Your xenophobia towards China seems to give your righteousness the same fervor of the people you condemn. You've tried them, found them guilty, and now you intend to vanquish them, all in one fell swoop. Step back for a moment.
Revisit and understand history not only of China, but other nations including our own. This is not to justify actions that various Chinese governments have taken, rather to put them into perspective. I've been to China on several occasions, and while there is oppression, and lack of freedom, there's also a very fragile society that's coming out of dogmatic totalitarianism of the 1950's and 1960's. Before that time, China was a series of fiefdoms, not unlike Russia, or even Italy.... not to mention the Middle East.
Your primitive contrasts will only fuel a futile exasperation at what happens in the world, rather than giving yourself an honest opportunity to change it for the better. Read, chill, act.
QoS certainly needs latency control. But static routing, the kind afforded by MPLS and other constructs tends to achieve this better than brute force allocation, as a misrouting is possible unless every single member of the routing path respects the QoS call and the routing path stays reasonably static from a latency perspective.
The TCP/IP protocol set wasn't designed well, or with isochronous media needs in mind. More onerous, however, is the ability for this box to deep-dive packets and look into conversations where there is no permission granted by the user to do so. Data mining, advertising/profiling, and many other misuses are possible in such a construct.
When you suggest that the investment needed isn't sustainable, I think you underestimate the amount of dark fiber out there, and the fact that codecs and compression techniques are in their infancy. Optimization is largely random, and local/regional cacheing is the next big wave.
It's seemingly a great idea to try to exert control, but in doing so, a pandora's box of problems emerges. Are my packets more important than yours? If I go to politically sensitive sites frequently, should I be targeted? If I send fat videos to my friends in, say, Pakistan, should I be a person of interest?
This is a king hell router, and it's also Big Brother to me. This is not how the Internet's been designed and violates numerous equal access and net neutrality principles. QoS is one thing, deep-diving of packets for fun and profit is another.
We've known about the military government in Myanmar for decades. We've done nothing about it except to advocate a democracy. There's little political will to do much about things in SE Asia after the Viet Nam disaster.
Looking over the fence gets you a few yards. It would be great if China, along with other countries with oligarchical regimes would open their borders. Nonetheless, France is also increasingly hostile for reasons of their own; perhaps secrecy, perhaps vanity, perhaps privacy. All can be valid, depending on the culture.
We have cameras in the sky that can see *everything* and don't imagine we can't. There's software that looks at those images and parses them for identifiable objects; it's all quite simple.
A ground-level video is superfluous. Mapping is important for many different reasons, but map control needs to have an authoritative basis. Yahoo and Google and GPS maps are plainly wrong and either accidently or purposefully misconstructed. I know, as I've been a 'victim' of these misconstructed, misleading maps in major places in the US and the EU. They were wrong, wrong, wrong.
We have a compelling reason in social justice to understand what's going on in other countries, but other countries also have the rights to their own sovereign borders. We have no right to just roll in to a foreign locale and do what we please; the reverse is also true although we offer a different basis for freedom and liberty and freedom of movement.
The Chinese, like the Americans, have sovereignity over their borders. That Americans (I'm one) wait for the Google truck to moon it and don't care, they also present images that are sometimes not very pretty.
US freedom and liberty gives the Google video truck the right to drive down any public byway and video what they see, 24/7. Other countries can alter what they want the truck to do, and what is public versus private versus secret information at their will.
If mapping is good, then it won't take long before someone figures that out and allows it. But as nations are ostensibly the assertion of the will of their people (less so in some areas), China has the right. Openness is a desirable quality, as people wonder what you're hiding when you're closed, an attitude that is balanced with the need for privacy and the right to be left alone.
The fulcum in the middle of that balance is respect.
At huge speeds, I'm not sure that the 20KB/sec needed for fdx VoIP is going to get noticed. Voice is communications in full duplex as an app, and isochronous media needs a little room; add some more for multiple streams. YouTube or other video over who-cares-what protocol is entertainment and can get in line with all other entertainment. The amount needed to protect VoIP from latency issues for single streams is trivial, and routing problems inject more latency than do packet squishes and misfires.
What's even more onerous is the fact that deep-analysis is an invasion of privacy.
I prefer the egalitarian approach, until the whole planet agrees that a specific type of traffic gets priority, and the reasons had better be better than oh, it's my RPG or top-ranked video.
Until then, my packets are red hot, and your packets are doodly squat. Only neutrality gets it unless you want to change the premise of all of the rules. This box purportedly tries to allow monopoly ISPs/telcos/cable nitwits to unfairly pimp their own traffic. Fie.
We recovered numerous ones, especially in the easy old days.
A few of our techniques:
-Slam an ST-225 onto a table to get the heads off the drive, a condition known as 'striction' -Recovered a Novell-formatted drive by using an identical one's logic board, and a few well-placed jumps to its table -Used a sector editor to hand copy one copy of a FAT to the primary table -Figured out, then wrote a master boot record from one drive to another (in SVR4) doing the recalc on the drive geometry -Found a MBR virus, including epithet, on an early laptop drive; we x-d it out and the machine finally booted to the point where we got to the place where we could write a new partition table.
These days, we just backup things furiously. Bad hard drive? Take out back to the trash. Restore. Repeat.
There's tons of information out there. We'll omit details about how your data should have been backed up. The rest of it's pretty simple, and it depends on your filing system, but marginally.
1) find out what's wrong with the drive (logic board or drive motor board) 2) get an identical drive; put the old platter assy into the new drive's guts, or just move the good drive's electronics over 3) use a sector editor to find the FAT, journal, or whatever, or restore the MBR and use your fav OS (Kunbuntu, here) 4) painfully gather files (actually, go out back while they're retrieved for you) 5) collect fat (as in BIG) check with lots of kudos, thank yous, and appreciation 6) repeat
You don't have to backup, as long as you have a fat wallet.
QoS issues and those that depend on connection latency need to be addressed, but deep-diving packets is unnecessary to do this. You need only look to the header, find that it's TCP and the service requested to accept or reject latency. The remaining issues are handled by various protocols. This is like swatting a fly with a freight train.... an eight hundred thousand dollar monopoly building freight train.
Privacy is the big one. I can see a justification for finding DDoS attacks and zero-second malware propagation, this machine is nothing more than a net-neutrality killer of the highest order.
First big customers: Comcast, Rogers, Bell Canada, AT&T, and the others that we love to hate.
The FCC needs to investigate this thing NOW. It's a monopoly-maker in just 12U.
Yeah, let's ratchet this one up. They have bots, now we must have bots. Our bots will be better than their bots. Our bots will wreak havoc on their stuff.
Next will be mutually-assured folder deletion, e-commerce tracking (we must find terrorists, after all, will be the mantra), and the military's machines will crawl to a halt because the bots will take over the CPU strokes in the machines.
I can see a command that governs bot defense and blocks at NAP points. Otherwise, it's another arms race.
NASA's budget is small right now because it's a political football without a clear mission or output. Space critics have a legitimate goal of trying to justify NASA's ongoing mission, its budget to accomplish that mission without exhorbitant under-forecasts, and to have reasonable oversight as to what gets done-- including rethinking safety design issues, and a realistic long term agenda.
There are additional critics that have watched NASA burn money furiously, put lots of expensive equipment into the ocean instead of space, have engineering standards and production practices that killed astronauts, while performing lots of military work that additionally invades privacy and puts weapons into the sky that have dubious value and effectiveness.
They've also made themselves a political football at a time when there's an unbelievable amount of money being spent on three different wars-- all but one of them dubious in origin. Add this to asset deflation (the housing crisis), inflation of the currency (790 billion dollars in new money printed by the Fed), high transport costs and deflation of the value of the US currency, and there's litte wonder why NASA's on the back burner.
Been there; done that. Watched as the cable franchise board rubber stamped the entire agenda. Public input. Yeah, they cleaned their fingernails. Then the rubber stamp.
The public access channel problem is a co-dependency problem, and unfortunately correlated. Still, when communities think about communications as a utility instead of an entertainment system franchise, they get smarter.
Look at the Utopia Project in Utah. Or Loma Linda in California. Loma Linda has gigabit to the living room for $50/month.
So fie to your office-chair politics. I'm in the trenches. I'm telling you that save a few victories here and there, the system is broken and is unlikely to be fixed. I changed from cable to DSL at home; and frankly, DSL sucks, too. Captive carrier, ugly politics, and customers be damned.
Local cable franchise boards are pretty powerless to have an effect on Comcast policy.
The best way to hurt Comcast is to go to DSL if available. If not, work at the federal level. The pay-as-you-go model makes telcos and Comcast drool. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as these guys aren't into heavy capital investments to stay competitive. They use the mantra, 'shareholder value', 'shareholder value', 'oh me padme Wall Street'.
You're a customer? Fuck you. Downloading distros that go over your limit? Get the second half of it next month, chump. Or did you see our 'business plans'?
Once a viable broadband alternative, Comcast has turned themselves into crap magnets. They and the other telcos want to be above the law, and their customers be damned. Sitting in a cable franchise meeting, sadly, won't do a thing but provide an opportunity to see how ineffective they are, and how boring those meetings can be.
Sorry, not a fantasy. Ever been a precinct committeeman? I have. I've watched it all, counted and cross-tabbed results, and watched them move uphill. A mountain of conspiracy theories is just so-much-denial. Jump in and participate. We need everyone. That means you, too.
How droll. No one mods up an AC. Behind your anonymity sits a paranoid schizophrenic who knows nothing of how to live in this world... one whose tolerance is hides behind pseudo-eloquence.
Compliance my butt. Little separates us from anarchy without civility. Your allusions to 'the third box' are your fantasy and self-delusion. Instead of vague threats, how about honesty, concern for your fellow humans, and constructive discourse rather than your anonymity and aloofness, spittle with paranoia?
We might agree that we live free or die. As I have but one death to give, it'll be for something other than the phone company's foolishness under a boorish president's whim. There's better to fight for, methinks.
Yet civility requires tolerance. My 'rights' are unfortunately open to misinterpretation. But I forgive, otherwise my unyielding ways might be misspent. YMMV.
There are a few bad apples on SCOTUS. There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration. All is not lost, but it certainly isn't balanced well, we'll agree. Nonetheless, it's the law of the land. Civility demands respect, even if we don't agree. It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments are hopefully followed on the next appointments. Sometimes, they are.
Money fuels litigation. No class to litigate means no legal expenses paid. Quid pro quo.
If there is immunity, no one can start a suit. But we still have many dragging answers from the administration about the nature of what happened, and to the extent it happened, and so the class of people injured (who then have nexus to sue) really isn't known yet. When it is, provided you really can sue, someone will. And I'll be happy to become a party to the plaintiffs that do it. Such behavior cannot be rewarded, and the damage to privacy and freedom in the name of security is done.
While the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law, you first have to have the nexus to be an injured party. As long as the lists are secret, you will never know, and therefore cannot have nexus until the FIA brings it to light, if not redacted, 25 years from now. By then, everyone will hopefully have forgotten (is the hope, I'm sure).
So, litigation is moot under the proposed laws. That's why it's important to fight the immunity and hit the congressional urge (and heavily lobbied) to offer the telcos immunity. My view is that it'll be weaseled in somehow, because we have no guts, and no glory in the Congress. I wish it were otherwise. Vote in November.
It could be green, if you believe in performance/watt consumed. However, VMWare ESX thwarts any CPU throttle-back. No possibility of hardware-related savings.
Slashdot Mirror
Your xenophobia towards China seems to give your righteousness the same fervor of the people you condemn. You've tried them, found them guilty, and now you intend to vanquish them, all in one fell swoop. Step back for a moment.
Revisit and understand history not only of China, but other nations including our own. This is not to justify actions that various Chinese governments have taken, rather to put them into perspective. I've been to China on several occasions, and while there is oppression, and lack of freedom, there's also a very fragile society that's coming out of dogmatic totalitarianism of the 1950's and 1960's. Before that time, China was a series of fiefdoms, not unlike Russia, or even Italy.... not to mention the Middle East.
Your primitive contrasts will only fuel a futile exasperation at what happens in the world, rather than giving yourself an honest opportunity to change it for the better. Read, chill, act.
QoS certainly needs latency control. But static routing, the kind afforded by MPLS and other constructs tends to achieve this better than brute force allocation, as a misrouting is possible unless every single member of the routing path respects the QoS call and the routing path stays reasonably static from a latency perspective.
The TCP/IP protocol set wasn't designed well, or with isochronous media needs in mind. More onerous, however, is the ability for this box to deep-dive packets and look into conversations where there is no permission granted by the user to do so. Data mining, advertising/profiling, and many other misuses are possible in such a construct.
When you suggest that the investment needed isn't sustainable, I think you underestimate the amount of dark fiber out there, and the fact that codecs and compression techniques are in their infancy. Optimization is largely random, and local/regional cacheing is the next big wave.
It's seemingly a great idea to try to exert control, but in doing so, a pandora's box of problems emerges. Are my packets more important than yours? If I go to politically sensitive sites frequently, should I be targeted? If I send fat videos to my friends in, say, Pakistan, should I be a person of interest?
This is a king hell router, and it's also Big Brother to me. This is not how the Internet's been designed and violates numerous equal access and net neutrality principles. QoS is one thing, deep-diving of packets for fun and profit is another.
We've known about the military government in Myanmar for decades. We've done nothing about it except to advocate a democracy. There's little political will to do much about things in SE Asia after the Viet Nam disaster.
Looking over the fence gets you a few yards. It would be great if China, along with other countries with oligarchical regimes would open their borders. Nonetheless, France is also increasingly hostile for reasons of their own; perhaps secrecy, perhaps vanity, perhaps privacy. All can be valid, depending on the culture.
We have cameras in the sky that can see *everything* and don't imagine we can't. There's software that looks at those images and parses them for identifiable objects; it's all quite simple.
A ground-level video is superfluous. Mapping is important for many different reasons, but map control needs to have an authoritative basis. Yahoo and Google and GPS maps are plainly wrong and either accidently or purposefully misconstructed. I know, as I've been a 'victim' of these misconstructed, misleading maps in major places in the US and the EU. They were wrong, wrong, wrong.
We have a compelling reason in social justice to understand what's going on in other countries, but other countries also have the rights to their own sovereign borders. We have no right to just roll in to a foreign locale and do what we please; the reverse is also true although we offer a different basis for freedom and liberty and freedom of movement.
The Chinese, like the Americans, have sovereignity over their borders. That Americans (I'm one) wait for the Google truck to moon it and don't care, they also present images that are sometimes not very pretty.
US freedom and liberty gives the Google video truck the right to drive down any public byway and video what they see, 24/7. Other countries can alter what they want the truck to do, and what is public versus private versus secret information at their will.
If mapping is good, then it won't take long before someone figures that out and allows it. But as nations are ostensibly the assertion of the will of their people (less so in some areas), China has the right. Openness is a desirable quality, as people wonder what you're hiding when you're closed, an attitude that is balanced with the need for privacy and the right to be left alone.
The fulcum in the middle of that balance is respect.
At huge speeds, I'm not sure that the 20KB/sec needed for fdx VoIP is going to get noticed. Voice is communications in full duplex as an app, and isochronous media needs a little room; add some more for multiple streams. YouTube or other video over who-cares-what protocol is entertainment and can get in line with all other entertainment. The amount needed to protect VoIP from latency issues for single streams is trivial, and routing problems inject more latency than do packet squishes and misfires.
What's even more onerous is the fact that deep-analysis is an invasion of privacy.
I prefer the egalitarian approach, until the whole planet agrees that a specific type of traffic gets priority, and the reasons had better be better than oh, it's my RPG or top-ranked video.
Until then, my packets are red hot, and your packets are doodly squat. Only neutrality gets it unless you want to change the premise of all of the rules. This box purportedly tries to allow monopoly ISPs/telcos/cable nitwits to unfairly pimp their own traffic. Fie.
We recovered numerous ones, especially in the easy old days.
A few of our techniques:
-Slam an ST-225 onto a table to get the heads off the drive, a condition known as 'striction'
-Recovered a Novell-formatted drive by using an identical one's logic board, and a few well-placed jumps to its table
-Used a sector editor to hand copy one copy of a FAT to the primary table
-Figured out, then wrote a master boot record from one drive to another (in SVR4) doing the recalc on the drive geometry
-Found a MBR virus, including epithet, on an early laptop drive; we x-d it out and the machine finally booted to the point where we got to the place where we could write a new partition table.
These days, we just backup things furiously. Bad hard drive? Take out back to the trash. Restore. Repeat.
There's tons of information out there. We'll omit details about how your data should have been backed up. The rest of it's pretty simple, and it depends on your filing system, but marginally.
1) find out what's wrong with the drive (logic board or drive motor board)
2) get an identical drive; put the old platter assy into the new drive's guts, or just move the good drive's electronics over
3) use a sector editor to find the FAT, journal, or whatever, or restore the MBR and use your fav OS (Kunbuntu, here)
4) painfully gather files (actually, go out back while they're retrieved for you)
5) collect fat (as in BIG) check with lots of kudos, thank yous, and appreciation
6) repeat
You don't have to backup, as long as you have a fat wallet.
p.s. TFA really does sound like a commercial.
QoS issues and those that depend on connection latency need to be addressed, but deep-diving packets is unnecessary to do this. You need only look to the header, find that it's TCP and the service requested to accept or reject latency. The remaining issues are handled by various protocols. This is like swatting a fly with a freight train.... an eight hundred thousand dollar monopoly building freight train.
Privacy is the big one. I can see a justification for finding DDoS attacks and zero-second malware propagation, this machine is nothing more than a net-neutrality killer of the highest order.
First big customers: Comcast, Rogers, Bell Canada, AT&T, and the others that we love to hate.
The FCC needs to investigate this thing NOW. It's a monopoly-maker in just 12U.
Yeah, let's ratchet this one up. They have bots, now we must have bots. Our bots will be better than their bots. Our bots will wreak havoc on their stuff.
Next will be mutually-assured folder deletion, e-commerce tracking (we must find terrorists, after all, will be the mantra), and the military's machines will crawl to a halt because the bots will take over the CPU strokes in the machines.
I can see a command that governs bot defense and blocks at NAP points. Otherwise, it's another arms race.
NASA's budget is small right now because it's a political football without a clear mission or output. Space critics have a legitimate goal of trying to justify NASA's ongoing mission, its budget to accomplish that mission without exhorbitant under-forecasts, and to have reasonable oversight as to what gets done-- including rethinking safety design issues, and a realistic long term agenda.
There are additional critics that have watched NASA burn money furiously, put lots of expensive equipment into the ocean instead of space, have engineering standards and production practices that killed astronauts, while performing lots of military work that additionally invades privacy and puts weapons into the sky that have dubious value and effectiveness.
They've also made themselves a political football at a time when there's an unbelievable amount of money being spent on three different wars-- all but one of them dubious in origin. Add this to asset deflation (the housing crisis), inflation of the currency (790 billion dollars in new money printed by the Fed), high transport costs and deflation of the value of the US currency, and there's litte wonder why NASA's on the back burner.
And they all involve money. Try the US-CCA for funding models at http://www.us-cca.org/ for community networking help.
Google maps as defaults on Sprint Phones. Who's ox is gored by this one?
Apple, who doesn't have any one in particular for GPS and mapping, and their 'business partner' AT&T.
Microsoft, whose strategy is clear as mud, and can't seem to get mobile working very well at all.
T-Mobile/DT, who doesn't partner and eschews WiMax altogether.
Verizon, who is more proprietary than any of the aforementioned, in my personal experience.
Nice move Sprint. Too bad WiMax has proven so difficult and expensive to deploy.
Been there; done that. Watched as the cable franchise board rubber stamped the entire agenda. Public input. Yeah, they cleaned their fingernails. Then the rubber stamp.
The public access channel problem is a co-dependency problem, and unfortunately correlated. Still, when communities think about communications as a utility instead of an entertainment system franchise, they get smarter.
Look at the Utopia Project in Utah. Or Loma Linda in California. Loma Linda has gigabit to the living room for $50/month.
So fie to your office-chair politics. I'm in the trenches. I'm telling you that save a few victories here and there, the system is broken and is unlikely to be fixed. I changed from cable to DSL at home; and frankly, DSL sucks, too. Captive carrier, ugly politics, and customers be damned.
Were it true. It's not.
Local cable franchise boards are pretty powerless to have an effect on Comcast policy.
The best way to hurt Comcast is to go to DSL if available. If not, work at the federal level. The pay-as-you-go model makes telcos and Comcast drool. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as these guys aren't into heavy capital investments to stay competitive. They use the mantra, 'shareholder value', 'shareholder value', 'oh me padme Wall Street'.
You're a customer? Fuck you. Downloading distros that go over your limit? Get the second half of it next month, chump. Or did you see our 'business plans'?
Once a viable broadband alternative, Comcast has turned themselves into crap magnets. They and the other telcos want to be above the law, and their customers be damned. Sitting in a cable franchise meeting, sadly, won't do a thing but provide an opportunity to see how ineffective they are, and how boring those meetings can be.
Sorry, not a fantasy. Ever been a precinct committeeman? I have. I've watched it all, counted and cross-tabbed results, and watched them move uphill. A mountain of conspiracy theories is just so-much-denial. Jump in and participate. We need everyone. That means you, too.
How droll. No one mods up an AC. Behind your anonymity sits a paranoid schizophrenic who knows nothing of how to live in this world... one whose tolerance is hides behind pseudo-eloquence.
Compliance my butt. Little separates us from anarchy without civility. Your allusions to 'the third box' are your fantasy and self-delusion. Instead of vague threats, how about honesty, concern for your fellow humans, and constructive discourse rather than your anonymity and aloofness, spittle with paranoia?
We might agree that we live free or die. As I have but one death to give, it'll be for something other than the phone company's foolishness under a boorish president's whim. There's better to fight for, methinks.
Yet civility requires tolerance. My 'rights' are unfortunately open to misinterpretation. But I forgive, otherwise my unyielding ways might be misspent. YMMV.
There are a few bad apples on SCOTUS. There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration. All is not lost, but it certainly isn't balanced well, we'll agree. Nonetheless, it's the law of the land. Civility demands respect, even if we don't agree. It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments are hopefully followed on the next appointments. Sometimes, they are.
Of Obama, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/07/intel-advisor-breaks-with_n_90427.html
Of Clinton, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html which shows she skipped an earlier vote on the subject. However, she differs from Obama's lobbying efforts, where most of the bribery, oops, influence begins.
Money fuels litigation. No class to litigate means no legal expenses paid. Quid pro quo.
If there is immunity, no one can start a suit. But we still have many dragging answers from the administration about the nature of what happened, and to the extent it happened, and so the class of people injured (who then have nexus to sue) really isn't known yet. When it is, provided you really can sue, someone will. And I'll be happy to become a party to the plaintiffs that do it. Such behavior cannot be rewarded, and the damage to privacy and freedom in the name of security is done.
The problem has been that the President must sign them, and if vetoed, then a 2/3rds majority must overrule his veto. That doesn't happen much.
A Democratic president that has a Demo congress has a better chance of breaking logjams, for constitutional and party-whip control reasons.
While the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law, you first have to have the nexus to be an injured party. As long as the lists are secret, you will never know, and therefore cannot have nexus until the FIA brings it to light, if not redacted, 25 years from now. By then, everyone will hopefully have forgotten (is the hope, I'm sure).
So, litigation is moot under the proposed laws. That's why it's important to fight the immunity and hit the congressional urge (and heavily lobbied) to offer the telcos immunity. My view is that it'll be weaseled in somehow, because we have no guts, and no glory in the Congress. I wish it were otherwise. Vote in November.
It could be green, if you believe in performance/watt consumed. However, VMWare ESX thwarts any CPU throttle-back. No possibility of hardware-related savings.