It may have worked out differently for you, but T1 where I was was all about call time, nothing else mattered. So long as no official complaint was lodged, hanging up on people was allowed (and unofficially condoned/supported). For most, it's a dead end.
I know what it means, and I know what people think it means, and I know they don't match. Using the common definition, even if it doesn't match your definition isn't an error.
And it's a quick way for the Thought Police to turn off all cell phones
Only ones they have the names and subscriber info for. They can't turn off the phones of everyone in a group near a riot. For that, they would just turn off the towers.
Put it in airplane mode and it turns off the radio. They can't brick it then. So if you find yourself being paranoid, turn on airplane, turn on wifi, and backup your phone, then turn off airplane.
More realistically, based on government bad acts, this would get the most use when someone needs to be "taken out" by the government. The government would plant child porn on their phone and arrest them. Political crimes are prosecuted in the US, we just say they aren't, and use one of the three felonies a day to prosecute political criminals. Get someone in prison, even for a day, and they will be ruined for life (discredited, unable to get any more jobs, etc.), and you can always blame them for an inmate death, and keep them there indefinitely, even if they went in for a non-violent felony, they can spend their whole lives there, if the government wanted.
General warrants are unconstitutional, and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports without even so much as a warrant or suspicion? Yeah, right.
They aren't searching people for criminal reasons. You aren't under suspicion of a crime, and nothing found will be used to investigate that crime. Theoretically, if they found evidence of smuggling, they are required to pass you through security unmolested (provided you meet all the other requirements). It's for that reason that they are "legal".
I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search. TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.
You aren't implicitly consenting by getting in a plane I've flown a number of times with no search at all. You are explicitly complying when you walk past the "you will be searched if you pass this sign" sign. That isn't implicitly waiving a constitutional right. That's explicitly doing it.
The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them.
Roads were either on government land or private land. If government, then they were unimproved trails used as roads. If over private, they ended up being toll roads.
The need to move wasn't a government idea. People moved long before roads existed. Roads just improved movement. The first ones were "government" as in small upgrades to natural trails to help people move.
They have to know the names of everyone whose phones they want to turn off. They don't have it. Also, this would work once. After that, everyone in such a situation would put their phone in airplane mode when they thing The Man might be out for them, and turn on Wifi to upload the video with no risk of bricking.
It's easier to just shoot everyone holding a phone and claim it looked like a gun.
But it's not an en masse tool. How do you wipe a crowd's phones when the code needs to be transmitted by the carrier to a specific phone, identified by account number (derivable by name)? They'd need to shut down the tower, and physically round up the people to stop them. And the phones are immune to bricking if you put them in airplane mode and turn on wifi. You can still connect to the cloud, and upload videos, but the kill code needs to go over the cell network, so they can't kill it.
Also, this means that the stolen phones can be used as a small tablet without being locked out.
How would they know the person had it? This would only work once. After that, everyone would know that if you catch The Man doing something, you put your phone in airplane mode, then turn on wifi. You can upload it then and are immune to carrier bricking signals.
When you see everything hitting the fan, you put your phone in flight mode, and turn on WiFi. From how I've seen it described, you'll be 100% immune to the government bricking ability, and you only need a hotspot to get the video out.
Oh, so it's for the ISP's broken business model that they are screwing everyone? Even with a monopoly guaranteed in law, and government funding, they are more expensive than municipal fiber.
T1 is dead end. The place I worked T1, there wasn't a single manager in the place that had ever worked T1. Being one of the best they had, when I put in my notice, they offered me a "promotion" that came with lower pay. If that's progress in T1, I was glad I did it only once, and only 9 months.
If Netflix is running the backbone and doing the content they are, for all intents and purposes, acting as an ISP.
Why is the "I" in there? If Netflix is doing it, then it's a private network, not unlike an '80s frame relay network (just faster). They aren't providing "Internet". They are providing a video service.
By your logic, a cable TV network (with no data services) is an ISP because they are running a backbone and providing content.
Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content. It's when you buy from an ISP who determines that they will not deliver part of the Internet they don't like. I've bought leased fibre services in many places, and nobdy has ever asked to put their content on it. The users have already paid someone for access to that Netflix stream, but that access provider is trying to extort additional profit from content providers.
Old style TV takes about as much as a single Netflix stream. So for every channel canceled, they can support one more Netflix user. That doesn't sound like the channels are such a waste.
Netflix does not have to pay ATT/Comcast/Verizon a single dime. All it needs to do is [...] buy proper transit
So they don't need to pay those three, but they must pay someone, for what amounts to transit to themselves. Transit was a concept when a small ISP bought from a large ISP to get the small number of users to The Internet across unequal networks. Peers are when the networks were more even.
It was always from the consumer point of view. Only recently did the concept of charging content for content transit. If my ISP is charging for content transit, I want my rebate/discount. They are getting paid twice for the same thing.
async is still synchronous. You would have the region close to the clock input running at C+0. on the other side of the chip, you'd be running with a clock at C+0.9. Where the sections converged, the clocks would also converge. Two related synchornous functions (even off the same clock) are not async just because they are not synchronous.
My words fail me. The operation is clocked. That the clock doesn't happen at the same time everywhere doesn't change the nature of the operation being clocked. And all of them from the same clock.
Also, hard problems often have simple solutions. The clock doesn't propogate across the chip? The send it to all the chip at the same time. Car analogy. Shortest-path headers are inefficient. So you "tune" the headers. How do you do that? You change the path so they are closer to equal distance.
For a chip, a clock cycle that's exactly one cycle late is perfect. So drift is more important to minimize than lag/delay. So run the clock to the middle of the chip, then equal distant traces to multiple pins. The clock will be the same in as many places in the chip as necessary for proper synchronous operation. Even if the clock speed wasn't enough to cover 10% of the chip, it can still be the same +-5% over the whole chip. It'll just take more pins for clock.
Slashdot Mirror
It may have worked out differently for you, but T1 where I was was all about call time, nothing else mattered. So long as no official complaint was lodged, hanging up on people was allowed (and unofficially condoned/supported). For most, it's a dead end.
I know what it means, and I know what people think it means, and I know they don't match. Using the common definition, even if it doesn't match your definition isn't an error.
And it's a quick way for the Thought Police to turn off all cell phones
Only ones they have the names and subscriber info for. They can't turn off the phones of everyone in a group near a riot. For that, they would just turn off the towers.
Put it in airplane mode and it turns off the radio. They can't brick it then. So if you find yourself being paranoid, turn on airplane, turn on wifi, and backup your phone, then turn off airplane.
More realistically, based on government bad acts, this would get the most use when someone needs to be "taken out" by the government. The government would plant child porn on their phone and arrest them. Political crimes are prosecuted in the US, we just say they aren't, and use one of the three felonies a day to prosecute political criminals. Get someone in prison, even for a day, and they will be ruined for life (discredited, unable to get any more jobs, etc.), and you can always blame them for an inmate death, and keep them there indefinitely, even if they went in for a non-violent felony, they can spend their whole lives there, if the government wanted.
General warrants are unconstitutional, and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports without even so much as a warrant or suspicion? Yeah, right.
They aren't searching people for criminal reasons. You aren't under suspicion of a crime, and nothing found will be used to investigate that crime. Theoretically, if they found evidence of smuggling, they are required to pass you through security unmolested (provided you meet all the other requirements). It's for that reason that they are "legal".
I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search. TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.
You aren't implicitly consenting by getting in a plane I've flown a number of times with no search at all. You are explicitly complying when you walk past the "you will be searched if you pass this sign" sign. That isn't implicitly waiving a constitutional right. That's explicitly doing it.
Anarchy exists until the first person makes a suggestion. An unorganized mob following a good idea is democracy, not anarchy.
The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them.
Roads were either on government land or private land. If government, then they were unimproved trails used as roads. If over private, they ended up being toll roads.
The need to move wasn't a government idea. People moved long before roads existed. Roads just improved movement. The first ones were "government" as in small upgrades to natural trails to help people move.
They have to know the names of everyone whose phones they want to turn off. They don't have it. Also, this would work once. After that, everyone in such a situation would put their phone in airplane mode when they thing The Man might be out for them, and turn on Wifi to upload the video with no risk of bricking.
It's easier to just shoot everyone holding a phone and claim it looked like a gun.
But it's not an en masse tool. How do you wipe a crowd's phones when the code needs to be transmitted by the carrier to a specific phone, identified by account number (derivable by name)? They'd need to shut down the tower, and physically round up the people to stop them. And the phones are immune to bricking if you put them in airplane mode and turn on wifi. You can still connect to the cloud, and upload videos, but the kill code needs to go over the cell network, so they can't kill it.
Also, this means that the stolen phones can be used as a small tablet without being locked out.
How would they know the person had it? This would only work once. After that, everyone would know that if you catch The Man doing something, you put your phone in airplane mode, then turn on wifi. You can upload it then and are immune to carrier bricking signals.
When you see everything hitting the fan, you put your phone in flight mode, and turn on WiFi. From how I've seen it described, you'll be 100% immune to the government bricking ability, and you only need a hotspot to get the video out.
But if you pet them , you are in range of their teeth. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n... http://www.smh.com.au/environm...
They don't cause "global" disaters, only local, and they have nothing on that list you gave that's a "natural disaster" like weather or earthquake.
Oh, so it's for the ISP's broken business model that they are screwing everyone? Even with a monopoly guaranteed in law, and government funding, they are more expensive than municipal fiber.
I thought the implication was that http://slashdot.org/~itzdandy is a nuke shill.
T1 is dead end. The place I worked T1, there wasn't a single manager in the place that had ever worked T1. Being one of the best they had, when I put in my notice, they offered me a "promotion" that came with lower pay. If that's progress in T1, I was glad I did it only once, and only 9 months.
They will give you the worst shifts, and poor reviews (yes, including up to "firing") for not performing to their satisfaction.
Never say no, never say yes. Just remain silent. Or non commital non-rejections, like "I understand." Drag it out for hours. They'll never hang up.
If Netflix is running the backbone and doing the content they are, for all intents and purposes, acting as an ISP.
Why is the "I" in there? If Netflix is doing it, then it's a private network, not unlike an '80s frame relay network (just faster). They aren't providing "Internet". They are providing a video service.
By your logic, a cable TV network (with no data services) is an ISP because they are running a backbone and providing content.
Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content. It's when you buy from an ISP who determines that they will not deliver part of the Internet they don't like. I've bought leased fibre services in many places, and nobdy has ever asked to put their content on it. The users have already paid someone for access to that Netflix stream, but that access provider is trying to extort additional profit from content providers.
Old style TV takes about as much as a single Netflix stream. So for every channel canceled, they can support one more Netflix user. That doesn't sound like the channels are such a waste.
Netflix does not have to pay ATT/Comcast/Verizon a single dime. All it needs to do is [...] buy proper transit
So they don't need to pay those three, but they must pay someone, for what amounts to transit to themselves. Transit was a concept when a small ISP bought from a large ISP to get the small number of users to The Internet across unequal networks. Peers are when the networks were more even.
It was always from the consumer point of view. Only recently did the concept of charging content for content transit. If my ISP is charging for content transit, I want my rebate/discount. They are getting paid twice for the same thing.
async is still synchronous. You would have the region close to the clock input running at C+0. on the other side of the chip, you'd be running with a clock at C+0.9. Where the sections converged, the clocks would also converge. Two related synchornous functions (even off the same clock) are not async just because they are not synchronous.
My words fail me. The operation is clocked. That the clock doesn't happen at the same time everywhere doesn't change the nature of the operation being clocked. And all of them from the same clock.
Also, hard problems often have simple solutions. The clock doesn't propogate across the chip? The send it to all the chip at the same time. Car analogy. Shortest-path headers are inefficient. So you "tune" the headers. How do you do that? You change the path so they are closer to equal distance.
For a chip, a clock cycle that's exactly one cycle late is perfect. So drift is more important to minimize than lag/delay. So run the clock to the middle of the chip, then equal distant traces to multiple pins. The clock will be the same in as many places in the chip as necessary for proper synchronous operation. Even if the clock speed wasn't enough to cover 10% of the chip, it can still be the same +-5% over the whole chip. It'll just take more pins for clock.
We all know Bees can't fly.