If it were all about "even" traffic flows, then netflix could have their clients send garbage data back to balance out the flows. This would result in *more* traffic on the network overall, but hey it'd at least be balanced!
No...the traffic is there because it was *requested by verizon's subscribers*. There is no logical reason why cogent/level3 should pay extra for traffic requested by verizon. I know this is how it was done in the past, but that was under the assumption that the types of flow is more or less similar. In the case of verizon, it's mostly consuming data rather than sending it, so it shouldn't be treated as a regular peer.
When I see a person panhandling on the street, I know full well that there are social assistance programs, welfare, employment insurance, homeless shelters, retraining programs, health care programs, etc. In many cases, they have trained professionals who will probably do a much better job than me of helping people that need help. In a sense that means that *I have already helped them* by supporting a society and government that includes these programs, and by funding them with my tax dollars. In many cases the problem is just getting people into programs that will work for them.
That said, I still help people out sometimes if I think it makes sense. Most of the time though my charitable giving goes outside the country to places with less of a social safety net.
It seems to me that we want to simultaneously be able to prove to the voter that their vote was counted properly, while also wanting to ensure that the voter cannot prove to someone else that they voted a certain way (to prevent buying/coercing votes).
Adding to this...how do you ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, and not another family member, care provider, guest, etc.?
Again is it okay for the government to compete with private enterprise?
Others may disagree, but I think so, yes. (Assuming they compete on merits rather than legislation.)
Around here (Saskatchewan, Canada) the main telco is a government-owned and they have excellent wireless coverage in rural areas. My electricity comes from a government-owned utility, and their rates are controlled to cover costs and build infrastructure. My natural gas comes from a government-owned utility that has huge underground storage tanks all over the province so they can buy gas at low prices and store it for winter. (Important, winters are cold here.) The main vehicle insurer is government-owned with controlled rates, and of course police/fire services are government-run.
The only real complaint I have with a government-run organization is liquor stores--and that's a political issue since there's nothing stopping them from implementing a solution where I could order booze via a website and have it shipped to my house with the appropriate taxes automatically paid to the government.
Being able to put feet down requires a more upright and open riding position.
Removing that requirement enables a recumbant seating position (for better aerodynamics) and a fully-enclosed cabin. Making the cabin fully-enclosed allows for better protection from weather, better soundproofing, air conditioning, etc.
Some really intricate parts are cheaper to 3D-print than to try and cast/forge/machine traditionally. Think hollow structures with stiffening ribs or cooling channels inside, or other similarly complicated shapes. The SuperDraco rocket engine falls into this category (though of course also is a small production run).
With managed hosting, the provider handles support, backup/restore, etc. Typically with "the cloud" the resources are unmanaged. The end-user is responsible for all of that stuff.
I don't believe Amazon themselves offer managed services, but there are lots of other companies that will sell you managed services built on AWS.
Nobody is saying they were legally responsible to prevent crime.
People *are* saying that they were poor businessmen who didn't plan for disasters. (What if the cloud provider failed catastrophically, or they lost all the passwords, or any number of other catastrophic events?)
Even for VoLTE, why should your voice get priority over my data? What if my "data" is actually voice via a different app?
Arguably, all packets should be shaped initially based on the subscription plans of the subscribers without regard for data type. Then *within the packet stream of an individual subscriber* they could prioritize based on traffic type, but it should be up to the subscriber to indicate whether they want this to be done, what should be prioritized, etc.
1) It's not about how much you eat, but how much your body converts to fat. I went on Atkins and lost quite a bit of weight while still eating lots of calories.
2) If you severely cut down on calories, your body can become more efficient at using the calories it does eat.
So the trick is to convince your body that it's not hungry, doesn't need to be efficient, and doesn't need to store fat against future needs.
The Mellanox driver code I saw was pretty messy, especially the SR-IOV support. And their device model is sort of weird for anyone used to "traditional" ethernet hardware. But they're really the only game in town for 40gig.
In contrast, the Intel 10gig drivers are reasonably clean, follow the same device model as their other ethernet hardware, and their datasheets are available for anyone to download.
For exactly the reason that you describe, a kernel driver that is intended to be built on many different kernel versions really shouldn't be making assumptions based on the version number, it should test for the actual desired functionality.
1) ISPs apply traffic shaping to each subscriber separately, without looking at packet type, source, destination, etc. The only criteria are which subscriber the packet belongs to, and what level of subscription they've paid for.
2) As an optional step (opt-in or opt-out) the ISP can do QoS within the packets belonging to a particular subscriber. This would only affect that subscriber, nobody else. Ideally this would be under the control of the end-user in some way, via ToS packets, classification rules, etc.
To me, Net Neutrality means that all traffic (regardless of far end *or* type) should be treated equally.
The only fair way to allocate resources on a subscriber network is by doing traffic shaping based on the subscriber plan, *without looking at traffic type*.
Suppose we've both paid for an identical subscription. I use my entire bandwidth for streaming video and torrenting, you use your entire bandwidth for videoconferencing. Traditional QoS would give your packets priority over mine. Since we're paying the same, that makes no sense!
The ISP should shape both our streams based on our subscriber plans. As an optional step they could apply QoS to the traffic belonging to each individual subscriber, but that would only affect the traffic for that specific subscriber.
Why should your videoconferencing packets get priority over my netflix stream?
If we've both paid for equivalent plans, then we should have equal use of the network.
The only truly fair option is for ISPs to weight traffic between subscribers based on their plans, without looking at traffic type. Then within the traffic belonging to a single subscriber they could (if approved by the subscriber) do QoS based on traffic type.
The ISPs should be legally limited to two types of traffic shaping: 1) Based purely on subscriber plan, without looking at traffic type. If you've paid for a better plan then me, your traffic gets weighted more heavily. 2) Optionally (if the subscriber requests it) they could shape based on traffic type, but only within the packets belonging to a specific subscriber.
That way, your web pages would get exactly the same priority as their video stream.
The ISPs should be legally limited to two types of traffic shaping: 1) Based purely on subscriber plan, without looking at traffic type. If you've paid for a better plan then me, your traffic gets weighted more heavily. 2) Optionally (if the subscriber requests it) they could shape based on traffic type, but only within the packets belonging to a specific subscriber.
That way, if we have equivalent plans then your torrent packets and my VoIP packets get exactly the same treatment, but my VoIP packets get priority over my torrent packets.
If you own.0000004%, and the company owes amount X and doesn't have enough money to cover it, then I see nothing wrong with you as an owner being sued for.0000004% of the outstanding debt if the company goes bankrupt.
Suppose you stepped on the brake and the car messed up and triggered the accelerator. I think the natural tendency would be to think that you had accidentally stepped on the accelerator, lift up on your foot, realize it was still accelerating, then try to brake--by which time you might have hit something.
There was an interesting article a while back about designing for robustness in vehicle ECUs. Things like putting variables at the bottom of memory so that a stack trampler would be less likely to overwrite them. Can't remember where it was now, but it was a good read.
If you start with the assumption that we need 5th gen aircraft then the F35 is the only option. But I don't think it's valid to start with that assumption--we should start with the missions that need to be fulfilled.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were all about "even" traffic flows, then netflix could have their clients send garbage data back to balance out the flows. This would result in *more* traffic on the network overall, but hey it'd at least be balanced!
No...the traffic is there because it was *requested by verizon's subscribers*. There is no logical reason why cogent/level3 should pay extra for traffic requested by verizon. I know this is how it was done in the past, but that was under the assumption that the types of flow is more or less similar. In the case of verizon, it's mostly consuming data rather than sending it, so it shouldn't be treated as a regular peer.
caveat: I live in Canada, your mileage may vary.
When I see a person panhandling on the street, I know full well that there are social assistance programs, welfare, employment insurance, homeless shelters, retraining programs, health care programs, etc. In many cases, they have trained professionals who will probably do a much better job than me of helping people that need help. In a sense that means that *I have already helped them* by supporting a society and government that includes these programs, and by funding them with my tax dollars. In many cases the problem is just getting people into programs that will work for them.
That said, I still help people out sometimes if I think it makes sense. Most of the time though my charitable giving goes outside the country to places with less of a social safety net.
It seems to me that we want to simultaneously be able to prove to the voter that their vote was counted properly, while also wanting to ensure that the voter cannot prove to someone else that they voted a certain way (to prevent buying/coercing votes).
Adding to this...how do you ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, and not another family member, care provider, guest, etc.?
Again is it okay for the government to compete with private enterprise?
Others may disagree, but I think so, yes. (Assuming they compete on merits rather than legislation.)
Around here (Saskatchewan, Canada) the main telco is a government-owned and they have excellent wireless coverage in rural areas. My electricity comes from a government-owned utility, and their rates are controlled to cover costs and build infrastructure. My natural gas comes from a government-owned utility that has huge underground storage tanks all over the province so they can buy gas at low prices and store it for winter. (Important, winters are cold here.) The main vehicle insurer is government-owned with controlled rates, and of course police/fire services are government-run.
The only real complaint I have with a government-run organization is liquor stores--and that's a political issue since there's nothing stopping them from implementing a solution where I could order booze via a website and have it shipped to my house with the appropriate taxes automatically paid to the government.
Being able to put feet down requires a more upright and open riding position.
Removing that requirement enables a recumbant seating position (for better aerodynamics) and a fully-enclosed cabin. Making the cabin fully-enclosed allows for better protection from weather, better soundproofing, air conditioning, etc.
The key to this one is that you don't need to put feet down when stopped, so it can be recumbant and fully-enclosed.
Some really intricate parts are cheaper to 3D-print than to try and cast/forge/machine traditionally. Think hollow structures with stiffening ribs or cooling channels inside, or other similarly complicated shapes. The SuperDraco rocket engine falls into this category (though of course also is a small production run).
With managed hosting, the provider handles support, backup/restore, etc. Typically with "the cloud" the resources are unmanaged. The end-user is responsible for all of that stuff.
I don't believe Amazon themselves offer managed services, but there are lots of other companies that will sell you managed services built on AWS.
Nobody is saying they were legally responsible to prevent crime.
People *are* saying that they were poor businessmen who didn't plan for disasters. (What if the cloud provider failed catastrophically, or they lost all the passwords, or any number of other catastrophic events?)
Even for VoLTE, why should your voice get priority over my data? What if my "data" is actually voice via a different app?
Arguably, all packets should be shaped initially based on the subscription plans of the subscribers without regard for data type. Then *within the packet stream of an individual subscriber* they could prioritize based on traffic type, but it should be up to the subscriber to indicate whether they want this to be done, what should be prioritized, etc.
KVM and VMWare Player can run VMs simultaneously without any problem.
and found that they got better mileage with the "unnecessarily complex dual drive train" than they did with the charging-only engine.
1) It's not about how much you eat, but how much your body converts to fat. I went on Atkins and lost quite a bit of weight while still eating lots of calories.
2) If you severely cut down on calories, your body can become more efficient at using the calories it does eat.
So the trick is to convince your body that it's not hungry, doesn't need to be efficient, and doesn't need to store fat against future needs.
They're mostly empty calories.
The Mellanox driver code I saw was pretty messy, especially the SR-IOV support. And their device model is sort of weird for anyone used to "traditional" ethernet hardware. But they're really the only game in town for 40gig.
In contrast, the Intel 10gig drivers are reasonably clean, follow the same device model as their other ethernet hardware, and their datasheets are available for anyone to download.
For exactly the reason that you describe, a kernel driver that is intended to be built on many different kernel versions really shouldn't be making assumptions based on the version number, it should test for the actual desired functionality.
The simplest solution is:
1) ISPs apply traffic shaping to each subscriber separately, without looking at packet type, source, destination, etc. The only criteria are which subscriber the packet belongs to, and what level of subscription they've paid for.
2) As an optional step (opt-in or opt-out) the ISP can do QoS within the packets belonging to a particular subscriber. This would only affect that subscriber, nobody else. Ideally this would be under the control of the end-user in some way, via ToS packets, classification rules, etc.
To me, Net Neutrality means that all traffic (regardless of far end *or* type) should be treated equally.
The only fair way to allocate resources on a subscriber network is by doing traffic shaping based on the subscriber plan, *without looking at traffic type*.
Suppose we've both paid for an identical subscription. I use my entire bandwidth for streaming video and torrenting, you use your entire bandwidth for videoconferencing. Traditional QoS would give your packets priority over mine. Since we're paying the same, that makes no sense!
The ISP should shape both our streams based on our subscriber plans. As an optional step they could apply QoS to the traffic belonging to each individual subscriber, but that would only affect the traffic for that specific subscriber.
Why should your videoconferencing packets get priority over my netflix stream?
If we've both paid for equivalent plans, then we should have equal use of the network.
The only truly fair option is for ISPs to weight traffic between subscribers based on their plans, without looking at traffic type. Then within the traffic belonging to a single subscriber they could (if approved by the subscriber) do QoS based on traffic type.
The ISPs should be legally limited to two types of traffic shaping:
1) Based purely on subscriber plan, without looking at traffic type. If you've paid for a better plan then me, your traffic gets weighted more heavily.
2) Optionally (if the subscriber requests it) they could shape based on traffic type, but only within the packets belonging to a specific subscriber.
That way, your web pages would get exactly the same priority as their video stream.
The ISPs should be legally limited to two types of traffic shaping:
1) Based purely on subscriber plan, without looking at traffic type. If you've paid for a better plan then me, your traffic gets weighted more heavily.
2) Optionally (if the subscriber requests it) they could shape based on traffic type, but only within the packets belonging to a specific subscriber.
That way, if we have equivalent plans then your torrent packets and my VoIP packets get exactly the same treatment, but my VoIP packets get priority over my torrent packets.
If you own .0000004%, and the company owes amount X and doesn't have enough money to cover it, then I see nothing wrong with you as an owner being sued for .0000004% of the outstanding debt if the company goes bankrupt.
Suppose you stepped on the brake and the car messed up and triggered the accelerator. I think the natural tendency would be to think that you had accidentally stepped on the accelerator, lift up on your foot, realize it was still accelerating, then try to brake--by which time you might have hit something.
There was an interesting article a while back about designing for robustness in vehicle ECUs. Things like putting variables at the bottom of memory so that a stack trampler would be less likely to overwrite them. Can't remember where it was now, but it was a good read.
And lets be real in our comparisons. The 35W Haswell is going to destroy your P8700.
The i5-4202Y still beats the P8700 handily in cpu benchmarks and has a max TDP of 11.5W, including memory controller and graphics.
If you start with the assumption that we need 5th gen aircraft then the F35 is the only option. But I don't think it's valid to start with that assumption--we should start with the missions that need to be fulfilled.