Where your analogy breaks-down is where this conversation started - (cell phones aside) the caller is the one who pays for the call, not the receiver. Only one side pays for the usage of the line, the side that initiated the call.
That's not how telephony works for most of the world. Most places, both sides pay for the call. This applies to the US too when it comes to cellphones and VoIP, and it applies to landlines most places outside of North America.
It's not Level 3's fault Comcast promised unlimited Internet to their customers and their customers are finally taking advantage of it, that's Comcast's problem.
It's not Comcast's fault that Level3 promised gigabits of connectivity to Netflix, and Netflix is taking advantage of it. That's Level3's problem.
I just have a problem with the way Comcast frames this argument - they say it like Level 3 is just pushing this traffic onto their network, unsolicited when it is Comcast's customers (basically Comcast itself) that is requesting the data be sent
Network providers don't get metaphysical about the reason the data transfer exists, about who requested what or why. Packets come in, money or packets go out.
You don't seem to have noticed the "exchanged" part of that definition. This implies that there is an equitable exchange going on here, which is what Comcast wants. An equitable exchange. Level3 doesn't want such an exchange.
This isn't Netflix' traffic. It isn't Comcast cable customers' traffic. It's Level3's traffic. If you would like to send data to Netflix (via Level3), then it's your traffic. But you're not.
Because everybody who connects to Comcast's network needs to compensate Comcast in some way, regardless of who they are?
If you and I are both Comcast cable customers, and you request that I send you data, should Comcast give me a free cable internet connection? Because that's exactly what you're implying.
If I want you to call me on the telephone, should I have to pay for your telephone line? No, we each pay for our own telephone line, and then you can call me as much as you like.
Comcast charges less to terminate traffic on their own network than to pass the traffic on to some other network... Comcast is trying to charge Level3 to move traffic over Comcast's network, just like every other network operator in the world.
Imagine the telephone analogy. If person A wants to call person B, they must each pay for a telephone line. What you're suggesting is that the telephone company should give person A a free telephone line because person B wants to receive the call. No, that's not how it works. Both parties must pay for telephone lines to make calls through the telephone network.
If Level3 isn't using any of Comcast's bandwidth, I guess they won't mind then if Comcast shuts down all interconnections to Level3's network. Level3 can connect to Comcast's network through a third party.
Comcast does not want to get paid twice for the same data. They want all people who connect to their network, regardless of who they are (cable customer or ISP customer), to compensate them in some way. That, my friend, is how the internet works. That is how every network provider in the world operates.
Because that's not how the internet works? You have to pay something (be it money, or accepting traffic) to connect to any network. Doesn't matter if you're a retail customer, or a network operator customer. You want to connect to the Comcast network and move data through it, you have to compensate them in some way.
That's how it works for every single network operator on the planet... Why should Level3 get to connect to the network for free? If every network operator were required to let other network operators connect to them for free, where exactly is the revenue going to come from for ISPs that don't have any retail customers?
Clean as in it's more efficient than other cargo ships. They only switched Emma off bunker fuel in September of this year, and from their press release it looks like they still use bunker fuel at sea.
There are plenty of non-DSLR cameras that support a variety of lense mounting standards. For example, micro four-thirds cameras (non-DSLR) can use four-thirds lenses (DSLR) via adapters, at which point you can get those same HUUUUUGE Telephoto lens on a non-DSLR camera like the Lumix GF2, which has a body very similar to most point-and-shoots.
I don't agree. While he might be the person doing the work, he's still doing the work in an official capacity. Oracle has the final say on everything he does, and can decide it wants things done differently, or assign him to something else entirely. Ultimately, the entity responsible for the development is not Chris Mason, but Oracle.
What happens if a checksum says your data is corrupted? Yer, you need a mirror and if you don't have one then it really doesn't matter how many checksums you perform if you can't recover the data.
ZFS revolves around RAID. It's expected that you've got some form of redundancy on all zpools. If corruption is detected, then the data is recovered from the raidz/raid1/etc redundancy.
Also, the checksums enable a few other useful features. For example, block-level deduplication (regardless of compression, since the checksum is on the original data) becomes pretty easy.
But if you're only viewing black and white content, how does the black and white display look any cheaper than the colour display?
I have a Kindle 3. I use it for one thing and one thing only; reading books. If you looked at me using my kindle, you'd never have any way to know if it had a colour or monochrome display. And yet somehow the mere fact that it's monochrome makes it look cheap?
The lack of colour hasn't held back eBook readers because the vast majority of content that users want to read on them doesn't have any colours.
Early e-ink displays might have looked cheap, but current e-ink displays look significantly better than an LCD showing a monochromatic image. It looks much more like printed text, and the lack of a backlight makes it easier to read.
That and the low power requirements are, I think, the two major advantages of e-ink. The lack of colour and the low refresh rate are the only major disadvantages.
The article is not currently behind a pay-wall, and does not currently require registration. But then, you knew that, because you only complained about this after trying to access the article, right?
The quality of the colour is why they're not using it yet. Black and white e-ink is significantly better than the original versions of the product. Only in the last generation or two has it approached print quality in terms of contrast ratio. Undoubtedly, the same will be true of colour e-ink for a while. Presumably, Amazon and others will wait for a generation or two for the technology to improve sufficiently.
I feel exactly the same way. Antivirus manufacturers are making a buck off Windows' insecurity. Nothing wrong with that, they were filling a need. But they also don't have any moral grounds to complain when Microsoft tries to improve said security.
Actually, Sandvine's claims for Canada call into question their American data. Sandvine claims that Netflix accounts for 95% of data in Canada during peak hours, and this only a month after launch with a currently very small customer base. If they're going to claim such ridiculous and provably false figures (several independent ISPs have spoken up saying that, while they have noticed an increase, 95% is a load of crock), how can you trust their US data?
Slashdot Mirror
Where your analogy breaks-down is where this conversation started - (cell phones aside) the caller is the one who pays for the call, not the receiver. Only one side pays for the usage of the line, the side that initiated the call.
That's not how telephony works for most of the world. Most places, both sides pay for the call. This applies to the US too when it comes to cellphones and VoIP, and it applies to landlines most places outside of North America.
It's not Level 3's fault Comcast promised unlimited Internet to their customers and their customers are finally taking advantage of it, that's Comcast's problem.
It's not Comcast's fault that Level3 promised gigabits of connectivity to Netflix, and Netflix is taking advantage of it. That's Level3's problem.
I just have a problem with the way Comcast frames this argument - they say it like Level 3 is just pushing this traffic onto their network, unsolicited when it is Comcast's customers (basically Comcast itself) that is requesting the data be sent
Network providers don't get metaphysical about the reason the data transfer exists, about who requested what or why. Packets come in, money or packets go out.
You don't seem to have noticed the "exchanged" part of that definition. This implies that there is an equitable exchange going on here, which is what Comcast wants. An equitable exchange. Level3 doesn't want such an exchange.
The cost of maintaining your physical connection far outweighs the cost of the transit you consume.
This isn't Netflix' traffic. It isn't Comcast cable customers' traffic. It's Level3's traffic. If you would like to send data to Netflix (via Level3), then it's your traffic. But you're not.
Because everybody who connects to Comcast's network needs to compensate Comcast in some way, regardless of who they are?
If you and I are both Comcast cable customers, and you request that I send you data, should Comcast give me a free cable internet connection? Because that's exactly what you're implying.
If I want you to call me on the telephone, should I have to pay for your telephone line? No, we each pay for our own telephone line, and then you can call me as much as you like.
Comcast charges less to terminate traffic on their own network than to pass the traffic on to some other network... Comcast is trying to charge Level3 to move traffic over Comcast's network, just like every other network operator in the world.
Imagine the telephone analogy. If person A wants to call person B, they must each pay for a telephone line. What you're suggesting is that the telephone company should give person A a free telephone line because person B wants to receive the call. No, that's not how it works. Both parties must pay for telephone lines to make calls through the telephone network.
If Level3 isn't using any of Comcast's bandwidth, I guess they won't mind then if Comcast shuts down all interconnections to Level3's network. Level3 can connect to Comcast's network through a third party.
Comcast does not want to get paid twice for the same data. They want all people who connect to their network, regardless of who they are (cable customer or ISP customer), to compensate them in some way. That, my friend, is how the internet works. That is how every network provider in the world operates.
Because that's not how the internet works? You have to pay something (be it money, or accepting traffic) to connect to any network. Doesn't matter if you're a retail customer, or a network operator customer. You want to connect to the Comcast network and move data through it, you have to compensate them in some way.
That's how it works for every single network operator on the planet... Why should Level3 get to connect to the network for free? If every network operator were required to let other network operators connect to them for free, where exactly is the revenue going to come from for ISPs that don't have any retail customers?
Wrong. HD is for iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone touch 3rd & 4th gen, and iPad. There is no XL version. Unless you want an ATI Rage XL.
Clean as in it's more efficient than other cargo ships. They only switched Emma off bunker fuel in September of this year, and from their press release it looks like they still use bunker fuel at sea.
And therefore?
There are plenty of non-DSLR cameras that support a variety of lense mounting standards. For example, micro four-thirds cameras (non-DSLR) can use four-thirds lenses (DSLR) via adapters, at which point you can get those same HUUUUUGE Telephoto lens on a non-DSLR camera like the Lumix GF2, which has a body very similar to most point-and-shoots.
I don't agree. While he might be the person doing the work, he's still doing the work in an official capacity. Oracle has the final say on everything he does, and can decide it wants things done differently, or assign him to something else entirely. Ultimately, the entity responsible for the development is not Chris Mason, but Oracle.
In that Oracle is developing btrfs and Chris Mason is the one that Oracle has doing the work, yes.
The lawsuit ended in September; they settled.
What happens if a checksum says your data is corrupted? Yer, you need a mirror and if you don't have one then it really doesn't matter how many checksums you perform if you can't recover the data.
ZFS revolves around RAID. It's expected that you've got some form of redundancy on all zpools. If corruption is detected, then the data is recovered from the raidz/raid1/etc redundancy.
Also, the checksums enable a few other useful features. For example, block-level deduplication (regardless of compression, since the checksum is on the original data) becomes pretty easy.
iTunes only charged $10 per album at the time, so it was far cheaper regardless of if you only bought a few songs, or if you bought the entire album.
But if you're only viewing black and white content, how does the black and white display look any cheaper than the colour display?
I have a Kindle 3. I use it for one thing and one thing only; reading books. If you looked at me using my kindle, you'd never have any way to know if it had a colour or monochrome display. And yet somehow the mere fact that it's monochrome makes it look cheap?
The lack of colour hasn't held back eBook readers because the vast majority of content that users want to read on them doesn't have any colours.
Early e-ink displays might have looked cheap, but current e-ink displays look significantly better than an LCD showing a monochromatic image. It looks much more like printed text, and the lack of a backlight makes it easier to read.
That and the low power requirements are, I think, the two major advantages of e-ink. The lack of colour and the low refresh rate are the only major disadvantages.
The article is not currently behind a pay-wall, and does not currently require registration. But then, you knew that, because you only complained about this after trying to access the article, right?
The quality of the colour is why they're not using it yet. Black and white e-ink is significantly better than the original versions of the product. Only in the last generation or two has it approached print quality in terms of contrast ratio. Undoubtedly, the same will be true of colour e-ink for a while. Presumably, Amazon and others will wait for a generation or two for the technology to improve sufficiently.
I feel exactly the same way. Antivirus manufacturers are making a buck off Windows' insecurity. Nothing wrong with that, they were filling a need. But they also don't have any moral grounds to complain when Microsoft tries to improve said security.
Yeah, I only noticed the correction after my post. Whups!
Actually, Sandvine's claims for Canada call into question their American data. Sandvine claims that Netflix accounts for 95% of data in Canada during peak hours, and this only a month after launch with a currently very small customer base. If they're going to claim such ridiculous and provably false figures (several independent ISPs have spoken up saying that, while they have noticed an increase, 95% is a load of crock), how can you trust their US data?