Entrepreneurship drives economies bigger than anything else. That in itself is driven by people putting in big risks to reap big rewards. Notice how in countries who have tax systems similar to what you describe, the economies suck balls. Why? Because big risk can never pay off. This is why Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Motorola, HP, AMD, Nvidia, and many MANY other high tech firms are in the US.
If they were located elsewhere, other countries would feel the need to cut their balls off, because they share sentiments similar to yours. If every economy worked like the one you fantasize about, we'd all be equally poor.
The thing is, you can't win with these people. They also complain about CEO's who fix their pay at one penny per year and instead take most of their pay in stock. That DOES fix your salary to the performance of your company, in fact their may is made or broken on it. These people complain saying "oh they just do that to avoid taxes"./rolleyes
The pareto rule very much applies here: Very roughly 20% of the global workforce does 80% of the work. Likewise it isn't very shocking when 20% of them make 80% of the money. It has always been this way, it always will be this way, I don't get the stupid need for socialist policies that try to fight the way things naturally occur. All they end up doing is wrecking economies when the entrepreneurs can't realize any big reward from a big risk. Which by the way, entrepreneurship is the main reason the US economy does so well compared to the rest of the world; it's very strong here.
Banks are quite useful for society for more reasons than that. Banks make it possible for people and companies to acquire capital in order to start the next big thing where it would otherwise be difficult to do.
Here's a question I rarely see get asked though: Are union bosses overpaid? Think about this one for a second. The teamsters union makes it nearly impossible for other businesses to operate in a profitable manner. For example, they forced Hostess workers to either handle sweets or handle breads, but forbade them from working on both. If a few palettes of breads needed to be sent to the same store as a few palettes of sweets, and the sweets didn't fill the truck, too bad, they had to be sent on a separate truck even though they're going to the same damn place. Union rules.
When the teamsters union finally drove Hostess to insolvency, the union leadership called it a victory because they held their ground. Meanwhile all of those workers lost their jobs, and the union leadership got to keep their million dollar salaries.
Why are people so outraged over CEO pay, yet aren't outraged over things like that? It boggles the mind. IMO quit focusing on what somebody else gets paid, instead focus on yourself and what you do and maybe you'll improve yourself.
Except global warming isn't causing food production to go down. In fact, nothing is, food production is only going up. The only thing that is fluctuating is the global economy, and when the global economy tanks, food distribution tends to suffer.
The thing is, it really doesn't matter how many scientists support it. Science isn't a democracy. See the pamphlet called 100 authors against Einstein. Einstein replied that it didn't need 100 people do disprove his theory of relativity, rather all it needed was one fact. I really hate how modern science has turned into this "if the majority believes it, it must be true." I'm sure the majority of the world still believes in creationism, but they're also still wrong.
(By the way, who decides what makes you a scientist anyways?)
Groundwater contamination [vanityfair.com], for one. Especially, flammable tap water [youtube.com]. Perhaps you dismiss that as anecdotal, but it's not as if scientist have been given the access, data, and funding to run these claims to ground... that will take another ten or twenty years, by which point the perpetrators will have long since taken off with the profits while the general public gets stuck with whatever environmental catastrophes this created.
The thing is, in large groups, secrets are extremely hard to keep. Is it bothersome that they are quiet about these kinds of things? Yeah. But at the same time, I know exactly why they do it: PR is a very delicate thing. A lot of companies are tight lipped about even the most innocuous things that go on within their company because it's stupid easy for somebody to misconstrue it and damage your reputation horridly.
For examples of this, see the recent events where Gabe Newell openly talked about the DNS cache issue, or that MS UX designer who admitted even senior executives at the company are reluctant to talk about internal happenings. Sometimes it's not just the concerns over their bottom line, sometimes it's concerns over just how stressful it can be to deal with public opinion on a large scale. The developer of that game flappy bird was bringing in $50k a day but stopped because he couldn't handle the PR stress, the developer of Fez quit the games industry for the same reason.
Something more closely related to this: Why did the Hadly CRU keep their data so tightly restricted before the email scandal? That's why. Some journalist whose life mission is to get a Pulitzer prize will comb for just the smallest bit of interesting data to create a media shitstorm, no matter how meaningless that data might be. Even when it is debunked, the damage is still done and it is permanent, mainly because of the way urban legends never die. (People still think Bill Gates said we don't need more than 640k of memory, or that Richard Gere put a gerbil in his butt, but neither of these things ever actually happened.)
Likewise, I'm sure the energy companies involved keep their data hidden for similar reasons. Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of engineers and scientists work for these companies. I'm pretty sure that if there was something going on, one of them would say something. I mean shit, if it can happen to the NSA, it can happen to anybody.
They aren't going to outright deny any of these claims either, because that can make things worse. Here's a perfect example: I'm sure you've heard of that "unfair campaign" before, where they say you can't see racism if you're wrhite. Speak all you want about how that's such a bullshit claim, (which it is) but if you're a white guy you automatically have no credibility. And worse, if you go around calling BS on it, then people will point fingers at you calling you a racist for denying racism. It's a shitty situation, but unfortunately that's how you have to deal with stupid people.
I don't think it is. I think it's mainly just NIMBY syndrome; same with nuclear power.
Greenpeace likes to cite Fukushima as evidence for why there should be no more nuclear power, but the actual results of Fukushima don't bear that out.
Fukushima taught us that living in an earthquake zone at the time of an earthquake/tsunami hurts a lot more people (16,000 confirmed dead, 2,500 missing) than a meltdown at a modern nuclear power plant (zero dead, liberal estimates of 1,000 potential cancer cases in the future - may never see a single one though.)
Are there risks with fracking? Other than the safety risks common in every other industrial work environment, not really. Some people suspect earthquakes, but so far there isn't anything other than confirmation bias to suggest it actually happens.
They may be serviced by other ISPs, but the service in many cases is shit. Right now I'm dealing with Cox who over the last year or two has turned to crap. I regularly get dropped from doing whatever it is I'm doing because of them, and they continue to raise their rates. I'm paying about twice as much as I used to pay 3 years ago, and 3 years ago I wouldn't randomly have the service get disconnected four times a week (it usually happened once a month at worst.)
Just yesterday I was playing hearthstone and was literally only two moves away from winning an arena match, and my WAN link went down so it made me forfeit. I already checked my own equipment by not only replacing it twice but also trying different firmwares in my router - the problem still persists.
The alternative is centurylink who wants $40 a month for 12m/768k with bad jitter and high interleaving (which means high latency at ALL times with very unpredictable RTT.) Screw that shit, I'll stay with my consistently lower latency but less reliable 50m/10m for the same price.
My area (Phoenix) is in Google Fiber's recent list. The whole metro area is actually a rather modern and clean grid design, very flat terrain, with no natural disaster risks to speak of, and some of the higher population densities with many tech companies already located out here. It is actually remarkably easy to deploy fiber out here, the question is will the politicians not be retarded and/or corrupt.
I don't think anybody in any significant numbers believe that sexism doesn't exist. The main thing is that people such as myself don't believe it is a travesty that women are interested in different things than men are. For example, you have fewer women in IT than men mainly because they simply aren't interested. There isn't some conspiracy holding them back (perhaps in the middle east or some place, but they're already backwards,) nor is there industry pressure to keep them out. Quite the opposite in fact, because affirmative action rules can halt the growth of your business unless you deliberately turn some men away in favor of a woman who might be less qualified.
This e-sport thing only further demonstrates exactly what I'm saying. There is zero pressure anywhere stopping women from being interested in the same games that men are, yet they by and large prefer different games than men do. I mean what, are men supposed to be labeled sexist for simply having different tastes? Am I supposed to feel like an evil women oppressor because I don't particularly care for games like candy crush?
Even if its not, I have a simple solution: Allow the content providers to subsidize ISP's, but don't permit ISP's to discriminate against content providers who don't subsidize them.
The netflix example is actually a good one. It does actually make sense if the ISP can have cloud servers located within their border routers so that streaming content doesn't have to saturate the peering links. It doesn't matter whether or not netflix has the capability (maybe they don't) but it does matter that peering providers like Cogent and AT&T already leave certain links saturated and just don't give a fuck when it happens. The netflix solution works around that in an elegant way:
- The ISP doesn't have to pay the costs of buying the hardware to support every content company out there (not only are we looking at compute resources, but storage as well.) - The ISP doesn't have to concern themselves with copyright issues or licensing (netflix owns the hardware that the content is stored on.)
Just add some provisions that don't permit content providers to discriminate against ISPs (killing ESPN3 while we're at it...I just hate the fact that even though I escaped cable TV and its shitty fees, my ISP still pays ESPN for each subscriber, so some of my money still goes to them.)
Flooding their IP with data (and how does she know they are doing this, by the way?) is a DoS technique, not spam, and ISPs hate that even worse than they hate spam because it degrades their network performance and/or clogs up their peering links.
And the behavior that you describe is a targetted attack, i.e. somebody is deliberately trying to ruin your day (as in just you in particular.) I really doubt that is the case. First of all, the perpetrator has to identify your IP address in particular. Game servers don't give out your IP address to other players. They just don't. Not only is it information that the other players simply don't need, but it invites hacking attempts, so the game's developers would do whatever they could to avoid it. (Only older games that used peer to peer model, such as OG 1998 Starcraft had to share IPs. Today's games are almost exclusively based on the client > server model) In fact, unless you operate a service that the person is accessing, it isn't exactly easy to identify somebody's IP address. Your best bet is to send them a web link or email containing content is located on a service you own, and you get them to access that. That will let you identify their IP address, and even when you obtain it, there isn't a whole lot you can do to the typical person with that information unless they happen to be running some kind of service you can exploit.
And since you seem to know whats going on (or at least believe you do at any rate,) what kind of data are they flooding you with? The ICMP flooding of yore in the 90's is pretty much irrelevant now. Speaking of which, if your gateway isn't configured to drop incoming ICMP packets, it should be. I configure mine to do exactly that.
And don't say "the spammers are doing it," because they aren't. I mean really, it would make more sense to argue that unknown alien forces are doing it. Unless this is happening at the very moment that you have outlook (or something similar) client syncing with an email server that has a million spam messages waiting for you, it isn't the result of spam at all. But suppose hypothetically that is your problem, then you've got much worse issues than spammers, because its likely that your WAN link is just downright shitty. Most email servers are configured to throttle the amount of data they'll push to syncing clients at any given time to avoid being overloaded. If you happen to be watching netflix at the same time, you'd be experiencing much worse issues than trying to sync an email inbox full of crap.
And 500mb in a week? Fuck, I do 300gb in a week.
I eat, breathe, and shit networking for a living, by the way. It's both my job and my hobby.
That description isn't accurate for either one, actually. DD-WRT has a lot of pages that just have a single option in them, and navigating among them requires an entire page reload (part of why the UI is really badly designed IMO.) For example, in DD-WRT there are two separate pages for configuration data (one for backup/restore, another for factory reset) whereas Tomato consolidates these into one page.
If you want raw numbers, to my count (I have DD-WRT running on one of my switches, tomato running on two) DD-WRT has 39 option pages, Tomato has 63. DD-WRT is missing a bunch of little things here and there, for example it can't do static ARP binding, whereas tomato can.
Tomato also uses an AJAX interface that permits you to make multiple changes on a page at once without having to save each change as you go along (you can instead commit all of the changes to a given area at once, whereas DD-WRT in many cases will flat out reset one setting upon changing another unless you manually SAVE EACH SETTING as you change them.)
Also I'm not sure where you get the idea that Tomato doesn't have a command shell. You can gain access to it not only via SSH/Telnet, but the GUI shell it uses instantly executes and returns results, whereas it takes a good 15 seconds for DD-WRT to execute any commands you enter into it and show the response.
I'm genuinely curious what features you're missing, because as far as I'm aware there aren't any that DD-WRT has and Tomato does not. Tomato even offers several features that DD-WRT does not. There was some paid hotspot service (e.g. you get commissioned or something) I recall DD-WRT including out of the box in some releases that Tomato didn't have, but if you really wanted that service (it has VERY limited use cases) you can add it to tomato rather easily using optware.
I've got an RT-AC66U myself and honestly I like tomato (shibby version) a hell of a lot better for it. Multiple reasons, but the biggest include:
The interface in DD-WRT is clunky; by that I mean they use a worse than MS Windows* style of individual fields for IP address octets so that you have to tab between fields instead of naturally typing it out in the dot notation like you do everywhere else; and if you change one setting that uses a refresh object it *very annoyingly* undoes any unsaved settings you may have made on that page. *(MS Windows is actually slightly better here because if you type in the dots it automatically moves to the next field, whereas DD-WRT does not, requiring you to tab instead, and if you make an error in a previous field you have to shift-tab and arrow to your mistake instead of simply hitting backspace.)
Tomato has really nifty links for doing things quickly. A beautiful example is like giving a MAC address a sticky dynamic IP address just requires a click, typing the IP address and desired hostname (for local DNS resolution if you desire) and then clicking save. With DD-WRT you have to go through numerous steps just to type in the MAC address.
DD-WRT's QoS functions, and its network monitoring and analysis functions are downright awful compared to tomato. Just straight up awful.
DD-WRT deliberately cripples certain features unless you pay for them (such as its QoS features, which even the paid version is worse than what Tomato offers for free.)
(Kind of hypocritical too because DD-WRT was originally built by a group that was tired of the Sveasoft guy hoarding his changes to the GPLed code to only those who paid him, but I don't count that against them because I'm more of a "I use what works" kind of guy.)
Then again I'm a hobbyist when it comes to networks, so I might have more stringent demands than anybody else.
The biggest thing is, I'm having a hard time figuring out why I should care if the content providers have to deal with a monopoly. They themselves already have a monopoly on the content they produce, and they're the biggest pushers of cable rate increases by raising the crap out of the retransmission fees all the time.
Hell, ESPN alone sucks up about $15 a month from your cable bill, regardless of whether you watch it or not (I don't, or rather didn't before I got rid of cable.) How on earth could you have sympathy for them?
It's also the content providers' fault that over the top (that is, internet based) TV projects like the ones created by Intel, Google, and Apple have all failed: The content providers put heavy restrictions on their distribution media in order to force subscribers to subscribe to each other's networks, even if they don't want to.
IMO let them do this so that the pay TV industry can finally destroy itself from the inside out by pricing itself out of the market.
I think you'd have an easier time blaming Obama for Benghazi, because it did come out that his administration was aware that something was going on before it actually happened.
I really haven't seen any evidence that Bush was aware of what was going on at Enron. The only outside organization I could see blaming for it is Arthur Anderson LLP. Bush had veto powers for Sarbanes-Oxley, so I'm sure if he was in cahoots with the financial fraud industry he would have done exactly that.
That's the problem is a lot of cities like to collect rent from anybody who wants to lay any kind of infrastructure, and even then they grant exclusivity to one provider.
The reason google fiber is only in these "hick" areas is because they don't have to deal with these kinds of restrictions. There was one city government that tried to add one of these restrictions to google, so they pulled out of that city, and now their politicians are in hot water over it.
Just a month earlier, council members including Terry Goodman, Curt Skoog, and Richard Collins seemed intent to pelt Google with a range of objections and unusual questions that suggested a lack of basic knowledge about fiber broadband.
According to those in attendance, Skoog in particular seemed far out of his depth, questioning if 1,000/1,000Mbps was fast enough to provide connections for 6-12 computer terminals inside a local school.
I'd do the same thing if I was google. By far the biggest impediment to broadband deployment is local city governments trying to put a stop to it. The big cities are the worst offenders, and those small time politicians tend to be the most corrupt and willing to accept backdoor deals with incumbent ISPs.
Sorry but that's a load of crap. Think about what you're saying here.
How do ISPs make money off of spam? At best it does nothing to an ISP (except if they operate email services, which is IMO somewhat pointless for an ISP to do these days -- bad for the consumer as well to have their contact information tied to their ISP, in addition to potentially paying to operate email servers they don't even use) and at the worst it adds maybe a few bytes to a web page (most of which are compressed, so the added bandwidth is negligible at best.)
Nobody "spams" you or your IP address directly, instead they spam other services that they think you might use. If you're talking DDoS, that isn't the same as spam.
USPS makes money off of junk mail because they get paid to deliver it. Your ISP doesn't get paid shit to deliver spam to you. If anything it disincentives internet use when your favorite websites are inundated with spam and you don't want to use them as a result.
More likely just fanatical, ideologically motivated.
The Chavez government is a disaster. Even for a socialist government its a failure. At least Cuba has some stability, and they actually defend their practices of censorship rather than try to hide it.
No, that isn't seizing your assets, that is them repossessing something you never actually owned. When you take out those loans, you agreed to allow them to recover whatever assets you purchased with that money you borrowed. If they knew you weren't going to pay back your loans, they never would have lent you the money to begin with. They lose money when they have to repossess instead of letting you pay back the remaining balance; they only do that when they believe you aren't likely ever going to pay it back.
Uhh....is this supposed to be attacking me or my argument in some way? Because I'm very much against imminent domain, with only minor concessions for widening roadways.
Though in America's defense, the governments (yes, plural) are required to compensate you at fair market value.
Slashdot Mirror
...about porn.
Entrepreneurship drives economies bigger than anything else. That in itself is driven by people putting in big risks to reap big rewards. Notice how in countries who have tax systems similar to what you describe, the economies suck balls. Why? Because big risk can never pay off. This is why Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Motorola, HP, AMD, Nvidia, and many MANY other high tech firms are in the US.
If they were located elsewhere, other countries would feel the need to cut their balls off, because they share sentiments similar to yours. If every economy worked like the one you fantasize about, we'd all be equally poor.
The thing is, you can't win with these people. They also complain about CEO's who fix their pay at one penny per year and instead take most of their pay in stock. That DOES fix your salary to the performance of your company, in fact their may is made or broken on it. These people complain saying "oh they just do that to avoid taxes". /rolleyes
The pareto rule very much applies here: Very roughly 20% of the global workforce does 80% of the work. Likewise it isn't very shocking when 20% of them make 80% of the money. It has always been this way, it always will be this way, I don't get the stupid need for socialist policies that try to fight the way things naturally occur. All they end up doing is wrecking economies when the entrepreneurs can't realize any big reward from a big risk. Which by the way, entrepreneurship is the main reason the US economy does so well compared to the rest of the world; it's very strong here.
Banks are quite useful for society for more reasons than that. Banks make it possible for people and companies to acquire capital in order to start the next big thing where it would otherwise be difficult to do.
Here's a question I rarely see get asked though: Are union bosses overpaid? Think about this one for a second. The teamsters union makes it nearly impossible for other businesses to operate in a profitable manner. For example, they forced Hostess workers to either handle sweets or handle breads, but forbade them from working on both. If a few palettes of breads needed to be sent to the same store as a few palettes of sweets, and the sweets didn't fill the truck, too bad, they had to be sent on a separate truck even though they're going to the same damn place. Union rules.
When the teamsters union finally drove Hostess to insolvency, the union leadership called it a victory because they held their ground. Meanwhile all of those workers lost their jobs, and the union leadership got to keep their million dollar salaries.
Why are people so outraged over CEO pay, yet aren't outraged over things like that? It boggles the mind. IMO quit focusing on what somebody else gets paid, instead focus on yourself and what you do and maybe you'll improve yourself.
Except global warming isn't causing food production to go down. In fact, nothing is, food production is only going up. The only thing that is fluctuating is the global economy, and when the global economy tanks, food distribution tends to suffer.
The thing is, it really doesn't matter how many scientists support it. Science isn't a democracy. See the pamphlet called 100 authors against Einstein. Einstein replied that it didn't need 100 people do disprove his theory of relativity, rather all it needed was one fact. I really hate how modern science has turned into this "if the majority believes it, it must be true." I'm sure the majority of the world still believes in creationism, but they're also still wrong.
(By the way, who decides what makes you a scientist anyways?)
Groundwater contamination [vanityfair.com], for one. Especially, flammable tap water [youtube.com]. Perhaps you dismiss that as anecdotal, but it's not as if scientist have been given the access, data, and funding to run these claims to ground... that will take another ten or twenty years, by which point the perpetrators will have long since taken off with the profits while the general public gets stuck with whatever environmental catastrophes this created.
The thing is, in large groups, secrets are extremely hard to keep. Is it bothersome that they are quiet about these kinds of things? Yeah. But at the same time, I know exactly why they do it: PR is a very delicate thing. A lot of companies are tight lipped about even the most innocuous things that go on within their company because it's stupid easy for somebody to misconstrue it and damage your reputation horridly.
For examples of this, see the recent events where Gabe Newell openly talked about the DNS cache issue, or that MS UX designer who admitted even senior executives at the company are reluctant to talk about internal happenings. Sometimes it's not just the concerns over their bottom line, sometimes it's concerns over just how stressful it can be to deal with public opinion on a large scale. The developer of that game flappy bird was bringing in $50k a day but stopped because he couldn't handle the PR stress, the developer of Fez quit the games industry for the same reason.
Something more closely related to this: Why did the Hadly CRU keep their data so tightly restricted before the email scandal? That's why. Some journalist whose life mission is to get a Pulitzer prize will comb for just the smallest bit of interesting data to create a media shitstorm, no matter how meaningless that data might be. Even when it is debunked, the damage is still done and it is permanent, mainly because of the way urban legends never die. (People still think Bill Gates said we don't need more than 640k of memory, or that Richard Gere put a gerbil in his butt, but neither of these things ever actually happened.)
Likewise, I'm sure the energy companies involved keep their data hidden for similar reasons. Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of engineers and scientists work for these companies. I'm pretty sure that if there was something going on, one of them would say something. I mean shit, if it can happen to the NSA, it can happen to anybody.
They aren't going to outright deny any of these claims either, because that can make things worse. Here's a perfect example: I'm sure you've heard of that "unfair campaign" before, where they say you can't see racism if you're wrhite. Speak all you want about how that's such a bullshit claim, (which it is) but if you're a white guy you automatically have no credibility. And worse, if you go around calling BS on it, then people will point fingers at you calling you a racist for denying racism. It's a shitty situation, but unfortunately that's how you have to deal with stupid people.
And by the way, I live 50 miles from the largest nuclear plant in the US. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I don't think it is. I think it's mainly just NIMBY syndrome; same with nuclear power.
Greenpeace likes to cite Fukushima as evidence for why there should be no more nuclear power, but the actual results of Fukushima don't bear that out.
Fukushima taught us that living in an earthquake zone at the time of an earthquake/tsunami hurts a lot more people (16,000 confirmed dead, 2,500 missing) than a meltdown at a modern nuclear power plant (zero dead, liberal estimates of 1,000 potential cancer cases in the future - may never see a single one though.)
Are there risks with fracking? Other than the safety risks common in every other industrial work environment, not really. Some people suspect earthquakes, but so far there isn't anything other than confirmation bias to suggest it actually happens.
They may be serviced by other ISPs, but the service in many cases is shit. Right now I'm dealing with Cox who over the last year or two has turned to crap. I regularly get dropped from doing whatever it is I'm doing because of them, and they continue to raise their rates. I'm paying about twice as much as I used to pay 3 years ago, and 3 years ago I wouldn't randomly have the service get disconnected four times a week (it usually happened once a month at worst.)
Just yesterday I was playing hearthstone and was literally only two moves away from winning an arena match, and my WAN link went down so it made me forfeit. I already checked my own equipment by not only replacing it twice but also trying different firmwares in my router - the problem still persists.
The alternative is centurylink who wants $40 a month for 12m/768k with bad jitter and high interleaving (which means high latency at ALL times with very unpredictable RTT.) Screw that shit, I'll stay with my consistently lower latency but less reliable 50m/10m for the same price.
My area (Phoenix) is in Google Fiber's recent list. The whole metro area is actually a rather modern and clean grid design, very flat terrain, with no natural disaster risks to speak of, and some of the higher population densities with many tech companies already located out here. It is actually remarkably easy to deploy fiber out here, the question is will the politicians not be retarded and/or corrupt.
I don't think anybody in any significant numbers believe that sexism doesn't exist. The main thing is that people such as myself don't believe it is a travesty that women are interested in different things than men are. For example, you have fewer women in IT than men mainly because they simply aren't interested. There isn't some conspiracy holding them back (perhaps in the middle east or some place, but they're already backwards,) nor is there industry pressure to keep them out. Quite the opposite in fact, because affirmative action rules can halt the growth of your business unless you deliberately turn some men away in favor of a woman who might be less qualified.
This e-sport thing only further demonstrates exactly what I'm saying. There is zero pressure anywhere stopping women from being interested in the same games that men are, yet they by and large prefer different games than men do. I mean what, are men supposed to be labeled sexist for simply having different tastes? Am I supposed to feel like an evil women oppressor because I don't particularly care for games like candy crush?
Even if its not, I have a simple solution: Allow the content providers to subsidize ISP's, but don't permit ISP's to discriminate against content providers who don't subsidize them.
The netflix example is actually a good one. It does actually make sense if the ISP can have cloud servers located within their border routers so that streaming content doesn't have to saturate the peering links. It doesn't matter whether or not netflix has the capability (maybe they don't) but it does matter that peering providers like Cogent and AT&T already leave certain links saturated and just don't give a fuck when it happens. The netflix solution works around that in an elegant way:
- The ISP doesn't have to pay the costs of buying the hardware to support every content company out there (not only are we looking at compute resources, but storage as well.)
- The ISP doesn't have to concern themselves with copyright issues or licensing (netflix owns the hardware that the content is stored on.)
Just add some provisions that don't permit content providers to discriminate against ISPs (killing ESPN3 while we're at it...I just hate the fact that even though I escaped cable TV and its shitty fees, my ISP still pays ESPN for each subscriber, so some of my money still goes to them.)
Flooding their IP with data (and how does she know they are doing this, by the way?) is a DoS technique, not spam, and ISPs hate that even worse than they hate spam because it degrades their network performance and/or clogs up their peering links.
And the behavior that you describe is a targetted attack, i.e. somebody is deliberately trying to ruin your day (as in just you in particular.) I really doubt that is the case. First of all, the perpetrator has to identify your IP address in particular. Game servers don't give out your IP address to other players. They just don't. Not only is it information that the other players simply don't need, but it invites hacking attempts, so the game's developers would do whatever they could to avoid it. (Only older games that used peer to peer model, such as OG 1998 Starcraft had to share IPs. Today's games are almost exclusively based on the client > server model) In fact, unless you operate a service that the person is accessing, it isn't exactly easy to identify somebody's IP address. Your best bet is to send them a web link or email containing content is located on a service you own, and you get them to access that. That will let you identify their IP address, and even when you obtain it, there isn't a whole lot you can do to the typical person with that information unless they happen to be running some kind of service you can exploit.
And since you seem to know whats going on (or at least believe you do at any rate,) what kind of data are they flooding you with? The ICMP flooding of yore in the 90's is pretty much irrelevant now. Speaking of which, if your gateway isn't configured to drop incoming ICMP packets, it should be. I configure mine to do exactly that.
And don't say "the spammers are doing it," because they aren't. I mean really, it would make more sense to argue that unknown alien forces are doing it. Unless this is happening at the very moment that you have outlook (or something similar) client syncing with an email server that has a million spam messages waiting for you, it isn't the result of spam at all. But suppose hypothetically that is your problem, then you've got much worse issues than spammers, because its likely that your WAN link is just downright shitty. Most email servers are configured to throttle the amount of data they'll push to syncing clients at any given time to avoid being overloaded. If you happen to be watching netflix at the same time, you'd be experiencing much worse issues than trying to sync an email inbox full of crap.
And 500mb in a week? Fuck, I do 300gb in a week.
I eat, breathe, and shit networking for a living, by the way. It's both my job and my hobby.
That description isn't accurate for either one, actually. DD-WRT has a lot of pages that just have a single option in them, and navigating among them requires an entire page reload (part of why the UI is really badly designed IMO.) For example, in DD-WRT there are two separate pages for configuration data (one for backup/restore, another for factory reset) whereas Tomato consolidates these into one page.
If you want raw numbers, to my count (I have DD-WRT running on one of my switches, tomato running on two) DD-WRT has 39 option pages, Tomato has 63. DD-WRT is missing a bunch of little things here and there, for example it can't do static ARP binding, whereas tomato can.
Tomato also uses an AJAX interface that permits you to make multiple changes on a page at once without having to save each change as you go along (you can instead commit all of the changes to a given area at once, whereas DD-WRT in many cases will flat out reset one setting upon changing another unless you manually SAVE EACH SETTING as you change them.)
Also I'm not sure where you get the idea that Tomato doesn't have a command shell. You can gain access to it not only via SSH/Telnet, but the GUI shell it uses instantly executes and returns results, whereas it takes a good 15 seconds for DD-WRT to execute any commands you enter into it and show the response.
I'm genuinely curious what features you're missing, because as far as I'm aware there aren't any that DD-WRT has and Tomato does not. Tomato even offers several features that DD-WRT does not. There was some paid hotspot service (e.g. you get commissioned or something) I recall DD-WRT including out of the box in some releases that Tomato didn't have, but if you really wanted that service (it has VERY limited use cases) you can add it to tomato rather easily using optware.
Chances are with as high of a high profile as he has, they'd just find him wherever he moves.
I've got an RT-AC66U myself and honestly I like tomato (shibby version) a hell of a lot better for it. Multiple reasons, but the biggest include:
The interface in DD-WRT is clunky; by that I mean they use a worse than MS Windows* style of individual fields for IP address octets so that you have to tab between fields instead of naturally typing it out in the dot notation like you do everywhere else; and if you change one setting that uses a refresh object it *very annoyingly* undoes any unsaved settings you may have made on that page. *(MS Windows is actually slightly better here because if you type in the dots it automatically moves to the next field, whereas DD-WRT does not, requiring you to tab instead, and if you make an error in a previous field you have to shift-tab and arrow to your mistake instead of simply hitting backspace.)
Tomato has really nifty links for doing things quickly. A beautiful example is like giving a MAC address a sticky dynamic IP address just requires a click, typing the IP address and desired hostname (for local DNS resolution if you desire) and then clicking save. With DD-WRT you have to go through numerous steps just to type in the MAC address.
DD-WRT's QoS functions, and its network monitoring and analysis functions are downright awful compared to tomato. Just straight up awful.
DD-WRT deliberately cripples certain features unless you pay for them (such as its QoS features, which even the paid version is worse than what Tomato offers for free.)
(Kind of hypocritical too because DD-WRT was originally built by a group that was tired of the Sveasoft guy hoarding his changes to the GPLed code to only those who paid him, but I don't count that against them because I'm more of a "I use what works" kind of guy.)
Then again I'm a hobbyist when it comes to networks, so I might have more stringent demands than anybody else.
The biggest thing is, I'm having a hard time figuring out why I should care if the content providers have to deal with a monopoly. They themselves already have a monopoly on the content they produce, and they're the biggest pushers of cable rate increases by raising the crap out of the retransmission fees all the time.
Hell, ESPN alone sucks up about $15 a month from your cable bill, regardless of whether you watch it or not (I don't, or rather didn't before I got rid of cable.) How on earth could you have sympathy for them?
It's also the content providers' fault that over the top (that is, internet based) TV projects like the ones created by Intel, Google, and Apple have all failed: The content providers put heavy restrictions on their distribution media in order to force subscribers to subscribe to each other's networks, even if they don't want to.
IMO let them do this so that the pay TV industry can finally destroy itself from the inside out by pricing itself out of the market.
I think you'd have an easier time blaming Obama for Benghazi, because it did come out that his administration was aware that something was going on before it actually happened.
I really haven't seen any evidence that Bush was aware of what was going on at Enron. The only outside organization I could see blaming for it is Arthur Anderson LLP. Bush had veto powers for Sarbanes-Oxley, so I'm sure if he was in cahoots with the financial fraud industry he would have done exactly that.
That's the problem is a lot of cities like to collect rent from anybody who wants to lay any kind of infrastructure, and even then they grant exclusivity to one provider.
The reason google fiber is only in these "hick" areas is because they don't have to deal with these kinds of restrictions. There was one city government that tried to add one of these restrictions to google, so they pulled out of that city, and now their politicians are in hot water over it.
http://stopthecap.com/2013/10/...
Just a month earlier, council members including Terry Goodman, Curt Skoog, and Richard Collins seemed intent to pelt Google with a range of objections and unusual questions that suggested a lack of basic knowledge about fiber broadband.
According to those in attendance, Skoog in particular seemed far out of his depth, questioning if 1,000/1,000Mbps was fast enough to provide connections for 6-12 computer terminals inside a local school.
I'd do the same thing if I was google. By far the biggest impediment to broadband deployment is local city governments trying to put a stop to it. The big cities are the worst offenders, and those small time politicians tend to be the most corrupt and willing to accept backdoor deals with incumbent ISPs.
Sorry but that's a load of crap. Think about what you're saying here.
How do ISPs make money off of spam? At best it does nothing to an ISP (except if they operate email services, which is IMO somewhat pointless for an ISP to do these days -- bad for the consumer as well to have their contact information tied to their ISP, in addition to potentially paying to operate email servers they don't even use) and at the worst it adds maybe a few bytes to a web page (most of which are compressed, so the added bandwidth is negligible at best.)
Nobody "spams" you or your IP address directly, instead they spam other services that they think you might use. If you're talking DDoS, that isn't the same as spam.
USPS makes money off of junk mail because they get paid to deliver it. Your ISP doesn't get paid shit to deliver spam to you. If anything it disincentives internet use when your favorite websites are inundated with spam and you don't want to use them as a result.
My posts must look like this because I get downmodded as "troll" all the time on slashdot.
More likely just fanatical, ideologically motivated.
The Chavez government is a disaster. Even for a socialist government its a failure. At least Cuba has some stability, and they actually defend their practices of censorship rather than try to hide it.
No, that isn't seizing your assets, that is them repossessing something you never actually owned. When you take out those loans, you agreed to allow them to recover whatever assets you purchased with that money you borrowed. If they knew you weren't going to pay back your loans, they never would have lent you the money to begin with. They lose money when they have to repossess instead of letting you pay back the remaining balance; they only do that when they believe you aren't likely ever going to pay it back.
Uhh....is this supposed to be attacking me or my argument in some way? Because I'm very much against imminent domain, with only minor concessions for widening roadways.
Though in America's defense, the governments (yes, plural) are required to compensate you at fair market value.