They intentionally dumped this traffic on the connections of the ISPs who wouldn't give them free expansions, in hopes that the customer complaints would force their hand.
Except you're not telling the full story. Netflix was well aware of the potential congestion issues, and offered their to place their own CDN boxes at no cost to any ISP that asked in order to alleviate this. Comcast chose not to avail themselves of this offer, as they couldn't double-dip if they did.
You can't just ignore the entire OSI model like that, and the fact there's an application level request being sent from Comcast to Netflix for the traffic received DOES most definitely factor into it. That a layer 7 request/response is being implemented by means of layer 3 activity doesn't change the fact that the layer 7 request from Comcast was the ONLY reason that the subsequent Netflix traffic was generated and received.
The fact is that traditional peering simply doesn't work when dealing with hugely asymmetrical networks like the average ISP. Comcast isn't transiting the Netflix traffic to another network, they're routing it directly to a Comcast end customer. IMO this wouldn't be an issue if Netflix weren't competing with Comcast's own content offerings.
Kevin Beary, the former sheriff of Orange County, FL did something almost as bad a few years back. A lady wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing the department and him personally, and he looked her up in the state database to get her address, and sent a nastygram back to her. Of course he didn't face any responsibility for his actions, even though they were clearly in violation of federal law.
Rather, this is one case, where the only person to stand up against government surveillance spent 6 years in prison (plus lost his job and a lot of money paying for lawyers before that).
Plus Qwest almost certainly got blacklisted from certain government contracts as a result, if what Nacchio says is true.
Bennet should learn how to program and then add some value to the world, instead of giving opinions and hoping someone else will.
He actually can program, but the circumstances of his departure from Microsoft are still rather mysterious to me. Sorry Bennett, "Term. type: Voluntary" and "Term reason: Resignation" don't tell the whole story, especially when you haven't been any more forthcoming on the subject.
they will usually let you out of the contract as long as you do it as soon as the changes are made
Of course they do. You can't unilaterally make a material change to an existing contract and force the other party to abide by it. That's why they say "by continuing your service you indicate your agreement with the new terms".
If they advertise unlimited peanuts, and you ask for more peanuts, and they don't give you more peanuts, or they give you fewer peanuts than you can consume, then it is not unlimited peanuts.
They could also take an unreasonable amount of time to give you more peanuts, but given that there are a lot of restaurants that use this tactic with their AYCE offerings and none that I know of that have been successfully sued for it, it's still probably not a good example.
That doesn't change the fact that the other owner was deprived of her interest in the property, nor does it change the effect the ruling has on future cases since the Supreme Court essentially said, "even if you're innocent and can prove it, it's still not unconstitutional". You're splitting hairs, legally.
I'm not sure I understand why people don't take the matter to court (and involve the press) to expose the unconstitutional actions of the government.
Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's not unconstitutional. I personally disagree with their opinion, but that's how the law is interpreted at present. You can prove you're an innocent owner, but there's legally absolutely nothing to keep the government from taking the property anyway.
It's disturbing, because when there aren't any legal avenues available to address this kind of theft, eventually people with nothing left to lose will start to work outside the legal system for redress.
Essentially, one of the branches of government completely failed the American public by neglecting to bitchslap congress for passing such shitty legislation.
Two branches. The courts didn't have to uphold this ridiculous concept, but the executive branch also had the power to say "this isn't right" and refuse to prosecute.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It's a Fifth Amendment issue, but I think it's more to do with the bolded text.
So the code might fail with a particular combination of inputs, but the coverage tool is more interested in which bits of the code have been execute.
This is quite true, but at least it's something that can help. Programmers already make enough mistakes, so any help is welcome. Whether that help is worth the price tag in dollars and time has to be determined on an individual case by case basis.
Why wouldn't you just create a test suite that actually tests all the scenarios?
Defining all of the possible scenarios is often a lot harder than it looks. There aren't too many UI coders out there that haven't said "yeah, we need to fix it, but what made the user decide to do that?" at one time or another.
Just writing a function that properly calculates whether the current year is a leap year would fall into that category as well, since there are exceptions for years divisible by 100 and 400. Thorough testing would be the only way to catch problems within the programmer's lifetime. However, this scenario also validates the parent poster's point - there are times when "good enough" is perfectly acceptable even though there may be logical flaws within the code. Simply doing a mod 4 on the year will likely be fine for the entire span of the program's useful life.
Re:replacing line feeds with terminators is not a
on
Tetris Is Hard To Test
·
· Score: 2
46 lines (statements), actually. There's a linked page where he blows it out into a readable form and explains how it works in depth.
Slashdot Mirror
They intentionally dumped this traffic on the connections of the ISPs who wouldn't give them free expansions, in hopes that the customer complaints would force their hand.
Except you're not telling the full story. Netflix was well aware of the potential congestion issues, and offered their to place their own CDN boxes at no cost to any ISP that asked in order to alleviate this. Comcast chose not to avail themselves of this offer, as they couldn't double-dip if they did.
You can't just ignore the entire OSI model like that, and the fact there's an application level request being sent from Comcast to Netflix for the traffic received DOES most definitely factor into it. That a layer 7 request/response is being implemented by means of layer 3 activity doesn't change the fact that the layer 7 request from Comcast was the ONLY reason that the subsequent Netflix traffic was generated and received.
The fact is that traditional peering simply doesn't work when dealing with hugely asymmetrical networks like the average ISP. Comcast isn't transiting the Netflix traffic to another network, they're routing it directly to a Comcast end customer. IMO this wouldn't be an issue if Netflix weren't competing with Comcast's own content offerings.
Kevin Beary, the former sheriff of Orange County, FL did something almost as bad a few years back. A lady wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing the department and him personally, and he looked her up in the state database to get her address, and sent a nastygram back to her. Of course he didn't face any responsibility for his actions, even though they were clearly in violation of federal law.
And the lady was right - he IS fat.
Rather, this is one case, where the only person to stand up against government surveillance spent 6 years in prison (plus lost his job and a lot of money paying for lawyers before that).
Plus Qwest almost certainly got blacklisted from certain government contracts as a result, if what Nacchio says is true.
"Innovation You Can Count On, But Too Many Pieces To Count"
Actually, it went boom, fell down, and we got a second boom for no added charge.
but there will be launch failures, most not at all related to politics
Unfortunately, one American launch failure that resulted in the loss of seven lives was completely due to internal politics.
Bennet should learn how to program and then add some value to the world, instead of giving opinions and hoping someone else will.
He actually can program, but the circumstances of his departure from Microsoft are still rather mysterious to me. Sorry Bennett, "Term. type: Voluntary" and "Term reason: Resignation" don't tell the whole story, especially when you haven't been any more forthcoming on the subject.
they will usually let you out of the contract as long as you do it as soon as the changes are made
Of course they do. You can't unilaterally make a material change to an existing contract and force the other party to abide by it. That's why they say "by continuing your service you indicate your agreement with the new terms".
If they advertise unlimited peanuts, and you ask for more peanuts, and they don't give you more peanuts, or they give you fewer peanuts than you can consume, then it is not unlimited peanuts.
They could also take an unreasonable amount of time to give you more peanuts, but given that there are a lot of restaurants that use this tactic with their AYCE offerings and none that I know of that have been successfully sued for it, it's still probably not a good example.
+1 for the Foxfire series. I have a pretty fair number of the books myself.
Sure, if you're talking about code your not-yet-born grandchild will be delivering.
That doesn't change the fact that the other owner was deprived of her interest in the property, nor does it change the effect the ruling has on future cases since the Supreme Court essentially said, "even if you're innocent and can prove it, it's still not unconstitutional". You're splitting hairs, legally.
The president is part of the executive branch I mentioned earlier.
I was assuming the legislature was already included since they passed the law to begin with, and needed bitch-slappin'.
I'm not sure I understand why people don't take the matter to court (and involve the press) to expose the unconstitutional actions of the government.
Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's not unconstitutional. I personally disagree with their opinion, but that's how the law is interpreted at present. You can prove you're an innocent owner, but there's legally absolutely nothing to keep the government from taking the property anyway.
It's disturbing, because when there aren't any legal avenues available to address this kind of theft, eventually people with nothing left to lose will start to work outside the legal system for redress.
Essentially, one of the branches of government completely failed the American public by neglecting to bitchslap congress for passing such shitty legislation.
Two branches. The courts didn't have to uphold this ridiculous concept, but the executive branch also had the power to say "this isn't right" and refuse to prosecute.
This is the DIRECT result of law and order conservatives and their war on drugs, on 'terror', and whatever other fearful crap they come up with.
Civil forfeiture has been going on since at least the 1800's.
Taking from people with no proof of a crime, is unconstitutional.
I agree with you 100%, but the history of civil asset forfeiture would seem to indicate the courts beg to differ.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It's a Fifth Amendment issue, but I think it's more to do with the bolded text.
So the code might fail with a particular combination of inputs, but the coverage tool is more interested in which bits of the code have been execute.
This is quite true, but at least it's something that can help. Programmers already make enough mistakes, so any help is welcome. Whether that help is worth the price tag in dollars and time has to be determined on an individual case by case basis.
Why wouldn't you just create a test suite that actually tests all the scenarios?
Defining all of the possible scenarios is often a lot harder than it looks. There aren't too many UI coders out there that haven't said "yeah, we need to fix it, but what made the user decide to do that?" at one time or another.
Just writing a function that properly calculates whether the current year is a leap year would fall into that category as well, since there are exceptions for years divisible by 100 and 400. Thorough testing would be the only way to catch problems within the programmer's lifetime. However, this scenario also validates the parent poster's point - there are times when "good enough" is perfectly acceptable even though there may be logical flaws within the code. Simply doing a mod 4 on the year will likely be fine for the entire span of the program's useful life.
46 lines (statements), actually. There's a linked page where he blows it out into a readable form and explains how it works in depth.
I'm still impressed by the extremely fast photos taken of early nuclear tests - so fast that they show the guy wires on the test towers being vaporized. I think it's way cool that we had the technology to take those photos way back in the 1940s.