamental unit of communication on the internet is the packet, then one can easily take the view that all these packets should be treated the same by all involved in their transport (ISPs and backbone folks). Call it an egalitarian viewpoint if you will that all packets are created equal. This is clearly not a POV these folks are willing to even discuss, because all their plans are based on being able to prioritize different types of traffic. Plans that are fundamentally grounded in the telco/cable mindset of establishing marketing differentialized direct connections from a source to a destination and, most importantly, charging more for them.
Everyone involved in this knows that the only reason one could make the case for charging users (or providers) more for this type of service is if it offers something above and beyond a stock internet connection. And since they can't sell long distance, or 800 lines or premium channels or pay-per-view the only thing that could possibly be is speed/priority. They aren't providing the content, just the connection - they have no other way to "add value" to the "consumer experience" beyond selling the base internet access. And they are SO jealous of all the money being made over "their pipes."
Everyone also knows that the experience of the folks implementing Internet2 is that the only reason for packet prioritization is if you are NOT going to upgrade your "tubes" to make more bandwidth available all around. And THAT my friends is the 2000 lb gorilla they WILL NOT talk about. If there is enough bandwidth there is no need for packet prioritization - beyond artificial marketing based ones, that is.
So do we have an internet whose structure is robust and determined by technical considerations or one that is a craven creature bowed and bent by marketing droids?
Your choice!
The only thing your reference proves is that Nobel prize winners, like everyone else, are capable of self deception and unscientific thinking.