As someone who was born, grew up in, and frequently visits Durban (my parents still live there), and who spent 2 years living in the Bay Area and currently live just outside it (for the last 13 years, and have parked in SF hundreds of times), all I can say is "stop talking kak". The Bay Area is an order of magnitude safer and cleaner than anywhere is South Africa. And, again, I say that as a proud South African. Sure there are some worse zones than others, but that is true of everywhere.
"I learned long ago (back in the days of dial-up BBSes), never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw[1]
You want a Real Argument AC? Let's see. First, what you are doing here is actually an Ad hominem attack - you are attacking me for having a low UID - not what I wrote. I did not attack anyone, I was merely commenting on the tactics used by trolls. Look at the story now and you'll see that my comments on moderation have already been validated to some degree.
Or did you want to fight about Trump and the memo? In that case Carter Page is a very suspicious character. I'm not surprised the FBI was interested in him. What we know is that this memo is intentionally biased, leaving out the full extent of the evidence brought in the initial FISA warrant. At that time Steele was still a reliable informant for the FBI. To obtain a warrant one does not need the statements of informants to be sworn testimony, so under the Gates rule the combination of a credible informant along with the accumulation of other evidence, the FISA warrant would not be illegal. How the informant came by their suspicion is not at all important - the courts assume that informants are acting in their own interests and are quite likely to be lying. That is why they need additional investigative evidence, which the FBI already had on Page. Once they had that first warrant the continuations where likely based on the ongoing evidence of collusion and other crimes obtained through their investigation. But this memo has been carefully crafted so as to ignore the full evidence, and we know that because other people who have seen that evidence say so. You might not believe them, but then who can say without seeing the evidence?
What I see is that the same republication FBI agents that were instrumental in swinging the vote in Trumps favor, were also concerned that their new dear leader was surrounded by people with links to Russia, and started looking into them to remove the danger to the president. Then the president lost the plot...
[1] In case you think that is also an Ad hominem attack, note that I did not specify who was the pig...
It's fascinating looking at these comments - all of the Pro-Trump propaganda is from ACs. It's amazing how fast the trolls jump into a story like this. Also, the trolls seem to store up mod points on various accounts and then mods the trolling up as "insightful" as soon as possible. Come back in a day or two and then you find that all the ACs have been modded down by real readers for trolling. It would be really interesting to have access to the IPs for the ACs, and who's doing the modding. I wonder how many/. commentators have been "exposed" to comments from the trolls.
Didn't Apple sue Qualcomm because they were over charging? But now we find they were getting a discount... Sometimes I wonder how the accountants and lawyers at these big companies can be so bad at their jobs and still get paid a fortune! Qualcomm should have waived the royalties, as long as Apple didn't "use any other product that was using Qualcomm IP without a license"...
Does anyone have any insights into ISPs and their access to utility poles after this FCC rule making? From what I can find online, only utilities and communications providers under FCC control can gain access to private land for the purpose of running wires, etc. If ISPs are not utilities and not under the control of the FCC, then can they still demand access to my land? Granted, most of them are also telecommunications or cable TV providers, but can I force them to declare if they are fixing someone telephone service or their internet service.
Are you crazy! In the big picture, it's not Netflix that is generating the traffic. By your reasoning, Netflix would be better off if they had their client stream/dev/zero back from people's TV/Roku/PC, just to balance the traffic. Comcast and the other ISPs are the ones generating the traffic and should be paying to upgrade their equipment if they cannot meet their contractual obligations to provide their clients with the bandwidth they are paying for. The ISPs should be paying Netflix and other other content providers on the internet to thank them for creating a market of consumers looking for Internet connections, enabling their business model.
Poor Comcast. Not forced to pay for the internet connection for their customers. Comcast and all of the other ISPs should be paying Netflix and the other content providers. It is the content that keeps people on the Internet, not the cable, but ISPs managed to corner off the "tier 1" ISP space, when all all networks on the *Inter*-net where supposed to be equal. The only model that makes logical sense, if one is going to charge for traffic, is for the incoming traffic to be charged to the consumer. Instead, in a massive rent-seeking grab, tier 1 ISPs have managed to persuade cowards like you that they should be able to change for incoming traffic at peering points and outgoing traffic to their users. This lets them screw over the American public, Silicon Valley and the rest of the world (that is not considered a tier 1 peer). And no, this is not the way the internet has always been - once upon a time peering was just something people did and when the pipe was too small they paid for a bigger pipe.
Twitter seems connected directly to the core of his brain (micro-USB;-)
Given the lack of error correction, I'm pretty sure it is an old school 2-wire serial link, with no parity bits (can you have disparity bits?) and definitely no stop bits. Also seems to suffer from lots of external interference....
I'm not saying Netflix should get free internet. I'm saying they should get paid by Comcast! Along with Google and Facebook, and all of the other content providers on the internet.
You are wrong about the internet. Peering was traditionally a non-counted flow. If it was unbalanced then no one really cared. Customers have always paid for incoming bandwidth. The failure of obligation here is with Comcast - they are failing to provide content for Netflix (or rather Netflix's ISP). They are no longer a peer on the internet, they are a consumer, and should be required to pay for the content they are consuming.
Under your logic, power stations would have to pay to put energy into the grid! Or Amazon customers would be required to pay USPS extra delivery fees on at their home! Or TV stations would have to pay Comcast to carry their channels! To see the ridiculousness of your assumptions, you are saying that Netflix would be better off if they piped the contents from/dev/zero on all of their clients back to their servers.
Don't fall for the nonsense logic of "tier one" peers. They are rent seeking, and have taken over control of the internet in many ways (this, NN, anti-competitive municipal broadband). Comcast wants to get paid on both ends, and the bigger they grow the more they think they should be paid. They really should be paying some of their ~$25 per month profit from their 25 million to the content providers who are making it so that thousands of clients sign up monthly for their service.
How is this Netflix's problem? It's Comcast's problem if their users are requesting more data than they can handle. Why should Netflix pay anything? In fact, if Comcast wasn't already an incumbent near monopoly, they would be having to pay someone else for a pipe big enough to download all the data their users wanted. Just because they happen to be considered a tier one peer on the internet shouldn't allow them to pull so much data without paying for it. They're just lucky they got grandfathered into an unlimited plan, otherwise they might have to ask their users to pay for their bandwidth - but they're already gouging their users for profits...
Notice it was still called the "slashdot effect" back then. Look at the comments from the poor site owner! Although I still want to read the end of "She Hates My Futon"...
I have this happen with two different people, one in the UK and one in Alabama (I'm in California). I think there is also a guy in southern California. Sometimes I try to help them out, like when I get emails confirming a job interview, or something else. Have never figured out the correct email for any of them.
Other times it is just a pain - the guy in Alabama has my email on his Redbox account, but the password reset only links to my account. However, the funniest was when he signed up for Comcast just at the same time I moved and was forced to also sign up with them, so I couldn't just plonk them. I tried calling and telling them that they needed a new email address for him, but the lady on the phone was completely unable to understand what was going on, and I had to just hang up before she cancelled my account.
While doing my masters in transportation engineering, I did a class in traffic. One of the very first proofs that you do is a fairly simplistic model of traffic flow, but just complicated enough to show that for most traffic engineering problems the condition for finding a globally (network) optimal solution is that every driver can improve their own travel time. So basically it is not "if" it means giving up an advantage - giving up an advantage is how you know it will help. If you look at all traffic control measures they are trying to force people not to act first dangerously then second selfishly. I've since tried to avoid traffic engineering as much as possible.
Along with some of the other deeper problems listed in other replies, here are some others:
Poor driving skills and habits. California drivers are specifically taught not to zipper merge and will get angry if you do. Plus, they weave looking for the fastest lane. This weaving means others don't leave following distance (else some ****** will take it), so there is no cushion and everyone stop/starts.
Poor interchange spacing, requiring excessive merging. This is especially true in California, where there are no standards for interchange spacing. Poor merging skill makes this worse.
No functional hierarchy of roads. California has 26 lane freeways or 2 lane city streets, but few arterial and collector roads. This goes hand in hand with poor interchange spacing, because you need lots of interchanges to the city streets, rather than a few interchanges to arterials.
Poor interchange and intersection design. California loves four leaf clover interchanges because they reduce left turn conflicts on city streets, but they often back up the freeway instead. Also, cramped interchanges result in creative interchange designs, which often have capacity problems, backing up onto freeways.
Poor traffic light timing. Often lights rely on triggers, and very few lights are synchronized. Even if they were synced, poor driving habits mean that people speed between the lights and are forced to stop.
HOV lanes often make these problems worse because people merge quickly to get into the HOV lane and then to get out. Theoretically they increase capacity, but only under a very simplistic model, and not when you reward electric vehicle owners...
Hopefully self driving cars will help with some of these, if they can be taught to drive properly, and co-ordinate merging, but then mostly their owner will get frustrated because they will always feel they could drive better.
The root cause of these problems is that a fundamental theorem in traffic basic shows that at optimal traffic flow at any point is defined by the condition that every individual driver can improve their own solution by acting selfishly. With selfishness on the rise, it is no wonder that traffic problems are getting worse.
The problem here is actually with the design patents and with how they are being used in this case. For things to work this way the product should only be allowed to be covered by one design patent, that details the design of the actual product. Then you can go after true knock-offs. But over those 140 years design patents have been allowed to cover minute details of the design (like the rounded corners), so that an entire family of products is covered by some "design aesthetic". Here Samsung is accused/guilty of copying only parts of the aesthetic, so that if you squint a little and tilt the product at just the right angle you might get confused that this was actually an iPhone. In reality no one who bought a Samsung phone was confused and thought they were buying an iPhone. Maybe a few people bought one because it was cheap but if their friends looked at it quickly then maybe they would think they had sprung for an expensive iPhone... Should Samsung be forced to pay all their profits? Maybe. But it is not an easy decision.
Unfortunately the real problems with this trial, that the jury foreman used outside evidence (his own experience with patents) to convince the jury that their role was not to determine the validity of the patents, when it explicitly was, has been ignored by the courts. In addition, the jury was clearly fairly confused, awarding damages for the wrong things...
One of the few things the liberals get correct is that one should not leave them laying around loaded. They should be stored safely under lock and key. Once locked up the children are safe.
Sorry, I'm a little unclear here. Is that the guns or the children that should be locked up to keep them safe?
No, we should go the opposite way, and stop defining time by the stars. Stick with TAI and we don't have to worry about leap seconds and other nonsense.
Some people would say that is the biggest strength of freebsd... In fact that is the primary concern of developers worried about moves to package the freebsd base system.
Regards,
-Jeremy
Watch the three videos from jhweather (part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...), and the other videos linked in the report (https://localwiki.org/davis/Reynoso_report). Note, those videos have less than 10,000 views. The footage from the police camera man and the student TV camera have not been released AFAIK.
The students had surrounded the police, and when the pepper spray threat was issued, the students sitting in the line got up and were replaced by students that wanted to be sprayed...
That is not to say that the actions of the UC Davis police were justified, right or just plain stupid. They were not under threat (in fact in one of the videos a cop answers his phone, steps over the line of students - while on the phone - and walks off into the crowd seconds before the incident).
Every smart admin out there... I just wish that Windows Update covered more software and hardware, so windows machines only needed one update utility like Linux boxes... Macs are a little better, especially for things that have migrated into the app store.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who was born, grew up in, and frequently visits Durban (my parents still live there), and who spent 2 years living in the Bay Area and currently live just outside it (for the last 13 years, and have parked in SF hundreds of times), all I can say is "stop talking kak". The Bay Area is an order of magnitude safer and cleaner than anywhere is South Africa. And, again, I say that as a proud South African. Sure there are some worse zones than others, but that is true of everywhere.
"I learned long ago (back in the days of dial-up BBSes), never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw[1]
You want a Real Argument AC? Let's see. First, what you are doing here is actually an Ad hominem attack - you are attacking me for having a low UID - not what I wrote. I did not attack anyone, I was merely commenting on the tactics used by trolls. Look at the story now and you'll see that my comments on moderation have already been validated to some degree.
Or did you want to fight about Trump and the memo? In that case Carter Page is a very suspicious character. I'm not surprised the FBI was interested in him. What we know is that this memo is intentionally biased, leaving out the full extent of the evidence brought in the initial FISA warrant. At that time Steele was still a reliable informant for the FBI. To obtain a warrant one does not need the statements of informants to be sworn testimony, so under the Gates rule the combination of a credible informant along with the accumulation of other evidence, the FISA warrant would not be illegal. How the informant came by their suspicion is not at all important - the courts assume that informants are acting in their own interests and are quite likely to be lying. That is why they need additional investigative evidence, which the FBI already had on Page. Once they had that first warrant the continuations where likely based on the ongoing evidence of collusion and other crimes obtained through their investigation. But this memo has been carefully crafted so as to ignore the full evidence, and we know that because other people who have seen that evidence say so. You might not believe them, but then who can say without seeing the evidence?
What I see is that the same republication FBI agents that were instrumental in swinging the vote in Trumps favor, were also concerned that their new dear leader was surrounded by people with links to Russia, and started looking into them to remove the danger to the president. Then the president lost the plot...
[1] In case you think that is also an Ad hominem attack, note that I did not specify who was the pig...
No.
It's fascinating looking at these comments - all of the Pro-Trump propaganda is from ACs. It's amazing how fast the trolls jump into a story like this. Also, the trolls seem to store up mod points on various accounts and then mods the trolling up as "insightful" as soon as possible. Come back in a day or two and then you find that all the ACs have been modded down by real readers for trolling. It would be really interesting to have access to the IPs for the ACs, and who's doing the modding. I wonder how many /. commentators have been "exposed" to comments from the trolls.
Didn't Apple sue Qualcomm because they were over charging? But now we find they were getting a discount... Sometimes I wonder how the accountants and lawyers at these big companies can be so bad at their jobs and still get paid a fortune! Qualcomm should have waived the royalties, as long as Apple didn't "use any other product that was using Qualcomm IP without a license"...
Definitely! Verizon should really be paying for their indiscriminate downloading!
Does anyone have any insights into ISPs and their access to utility poles after this FCC rule making? From what I can find online, only utilities and communications providers under FCC control can gain access to private land for the purpose of running wires, etc. If ISPs are not utilities and not under the control of the FCC, then can they still demand access to my land? Granted, most of them are also telecommunications or cable TV providers, but can I force them to declare if they are fixing someone telephone service or their internet service.
Are you crazy! In the big picture, it's not Netflix that is generating the traffic. By your reasoning, Netflix would be better off if they had their client stream /dev/zero back from people's TV/Roku/PC, just to balance the traffic. Comcast and the other ISPs are the ones generating the traffic and should be paying to upgrade their equipment if they cannot meet their contractual obligations to provide their clients with the bandwidth they are paying for. The ISPs should be paying Netflix and other other content providers on the internet to thank them for creating a market of consumers looking for Internet connections, enabling their business model.
Poor Comcast. Not forced to pay for the internet connection for their customers. Comcast and all of the other ISPs should be paying Netflix and the other content providers. It is the content that keeps people on the Internet, not the cable, but ISPs managed to corner off the "tier 1" ISP space, when all all networks on the *Inter*-net where supposed to be equal. The only model that makes logical sense, if one is going to charge for traffic, is for the incoming traffic to be charged to the consumer. Instead, in a massive rent-seeking grab, tier 1 ISPs have managed to persuade cowards like you that they should be able to change for incoming traffic at peering points and outgoing traffic to their users. This lets them screw over the American public, Silicon Valley and the rest of the world (that is not considered a tier 1 peer). And no, this is not the way the internet has always been - once upon a time peering was just something people did and when the pipe was too small they paid for a bigger pipe.
Twitter seems connected directly to the core of his brain (micro-USB ;-)
Given the lack of error correction, I'm pretty sure it is an old school 2-wire serial link, with no parity bits (can you have disparity bits?) and definitely no stop bits. Also seems to suffer from lots of external interference....
I'm not saying Netflix should get free internet. I'm saying they should get paid by Comcast! Along with Google and Facebook, and all of the other content providers on the internet.
You are wrong about the internet. Peering was traditionally a non-counted flow. If it was unbalanced then no one really cared. Customers have always paid for incoming bandwidth. The failure of obligation here is with Comcast - they are failing to provide content for Netflix (or rather Netflix's ISP). They are no longer a peer on the internet, they are a consumer, and should be required to pay for the content they are consuming.
Under your logic, power stations would have to pay to put energy into the grid! Or Amazon customers would be required to pay USPS extra delivery fees on at their home! Or TV stations would have to pay Comcast to carry their channels! To see the ridiculousness of your assumptions, you are saying that Netflix would be better off if they piped the contents from /dev/zero on all of their clients back to their servers.
Don't fall for the nonsense logic of "tier one" peers. They are rent seeking, and have taken over control of the internet in many ways (this, NN, anti-competitive municipal broadband). Comcast wants to get paid on both ends, and the bigger they grow the more they think they should be paid. They really should be paying some of their ~$25 per month profit from their 25 million to the content providers who are making it so that thousands of clients sign up monthly for their service.
How is this Netflix's problem? It's Comcast's problem if their users are requesting more data than they can handle. Why should Netflix pay anything? In fact, if Comcast wasn't already an incumbent near monopoly, they would be having to pay someone else for a pipe big enough to download all the data their users wanted. Just because they happen to be considered a tier one peer on the internet shouldn't allow them to pull so much data without paying for it. They're just lucky they got grandfathered into an unlimited plan, otherwise they might have to ask their users to pay for their bandwidth - but they're already gouging their users for profits...
Check the Groklaw archives for all of the transcripts. Highly doubt there is actual audio available.
I think this was the story that really started it all:
https://slashdot.org/story/99/...
Notice it was still called the "slashdot effect" back then. Look at the comments from the poor site owner! Although I still want to read the end of "She Hates My Futon"...
-Jeremy
I have this happen with two different people, one in the UK and one in Alabama (I'm in California). I think there is also a guy in southern California. Sometimes I try to help them out, like when I get emails confirming a job interview, or something else. Have never figured out the correct email for any of them.
Other times it is just a pain - the guy in Alabama has my email on his Redbox account, but the password reset only links to my account. However, the funniest was when he signed up for Comcast just at the same time I moved and was forced to also sign up with them, so I couldn't just plonk them. I tried calling and telling them that they needed a new email address for him, but the lady on the phone was completely unable to understand what was going on, and I had to just hang up before she cancelled my account.
While doing my masters in transportation engineering, I did a class in traffic. One of the very first proofs that you do is a fairly simplistic model of traffic flow, but just complicated enough to show that for most traffic engineering problems the condition for finding a globally (network) optimal solution is that every driver can improve their own travel time. So basically it is not "if" it means giving up an advantage - giving up an advantage is how you know it will help. If you look at all traffic control measures they are trying to force people not to act first dangerously then second selfishly. I've since tried to avoid traffic engineering as much as possible.
Along with some of the other deeper problems listed in other replies, here are some others:
Poor driving skills and habits. California drivers are specifically taught not to zipper merge and will get angry if you do. Plus, they weave looking for the fastest lane. This weaving means others don't leave following distance (else some ****** will take it), so there is no cushion and everyone stop/starts.
Poor interchange spacing, requiring excessive merging. This is especially true in California, where there are no standards for interchange spacing. Poor merging skill makes this worse.
No functional hierarchy of roads. California has 26 lane freeways or 2 lane city streets, but few arterial and collector roads. This goes hand in hand with poor interchange spacing, because you need lots of interchanges to the city streets, rather than a few interchanges to arterials.
Poor interchange and intersection design. California loves four leaf clover interchanges because they reduce left turn conflicts on city streets, but they often back up the freeway instead. Also, cramped interchanges result in creative interchange designs, which often have capacity problems, backing up onto freeways.
Poor traffic light timing. Often lights rely on triggers, and very few lights are synchronized. Even if they were synced, poor driving habits mean that people speed between the lights and are forced to stop.
HOV lanes often make these problems worse because people merge quickly to get into the HOV lane and then to get out. Theoretically they increase capacity, but only under a very simplistic model, and not when you reward electric vehicle owners...
Hopefully self driving cars will help with some of these, if they can be taught to drive properly, and co-ordinate merging, but then mostly their owner will get frustrated because they will always feel they could drive better.
The root cause of these problems is that a fundamental theorem in traffic basic shows that at optimal traffic flow at any point is defined by the condition that every individual driver can improve their own solution by acting selfishly. With selfishness on the rise, it is no wonder that traffic problems are getting worse.
The problem here is actually with the design patents and with how they are being used in this case. For things to work this way the product should only be allowed to be covered by one design patent, that details the design of the actual product. Then you can go after true knock-offs. But over those 140 years design patents have been allowed to cover minute details of the design (like the rounded corners), so that an entire family of products is covered by some "design aesthetic". Here Samsung is accused/guilty of copying only parts of the aesthetic, so that if you squint a little and tilt the product at just the right angle you might get confused that this was actually an iPhone. In reality no one who bought a Samsung phone was confused and thought they were buying an iPhone. Maybe a few people bought one because it was cheap but if their friends looked at it quickly then maybe they would think they had sprung for an expensive iPhone... Should Samsung be forced to pay all their profits? Maybe. But it is not an easy decision.
Unfortunately the real problems with this trial, that the jury foreman used outside evidence (his own experience with patents) to convince the jury that their role was not to determine the validity of the patents, when it explicitly was, has been ignored by the courts. In addition, the jury was clearly fairly confused, awarding damages for the wrong things...
Sorry, I'm a little unclear here. Is that the guns or the children that should be locked up to keep them safe?
No, we should go the opposite way, and stop defining time by the stars. Stick with TAI and we don't have to worry about leap seconds and other nonsense.
No. The correct solution is for the courts to assign all lawyers for both sides at random from a list, and pay both sides equally.
Some people would say that is the biggest strength of freebsd... In fact that is the primary concern of developers worried about moves to package the freebsd base system. Regards, -Jeremy
You didn't watch the videos yet did you...
Watch the three videos from jhweather (part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...), and the other videos linked in the report (https://localwiki.org/davis/Reynoso_report). Note, those videos have less than 10,000 views. The footage from the police camera man and the student TV camera have not been released AFAIK.
The students had surrounded the police, and when the pepper spray threat was issued, the students sitting in the line got up and were replaced by students that wanted to be sprayed...
That is not to say that the actions of the UC Davis police were justified, right or just plain stupid. They were not under threat (in fact in one of the videos a cop answers his phone, steps over the line of students - while on the phone - and walks off into the crowd seconds before the incident).
Regards,
-Jeremy
Every smart admin out there... I just wish that Windows Update covered more software and hardware, so windows machines only needed one update utility like Linux boxes... Macs are a little better, especially for things that have migrated into the app store.
Regards,
-Jeremy