Not only that, switching power supplies were unheard of. It meant that that brick had a ton of copper inside it. I think when I got my C=128, I was amazed that the brick weighed next to nothing.
I subscribe to Wired. I also read Wired's website when I don't have access to my subscription (I travel a lot). I'd prefer a Wired app to their website, but not for an extra $5 per month for duplicate content. Oh, wait, you say: but it has enhanced content! I don't give a crap about enhanced content, or I'd not subscribe to the magazine in the first place.
I also subscribe to Cook's Illustrated, both the physical magazine and their online site. (The online site gives me access to everything before I subscribed.) The iOS app is free, but also lets me log in for full content. Since Apple doesn't (yet) support subscriptions, I'd say that something like that would be a happy medium for Wired.
I'm currently working in Mexico, and get this: the Walmarts here *do* have an area of a single queue. It's roped off (no line jumpers), consists of about 10 registers (of which I've seen a maximum of five working), limited to 20 items (although when waiting in regular lines with more items, employees have directed me there anyway), and it works splendidly.
Okay, the subject is a bit, shall we say, Area 51-ish.
But, seriously, Google gets all of this praise for their 20% personal project time allowance. I wonder if Apple does the same thing, but just doesn't ack it?
My company still runs old Exchange servers (hell, we still run XP and until last month, IE6). We *do* have an official iPhone app for accessing the Exchange servers, though. Wow, does it *suck*! Luckily we have a lot of Unix boxes that need email access, so IMAP is enabled. When on the company WIFI, IMAP is good enough. When off the company WIFI, SecureID is just an extra step.
But, why? In my example, I'd still have a 10 Mb connection when using Hulu but not using Netflix. I don't see that the connection to Hulu would be any different than I'd have to Hulu today.
>>Suppose that Netflix or some other online delivery oriented company doesn't agree to pay Comcast,Time Warner, Cox, and every other major broadband provider extra... Suppose that one of those providers launches their own service and wants to "encourage" its broadband users to purchase their new service. Because there is no regulation, that provider might elect to throttle access to the competitor's service, possibly to the point that it artificially degrades the service.
Maybe my crime is that I see two aspects to net neutrality, while everyone only sees one. In this case, a company that's *not* paying for preferential treatment would get standard treatment, just like it does today. There's a *huge* difference between/throttling/ a connection that I want, and giving preferential treatment to a server that wants to pay for preferential treatment. I'm suggesting that I don't see a problem with preferential treatment. I *do* see a huge problem with/detrimental/ treatment.
>>Like you pointed out, Netflix is seen by Comcast as the enemy. You say you'd be a happy customer if Comcast dedicated 4MB of your connection to Netflix while you're streaming. How will you feel when Comcast decides to throttle Netflix to 1 bit per second while injecting advertisements for their cable TV service over that episode of Dexter you're not able to watch?
As above, throttling isn't the issue; it's QOS for preferred applications. When I'm not using a preferred app, then I'd be subject to all of the same packet switching issues that impact today's traffic. As for injecting advertisements over data that I'm requesting from a remote machine, that has nothing to do with net neutrality as I understand it. In fact, that's invasive and I'd regard that as an intrusion into my computer.
>>I don't subscribe to netflix, and I would be pissed if they reserved 40% of my pipe for traffic I won't ever use.
But the QOS would be dynamic. The reservation would only be in place while you were streaming Netflix. There'd be no other way to sell guaranteed bandwidth, and it'd not be profitable. What do you do, sell 40% to Netflix, 50% to Walmart's service, and then 10% to Google, and you're done selling? No way; you'd have to sell 1000% or more of your capacity.
Come to think of it, as a customer, I'd be willing to pay for prioritized traffic and dynamic QOS to hosts of interest, for the same reasons I already set up priorities in my router.
Summary: (a) No one has convinced me that it's bad to sell QOS, assuming the non-QOS traffic works likes it does today. (b) Throttling conflicts with point (a), and of course I don't support it. (c) Overlaying ads would be evil, but has nothing to do with selling QOS.
Maybe "net neutrality" as a term is too all encompassing?
Seriously, what's wrong with a little bit of capitalism and money changing hands to give preferential treatment to companies willing to pay for it?
Let's say that I have a 10 Mb Comcast connection. Under net neutrality, I can use that bandwidth however I want. There's no QOS, so maybe my Netflix streaming stutters a bit or the resolution drops here and there. Now suppose Comcast enters into an agreement with Netflix (yes, they're arch enemies; this is just an example) whereby Netflix pays Comcast to reserve 4 Mb of that connection for streaming. That's a *good* thing for me as a customer (even if I now have to pay an extra $1 to month to Netflix). When I'm streaming Netflix, my QOS is guaranteed, and I still have 6 Mb that's "net neutral" for other things. And when I'm not streaming, I still have my whole 10 Mb pipe.
As far as I can tell, the managed aspects only come into play when I'm accessing a service that has an agreement with the ISP. When I'm not accessing one of those services, there's no difference.
Of course you could say that being non-net-neutral would give Comcast (in my example) the right to limit my P2P traffic. That's an aspect that I don't agree with, after all, it's still my 10 Mb pipe. But if they want to limit it to 6 Mb while streaming my 4 Mb Netflix, that's a good thing for me. Note that this is *not* the same as a implementing QOS in my router, since the router only implements QOS for my LAN, not for Comcast's connection to upstream providers.
For all the press and attention that the Volt is getting (and one can't forget to mention the capital cost, R&D, and engineering that went into it), the Electric Focus is actually a better example of electric car technology. It's _not_ a hybrid, but a pure electric vehicle with a 100/160 mile/km range. I suppose you could tow a generator behind it if you don't have a second car for a road trip.
1. Is Comcast going to give me unlimited IPv6 addresses? How will that work through my router? Do I now need to announce every device to Comcast? I REALLY like the fact that I get a single IP address, and I can port forward and use NAT as I like.
2. NAT makes for a pretty good firewall. I have Linux and Mac machines, and consumer devices, behind my current NAT router. With NAT and SPI, I have it pretty good. I really only ever use an outbound firewall to detect phone-home stuff and malware (and with Linux and Mac, surprise, surprise, there's not a lot of the latter).
Hey, I understand the need for IPv6. I guess I just don't want to lose what NAT offers.
Leon isn't in the drug war. Not that that can't change. What do you hear on the news? Acapulco (and that's new), Monterey, Nuevo Laredo, Cd. Juarez, Michoacan (the state), Sinaloa (the state). Guanajauto (the state that Leon is in) isn't part of that mess (nor is most of the country). In fact, it's a major tourist destination (the state, not Leon), and has a ginormous American ex-pat population. Drugs = ports and the US border.
Actually, Leon isn't a drug lord infested stink hole like some other parts of Mexico. It's slogan was (until recently) "The best city for living in!" And it's really kind of true. The state that it's in was one of the first to throw off the shackles of the ruling PRI (you know, they guys that never gave up power after the Mexican revolution), and it progressed as a result. The previous president of Mexico (Fox, the first non-PRI president in those 71 years) was from the outskirts of Leon. Their public transportation (non-subway) system is a model for the world, and it's being adopted for many parts of Mexico City (where I currently live, and is a shithole, even the "exclusive" neighborhood where corporate housing has me). Potable water, good infrastructure, lots of various industry, a very good, middle-class standard of living, and less-than-average corruption in their police force.
Generally speaking, Leon is/already/ one of the safest cities in Mexico.
I go to Leon quite extensively, and so the iris scanner thing actually kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies.
>>Do you also avoid consumer reviews of products when you go to buy something? That seems like a bad idea. It seems equally silly to refuse to look at ratings of something like a restaurant you might want to try for the first time.
There's Zagat, Metro Times, and hundres of other resources for that.
>>Even just the fact a lot of people have checked into a place means it must be decent.
Oh, no no no no. That's completely wrong. I assume that people check into McDonald's and Starbucks all the time. And what's the demographic for Foursquare? Younger people? The ones who think all corporations are evil? That saving a single dollar is a make-it-or-break-it proposition? People that think they deserve everything for merely having been born? Not the same demographic, and thus very unlikely to have the same tastes. Your statement is kind of like, "Even just the fact that a lot of people voted for him means that he must be decent." The masses have no taste, especially the younger masses.
But the contrary can be true. I only saw Avatar in 2D, and didn't really think it was all that great, and that's the type of movie I would ordinarily love. Yet every, single person I talk to who saw it in 3D first (or only in 3D) goes on and on about how great a movie it was. Maybe the 3D and effects were great (heck, even in 2D, the effects were good), but they don't make a movie.
It's not really Detroit vs. Comcast, but Detroit versus the state. Detroit argues that it has local franchise authority. Comcast argues that the state law supersedes that authority. Detroit argues back that federal law and/or the Constitution overrides the state law. So really, it's the city of Detroit versus the state of Michigan, here. I wonder why Detroit just doesn't sue the state in the first place?
Ah, Run magazine, the entire scope of my career as a published writer. What was the column near the beginning where they published reader-submitted hints and tips? I got in there twice when I was 13 or 14.
I stopped typing in programs when I got my free 300 baud modem and subscription to Quantum Link. There wasn't much point then.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, switching power supplies were unheard of. It meant that that brick had a ton of copper inside it. I think when I got my C=128, I was amazed that the brick weighed next to nothing.
I subscribe to Wired. I also read Wired's website when I don't have access to my subscription (I travel a lot). I'd prefer a Wired app to their website, but not for an extra $5 per month for duplicate content. Oh, wait, you say: but it has enhanced content! I don't give a crap about enhanced content, or I'd not subscribe to the magazine in the first place.
I also subscribe to Cook's Illustrated, both the physical magazine and their online site. (The online site gives me access to everything before I subscribed.) The iOS app is free, but also lets me log in for full content. Since Apple doesn't (yet) support subscriptions, I'd say that something like that would be a happy medium for Wired.
I'm currently working in Mexico, and get this: the Walmarts here *do* have an area of a single queue. It's roped off (no line jumpers), consists of about 10 registers (of which I've seen a maximum of five working), limited to 20 items (although when waiting in regular lines with more items, employees have directed me there anyway), and it works splendidly.
Okay, the subject is a bit, shall we say, Area 51-ish.
But, seriously, Google gets all of this praise for their 20% personal project time allowance. I wonder if Apple does the same thing, but just doesn't ack it?
My company still runs old Exchange servers (hell, we still run XP and until last month, IE6). We *do* have an official iPhone app for accessing the Exchange servers, though. Wow, does it *suck*! Luckily we have a lot of Unix boxes that need email access, so IMAP is enabled. When on the company WIFI, IMAP is good enough. When off the company WIFI, SecureID is just an extra step.
Ford engineers are *not* unionized.
No, no, that would be the case if it were Chrysler or GM product design. But this was the *good* stuff that they stole.
So, it'll be kind of like running X on my Mac OS X machines. A modern display server, with the ability to run a non-root X on top of it.
It either works as said or doesn't, and he'll either sell engines or not. That's how markets work.
Hah! I just loaded about 20 articles from Mexico. Sue me here!
And tomorrow at work, where my internet is served from HQ in the USA, I'm going to hit it 20 more times. Let's see if she sues a Fortune 8 company!
>>What if you want to watch Hulu? Stuttering.
But, why? In my example, I'd still have a 10 Mb connection when using Hulu but not using Netflix. I don't see that the connection to Hulu would be any different than I'd have to Hulu today.
>>Suppose that Netflix or some other online delivery oriented company doesn't agree to pay Comcast,Time Warner, Cox, and every other major broadband provider extra... Suppose that one of those providers launches their own service and wants to "encourage" its broadband users to purchase their new service. Because there is no regulation, that provider might elect to throttle access to the competitor's service, possibly to the point that it artificially degrades the service.
Maybe my crime is that I see two aspects to net neutrality, while everyone only sees one. In this case, a company that's *not* paying for preferential treatment would get standard treatment, just like it does today. There's a *huge* difference between /throttling/ a connection that I want, and giving preferential treatment to a server that wants to pay for preferential treatment. I'm suggesting that I don't see a problem with preferential treatment. I *do* see a huge problem with /detrimental/ treatment.
>>Like you pointed out, Netflix is seen by Comcast as the enemy. You say you'd be a happy customer if Comcast dedicated 4MB of your connection to Netflix while you're streaming. How will you feel when Comcast decides to throttle Netflix to 1 bit per second while injecting advertisements for their cable TV service over that episode of Dexter you're not able to watch?
As above, throttling isn't the issue; it's QOS for preferred applications. When I'm not using a preferred app, then I'd be subject to all of the same packet switching issues that impact today's traffic. As for injecting advertisements over data that I'm requesting from a remote machine, that has nothing to do with net neutrality as I understand it. In fact, that's invasive and I'd regard that as an intrusion into my computer.
>>I don't subscribe to netflix, and I would be pissed if they reserved 40% of my pipe for traffic I won't ever use.
But the QOS would be dynamic. The reservation would only be in place while you were streaming Netflix. There'd be no other way to sell guaranteed bandwidth, and it'd not be profitable. What do you do, sell 40% to Netflix, 50% to Walmart's service, and then 10% to Google, and you're done selling? No way; you'd have to sell 1000% or more of your capacity.
Come to think of it, as a customer, I'd be willing to pay for prioritized traffic and dynamic QOS to hosts of interest, for the same reasons I already set up priorities in my router.
Summary: (a) No one has convinced me that it's bad to sell QOS, assuming the non-QOS traffic works likes it does today. (b) Throttling conflicts with point (a), and of course I don't support it. (c) Overlaying ads would be evil, but has nothing to do with selling QOS.
Maybe "net neutrality" as a term is too all encompassing?
Seriously, what's wrong with a little bit of capitalism and money changing hands to give preferential treatment to companies willing to pay for it?
Let's say that I have a 10 Mb Comcast connection. Under net neutrality, I can use that bandwidth however I want. There's no QOS, so maybe my Netflix streaming stutters a bit or the resolution drops here and there. Now suppose Comcast enters into an agreement with Netflix (yes, they're arch enemies; this is just an example) whereby Netflix pays Comcast to reserve 4 Mb of that connection for streaming. That's a *good* thing for me as a customer (even if I now have to pay an extra $1 to month to Netflix). When I'm streaming Netflix, my QOS is guaranteed, and I still have 6 Mb that's "net neutral" for other things. And when I'm not streaming, I still have my whole 10 Mb pipe.
As far as I can tell, the managed aspects only come into play when I'm accessing a service that has an agreement with the ISP. When I'm not accessing one of those services, there's no difference.
Of course you could say that being non-net-neutral would give Comcast (in my example) the right to limit my P2P traffic. That's an aspect that I don't agree with, after all, it's still my 10 Mb pipe. But if they want to limit it to 6 Mb while streaming my 4 Mb Netflix, that's a good thing for me. Note that this is *not* the same as a implementing QOS in my router, since the router only implements QOS for my LAN, not for Comcast's connection to upstream providers.
For all the press and attention that the Volt is getting (and one can't forget to mention the capital cost, R&D, and engineering that went into it), the Electric Focus is actually a better example of electric car technology. It's _not_ a hybrid, but a pure electric vehicle with a 100/160 mile/km range. I suppose you could tow a generator behind it if you don't have a second car for a road trip.
Dunno... lots of Fords and Lincolns have that system. Plus, Toyota would be the patent holder, not Lexus.
Okay, let's assume that IPv4 no longer exists...
1. Is Comcast going to give me unlimited IPv6 addresses? How will that work through my router? Do I now need to announce every device to Comcast? I REALLY like the fact that I get a single IP address, and I can port forward and use NAT as I like.
2. NAT makes for a pretty good firewall. I have Linux and Mac machines, and consumer devices, behind my current NAT router. With NAT and SPI, I have it pretty good. I really only ever use an outbound firewall to detect phone-home stuff and malware (and with Linux and Mac, surprise, surprise, there's not a lot of the latter).
Hey, I understand the need for IPv6. I guess I just don't want to lose what NAT offers.
Leon isn't in the drug war. Not that that can't change. What do you hear on the news? Acapulco (and that's new), Monterey, Nuevo Laredo, Cd. Juarez, Michoacan (the state), Sinaloa (the state). Guanajauto (the state that Leon is in) isn't part of that mess (nor is most of the country). In fact, it's a major tourist destination (the state, not Leon), and has a ginormous American ex-pat population. Drugs = ports and the US border.
Actually, Leon isn't a drug lord infested stink hole like some other parts of Mexico. It's slogan was (until recently) "The best city for living in!" And it's really kind of true. The state that it's in was one of the first to throw off the shackles of the ruling PRI (you know, they guys that never gave up power after the Mexican revolution), and it progressed as a result. The previous president of Mexico (Fox, the first non-PRI president in those 71 years) was from the outskirts of Leon. Their public transportation (non-subway) system is a model for the world, and it's being adopted for many parts of Mexico City (where I currently live, and is a shithole, even the "exclusive" neighborhood where corporate housing has me). Potable water, good infrastructure, lots of various industry, a very good, middle-class standard of living, and less-than-average corruption in their police force.
Generally speaking, Leon is /already/ one of the safest cities in Mexico.
I go to Leon quite extensively, and so the iris scanner thing actually kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies.
>>Do you also avoid consumer reviews of products when you go to buy something? That seems like a bad idea. It seems equally silly to refuse to look at ratings of something like a restaurant you might want to try for the first time.
There's Zagat, Metro Times, and hundres of other resources for that.
>>Even just the fact a lot of people have checked into a place means it must be decent.
Oh, no no no no. That's completely wrong. I assume that people check into McDonald's and Starbucks all the time. And what's the demographic for Foursquare? Younger people? The ones who think all corporations are evil? That saving a single dollar is a make-it-or-break-it proposition? People that think they deserve everything for merely having been born? Not the same demographic, and thus very unlikely to have the same tastes. Your statement is kind of like, "Even just the fact that a lot of people voted for him means that he must be decent." The masses have no taste, especially the younger masses.
>>Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I have the opposite problem: there are hundreds of words that I've read and known that I can't be sure that I properly pronounce.
If I go to the AOL homepage, there's just a bunch of news and articles. There's no option to subscribe. Heck, do they even still have an AOL client?
But the contrary can be true. I only saw Avatar in 2D, and didn't really think it was all that great, and that's the type of movie I would ordinarily love. Yet every, single person I talk to who saw it in 3D first (or only in 3D) goes on and on about how great a movie it was. Maybe the 3D and effects were great (heck, even in 2D, the effects were good), but they don't make a movie.
Make the cost of tax software a credit instead of a deduction. Everyone likes corporate welfare and gratis software. Then, problem solved.
It's not really Detroit vs. Comcast, but Detroit versus the state. Detroit argues that it has local franchise authority. Comcast argues that the state law supersedes that authority. Detroit argues back that federal law and/or the Constitution overrides the state law. So really, it's the city of Detroit versus the state of Michigan, here. I wonder why Detroit just doesn't sue the state in the first place?
Ah, Run magazine, the entire scope of my career as a published writer. What was the column near the beginning where they published reader-submitted hints and tips? I got in there twice when I was 13 or 14.
I stopped typing in programs when I got my free 300 baud modem and subscription to Quantum Link. There wasn't much point then.
Of course, when cars fly, km won't be relevant because the international standard for aviation is nautical miles and velocity in knots.