Lance Bass of the pop band 'Nsync from the crew earlier this month. The performer had made a bid to go up on the Soyuz on Oct. 28, financed by $20 million in corporate sponsorships -- including one unnamed soft-drink company said to be Pepsi.
One Pepsi bottler said the idea sprouted from Mr. Bass' failed bid
Umm... we kinda like got this like extra ticket to um like go into like "outer-space" man... and like um we kinda like um thought that ah you um customers um would like to um you know, maybe...
Well as far as the good food and medical treatment, with the number of workers, even the slaves would have to be treated well so they would last, otherwise you wouldn't have a work force. -They'd all die.
Slaves... that depends on what a slave is, and what they thought of themselves. Building pyramids was hard work, but it was probably a lot better work than some of the other things available in that day.
Throughout history people died all the time. Not just cuz they were old, but because life sucked and that's what happened. It could be argued that pyramid builders could very well have had a higher standard of lifethan most people in the world at that time. Being paid in good food, beer and medical treatment may very well have been enough incentive in and of itself to build these things. After all What else was there to do back then?
You have to remember even slaves would have needed to be well treated. These things could not have been built if the workforce kept dying off.
1 block set every 2 minutes - for 30 years! EACH PYRAMID! Think about it!
Why don't we just get all our music on Kazaa, or Gnutella or what not... freely trade it and if you like the some song, mail money directly to the artist?
Yup now we know Star Trek had it again... Just hold the tricorder near the computer and everything zips over.
I see this being useful in pda sized devices. move your home movies from one place to another, from you cam corder to your computer to your pda photo/video album
What I can't wait for is technology like this to become common place and I can't wait to see what uses we'll find for it that no one has thought of just quite yet.
So far I see using the home computer as you storage area and editor for the data that is used by devices to start and being able to transfer the data easily will be a big step in that direction.
Theft isn't used as copyright infringement. People are trying to make it so. Some people use it that way, some don't.
Until we all agree it doesn't count yet, but you are right the language is fluid, but right now it's flowing in that direction... it just hasn't soaked in yet. That's why we argue this to add waterproofing to it.
After all, we can agrue the definition of "is". Some have. We haven't changed the definition --not quite yet anyway.
The RIAA is trying to make us believe that copying music is theft. This is just a case of saying something over and over again until we all believe it. Don't believe it. I do see many of the RIAA's points, but lets not start calling an apple an orange. I am all for language evolution, slang and the like. That is not what is going on here. This is the RIAA and MPAA and others trying to change the meaning of words just slighly enough to strengthen their case. I can agree that copying music that is copyrighted and giving it away with out the copyright holder's consent as immoral, or unethical and even illegal, but it is not theft.
But sure, if you want to start calling it theft, go right ahead, and thanks for erroding more rights because calling it theft opens a Pandora's box and it isn't in the favor of the consumer.
The RIAA just doesn't have a clue what reality is.
Theft
The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.
In order for something to be stolen, it must be taken AWAY from the possession of the owner. You can argue copyrights and such, but it isn't theft.
Copying is not theft. you havent removed anything. It may not be ethical to copy, but it isn't theft.
The episode with Enterprise E where there was an alternate time line and only Whoopie knew it was all messed up... She then stayed with the older Enterprise which was captured by the Romulans:)
Dagnabit now i do sound like I have no life.... Atleast I don't own a uniform or a spare set of ears (yet?)
That's when the good guys at the MPAA come in and take away your borg - TIVO sighting you can't have it because it violates the temporal prime directive
and yeah.. yer right I wasn't going into center vs foci in geometry or calculus or orbital mechanics.. i didn't need to... I wasn't even trying to be that close. As I said I am not an expert, but in general terms... not mathmatical everything has a center or a centerpoint you can decide how you want to define it I'm not going to bother, that can be for the expert, but if you want you can average out the locations of the foci and base it there just for argument's sake. I didn't feel the need to define it that well, because that definition wasn't required for me to make my point... but I suppose I could see how someone might get a little out there to say If I'm not defining myself, why should I argue that they should define themselves.... well because my not defined term is still less vague then theirs:)
yeah I know they aren't circles. but regardless elipses still have a center, just cuz you can't draw an elipse with a compass and one point, doesn't mean they don't have a center.
What I was trying to point out is that Pluto and Charon almost orbit one another. if you look at say Jupiter and Europa, it's quite obvious that one orbits the other. And both foci are definately within the planet. with Pluto and Charon, they move around so much that at any given time either focus may not be within either body. As of the latest stuff I've read of course, we still need a lot more info to explain Pluto and Charon's relationship.
But back to the origional story anyway... what about a body that orbits Earth in a zig-zag because of the influence of the Moon's Gravitational Field? I'm not talking about a little eccentricity here either. Or what about a figure 8 orbit around the Moon and the Earth? My point is we need to define a little better What is a Moon, Moonlet, Ring, Belt, Cloud, Debris or satellite. I mean right now someone (not me) might even try to argue that a stray hydrogen atom that actually orbits the Earth is a moon.
Well I woulda thought that too... but where is the centerpoint of Charon's orbit around Pluto? Is it a double-planet? I dunno, you dunno, we dunno, they dunno. But isn't it nice that the terms are so vague we're all right?
What exactly is a moon? A natural satellite revolving around a planet.
Of all the definitions of a moon that's generally about as clear as they get. Perhaps it's time we decide to define what makes something a moon. I don't think having a defined set size is going to do it. We need some way to define what is a moon and what is just some crap floating around.
A true moon should be a natural object (not man made). A moon should be smaller than then planet it orbits (or less massive). The moon must orbit the planet so that its orbit's centerpoint is within the planet, or very close - any more and then it would probaly have to be a double-planet. Well that covers too big and probably makes charon the 10th planet. A moon should also have an orbit that is reasonably stable. If the orbit is not stable, it's not worth bothering with calling it a moon as it won't be there long. The moon should be in size approximately some percentage of the planet's diameter say at least 1% of the planet's diameter (This atleast covers all the named moons of Jupiter but would also mean the minimum size of any Terrestrial moon would be only 7 meters) Or perhaps by relative mass - which would allow for smaller Jovian moons, but require larger Terrestrial ones.
And what about an object that orbits both a planet and another moon? Is it a moon too or just a satellite, or can we make up a new word? What about an object that orbits a point of equalibrium between two celestial bodies but orbits neither? Although I know of none, what about an object that orbits both a planet and a star? Nobody's thought of defining these better since the 17th Century? How can you call this stuff science when your terms are so vague? And if these are defined better, why isn't there some nifty show all about it all over PBS and the Science Channel?
I am not an expert in these matters, these are just my ideas. - Ok experts, lets hear what you can come up with.
Why don't we use computers for all voting now? --Well in many cases we do, but you just don't know it.
Where I live, and in many places througout the US we have these ballots where you use your little marker and complete the arrow pointing to the candidate of your choise. Once you complete your voting you take your ballot and feed it into a machine I got news for you.. IT'S A COMPUTER.
One of the main reasons no one has trouble with this is that the average person is removed (even if ever so slightly) from the "computer". The system seems to work fine with no major issues and has for several years.
The we have the Technophobe Factor. As soon as you let people know they are actually dealing with a computer, all of a sudden it gets too complicated. Why? there is no real reason. It could be that the software in that voting thing is designed poorly, but even if it is really aweful, it probably isn't all that bad.
There is a segment of our soceity that will never want to work with computers, avoiding them at all costs, loosing all common sense when dealing with them believing they are too complicated to understand. What's worse is there is NOTHING we can do about it. Many of these people are older, but surprisingly they all aren't. It isn't just older people, it isn't just artsy people, it's more of a mind-set then any particular demographic. These people aren't dumb either... although the fringe of them who do try to use the internet usually end up starting their tech support call as: "I am the dumbest person". - You know the kind who have had the Internet for six years and still haven't learned anything - Not cuz they can't but because they won't.
It's hard for us techies to understand their motive. I don't, but I do know it exists and have learned there is nothing I can do about it.
At this moment, the best we can hope for is to make it so these people don't know they are using a computer. Using paper that you draw a line to complete an arrow, modding an old voting machine so those comfortable levers hit the right contacts for a computer to do it. Just don't let people know they are using a computer!
Hopefully in a few years we can slowly, incrementally get them to use computers -just not yet apparently
That's the same thing people say about: Virii, boxen and such.
iMax is perfectly fine to say in a forum such as this... you missed the point! it was intentional! Yes I know IMAX and iMax. Yes people know boxen and virii too. It isn't someone being stupid, these misspelling changes in capitolizations - use of obscure plural forms are intentional!
But you are not so far off, you did at least made the conenction to the iMac
Yeah the idea of Star Wars on iMax is a good idea... EXCEPT the movie wasn't filmed for iMax. iMax was made to give you the feeling of being pulled into the action with it's peripheral vision filling screensize. Putting this movie on it will give you headaches and seizures. all those huge 7-story tall people on both sides of the screen making you move your head more than a tennis match
Not to mention the frame rate of iMax causes an obvious flicker when projected so large. And that this movie was filmed digitally with resolution that = crap to many movie goers now... If you couldn't tell then, I'll bet you can tell on iMax!
It will look like another iMax movie that was screwed up by camera shots that were all wrong for such a big screen
See What I hate about iMax - It isn't really iMax I hate, just what some people do to it.
With all this on war driving and hacking into networks for fun or foul, we better start being careful of what we say and how we act. (be nice)
We should realize that right now we have a great oppertunity to use wireless.
If admins continue to leave networks that need to be secure open to the public they are going to get hacked -in one form or another, maybe just harmlessly syphoning bandwidth, maybe stealing private information - but something is going to happen regardless.
What I fear hear is government regulation. Right now it is the resposibility of the admin who sets up this network to make sure it is reasonably secure. If wireless hacking becomes enough of a problem, governments will be compelled to regulate wireless networks. Sure some regulation may even be good, but from my perspective what is more likely to happen is it will be regulated to death.
Whenever we are forced to regulate we get these types of results: People who want to use wireless won't be able to comply with impossible for the little guy to comply with standards - experimentation dies, soon so does innovation.
Why should admins secure their network when they can rely on a government wireless police force to go around picking up the kiddies breaking into their network? Sounds stupid? that's right it sure is, but crap like this could very well happen. -We're allowed to remail lazy.
I have a wireless lan and it's reasonably secure... It isn't hack proof - nothing is. but it is encrypted and secured and stuff and also it is on it's own network, not directly tied into my wired lan... plus there isn't information on the wireless that could be considered "secret" or personal. I want the thing to work around the house for getting that there interweb. The access point is in the basement -- a simple thing, limits the coverage of the unit a lot - just the house and parts of the yard.
I'm still looking at other ways to secure it. I found a good one the other day SHUT IT OFF WHEN NOT IN USE.(who'd a thunk it?) Why can't businesses figure this one out?? put the power cord to the thing on a timer!! not business hours? no wireless!
That's why you download kazaa-lite, pick a popular movie that's been in the theaters for a little while, but is still showing... then download it and keep hitting the find more sources... if that don't max out your bandwidth, it's hard to find anything that would;)
I've done tech support. In my experience teachers are some of the dumbest people (as in how on-line goes) it's just the who way of thinking is alien to them. --not to put down teachers, just the way it is - some people's brains just don't work in this particular way of thinking.
I think teaching is easy, the real skill is dealing with a bunch of whining students who always ask the same question over and over again... we IT people just blow it off with a loud RTFM
It's not like we didn't all suspect something like this was gunna happen. Well yup I got lotsa mp3's gunna have to look up some way to convert them to ogg.
Well what about the problem in this self organizing system, that you probably change the inherent nature of the system by observing it?
"...The simple ping signals were emitted every second and traveled through 10 different routers before the signals eventually reached the destination computer. The researchers were able to measure frequent changes in Internet congestion by measuring the time it took a series of signals to complete a round trip..."
How much bandwidth will these test pings take up inorder to have enough data to construct a model of current conditions that's good enough to predict bandwidth changes far enough ahead to make smart routers that can work around the congestion prior to it's existance? It would be kinda neat to have an internet that routes around inorder to prevent predicted congestion.
Slashdot Mirror
Lance Bass of the pop band 'Nsync from the crew earlier this month. The performer had made a bid to go up on the Soyuz on Oct. 28, financed by $20 million in corporate sponsorships -- including one unnamed soft-drink company said to be Pepsi.
One Pepsi bottler said the idea sprouted from Mr. Bass' failed bid
Umm... we kinda like got this like extra ticket to um like go into like "outer-space" man... and like um we kinda like um thought that ah you um customers um would like to um you know, maybe...Well as far as the good food and medical treatment, with the number of workers, even the slaves would have to be treated well so they would last, otherwise you wouldn't have a work force. -They'd all die.
Slaves... that depends on what a slave is, and what they thought of themselves. Building pyramids was hard work, but it was probably a lot better work than some of the other things available in that day.
Throughout history people died all the time. Not just cuz they were old, but because life sucked and that's what happened. It could be argued that pyramid builders could very well have had a higher standard of lifethan most people in the world at that time. Being paid in good food, beer and medical treatment may very well have been enough incentive in and of itself to build these things. After all What else was there to do back then?
You have to remember even slaves would have needed to be well treated. These things could not have been built if the workforce kept dying off.
1 block set every 2 minutes - for 30 years! EACH PYRAMID! Think about it!
Why don't we just get all our music on Kazaa, or Gnutella or what not... freely trade it and if you like the some song, mail money directly to the artist?
Yup now we know Star Trek had it again... Just hold the tricorder near the computer and everything zips over.
I see this being useful in pda sized devices. move your home movies from one place to another, from you cam corder to your computer to your pda photo/video album
What I can't wait for is technology like this to become common place and I can't wait to see what uses we'll find for it that no one has thought of just quite yet.
So far I see using the home computer as you storage area and editor for the data that is used by devices to start and being able to transfer the data easily will be a big step in that direction.
Theft isn't used as copyright infringement. People are trying to make it so. Some people use it that way, some don't.
Until we all agree it doesn't count yet, but you are right the language is fluid, but right now it's flowing in that direction... it just hasn't soaked in yet. That's why we argue this to add waterproofing to it.
After all, we can agrue the definition of "is". Some have. We haven't changed the definition --not quite yet anyway.
The RIAA is trying to make us believe that copying music is theft. This is just a case of saying something over and over again until we all believe it. Don't believe it. I do see many of the RIAA's points, but lets not start calling an apple an orange. I am all for language evolution, slang and the like. That is not what is going on here. This is the RIAA and MPAA and others trying to change the meaning of words just slighly enough to strengthen their case. I can agree that copying music that is copyrighted and giving it away with out the copyright holder's consent as immoral, or unethical and even illegal, but it is not theft.
But sure, if you want to start calling it theft, go right ahead, and thanks for erroding more rights because calling it theft opens a Pandora's box and it isn't in the favor of the consumer.
The RIAA just doesn't have a clue what reality is.
TheftThe act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.
In order for something to be stolen, it must be taken AWAY from the possession of the owner. You can argue copyrights and such, but it isn't theft.
Copying is not theft. you havent removed anything. It may not be ethical to copy, but it isn't theft.
The episode with Enterprise E where there was an alternate time line and only Whoopie knew it was all messed up... She then stayed with the older Enterprise which was captured by the Romulans :)
Dagnabit now i do sound like I have no life.... Atleast I don't own a uniform or a spare set of ears (yet?)
You forgot one that never happens: A major character dies and stays dead!
That's when the good guys at the MPAA come in and take away your borg - TIVO sighting you can't have it because it violates the temporal prime directive
and yeah.. yer right I wasn't going into center vs foci in geometry or calculus or orbital mechanics.. i didn't need to... I wasn't even trying to be that close. As I said I am not an expert, but in general terms... not mathmatical everything has a center or a centerpoint you can decide how you want to define it I'm not going to bother, that can be for the expert, but if you want you can average out the locations of the foci and base it there just for argument's sake. I didn't feel the need to define it that well, because that definition wasn't required for me to make my point... but I suppose I could see how someone might get a little out there to say If I'm not defining myself, why should I argue that they should define themselves.... well because my not defined term is still less vague then theirs :)
yeah I know they aren't circles. but regardless elipses still have a center, just cuz you can't draw an elipse with a compass and one point, doesn't mean they don't have a center.
What I was trying to point out is that Pluto and Charon almost orbit one another. if you look at say Jupiter and Europa, it's quite obvious that one orbits the other. And both foci are definately within the planet. with Pluto and Charon, they move around so much that at any given time either focus may not be within either body. As of the latest stuff I've read of course, we still need a lot more info to explain Pluto and Charon's relationship.
But back to the origional story anyway... what about a body that orbits Earth in a zig-zag because of the influence of the Moon's Gravitational Field? I'm not talking about a little eccentricity here either. Or what about a figure 8 orbit around the Moon and the Earth? My point is we need to define a little better What is a Moon, Moonlet, Ring, Belt, Cloud, Debris or satellite. I mean right now someone (not me) might even try to argue that a stray hydrogen atom that actually orbits the Earth is a moon.
Well I woulda thought that too... but where is the centerpoint of Charon's orbit around Pluto? Is it a double-planet? I dunno, you dunno, we dunno, they dunno. But isn't it nice that the terms are so vague we're all right?
What exactly is a moon? A natural satellite revolving around a planet.
Of all the definitions of a moon that's generally about as clear as they get. Perhaps it's time we decide to define what makes something a moon. I don't think having a defined set size is going to do it. We need some way to define what is a moon and what is just some crap floating around.
A true moon should be a natural object (not man made). A moon should be smaller than then planet it orbits (or less massive). The moon must orbit the planet so that its orbit's centerpoint is within the planet, or very close - any more and then it would probaly have to be a double-planet. Well that covers too big and probably makes charon the 10th planet. A moon should also have an orbit that is reasonably stable. If the orbit is not stable, it's not worth bothering with calling it a moon as it won't be there long. The moon should be in size approximately some percentage of the planet's diameter say at least 1% of the planet's diameter (This atleast covers all the named moons of Jupiter but would also mean the minimum size of any Terrestrial moon would be only 7 meters) Or perhaps by relative mass - which would allow for smaller Jovian moons, but require larger Terrestrial ones.
And what about an object that orbits both a planet and another moon? Is it a moon too or just a satellite, or can we make up a new word? What about an object that orbits a point of equalibrium between two celestial bodies but orbits neither? Although I know of none, what about an object that orbits both a planet and a star? Nobody's thought of defining these better since the 17th Century? How can you call this stuff science when your terms are so vague? And if these are defined better, why isn't there some nifty show all about it all over PBS and the Science Channel?
I am not an expert in these matters, these are just my ideas. - Ok experts, lets hear what you can come up with.
You're the kind of person who reads the newspaper and corrects it with a red marking pen and sends it back, aren't you?
Try speaking the language for once rather than speaking about it
Why don't we use computers for all voting now? --Well in many cases we do, but you just don't know it.
Where I live, and in many places througout the US we have these ballots where you use your little marker and complete the arrow pointing to the candidate of your choise. Once you complete your voting you take your ballot and feed it into a machine I got news for you.. IT'S A COMPUTER.
One of the main reasons no one has trouble with this is that the average person is removed (even if ever so slightly) from the "computer". The system seems to work fine with no major issues and has for several years.
The we have the Technophobe Factor. As soon as you let people know they are actually dealing with a computer, all of a sudden it gets too complicated. Why? there is no real reason. It could be that the software in that voting thing is designed poorly, but even if it is really aweful, it probably isn't all that bad.
There is a segment of our soceity that will never want to work with computers, avoiding them at all costs, loosing all common sense when dealing with them believing they are too complicated to understand. What's worse is there is NOTHING we can do about it. Many of these people are older, but surprisingly they all aren't. It isn't just older people, it isn't just artsy people, it's more of a mind-set then any particular demographic. These people aren't dumb either... although the fringe of them who do try to use the internet usually end up starting their tech support call as: "I am the dumbest person". - You know the kind who have had the Internet for six years and still haven't learned anything - Not cuz they can't but because they won't.
It's hard for us techies to understand their motive. I don't, but I do know it exists and have learned there is nothing I can do about it.
At this moment, the best we can hope for is to make it so these people don't know they are using a computer. Using paper that you draw a line to complete an arrow, modding an old voting machine so those comfortable levers hit the right contacts for a computer to do it. Just don't let people know they are using a computer!
Hopefully in a few years we can slowly, incrementally get them to use computers -just not yet apparently
That's the same thing people say about: Virii, boxen and such.
iMax is perfectly fine to say in a forum such as this... you missed the point! it was intentional! Yes I know IMAX and iMax. Yes people know boxen and virii too. It isn't someone being stupid, these misspelling changes in capitolizations - use of obscure plural forms are intentional!
But you are not so far off, you did at least made the conenction to the iMac
This is not an English class
Yeah the idea of Star Wars on iMax is a good idea... EXCEPT the movie wasn't filmed for iMax. iMax was made to give you the feeling of being pulled into the action with it's peripheral vision filling screensize. Putting this movie on it will give you headaches and seizures. all those huge 7-story tall people on both sides of the screen making you move your head more than a tennis match
Not to mention the frame rate of iMax causes an obvious flicker when projected so large. And that this movie was filmed digitally with resolution that = crap to many movie goers now... If you couldn't tell then, I'll bet you can tell on iMax!
It will look like another iMax movie that was screwed up by camera shots that were all wrong for such a big screen
See What I hate about iMax - It isn't really iMax I hate, just what some people do to it.With all this on war driving and hacking into networks for fun or foul, we better start being careful of what we say and how we act. (be nice)
We should realize that right now we have a great oppertunity to use wireless.
If admins continue to leave networks that need to be secure open to the public they are going to get hacked -in one form or another, maybe just harmlessly syphoning bandwidth, maybe stealing private information - but something is going to happen regardless.
What I fear hear is government regulation. Right now it is the resposibility of the admin who sets up this network to make sure it is reasonably secure. If wireless hacking becomes enough of a problem, governments will be compelled to regulate wireless networks. Sure some regulation may even be good, but from my perspective what is more likely to happen is it will be regulated to death.
Whenever we are forced to regulate we get these types of results: People who want to use wireless won't be able to comply with impossible for the little guy to comply with standards - experimentation dies, soon so does innovation.
Why should admins secure their network when they can rely on a government wireless police force to go around picking up the kiddies breaking into their network? Sounds stupid? that's right it sure is, but crap like this could very well happen. -We're allowed to remail lazy.
I have a wireless lan and it's reasonably secure... It isn't hack proof - nothing is. but it is encrypted and secured and stuff and also it is on it's own network, not directly tied into my wired lan... plus there isn't information on the wireless that could be considered "secret" or personal. I want the thing to work around the house for getting that there interweb. The access point is in the basement -- a simple thing, limits the coverage of the unit a lot - just the house and parts of the yard.
I'm still looking at other ways to secure it. I found a good one the other day SHUT IT OFF WHEN NOT IN USE. (who'd a thunk it?) Why can't businesses figure this one out?? put the power cord to the thing on a timer!! not business hours? no wireless!
I still question the use of a name like Fireball for a hard drive... It just doesn't paint the prettiest picture whenever I hear it...
I just wonder who really likes the though of their data going up in a fireball?
Qua^K^K^K Maxtor set us up the bomb!!!
Wow I just hate it when I see the future and then I go to slashdot and it's like I already read everything.
I hate Deja Vu
That's why you download kazaa-lite, pick a popular movie that's been in the theaters for a little while, but is still showing... then download it and keep hitting the find more sources... if that don't max out your bandwidth, it's hard to find anything that would ;)
It's obvious you've never worked in tech support... that's the sad part
I've done tech support. In my experience teachers are some of the dumbest people (as in how on-line goes) it's just the who way of thinking is alien to them. --not to put down teachers, just the way it is - some people's brains just don't work in this particular way of thinking.
I think teaching is easy, the real skill is dealing with a bunch of whining students who always ask the same question over and over again... we IT people just blow it off with a loud RTFM
It's not like we didn't all suspect something like this was gunna happen. Well yup I got lotsa mp3's gunna have to look up some way to convert them to ogg.
I'm still looking for real PNG support in IE too
Well what about the problem in this self organizing system, that you probably change the inherent nature of the system by observing it?
"...The simple ping signals were emitted every second and traveled through 10 different routers before the signals eventually reached the destination computer. The researchers were able to measure frequent changes in Internet congestion by measuring the time it took a series of signals to complete a round trip..."
How much bandwidth will these test pings take up inorder to have enough data to construct a model of current conditions that's good enough to predict bandwidth changes far enough ahead to make smart routers that can work around the congestion prior to it's existance? It would be kinda neat to have an internet that routes around inorder to prevent predicted congestion.