Any ISP can connect to OpenConnect, as long as they abosrb the cost of peering with it in one of a dozen-or-so locations.
Furthermore, to-date the way the internet has worked is that customers are not charged extra/different depending on the cost of the delivering bits to them. Netflix is really changing the rules (or at least the tradition) on this one. Theoretically, we could have had a similar discussion years ago regarding apps. If you ISP were not connected directly to Akamai's network, Apple would charge an extra _% to deliver an app to you. People would have gone BALLISTIC. But since it's Netflix... "no problem".
It just shows how deep the bias runs in these kinds of discussions. It's similar to how Apple used to get a "bye" when they did weird things, but Microsoft would have been pilloried. That changed when Apple got a certain amount of market power, and now Apple doesn't get away with things anymore. Google used to also get away with stuff, and now because of their size people are like "oh, yeah? I thought their motto was don't be evil". I guess I'm just surprised that Netflix still has "start-up cred". In a few years, Netflix will probably be big enough that the geekerati would go crazy if they did something like this.
Perhaps TWC is big enough that much of its interconnectivity is through peering rather than transit, so that receiving Netflix streams doesn't cost it very much money. Regardless, for purposes of this narrow discussion, I don't care whether it saves Time Warner Cable money either. If TWC decides to be irrational regarding receiving Netflix streams that should affect my relationship with Netflix.
Netflix is really breaking the rules here. Or at least breaking the tradition. Which is that delivery of bits to me depends only on the width of the pipe(s) between you and me, and does not depend on any other arrangement related to those pipes.
Perhaps. But explain to me why I should be concerned with Netflix's cost structure when there's a question of fairness at stake. The way the internet has always worked so far is that I can access any content regardless of which ISP I'm on, with the only distinction being that if I have a slower pipe sometimes I get a lower-quality experience. And the solution to that is to get a faster pipe from whichever provider I can and/or whichever provider I like. As far as I'm concerned, if I have a fast enough pipe to get SuperHD, then it's not my problem (nor Time Warner Cable's problem) how much it costs Netflix to send me the data. That's Netflix's problem. I expect to be treated the exact same as any other Netflix customer with the same size pipe.
Why can't the phone just listen? Are WiFi access points quiet until they are actively probed? (I believe you that the phone broadcasts something, just wondering why it was done that way.)
Depends on the cost to the ISP. There's lots of ways to spend capital. This might help. But something else might help more. But here's what I've seen from the coverage so far, that no one has seemed to dispute. Netflix's position is "we don't care whether the ISP can provide the bandwidth for our service, we only care whether they provide it in a way that is most advantageous to us". That's best for Netflix. Not for its customer.
I read in a different article that it's a peering point of Netflix's choice. And peering equipment of Netflix's choice. Oh, and the ISP pays for maintaining Netflix's equipment at the peering point.
Basically, Netflix is saying "we don't care if your network can handle the bandwidth, we'll only give your customer SuperHD if you'll set up your network our way". The right way to do it is for Netflix to set throughput and latency targets and say "if your ISP can provide x and y, you'll get SuperHD".
Netflix is encouraging your ISP to build out infrastructure that only helps Netflix. It's not enough for your ISP to have nice high bandwidth. They also need to peer with Netflix at facilities where Netflix specifies the peering arrangement.
I meant to also include the concept that whatever they are adding (fillers, flavorings, other types of meat) should be labeled as such. Even if it's just a little extra water and some garlic powder, I think they should put that on the label.
I know they put some fillers (soy protein, wheat, water, etc.) and flavoring (onion, celery, etc.) in my hamburger meat. I'm fine with that. But if you're selling me beef burgers, then I want the meat parts to be beef. I have no particular gut reaction against eating horse and it can actually be tasty to mix a little pork into ground beef; I just think they should be honest about what they are selling.
It's unlikely Apple completely blew the estimated sales for iPhone 5 in the March quarter by that much. The most likely explanation is that the rumor is just wrong. Next most likely is that the 5S is coming soon and gets a slightly tweeked screen. Maybe even just a slightly different part from the same supplier. Whoever leaked the info saw the partial cancellation, but isn't aware of the replacement order. And, remember, even if 5S isn't coming until the next quarter, Foxconn might have to start taking delivery of screens this quarter, in order to ramp up production and build launch inventory.
Yes, but with Watson the only way they could get it to stop was to literally delete the information. We can get kids to clean up their language using much less drastic processes than lobotomy.
But we can teach kids to stop using those words without having to literally delete the information from their brains. In fact, often times we can explain why they shouldn't use this word or that word without actually having to forbid it: "You shouldn't use that word because it isn't nice" is sometimes (but certainly not always) enough.
A high-powered laser will not be cheaper than a simple cruise missile. You don't even necessarily need a stealth missile. Cruise missiles fly below radar coverage. If the radar can't pick it up, the laser can't hit it.
I was actually thinking of slapping some stealth coating onto some GBU-38s and letting the B-2 Spirit deliver them. Even if the stealth coating isn't perfect, I imagine that this laser is still going to have a little trouble knocking 80 of them out of the sky at the same time. (I don't believe most tracking radars can discriminate 80 closely-spaced targets at the same time.)
Current cruise missiles also are pretty good at flying below radar coverage. Hug the ground into the target and the radar/laser system may never achieve line-of-sight.
The universe could be infinitely large. We usually talk about the "observable universe" because of that.
But anyway, I was admittedly engaged in a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. The odds of intelligent life arising need to be astronomically small in order to feel confident there wouldn't be other intelligent life in the universe.
The numbers associated with the universe are just amazing. The universe is so big that anything possible becomes probable... you might even say "anything possible is guaranteed to happen somewhere... and probably a lot of somewheres".
You think the odds against intelligent life around any random star are one in 10^12? Then there should be at least 10^10 stars with intelligent life.
Unless the missiles could be delivered by planes that had been designed to be very difficult to detect on radar. Maybe they could fire missiles that are also very difficult to detect.
Or, you could just design cruise missiles that make use of terrain to fly under radar coverage.
We should probably get working on those things, huh?
My ignorance? The whole post was based on a logical fallacy. "Hey, we were in the neighborhood, anyway." Um, no... you weren't. The Shuttle didn't just happen by the ISS and say "we were going to vent this water, anyway". The Shuttle was sent to ISS to deliver... water... food... parts, etc. You could just as easily say delivery of the parts were free, because they were going to have to come bring water, so why not bring the parts.
Same thing with the argument about fixed vs marginal costs for the program as a whole. It's a logical fallacy to say "it doesn't really cost $500 million per launch, because most of it is fixed". OH YES IT DOES cost $500 million per launch, because the alternative is shutting the program down and slashing those fixed costs to zero. There was no scenario where they eked more launches out of the same fixed costs. Nor was there a scenario where they did fewer launches with those costs.
It's like you built a billion dollar factor that you can only use to build two cars at $0 marginal cost each. It doesn't matter that the marginal cost is zero because you're stuck at only building two cars. And you're certainly not going to be stupid enough to build less than two. So those two cars really do, in fact, cost $500 million each (average cost)... not $0 each (marginal cost).
No. The engine bell imploded due to the sudden change in aerodynamic forces acting on the bell. With the engine running, the burning fuel pushes outward against the bell. The corner bells also experience strong forces from the airstream. Those forces are in equilibrium when the engines are running. When the engine shut off, the external force caused the bell to collapse.
Space-X was aware this would happen if one of the corner engines failed, and the engines are designed such that the bell can shear off without causing wider problems to the craft, but that doesn't mean the engine was designed to break apart. Maybe you should say "the engine couldn't be designed to not break apart in that circumstance, so they insured that it wouldn't cause wider damage".
But even that wouldn't be accurate. Space-X has expressed concern about such bell implosions. The most likely outcome is what happened... nothing. But there is concern about a chain reaction, where pieces of the bell might impact nearby bells, causing a chain-reaction failure. Just ask NASA whether the following logic is useful: "it looks bad, but it worked OK a few times, so we're just gonna go with it". Both shuttle losses were due to that logic.
There's been discussion of a faring to decrease the external pressure against the engine bell, but the faring needs to strong enough to support the same pressure that shattered the bell. (That's a little misleading, it wasn't static pressure that shattered the bell, but a sudden change in forces acting on it. But a faring would still have to withstand pretty strong pressure.) Unfortunately that means extra weight. And it means redesign and retesting, which is costly.
I don't disagree with that. But your original post talked all about the magic of automating the launch. All launches are automated. And have been for decades now. The kind of automated mission adjustment Falcon does has been standard-operating-procedure in the business since the shuttle was designed in the late 70s.
Slashdot Mirror
Any ISP can connect to OpenConnect, as long as they abosrb the cost of peering with it in one of a dozen-or-so locations.
Furthermore, to-date the way the internet has worked is that customers are not charged extra/different depending on the cost of the delivering bits to them. Netflix is really changing the rules (or at least the tradition) on this one. Theoretically, we could have had a similar discussion years ago regarding apps. If you ISP were not connected directly to Akamai's network, Apple would charge an extra _% to deliver an app to you. People would have gone BALLISTIC. But since it's Netflix... "no problem".
It just shows how deep the bias runs in these kinds of discussions. It's similar to how Apple used to get a "bye" when they did weird things, but Microsoft would have been pilloried. That changed when Apple got a certain amount of market power, and now Apple doesn't get away with things anymore. Google used to also get away with stuff, and now because of their size people are like "oh, yeah? I thought their motto was don't be evil". I guess I'm just surprised that Netflix still has "start-up cred". In a few years, Netflix will probably be big enough that the geekerati would go crazy if they did something like this.
Perhaps TWC is big enough that much of its interconnectivity is through peering rather than transit, so that receiving Netflix streams doesn't cost it very much money. Regardless, for purposes of this narrow discussion, I don't care whether it saves Time Warner Cable money either. If TWC decides to be irrational regarding receiving Netflix streams that should affect my relationship with Netflix.
Netflix is really breaking the rules here. Or at least breaking the tradition. Which is that delivery of bits to me depends only on the width of the pipe(s) between you and me, and does not depend on any other arrangement related to those pipes.
Perhaps. But explain to me why I should be concerned with Netflix's cost structure when there's a question of fairness at stake. The way the internet has always worked so far is that I can access any content regardless of which ISP I'm on, with the only distinction being that if I have a slower pipe sometimes I get a lower-quality experience. And the solution to that is to get a faster pipe from whichever provider I can and/or whichever provider I like. As far as I'm concerned, if I have a fast enough pipe to get SuperHD, then it's not my problem (nor Time Warner Cable's problem) how much it costs Netflix to send me the data. That's Netflix's problem. I expect to be treated the exact same as any other Netflix customer with the same size pipe.
Guantlet is how someone not paying attention spells gauntlet. ;-)
Wikipedia is not fact. Plus, all the items on that page include various amounts of hand protection. It's really not a gauntlet.
Why can't the phone just listen? Are WiFi access points quiet until they are actively probed? (I believe you that the phone broadcasts something, just wondering why it was done that way.)
Depends on the cost to the ISP. There's lots of ways to spend capital. This might help. But something else might help more. But here's what I've seen from the coverage so far, that no one has seemed to dispute. Netflix's position is "we don't care whether the ISP can provide the bandwidth for our service, we only care whether they provide it in a way that is most advantageous to us". That's best for Netflix. Not for its customer.
It's not a guantlet. That is what is colloquially called a "cuff".
AND...
That guy has way too much free time. ;-)
I read in a different article that it's a peering point of Netflix's choice. And peering equipment of Netflix's choice. Oh, and the ISP pays for maintaining Netflix's equipment at the peering point.
Basically, Netflix is saying "we don't care if your network can handle the bandwidth, we'll only give your customer SuperHD if you'll set up your network our way". The right way to do it is for Netflix to set throughput and latency targets and say "if your ISP can provide x and y, you'll get SuperHD".
Netflix is encouraging your ISP to build out infrastructure that only helps Netflix. It's not enough for your ISP to have nice high bandwidth. They also need to peer with Netflix at facilities where Netflix specifies the peering arrangement.
I meant to also include the concept that whatever they are adding (fillers, flavorings, other types of meat) should be labeled as such. Even if it's just a little extra water and some garlic powder, I think they should put that on the label.
Honesty.
I know they put some fillers (soy protein, wheat, water, etc.) and flavoring (onion, celery, etc.) in my hamburger meat. I'm fine with that. But if you're selling me beef burgers, then I want the meat parts to be beef. I have no particular gut reaction against eating horse and it can actually be tasty to mix a little pork into ground beef; I just think they should be honest about what they are selling.
It just comes down to honesty.
It's unlikely Apple completely blew the estimated sales for iPhone 5 in the March quarter by that much. The most likely explanation is that the rumor is just wrong. Next most likely is that the 5S is coming soon and gets a slightly tweeked screen. Maybe even just a slightly different part from the same supplier. Whoever leaked the info saw the partial cancellation, but isn't aware of the replacement order. And, remember, even if 5S isn't coming until the next quarter, Foxconn might have to start taking delivery of screens this quarter, in order to ramp up production and build launch inventory.
Yes, but with Watson the only way they could get it to stop was to literally delete the information. We can get kids to clean up their language using much less drastic processes than lobotomy.
But we can teach kids to stop using those words without having to literally delete the information from their brains. In fact, often times we can explain why they shouldn't use this word or that word without actually having to forbid it: "You shouldn't use that word because it isn't nice" is sometimes (but certainly not always) enough.
Yet another example showing that how Watson "learns" is not in any way similar to how humans learn.
A high-powered laser will not be cheaper than a simple cruise missile. You don't even necessarily need a stealth missile. Cruise missiles fly below radar coverage. If the radar can't pick it up, the laser can't hit it.
I was actually thinking of slapping some stealth coating onto some GBU-38s and letting the B-2 Spirit deliver them. Even if the stealth coating isn't perfect, I imagine that this laser is still going to have a little trouble knocking 80 of them out of the sky at the same time. (I don't believe most tracking radars can discriminate 80 closely-spaced targets at the same time.)
Current cruise missiles also are pretty good at flying below radar coverage. Hug the ground into the target and the radar/laser system may never achieve line-of-sight.
The universe could be infinitely large. We usually talk about the "observable universe" because of that.
But anyway, I was admittedly engaged in a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. The odds of intelligent life arising need to be astronomically small in order to feel confident there wouldn't be other intelligent life in the universe.
The numbers associated with the universe are just amazing. The universe is so big that anything possible becomes probable... you might even say "anything possible is guaranteed to happen somewhere... and probably a lot of somewheres".
You think the odds against intelligent life around any random star are one in 10^12? Then there should be at least 10^10 stars with intelligent life.
The universe really is that vast.
Unless the missiles could be delivered by planes that had been designed to be very difficult to detect on radar. Maybe they could fire missiles that are also very difficult to detect.
Or, you could just design cruise missiles that make use of terrain to fly under radar coverage.
We should probably get working on those things, huh?
My ignorance? The whole post was based on a logical fallacy. "Hey, we were in the neighborhood, anyway." Um, no... you weren't. The Shuttle didn't just happen by the ISS and say "we were going to vent this water, anyway". The Shuttle was sent to ISS to deliver... water... food... parts, etc. You could just as easily say delivery of the parts were free, because they were going to have to come bring water, so why not bring the parts.
Same thing with the argument about fixed vs marginal costs for the program as a whole. It's a logical fallacy to say "it doesn't really cost $500 million per launch, because most of it is fixed". OH YES IT DOES cost $500 million per launch, because the alternative is shutting the program down and slashing those fixed costs to zero. There was no scenario where they eked more launches out of the same fixed costs. Nor was there a scenario where they did fewer launches with those costs.
It's like you built a billion dollar factor that you can only use to build two cars at $0 marginal cost each. It doesn't matter that the marginal cost is zero because you're stuck at only building two cars. And you're certainly not going to be stupid enough to build less than two. So those two cars really do, in fact, cost $500 million each (average cost)... not $0 each (marginal cost).
For example, much of the water the Shuttle delivered was a byproduct of it's fuel cells and was thus essentially free.
As long as you ignore the billion dollar cost of launching the Shuttle each time, anyway.
You could send a lot of water into LEO for the cost of a single Shuttle launch.
No. The engine bell imploded due to the sudden change in aerodynamic forces acting on the bell. With the engine running, the burning fuel pushes outward against the bell. The corner bells also experience strong forces from the airstream. Those forces are in equilibrium when the engines are running. When the engine shut off, the external force caused the bell to collapse.
Space-X was aware this would happen if one of the corner engines failed, and the engines are designed such that the bell can shear off without causing wider problems to the craft, but that doesn't mean the engine was designed to break apart. Maybe you should say "the engine couldn't be designed to not break apart in that circumstance, so they insured that it wouldn't cause wider damage".
But even that wouldn't be accurate. Space-X has expressed concern about such bell implosions. The most likely outcome is what happened ... nothing. But there is concern about a chain reaction, where pieces of the bell might impact nearby bells, causing a chain-reaction failure. Just ask NASA whether the following logic is useful: "it looks bad, but it worked OK a few times, so we're just gonna go with it". Both shuttle losses were due to that logic.
There's been discussion of a faring to decrease the external pressure against the engine bell, but the faring needs to strong enough to support the same pressure that shattered the bell. (That's a little misleading, it wasn't static pressure that shattered the bell, but a sudden change in forces acting on it. But a faring would still have to withstand pretty strong pressure.) Unfortunately that means extra weight. And it means redesign and retesting, which is costly.
I don't disagree with that. But your original post talked all about the magic of automating the launch. All launches are automated. And have been for decades now. The kind of automated mission adjustment Falcon does has been standard-operating-procedure in the business since the shuttle was designed in the late 70s.