which Comcast was complaining about with Level (3). The reality is that the ratio argument is bogus
The argument is bogus because Comcast is not a transit provider, they provide service to end users. 1:1 peering agreements are for when you transit between backbone providers. Without TATA and L3 Comcast has nothing to provide its customers.
Data from L3 does not pass through Comcast's network then head out to TATAs links for someone else, it goes to direct Comcast customers. When they transit traffic between TATA and L3, then they can try to charge for that traffic.
If anything, Comcast should be paying L3 a considerable sum.
Think of it like this: L3 = Samsung TATA = Apple Comcast = Walmart Customers = Customers
What Comcast is saying is that: Not only should Customers pay for goods at Walmart, but also Samsung should pay for the privilege of selling those goods at Walmart.
Lets say it again, Comcast != Transit provider, Comcast == ISP. They just buy bandwidth from transit providers and sell it to end users. What they want to do is sell everyone the same 'bandwidth' multiple times.
if it is only in the "cloud" the price should be around $150 or so.
If its 'only in the cloud' and/or 'always going to force advertisements at me' then they should be paying you to use it, not you paying them for the privilege.
Because refueling satellites because they burn energy trying to talk to people in a building is so expensive its not worth mentioning, you'd just launch a new sat and it'd be far too often.
The power increase would be considerable due to the frequencies involved behaving more like light than what other parts of the frequency spectrum do.
That also goes the other way on the ground, the phone would need considerably more power, making its battery life craptastic.
Just because its a bunch of kids doesn't mean no one will try to stop them, it just means their more likely to take the parents down for being douchebags who let their kids do stupid shit like they do.
Being young isn't an excuse for trying to be a bully.
Little pussies who hide behind computer courage given to them by their monitors don't impress anyone. Hell 99.999999% of them only have any involvement because they could download an app someone else write to do the work for them.
Someone needs to just start beating some 14 year old asses, I don't care who does it.
At first glance, I'd say I thinks sales on election day are a bad idea. At least that way only those who prepared would be drinking, maybe keeping people from making the wrong choices due to intoxication.
Now days I'm thinking getting everyone drunk on election days might be more productive.
Giving away 'half' your money, when you could give away 99% of it and still not change your lifestyle or ability to make more money != impressive.
The guys signing this 'pledge' are people that are disliked by most of the educated public because their actions historically show that they are nothing more than greedy fucks who will do anything they can to make money. This is simple a PR stunt they get together on and pretend their doing something special for the world.
Businesses, unlike geeks in moms' basement do things when there is an economic reason to do so, not just 'because we have to one day'.
Theres really no major reason to run head first into the transition, we've been 'running out of addresses this year' for 15 years.
I suspect we'll have flying cars before we stop using IPv4.
Yes, its going to happen eventually, but no, the Internet won't cease to function next week because we ran out of addresses, regardless of how many times someone writes a newspaper or press release about the impending doom.
Except that routers really only care about 1 field, the destination address. They SHOULD care about other fields so that thins like DONT_FRAGMENT gets honored, but thats not really going to kill you if you have other ways to ensure packets don't get broken after they've reached the next hop.
So you've effectively made the only field they care about much larger, even taking into account half of it can be/is just the mac address which actually makes things easier.
Firewalls care about the fields in the packet, hosts care, routers don't give a shit unless they are acting as as firewall or some other device being 'more' than a router.
It is entirely possible that most people don't give a flying fuck and censorship has nothing to do with it.
When Wikileaks releases something that actually is newsworthy rather than rather than being the worlds drama queen, then people might care, but so far all we have is wikileaks telling us their going to change the world with their NEXT release... after every dribbling bits of 'leaks' the let slip out.
It also might help if they started to release things that were pretty much verbatim copies of what you can get via a Freedom of Information Act request.
The only people who care about Wikileaks are irrational people who want to rage against the machine and 'change the world'. Hell, even the majority of people that work with wikileaks think Assange is turning it into something of an utterly retarded step child
After you cry wolf several times, people stop giving a shit.
, it would be because of something completely unrelated to the activity of people.
Yea, if you ignore all the other evidence, you're totally right, its entirely the fault of humans... even though its happened many times in the past... before humans existed in any number capable of having an effect.
Yea, we should just ignore the evidence that suggests the warming would occur even if humans never existed, like every other cycle in the past where this exact same thing has happened.
The people claiming conspiracy should be ignored, as well as the idiots who think humans are the cause when this cycle has happened many times before humans existed.
Its all humans fault... when you ignore the majority of the data thats been gathered and just look at what humans have done and the temperature and completely ignore all the other influences.
Because when you simply ignore the religious theme of the park and look at it from every other perspective such as economic and tourism development, its a good idea.
If you separate the religion from the decision making process, you'd still do it so you could get the jobs and the money in your state.
If you took religion out of it, and it suddenly started looking like a stupid idea, THEN there would be a problem.
The separation of church and state is there to prevent prejudice against and/or bias towards any religion. That means it can't give preferential treatment for OR AGAINST religion.
It does not mean that the state can not have any involvement what so ever with religion, just that religion plays no part in its decisions.
The separation of church and state is meant to keep the government from giving religion special treatment and to prevent the government from forcing religion on you.
You are not forced to give money to a religion, you're forced to give money to a tourism development fund, which can be used for anything, doesn't matter if you agree with it or not as long as it is chosen in a fair manner to all people who would like to receive money from the fund.
The constitution and separation of church and state are there to prevent prejudice and bias for or against a religion or religious view point. It is not there to prevent any interaction between the government and a religious entity.
What you want is exactly what the constitution aims to prevent. You want the state to NOT give this organization money specifically BECAUSE it is a religious organization. You want EXACTLY what the constitution tries to prevent, someone trying to control religion by treating it differently than you would normally act.
So you're saying its not okay to give them economic incentives and funds... but it is okay to give Disney incentives and funds?
You do realize that you have entirely, 100%, missed the point of the separation of church and state... RIGHT?
The point is that the state can not make decisions based on religion. The state is making the decision based on economic value to the state which benefits everyone in the state. You want the state to not give them any help because you don't like the religion they are pushing. You are the exact kind of person the constitution is designed to stop. Denying them funds BECAUSE they are religious biased is in fact unconstitutional.
The state is not supposed to favor or promote anyone or anything based on religious viewpoints... THAT is what separation of church and state means. You've twisted it around so that it matches your viewpoint that religion is evil and shouldn't exist, which really just makes you another typical ignorant, narrow minded twit that you like to pretend make up religious groups.
You get so angsty over religion that you act just like the people you rage on about. Maybe you should spend some of that energy getting some education and maybe trying to see what the world looks like from someone elses perspective rather than assuming yours is the only acceptable one.
You were and are wrong. Geeks can do it just fine.
A bunch of people who think running Linux makes them a geek because they found the shell prompt? No, they probably didn't know how to do it. Don't confuse your 'I think I'm a geek' group with those of us who actually have a clue.
The methods today are the exact same as they were 20 years ago.
it's a brand for whistleblower information, and has significant credibility.
To me, the two are mutually exclusive. Putting a 'brand' on it means to me that you're trying to sell it, if its important, it really doesn't need 'sold'.
when the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal were lauded as heroes
Theres a difference between announcing you're going to announce something, then announcing something that you're going to release, then releasing it slowly over time but without bothering to filter out the cruft that offers no value and may cause damage to legitimate 'good' operations.
Watergate involved some actual journalism, fact finding, confirmation, filtering and reporting. People didn't have to sift through 250k memos, getting a handful at a time in a daily serving from the 'leaker'. They got journalists who bothered to read through the documents and figure out what the fuck was going on.
The difference is, the Watergate investigations were just that, investigations. Wikileaks just spews for attention.
Wikileaks is not what it was once meant to be.
These are the times; pervasive corruption and public complicity. Wikileaks is a response to them.
Oh for fucks sake, stop being so melodramatic and fucking self absorbed. The world is no different today than it was 2000 years ago. You aren't experiencing anything your parents didn't experience in the political world, even if you are too ignorant of history to know any better.
Wikileaks may be a 'response' but its a fucking retarded one. The proper response if you think the world is so evil is to do something about it rather than drone on about how someone else is changing the world on some website. You're just another one of those people who wants to talk about making a change rather than actually doing something to make a change. All that you'll get is more hot air.
Yea, except all definitions of lawful require him to have not been doing it with stolen phones. Stolen phones which he had been buying from an FBI agent...
The guy wasn't hacking his phone to use it on T-Mobile, he was trafficking in stolen merchandise and 'jailbreaking' those.
This has pretty much 0 to do with jailbreaking and 100% to do with the fact that the guy was a fence.
Well, its not exactly as if they weren't expecting it to be taken down, it was clearly part of the Wikileaks plan to have it go offline.
If you have material that the US doesn't want public... and you're hosting it on Amazons' cloud... WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HOSTING IT ON THE CLUSTERS IN THE US RATHER THAN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY?
Its hosted on American amazon servers so it could be used to garner more attention when it was taken down.
Either he's too stupid to be trusted or he's an attention whore using anything and everything he has access to to get attention, in which case, he can not be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument is bogus because Comcast is not a transit provider, they provide service to end users. 1:1 peering agreements are for when you transit between backbone providers. Without TATA and L3 Comcast has nothing to provide its customers.
Data from L3 does not pass through Comcast's network then head out to TATAs links for someone else, it goes to direct Comcast customers. When they transit traffic between TATA and L3, then they can try to charge for that traffic.
If anything, Comcast should be paying L3 a considerable sum.
Think of it like this:
L3 = Samsung
TATA = Apple
Comcast = Walmart
Customers = Customers
What Comcast is saying is that:
Not only should Customers pay for goods at Walmart, but also Samsung should pay for the privilege of selling those goods at Walmart.
Lets say it again, Comcast != Transit provider, Comcast == ISP. They just buy bandwidth from transit providers and sell it to end users. What they want to do is sell everyone the same 'bandwidth' multiple times.
I'm certainly no fan of Assange, but I can't see how being associated with Michael Moore is going to help him or Wikileaks.
Just makes him seem even more like a media whore. Two douches in one box.
If its 'only in the cloud' and/or 'always going to force advertisements at me' then they should be paying you to use it, not you paying them for the privilege.
Because refueling satellites because they burn energy trying to talk to people in a building is so expensive its not worth mentioning, you'd just launch a new sat and it'd be far too often.
The power increase would be considerable due to the frequencies involved behaving more like light than what other parts of the frequency spectrum do.
That also goes the other way on the ground, the phone would need considerably more power, making its battery life craptastic.
Just because its a bunch of kids doesn't mean no one will try to stop them, it just means their more likely to take the parents down for being douchebags who let their kids do stupid shit like they do.
Being young isn't an excuse for trying to be a bully.
Little pussies who hide behind computer courage given to them by their monitors don't impress anyone. Hell 99.999999% of them only have any involvement because they could download an app someone else write to do the work for them.
Someone needs to just start beating some 14 year old asses, I don't care who does it.
At first glance, I'd say I thinks sales on election day are a bad idea. At least that way only those who prepared would be drinking, maybe keeping people from making the wrong choices due to intoxication.
Now days I'm thinking getting everyone drunk on election days might be more productive.
Signing your name != actually doing anything.
Giving away 'half' your money, when you could give away 99% of it and still not change your lifestyle or ability to make more money != impressive.
The guys signing this 'pledge' are people that are disliked by most of the educated public because their actions historically show that they are nothing more than greedy fucks who will do anything they can to make money. This is simple a PR stunt they get together on and pretend their doing something special for the world.
Businesses, unlike geeks in moms' basement do things when there is an economic reason to do so, not just 'because we have to one day'.
Theres really no major reason to run head first into the transition, we've been 'running out of addresses this year' for 15 years.
I suspect we'll have flying cars before we stop using IPv4.
Yes, its going to happen eventually, but no, the Internet won't cease to function next week because we ran out of addresses, regardless of how many times someone writes a newspaper or press release about the impending doom.
Your Safari is broken, mine shows it just fine.
Except that routers really only care about 1 field, the destination address. They SHOULD care about other fields so that thins like DONT_FRAGMENT gets honored, but thats not really going to kill you if you have other ways to ensure packets don't get broken after they've reached the next hop.
So you've effectively made the only field they care about much larger, even taking into account half of it can be/is just the mac address which actually makes things easier.
Firewalls care about the fields in the packet, hosts care, routers don't give a shit unless they are acting as as firewall or some other device being 'more' than a router.
If you think EVER government in the world is corrupt, you have issues you need to work out.
I suggest you at least not broadcast you feel that way, it makes you sound like a raving nutter.
You do realize Visa/MC isn't the only CC brand out there, right?
It is entirely possible that most people don't give a flying fuck and censorship has nothing to do with it.
When Wikileaks releases something that actually is newsworthy rather than rather than being the worlds drama queen, then people might care, but so far all we have is wikileaks telling us their going to change the world with their NEXT release ... after every dribbling bits of 'leaks' the let slip out.
It also might help if they started to release things that were pretty much verbatim copies of what you can get via a Freedom of Information Act request.
The only people who care about Wikileaks are irrational people who want to rage against the machine and 'change the world'. Hell, even the majority of people that work with wikileaks think Assange is turning it into something of an utterly retarded step child
After you cry wolf several times, people stop giving a shit.
Yea, if you ignore all the other evidence, you're totally right, its entirely the fault of humans ... even though its happened many times in the past ... before humans existed in any number capable of having an effect.
Yea, we should just ignore the evidence that suggests the warming would occur even if humans never existed, like every other cycle in the past where this exact same thing has happened.
The people claiming conspiracy should be ignored, as well as the idiots who think humans are the cause when this cycle has happened many times before humans existed.
Its all humans fault ... when you ignore the majority of the data thats been gathered and just look at what humans have done and the temperature and completely ignore all the other influences.
Because when you simply ignore the religious theme of the park and look at it from every other perspective such as economic and tourism development, its a good idea.
If you separate the religion from the decision making process, you'd still do it so you could get the jobs and the money in your state.
If you took religion out of it, and it suddenly started looking like a stupid idea, THEN there would be a problem.
The separation of church and state is there to prevent prejudice against and/or bias towards any religion. That means it can't give preferential treatment for OR AGAINST religion.
It does not mean that the state can not have any involvement what so ever with religion, just that religion plays no part in its decisions.
No, its not.
The separation of church and state is meant to keep the government from giving religion special treatment and to prevent the government from forcing religion on you.
You are not forced to give money to a religion, you're forced to give money to a tourism development fund, which can be used for anything, doesn't matter if you agree with it or not as long as it is chosen in a fair manner to all people who would like to receive money from the fund.
The constitution and separation of church and state are there to prevent prejudice and bias for or against a religion or religious view point. It is not there to prevent any interaction between the government and a religious entity.
What you want is exactly what the constitution aims to prevent. You want the state to NOT give this organization money specifically BECAUSE it is a religious organization. You want EXACTLY what the constitution tries to prevent, someone trying to control religion by treating it differently than you would normally act.
You 100% missed the point.
So you're saying its not okay to give them economic incentives and funds ... but it is okay to give Disney incentives and funds?
You do realize that you have entirely, 100%, missed the point of the separation of church and state ... RIGHT?
The point is that the state can not make decisions based on religion. The state is making the decision based on economic value to the state which benefits everyone in the state. You want the state to not give them any help because you don't like the religion they are pushing. You are the exact kind of person the constitution is designed to stop. Denying them funds BECAUSE they are religious biased is in fact unconstitutional.
The state is not supposed to favor or promote anyone or anything based on religious viewpoints ... THAT is what separation of church and state means. You've twisted it around so that it matches your viewpoint that religion is evil and shouldn't exist, which really just makes you another typical ignorant, narrow minded twit that you like to pretend make up religious groups.
You get so angsty over religion that you act just like the people you rage on about. Maybe you should spend some of that energy getting some education and maybe trying to see what the world looks like from someone elses perspective rather than assuming yours is the only acceptable one.
You were and are wrong. Geeks can do it just fine.
A bunch of people who think running Linux makes them a geek because they found the shell prompt? No, they probably didn't know how to do it. Don't confuse your 'I think I'm a geek' group with those of us who actually have a clue.
The methods today are the exact same as they were 20 years ago.
I'm sorry, exactly WHO are you referring too as far as not having their lives destroyed?
The way wikileaks handles these things, pretty much everyone involved gets fucked in the end.
To me, the two are mutually exclusive. Putting a 'brand' on it means to me that you're trying to sell it, if its important, it really doesn't need 'sold'.
Theres a difference between announcing you're going to announce something, then announcing something that you're going to release, then releasing it slowly over time but without bothering to filter out the cruft that offers no value and may cause damage to legitimate 'good' operations.
Watergate involved some actual journalism, fact finding, confirmation, filtering and reporting. People didn't have to sift through 250k memos, getting a handful at a time in a daily serving from the 'leaker'. They got journalists who bothered to read through the documents and figure out what the fuck was going on.
The difference is, the Watergate investigations were just that, investigations. Wikileaks just spews for attention.
Wikileaks is not what it was once meant to be.
Oh for fucks sake, stop being so melodramatic and fucking self absorbed. The world is no different today than it was 2000 years ago. You aren't experiencing anything your parents didn't experience in the political world, even if you are too ignorant of history to know any better.
Wikileaks may be a 'response' but its a fucking retarded one. The proper response if you think the world is so evil is to do something about it rather than drone on about how someone else is changing the world on some website. You're just another one of those people who wants to talk about making a change rather than actually doing something to make a change. All that you'll get is more hot air.
Yea, except all definitions of lawful require him to have not been doing it with stolen phones. Stolen phones which he had been buying from an FBI agent ...
The guy wasn't hacking his phone to use it on T-Mobile, he was trafficking in stolen merchandise and 'jailbreaking' those.
This has pretty much 0 to do with jailbreaking and 100% to do with the fact that the guy was a fence.
No, thats what we have legal channels to get information out of the government for.
You do realize that most of what Wikileaks 'leaks' is already available to anyone who wants to fill out a request form ... right?
You've obviously never been in a long term relationship or marriage. Most people WANT you to lie to them about certain things.
Well, its not exactly as if they weren't expecting it to be taken down, it was clearly part of the Wikileaks plan to have it go offline.
If you have material that the US doesn't want public ... and you're hosting it on Amazons' cloud ... WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HOSTING IT ON THE CLUSTERS IN THE US RATHER THAN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY?
Its hosted on American amazon servers so it could be used to garner more attention when it was taken down.
Either he's too stupid to be trusted or he's an attention whore using anything and everything he has access to to get attention, in which case, he can not be trusted.