It has nothing to do with how bad things are for Comcast. It's just a fact that Comcast's customers are spread out throughout cities and that means that whoever is going to serve those customers has to build a massive, sprawling network. That is the explanation for why each packet exchanged between Comcast and an access provider costs Comcast more than it costs the access provider.
All of which is part and parcel of being an ISP. However you didn't address my point that Comcast could have helped their situation by buying up dark fiber if nothing but to help with infrastructure like Google did. Also you complained specifically about what Netflix and Google did while not acknowledging Comcast could have done/can still do the exact same thing.
It is the point because those are the times we live in. Different times for different challenges.
And yet you ignore every single aspect of the times that destroys you argument.
If that is outsourced to private industry then that point becomes moot. Again, all I said was potential overlap. You are projecting what I say.
So what you are saying you want to replace an agency that does something today with a private organization that does not exist today? And yet you want to get to Mars in 4 years time. Good luck with that. Privatization doesn't solve this problem; it just moves the problem somewhere else.
I am not slandering science by calling out political crap masqueraded as science
Which is irrelevant to this entire discussion.
Calm down and stop chasing the boogeyman you built up in your head. Two sides can be right and two sides are required to make a coin. If you think it is unfair to one side try being on the other and try to understand their perspective.
You are the some that seems so sensitive when anyone points out the flaws in your arguments.
Your conflating stating something (whether true, partially true, or not is irrelevant) and doing something. Stating something requires only him. Doing something does not.
Trump: Obamacare is imploding and must be replaced. Trump: Illegals commit all sorts of crimes so a $25B+ wall must be built. Again, his delusions shape his policies. Are you so delusional that you do not see that?
He did promise he would do that bullet point... The details are being worked out... What's the problem?
I said it above. Please read. Trump doesn't care about actually doing anything that helps anyone.
You are saying that him trying to keep a promise and negotiating the details doesn't matter to him? How do you know? By his actions? Are you in his head? I don't think he personally cares but I also think that politicians that do care are few and far between. So what? Is he trying to fulfill is promise? It looks like it and he still has 3 years (or at least 1 til the midterms) to try.
You mean besides the flip-flopping he has shown in his promises so far? Keeping his promises has not been one of his traits in his entire life; I don't understand why anyone who has looked at Trump for decades does not understand this about him.
I don't think bringing it up as an idea is sabotaging going to Mars. Calm your tits, their flappin' again.
I specifically listed above what I meant. It seems you want to over-react to every statement.
As far as 100 days, i don't really care about it. I only mention it because that is the time frame that has passed. Again. I don't see the issue. You sound very partisan and very bitter. Give your tits a rest... They must be soar from flappin' so much.
No, please read what I wrote above. As for emotions, you sound like you are some sort of snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump.
I am aware of all those things but I don't see how they're responsive to my point.
Your point is bemoaning how terrible things are for Comcast because they are an ISP and how Netflix has some sort of responsibility to fix Comcast's problems and lack of foresight. It's like you telling me how terrible oil companies have it with car manufacturers making more fuel efficient cars and how car manufacturers should make less fuel efficient cars or pay the oil companies a subsidy.
Sure, Comcast can do other things if they want, but their customers will still cost roughly the same amount to service and some company will service them. So some company or other will be in the position Comcast is in, unless you think that people who are expensive to service shouldn't have Internet access.
And the fact that Comcast and other ISPs actively keep out other competition through multiple means has no effect on you? For example some municipalities fed up with terrible or non-existent service have been sued to prevent them from providing Internet to their constituents.
Did Kennedy have the same size federal government and deficit/debt with overlap between different bureaucracies?
1) Not the point. Did Kennedy do something as stupid as advocate for a program while cutting the funding at the same time? 2) Trump's proposed budget actually does nothing bout the overall deficit but massively increases military spending and cutting domestic programs.
I don't like Trumps cuts to science but I at least understand a few of them; NASA and NOAA potential overlap for climate science (not to mention the potential conflict of NASA goals if budget taken by such overlapping missions).
Then your understanding is poor. NASA and NOAA collaborate on some climate science missions for a very specific reason: NASA has the expertise when it comes to launch systems. NASA (and the JPL) are the ones that manage the rockets, design the satellites, and the planes instrumentation. NOAA and their scientists are the ones who benefit from the data coming from all the instrumentation that NASA has helped to design. There is no federal agency that can replace NASA in what it does in this regard. Please read more about NASA/NOAA missions.
As for the others, are those tax dollars being used to fund studies like this [sagepub.com]???
And what part of NASA funding was used for that journal? I see no mention or link to NASA itself. I see no personnell attached to NASA.
When "science" becomes as political as that paper, it is no longer science and I question the validity of those institutions that fund those papers under the guise of science.
So your sample size of one paper is being used to slander all of science even though you have yet to demonstrate how that 1 paper is related to anything that NASA does. Statistically you do know that a sample size of 1 does not represent much, do you?
NASA != "terrestrial and practical science" (nor is it an outreach arm for Islamic science).
So you're disregarding the Soil Moisture survey that helps the world determine what is happening worldwide in terms of water and energy cycles? Also you have to discount the collaborations with NOAA in a large range of monitoring weather, sun activity, etc.
Just ignore all the things you don't want to exist.
Do you expect Trump to do all those things without any input to anyone else besides himself?
That has pretty much described his whole presidency and campaign so far. For example, his unfounded claims that Obama "wiretapped" him. His desire to "break-up" the Ninth Circuit for ruling against him. His insistence that crime is "the highest it's been in decades". I could go on and on about factually untrue things he says all the time. His policies have been reflective of his desire to tilt against windmills of his own mind.
For example, the Trumpcare. Whatever failure you want to call it for not being voted on from what I understand they are negotiating with the ardent conservative Congresscritters to get more support. IOW compromising. Isn't that a good thing and how it is supposed to work between the Congress and POTUS?
Trumpcare is the perfect example. Trump doesn't care what's actually in it and this is evidenced by demanding things that must be in Trumpcare only to relent to get it passed. He just wants a bullet point that he "repealed and replaced" Obamacare. With something. It doesn't matter to him that it might be exactly the same thing.
With all of those things (save military) he can't do those things alone.... whats the problem? I don't understand what your issue is. How is that different than any other president saying any other opinion on any other topic? Sheesh. It's almost as if you don't care what it is if it comes from Trump == bad. Stop it. It's annoying.
I specifically said above that Trump advocating going to Mars isn't the problem. I said that Trump expecting it to happen in 4/8 years despite him being one of the people that is actively sabotaging that effort is the problem. Please read above:
"No one is saying Trump is evil because he wants to land on Mars. What everyone is saying is Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now. They are also pointing out the lack of critical thinking because he also advocates cuts to science and engineering funding (some of the science that will be needed for Mars)."
It's been 100 days... What do you expect to happen? You have at the very least 3 more years of the guy. Have some patience and then make your judgement... Jeeze. Did you wait 100 days and think: "oh Obamacare didn't pass yet, therefore OBAMA IS A FAILURE AND I HATE EVERYTHING HE DOES NOW".
I am not the person who brings up the 100 days effort. That is you. That has been Trump who has been boasting on every single media outlet who would predicting what he would if he was elected. Once elected he again time and time again said that the country would be amazed about what he would accomplish. But now that milestone has been reached, I note a lack of actual accomplishments. For example, I do not believe ISIS was defeated in 30 days like he said he do.
And again, you are the one bringing up things I have not said but Trump has said.
I would disagree on "new technology". For example life support systems have to be designed for a minimum of 9 months with no re-supply. Currently ISS does fine but requires occasional re-supply.
Also I specifically said "equipment" not technology. While nothing new might be needed in terms of rocket technology, the rockets themselves have to be built. The modules the astronauts would use have to be built. That will take time to build once the designs are finalized. At this point some designs are in the planning stages.
That is a possibility but the nearest opportunity for that manuver is 2021. From what I can tell, the next Mars launch window is 2018 with 2020 and 2022 following it. So at best NASA will get 3 opportunities. instead of 2.
Give me a break. You're just blind to the narcissism because it was hidden from you.
Oh so that's why they both advocated cuts to the Mars programs in favor of more terrestrial and practical science like global warming research? Because "President who gave more money to monitor climate change" really shines like "President to put man on Mars" on a resume bullet point.
So, I call bullshit. Obama was one self centered asswipe. It's just that the left liked what he was doing so it was ignored or excused.
Did you actually do a count or are you merely disagreeing because it doesn't fit your world view?
Trump is that boss that wants you to do more with less and will embarrass/sabotage your career if you can't overcome all the roadblocks he put in your way.
Right, Obama (or Clinton) makes the same pronouncement and you're all for it, Trump makes it and it is "EVIL!!!!!"
No one is saying Trump is evil because he wants to land on Mars. What everyone is saying is Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now. They are also pointing out the lack of critical thinking because he also advocates cuts to science and engineering funding (some of the science that will be needed for Mars).
Well there are two problems. One would be sulfuric acid content of the stratosphere. Above the troposphere, the sulfuric acid content is believed to be high enough to present problems. The second would be the thick cloud cover even at the stratosphere would block out 75% of the light meaning powering any station difficult that uses solar cells.
To be clear, the NASA and everyone are not saying it should not be done or that it cannot be done ever. What they are saying is that it won't be done in 4 years because that deadline is impractical. Unless NASA gets a large infusion of funding and political support, it's not likely to get done in 8 years either.
I'm not saying that the by-products of coal are useless. I'm saying the uses of coal are dwindling. In heating alone, coal was used in vastly more homes, schools, businesses, etc in the past than it is used today. Combined with a surplus of coal, it's not likely jobs will be coming back or expanding any time soon.
With all that said, if it takes Trump's ego to get us to Mars, I am all for that. He might actually be one of the very few men at the top willing to risk the political backlash of failure.
For me it's not just Trump's ego; it's his cognitive dissonance. There are practical problems that need to be solved to go to Mars. When he advocates cutting the research that will be needed at the same time as pushing for a result, I can only see many failures and dead astronauts as a result. He's the PHB that doesn't understand why the servers are slow after he's cut the budget for new servers for 5 years straight.
Well a Presidential election is on a fixed 4 year schedule, but the particular result of him winning was unexpected not the result that a winner would occur. Putting someone on Mars has no fixed certainty and it comes with practical problems.
Mars' distance to Earth is closest about every 2 years. For the sake of practicality, launches only occur with a short time window unlike a Moon - Earth launch which is about every 30 days.
There is very little equipment for Mars. Some equipment is under planning and design stages now but no equipment like rockets or capsules can be used from previous missions. In some cases the technology does not really exist. For example, sending someone to Mars will take much more in terms of life support advancements than ISS. ISS gets re-supplied periodically even with all their recycling technology.
It took a decade to get to the moon with full, adequate funding AND political support. NASA has to deal with budget cuts or threats of cuts every year based on which some Congressman wants to label their $19B budget as an example of "waste". Disregarding that NASA's budget is about 0.5% of the annual budget, NASA is an easy target especially if they want to cut things like climate science.
Honestly, I don't know how I can reason with you if you're going to assert obvious falsehoods and accuse me of idiocy.
Because you are advocating that Netflix -- Internet -- VPN -- Comcast is more efficient than Netflix -- Internet -- Comcast. Adding in an extra hop is more efficient to you.
There can be a congested link between Comcast and Netflix, and Comcast can have other links that have great bandwidth and there can be other paths into Netflix that have great bandwidth.
This is only true if internet routing principles are ignored. For you assertion to be true, all the following would have to occur: 1) No one in the Internet (particularly Netflix or Comcast) is capable of doing any traffic shaping or optimization 2) A VPN has some sort of dedicated peering to Comcast that Netflix does not have (most do not). 3) All other ISPs are experiencing the same problem as Comcast (they were not).
A VPN can avoid the congested link.
Again you are assuming that there is only one link, one pathway. That is not how the Internet works. If anything using a VPN reduces the number of pathways that are possible because you must go through 3 fixed points: Netflix, VPN, and Comcast whereas using Netflix and Comcast only fixes the two endpoints which exist in every connection for the average ISP consumer.
When a VPN providers better bandwidth than a direct connection,
That is not factually true. VPNs may have less bandwidth than an ISP connection. In fact it's stated in many contracts their max bandwidth of which many are less than ISPs. For the most part they are wide enough for streaming video. Of course you can pay more for a higher bandwidth but it's not automatic that getting a VPN would open up your bandwidth. Second, it's not more direct. Adding an extra hop is not more direct. It's less direct. The main advantage are VPNs is security and privacy not performance.
it's almost always because it avoids a congested link.
Again not automatically true. With Internet routing it depends on where the congestion is and how it is congested. If Comcast is deliberately traffic shaping to discriminate against Netflix (which everyone thinks was happening), going through a VPN will help. If Comcast is having issues with bandwidth in general (like at the neighborhood level), going through a VPN will not help. For example if your neighborhood gets more neighbors that get broadband because of new construction, the average download speed will slow until Comcast installs more equipment.
Until his supporter who wanted jobs realize they are not coming back. For example his promise to bring back coal. Coal is in a worse state that offshore drilling. At least with drilling, companies can get oil and natural gas which are used in many applications. The uses of coal are dwindling.
Netflix can arrange their network to get very low per packet costs because they can move their endpoint wherever they want.
You are aware that Netflix is not an ISP? They are not a T1 company; they pay a T1 for that. Comcast could do that too.
Comcast can't do that. So, necessarily, Comcast's per-packet costs are higher.
That's on Comcast. That's part of their business.
Yet Netflix and Comcast cooperate to deliver packets that benefit them both equally. When benefit is equal, but costs are wildly unequal, it makes sense for one side to pay the other. And that's what the free market developed over many decades.
Again, Comcast is in the business of being an ISP. No one is forcing Comcast to be in this business.
Yes, I agree. The way it works now is with settlement-based peering. That is, companies do charge each other for peering when their bandwidth costs are asymmetric. As I said, the system the free market has built works just fine. But it does allow ISPs to demand whatever fees they want to build faster pipes to particular peers.
Again missed the point. It is not about peering. Netflix pays their Tier 1 so that they have almost no bottlenecks. Comcast however bottlenecks their own customers so they can extract more money from Netflix.
But that's just the thing. They didn't miscalculate pricing. So long as the costs are fairly divided between all the companies that did the work, their pricing is just fine. And today, that's how their pricing works. We do have settlement-based peering today.
Again you are asserting the the ISPs do way more than they actually do. How much of the traffic route of a packet is through the ISPs network? If it is merely the last mile then what you have said is that they should get more their share whereas all the intermediate companies get nothing.
I never said they did. ISPs simply have much higher per-packet costs than content providers do because content providers can put the endpoint wherever it's cheapest and ISPs can't. The endpoint is their customer's home or places of business.
No you asserted that ISPs deliver most of the way; factually they do not.
Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix specifically, they just had poor bandwidth to Netflix. A VPN allowed you to avoid the congested links between Netflix and Comcast.
No that's idiocy. If you go through a VPN through Comcast to get Netflix, you're still going through Comcast and Netflix. You are not avoiding congested links; you are merely adding an extra step.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously denying that at typical Netflix->Comcast or Comcast->Netflix packet, all things considered, costs Comcast a lot more than Netflix because they have to maintain a network that goes all the way to their customer's homes and businesses?!
You are the one that argued that somehow because Netflix could build datacenters for cheap and that gave them an advantage somehow. That's not the point. ISPs could build more infrastructure should they chose; they simply do not choose to do so. Google built more network infrastructure because they saw it as an advantage to their business. Again the ISPs chose not to do so. Process that: a search company bought out dark fiber at a time when ISPs did not. Somehow it's not the ISPs responsibility for their business decisions; yet it's Netflix's responsibility for the ISP's bad decisions.
And again, it's not Netflix's responsibility that Comcast has not invested in their infrastructure. Netflix pays for it's T1 connection. If you don't think that's relevant, how about you pay for 1 month of Netflix's internet bill. I bet it's more than your annual salary.
That makes my point, doesn't it? Will net neutrality prohibit that practice or not?
Yes it would have prevented the practice. Why didn't you already know that?
If not, what good will it do? If so, what are the new rules that will decide when Comcast can or can't ask for money to colocate equipment?
That wasn't the point. Comcast didn't want to solve the problem. They wanted to shakedown Netflix for money.
How much of the currently largely unregulated Internet peering/hosting/connecting landscape will have to be regulated to fix a problem that pretty much does not even exist?
You seem not to understand the problem: there was a problem. That is a fact. Netflix offered to solve the problem; Comcast wanted money.
My point again is that I can't listed my title as "Engineer" in the state of Oregon. In the other states, I can't list it as "Professional Engineer". In some states, I can't list "Licensed Engineer". Jarlstrom did that in Oregon. He was warned not to do so but disregarded the warning.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with how bad things are for Comcast. It's just a fact that Comcast's customers are spread out throughout cities and that means that whoever is going to serve those customers has to build a massive, sprawling network. That is the explanation for why each packet exchanged between Comcast and an access provider costs Comcast more than it costs the access provider.
All of which is part and parcel of being an ISP. However you didn't address my point that Comcast could have helped their situation by buying up dark fiber if nothing but to help with infrastructure like Google did. Also you complained specifically about what Netflix and Google did while not acknowledging Comcast could have done/can still do the exact same thing.
It is the point because those are the times we live in. Different times for different challenges.
And yet you ignore every single aspect of the times that destroys you argument.
If that is outsourced to private industry then that point becomes moot. Again, all I said was potential overlap. You are projecting what I say.
So what you are saying you want to replace an agency that does something today with a private organization that does not exist today? And yet you want to get to Mars in 4 years time. Good luck with that. Privatization doesn't solve this problem; it just moves the problem somewhere else.
I am not slandering science by calling out political crap masqueraded as science
Which is irrelevant to this entire discussion.
Calm down and stop chasing the boogeyman you built up in your head. Two sides can be right and two sides are required to make a coin. If you think it is unfair to one side try being on the other and try to understand their perspective.
You are the some that seems so sensitive when anyone points out the flaws in your arguments.
Your conflating stating something (whether true, partially true, or not is irrelevant) and doing something. Stating something requires only him. Doing something does not.
Trump: Obamacare is imploding and must be replaced. Trump: Illegals commit all sorts of crimes so a $25B+ wall must be built. Again, his delusions shape his policies. Are you so delusional that you do not see that?
He did promise he would do that bullet point... The details are being worked out... What's the problem?
I said it above. Please read. Trump doesn't care about actually doing anything that helps anyone.
You are saying that him trying to keep a promise and negotiating the details doesn't matter to him? How do you know? By his actions? Are you in his head? I don't think he personally cares but I also think that politicians that do care are few and far between. So what? Is he trying to fulfill is promise? It looks like it and he still has 3 years (or at least 1 til the midterms) to try.
You mean besides the flip-flopping he has shown in his promises so far? Keeping his promises has not been one of his traits in his entire life; I don't understand why anyone who has looked at Trump for decades does not understand this about him.
I don't think bringing it up as an idea is sabotaging going to Mars. Calm your tits, their flappin' again.
I specifically listed above what I meant. It seems you want to over-react to every statement.
As far as 100 days, i don't really care about it. I only mention it because that is the time frame that has passed. Again. I don't see the issue. You sound very partisan and very bitter. Give your tits a rest... They must be soar from flappin' so much.
No, please read what I wrote above. As for emotions, you sound like you are some sort of snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump.
I am aware of all those things but I don't see how they're responsive to my point.
Your point is bemoaning how terrible things are for Comcast because they are an ISP and how Netflix has some sort of responsibility to fix Comcast's problems and lack of foresight. It's like you telling me how terrible oil companies have it with car manufacturers making more fuel efficient cars and how car manufacturers should make less fuel efficient cars or pay the oil companies a subsidy.
Sure, Comcast can do other things if they want, but their customers will still cost roughly the same amount to service and some company will service them. So some company or other will be in the position Comcast is in, unless you think that people who are expensive to service shouldn't have Internet access.
And the fact that Comcast and other ISPs actively keep out other competition through multiple means has no effect on you? For example some municipalities fed up with terrible or non-existent service have been sued to prevent them from providing Internet to their constituents.
Did Kennedy have the same size federal government and deficit/debt with overlap between different bureaucracies?
1) Not the point. Did Kennedy do something as stupid as advocate for a program while cutting the funding at the same time? 2) Trump's proposed budget actually does nothing bout the overall deficit but massively increases military spending and cutting domestic programs.
I don't like Trumps cuts to science but I at least understand a few of them; NASA and NOAA potential overlap for climate science (not to mention the potential conflict of NASA goals if budget taken by such overlapping missions).
Then your understanding is poor. NASA and NOAA collaborate on some climate science missions for a very specific reason: NASA has the expertise when it comes to launch systems. NASA (and the JPL) are the ones that manage the rockets, design the satellites, and the planes instrumentation. NOAA and their scientists are the ones who benefit from the data coming from all the instrumentation that NASA has helped to design. There is no federal agency that can replace NASA in what it does in this regard. Please read more about NASA/NOAA missions.
As for the others, are those tax dollars being used to fund studies like this [sagepub.com]???
And what part of NASA funding was used for that journal? I see no mention or link to NASA itself. I see no personnell attached to NASA.
When "science" becomes as political as that paper, it is no longer science and I question the validity of those institutions that fund those papers under the guise of science.
So your sample size of one paper is being used to slander all of science even though you have yet to demonstrate how that 1 paper is related to anything that NASA does. Statistically you do know that a sample size of 1 does not represent much, do you?
NASA != "terrestrial and practical science" (nor is it an outreach arm for Islamic science).
So you're disregarding the Soil Moisture survey that helps the world determine what is happening worldwide in terms of water and energy cycles? Also you have to discount the collaborations with NOAA in a large range of monitoring weather, sun activity, etc.
Just ignore all the things you don't want to exist.
Do you expect Trump to do all those things without any input to anyone else besides himself?
That has pretty much described his whole presidency and campaign so far. For example, his unfounded claims that Obama "wiretapped" him. His desire to "break-up" the Ninth Circuit for ruling against him. His insistence that crime is "the highest it's been in decades". I could go on and on about factually untrue things he says all the time. His policies have been reflective of his desire to tilt against windmills of his own mind.
For example, the Trumpcare. Whatever failure you want to call it for not being voted on from what I understand they are negotiating with the ardent conservative Congresscritters to get more support. IOW compromising. Isn't that a good thing and how it is supposed to work between the Congress and POTUS?
Trumpcare is the perfect example. Trump doesn't care what's actually in it and this is evidenced by demanding things that must be in Trumpcare only to relent to get it passed. He just wants a bullet point that he "repealed and replaced" Obamacare. With something. It doesn't matter to him that it might be exactly the same thing.
With all of those things (save military) he can't do those things alone.... whats the problem? I don't understand what your issue is. How is that different than any other president saying any other opinion on any other topic? Sheesh. It's almost as if you don't care what it is if it comes from Trump == bad. Stop it. It's annoying.
I specifically said above that Trump advocating going to Mars isn't the problem. I said that Trump expecting it to happen in 4/8 years despite him being one of the people that is actively sabotaging that effort is the problem. Please read above:
"No one is saying Trump is evil because he wants to land on Mars. What everyone is saying is Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now. They are also pointing out the lack of critical thinking because he also advocates cuts to science and engineering funding (some of the science that will be needed for Mars)."
It's been 100 days... What do you expect to happen? You have at the very least 3 more years of the guy. Have some patience and then make your judgement... Jeeze. Did you wait 100 days and think: "oh Obamacare didn't pass yet, therefore OBAMA IS A FAILURE AND I HATE EVERYTHING HE DOES NOW".
I am not the person who brings up the 100 days effort. That is you. That has been Trump who has been boasting on every single media outlet who would predicting what he would if he was elected. Once elected he again time and time again said that the country would be amazed about what he would accomplish. But now that milestone has been reached, I note a lack of actual accomplishments. For example, I do not believe ISIS was defeated in 30 days like he said he do.
And again, you are the one bringing up things I have not said but Trump has said.
4-8 years. Does that make Kennedy an idiot because "before this decade is out"?
Did Kennedy advocate cutting the funding needed for moon project while demanding it get done?
I would disagree on "new technology". For example life support systems have to be designed for a minimum of 9 months with no re-supply. Currently ISS does fine but requires occasional re-supply. Also I specifically said "equipment" not technology. While nothing new might be needed in terms of rocket technology, the rockets themselves have to be built. The modules the astronauts would use have to be built. That will take time to build once the designs are finalized. At this point some designs are in the planning stages.
That is a possibility but the nearest opportunity for that manuver is 2021. From what I can tell, the next Mars launch window is 2018 with 2020 and 2022 following it. So at best NASA will get 3 opportunities. instead of 2.
Give me a break. You're just blind to the narcissism because it was hidden from you.
Oh so that's why they both advocated cuts to the Mars programs in favor of more terrestrial and practical science like global warming research? Because "President who gave more money to monitor climate change" really shines like "President to put man on Mars" on a resume bullet point.
So, I call bullshit. Obama was one self centered asswipe. It's just that the left liked what he was doing so it was ignored or excused.
Did you actually do a count or are you merely disagreeing because it doesn't fit your world view?
Trump is that boss that wants you to do more with less and will embarrass/sabotage your career if you can't overcome all the roadblocks he put in your way.
Right, Obama (or Clinton) makes the same pronouncement and you're all for it, Trump makes it and it is "EVIL!!!!!"
No one is saying Trump is evil because he wants to land on Mars. What everyone is saying is Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now. They are also pointing out the lack of critical thinking because he also advocates cuts to science and engineering funding (some of the science that will be needed for Mars).
Well there are two problems. One would be sulfuric acid content of the stratosphere. Above the troposphere, the sulfuric acid content is believed to be high enough to present problems. The second would be the thick cloud cover even at the stratosphere would block out 75% of the light meaning powering any station difficult that uses solar cells.
To be clear, the NASA and everyone are not saying it should not be done or that it cannot be done ever. What they are saying is that it won't be done in 4 years because that deadline is impractical. Unless NASA gets a large infusion of funding and political support, it's not likely to get done in 8 years either.
I'm not saying that the by-products of coal are useless. I'm saying the uses of coal are dwindling. In heating alone, coal was used in vastly more homes, schools, businesses, etc in the past than it is used today. Combined with a surplus of coal, it's not likely jobs will be coming back or expanding any time soon.
With all that said, if it takes Trump's ego to get us to Mars, I am all for that. He might actually be one of the very few men at the top willing to risk the political backlash of failure.
For me it's not just Trump's ego; it's his cognitive dissonance. There are practical problems that need to be solved to go to Mars. When he advocates cutting the research that will be needed at the same time as pushing for a result, I can only see many failures and dead astronauts as a result. He's the PHB that doesn't understand why the servers are slow after he's cut the budget for new servers for 5 years straight.
Well a Presidential election is on a fixed 4 year schedule, but the particular result of him winning was unexpected not the result that a winner would occur. Putting someone on Mars has no fixed certainty and it comes with practical problems.
Four year or eight years is a pipe dream.
Honestly, I don't know how I can reason with you if you're going to assert obvious falsehoods and accuse me of idiocy.
Because you are advocating that Netflix -- Internet -- VPN -- Comcast is more efficient than Netflix -- Internet -- Comcast. Adding in an extra hop is more efficient to you.
There can be a congested link between Comcast and Netflix, and Comcast can have other links that have great bandwidth and there can be other paths into Netflix that have great bandwidth.
This is only true if internet routing principles are ignored. For you assertion to be true, all the following would have to occur: 1) No one in the Internet (particularly Netflix or Comcast) is capable of doing any traffic shaping or optimization 2) A VPN has some sort of dedicated peering to Comcast that Netflix does not have (most do not). 3) All other ISPs are experiencing the same problem as Comcast (they were not).
A VPN can avoid the congested link.
Again you are assuming that there is only one link, one pathway. That is not how the Internet works. If anything using a VPN reduces the number of pathways that are possible because you must go through 3 fixed points: Netflix, VPN, and Comcast whereas using Netflix and Comcast only fixes the two endpoints which exist in every connection for the average ISP consumer.
When a VPN providers better bandwidth than a direct connection,
That is not factually true. VPNs may have less bandwidth than an ISP connection. In fact it's stated in many contracts their max bandwidth of which many are less than ISPs. For the most part they are wide enough for streaming video. Of course you can pay more for a higher bandwidth but it's not automatic that getting a VPN would open up your bandwidth. Second, it's not more direct. Adding an extra hop is not more direct. It's less direct. The main advantage are VPNs is security and privacy not performance.
it's almost always because it avoids a congested link.
Again not automatically true. With Internet routing it depends on where the congestion is and how it is congested. If Comcast is deliberately traffic shaping to discriminate against Netflix (which everyone thinks was happening), going through a VPN will help. If Comcast is having issues with bandwidth in general (like at the neighborhood level), going through a VPN will not help. For example if your neighborhood gets more neighbors that get broadband because of new construction, the average download speed will slow until Comcast installs more equipment.
Until his supporter who wanted jobs realize they are not coming back. For example his promise to bring back coal. Coal is in a worse state that offshore drilling. At least with drilling, companies can get oil and natural gas which are used in many applications. The uses of coal are dwindling.
Good for your friend's son: Do you happen to know several thousand that Washington needs? How about the thousands more that California needs?
Netflix can arrange their network to get very low per packet costs because they can move their endpoint wherever they want.
You are aware that Netflix is not an ISP? They are not a T1 company; they pay a T1 for that. Comcast could do that too.
Comcast can't do that. So, necessarily, Comcast's per-packet costs are higher.
That's on Comcast. That's part of their business.
Yet Netflix and Comcast cooperate to deliver packets that benefit them both equally. When benefit is equal, but costs are wildly unequal, it makes sense for one side to pay the other. And that's what the free market developed over many decades.
Again, Comcast is in the business of being an ISP. No one is forcing Comcast to be in this business.
Yes, I agree. The way it works now is with settlement-based peering. That is, companies do charge each other for peering when their bandwidth costs are asymmetric. As I said, the system the free market has built works just fine. But it does allow ISPs to demand whatever fees they want to build faster pipes to particular peers.
Again missed the point. It is not about peering. Netflix pays their Tier 1 so that they have almost no bottlenecks. Comcast however bottlenecks their own customers so they can extract more money from Netflix.
But that's just the thing. They didn't miscalculate pricing. So long as the costs are fairly divided between all the companies that did the work, their pricing is just fine. And today, that's how their pricing works. We do have settlement-based peering today.
Again you are asserting the the ISPs do way more than they actually do. How much of the traffic route of a packet is through the ISPs network? If it is merely the last mile then what you have said is that they should get more their share whereas all the intermediate companies get nothing.
I never said they did. ISPs simply have much higher per-packet costs than content providers do because content providers can put the endpoint wherever it's cheapest and ISPs can't. The endpoint is their customer's home or places of business.
No you asserted that ISPs deliver most of the way; factually they do not.
Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix specifically, they just had poor bandwidth to Netflix. A VPN allowed you to avoid the congested links between Netflix and Comcast.
No that's idiocy. If you go through a VPN through Comcast to get Netflix, you're still going through Comcast and Netflix. You are not avoiding congested links; you are merely adding an extra step.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously denying that at typical Netflix->Comcast or Comcast->Netflix packet, all things considered, costs Comcast a lot more than Netflix because they have to maintain a network that goes all the way to their customer's homes and businesses?!
You are the one that argued that somehow because Netflix could build datacenters for cheap and that gave them an advantage somehow. That's not the point. ISPs could build more infrastructure should they chose; they simply do not choose to do so. Google built more network infrastructure because they saw it as an advantage to their business. Again the ISPs chose not to do so. Process that: a search company bought out dark fiber at a time when ISPs did not. Somehow it's not the ISPs responsibility for their business decisions; yet it's Netflix's responsibility for the ISP's bad decisions.
And again, it's not Netflix's responsibility that Comcast has not invested in their infrastructure. Netflix pays for it's T1 connection. If you don't think that's relevant, how about you pay for 1 month of Netflix's internet bill. I bet it's more than your annual salary.
That makes my point, doesn't it? Will net neutrality prohibit that practice or not?
Yes it would have prevented the practice. Why didn't you already know that?
If not, what good will it do? If so, what are the new rules that will decide when Comcast can or can't ask for money to colocate equipment?
That wasn't the point. Comcast didn't want to solve the problem. They wanted to shakedown Netflix for money.
How much of the currently largely unregulated Internet peering/hosting/connecting landscape will have to be regulated to fix a problem that pretty much does not even exist?
You seem not to understand the problem: there was a problem. That is a fact. Netflix offered to solve the problem; Comcast wanted money.
Voila! Complete the course, you're an engineer.
My point again is that I can't listed my title as "Engineer" in the state of Oregon. In the other states, I can't list it as "Professional Engineer". In some states, I can't list "Licensed Engineer". Jarlstrom did that in Oregon. He was warned not to do so but disregarded the warning.