Then how do you explain the Level 3 data? The major ISPs got caught red-handed throttling Netflix traffic until the extortion was paid (Comcast in this case). Days later everything was running smooth as a baby's ass. So how can you seriously make an argument that all the blame lies on Netflix' shoulders when the ISP's customers are paying for the bandwidth to receive the content?
Let's say there was a burden. If the ISPs aren't willing to upgrade their networks then their business model is the problem, not how the internet works. And according to the data it looks like the ISPs infrastructure isn't that bad off anyway, they were simple messing with the traffic to extort payments from content providers.
Are you seriously suggesting that congested ports -> Netflix pays for their own direct interconnects -> uncongested ports somehow proves that Netflix was being throttled? Because, frankly, it suggests the opposite to me (i.e. moving lots of traffic to a different interconnect freed up capacity on the original). Your own link shows the general congestion: see this graph.
You can, quite easily, make the argument that Comcast (or Verizon, or whoever the peer in question is) let that situation fester until it resulted in their "winning" a new customer (Netflix) from level3, but certainly not that their traffic was being treated differently from anyone else's.
Everyone wants faster, cheaper, and lighter cars, but you cannae break the laws o' physics, captain.
That doesn't sound like breaking the laws of physics: making the car lighter will make it faster, as well as (assuming you avoid exotic materials) making it cheaper.
There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment.
You might believe that, but practice is a bit different. My parents were married for six years, then (civilly) divorced. Two years later, they remarried each other (I have no comment on how smart my parents are) or, in the Catholic view, "renewed their vows." This marriage lasted another two years or so before they separated for good (the divorce followed along a couple of years later).
Fast forward a decade and a half, and my father (who in the interim married a second wife and had a second divorce) wants to marry a devout Catholic who refuses to marry outside of the Church. My father was able to obtain an annulment despite the opposition of my mother, her family, and my father's entire family (my grandmother (dad's mom) felt strongly enough about it to write letters to an archbishop and a cardinal). The archdiocese of Oakland saw no reason not to grant the annulment, and did so.
While I do wish my father domestic happiness, the result here is completely absurd, and goes to show that if you send enough money the church's way, morality is flexible.
I've never heard Samuel L. Jackson say that, although I have heard him say, "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?"
You know, I noticed the missing comma the second after I hit submit, and, this being slashdot, I was absolutely sure someone would call me on it. Punctuation is the difference between saying, "Let's eat, grandma," and "Let's eat grandma!" just like capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
You're essentially claiming that both you and your AR-15 are at least as accurate as the gold medalist in the 50m rifle at the 2012 summer games was while firing whatever piece of art was crafted for him by Anschutz. You can imagine how one might be incredulous in the face of this claim. "You don't know what you're talking about" is not a valid response.
He should not be prosecuted for giving his funds, but for spreading his hate speech in public against gays. And the proper punishment would be: banning him to repeat that or face a heavy fine (yeah yeah free speech lala I hear you, idiot!)
"Gay people are evil and should be stoned to death" is hate speech (though given no specific incitement to violence, is protected speech). "I don't think people of the same sex should be allowed to marry" is a valid political view, and is also protected speech.
For the record, I firmly support gay marriage and don't really understand how anyone who claims to believe in small government, "freedom," etc could oppose it, as it basically comes down to "we don't like how those people live their lives, and it ought to be illegal." However, you're worse, because you're one of those assholes that wants to make talking about things illegal. "Free speech" isn't "it's ok to talk about those things I support."
Importantly, there's no explicit "right to privacy" in the US Constitution
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sure sounds a hell of a lot like "privacy" to me. Of course, an "explicit" right to privacy is not required, it's already guaranteed by those pesky 9th and 10th amendments.
The summery itself mentioned this. These people are unable to pay rising property taxes....
California's Proposition 13 was designed to keep people from getting priced out of their homes. It's not lawful to reassess a property unless there is a change of ownership, or new construction. With this in mind, I'm not understanding how people can be priced out of a neighborhood they already live in due to rising property values.
I'm guessing you, and many others for that matter, think that since they have their own distro, they must be coding themselves almost everything they use. This is simply not true. Simplified version is they just select what software they want to use and install it off the official Ubuntu repositories.
No, I don't think this at all, but I would expect the level of effort to be similar to something like CentOS. Probably more so, since if I understand correctly, one of their goals was to not be tied too tightly to their upstream distro, so they'll be faced with having to replace libblahblah.so.4 and all of its dependencies when they want to update packages foo, bar,and blee that upstream decided can't change for stability purposes.
I will say that your point about the work involved with maintaining a golden Windows image is a good one, though given that DLL hell is mostly a thing of the past (I won't comment on the shitty way that MS dealt with that, but it is more or less fixed) it's probably a lot less work than the above. Still, it is a point I hadn't considered.
Their claimed cost savings is something like $20M, so that pays for a LOT of overhead. But does it pay for enough?
Do we know that they saved money overall? I poked around the article but I couldn’t find anything.
That's also my question. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around a decade long engineering effort, plus the ongoing costs of maintaining their own distro(!!) is going to lead to a net cost savings. Best of luck to them, and I do hope they succeeded here, but I too would love to see specifics (and not marketing drivel provided by MS, Gartner, etc).
It's only ignored by pussies too passive to fight for it. That document only lists your rights, if you want them you still have to defend them and fight for them. You still have to stand up for yourself, the law is in your favor, if you're willing to fight for it.
Bullshit. The constitution is an enumeration of powers possessed by the government. The list of rights embodied in the amendments are only examples, and the founding fathers thoughtfully included the ninth AND tenth amendments as a reminder of that. There was an argument over having a bill of rights at all, and those opposed based their objection on the idea that, over time, an enumeration of rights would come to be seen as an inclusive, limited list and undermine freedoms instead of enabling them. And here we are today, where most people believe the part in bold above.
Google lives in a fantasy world, where the WAN is as fast as the LAN. For me, both at home and in the workplace, you're talking about two and a half orders of magnitude difference. That's the whole reason all this cloud stuff, streaming (as opposed to download) video, etc all seems so bizarrely alien. You're talking about such a tremendous performance downgrade, that I just can't begin to really take it seriously.
I suppose the thinking is that they are planning for the future, when some day the WAN gets reasonably fast, where my home and business DSL line is replaced with fiber. Cool. Be ready, Google. But how are you going to spend those decades of waiting? Some cons are a little too long, IMHO.
Some thoughts on this:
It my be fantasy for you and I, but Google actually lives in this world. When you can dabble in setting up gigabit city-wide networks as a freaking "experiment" it's reasonable to assume that bandwidth for remote connectivity isn't really an issue for you.
100kbit is more than enough to buy you a reasonably quick remote desktop session. If all your real work is being done in the datacenter across multiple redundant 10gbit links, then who the hell cares what the WAN connectivity is, as long as it's enough to get the session to the user?
That leaves out the dominant form of advertising: payola. Major labels spend a lot of the band's money to get songs on the radio, whether it's laundered through "independent promoters" or just cutting checks to Clear Channel. Then there's TV/Movies: the major labels are all affiliated with TV/movie studios, so the songs played on every teen-centric show are pretty strategically chosen.
FTFY. Label contracts pass the cost of basically everything on to the artist, so other than providing an advance and access to some slimy contacts, the label isn't really doing much for the artist (and in the end, the label owns the copyright on what the artist paid for... it's like a reverse work for hire).
The price to the U.S for WW2 was $288 trillion, imagine the accelerator we could have build with that.
[citation needed] According to The Navy Department Library, the second world war cost about $300 billion in 1945 dollars, or $4.1 trillion in today's dollars. If you include the costs of the Marshall Plan, etc, I'm sure that changes things quite a bit, but probably not almost two orders of magnitude.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to take anything away from Google here (if I could have a nexus phone on Verizon, believe me, I'd be rolling a couple of dozen out tomorrow). I'm not comparing price/performance here, I'm just pointing out how silly it is to make a big deal out of the fact that someone's unreleased flagship device is faster than everyone else's existing devices.
According to Rightware's Power Board, the Nexus 5 delivered the second-highest Benchmark X gaming score among smartphones, behind only the iPhone 5S, making it the most powerful Android-based handset in the land.
Latest generation flagship smartphone faster than previous models. Film at 11.
I have a better punishment: no visas of any kind for three years. No h1b, no b1, your CEO can't have a visa for his quarterly visit, nothing. The punishment should fit the crime.
This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.
Why, exactly, is this not science? Science is a method, not a tucking religion! Our understanding of the universe is imperfect at best and it's certainly POSSIBLE that there is another explanation. Not at ALL likely, but possible.
If everyone had your hostility toward retesting what we already know, we'd still think the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.
The post he responded to referenced Elon Musk and Bell Labs. Going a bit further afield the old xerox PARC and IBM of of did plenty of research. Microsoft spends a bunch on pie in the sky stuff. John Carmack plowed plenty of money into building rockets.
Has government funded research produced absolutely incredible results that we're all better off for? Abso-freaking-lutely! Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!
To be fair, Obama didn't show up for work in 2007-2008, he was too busy running for higher office to do the job he was elected to do. I wish/. had emoticons so I could do the "rolling eyes" smiley right now.
Once upon a time, politicians would resign from their current office in order to run for a different one, but the last one I can remember doing that was Bob Dole in 1996. The worst example I can think of was Joe Lieberman, who simultaneously ran for reelection to the Senate and for Vice President just four years later.
in theory, anybody can form a corporation and operate it to take advantage of the extra "rights" to be gained thereby,
I don't believe a corporation should have "extra" rights. I think should they have all the rights of the people that make them up, and that's where it ends. I agree completely that there is a massive problem with how we treat corporate entities--whenever someone can, say, commit a felony resulting in the deaths, and some limited liability entity walks away with a token fine as a result, there is something seriously wrong... but your proposed solution doesn't correct that! We need to overhaul the courts, not restrict free speech.
How would restricting the political activities of that entity-in-law have in any way affected the Constitutional rights of the people operating it?
How does, say, the New York Times corporation operate in an environment where corporate entities do not have free speech and freedom of the press? You can argue that the individual reporters are simply exercising their own rights, but that fails once you dig into it--the corporation's money is being spent to give those reporters a voice. The editorial page is more than just the editor's personal opinion, it's the de facto position of the newspaper. "Vote for Giant Douche! He's better than Turd Sandwich!" is being broadcast to millions of people, and it's a corporation that's doing it.
How, possibly, can you deny this right and still be faithful to the spirit of the first amendment?
Slashdot Mirror
Then how do you explain the Level 3 data? The major ISPs got caught red-handed throttling Netflix traffic until the extortion was paid (Comcast in this case). Days later everything was running smooth as a baby's ass. So how can you seriously make an argument that all the blame lies on Netflix' shoulders when the ISP's customers are paying for the bandwidth to receive the content?
Let's say there was a burden. If the ISPs aren't willing to upgrade their networks then their business model is the problem, not how the internet works. And according to the data it looks like the ISPs infrastructure isn't that bad off anyway, they were simple messing with the traffic to extort payments from content providers.
TL;DR: WTF are you talking about?
http://blog.level3.com/global-...
Are you seriously suggesting that congested ports -> Netflix pays for their own direct interconnects -> uncongested ports somehow proves that Netflix was being throttled? Because, frankly, it suggests the opposite to me (i.e. moving lots of traffic to a different interconnect freed up capacity on the original). Your own link shows the general congestion: see this graph.
You can, quite easily, make the argument that Comcast (or Verizon, or whoever the peer in question is) let that situation fester until it resulted in their "winning" a new customer (Netflix) from level3, but certainly not that their traffic was being treated differently from anyone else's.
Everyone wants faster, cheaper, and lighter cars, but you cannae break the laws o' physics, captain.
That doesn't sound like breaking the laws of physics: making the car lighter will make it faster, as well as (assuming you avoid exotic materials) making it cheaper.
There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment.
You might believe that, but practice is a bit different. My parents were married for six years, then (civilly) divorced. Two years later, they remarried each other (I have no comment on how smart my parents are) or, in the Catholic view, "renewed their vows." This marriage lasted another two years or so before they separated for good (the divorce followed along a couple of years later).
Fast forward a decade and a half, and my father (who in the interim married a second wife and had a second divorce) wants to marry a devout Catholic who refuses to marry outside of the Church. My father was able to obtain an annulment despite the opposition of my mother, her family, and my father's entire family (my grandmother (dad's mom) felt strongly enough about it to write letters to an archbishop and a cardinal). The archdiocese of Oakland saw no reason not to grant the annulment, and did so.
While I do wish my father domestic happiness, the result here is completely absurd, and goes to show that if you send enough money the church's way, morality is flexible.
I've never heard Samuel L. Jackson say that, although I have heard him say, "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?"
You know, I noticed the missing comma the second after I hit submit, and, this being slashdot, I was absolutely sure someone would call me on it. Punctuation is the difference between saying, "Let's eat, grandma," and "Let's eat grandma!" just like capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
"Hacker" can't have two meanings
Which of course is why "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is not a valid sentence. Or, as Samuel L. Jackson would say, "English motherfucker! Do you speak it?"
You're essentially claiming that both you and your AR-15 are at least as accurate as the gold medalist in the 50m rifle at the 2012 summer games was while firing whatever piece of art was crafted for him by Anschutz. You can imagine how one might be incredulous in the face of this claim. "You don't know what you're talking about" is not a valid response.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
He should not be prosecuted for giving his funds, but for spreading his hate speech in public against gays.
And the proper punishment would be: banning him to repeat that or face a heavy fine (yeah yeah free speech lala I hear you, idiot!)
"Gay people are evil and should be stoned to death" is hate speech (though given no specific incitement to violence, is protected speech).
"I don't think people of the same sex should be allowed to marry" is a valid political view, and is also protected speech.
For the record, I firmly support gay marriage and don't really understand how anyone who claims to believe in small government, "freedom," etc could oppose it, as it basically comes down to "we don't like how those people live their lives, and it ought to be illegal." However, you're worse, because you're one of those assholes that wants to make talking about things illegal. "Free speech" isn't "it's ok to talk about those things I support."
Importantly, there's no explicit "right to privacy" in the US Constitution
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sure sounds a hell of a lot like "privacy" to me. Of course, an "explicit" right to privacy is not required, it's already guaranteed by those pesky 9th and 10th amendments.
The summery itself mentioned this. These people are unable to pay rising property taxes....
California's Proposition 13 was designed to keep people from getting priced out of their homes. It's not lawful to reassess a property unless there is a change of ownership, or new construction. With this in mind, I'm not understanding how people can be priced out of a neighborhood they already live in due to rising property values.
Care to enlighten?
I'm guessing you, and many others for that matter, think that since they have their own distro, they must be coding themselves almost everything they use. This is simply not true. Simplified version is they just select what software they want to use and install it off the official Ubuntu repositories.
No, I don't think this at all, but I would expect the level of effort to be similar to something like CentOS. Probably more so, since if I understand correctly, one of their goals was to not be tied too tightly to their upstream distro, so they'll be faced with having to replace libblahblah.so.4 and all of its dependencies when they want to update packages foo, bar,and blee that upstream decided can't change for stability purposes.
I will say that your point about the work involved with maintaining a golden Windows image is a good one, though given that DLL hell is mostly a thing of the past (I won't comment on the shitty way that MS dealt with that, but it is more or less fixed) it's probably a lot less work than the above. Still, it is a point I hadn't considered.
Their claimed cost savings is something like $20M, so that pays for a LOT of overhead. But does it pay for enough?
Do we know that they saved money overall? I poked around the article but I couldn’t find anything.
That's also my question. I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around a decade long engineering effort, plus the ongoing costs of maintaining their own distro(!!) is going to lead to a net cost savings. Best of luck to them, and I do hope they succeeded here, but I too would love to see specifics (and not marketing drivel provided by MS, Gartner, etc).
It's only ignored by pussies too passive to fight for it. That document only lists your rights, if you want them you still have to defend them and fight for them. You still have to stand up for yourself, the law is in your favor, if you're willing to fight for it.
Bullshit. The constitution is an enumeration of powers possessed by the government. The list of rights embodied in the amendments are only examples, and the founding fathers thoughtfully included the ninth AND tenth amendments as a reminder of that. There was an argument over having a bill of rights at all, and those opposed based their objection on the idea that, over time, an enumeration of rights would come to be seen as an inclusive, limited list and undermine freedoms instead of enabling them. And here we are today, where most people believe the part in bold above.
Please excuse the formatting above. I really, really, hate that slashdot can't seem to handle lists anymore.
Google lives in a fantasy world, where the WAN is as fast as the LAN. For me, both at home and in the workplace, you're talking about two and a half orders of magnitude difference. That's the whole reason all this cloud stuff, streaming (as opposed to download) video, etc all seems so bizarrely alien. You're talking about such a tremendous performance downgrade, that I just can't begin to really take it seriously.
I suppose the thinking is that they are planning for the future, when some day the WAN gets reasonably fast, where my home and business DSL line is replaced with fiber. Cool. Be ready, Google. But how are you going to spend those decades of waiting? Some cons are a little too long, IMHO.
Some thoughts on this:
That leaves out the dominant form of advertising: payola. Major labels spend a lot of the band's money to get songs on the radio, whether it's laundered through "independent promoters" or just cutting checks to Clear Channel. Then there's TV/Movies: the major labels are all affiliated with TV/movie studios, so the songs played on every teen-centric show are pretty strategically chosen.
FTFY. Label contracts pass the cost of basically everything on to the artist, so other than providing an advance and access to some slimy contacts, the label isn't really doing much for the artist (and in the end, the label owns the copyright on what the artist paid for... it's like a reverse work for hire).
The price to the U.S for WW2 was $288 trillion, imagine the accelerator we could have build with that.
[citation needed]
According to The Navy Department Library, the second world war cost about $300 billion in 1945 dollars, or $4.1 trillion in today's dollars. If you include the costs of the Marshall Plan, etc, I'm sure that changes things quite a bit, but probably not almost two orders of magnitude.
Have you compared the prices of the two?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to take anything away from Google here (if I could have a nexus phone on Verizon, believe me, I'd be rolling a couple of dozen out tomorrow). I'm not comparing price/performance here, I'm just pointing out how silly it is to make a big deal out of the fact that someone's unreleased flagship device is faster than everyone else's existing devices.
Latest generation flagship smartphone faster than previous models. Film at 11.
I have a better punishment: no visas of any kind for three years. No h1b, no b1, your CEO can't have a visa for his quarterly visit, nothing. The punishment should fit the crime.
This is a bit like asking physicists to come up with a reason that newtons apple falls that DOESNT involve gravity. It just stops being science.
Why, exactly, is this not science? Science is a method, not a tucking religion! Our understanding of the universe is imperfect at best and it's certainly POSSIBLE that there is another explanation. Not at ALL likely, but possible.
If everyone had your hostility toward retesting what we already know, we'd still think the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.
The post he responded to referenced Elon Musk and Bell Labs. Going a bit further afield the old xerox PARC and IBM of of did plenty of research. Microsoft spends a bunch on pie in the sky stuff. John Carmack plowed plenty of money into building rockets.
Has government funded research produced absolutely incredible results that we're all better off for? Abso-freaking-lutely! Is the government the ONLY one that spends on basic research with no immediate application? Absolutely NOT!
I was referring to the animated type, unless you can come up with an ascii emoticon that is rolling its eyes?
Also an excellent example
To be fair, Obama didn't show up for work in 2007-2008, he was too busy running for higher office to do the job he was elected to do. I wish /. had emoticons so I could do the "rolling eyes" smiley right now.
Once upon a time, politicians would resign from their current office in order to run for a different one, but the last one I can remember doing that was Bob Dole in 1996. The worst example I can think of was Joe Lieberman, who simultaneously ran for reelection to the Senate and for Vice President just four years later.
I think one thing you say above is a key point:
I don't believe a corporation should have "extra" rights. I think should they have all the rights of the people that make them up, and that's where it ends. I agree completely that there is a massive problem with how we treat corporate entities--whenever someone can, say, commit a felony resulting in the deaths, and some limited liability entity walks away with a token fine as a result, there is something seriously wrong... but your proposed solution doesn't correct that! We need to overhaul the courts, not restrict free speech.
How does, say, the New York Times corporation operate in an environment where corporate entities do not have free speech and freedom of the press? You can argue that the individual reporters are simply exercising their own rights, but that fails once you dig into it--the corporation's money is being spent to give those reporters a voice. The editorial page is more than just the editor's personal opinion, it's the de facto position of the newspaper. "Vote for Giant Douche! He's better than Turd Sandwich!" is being broadcast to millions of people, and it's a corporation that's doing it.
How, possibly, can you deny this right and still be faithful to the spirit of the first amendment?