YES!!! I have been suffering under the Comcast/Century Link (aka Qwest) for 7 years. Minimal competition means that they only have to maximize profits.
I love this city: our utilities are clean and environmentally friendly because of a great administration. Although the public transit system isn't as nice as NYC, we are fixing that too.
Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."
Finding similarities in abstractions is what humans do. If humans can describe something based on patterns that humans are capable of processing, then we will probably find them elsewhere! Abstraction doesn't give us mystical powers that allow us to divine the "true nature" of the universe (let alone understand what that questions means).
Could someone from the FCC please step in and stop Cisco's networking monopoly? Networking should be a commodity market but every time a networking vendor gets any traction in the market, Cisco snatches them up, marks up their product, and generally ensures that there is no legitimate competition.
And what makes this different than Quality of Service (QOS)?
- madsci1016
The difference is that QOS is a passive buffer queuing mechanism that is susceptible to buffer bloat, when large buffers (meant to help traditional QOS) trick the avoidance congestion algorithms,
...buffers have become large enough to hold several megabytes of data, which translates to 10 seconds or more at a 1 Mbit/s line rate used for residential Internet access. This causes the TCP algorithm that shares bandwidth on a link to react very slowly as its behavior is quadratic in the amount of buffering"
WiFi has a LOT of dropped packets and huge buffers, so the problem is vastly magnified. QOS over wifi involved a LOT of voodoo, and it's why P2P had such a negative impact on a network despite QOS. The fix is an active queuing mechanism, like WiFox.
The difference is that most network admins shirk from the task of responsibly implementing QoS, but they'd gladly pay a hefty licensing fee to their wireless vendors for a product with a name like WiFox that 'boosts performance' by clobbering the network instead of cleverly balancing it to perform well.
- MarcQuadra
Uhh, no... the traditional balancing mechanisms are making it worse,
In a network link between a fast and a slow network packets can get backed up. Especially at the start of a TCP communication when there is a sudden burst of packets, the link to the slower network may not be able to process the sudden communication burst quickly enough. Buffers exist to ease this problem by giving the fast network a place to push packets, to be read by the slower network as fast as it can. However, a buffer has a finite size: it can hold a maximum number of packets, called the window size. The ideal buffer has a window size such that it can handle a sudden burst of communication and match the speed of that burst to the speed of the slower network. This situation is characterized by a temporary delay for packets in the buffer during the communications burst, after which the delay rapidly disappears and the networks reach a balance in offering and handling packets.
Network links have an inherent balance which is determined by the packet transmission and acknowledgement cycle. When a packet is sent, TCP usually acknowledges it before it will accept the next packet. This means that a network must transmit a packet and then transport the acknowledgement back before the next packet is pushed into the link. The time it takes to transport a packet and transport back the acknowledgement is called the round-trip time (RTT). If a buffer is large enough to handle a burst, the result will be smooth communication with (eventually) a low delay for packets in the buffer. But if the buffer is too small, then the buffer will fill up and will itself not be able to accept more packets than one per RTT cycle. So the buffer will stabilize the rate at which packets enter the network link, but it will do so with a fixed delay for packets in the buffer. This is called bufferbloat: instead of smoothing the communication, the buffer causes communication delays and lowers utilization of the network link (i.e. causes the network link to carry less than its capacity of packets).
George W's administration stopped listening to the pentagon, CIA, and NSA started going over all of the "intelligence information" personally. They read a bunch of crappy intel, got their own people to get more of it, and then backwards rationalized to attacking Iraq.
Yes, Bush thought there was a legitimate threat. Yes, Bush and his administration read scary intelligence reports. But, as the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. They went on a fucking marketing blitz to make their case and went to great lengths to end public and silence their critics. They fooled themselves.
Gore is a scientist at heart, he would not have gotten rid of people that knew torture produced shitty intelligence.
Drug dogs are a formality, if they bring a drug dog to a location the dog handler only has to/say/ that the dog got a "hit" - so it's all on the honor system anyway. It doesn't matter if the drug dealer sealed everything in cellophane and washed it down with bleach and sprayed cayenne pepper all over the yard: the cops are going to search. Even well-meaning handlers are subject to bias as the whole thing is based off of interpreting a dog's behavior.
...if you care about coping with packet loss, why are you using a protocol who's main feature is that you don't care if the packet is received or not?
Because TCP isn't designed for the type of loss that it is being relied on to abstract away... so someone created a fix. Such violations of networking abstractions are okay, as specified in RFC 3439
However, in the data networking context structured layering implies that the functions of each layer are carried out completely before the protocol data unit is passed to the next layer. This means that the optimization of each layer has to be done separately. Such ordering constraints are in conflict with efficient implementation of data manipulation functions. One could accuse the layered model (e.g., TCP/IP and ISO OSI) of causing this conflict. In fact, the operations of multiplexing and segmentation both hide vital information that lower layers may need to optimize their performance.
Yes, there is an official IETF RFC encouraging violating standardized network abstractions. Hacks are a feature, not a bug : )
From TFL, "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
i.e. totally incompatible with any other major license.
Open Source Legal is wrong, at least according to FSF and the Ms-PL license text, "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
I.E. Anyone outside of the MS ecosystem shall not directly use our code. Granted, piping is always an option, even with GPLv3, but this is an anti Free software clause aimed directly keeping "shared source" away from actual open source implementation.
And by "general public" I assume you mean "anyone who isn't a Linux hacker" - you know, the majority of web developers. Don't get me wrong, I 3 Linux, I'm just tired of everyone assuming that they need to dumb Linux down when it only needs to make it more accessible.
If you are an expert at something, it all seems very obvious. Sadly, the people in charge of the Linux UI etc are all experts and override everything we say.
Riiight, which is why all coal power plants operate independently, disconnected from the grid. Power usage spikes when people are awake and when its hot, you know, during the summer when it's sunny outside. It's not a perfect ratio, but it's not the showstopper that the industry pretends it is.
Solar is solid state and wind towers have a small dedicated crew that performs rolling maintenance, so unless there is equipment failure because the crew is lazy, there shouldn't be large unexpected power shortages from these places.
The point is that it only has to happen once, such a failure getting past the safety systems is not only possible but highly probable. It shouldn't be possible for a near-disaster of such magnitude in the US, let alone around major population centers.
There is a difference between putting your life on the line when you get in a car and putting the lives of the 20K people in the immediate area on the line. And there is a major difference between the oilslick that would have marked your crash and the cities that lay within the 50 mile contamination zone of Davis-Besse, including Detroit... although, at this point, Detroit would probably welcome it as a stimulus package.
Also, I would like to know how you would clean up Lake Erie.
Mod parent up, age of technology has little to do with it's utility. We have been using nuclear energy for power for 60 years now, usable steam engines are some 300 years old. So, is nuclear 1/6th as pathetic?
Secondarily, you have to understand that these plants just pull electrons, it doesn't dump anything on the grid (as I understand it) so you have to go through some kind of intermediate stage. It just so happens that steam engine technology is very, very refined.
Slashdot Mirror
YES!!! I have been suffering under the Comcast/Century Link (aka Qwest) for 7 years. Minimal competition means that they only have to maximize profits.
I love this city: our utilities are clean and environmentally friendly because of a great administration. Although the public transit system isn't as nice as NYC, we are fixing that too.
What's the end game for this type of treatment; we always balance wiping out an entire class of genes or...?
Also, what do they call the nanobot swarm treatment? :)
Shortcut,
Finding similarities in abstractions is what humans do. If humans can describe something based on patterns that humans are capable of processing, then we will probably find them elsewhere! Abstraction doesn't give us mystical powers that allow us to divine the "true nature" of the universe (let alone understand what that questions means).
Could someone from the FCC please step in and stop Cisco's networking monopoly? Networking should be a commodity market but every time a networking vendor gets any traction in the market, Cisco snatches them up, marks up their product, and generally ensures that there is no legitimate competition.
Whomever modded this down, would you mind explaining why? I honestly want to know if I have any factual errors :)
And what makes this different than Quality of Service (QOS)?
- madsci1016
The difference is that QOS is a passive buffer queuing mechanism that is susceptible to buffer bloat, when large buffers (meant to help traditional QOS) trick the avoidance congestion algorithms,
...buffers have become large enough to hold several megabytes of data, which translates to 10 seconds or more at a 1 Mbit/s line rate used for residential Internet access. This causes the TCP algorithm that shares bandwidth on a link to react very slowly as its behavior is quadratic in the amount of buffering"
WiFi has a LOT of dropped packets and huge buffers, so the problem is vastly magnified. QOS over wifi involved a LOT of voodoo, and it's why P2P had such a negative impact on a network despite QOS. The fix is an active queuing mechanism, like WiFox.
The difference is that most network admins shirk from the task of responsibly implementing QoS, but they'd gladly pay a hefty licensing fee to their wireless vendors for a product with a name like WiFox that 'boosts performance' by clobbering the network instead of cleverly balancing it to perform well.
- MarcQuadra
Uhh, no ... the traditional balancing mechanisms are making it worse,
In a network link between a fast and a slow network packets can get backed up. Especially at the start of a TCP communication when there is a sudden burst of packets, the link to the slower network may not be able to process the sudden communication burst quickly enough. Buffers exist to ease this problem by giving the fast network a place to push packets, to be read by the slower network as fast as it can. However, a buffer has a finite size: it can hold a maximum number of packets, called the window size. The ideal buffer has a window size such that it can handle a sudden burst of communication and match the speed of that burst to the speed of the slower network. This situation is characterized by a temporary delay for packets in the buffer during the communications burst, after which the delay rapidly disappears and the networks reach a balance in offering and handling packets.
Network links have an inherent balance which is determined by the packet transmission and acknowledgement cycle. When a packet is sent, TCP usually acknowledges it before it will accept the next packet. This means that a network must transmit a packet and then transport the acknowledgement back before the next packet is pushed into the link. The time it takes to transport a packet and transport back the acknowledgement is called the round-trip time (RTT). If a buffer is large enough to handle a burst, the result will be smooth communication with (eventually) a low delay for packets in the buffer. But if the buffer is too small, then the buffer will fill up and will itself not be able to accept more packets than one per RTT cycle. So the buffer will stabilize the rate at which packets enter the network link, but it will do so with a fixed delay for packets in the buffer. This is called bufferbloat: instead of smoothing the communication, the buffer causes communication delays and lowers utilization of the network link (i.e. causes the network link to carry less than its capacity of packets).
George W's administration stopped listening to the pentagon, CIA, and NSA started going over all of the "intelligence information" personally. They read a bunch of crappy intel, got their own people to get more of it, and then backwards rationalized to attacking Iraq.
Yes, Bush thought there was a legitimate threat. Yes, Bush and his administration read scary intelligence reports. But, as the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. They went on a fucking marketing blitz to make their case and went to great lengths to end public and silence their critics. They fooled themselves.
Gore is a scientist at heart, he would not have gotten rid of people that knew torture produced shitty intelligence.
Drug dogs are a formality, if they bring a drug dog to a location the dog handler only has to /say/ that the dog got a "hit" - so it's all on the honor system anyway. It doesn't matter if the drug dealer sealed everything in cellophane and washed it down with bleach and sprayed cayenne pepper all over the yard: the cops are going to search. Even well-meaning handlers are subject to bias as the whole thing is based off of interpreting a dog's behavior.
...if you care about coping with packet loss, why are you using a protocol who's main feature is that you don't care if the packet is received or not?
Because TCP isn't designed for the type of loss that it is being relied on to abstract away... so someone created a fix. Such violations of networking abstractions are okay, as specified in RFC 3439
However, in the data networking context structured layering implies that the functions of each layer are carried out completely before the protocol data unit is passed to the next layer. This means that the optimization of each layer has to be done separately. Such ordering constraints are in conflict with efficient implementation of data manipulation functions. One could accuse the layered model (e.g., TCP/IP and ISO OSI) of causing this conflict. In fact, the operations of multiplexing and segmentation both hide vital information that lower layers may need to optimize their performance.
Yes, there is an official IETF RFC encouraging violating standardized network abstractions. Hacks are a feature, not a bug : )
DRM was about encrypting end-users copies. This is a centralized command/control framework that manually checks the content of each model.
The difference might seem small, but this is more akin to Hollywood's wet dreams of magical control over everything that happens online. Good luck with that.
Seriously, when did Slashdot turn into FM radio?
Uhh, I think researchers whom are dedicating their lives to this kind of research would put more thought into their methodology than that.
OpenSecrets shows he donated the max amount to Maria Cantwell and Nancy Pelosi in 2011.
From TFL, "If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
i.e. totally incompatible with any other major license.
Open Source Legal is wrong, at least according to FSF and the Ms-PL license text,
"If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution."
I.E. Anyone outside of the MS ecosystem shall not directly use our code. Granted, piping is always an option, even with GPLv3, but this is an anti Free software clause aimed directly keeping "shared source" away from actual open source implementation.
And by "general public" I assume you mean "anyone who isn't a Linux hacker" - you know, the majority of web developers. Don't get me wrong, I 3 Linux, I'm just tired of everyone assuming that they need to dumb Linux down when it only needs to make it more accessible.
If you are an expert at something, it all seems very obvious. Sadly, the people in charge of the Linux UI etc are all experts and override everything we say.
Actually, the difference is about pun-manship.
You tax dollars also pay for fossil fuel subsidies, an energy source really in need of feeder tarrifs.
Riiight, which is why all coal power plants operate independently, disconnected from the grid. Power usage spikes when people are awake and when its hot, you know, during the summer when it's sunny outside. It's not a perfect ratio, but it's not the showstopper that the industry pretends it is.
Solar is solid state and wind towers have a small dedicated crew that performs rolling maintenance, so unless there is equipment failure because the crew is lazy, there shouldn't be large unexpected power shortages from these places.
The point is that it only has to happen once, such a failure getting past the safety systems is not only possible but highly probable. It shouldn't be possible for a near-disaster of such magnitude in the US, let alone around major population centers.
You have never done safety engineering.
P.S. The place is also uninhabitable for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
There is a difference between putting your life on the line when you get in a car and putting the lives of the 20K people in the immediate area on the line. And there is a major difference between the oilslick that would have marked your crash and the cities that lay within the 50 mile contamination zone of Davis-Besse, including Detroit... although, at this point, Detroit would probably welcome it as a stimulus package.
Also, I would like to know how you would clean up Lake Erie.
Mod parent up, age of technology has little to do with it's utility. We have been using nuclear energy for power for 60 years now, usable steam engines are some 300 years old. So, is nuclear 1/6th as pathetic?
Secondarily, you have to understand that these plants just pull electrons, it doesn't dump anything on the grid (as I understand it) so you have to go through some kind of intermediate stage. It just so happens that steam engine technology is very, very refined.