No, they are right and you are wrong. The work has a copyright. If you accept the terms of the license, then you are allowed to use the work within the terms of the license. If, on the other hand, you do not accept the terms of the license then you are not allowed to use the code. If you do so without license then it is copyright infringement.
This just goes to show that our power grid is way too complicated and under maintained. How on earth could cutting a wire in New York City shutdown the power grid in our nations capitol? You would think this wire would have been guarded 24/7 by Homeland Security but no, they still seem to believe in "Security Through Obscurity". This makes you wonder what other vulnerable wires are hidden throughout the system. There is a wire that comes in one side of my basement and goes out the other side. Probes show that it is live but I have never investigated where it comes from or where it goes. Perhaps cutting it will cut off the NYC power grid...
Even if you roll your own using a WRAP board or some such thing, last I checked you can't get a weather proof AP with all three channels and antennas for less than $1,000. That doesn't count labor.
I agree with points 1, 2, and 3, however, you need to do a little work on "It is insanely trivial to put up one small dish and allow 22 apartments all connect a dish reciever to that one dish and get dish network or Direct TV on their own subscriptions".
Please provide a block diagram of the multi switches required to do this, along with an estimate of your rf loss on 22 connections.
"Any request that an e-mail be withdrawn should state in the subject space "PLEASE WITHDRAW E-MAIL," and should include in the body of the request the e-mail address under which your e-mail was submitted"
If only I had a list of all the email addresses used to submit to this form...
I run the network for a small ISP in Maryland that bought my even smaller ISP a few years ago. The reason that I started an ISP was because service was just not available at a reasonable price. If the regulations that exist today had existed five years ago, I never would have signed up my first customer. Each new regulation imposes yet another burden uppon new entrants to the market. CALEA anyone?
Unless you have a really old DSLAM, there is no way that you are going to hit the backplane limitation in b/s. Packets per second is possible but unlikely. Now the feed to your DSLAM could easily be slammed but thats another question.
At least for me, the majority of the cost is not getting the bandwidth to me, it is getting the bandwith to the end user. The cost in the rack isn't that much more for 1000Mb/s then for 100Mb/s because, for the most part, the line is there and can cary 1000Mb/s. I already paid to have the fiber pulled and still have spare pairs. If I had a feed in place to your house that could carry 1000Mb/s but you were only buying 100Mb/s then your increase in price would only need to cover my minimal bandwidth increase and a percentage of the price for a couple of new 7600s as my beasts would die under that kind of load X $n subs. (I would also need to pull some more fiber down Pratt Street and we might just be buying all the Bandwidth in Baltimore if we sold them all 1000Mb/s). The issue of course is that the lines to the end user, and all the equipment in between, can't support that kind of load. At every step along the way, someone would have to pay to increase the capacity and that cost is going to be passed on to the end user.
As to advertising. I have seen ads that I thought were deceptive but for the most part there has been an indication that the bandwidth was "Up To" or print indicating that speeds were not guaranteed. The only providers advertising "unlimited" bandwidth, at least that I have seen in the last 10 years, are the cell phone companies selling 3G. Perhaps here you have a point.
Its an ad. It tells you the good things about the product. The car can go 0-60 in 3 seconds. The food is good. The beer will make sexy women like you. (Might break if you try to do it all day long) (Might make you fat) (You might only think that there sexy)
The whole internet is shared bandwidth. Advertising should give you an idea of how much of that bandwidth you should expect to get, and perhaps an idea of how much it should cost you. Your contract with your provider should explain what you are getting, what you are paying, and anything the ISP should expect from you such as limitations on types of traffic. If the ad says unlimited and the contract says limited to X GB/Mo then I would argue that it is deceptive because it is never unlimited for anyone. On the other hand, If the ad says 6Mb/s and the contract says that speeds may vary, it could go either way. If none of there 6Mb customers ever get 6Mb, then it is deceptive. If most of their customers can hit 6Mb most of the time, then its not deceptive.
First, I agree that it is dishonest to SELL a connection speed that is impossible to ever achieve. To Advertise it, however, may or may not be dishonest. There are areas where I could easily install a 10Mb/s connection and other areas where I would have a hard time pushing 500k. If someone calls from an area where we know the infrastructure will only support a 500Kb/s connection, but we sell them the the 3Mb/s connection that we advertised then it would be dishonest. When you push an ad, you would have to take out pages to describe all the potential pitfalls of the connection.
This internet may cause Nausea or Vomiting. Do not take internet with other forms of comunication or while drinking. Do not attempt to operate internet while operating heavy machinery or while driving. In some studies, addiction to internet has been correlated with prolonged use. Do not use internet for more then four hours per day or for more then one week without breaks. This internet is not suitable for all people or connection needs. If you are using AOL, or believe that your computer came with "The Internet", this internet is not for you. Consult you IT tech before using the internets or beginning any new internet activity.
Lets say that somehow we could create an industry standard for QOS and assign a number to it. Off of the top of my head, it would need to include: 1) Maximum transfer rate 2) Average transfer rate 3) Minimum transfer rate 4) Minimum Latency 5) Average Latency 6) Maximum Latency 7) Minimum Jitter 8) Average Jitter 9) Maximum Jitter 10) Average Uptime
For any point on a network, to any other point on a network there are vast differences in all of the above mentioned "quality indicators". This can change depending on the number of users online, what routes you have and at what times, what part of the internet you are trying to get to... The list goes on and on. I couldn't come up with a quality number for my own connection to the point where my traffic passes to one of my upstream providers let alone a number to put in an advertisement. The only number I might consided reasonable would be a required oversubscription ratio in any ad mentioning speed. Even then it would be next to impossible to be at all accurate. Over subscription for what part of the network? At my gateways to other parts of the internet? Can I add all my connections together even though BGP does not load balance? Can I subtract something because X% of my traffic stays on my network and is just going from one customer on my network to another. Seems like I would just be adding another meaningless number and another piece of crap legislation like CALEA... We know that there is no standard for this, and that the details of how to do it have not yet been worked out yet, but that's no reason why you can't be compliant. Please certify by yesterday that you will be compliant my next month... Yes, of course my quality number is seven... What does all this crap mean? Tubes? My tube ratio?
I don't know if there is an answer, or if there even has to be an answer. If you advertise blatantly false claims, and sell customers something that they are not getting, then existing laws should apply. I have always fought with marketing about making reasonable claims but I just can't take the side of someone who knows that they are buying a residential account, with all the accompanied restrictions, and then complains that they are not getting what they are paying for when they know full well that it is not the product that they were buying.
Although, to a point, I am also a little irritated at how shared bandwidth is marketed, you know damned well, without having to read the fine print, that you are buying shared bandwidth, if you are paying less then $100 per Mb/s per month. All this crap about ISPs selling best effort bandwidth drives me batty. If we all refused to sell shared bandwidth and made you pay for that 5/1, You would be paying $600 - $1000 per month for the connection and bitching up a storm about it. If we sold it to ten people and they each payed $60 - $100 per month, you would be bitching that it was oversold. One way or another, someone needs to pay for the connection. The market has come up with multiple ways to buy bandwidth. Chose what you are willing to pay for.
Back to the topic. Disaster, Bird Flu or whatever, the first thing to go on my network is best effort bandwidth. If needed, I will throttle it back to ISDN speeds before I even think about touching an SLA account.
In fact, the bug was written by an out-sourced company in Taiwan. Did you try contacting them? Obviously Nvidia isn't the right company to contact... No wait, this just in. The bit of code was actually written by Michael Huang, a temp who works for a contracting firm. Please send him a letter describing your problem.
Next week on Slashdot.
I sent Michael Huang a detailed letter describing my problem and he shredded it without responding. Is this any way to treat the customers of your clients customers customer?
It is a good thing, but in the eyes of many slashdotters and geeks anything MS does is wrong. Word's restrictions can only mean good things for security. So this boils down to MS being smarter about security and people finding a problem with that.
This post, on a page full of slashdot rants against html in email, makes no sense. Although non would come out and say it here, most have argued that Microsoft is doing the right thing here.
P.S
Now I get to add my own rant. I have no problem with html in my email, it makes it quite easy to filter. match
<HTML>
or
<html>
and I never see it. Makes work so much easier as I don't have to deal with anyone who sends html formated messages.
P.P.S
As to the original topic. "Imagine for a second that the new version of IE7 killed off the majority of CSS support and only allowed table based layouts. The web design world would be up in arms! Well, that's exactly what the new version of Outlook does to email designers."
The reason the web design world would be up in arms is that css is a standard for web page layout. HTML is not a standard for email and thus, we don't give a s**t.
Latency is pretty horrible, and is usually at least 45 ms. The network is often subject to jitter and occasionally packets arriving out of order, which causes problems for voice
Packets ariving out of order is jitter... Unless perhaps jitter means something else in the wired world.
Reality: There are PTP applications that can hit 30 miles. Users will never be on a point to point link as it would take one AP per subscriber. For mobile applications, you are looking at a range of about two miles with six access points creating a 360 degree cluster. Assuming we get half of the theoretical 75 megabits per second, we have ~35 Mb/s per AP and 225 Mb/s per cluster.
Sometimes my cable connection could get slow in my house, with my other roomates using it, and thats an 8 Mbps connection, wired.
First, I would like to remind you that it is highly unlikely that you have an 8Mbps connection. It is more likely that your connection maxes out at 8Mbps and is best effort. It is also likely that you are maxing out your upload queue which is making your connection appear slow. Lets compare your connection to our theoretical connection above.
Comcast or other cable provider. Up to 1000 subscribers per node with 100 Mbps per node. (This is limited by Comcasts backhaul. Bandwidth on the coax is shared)
Theoretical WiMax deployment: Up to 1536 (6X256) Subscribers per node with 225 Mbps per node (Most likely limited to less by the backhaul. Bandwidth per AP is shared) (It is unlikely that they will pull this many subs in a 15 sq mile node.
I am not in favor of a manditory.xxx domain, but I do believe that it is appropriate and would be used. Can you provide justification as to why it is a bad idea (TM)?.
WTF is a "home page" and who decides what page is the "home page"? Heres my 1000 pages of whatever and one page that says "click here to enter".
If the proposed bill is anything like the description in the article, then it shows that the drafters of said bill have no fucking idea what they are doing or what the internet is but rather view a "site" as something like a teevee channel. If they actually gave a shit about the content that young children are exposed to, then they would push for a.xxx domain name. Don't want XXX? filter it out.
"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.
Guess what. We allready have laws about child exploitation and child pornography. Drop the red herring, stop the sensational bullshit, and work on the problem in a rational manner.//rant
and since they have no proof that you are doing anything illegal in the first place (well it may seem weird that a person reads 1.2 gbytes of news daily and receives 3.2gbytes of email, but it's not illegal) there's no legal reason to limit the bandwidth that the client has paid for.
Limiting a users use of bandwidth is not about legal or illegal, it is about giving users the bandwidth they have paid for. If you pay for dedicated bandwidth, then there is no reason to filter or shape your traffic except to limit it to the set ammount of bandwidth that you paid for. The problem is that residential users will pay for shared, best effort bandwidth but then try to use dedicated bandwidth at full capacity all day long. When this happens, I will shape their traffic. There just isn't any other way to make the business work.
I don't care what your traffic is, I can still figure out that you are using considerably more then you are paying for and start to throttle your connection. It all comes down to the cost of bandwidth. If you are using a 1536/512 connection all day every day and paying me $25 a month for the connection, I am losing money which is why I will sell you that 1536/512 connection under terms that allow me to throttle your connection after you have moved X traffic in Y days. Assume 100 users uploading 512k all the time while averaging 512 down on their 1536 connection. That's ~50 Megs up and 50 down which costs me $2800 per month and I get one hell of a deal on bandwidth. I am now faced with moving that bandwidth to the customer, supporting the customer, running servers, paying for rooftop and tower leases, etc @ $3 per cust. It just wont work so I am either going to have to charge all my customers more, throttle customers who use too much bandwidth, or charge the customers who want more bandwidth more. If you would like an SLA for dedicated bandwidth, it will cost you ~$250 per month for that 1536/512 connection. (I don't actually sell 1536/512 dedicated but will sell 1536/1536 for $300). If you can find a better deal somewhere else and want to close your account, it's fine by me. I was losing money selling you bandwidth anyway.
The router broadcasted its presence and indicated that it was an open connection. Here I am, to talk to me use "Whatever SSID". This is an open invitation to anyone. Nowhere on this site did I see an invitation to browse through the files on the web server, however, the server is sending me files that I request so I assume I am allowed to access the files.
If a blade is NOT moving relative (I assume this is what mu=1 is about) to the air, then there is not lift (correct?). This is correct.
What if the blade is moving BACKWARDS relative to the air at that particular point in the rotation? Wouldn't that provide negative lift, thus throwing the vehicle off balance? A point on the blade that is moving backwards wouldn't create substantial negitive lift as the airifoil is pointing in the other direction. It would however become unstable and need to be dampened somehow. A solution would be to have the blades tilt during the rotation along the long axis of the individual blade (acting like a wing in a plane). This would have to be adjusted based on air speed and rotation speed (among other things), but I can see how it would work. This is how any helicopter works. Flight controls are hooked to the lower side of a swashplate which is essentially a big bearing. the top of the bearing rotates with the rotor head and is hooked to each blade using pitch change (PC) links. When the colective is pulled up, the bearing is pushed up evenly, increasing pitch in all the blades. when the cyclic stick is moved forward, the swashplate is tilted forwards, increasing pitch on the blades as they move through the aft position. Similarly, moving the cyclic to the right tilts the bearing to the right, increasing the pitch on the left and decreasing pitch on the right.
This aircraft has wings for lift at high speed so the problem is not lift but rather the the blades on the retreating side becoming unstable. What they have done is to ballance out the rotor head to some degree so that whatever happens on the left is repaeted on the right. ie. I pull down on the left blade and the right blade also moves down. This sems a little odd to me because I am used to working with rotor heads that work in a reverse fassion. ie. if i pull down a blade on the right side, the blade on the left side should rise... perhaps this is also what they are doing and I mis-read the faq.
mu is not about propulsion but rather about lift on the retreating blade side. The whole discussion about swiming has nothing to do with the reality of the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they are right and you are wrong. The work has a copyright. If you accept the terms of the license, then you are allowed to use the work within the terms of the license. If, on the other hand, you do not accept the terms of the license then you are not allowed to use the code. If you do so without license then it is copyright infringement.
This just goes to show that our power grid is way too complicated and under maintained. How on earth could cutting a wire in New York City shutdown the power grid in our nations capitol? You would think this wire would have been guarded 24/7 by Homeland Security but no, they still seem to believe in "Security Through Obscurity". This makes you wonder what other vulnerable wires are hidden throughout the system. There is a wire that comes in one side of my basement and goes out the other side. Probes show that it is live but I have never investigated where it comes from or where it goes. Perhaps cutting it will cut off the NYC power grid...
Even if you roll your own using a WRAP board or some such thing, last I checked you can't get a weather proof AP with all three channels and antennas for less than $1,000. That doesn't count labor.
Quad radio: $530
http://www.deliberant.com/estore/web/pc-1183-31-lgo4agn-80211abg-quad-radio.aspx
3ea 120 degree sectors ~$180
http://www.wisp-router.com/wri/itemdesc.asp?ic=SA24-120-9&eq=&Tp=
Plenty of spare cash in the budget for Cables, POE etc.
Now I will admit that these are not the best antennas, but it can be done.
I agree with points 1, 2, and 3, however, you need to do a little work on "It is insanely trivial to put up one small dish and allow 22 apartments all connect a dish reciever to that one dish and get dish network or Direct TV on their own subscriptions".
Please provide a block diagram of the multi switches required to do this, along with an estimate of your rf loss on 22 connections.
If the dish is on property under your exclusive control, ie your deck, then they can suck it. Otherwise you need permission to install.
"Any request that an e-mail be withdrawn should state in the subject space "PLEASE WITHDRAW E-MAIL," and should include in the body of the request the e-mail address under which your e-mail was submitted"
If only I had a list of all the email addresses used to submit to this form...
Does not exist.
CP
I run the network for a small ISP in Maryland that bought my even smaller ISP a few years ago. The reason that I started an ISP was because service was just not available at a reasonable price. If the regulations that exist today had existed five years ago, I never would have signed up my first customer. Each new regulation imposes yet another burden uppon new entrants to the market. CALEA anyone?
A $connection is only point to point as far as $ptp_termination. Beyond there, your onto shared $X terminating at a shared internet.
Unless you have a really old DSLAM, there is no way that you are going to hit the backplane limitation in b/s. Packets per second is possible but unlikely. Now the feed to your DSLAM could easily be slammed but thats another question.
At least for me, the majority of the cost is not getting the bandwidth to me, it is getting the bandwith to the end user. The cost in the rack isn't that much more for 1000Mb/s then for 100Mb/s because, for the most part, the line is there and can cary 1000Mb/s. I already paid to have the fiber pulled and still have spare pairs. If I had a feed in place to your house that could carry 1000Mb/s but you were only buying 100Mb/s then your increase in price would only need to cover my minimal bandwidth increase and a percentage of the price for a couple of new 7600s as my beasts would die under that kind of load X $n subs. (I would also need to pull some more fiber down Pratt Street and we might just be buying all the Bandwidth in Baltimore if we sold them all 1000Mb/s). The issue of course is that the lines to the end user, and all the equipment in between, can't support that kind of load. At every step along the way, someone would have to pay to increase the capacity and that cost is going to be passed on to the end user.
As to advertising.
I have seen ads that I thought were deceptive but for the most part there has been an indication that the bandwidth was "Up To" or print indicating that speeds were not guaranteed. The only providers advertising "unlimited" bandwidth, at least that I have seen in the last 10 years, are the cell phone companies selling 3G. Perhaps here you have a point.
Its an ad. It tells you the good things about the product. The car can go 0-60 in 3 seconds. The food is good. The beer will make sexy women like you. (Might break if you try to do it all day long) (Might make you fat) (You might only think that there sexy)
The whole internet is shared bandwidth. Advertising should give you an idea of how much of that bandwidth you should expect to get, and perhaps an idea of how much it should cost you. Your contract with your provider should explain what you are getting, what you are paying, and anything the ISP should expect from you such as limitations on types of traffic. If the ad says unlimited and the contract says limited to X GB/Mo then I would argue that it is deceptive because it is never unlimited for anyone. On the other hand, If the ad says 6Mb/s and the contract says that speeds may vary, it could go either way. If none of there 6Mb customers ever get 6Mb, then it is deceptive. If most of their customers can hit 6Mb most of the time, then its not deceptive.
First, I agree that it is dishonest to SELL a connection speed that is impossible to ever achieve. To Advertise it, however, may or may not be dishonest. There are areas where I could easily install a 10Mb/s connection and other areas where I would have a hard time pushing 500k. If someone calls from an area where we know the infrastructure will only support a 500Kb/s connection, but we sell them the the 3Mb/s connection that we advertised then it would be dishonest. When you push an ad, you would have to take out pages to describe all the potential pitfalls of the connection.
This internet may cause Nausea or Vomiting. Do not take internet with other forms of comunication or while drinking. Do not attempt to operate internet while operating heavy machinery or while driving. In some studies, addiction to internet has been correlated with prolonged use. Do not use internet for more then four hours per day or for more then one week without breaks. This internet is not suitable for all people or connection needs. If you are using AOL, or believe that your computer came with "The Internet", this internet is not for you. Consult you IT tech before using the internets or beginning any new internet activity.
Lets say that somehow we could create an industry standard for QOS and assign a number to it. Off of the top of my head, it would need to include:
1) Maximum transfer rate
2) Average transfer rate
3) Minimum transfer rate
4) Minimum Latency
5) Average Latency
6) Maximum Latency
7) Minimum Jitter
8) Average Jitter
9) Maximum Jitter
10) Average Uptime
For any point on a network, to any other point on a network there are vast differences in all of the above mentioned "quality indicators". This can change depending on the number of users online, what routes you have and at what times, what part of the internet you are trying to get to... The list goes on and on. I couldn't come up with a quality number for my own connection to the point where my traffic passes to one of my upstream providers let alone a number to put in an advertisement. The only number I might consided reasonable would be a required oversubscription ratio in any ad mentioning speed. Even then it would be next to impossible to be at all accurate. Over subscription for what part of the network? At my gateways to other parts of the internet? Can I add all my connections together even though BGP does not load balance? Can I subtract something because X% of my traffic stays on my network and is just going from one customer on my network to another. Seems like I would just be adding another meaningless number and another piece of crap legislation like CALEA... We know that there is no standard for this, and that the details of how to do it have not yet been worked out yet, but that's no reason why you can't be compliant. Please certify by yesterday that you will be compliant my next month... Yes, of course my quality number is seven... What does all this crap mean? Tubes? My tube ratio?
I don't know if there is an answer, or if there even has to be an answer. If you advertise blatantly false claims, and sell customers something that they are not getting, then existing laws should apply. I have always fought with marketing about making reasonable claims but I just can't take the side of someone who knows that they are buying a residential account, with all the accompanied restrictions, and then complains that they are not getting what they are paying for when they know full well that it is not the product that they were buying.
P.S.
Thats a best effort 7
Although, to a point, I am also a little irritated at how shared bandwidth is marketed, you know damned well, without having to read the fine print, that you are buying shared bandwidth, if you are paying less then $100 per Mb/s per month. All this crap about ISPs selling best effort bandwidth drives me batty. If we all refused to sell shared bandwidth and made you pay for that 5/1, You would be paying $600 - $1000 per month for the connection and bitching up a storm about it. If we sold it to ten people and they each payed $60 - $100 per month, you would be bitching that it was oversold. One way or another, someone needs to pay for the connection. The market has come up with multiple ways to buy bandwidth. Chose what you are willing to pay for.
Back to the topic.
Disaster, Bird Flu or whatever, the first thing to go on my network is best effort bandwidth. If needed, I will throttle it back to ISDN speeds before I even think about touching an SLA account.
In fact, the bug was written by an out-sourced company in Taiwan. Did you try contacting them? Obviously Nvidia isn't the right company to contact... No wait, this just in. The bit of code was actually written by Michael Huang, a temp who works for a contracting firm. Please send him a letter describing your problem.
Next week on Slashdot.
I sent Michael Huang a detailed letter describing my problem and he shredded it without responding. Is this any way to treat the customers of your clients customers customer?
This post, on a page full of slashdot rants against html in email, makes no sense. Although non would come out and say it here, most have argued that Microsoft is doing the right thing here.
P.S
Now I get to add my own rant.
I have no problem with html in my email, it makes it quite easy to filter. match or and I never see it. Makes work so much easier as I don't have to deal with anyone who sends html formated messages.
P.P.S
As to the original topic. "Imagine for a second that the new version of IE7 killed off the majority of CSS support and only allowed table based layouts. The web design world would be up in arms! Well, that's exactly what the new version of Outlook does to email designers."
The reason the web design world would be up in arms is that css is a standard for web page layout. HTML is not a standard for email and thus, we don't give a s**t.
Latency is pretty horrible, and is usually at least 45 ms. The network is often subject to jitter and occasionally packets arriving out of order, which causes problems for voice
Packets ariving out of order is jitter... Unless perhaps jitter means something else in the wired world.
For a coverage range of 30 miles (You)
has a range of up to 30 miles (TFA)
Reality: There are PTP applications that can hit 30 miles. Users will never be on a point to point link as it would take one AP per subscriber. For mobile applications, you are looking at a range of about two miles with six access points creating a 360 degree cluster. Assuming we get half of the theoretical 75 megabits per second, we have ~35 Mb/s per AP and 225 Mb/s per cluster.
Sometimes my cable connection could get slow in my house, with my other roomates using it, and thats an 8 Mbps connection, wired.
First, I would like to remind you that it is highly unlikely that you have an 8Mbps connection. It is more likely that your connection maxes out at 8Mbps and is best effort. It is also likely that you are maxing out your upload queue which is making your connection appear slow. Lets compare your connection to our theoretical connection above.
Comcast or other cable provider.
Up to 1000 subscribers per node with 100 Mbps per node.
(This is limited by Comcasts backhaul. Bandwidth on the coax is shared)
Theoretical WiMax deployment:
Up to 1536 (6X256) Subscribers per node with 225 Mbps per node
(Most likely limited to less by the backhaul. Bandwidth per AP is shared)
(It is unlikely that they will pull this many subs in a 15 sq mile node.
I am not in favor of a manditory .xxx domain, but I do believe that it is appropriate and would be used. Can you provide justification as to why it is a bad idea (TM)?.
WTF is a "home page" and who decides what page is the "home page"? Heres my 1000 pages of whatever and one page that says "click here to enter".
.xxx domain name. Don't want XXX? filter it out.
//rant
If the proposed bill is anything like the description in the article, then it shows that the drafters of said bill have no fucking idea what they are doing or what the internet is but rather view a "site" as something like a teevee channel. If they actually gave a shit about the content that young children are exposed to, then they would push for a
"I hope that Congress will take up this legislation promptly," said Gonzales, who gave a speech about child exploitation and the Internet to the federally funded National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed law is called the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.
Guess what. We allready have laws about child exploitation and child pornography. Drop the red herring, stop the sensational bullshit, and work on the problem in a rational manner.
and since they have no proof that you are doing anything illegal in the first place (well it may seem weird that a person reads 1.2 gbytes of news daily and receives 3.2gbytes of email, but it's not illegal) there's no legal reason to limit the bandwidth that the client has paid for.
Limiting a users use of bandwidth is not about legal or illegal, it is about giving users the bandwidth they have paid for. If you pay for dedicated bandwidth, then there is no reason to filter or shape your traffic except to limit it to the set ammount of bandwidth that you paid for. The problem is that residential users will pay for shared, best effort bandwidth but then try to use dedicated bandwidth at full capacity all day long. When this happens, I will shape their traffic. There just isn't any other way to make the business work.
I don't care what your traffic is, I can still figure out that you are using considerably more then you are paying for and start to throttle your connection. It all comes down to the cost of bandwidth. If you are using a 1536/512 connection all day every day and paying me $25 a month for the connection, I am losing money which is why I will sell you that 1536/512 connection under terms that allow me to throttle your connection after you have moved X traffic in Y days.
Assume 100 users uploading 512k all the time while averaging 512 down on their 1536 connection. That's ~50 Megs up and 50 down which costs me $2800 per month and I get one hell of a deal on bandwidth. I am now faced with moving that bandwidth to the customer, supporting the customer, running servers, paying for rooftop and tower leases, etc @ $3 per cust. It just wont work so I am either going to have to charge all my customers more, throttle customers who use too much bandwidth, or charge the customers who want more bandwidth more. If you would like an SLA for dedicated bandwidth, it will cost you ~$250 per month for that 1536/512 connection. (I don't actually sell 1536/512 dedicated but will sell 1536/1536 for $300). If you can find a better deal somewhere else and want to close your account, it's fine by me. I was losing money selling you bandwidth anyway.
Perhaps the Bush administration will take a different stand, but I don't think the FCC carries too much weight in Canada.
The router broadcasted its presence and indicated that it was an open connection. Here I am, to talk to me use "Whatever SSID". This is an open invitation to anyone. Nowhere on this site did I see an invitation to browse through the files on the web server, however, the server is sending me files that I request so I assume I am allowed to access the files.
If a blade is NOT moving relative (I assume this is what mu=1 is about) to the air, then there is not lift (correct?).
This is correct.
What if the blade is moving BACKWARDS relative to the air at that particular point in the rotation? Wouldn't that provide negative lift, thus throwing the vehicle off balance?
A point on the blade that is moving backwards wouldn't create substantial negitive lift as the airifoil is pointing in the other direction. It would however become unstable and need to be dampened somehow.
A solution would be to have the blades tilt during the rotation along the long axis of the individual blade (acting like a wing in a plane). This would have to be adjusted based on air speed and rotation speed (among other things), but I can see how it would work.
This is how any helicopter works. Flight controls are hooked to the lower side of a swashplate which is essentially a big bearing. the top of the bearing rotates with the rotor head and is hooked to each blade using pitch change (PC) links. When the colective is pulled up, the bearing is pushed up evenly, increasing pitch in all the blades. when the cyclic stick is moved forward, the swashplate is tilted forwards, increasing pitch on the blades as they move through the aft position. Similarly, moving the cyclic to the right tilts the bearing to the right, increasing the pitch on the left and decreasing pitch on the right.
This aircraft has wings for lift at high speed so the problem is not lift but rather the the blades on the retreating side becoming unstable. What they have done is to ballance out the rotor head to some degree so that whatever happens on the left is repaeted on the right. ie. I pull down on the left blade and the right blade also moves down. This sems a little odd to me because I am used to working with rotor heads that work in a reverse fassion. ie. if i pull down a blade on the right side, the blade on the left side should rise... perhaps this is also what they are doing and I mis-read the faq.
CP
mu is not about propulsion but rather about lift on the retreating blade side. The whole discussion about swiming has nothing to do with the reality of the topic.
CP