It seems a tad more than ironic this is about one month shy of the 20th anniversay of the great Usenet "Mercury filled speaker cable", um "contraversy".
They make music more "silvery". Not "harsh" like with copper. Imagine what Pear could have done if only they knew about this. Dancably silvery.
"Okay so the Anjous are rather pricey at $2750 for a meter pair, but they are impeccably built, sound quite nice, and should keep you happy for a quite a while."
"Compared to my other reference cables (all of differing designs: Kubala-Sosna Emotions, Audio-Magic Clairvoyant 4D, and Dynamic Design Nebulas) the Anjous are very competitive (even at their $2750 for a 3 foot pair, they are right up there with the others). Differences became issues of, well being different and such, nothing extrememore of slitting hairs and such. Yeah, the Audio-Magic Clairvoyant 4Ds are more dimensional than the others, the KS are bigger and bolder, the Dynamic Design Nebulas are more refined and smooth and the Anjous are more danceable."
Pricey yet competative. Yeah.
I suppose there's one thing you get with these over the monster cables (that I saw in a dollar store today): bragging rights. Any time somebody's speaker cables cost more than some peoples cars you know somebody's haveing a good time and all you can really say is "Zig zag or Rizla?"
"I don't pretend to be a legal expert, so don't try to get me into an argument about specific cases. I'm simply pointing out that when there's a conflict between property rights and other rights, property rights don't always come first."
Whatever. Remember "it doesn't have to be fair, it has to be legal".
It helps to know the law. It tends to be the framework things are built on. Your opinion, while intersting it does not mesh well with the way things actually work, in theory and practice.
It was a USG requirement in the 80s that you talked to them with OSI protocols or you didn't talk to them at all.
I'm not particularly libertarian. But I was deeply involved in the DNS mess and from experience, government involvement in the net is akin to handing it over to industry lawyers.
"If you believe that people should only pay once for Internet, then you support Net Neutrality. If you think telcos have a right to charge twice for the same service, then you're against it. "
Nonsense. net.neutrality is the addition of a political layer module into your router. Now the govt has a say in things.
net.neutrality will do for network performance what ICANN did for the creation of new tlds. ICANN's mandate? "stability of the network". Sounds good until you realize expansion is now out, "stable" means "the trademark holders don't want new tlds so we maintain the status quo - and things will be stable". Never mind Postel himself wanted 300 new tlds the first year so.com wouldn't become, well, um, what it is today.
"Appearantly they sell more bandwidth than they can sell." "
That's kinda the way the net works.
You buy a T1. Do you really not sell that 25th 56K connection because you're out of capacity? You can't even pay for the T1 at that rate. So you oversell. At 10:1 oversell things still work great. It's when you get to 100:1 things start to get slow.
"Looks like the ISP has some problems with their bandwidth controls. That isn't a QoS issue at all.
Why are your neighbour allowed to download at such a high speed that it prevents you from watching video. The opposite question could of course also be, Why are you allowed to download video at such a high rate that it interfers with your opponents p2p traffic" "
1) For any bandwidth X, there will always be, what yo call "problems with bandwidth controls".
2) If you're downloading a movie (snicker) and it takes 5% or even 200% longer you don't really know or even care. If it's slow it still works. It is what it is. But if TV or voice start dropping packets to the point where you can no longer make sense of it that's not the same. If it's slow, it's broken.
The best example of the importance of QoS was Nick Negroponte's which went something like "if 5 percent of a huge number of packets that make up a voice or tv transmission fail you don't really care. But if even one packet of a very short datagram to a pacemaker fails, you do more than care". An extreme example to be sure, but hopefully the point sinks in to that atrophied mass of neurons resting on top of your neck.
"TPP didn't say that access to the Internet was a right. It said that access to Internet content and applications is a right. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but it's not."
You have no rights.
The internet is a concatenation of privately owned networks. There is no such thing as "the public internet" it is very specifically not a public resource.
For a very good reason.
The government regulats public resources. Look at FCC spectrum. Nobody can so shit without the FCC doing so.
With the internet you can do what you want without asking or a license. People may so dumnb things, but ah, you still have the freedom to do better things without asking for a license.
This is why you and I are using TCP/IP to talk right now and not X.25.
One is centrally controlled, one had no central control and is instead edge-controlled; anybody with a root password controls their piece of it. Now how much do you want your root access controlled by the government for your piece of the "public internet" ?
Bingo. A telco is accountable to it's shareholders who expect it to make money by providing a tool people will use. If hey provide a stupid tool and somebody provides a better one that telco dies an organic death.
In thery a government is accountable to the people. In practice nothing could be further from the truth.
The entire Internet was illegal before Tony Rutkowski at the ITU made it legal worldwide.
Also around that time the USG mandated the use of OSI protocols.
But guess when happened when the first transatlantic X.25 link went up? Poeple started shooting IP packets over it before any other flavour of data.
The point is, if you make a usefull tool people will use it and government regulations be damned.
I suspect your problem is wires. I think all our problem is wires. We've been sucking at the convenient tit of telcos for ages and I've always wondered what the landscape would be like right now if we'd gone to a uucp style RF mesh in the mid 90s instead of just granting any wingnur with $20/mo a dialup connection. In a sense we only have our own greedy asses to blame. While it's true the UUCP network only passed mail and news the underlying paradigm made much more sense than the more regimented internet that consumed then killed it.
I've been hearing this for over a decade now. Don't be surprised if some other protocol that uses the format of the V6 address and the one unsed bit in the V6 header actually surpasses V6.
"Yes, he designed it when baud rates were under 16k.
It is somewhat strange to see a name I have never heard cited as having been a creator of the Web. OK so reading the article it turns out that he was an Internet pioneer, its a common mistake.
But, "The Internet wasn't designed for people to watch television," he says. "I know because I designed it." - I have never heard Cerf or Postel or Metcalf or Khan or Clarke or any of that crowd make such a sweeping claim"
Then you were not paying attention. Roberts is quite correct in both his claims. No, v6 won't help. Fleming's v8 would have, think of it as a 747. Lousy for short trips, but on a long haul it's way more efficient than the cessna that is v4. (Sorry these are planes and not cars) but the I* organizations the aformentioned wonks control made if difficult or even impossible for Jim.
To understand Roberts early role in the arpanet find a copy of "Where Wizards Stay Up Late". Roberts is basically the first half of the book. To understand what then ran up against in international telecommuncations law read Carl Malamud's "Exploring the Internet"
As for those other shameless self promoters:
"Results 1 - 10 of about 43,000 for cerf "father of the internet"."
"I remember back when Apple was going after people selling mac roms for Amiga emulators.
Apple has always been proprietary and exercised iron-fisted control over what THEY want done with the hardware they sell for a profit. "
Holy flashback Batman.
Amiga's could run PC software due to an add-on card with an 8088 in it called "sidecar" and a software library called "Janus". The demo was MS Flight Simulator running in an Intuiition (Hi Jimm) window.
Mac's had a NuBus card that did the same thing. (cf. geese, ganders)
There was a product that let you use a file that contained the Mac ROM image to run Mac software. But, even if you owned a Mac the license agreement fine print only allowed its use on Apple hardware.
Apple licensed it's code - Bell and Howell made IIe clones with Apples support and there were legal Apple licensed Mac clones. BUT - that ended when his Stevieness returned to Apple.
I guess this lends credence to the idea it's Apple, and specifically, Jobs that's the problem here.
jj@cup.portal.com was the first usenet spam, not cantor and seagull. He asked everybody to send him a dollar to finish university. It was more amusing than annoying. cantor and seagull was more of a declaration of war. Yes I know I'm spelling it incorrectly.
Usenet was so small then that we all knew the "real" jj, at Bell Labs wans't this guy. There wern't a lot of people with the same name on usenet at that time. The only other I can think of was Andrew Tannenbaum.
It's kinda tough to make a mevhanical watch with dozens of parts very thin. It's hard enough to make it thin with quarts; in the case of the Concord Delerium IV there are no plates, the caseback is part of the movement. Swatch ended up doing this too.
"That's too bad. I was hoping for 2mm thin, but this one is only 3mm thin. "
I'd be surprised if when OLED tv's reach ubiquity they're still 3mm thick.
The problem with real thin stuff is... well, it aint strong.
There's been a race for the thinnest watch for just about as long as there've been watches.
Concord won, but at 1mm thick the watch had a problem - you can't actuall wear it - it bends. In practical terms they need to be a bit thicker than that.
So I sorta wonder about 3mm. Especially once you get into largeer screen sizes.
I apologize for not coming up with an analogy that used cars...
"For the same reason civilization has spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS over the course of THE PAST FEW CENTURIES developing and refining WALL PAINT. Why didn't we just TILE the walls?
BECAUSE EVERY MILLIMETER COUNTS!"
Uh, no. It's because paint is cheap ($30) and tiles are not ($1 ea).
Slashdot Mirror
Can anybody comment on the ratio of cracked Linux to BSD boxes?
"Time for another reading of Mixerman! He goes into this a little bit and if you haven't read the story it's worthwhile.
http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php" "
Damn you. I had things I wanted to do today. And I couldn't stop reading this.
It seems a tad more than ironic this is about one month shy of the 20th anniversay of the great Usenet "Mercury filled speaker cable", um "contraversy".
They make music more "silvery". Not "harsh" like with copper. Imagine what Pear could have done if only they knew about this. Dancably silvery.
Saaaaaaay... The Silver Surfer? Nah, couldn't be.
"Okay so the Anjous are rather pricey at $2750 for a meter pair, but they are impeccably built, sound quite nice, and should keep you happy for a quite a while."
"Compared to my other reference cables (all of differing designs: Kubala-Sosna Emotions, Audio-Magic Clairvoyant 4D, and Dynamic Design Nebulas) the Anjous are very competitive (even at their $2750 for a 3 foot pair, they are right up there with the others). Differences became issues of, well being different and such, nothing extrememore of slitting hairs and such. Yeah, the Audio-Magic Clairvoyant 4Ds are more dimensional than the others, the KS are bigger and bolder, the Dynamic Design Nebulas are more refined and smooth and the Anjous are more danceable."
Pricey yet competative. Yeah.
I suppose there's one thing you get with these over the monster cables (that I saw in a dollar store today): bragging rights. Any time somebody's speaker cables cost more than some peoples cars you know somebody's haveing a good time and all you can really say is "Zig zag or Rizla?"
"I don't pretend to be a legal expert, so don't try to get me into an argument about specific cases. I'm simply pointing out that when there's a conflict between property rights and other rights, property rights don't always come first."
Whatever. Remember "it doesn't have to be fair, it has to be legal".
It helps to know the law. It tends to be the framework things are built on. Your opinion, while intersting it does not mesh well with the way things actually work, in theory and practice.
"Neither was ever imposed by government fiat"
It was a USG requirement in the 80s that you talked to them with OSI protocols or you didn't talk to them at all.
I'm not particularly libertarian. But I was deeply involved in the DNS mess and from experience, government involvement in the net is akin to handing it over to industry lawyers.
"A guitarist who can't tune his own guitar by ear is akin to a programmer who can't write his own makefile."
(waves) Hi!
Keep in mind too, if everybody in the US picks up the telephone handset at the same time - the phone network crashes. It's not designed to do that.
"If you believe that people should only pay once for Internet, then you support Net Neutrality. If you think telcos have a right to charge twice for the same service, then you're against it. "
.com wouldn't become, well, um, what it is today.
Nonsense. net.neutrality is the addition of a political layer module into your router. Now the govt has a say in things.
net.neutrality will do for network performance what ICANN did for the creation of new tlds. ICANN's mandate? "stability of the network". Sounds good until you realize expansion is now out, "stable" means "the trademark holders don't want new tlds so we maintain the status quo - and things will be stable". Never mind Postel himself wanted 300 new tlds the first year so
"Appearantly they sell more bandwidth than they can sell." "
That's kinda the way the net works.
You buy a T1. Do you really not sell that 25th 56K connection because you're out of capacity? You can't even pay for the T1 at that rate. So you oversell. At 10:1 oversell things still work great. It's when you get to 100:1 things start to get slow.
IP bandwidth is ALWAYS oversold.
"Looks like the ISP has some problems with their bandwidth controls. That isn't a QoS issue at all.
Why are your neighbour allowed to download at such a high speed that it prevents you from watching video. The opposite question could of course also be, Why are you allowed to download video at such a high rate that it interfers with your opponents p2p traffic" "
1) For any bandwidth X, there will always be, what yo call "problems with bandwidth controls".
2) If you're downloading a movie (snicker) and it takes 5% or even 200% longer you don't really know or even care. If it's slow it still works. It is what it is. But if TV or voice start dropping packets to the point where you can no longer make sense of it that's not the same. If it's slow, it's broken.
The best example of the importance of QoS was Nick Negroponte's which went something like "if 5 percent of a huge number of packets that make up a voice or tv transmission fail you don't really care. But if even one packet of a very short datagram to a pacemaker fails, you do more than care". An extreme example to be sure, but hopefully the point sinks in to that atrophied mass of neurons resting on top of your neck.
"A society has the right to determine the parameters by which a business must operate "
Uzbeck asshole.
"TPP didn't say that access to the Internet was a right. It said that access to Internet content and applications is a right. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but it's not."
You have no rights.
The internet is a concatenation of privately owned networks. There is no such thing as "the public internet" it is very specifically not a public resource.
For a very good reason.
The government regulats public resources. Look at FCC spectrum. Nobody can so shit without the FCC doing so.
With the internet you can do what you want without asking or a license. People may so dumnb things, but ah, you still have the freedom to do better things without asking for a license.
This is why you and I are using TCP/IP to talk right now and not X.25.
One is centrally controlled, one had no central control and is instead edge-controlled; anybody with a root password controls their piece of it. Now how much do you want your root access controlled by the government for your piece of the "public internet" ?
"I may actually trust a telecom more"
Bingo. A telco is accountable to it's shareholders who expect it to make money by providing a tool people will use. If hey provide a stupid tool and somebody provides a better one that telco dies an organic death.
In thery a government is accountable to the people. In practice nothing could be further from the truth.
"Effectively illegal in a number of places"
The entire Internet was illegal before Tony Rutkowski at the ITU made it legal worldwide.
Also around that time the USG mandated the use of OSI protocols.
But guess when happened when the first transatlantic X.25 link went up? Poeple started shooting IP packets over it before any other flavour of data.
The point is, if you make a usefull tool people will use it and government regulations be damned.
I suspect your problem is wires. I think all our problem is wires. We've been sucking at the convenient tit of telcos for ages and I've always wondered what the landscape would be like right now if we'd gone to a uucp style RF mesh in the mid 90s instead of just granting any wingnur with $20/mo a dialup connection. In a sense we only have our own greedy asses to blame. While it's true the UUCP network only passed mail and news the underlying paradigm made much more sense than the more regimented internet that consumed then killed it.
"Actually, IPv6 will come "
I've been hearing this for over a decade now. Don't be surprised if some other protocol that uses the format of the V6 address and the one unsed bit in the V6 header actually surpasses V6.
"Yes, he designed it when baud rates were under 16k.
It is somewhat strange to see a name I have never heard cited as having been a creator of the Web. OK so reading the article it turns out that he was an Internet pioneer, its a common mistake.
But, "The Internet wasn't designed for people to watch television," he says. "I know because I designed it." - I have never heard Cerf or Postel or Metcalf or Khan or Clarke or any of that crowd make such a sweeping claim"
Then you were not paying attention. Roberts is quite correct in both his claims. No, v6 won't help. Fleming's v8 would have, think of it as a 747. Lousy for short trips, but on a long haul it's way more efficient than the cessna that is v4. (Sorry these are planes and not cars) but the I* organizations the aformentioned wonks control made if difficult or even impossible for Jim.
To understand Roberts early role in the arpanet find a copy of "Where Wizards Stay Up Late". Roberts is basically the first half of the book. To understand what then ran up against in international telecommuncations law read Carl Malamud's "Exploring the Internet"
As for those other shameless self promoters:
"Results 1 - 10 of about 43,000 for cerf "father of the internet"."
"Organizations IANA, ICANN, ITU, ANSI, and several others.
People may think it is unregulated, but it trust me it is regulated. "
Trust schmust. What regulations are you talking about?
"I remember back when Apple was going after people selling mac roms for Amiga emulators.
Apple has always been proprietary and exercised iron-fisted control over what THEY want done with the hardware they sell for a profit. "
Holy flashback Batman.
Amiga's could run PC software due to an add-on card with an 8088 in it called "sidecar" and a software library called "Janus". The demo was MS Flight Simulator running in an Intuiition (Hi Jimm) window.
Mac's had a NuBus card that did the same thing. (cf. geese, ganders)
There was a product that let you use a file that contained the Mac ROM image to run Mac software. But, even if you owned a Mac the license agreement fine print only allowed its use on Apple hardware.
Apple licensed it's code - Bell and Howell made IIe clones with Apples support and there were legal Apple licensed Mac clones. BUT - that ended when his Stevieness returned to Apple.
I guess this lends credence to the idea it's Apple, and specifically, Jobs that's the problem here.
"white_on_white, font=1 "
Google took this out about 3 years ago. A client of mine insisted he wanted this. "No, they'll delist you".
"No they won't and we HAVE to have it".
They removed him from the index for 30 days.
jj@cup.portal.com was the first usenet spam, not cantor and seagull. He asked everybody to send him a dollar to finish university. It was more amusing than annoying. cantor and seagull was more of a declaration of war. Yes I know I'm spelling it incorrectly.
Usenet was so small then that we all knew the "real" jj, at Bell Labs wans't this guy. There wern't a lot of people with the same name on usenet at that time. The only other I can think of was Andrew Tannenbaum.
No I got it. I just like watches.
It's kinda tough to make a mevhanical watch with dozens of parts very thin. It's hard enough to make it thin with quarts; in the case of the Concord Delerium IV there are no plates, the caseback is part of the movement. Swatch ended up doing this too.
TFA implies/says bands get $0.72 (USD. Snicker, Eh?) from a CD sale. It's hard to imagine poeple not giving them a dollar.
I don't even like their music that much but am tmepted to give them a couple of bucks, "just cause".
"That's too bad. I was hoping for 2mm thin, but this one is only 3mm thin. "
I'd be surprised if when OLED tv's reach ubiquity they're still 3mm thick.
The problem with real thin stuff is... well, it aint strong.
There's been a race for the thinnest watch for just about as long as there've been watches.
Concord won, but at 1mm thick the watch had a problem - you can't actuall wear it - it bends. In practical terms they need to be a bit thicker than that.
So I sorta wonder about 3mm. Especially once you get into largeer screen sizes.
I apologize for not coming up with an analogy that used cars...
"For the same reason civilization has spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS over the course of THE PAST FEW CENTURIES developing and refining WALL PAINT. Why didn't we just TILE the walls?
BECAUSE EVERY MILLIMETER COUNTS!"
Uh, no. It's because paint is cheap ($30) and tiles are not ($1 ea).