If I'm going to get in a car crash I'd rather have an airbag in my car
Except that wasn't a choice that you made. You didn't get to do a cost benefit analysis and conclude that you think airbags are worth the money. That decision was made for you by your friendly government bureaucrats. Personally I don't think airbags are worth the cost (financial as well as the increased danger to smaller occupants) and would love to have the option to purchase a car without them.
What you fail to not realize is that your setup doesn't "scale" to ISP backbone levels.
Where the fuck did I say that they needed to use "my setup"? I said that it stands to reason that a company with the resources of Comcast could manage to do something similar.
Thanks for completely ignoring my fucking point though.
I don't have any complaints for ISPs that throttle Torrents and take other measures against "high usage" users, who are file sharing.
My only issue with throttling is that there are better ways to manage your network than arbitrarily lowering someones bandwidth. My office is located out in the sticks and we can only get a T-1. I have to share 1.5mbits with 60 employees, including time critical services such as VOIP and VPNs. I set up a priority list that looks like this:
Unclassified packets from administrative workstations
Unclassified packets from other workstations
Idle Tier for large downloads that aren't time critical (I use this myself when I need to download large patches, Linux ISOs, etc.)
Each tier gets a promised amount of bandwidth. When they need more they borrow unused bandwidth from the other tiers in order of priority, VOIP gets first dibs, then the priority tier, then TCP acks, etc. etc. I don't arbitrarily limit the bandwidth available to a certain protocol or end user. If the line is free then even bittorrent is allowed to use 100%. If the line is pegged then traffic is allowed through according to the above priority list. Bittorrent doesn't care if it winds up in the queue -- VOIP does.
I did this with an old Linux box and the HTB packet scheduler. It cost nothing but time to setup. If I can manage to do this then doesn't it stand to reason that a company with the resources of Comcast could pull it off? Why do they need to impose bandwidth limits and the like when they could simply prioritize interactive traffic ahead of the torrent kiddies?
If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line.
So you think that an ISP should have to have a 1:1 contention ratio for residential users? How can you make such a blanket statement anyway? Even if your ISP has a 1:1 contention ratio they still aren't going to be able to promise you 5mbit/s at all times. Events beyond their control (anybody remember how useless the internet was on 9/11?) will crop up from time to time and prevent you from achieving the promised speed.
So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP?
Because you signed the contract and agreed to be bound by it's terms in exchange for receiving their services? If you don't like the terms then start your own ISP. It's not the easiest thing to do in the world but you'll find it easier than starting your own car company or satellite TV provider.
No, actually it sounds like the UK and/or EU, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. I've worked in the ISP business before and there is no law that I'm aware of in the United States requiring me to keep logs of anything, let alone DNS requests.
We did keep logs of IP address assignments but that was our decision and wasn't prompted by any law or regulation that I was aware of. There's certainly no law in the US requiring that you keep logs of DNS requests. Such a requirement would run afoul of the 4th amendment.
This mentality is part of why the U.S. lags so much in broadband.
No, that mentality has nothing to do with it. I know it's popular around here to point to countries like South Korea or Sweden with their 100 mbit connections and claim that the US is "lagging" behind, but I think that rather misses the point.
The major issue with US broadband isn't the actions of Comcast, shitty as though they are. The major issue with US broadband is a lack of availability once you leave the major urban areas. I can get 15mbits for the regular consumer price in my town, upwards of 30 if I'm willing to pay for it. If I drive 10 miles outside of town I'm limited to a 768k DSL (if I'm lucky) or dialup (more often than not).
Further, and I don't say this to troll, but WTF is the use of a 100mbit connection anyway? I "only" have 15mbits and I'm hard pressed to max it out. The only way I've ever been able to peg my connection is to start three or four Linux ISO downloads from different FTP sites. Just what are people doing with these connections that I'm unable to do with mine? I'm sure that as technology advances we'll use more and more bandwidth but it seems to me that at the present time once you exceed a certain amount it's all dick waving from that point going forward.
Does anybody here in the states with FiOS actually pay for the higher tiers? What do you use it for if you do?
but because it causes mental harm, long term mental harm. Mental harm our society will have to pay for in lost wages/taxes, mental assistance, and of course the sympathy/empathy we feel for these people.
I hope you realize that you've got a "think of the children"-esque argument there.
Heh, something tells me that Chinese proxies wouldn't work well for editing Wikipedia.:(
Sure they would. Just depends on the edit that you are making;) I always use Chinese proxies when I edit this article to reflect the truth that the events mentioned therein are nothing more than Western propaganda;)
If you pay off your credit card and then cancel it, the company will report it as negative credit information on your credit history. It will lower your score.
Again, -1 factually incorrect. An account that is marked "closed at consumers request" is not negative information. The score may go down but as I've already explained to you twice, that depends on numerous factors.
Doesn't that sound like a racket? If you want to close your paid off account, they will lower your score.
I like how you say "they" as though the credit card companies are the ones that wrote the scoring algorithms.
google has done evil and they have lost all their 'shine' when they pull crap like this.
I was never drinking enough of the Google kool-aid to actually believe they were any different from any other for-profit corporation, but I'm not so sure that the specific case you linked proves much of anything. It was tossed out by the lower court, allowed to go through during the first appeal and has since been appealed to the California Supreme Court. If he's having that much trouble pursing his claim in California of all places then I'd question whether or not his case has any merit.
I know and have known people who smoke the occasional doobie or bowl, but balance that activity against all the other priorities of life. I have also known people who were chronic, habitual drug users, and basically flushed their lives down the toilet attempting to service their addiction.
My life is comfortable because people were willing to die for our freedoms. I owe it to my neighbors and the next generation to be willing to do the same.
The only reason L-libertarians support the government in fighting physical tyranny is because it is the only weapon that the "peasants" have to fight their desired L-libertarian economic tyranny.
Out of curiosity, where do the attempts to correct "economic tyranny" end? I'm paying close to 50% of my income in taxes if you account for federal income taxes, FICA taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, fees from DMV, fees from DEC, excise taxes, tariffs on the imported goods I buy, etc, etc, etc. Would you not consider losing half of your labor to be a form of "economic tyranny"?
I don't object to a basic safety net. I object to people who abuse that safety net. I object to losing half of my labor. I object to the fact that nearly half of this country pays no income tax while 5% of it pays half. I object to the seemingly unending growth of government, particularly on the Federal level where it's the least representative and most vulnerable to corruption. I object to losing my civil liberties, whether it's under the guise of "public safety" (gun control), "family values" (censorship) or "national security" (1st, 4th and 5th amendments).
The country gets richer, so I'd say it is good for the country
No it doesn't. A select few get richer while the rest starve. Get the warlords out of power and you might actually see some investment and the building of an economy that would benefit everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
So use QoS and prioritize the ACKs ahead of the bittorrent upload. Problem solved.
It would be nice if I didn't have to quit my (legal) torrent upload to use Hulu, also.
You shouldn't have to quit an upload to watch Hulu unless your bittorrent client and/or router are horribly configured.
If I'm going to get in a car crash I'd rather have an airbag in my car
Except that wasn't a choice that you made. You didn't get to do a cost benefit analysis and conclude that you think airbags are worth the money. That decision was made for you by your friendly government bureaucrats. Personally I don't think airbags are worth the cost (financial as well as the increased danger to smaller occupants) and would love to have the option to purchase a car without them.
You mean the contract that says you can't run servers or engage in any activity that degrades the performance of the network for other customers?
What you fail to not realize is that your setup doesn't "scale" to ISP backbone levels.
Where the fuck did I say that they needed to use "my setup"? I said that it stands to reason that a company with the resources of Comcast could manage to do something similar.
Thanks for completely ignoring my fucking point though.
I don't have any complaints for ISPs that throttle Torrents and take other measures against "high usage" users, who are file sharing.
My only issue with throttling is that there are better ways to manage your network than arbitrarily lowering someones bandwidth. My office is located out in the sticks and we can only get a T-1. I have to share 1.5mbits with 60 employees, including time critical services such as VOIP and VPNs. I set up a priority list that looks like this:
Each tier gets a promised amount of bandwidth. When they need more they borrow unused bandwidth from the other tiers in order of priority, VOIP gets first dibs, then the priority tier, then TCP acks, etc. etc. I don't arbitrarily limit the bandwidth available to a certain protocol or end user. If the line is free then even bittorrent is allowed to use 100%. If the line is pegged then traffic is allowed through according to the above priority list. Bittorrent doesn't care if it winds up in the queue -- VOIP does.
I did this with an old Linux box and the HTB packet scheduler. It cost nothing but time to setup. If I can manage to do this then doesn't it stand to reason that a company with the resources of Comcast could pull it off? Why do they need to impose bandwidth limits and the like when they could simply prioritize interactive traffic ahead of the torrent kiddies?
If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line.
So you think that an ISP should have to have a 1:1 contention ratio for residential users? How can you make such a blanket statement anyway? Even if your ISP has a 1:1 contention ratio they still aren't going to be able to promise you 5mbit/s at all times. Events beyond their control (anybody remember how useless the internet was on 9/11?) will crop up from time to time and prevent you from achieving the promised speed.
So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP?
Because you signed the contract and agreed to be bound by it's terms in exchange for receiving their services? If you don't like the terms then start your own ISP. It's not the easiest thing to do in the world but you'll find it easier than starting your own car company or satellite TV provider.
No, actually it sounds like the UK and/or EU, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. I've worked in the ISP business before and there is no law that I'm aware of in the United States requiring me to keep logs of anything, let alone DNS requests.
We did keep logs of IP address assignments but that was our decision and wasn't prompted by any law or regulation that I was aware of. There's certainly no law in the US requiring that you keep logs of DNS requests. Such a requirement would run afoul of the 4th amendment.
This mentality is part of why the U.S. lags so much in broadband.
No, that mentality has nothing to do with it. I know it's popular around here to point to countries like South Korea or Sweden with their 100 mbit connections and claim that the US is "lagging" behind, but I think that rather misses the point.
The major issue with US broadband isn't the actions of Comcast, shitty as though they are. The major issue with US broadband is a lack of availability once you leave the major urban areas. I can get 15mbits for the regular consumer price in my town, upwards of 30 if I'm willing to pay for it. If I drive 10 miles outside of town I'm limited to a 768k DSL (if I'm lucky) or dialup (more often than not).
Further, and I don't say this to troll, but WTF is the use of a 100mbit connection anyway? I "only" have 15mbits and I'm hard pressed to max it out. The only way I've ever been able to peg my connection is to start three or four Linux ISO downloads from different FTP sites. Just what are people doing with these connections that I'm unable to do with mine? I'm sure that as technology advances we'll use more and more bandwidth but it seems to me that at the present time once you exceed a certain amount it's all dick waving from that point going forward.
Does anybody here in the states with FiOS actually pay for the higher tiers? What do you use it for if you do?
That only applies to consumer lines. I doubt Google is running their DNS server on one of their workers basement.
Are you sure? What if this is a 20% project? ;)
Virgin Media keep extensive logs of DNS requests, as the government requires them to, for at least one year.
Your country requires them to keep logs of your DNS requests for 12 months? You have my sympathy.
but because it causes mental harm, long term mental harm. Mental harm our society will have to pay for in lost wages/taxes, mental assistance, and of course the sympathy/empathy we feel for these people.
I hope you realize that you've got a "think of the children"-esque argument there.
Heh, something tells me that Chinese proxies wouldn't work well for editing Wikipedia. :(
Sure they would. Just depends on the edit that you are making ;) I always use Chinese proxies when I edit this article to reflect the truth that the events mentioned therein are nothing more than Western propaganda ;)
Then law enforcement will question whoever ran the TOR node
And what would that accomplish other than to waste their time?
If you pay off your credit card and then cancel it, the company will report it as negative credit information on your credit history. It will lower your score.
Again, -1 factually incorrect. An account that is marked "closed at consumers request" is not negative information. The score may go down but as I've already explained to you twice, that depends on numerous factors.
Doesn't that sound like a racket? If you want to close your paid off account, they will lower your score.
I like how you say "they" as though the credit card companies are the ones that wrote the scoring algorithms.
google has done evil and they have lost all their 'shine' when they pull crap like this.
I was never drinking enough of the Google kool-aid to actually believe they were any different from any other for-profit corporation, but I'm not so sure that the specific case you linked proves much of anything. It was tossed out by the lower court, allowed to go through during the first appeal and has since been appealed to the California Supreme Court. If he's having that much trouble pursing his claim in California of all places then I'd question whether or not his case has any merit.
I know and have known people who smoke the occasional doobie or bowl, but balance that activity against all the other priorities of life. I have also known people who were chronic, habitual drug users, and basically flushed their lives down the toilet attempting to service their addiction.
With pot?
Trolls often get mod points
Fixed that for you :)
invincible != invisible
Says someone with a comfortable life.
My life is comfortable because people were willing to die for our freedoms. I owe it to my neighbors and the next generation to be willing to do the same.
The only reason L-libertarians support the government in fighting physical tyranny is because it is the only weapon that the "peasants" have to fight their desired L-libertarian economic tyranny.
Out of curiosity, where do the attempts to correct "economic tyranny" end? I'm paying close to 50% of my income in taxes if you account for federal income taxes, FICA taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, fees from DMV, fees from DEC, excise taxes, tariffs on the imported goods I buy, etc, etc, etc. Would you not consider losing half of your labor to be a form of "economic tyranny"?
I don't object to a basic safety net. I object to people who abuse that safety net. I object to losing half of my labor. I object to the fact that nearly half of this country pays no income tax while 5% of it pays half. I object to the seemingly unending growth of government, particularly on the Federal level where it's the least representative and most vulnerable to corruption. I object to losing my civil liberties, whether it's under the guise of "public safety" (gun control), "family values" (censorship) or "national security" (1st, 4th and 5th amendments).
I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here.
The country gets richer, so I'd say it is good for the country
No it doesn't. A select few get richer while the rest starve. Get the warlords out of power and you might actually see some investment and the building of an economy that would benefit everyone.
In a New York minute. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees and all that. If freedom isn't worth fighting for, what is?
lie-bertarians
Tell us how you really feel.
Why would they want to try and revolt against powerful warlords when they have the much safer and more lucrative option of raiding ships?
Because they profess to care about their country and claim that they are only doing this because they have no other choices?