No doubt! The volume of virus/botnet traffic transferred per connection isn't significant. The number of connections is. If you run 1M of traffic through a cisco router, so you can watch a monitor, using normal sized packets (mtu 1500) the amount of strain on the router will be minimal. Then run 1M of traffic through the router where every packet is a new packet (ack flood) or connection attempt (syn flood). The strain won't kill the router but you will see a big difference in processor usage.
I thought everything shot into space had to be protected from radio activity. I also thought everything that comes into contact with radio active material becomes radio active. Couldn't something be held outside of the shielding to be irradiated while using solar power then used as fuel on the outer reaches?
Just like not giving money to the banks and automakers, making businesses pay taxes will destroy the economy! The poor people will um.. be poor! The really really really rich people will be reduced by at least one really! Oh the humanity!
They are not seeing revenue declines because people are not actively canceling subscriptions in favor of the alternative. As fewer and fewer potential new customers avoid subscribing to the service their revenue stream will be effected. The same thing happened to the music industry. Revenues from CD purchases dropped steadily until the 10-30 age group was completely replaced, where it tanked.
If that is not a sign that the current model is doomed to failure then the companies are blind and the industry deserves death. IMHO death by bunga-bunga is what they deserve.
Perfect analogy. So, it should be best to use it to explain why they didn't do anything to stop the bot net. Placing outgoing mail with instructions to the sender of those packages would be illegal. That is why they didn't send back instructions that might have shut the bot net down.
No seriously. All of that money and effort for weed?!? You can walk through Big Ben park and see the stuff growing wild. It rarely grows beyond a sprout but... Hunting out people growing weed?!? OMFG what a useless waist of time and energy.
Your arguing semantics. Getting a different effect at the end does not make it any different.
5G@100k for duration 500 until 5G is completed is the same as 5G@1M for duration 5 until 5G is complete.
Cable companies limit the amount of download speed so the time it takes to download the amount of data you are capped at equals the amount of data you are limited to. If you don't believe me ask anyone with a cable connection, in an area where only cable is available, if their download speeds seem to slow down the closer it gets to time to pay the bill. If you maintain a constant torrent upload/download server, like I do, you will see a steady restriction of 500k/500k even though your paying for a 3M connection.
I never finished the original game because of the amount of time I had to wait every time I went through a door. Might have been my machine, don't care. If it would have, or might still, I think I would give it a try just to see if it worked any better.
SOME number of Internet users is paying significantly more for bit delivery than others due to their lower use.
I'd argue that anyone getting crap'd by cable companies to a level below what they paid for would fit that description. If that is true then 95% of cable users fit the description.
I got this far into the link "The Web will start to seem pokey, Lieberman writes". Every time I see that name I smell shit. I really didn't want to know who he was advertising for this week.
That is close to my rant. Government make them give me what I paid for or let me dig a hole and burn them in it. If it requires I eat dog shit coated with peanut butter, I'll do what I gotta do.
A free market is one where there is no significant barrier to entry into that market
I think it meant no unnatural restriction to the market.
You can't just let everyone and anyone dig up whatever land they want in order to lay cable.
There must be different restrictions in different states. The telco/cable companies here play games with digging rights along streets. Lawyers actively try to block requests... Back in the "AT&T owns all days" you just had to pay the city for a permit to dig along the street. Well, you had to be bonded and all of that good stuff. AT&T couldn't do anything about it because the government owned the copper.
I disagree. They don't make any money of equipment. That is an expense. They make money off the location of the fiber/copper and whether or not other fiber/copper can go around it. The companies place as little hardware as possible in as few high growth areas as possible, bank on people coming to those areas, then ignore people that are not in those areas and ignore the needs of the people in the area when they outgrow the little as possible hardware.
I wish I could agree with your post completely. I think you have to say "mostly isn't a free market". The subsidies are only for certain companies. The little guys still get nothing.
LIES! Next you will be telling people that the GUI isn't the operating system, knowing how to use GUI office applications isn't the sole requirement to be the system administrator, and the internet isn't installed on their machines!
QoS/L7 handling only crossed into the area of net neutrality because when you shape traffic with those methods you can also examine it (content filter it). Now more than the original two camps have lumped QoS/L7 and content filtering together. One camp being "restrict what people can see" camp. The other "All your content are belong to us" camp. The argument that ISP's should provide what they say they are selling, bla bla bandwidth for bla bla money is not a moral question. It is cut and dry sell it for said price or your stealing timewarner cock suckers! Sorry. Anyway. The "content of the bandwidth should be filtered" people should have nothing to do with other issue because that IS a moral question.
What I'm trying to say, and doing a poor job at it is, the people wanting to restrict content can be thanked for lumping it together so they have the ISP's money to back up their crusade in addition to the all your content are belong to us people the cable companies have lumped them together. The cable providers have a third reason though. They sell the same types of entertainment (tv/bandwidth) through the same media (cable) and charge customers twice. They are all boo hoo because they don't get to ass fuck people that are smart enough to just download media and only pay once. Since the downloaded content CAN be content that the "that content is evil & all your content are belong to us" the cable companies are all "yeah folks make our case for us so we can make all kinds of money and stuff". The worst part about it is if the net neutrality definition gets more thinned with this BS then the three assholes involved will win.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt! The volume of virus/botnet traffic transferred per connection isn't significant. The number of connections is. If you run 1M of traffic through a cisco router, so you can watch a monitor, using normal sized packets (mtu 1500) the amount of strain on the router will be minimal. Then run 1M of traffic through the router where every packet is a new packet (ack flood) or connection attempt (syn flood). The strain won't kill the router but you will see a big difference in processor usage.
ROFLMAO +5d12
I thought everything shot into space had to be protected from radio activity. I also thought everything that comes into contact with radio active material becomes radio active. Couldn't something be held outside of the shielding to be irradiated while using solar power then used as fuel on the outer reaches?
What do you tell these people?
Pickled cabbage only taste good when Germans do it?
Just like not giving money to the banks and automakers, making businesses pay taxes will destroy the economy! The poor people will um.. be poor! The really really really rich people will be reduced by at least one really! Oh the humanity!
"the result you'd expect"
I'd expect a kilo for 10 pounds.
Because the phone companies make it as difficult as humanly possible to add your own doesn't mean people "happily pay 3.99".
I agree but...
"I can download a movie in less than 2-3hours"
You obviously do not have TW/RR cable.
Good reply. I'm curious. If a [content] has been out for [number] years, would that make it OK?
They are not seeing revenue declines because people are not actively canceling subscriptions in favor of the alternative. As fewer and fewer potential new customers avoid subscribing to the service their revenue stream will be effected. The same thing happened to the music industry. Revenues from CD purchases dropped steadily until the 10-30 age group was completely replaced, where it tanked.
If that is not a sign that the current model is doomed to failure then the companies are blind and the industry deserves death. IMHO death by bunga-bunga is what they deserve.
Perfect analogy. So, it should be best to use it to explain why they didn't do anything to stop the bot net. Placing outgoing mail with instructions to the sender of those packages would be illegal. That is why they didn't send back instructions that might have shut the bot net down.
No seriously. All of that money and effort for weed?!? You can walk through Big Ben park and see the stuff growing wild. It rarely grows beyond a sprout but... Hunting out people growing weed?!? OMFG what a useless waist of time and energy.
No sir. The thieves will just break through your windows too.
Your arguing semantics. Getting a different effect at the end does not make it any different.
5G@100k for duration 500 until 5G is completed is the same as 5G@1M for duration 5 until 5G is complete.
Cable companies limit the amount of download speed so the time it takes to download the amount of data you are capped at equals the amount of data you are limited to. If you don't believe me ask anyone with a cable connection, in an area where only cable is available, if their download speeds seem to slow down the closer it gets to time to pay the bill. If you maintain a constant torrent upload/download server, like I do, you will see a steady restriction of 500k/500k even though your paying for a 3M connection.
I never finished the original game because of the amount of time I had to wait every time I went through a door. Might have been my machine, don't care. If it would have, or might still, I think I would give it a try just to see if it worked any better.
SOME number of Internet users is paying significantly more for bit delivery than others due to their lower use.
I'd argue that anyone getting crap'd by cable companies to a level below what they paid for would fit that description. If that is true then 95% of cable users fit the description.
I got this far into the link "The Web will start to seem pokey, Lieberman writes". Every time I see that name I smell shit. I really didn't want to know who he was advertising for this week.
That is close to my rant. Government make them give me what I paid for or let me dig a hole and burn them in it. If it requires I eat dog shit coated with peanut butter, I'll do what I gotta do.
Can we just send the money now instead of waiting for the obvious to be proven? I don't like waiting in long lines.
A free market is one where there is no significant barrier to entry into that market
I think it meant no unnatural restriction to the market.
You can't just let everyone and anyone dig up whatever land they want in order to lay cable.
There must be different restrictions in different states. The telco/cable companies here play games with digging rights along streets. Lawyers actively try to block requests... Back in the "AT&T owns all days" you just had to pay the city for a permit to dig along the street. Well, you had to be bonded and all of that good stuff. AT&T couldn't do anything about it because the government owned the copper.
I disagree. They don't make any money of equipment. That is an expense. They make money off the location of the fiber/copper and whether or not other fiber/copper can go around it. The companies place as little hardware as possible in as few high growth areas as possible, bank on people coming to those areas, then ignore people that are not in those areas and ignore the needs of the people in the area when they outgrow the little as possible hardware.
They've had both since the inception. The problem is they don't know how to control giving things to themselves.
I wish I could agree with your post completely. I think you have to say "mostly isn't a free market". The subsidies are only for certain companies. The little guys still get nothing.
LIES! Next you will be telling people that the GUI isn't the operating system, knowing how to use GUI office applications isn't the sole requirement to be the system administrator, and the internet isn't installed on their machines!
QoS/L7 handling only crossed into the area of net neutrality because when you shape traffic with those methods you can also examine it (content filter it). Now more than the original two camps have lumped QoS/L7 and content filtering together. One camp being "restrict what people can see" camp. The other "All your content are belong to us" camp. The argument that ISP's should provide what they say they are selling, bla bla bandwidth for bla bla money is not a moral question. It is cut and dry sell it for said price or your stealing timewarner cock suckers! Sorry. Anyway. The "content of the bandwidth should be filtered" people should have nothing to do with other issue because that IS a moral question.
What I'm trying to say, and doing a poor job at it is, the people wanting to restrict content can be thanked for lumping it together so they have the ISP's money to back up their crusade in addition to the all your content are belong to us people the cable companies have lumped them together. The cable providers have a third reason though. They sell the same types of entertainment (tv/bandwidth) through the same media (cable) and charge customers twice. They are all boo hoo because they don't get to ass fuck people that are smart enough to just download media and only pay once. Since the downloaded content CAN be content that the "that content is evil & all your content are belong to us" the cable companies are all "yeah folks make our case for us so we can make all kinds of money and stuff". The worst part about it is if the net neutrality definition gets more thinned with this BS then the three assholes involved will win.