> And the owner of the apartment building can simply fire the doorman
Admitedly, it’s not a perfect example. As if a resident of that building didn’t like the owner’s policies, they could easily move to one of no doubt dozens of other competing buildings in that area. As opposed to the customer of an ISP, who at best might have two choices, and quite possibly only one, and both are monopolies with captive audiences.
And why would the owner fire the doorman who is implementing the policies he wants? That would be like the ISPs no longer giving bribes to the FCC when they’re so perfectly serving their agenda...
> Yet you want to deny them that right when the customer is called "Google" or "Netflix"
Netflix/Google aren't the "customer" of the ISP in question. The actual customer of Netflix/Google is the *customer* of the ISP. The ISP is just standing in the middle demanding more money from companies that aren't their customers in order to actually deliver the packets their paying customers requested.
It's like the owner of an apartment building making a deal with Pizza Hut, their delivery guys get in free to drop off pizzas to the residents, but the doorman demands $10 from the Papa John's delivery guy or he won't let him in... Nothing but corporate greed to see here.
If it was in the contract to do it that way, it should have been done that way, regardless of whether he thought it needed to be done that way. And if he didn't do it the way the contract specified it be done, he should have fixed it without bitching about it, regardless of whether he thought it was worth it. If he didn't want to do it that way he should have discussed it before the contract was signed or not taken the contract. Doing it a cheaper way, on purpose or not, and then trying to weasel out of making it right is dishonest plain and simple.
Yeah, it's only "voluntary" until you have some issue with your current install which requires a restore, at which point it becomes "bend over and take it" 8-/.
yes, thank you/. for making what would have been a calm mundane morning so exciting. When I woke up this morning I had no idea I would be recompiling Apache to increase the hardcoded static limit on maximum server processes and tuning our load balancer to have a shorter failure retry, all while fending off upper management who wanted to simply make the map site unavailable. We are not really scaled (or funded, for anyone familiar with the California State budget)to handle this kind of load, but after some tuning I think we are doing pretty well.
I have gotten after Jerry to convert his images to optimized PNG, so maybe next time the servers won't smoke quite as much...
-- Paul B. Henson http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operati ng Systems and Network Analyst California State Polytechnic University Pomona CA 91768
Slashdot Mirror
> And the owner of the apartment building can simply fire the doorman Admitedly, it’s not a perfect example. As if a resident of that building didn’t like the owner’s policies, they could easily move to one of no doubt dozens of other competing buildings in that area. As opposed to the customer of an ISP, who at best might have two choices, and quite possibly only one, and both are monopolies with captive audiences. And why would the owner fire the doorman who is implementing the policies he wants? That would be like the ISPs no longer giving bribes to the FCC when they’re so perfectly serving their agenda...
> Yet you want to deny them that right when the customer is called "Google" or "Netflix"
Netflix/Google aren't the "customer" of the ISP in question. The actual customer of Netflix/Google is the *customer* of the ISP. The ISP is just standing in the middle demanding more money from companies that aren't their customers in order to actually deliver the packets their paying customers requested.
It's like the owner of an apartment building making a deal with Pizza Hut, their delivery guys get in free to drop off pizzas to the residents, but the doorman demands $10 from the Papa John's delivery guy or he won't let him in... Nothing but corporate greed to see here.
If it was in the contract to do it that way, it should have been done that way, regardless of whether he thought it needed to be done that way. And if he didn't do it the way the contract specified it be done, he should have fixed it without bitching about it, regardless of whether he thought it was worth it. If he didn't want to do it that way he should have discussed it before the contract was signed or not taken the contract. Doing it a cheaper way, on purpose or not, and then trying to weasel out of making it right is dishonest plain and simple.
Try looking at the actual study:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/p...
Did you really expect a news article to represent it accurately 8-/?
Check out:
http://www.geekdesk.com/
I have one at work and two at home, they rock. Priced a lot lower than most of the alternatives, but as good or better.
Yeah, it's only "voluntary" until you have some issue with your current install which requires a restore, at which point it becomes "bend over and take it" 8-/.
yes, thank you /. for making what would have been a calm mundane morning so exciting. When I woke up this morning I had no idea I would be recompiling Apache to increase the hardcoded static limit on maximum server processes and tuning our load balancer to have a shorter failure retry, all while fending off upper management who wanted to simply make the map site unavailable. We are not really scaled (or funded, for anyone familiar with the California State budget)to handle this kind of load, but after some tuning I think we are doing pretty well.
i ng Systems and Network Analyst
I have gotten after Jerry to convert his images to optimized PNG, so maybe next time the servers won't smoke quite as much...
--
Paul B. Henson
http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/
Operat
California State Polytechnic University
Pomona CA 91768