Michigan's unauthorized access statute, does in fact grant a rebuttal presumption that access was unauthorized. This means that the defendant, not the prosecution has the burden of proof on this question. This is unusual. Usually, the operator must make the exclusion clear and the prosecution must prove that the defendant ignored and/or circumvented the prohibitions. Michigan's law may in fact be an unconstitutional violation of due process as a result. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979)
Second, even if the statute is constitutional, the law may been misapplied. The access is not illegal if
Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
So basically this guy had a bad lawyer. What he did was in fact not a crime.
What you say would be true if you were using a general purpose computer to perform the routing function. In an ASIC, those added tasks are processed incrementally, byte-by-byte at wire-rate. The limiting factor is the wire-speed not the computation. Conversely, the addresses interact with a routing-table. This is usually the performance limiting section of the router. Making a hardware CAM for 128b addresses is much harder (larger, slower, more power hungry) than for a 32b address.
To make this work you either have to sacrifice the size of your routing table or your performance.
The link you cite is garbage in terms of getting an accurate handle on the practical realities of designing asic-assisted routers.
IPv6 has horrible implementation consequences for hardware accelerated routing (i.e., every major switching device that interconnects the internet today).
The decrease in packet-per-second switching performance is severe and has been a critical road block to IPv6 adoption. Basically the IETF didn't have a clue about the consequences of adopting 128b addresses. Which each passing year silicon technology roughly follows Moore's law and is gradually getting ahead of the game (b.c. traffic isn't growing exponentially).
So five years ago IPv6 was completely ridiculous. In a few years the technology will catch-up and real IPv6 deployments can begin.
Anyways, there is no real shortage of IP space. There are only some gross mis-allocations: e.g., not very large companies which now control multiple class a blocks.
It is amazing that this article now attempts to spin firewalls as an obsession. Firewalls are in fact a core aspect of security unless you are able to carefully audit every device, every service, etc. People with dreams of their freezers having public IPs don't seem to get this: doing so would mean security auditing your freezers embedded OS!?!. Its crazy.
Also some people seem to be thinking that protocols requiring stateful firewalls are broken. This is false. Protocols that require the firewall to inspect the application layer contents are broken. But TCP is a stateful protocol, consequently firewalls should implement stateful behavior.
Without the inheritence tax, you get economic dynasties where the child of a wealthy and powerful individual not only starts off with an advantage in education and political connections (that you can't really erase) but also with an entire foundation of wealth that an otherwise equally talented individual would not start with.
There is a problem with this sort of analysis though. If we think generally for a moment, our standard of living today depends upon the wealth accumulation of our forebears. This is true for us as a society. As a moral principle, its seems fair to want everyone to start on an equal footing, but collectively that isn't how society advances to higher-standard of living. We're building off of the past. Thus, there must be some sort of intergenerational economic dynasty.
The question then becomes: what enables that to happen? It is conceptually possible for the government to tax and invest in infrastructure such that intergenerational process continues, but history says that's not what happens.
The trouble is that government spending tends to inflate present consumption and deflate capital investment. This is usually described as tragedy of the commons problem. People know that redistribution is taking place so they vote in ways to promote more consumption now--for themselves--rather than for measures beneficial to the future. The only time people appear to consider future welfare of other people, is when they believe their own children will actually benefit.
This is why inheritance works so well compared to communist systems. If you look at the Soviet Union versus the United States you'll see that they had similar per-capita GDP numbers through the 1970s before the Soviet economy started to have problems. But in the Soviet Union, there were many fewer tools and technologies. The workers worked longer hours. Ultimately the economy could not keep up because the workers could be worked no harder. Ideologically they were unable to substitute capital for labor because none too many were willing to sacrifice more to build-up a capital stock from which they would not benefit.
My grandfather drove a delivery truck. My father was the first of his family to go to college, and I continue the march forward. Rather than getting an unfair hand-up, I view this process, as one of building forward. We all--within the limits of our intelligence--have a change to do so. And if we all work forward as individuals, then society collectively will move forward too. People need to be patient, only the exceptional go from rags to riches in one generation.
One way of thinking about it is that ISPs could sell you different amounts of bandwidth and different priority levels (you get to mix and match & pay accordingly).
Thus instead of ISPs VoIP application specifically working better, any application that you tag with your higher priority number does better.
What? nVidia refuses to publish spec documents that would permit OSS developers to make good drivers. Instead they foist on us very buggy binary drivers that appear to have no regard for current kernel engineering practices.
Meanwhile ATI releases enough document for people to work with. Who cares that they don't release many drivers themselves?
For about 25 years now, anti-trust has been about consumer welfare, not the protection of other businesses. Consequently, a business which has a monopoly but has low prices, good quality etc... is not likely to run afoul of antitrust rules. It doesn't matter if they trounce the competition.
What matters is whether consumer harm is taking place.
Intel, constantly innovating, is not like that big software company and consequently mostly free of antitrust issues...
The purpose behind stored procedures is not speed. It is about data integrity. Trigger functions are used to maintain additional coherence rules that are not easily expressed by unique, not null, referential integrity, etc. You place these rules in the database so that every consumer application of the database goes through the same logic--receives the benefits of the logic and enforces a coherent logic.
More importantly: weren't all of the Robot Novels really about how the rules didn't work out the way we expect. The charm of the books were that they revealed logical puzzles: how unexpected behavior was in accordance with the rules, absolutely disastrous, and unexpected based on naive reading of the rules.
Note: this point was entirely lost in the movie remakes of these books.
So isn't it a little scary that we're actually comparing some policy to the three laws of robotics? To repeat myself: The whole point of the books was that the three rules didn't work.
This is dead-on. The problem is that implementing CoS is hard to do right. Its an easy call to prioritize low-bandwidth critical traffic (mgmt). However, discriminating between latency-sensitive and latency-insensitive traffic is often a fools endeavor. Generally this is possible when the latency-sensitive traffic is a small offered load compared to the available bandwidth. Alternatively, it works when the congestion events are highly transient. The latency-sensitive traffic avoids the jitter of the congestion. Ultimately though all of this is a question of bandwidth reservations. i.e., you reserve minimum bandwidth for certain classes of traffic.
The article is right in the sense that bandwidth reservations have always been a part of the network. A common SLA will promise a certain minimum bandwidth and then you may also consume whatever bandwidth is available on top of that amount.
Network users such as google, pay for 1) minimum bandwidth guarantees with certain reliability 2) an average or base-rate expected utilization 3) a cost for usage in excess of #2 (details vary) 4) peak bandwidth
This has always been the way.
So what's this business about latency? Its really a matter of under provisioning of bandwidth. By not providing enough mesh bandwidth, networks queue frames in hopes that the average bandwidth will meet the offered load. Queuing creates latency.
And that's catch. Latency is arising from a lack of bandwidth. So by asking people to pay for low latency and to pay for bandwidth, a slight of hand is being performed. The core of it is any attempt to charge people twice for the same thing.
There is hope though. Everyone's service agreement should come with bandwidth pricing rules. You get to mark your own traffic green (don't drop), yellow (may drop). Green is the bandwidth you've been promised. Yellow is the excess free bandwidth. If you send too much green, your ISP may arbitrarily mark some of it yellow.
Then we are free of all of this latency versus bandwidth nonsense and have a clearly defined sender pays system.
Using a cell-phone is not analogous to having big headphones over your ears. There is nothing covering your ears. Thus your analogy is horrible and consequently misleading.
There is cell phone 'shout' but not for the reasons you give which was the point of your original post: to claim to explain why people speak louder. Indeed you used words along the lines of "Its worst than that..." in response to another commenter presenting the more firmly rooted concept that people talk loudly reflexively when the other party expresses difficulty in understanding.
So you're opposed to people talking to other people on the airplane too huh? Seriously, its irrelevant that the person is using a cell-phone. The experience is the same so far as you are concerned is the same as if they were talking to someone in-person.
Uh say what? Do you talk on your cell-phone using big ear-muffs? I didn't think so. Your analogy is bogus. You hear your voice through your ears just as if you were talking to someone in person.
Re:This really is not _the only_ program out there
on
TrueCrypt 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes. Seriously. You've been able to do this in FreeBSD for ages.
This whole article is bogus. GoDaddy started having troubles several days ago. It has nothing to do with DST. It does, however, demonstrate people's propensity to find evidence in mere coincidence.
Well the theory isn't that the electrical changes don't happen; it's that the electrical changes we detect are related to the establishment of a sufficiently solid channel.
i.e., the electrical pulses are part of the process of communication not an encoding of information itself.
You should read a bit of the 'other side' before you jump to conclusions.
Bell Companies were highly regulated. The system was contorted in its policies to aid in implementing a Progressive Social policy; the ramifications of which were substantial cost distortions. Rather than admit that the Congress and the government had written these details in law, a rather public farce placed the blame on greed.
The article is a bit simplistic. The basic problem is that using IPv6 carries with it costs: bloated packet headers, infrastructure issues, etc. The 'cost' of owning an allocation of IPv4 addresses is currently quite low. The consequence is substantial waste.
Sure you'll run out eventually given any non-zero constant growth assumption, but so what? Running out in 2 years versus 5 years or 10 years is a substantial difference. Not just in terms of discounting costs, but also in terms of silicon technology.
IPv6 routers do not perform as well as IPv4 (I'm talking about big iron ala Cisco et al). Routing tables are implemented in CAMs. Switching to 128b addresses makes those CAMs prohibitively large, power-hungry, and comparatively slow. This is a real problem.
One reason for the delayed adoption has been that the IETF took much too much of a software mentality to the questions at hand. Ten years ago, switching to IPv6 would have been much too much for the available silicon technology.
Hardware is catching up, but frankly a few more years is quite important.
I think you are misstating the logic of Eldred v. Ashcroft. That case does not in any way stand for the proposition that treaties render constitutional acts that would otherwise be unconstitutional. The reasoning of the court (7-2, opinion written by Ginsburg) is as follows:
Petitioners present the argument that retroactively extending copyright terms is per-se unconstitutional because it creates a de facto regime of perpetual copyright. The court contradicts this by arguing that the '76 act is proof that a rational basis may exist for such a copyright extension--the rational basis being implementation of a treat--such that extending the copyright term does not per-se demonstrate that a constitutional violation. They then decline to find proof that the Bono copyright act was an unconstitutional act of Congress.
The opinion also gives other examples of defensible extensions of the copyright term.
The point then is not that the treaty enabled congress to extend the copyright term but that congress was within constitutional bounds to do so if a rational basis pertained and that implementing the treaty was a rational basis.
Quite true. When I worked for a university IT department, the security officer discussed this point following some MPAA run-ins. It is possible to intentionally monitor certain flows. It is possible to do real-time traffic analysis, but it is not possible indiscriminately retain the payloads. There is just too much data. You'd be amazed though how much can be gleaned from DNS logs and other similar sources.
Just watch as US passes laws restricting rights to "comply with the treaty" they helped draft
Yes this one reason why those people who advocate the idea that treaties can trump the Constitution do not appear to apprehend all of the consequences. This is one point at least that Scalia et al do get right: allowing defacto amendment of the Constitution via the treaty process could significantly impair our Constitutional protections.
Bingo. The real problem with cell-phone data service is the ridiculous pricing regime. 10 cents for a 160 character text message? Get real. Lets suppose for a moment that audio consumes 10kbps and its latency sensitive. One minute retails for 30 cents... 10k*60/8b... you get the picture. Data rates are out of this world, disconnected from reality. That's the real story.
I focus on more interactive learning during my classroom time, so I send reading and practice home as homework.
Maybe this is actually the problem? During school hours, while in the classroom is when the practice should be taking place. The standard version of this is that the teacher goes from student to student and dynamically checks the progress on the work, offering help as needed to those students who need it, when they need it. Sure _maybe_ the parents can do this but they won't be as skilled at necessarily recognizing which idea that idea the child hasn't incorporated yet. Generally speaking, lecture and discussion are overrated with respect to certain task oriented subjects such as mathematics and other elementary basics.
This is how it was done at my school in the 1980s. We were a public school and, in the state, were ranked ~7th +/- a few position variation over the years.
Also many of the new fad subjects: greater emphasis on history, science, etc are largely dilutions of precious time at the elementary level. These kinds of studies at that grade level are often so primitive that the content is thoroughly false.
No... it is trivial to switch 10Gbps. Routing is a bit harder.
But you're just dead-off wrong. You can easily buy a router that can switch 240Gbps. 480Gbps is also quite feasible in current fab tech. And those numbers assume 64B packets.
No. They explicitly said they would not disclose that... which is a shame because that is probably the only interesting bit of information. The question that really needs to be studied is what distinguishes good drives from bad. This would probably involve disassembling drives of various 'vintages, models, manufacturers' and trying to pin down the relevant details. That way when new hard-drives get released, reviewers can pull them apart and judge them on something other than read/write performance, heat, and acoustics...
Slashdot Mirror
Michigan's unauthorized access statute, does in fact grant a rebuttal presumption that access was unauthorized. This means that the defendant, not the prosecution has the burden of proof on this question. This is unusual. Usually, the operator must make the exclusion clear and the prosecution must prove that the defendant ignored and/or circumvented the prohibitions. Michigan's law may in fact be an unconstitutional violation of due process as a result. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979)
Second, even if the statute is constitutional, the law may been misapplied. The access is not illegal if
So basically this guy had a bad lawyer. What he did was in fact not a crime.What you say would be true if you were using a general purpose computer to perform the routing function. In an ASIC, those added tasks are processed incrementally, byte-by-byte at wire-rate. The limiting factor is the wire-speed not the computation. Conversely, the addresses interact with a routing-table. This is usually the performance limiting section of the router. Making a hardware CAM for 128b addresses is much harder (larger, slower, more power hungry) than for a 32b address.
To make this work you either have to sacrifice the size of your routing table or your performance.
The link you cite is garbage in terms of getting an accurate handle on the practical realities of designing asic-assisted routers.
IPv6 has horrible implementation consequences for hardware accelerated routing (i.e., every major switching device that interconnects the internet today).
The decrease in packet-per-second switching performance is severe and has been a critical road block to IPv6 adoption. Basically the IETF didn't have a clue about the consequences of adopting 128b addresses. Which each passing year silicon technology roughly follows Moore's law and is gradually getting ahead of the game (b.c. traffic isn't growing exponentially).
So five years ago IPv6 was completely ridiculous. In a few years the technology will catch-up and real IPv6 deployments can begin.
Anyways, there is no real shortage of IP space. There are only some gross mis-allocations: e.g., not very large companies which now control multiple class a blocks.
It is amazing that this article now attempts to spin firewalls as an obsession. Firewalls are in fact a core aspect of security unless you are able to carefully audit every device, every service, etc. People with dreams of their freezers having public IPs don't seem to get this: doing so would mean security auditing your freezers embedded OS!?!. Its crazy.
Also some people seem to be thinking that protocols requiring stateful firewalls are broken. This is false. Protocols that require the firewall to inspect the application layer contents are broken. But TCP is a stateful protocol, consequently firewalls should implement stateful behavior.
There is a problem with this sort of analysis though. If we think generally for a moment, our standard of living today depends upon the wealth accumulation of our forebears. This is true for us as a society. As a moral principle, its seems fair to want everyone to start on an equal footing, but collectively that isn't how society advances to higher-standard of living. We're building off of the past. Thus, there must be some sort of intergenerational economic dynasty.
The question then becomes: what enables that to happen? It is conceptually possible for the government to tax and invest in infrastructure such that intergenerational process continues, but history says that's not what happens.
The trouble is that government spending tends to inflate present consumption and deflate capital investment. This is usually described as tragedy of the commons problem. People know that redistribution is taking place so they vote in ways to promote more consumption now--for themselves--rather than for measures beneficial to the future. The only time people appear to consider future welfare of other people, is when they believe their own children will actually benefit.
This is why inheritance works so well compared to communist systems. If you look at the Soviet Union versus the United States you'll see that they had similar per-capita GDP numbers through the 1970s before the Soviet economy started to have problems. But in the Soviet Union, there were many fewer tools and technologies. The workers worked longer hours. Ultimately the economy could not keep up because the workers could be worked no harder. Ideologically they were unable to substitute capital for labor because none too many were willing to sacrifice more to build-up a capital stock from which they would not benefit.
My grandfather drove a delivery truck. My father was the first of his family to go to college, and I continue the march forward. Rather than getting an unfair hand-up, I view this process, as one of building forward. We all--within the limits of our intelligence--have a change to do so. And if we all work forward as individuals, then society collectively will move forward too. People need to be patient, only the exceptional go from rags to riches in one generation.
One way of thinking about it is that ISPs could sell you different amounts of bandwidth and different priority levels (you get to mix and match & pay accordingly).
Thus instead of ISPs VoIP application specifically working better, any application that you tag with your higher priority number does better.
What? nVidia refuses to publish spec documents that would permit OSS developers to make good drivers. Instead they foist on us very buggy binary drivers that appear to have no regard for current kernel engineering practices.
Meanwhile ATI releases enough document for people to work with. Who cares that they don't release many drivers themselves?
For about 25 years now, anti-trust has been about consumer welfare, not the protection of other businesses. Consequently, a business which has a monopoly but has low prices, good quality etc... is not likely to run afoul of antitrust rules. It doesn't matter if they trounce the competition.
What matters is whether consumer harm is taking place.
Intel, constantly innovating, is not like that big software company and consequently mostly free of antitrust issues...
The purpose behind stored procedures is not speed. It is about data integrity. Trigger functions are used to maintain additional coherence rules that are not easily expressed by unique, not null, referential integrity, etc. You place these rules in the database so that every consumer application of the database goes through the same logic--receives the benefits of the logic and enforces a coherent logic.
More importantly: weren't all of the Robot Novels really about how the rules didn't work out the way we expect. The charm of the books were that they revealed logical puzzles: how unexpected behavior was in accordance with the rules, absolutely disastrous, and unexpected based on naive reading of the rules.
Note: this point was entirely lost in the movie remakes of these books.
So isn't it a little scary that we're actually comparing some policy to the three laws of robotics? To repeat myself: The whole point of the books was that the three rules didn't work.
This is dead-on. The problem is that implementing CoS is hard to do right. Its an easy call to prioritize low-bandwidth critical traffic (mgmt). However, discriminating between latency-sensitive and latency-insensitive traffic is often a fools endeavor. Generally this is possible when the latency-sensitive traffic is a small offered load compared to the available bandwidth. Alternatively, it works when the congestion events are highly transient. The latency-sensitive traffic avoids the jitter of the congestion. Ultimately though all of this is a question of bandwidth reservations. i.e., you reserve minimum bandwidth for certain classes of traffic.
The article is right in the sense that bandwidth reservations have always been a part of the network. A common SLA will promise a certain minimum bandwidth and then you may also consume whatever bandwidth is available on top of that amount.
Network users such as google, pay for
1) minimum bandwidth guarantees with certain reliability
2) an average or base-rate expected utilization
3) a cost for usage in excess of #2 (details vary)
4) peak bandwidth
This has always been the way.
So what's this business about latency? Its really a matter of under provisioning of bandwidth. By not providing enough mesh bandwidth, networks queue frames in hopes that the average bandwidth will meet the offered load. Queuing creates latency.
And that's catch. Latency is arising from a lack of bandwidth. So by asking people to pay for low latency and to pay for bandwidth, a slight of hand is being performed. The core of it is any attempt to charge people twice for the same thing.
There is hope though. Everyone's service agreement should come with bandwidth pricing rules. You get to mark your own traffic green (don't drop), yellow (may drop). Green is the bandwidth you've been promised. Yellow is the excess free bandwidth. If you send too much green, your ISP may arbitrarily mark some of it yellow.
Then we are free of all of this latency versus bandwidth nonsense and have a clearly defined sender pays system.
Using a cell-phone is not analogous to having big headphones over your ears. There is nothing covering your ears. Thus your analogy is horrible and consequently misleading.
There is cell phone 'shout' but not for the reasons you give which was the point of your original post: to claim to explain why people speak louder. Indeed you used words along the lines of "Its worst than that..." in response to another commenter presenting the more firmly rooted concept that people talk loudly reflexively when the other party expresses difficulty in understanding.
So you're opposed to people talking to other people on the airplane too huh? Seriously, its irrelevant that the person is using a cell-phone. The experience is the same so far as you are concerned is the same as if they were talking to someone in-person.
Uh say what? Do you talk on your cell-phone using big ear-muffs? I didn't think so. Your analogy is bogus. You hear your voice through your ears just as if you were talking to someone in person.
Yes. Seriously. You've been able to do this in FreeBSD for ages.
/dev/md0 /dev/md0 /dev/md0.eli /dev/md0.eli /mnt/secret
dd if=/dev/zero of=image_name bs=1k count=lenth
mdconfig -a -t vnode -f image_name -u 0
geli init -a hmac/sha256
geli attach
dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/md0.eli bs=1m
newfs
mount
okay its a bunch of commands, but I'm basically reading out of the man page. And this setup has tamper detection.
This whole article is bogus. GoDaddy started having troubles several days ago. It has nothing to do with DST. It does, however, demonstrate people's propensity to find evidence in mere coincidence.
Well the theory isn't that the electrical changes don't happen; it's that the electrical changes we detect are related to the establishment of a sufficiently solid channel.
i.e., the electrical pulses are part of the process of communication not an encoding of information itself.
You should read a bit of the 'other side' before you jump to conclusions.
Bell Companies were highly regulated. The system was contorted in its policies to aid in implementing a Progressive Social policy; the ramifications of which were substantial cost distortions. Rather than admit that the Congress and the government had written these details in law, a rather public farce placed the blame on greed.
So get the facts.
You can start here: http://www.porticus.org/bell/don_lively-3.html
The article is a bit simplistic. The basic problem is that using IPv6 carries with it costs: bloated packet headers, infrastructure issues, etc. The 'cost' of owning an allocation of IPv4 addresses is currently quite low. The consequence is substantial waste.
Sure you'll run out eventually given any non-zero constant growth assumption, but so what? Running out in 2 years versus 5 years or 10 years is a substantial difference. Not just in terms of discounting costs, but also in terms of silicon technology.
IPv6 routers do not perform as well as IPv4 (I'm talking about big iron ala Cisco et al). Routing tables are implemented in CAMs. Switching to 128b addresses makes those CAMs prohibitively large, power-hungry, and comparatively slow. This is a real problem.
One reason for the delayed adoption has been that the IETF took much too much of a software mentality to the questions at hand. Ten years ago, switching to IPv6 would have been much too much for the available silicon technology.
Hardware is catching up, but frankly a few more years is quite important.
I think you are misstating the logic of Eldred v. Ashcroft. That case does not in any way stand for the proposition that treaties render constitutional acts that would otherwise be unconstitutional. The reasoning of the court (7-2, opinion written by Ginsburg) is as follows:
Petitioners present the argument that retroactively extending copyright terms is per-se unconstitutional because it creates a de facto regime of perpetual copyright. The court contradicts this by arguing that the '76 act is proof that a rational basis may exist for such a copyright extension--the rational basis being implementation of a treat--such that extending the copyright term does not per-se demonstrate that a constitutional violation. They then decline to find proof that the Bono copyright act was an unconstitutional act of Congress.
The opinion also gives other examples of defensible extensions of the copyright term.
The point then is not that the treaty enabled congress to extend the copyright term but that congress was within constitutional bounds to do so if a rational basis pertained and that implementing the treaty was a rational basis.
Quite true. When I worked for a university IT department, the security officer discussed this point following some MPAA run-ins. It is possible to intentionally monitor certain flows. It is possible to do real-time traffic analysis, but it is not possible indiscriminately retain the payloads. There is just too much data. You'd be amazed though how much can be gleaned from DNS logs and other similar sources.
Yes this one reason why those people who advocate the idea that treaties can trump the Constitution do not appear to apprehend all of the consequences. This is one point at least that Scalia et al do get right: allowing defacto amendment of the Constitution via the treaty process could significantly impair our Constitutional protections.
Bingo. The real problem with cell-phone data service is the ridiculous pricing regime. 10 cents for a 160 character text message? Get real. Lets suppose for a moment that audio consumes 10kbps and its latency sensitive. One minute retails for 30 cents... 10k*60/8b... you get the picture. Data rates are out of this world, disconnected from reality. That's the real story.
Maybe this is actually the problem? During school hours, while in the classroom is when the practice should be taking place. The standard version of this is that the teacher goes from student to student and dynamically checks the progress on the work, offering help as needed to those students who need it, when they need it. Sure _maybe_ the parents can do this but they won't be as skilled at necessarily recognizing which idea that idea the child hasn't incorporated yet. Generally speaking, lecture and discussion are overrated with respect to certain task oriented subjects such as mathematics and other elementary basics.
This is how it was done at my school in the 1980s. We were a public school and, in the state, were ranked ~7th +/- a few position variation over the years.
Also many of the new fad subjects: greater emphasis on history, science, etc are largely dilutions of precious time at the elementary level. These kinds of studies at that grade level are often so primitive that the content is thoroughly false.
No... it is trivial to switch 10Gbps. Routing is a bit harder.
But you're just dead-off wrong. You can easily buy a router that can switch 240Gbps. 480Gbps is also quite feasible in current fab tech. And those numbers assume 64B packets.
No. They explicitly said they would not disclose that... which is a shame because that is probably the only interesting bit of information. The question that really needs to be studied is what distinguishes good drives from bad. This would probably involve disassembling drives of various 'vintages, models, manufacturers' and trying to pin down the relevant details. That way when new hard-drives get released, reviewers can pull them apart and judge them on something other than read/write performance, heat, and acoustics...