No no... he's saying they should have been ass raping us from the beginning.
They want to spend the absolute least amount of money to be in business while charging us the most they can without driving us away. The best customer is one who pays for services they never use. The worst is the one who uses every last once of what they've bought.
Usage based billing works well for finite, tangable things -- which the things you mentioned are. Bandwidth and bits, just don't work like that. A DS3 is always a DS3; it's always moving 45mbps of either packets or an idle pattern. Bits are transient, temporal creatures. They exist only when we use them. They cannot be stockpiled for a rainy day or a nuclear winter. The bandwidth of my DS3 that wasn't used today cannot be used tomorrow.
As I have said many places, if TW cared about network traffic, they would throttle connections above some "cap". Instead, it's as clear as a road flare, they want more money - period. And this is how they're going to get it. Most of their customers aren't exceeding the cap, so expect the caps to be lowered and bills to increase. This is stupid; their network cannot handle the demands of modern networking, so instead of spending anything to support the ever evolving networking demands, they want everyone to go back to the relative stoneage of dialup era limited use. They advertise faster and faster connections (to stay competitive) but don't have the infrastructure to support it, and won't spend the money to be able to. (the modern web ceased to be usable at dialup speeds many years ago.)
Not exactly. Earthlink cablemodem service is resold RR. The only difference is you get an IP address out of a mindspring/earthlink block. Everything else about it is TW. My bill comes from TW. 100% of my monthly payment goes to TW. Service calls go to TW. The hardware comes from TW. It's Earthlink in name only. Earthlink provides all the "value added services" -- email, web hosting, etc. But TW provides the actual internet connectivity.
(I went with Earthlink all those years ago for two reasons... a) It was cheaper as they didn't charge a modem rental fee, and b) RR doesn't attach filters to Earthlink customers -- no port 25 or 80 traps. And Earthlink provides dialup, but I didn't care about that then.)
We need a viable model to be able to support the infrastructure of the broadband business... We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension.
The answer is "upgrade your f***ing network!" And now you are magnifying that "mistake" by imposing a cap decades after EVERYONE has gotten used to not having any cap. ISPs in the US have been providing "unlimited" plans for decades (read: always). TW has been doing the same thing for over a decade, yet NOW -- when people have a reason/need to use what they've been paying for -- your decade old network cannot keep up, and you don't want to stop shoveling all that cash into your pockets like you've been doing instead of investing in infrastructure upgrades.
So, let's get this right... after all the expense of setting up the systems necessary to monitor, collate, and bill based on usage -- which is very much not free -- you find only "14%" are exceeding the cap. That pretty clearly shows the exercise is useless -- or at least, minimally, flawed. The reason given for doing this in the first place was to "promote network health" (or some other BS) -- i.e. reduce the traffic load. Yet, the pilot program shows almost everyone (86%) is not "abusing the network" by using "more than their share." However, you're going ahead with this farce in other areas. I've said it before, and I'll saying again... this has f*** all to do with "network health" but is, in actuality, a revenue generating scam. They now know they can get 14% of their customers to pay them more money. (or that's what they think... *I* will cancel my cablemodem -- cable tv, and anything else related to TWTC -- the instant they put a cap on it; It doesn't matter how much (or little) I use it.) Will they create cheaper, lower cap plans for the 86% that are "over paying"? Doubtful. That would cost them money.
Yeah. I laughed and screamed at the TV, too. I have a 10 (t-e-n) year old Sony viao that does better than their uber-modern "green" BS. I can replace my own batteries (yes, more than one) without taking the laptop apart or needing an appointment at the Genius Bar. And for the record, the Sony factory battery lasted 7 years. (the APC secondary battery lasted 3.) When new, the Sony factory battery (alone) would power the laptop at full throttle for over 4 hours. With both batteries, it would go 8-10 hours full out until needing a recharge. (and those are Li-Ion batteries.)
I have several aging (~5yo) Dell Inspiron laptops that still last hours on their original factory battery.
But Apple has this revolutionary "green" battery technology. Bull. S***. (hint: their batteries are made in the same chinese factories as everyone else's.)
You can right click on a Mac. You'll need to throw away that worthless morse-code more-than-one-button-is-confusing PoS mouse from Apple. Even the most diehard Mac fans I know don't have any puck mice -- I asked, and we search the house for one. (ironicly he has microsoft optical mice on every one of his macs.)
Let me end the debate for you... Yes. Yes, Mac's are more expensive than "PC's". They always have been; they always will be. His comparison is deeply flawed by the selection of high end windows laptops (that he d*** well knows is expensive.)
You can continue to debate the value all you want -- they do tend to be better made and better supported systems than the cheap trash from mass PC makers, but that's still debatable.
The only real issue I have with Apple (and many other PC laptops) is the absolute shit screen resolution. Why do I have to have a 37" laptop to get anything better than "1024x768" (or the modern "widescreen" - 1280x800. I've even seen 1366x768. What. The. Hell.) I have a ~7 year old 13" dell inspiron 600m ("trash") laptop with a 1400x1050 screen. And the even older 6400 has a 1920x1200(?) screen.
Sadly, this is not the case for a lot of people. Unless you have hardware that's only a few years old, the odds of whomever built it adding IPv6 to it are slim. I have mountains of perfectly functioning equipment that will never have IPv6 support, and most of it is not "ancient". Technology advances quickly and companies abandon products ("legacy") after just a few years. Add to that companies being bought or otherwise going out of business.
It didn't take 11 years to "build". As with anything designed through committee, it goes round and round for years until everyone's personal/politcal agenda and ego are satisfied -- the core of the protocol was on paper a long time ago. And what we get is a flaming f'ing mess that completely ignores the way people actually use IPv4 today with no interoperability or migration path and next to zero reason for anyone to even think about switching.
Expensive, sure. But they most definately are reliable. Your experience may have been tainted by cheap PC crap intended for stupid home users -- QIC-80 anyone? Modern DAT, AIT, DLT, and LTO tapes are infinately more reliable than a hard drive. I have aging Exabyte 8mm tapes that are over 20 years old and still perfectly readable. (if you can find a drive old enough to read 'em.) The only drives I have approaching that age that are still functional are highly expensive SCSI drives.
HDs are not archive media. They don't fair too well left sitting on a shelf (unpowered) gathering dust for a few years. Magnetic tapes can (and DO) last decades in storage. Yes, they are slow and far more expensive, but they are, without a doubt, the best option for offline archives and backups.
In fact, most "cost effective" (read: cheap) IDE/SATA drives tend to last about 3 years in normal/typical operation. They become highly unreadable if left powered off for 6+ months. Tapes, on the other hand, last for decades.
I find that I often type domain.com in instead of www.domain.com. SSL certs are often registered to https://www.domain.com and I'm at https://domain.com which gives a mis-match.
No. It. Isn't. If you use "domain.com" instead of "www.domain.com", the certificate will be checked against "domain.com" before any requests are sent/processed and an error will fly up. There is no way to send a redirect without completing the SSL handshake, which requires a proper certificate::url domain match.
We've all worked in offices managed by "building engineers" who didn't even take thermodynamics. They cut the HVAC systems off during "off hours" when there aren't any people in the building completely ignoring all the other things still in there generating heat (and should not be left to freeze.) I can recall coming into the office on a Sunday to find the entire building over 100F. I could hear the fans from pretty much every computer in the building trying hopelessly to move enough air to cool the systems. I did the math, @ 100F outside, the office would have to be ~150F to be at equalibrium -- so the $5 they saved by turning the HVAC systems off was far offset by the hundreds of thousands in equipment destroyed by the high and variable temps. (hard drives lasted about 18mo in our office.)
At a previous employer, we filled a room with dead monitors due to the "we're turning the AC off in the evening, so turn your monitor off before you leave everyday" policy. That lasted a week before they learned their $30k lesson -- in one week, they burned more money replacing monitors than it cost to run the AC for a year.
Here's the problem... if it's 75F in the room, it's significantly hotter inside the systems -- and WAY hotter inside the power supplies. While temperature stability is of major importance, the set-point is also important. (changing temps will kill machines (hard drives) much faster than a stable higher temp.) Here's some real world data from a Sun v20z in a 68F room... ambient air temp 19.3C, drive backplane 24.0C, CPU1 memory 28.0C, CPU1 37.3C, gige 33.0C (middle of the system), service processor 32.0C (back of the case)
If your "data center" is properly designed, it doesn't matter what temp you set. The machines generate a (mostly) fixed amount of heat that has to be removed from the room. It doesn't magically disappear because you set the thermostat higher. The "enegery savings" you appear to have is the result of heat leaking out of the room (convection) -- which means it leaks in as well; unless you are in a naturally cold place, that's a Bad Thing(tm). (and pretty much never going to equal the rate heat is generated in the room)
In this case... I suspect the judge would literally laugh you under the jail. Right; he forget the password he set and has been typing in daily for weeks or months -- and was using shortly before being fired. And the "well, I just changed the passwords an hour ago" excuse also falls flat.
They aren't "physical property", but they certainly are "intelectual property". He refused to hand over any passwords while employed there. That would be one, if not the, reason to fire him. Once no longer employed there, he is most indeedly required to hand over the passwords just like any other physical property. No matter how much of an ass he was while employed there and afterwards, I still think the city is taking this a little far in keeping him jailed for months.
Actually, Cisco *will* provide fixed versions (aka. "rebuilds") to non-contract customers upon request. All it takes is one email to tac with a valid device and serial number. No, they will not give you a free update from IP Only to Adv Enterprise Services, nor will they bump the version (12.0 -> 12.2 -> 12.4)... if you are running 12.2.12, they'll give you 12.2.12(b) or whatever is the latest rebuild of that version.
That's where the disconnect begins between running a company and funding a company. As an investor, you want to see your money doing something. Sitting in the bank is not "doing something" -- after all, it was already in a bank. As a CEO, you want to do what ever will keep the investors happy, and thus nets you more of their money. I see this everywhere -- companies spending money they really shouldn't simply because they have it.
If a startup gets $4mil in funding and after a year still has $3.8mil of it sitting in the bank, investors form a bad impression. While it's true you haven't wasted their money, you also haven't made them any richer.
I'm of the opinion, when there's little money going in, you should be cautious of the money going out.
Nope. Switches are layer 2 devices; TTL is part of layer 3. With STP off, even a Cisco switch will freak when a loop exists. (It has other ways of knowing it's been plugged into itself, however.) As long as the "broadcast storm" threshold isn't crossed, the port will remain enabled -- and even if it does, the blocking is temporary.
For another Fun Trick, send a vlan tagged packet from a jumbo frame enabled, non-trunk port to a non-jumbo (non-trunk) enabled cisco port. It crashes immediately. It *should* throw it away as an oversized frame, but doesn't. (I know... I'm the monkey that has jumbo frames enabled on ports leading to non-jumbo hardware.)
Slashdot Mirror
No no... he's saying they should have been ass raping us from the beginning.
They want to spend the absolute least amount of money to be in business while charging us the most they can without driving us away. The best customer is one who pays for services they never use. The worst is the one who uses every last once of what they've bought.
Usage based billing works well for finite, tangable things -- which the things you mentioned are. Bandwidth and bits, just don't work like that. A DS3 is always a DS3; it's always moving 45mbps of either packets or an idle pattern. Bits are transient, temporal creatures. They exist only when we use them. They cannot be stockpiled for a rainy day or a nuclear winter. The bandwidth of my DS3 that wasn't used today cannot be used tomorrow.
As I have said many places, if TW cared about network traffic, they would throttle connections above some "cap". Instead, it's as clear as a road flare, they want more money - period. And this is how they're going to get it. Most of their customers aren't exceeding the cap, so expect the caps to be lowered and bills to increase. This is stupid; their network cannot handle the demands of modern networking, so instead of spending anything to support the ever evolving networking demands, they want everyone to go back to the relative stoneage of dialup era limited use. They advertise faster and faster connections (to stay competitive) but don't have the infrastructure to support it, and won't spend the money to be able to. (the modern web ceased to be usable at dialup speeds many years ago.)
No, they don't want to lose them (and their cash). They want them to pay them more money per month.
Not exactly. Earthlink cablemodem service is resold RR. The only difference is you get an IP address out of a mindspring/earthlink block. Everything else about it is TW. My bill comes from TW. 100% of my monthly payment goes to TW. Service calls go to TW. The hardware comes from TW. It's Earthlink in name only. Earthlink provides all the "value added services" -- email, web hosting, etc. But TW provides the actual internet connectivity.
(I went with Earthlink all those years ago for two reasons... a) It was cheaper as they didn't charge a modem rental fee, and b) RR doesn't attach filters to Earthlink customers -- no port 25 or 80 traps. And Earthlink provides dialup, but I didn't care about that then.)
The answer is "upgrade your f***ing network!" And now you are magnifying that "mistake" by imposing a cap decades after EVERYONE has gotten used to not having any cap. ISPs in the US have been providing "unlimited" plans for decades (read: always). TW has been doing the same thing for over a decade, yet NOW -- when people have a reason/need to use what they've been paying for -- your decade old network cannot keep up, and you don't want to stop shoveling all that cash into your pockets like you've been doing instead of investing in infrastructure upgrades.
So, let's get this right... after all the expense of setting up the systems necessary to monitor, collate, and bill based on usage -- which is very much not free -- you find only "14%" are exceeding the cap. That pretty clearly shows the exercise is useless -- or at least, minimally, flawed. The reason given for doing this in the first place was to "promote network health" (or some other BS) -- i.e. reduce the traffic load. Yet, the pilot program shows almost everyone (86%) is not "abusing the network" by using "more than their share." However, you're going ahead with this farce in other areas. I've said it before, and I'll saying again... this has f*** all to do with "network health" but is, in actuality, a revenue generating scam. They now know they can get 14% of their customers to pay them more money. (or that's what they think... *I* will cancel my cablemodem -- cable tv, and anything else related to TWTC -- the instant they put a cap on it; It doesn't matter how much (or little) I use it.) Will they create cheaper, lower cap plans for the 86% that are "over paying"? Doubtful. That would cost them money.
Yeah. I laughed and screamed at the TV, too. I have a 10 (t-e-n) year old Sony viao that does better than their uber-modern "green" BS. I can replace my own batteries (yes, more than one) without taking the laptop apart or needing an appointment at the Genius Bar. And for the record, the Sony factory battery lasted 7 years. (the APC secondary battery lasted 3.) When new, the Sony factory battery (alone) would power the laptop at full throttle for over 4 hours. With both batteries, it would go 8-10 hours full out until needing a recharge. (and those are Li-Ion batteries.)
I have several aging (~5yo) Dell Inspiron laptops that still last hours on their original factory battery.
But Apple has this revolutionary "green" battery technology. Bull. S***. (hint: their batteries are made in the same chinese factories as everyone else's.)
You can right click on a Mac. You'll need to throw away that worthless morse-code more-than-one-button-is-confusing PoS mouse from Apple. Even the most diehard Mac fans I know don't have any puck mice -- I asked, and we search the house for one. (ironicly he has microsoft optical mice on every one of his macs.)
Let me end the debate for you... Yes. Yes, Mac's are more expensive than "PC's". They always have been; they always will be. His comparison is deeply flawed by the selection of high end windows laptops (that he d*** well knows is expensive.)
You can continue to debate the value all you want -- they do tend to be better made and better supported systems than the cheap trash from mass PC makers, but that's still debatable.
The only real issue I have with Apple (and many other PC laptops) is the absolute shit screen resolution. Why do I have to have a 37" laptop to get anything better than "1024x768" (or the modern "widescreen" - 1280x800. I've even seen 1366x768. What. The. Hell.) I have a ~7 year old 13" dell inspiron 600m ("trash") laptop with a 1400x1050 screen. And the even older 6400 has a 1920x1200(?) screen.
Sadly, this is not the case for a lot of people. Unless you have hardware that's only a few years old, the odds of whomever built it adding IPv6 to it are slim. I have mountains of perfectly functioning equipment that will never have IPv6 support, and most of it is not "ancient". Technology advances quickly and companies abandon products ("legacy") after just a few years. Add to that companies being bought or otherwise going out of business.
It didn't take 11 years to "build". As with anything designed through committee, it goes round and round for years until everyone's personal/politcal agenda and ego are satisfied -- the core of the protocol was on paper a long time ago. And what we get is a flaming f'ing mess that completely ignores the way people actually use IPv4 today with no interoperability or migration path and next to zero reason for anyone to even think about switching.
Expensive, sure. But they most definately are reliable. Your experience may have been tainted by cheap PC crap intended for stupid home users -- QIC-80 anyone? Modern DAT, AIT, DLT, and LTO tapes are infinately more reliable than a hard drive. I have aging Exabyte 8mm tapes that are over 20 years old and still perfectly readable. (if you can find a drive old enough to read 'em.) The only drives I have approaching that age that are still functional are highly expensive SCSI drives.
HDs are not archive media. They don't fair too well left sitting on a shelf (unpowered) gathering dust for a few years. Magnetic tapes can (and DO) last decades in storage. Yes, they are slow and far more expensive, but they are, without a doubt, the best option for offline archives and backups.
In fact, most "cost effective" (read: cheap) IDE/SATA drives tend to last about 3 years in normal/typical operation. They become highly unreadable if left powered off for 6+ months. Tapes, on the other hand, last for decades.
You fail.
No. It. Isn't. If you use "domain.com" instead of "www.domain.com", the certificate will be checked against "domain.com" before any requests are sent/processed and an error will fly up. There is no way to send a redirect without completing the SSL handshake, which requires a proper certificate::url domain match.
We've all worked in offices managed by "building engineers" who didn't even take thermodynamics. They cut the HVAC systems off during "off hours" when there aren't any people in the building completely ignoring all the other things still in there generating heat (and should not be left to freeze.) I can recall coming into the office on a Sunday to find the entire building over 100F. I could hear the fans from pretty much every computer in the building trying hopelessly to move enough air to cool the systems. I did the math, @ 100F outside, the office would have to be ~150F to be at equalibrium -- so the $5 they saved by turning the HVAC systems off was far offset by the hundreds of thousands in equipment destroyed by the high and variable temps. (hard drives lasted about 18mo in our office.)
At a previous employer, we filled a room with dead monitors due to the "we're turning the AC off in the evening, so turn your monitor off before you leave everyday" policy. That lasted a week before they learned their $30k lesson -- in one week, they burned more money replacing monitors than it cost to run the AC for a year.
Here's the problem... if it's 75F in the room, it's significantly hotter inside the systems -- and WAY hotter inside the power supplies. While temperature stability is of major importance, the set-point is also important. (changing temps will kill machines (hard drives) much faster than a stable higher temp.) Here's some real world data from a Sun v20z in a 68F room... ambient air temp 19.3C, drive backplane 24.0C, CPU1 memory 28.0C, CPU1 37.3C, gige 33.0C (middle of the system), service processor 32.0C (back of the case)
If your "data center" is properly designed, it doesn't matter what temp you set. The machines generate a (mostly) fixed amount of heat that has to be removed from the room. It doesn't magically disappear because you set the thermostat higher. The "enegery savings" you appear to have is the result of heat leaking out of the room (convection) -- which means it leaks in as well; unless you are in a naturally cold place, that's a Bad Thing(tm). (and pretty much never going to equal the rate heat is generated in the room)
Hard to remember that far back *grin* but there were distros before Slackware. Anyone remember SLS?
In this case... I suspect the judge would literally laugh you under the jail. Right; he forget the password he set and has been typing in daily for weeks or months -- and was using shortly before being fired. And the "well, I just changed the passwords an hour ago" excuse also falls flat.
They aren't "physical property", but they certainly are "intelectual property". He refused to hand over any passwords while employed there. That would be one, if not the, reason to fire him. Once no longer employed there, he is most indeedly required to hand over the passwords just like any other physical property. No matter how much of an ass he was while employed there and afterwards, I still think the city is taking this a little far in keeping him jailed for months.
Actually, Cisco *will* provide fixed versions (aka. "rebuilds") to non-contract customers upon request. All it takes is one email to tac with a valid device and serial number. No, they will not give you a free update from IP Only to Adv Enterprise Services, nor will they bump the version (12.0 -> 12.2 -> 12.4)... if you are running 12.2.12, they'll give you 12.2.12(b) or whatever is the latest rebuild of that version.
(Been there, done it.)
That's where the disconnect begins between running a company and funding a company. As an investor, you want to see your money doing something. Sitting in the bank is not "doing something" -- after all, it was already in a bank. As a CEO, you want to do what ever will keep the investors happy, and thus nets you more of their money. I see this everywhere -- companies spending money they really shouldn't simply because they have it.
If a startup gets $4mil in funding and after a year still has $3.8mil of it sitting in the bank, investors form a bad impression. While it's true you haven't wasted their money, you also haven't made them any richer.
I'm of the opinion, when there's little money going in, you should be cautious of the money going out.
Nope. Switches are layer 2 devices; TTL is part of layer 3. With STP off, even a Cisco switch will freak when a loop exists. (It has other ways of knowing it's been plugged into itself, however.) As long as the "broadcast storm" threshold isn't crossed, the port will remain enabled -- and even if it does, the blocking is temporary.
For another Fun Trick, send a vlan tagged packet from a jumbo frame enabled, non-trunk port to a non-jumbo (non-trunk) enabled cisco port. It crashes immediately. It *should* throw it away as an oversized frame, but doesn't. (I know... I'm the monkey that has jumbo frames enabled on ports leading to non-jumbo hardware.)
That's what spanning-tree is designed to stop. (I see they configure networks like I do... turn off STP and wait for some idiot to create a loop.)
On the plus side, that will certainly drive mice away. :-)
I've seen rats/mice chew through 25pair cables and even DS3 coax bundles. I swear they'd get through the armor on a tank if given enough time.