How many people died from the Three Mile incident? Chernobyl didn't have to happen. They purposely overrode the safeties to test a turbine. Chernobyl did not have secondary containment.
How many people die in coal mining every year? Based on those numbers alone, nuclear is an easy choice.
Well, well. Some truth about energy! Amazing. Lets take this a bit further and say that if certain groups haven't scared the hell out of people about nuclear, we wouldn't have so many coal plants in the US. We could be selling the coal to other countries.:)
I wish these people would live in places where this kind of regulation is normal. Can they move to Cuba? How about moving to Sweden or some of those ex-Soviet states that still think in terms of what is best for the state?
This has to be the most offensive thing I will read today. The idea that the government can tell a person what color their car can be should deeply offend every American, even those living in California.
... and schools. Parents don't teach their kids that some things are just simply part of life. You have to do it whether you like it or not. You have to do it even if you don't get an allowance or a gold star. Some things are worth doing even if you don't feel good about doing it.
Schools affirm this by removing competition and focus on making sure kids feel good about themselves. This is reflected in a recent survey where US kids scored lower on things like math, but felt that had done well on the test. Non-US students felt that they had not done well on the test, but scored higher. In other words, stupid US kids feel really good about themselves. Heck, they've been rewarded not for getting things right, but for trying! Why wouldn't they expect to get constant affirmation in the professional world?
Bring back competition. Bring back winning and loosing. Bring back hard work. Dump the ego-centric psychology.
Alternatives to *embryonic* stem cells are in medical trials right now. It is called adult stem cells and something like 80 real-world trials are happening right now. One of the first uses of adult stem cells goes back a few years, it is known as "bone marrow transplant."
I don't think I have heard of a single clinical trial using embryonic stem cells. That is why embryonic stem cells need government subsidies. The real money is in treatments that have hope of working.
The problem with net neutrality is that there is no definition of it. I am against net neutrality for this reason. I fear that whatever law is passed will be overreaching. Then, all a company has to do is setup more peering on their network, which is a perfectly valid thing to do, to get around the law.
Personally, if I am buying VoIP from my ISP, I *want* them to guarantee that VoIP traffic gets priority. Since they are terminating it within their network, they can control the QoS from my PBX to their gateways. That is a *good* thing. I specifically choose an ISP for a company because the ISP provided gateways within their network.
The only definition of net neutrality should be that QoS has to be applied equally. Even this that rule, the ISP could still give their VoIP traffic better quality by putting their VoIP traffic on a VoIP-only network and telling all their routers about it.
The Republicans probably want to see business starting to use the spectrum and getting rid of the redundancy of analog and digital transmissions. This would then create a new or exapand an existing segment of the economy -- creating jobs.
The Democrats are worried that a minority of people (poor, minorities, etc) will be oppressed by greedy businesses wanting to make use of the spectrum. People need to be protected from this greed. The government should hold their hand until they are able to veg out on the new digital transmissions.
Verizon is deploying GPON or Gigabit Passive Optical Network. The Ethernet port on the Optical Network Terminator outside my house is labels 1000Mbit. My area was lit 4 months ago. That means it was something like 5 years for Verizon to get to my area of Los Angeles... not for lack of effort.
You can get a T1 anywhere. You can have transit on the T1 from anyone you choose. Yes, it's expensive, but you do have that choice.
Keep a look out for 2Base-TL or "metro Ethernet over copper." The footprint is small right now, but it allows for reliable highspeed Internet anywhere DSL is offered. Unlike DSL, it is business class and is unlikely to have filtering or caps.
My understanding is that, currently, routers don't work this way. They pass each packet more or less equally (some ToS bits) as it comes in. A single customer running P2P can monopolize the traffic on a router. The P2P customer gets 90 out 100 packets coming in and the VoIP customer gets 10 of the 100. ToS change things up a bit, but not enough to balance out how much point to point traffic a P2P program can generate.
What you are talking about is a router that looks at all the IP's or customers (if a customer has more than one IP) and gives each customer an equal slice. The effect could be that the P2P traffic would be slowed down. Do the Google tools point out a "fair" slowing down or all slowing down?
So what? Yes, they want to manage costs. So does everyone. They have a business model, if you don't like it, go with someone else. If you think you have a better idea, then build out your own ISP and compete with them.
The end game on that is a lose-lose proposition. When dial-up was still popular this over-subscribed broadband plan was workable.
It still is workable.
The traffic generated by file sharing, email, web browsing etc. could be handled in this manner. The trouble is that ISPs did not update or upgrade the 'tubes' to handle the traffic that they themselves intended on selling to users.
They have, maybe not as big an upgrade as you want, but they have had to compete with other ISP's offering 6Mbit, etc.
All this crap about bundled services (triple-play and Quadruple-play) for the last 5 years is about ISP's selling you streaming content and high-bandwidth content. To claim that they need to 'manage congestion' while trying to sell data content is absolute BS.
No it isn't. An ISP's VoIP and video is most likely going to stay inside their network where they can control the QoS and never touch their transit links where they cannot control the overall QoS. As long as the QoS is applied evenly, no problem. Don't confuse the issue!
P2P can also degrade cable networks where a neighborhood is contending for a small uplink speed.
What they want is carte blanche to tell you what data you are allowed to send and receive. period. no arguing.
This is the real issue.
We tend to forget that they have this plan to sell you streaming data that has to fit in the same damned pipes as the data you are using now, that they claim are not big enough to handle some file sharing. I call bullshit. The ISPs cannot force the Internet to be how it used to be. Rich Internet content, web 2.0, streaming content... all of this is ruining their original over-subscription network configuration plan.
But they can, for the average user. It is only when you get a group of heavy P2P users flooding pipes and routers does it become a problem. Why should the casual use subsidize your 24/7 P2P traffic? You are being just as greedy as the ISP. The ISP should cap you... as long as they were upfront about it. If you don't like it, go to another ISP have has bigger transit connections. You might pay more, but that is how things go.
Now, the very same ISPs that are complaining about congestion are fully into planning and implementation of bandwidth intensive services they want to sell you. What they want is for you to only use bandwidth on data services that you have purchased from them. They are double dipping on this, and there is no other way to see it.
Okay, what if their "triple play" extra features went over a special network, just for their traffic... a sort of internal peering. No QoS, no shaping, no capping, just peering to their internal servers. Peering is a perfectly acceptable way of handling network traffic. Would you still be pissed if their VoIP services had 40-60ms less latency than their competitors?
Let's keep the definitions clear. I see no problem with peering. I see no problem with QoS, as long as it is applied evenly.
We need to be clear on what neutrality is. Neutrality should be about a company purposely punishing a competitor's traffic to their own advantage.
What do they mean by slowing? You can "slow" Bittorrent by shaping or by giving it less priority? Again, is this being confused on purpose? To what end? From my post on the Cox story:
One issue is over subscription. Unless a company is large enough to have lots and lots of peer connections, your ISP is probably over subscribes their upstream connections. This is fine, because on average traffic goes in bursts. The problem is that everything starts to break down once you have a small pool of people running P2P 24/7. These people are just as greedy as the ISP's they complain about. They want a huge "dedicated" pipe, but have others subsidize it. I have no issue with someone like Cox de-prioritizing their traffic so that the people that just want their Vonage to work don't get squashed out. This is a temporary solution because the ISP will eventually have to up their pipe speed.
The other issue is granting certain companies privileges on a network and penalizing other companies they don't like (e.g. penalize Vonage and prioritize a VoIP partner). This should be illegal. This is a clear case of violation of neutrality. At the same time, the company should be able to directly peer with a company (say a VoIP provider) without violating the law. This may seem unfair, but peering has been a perfectly valid way of reducing traffic on a transit connection.
The last issue is traffic caps. I don't think there should be a law against it as long as the company is upfront about it. Putting caps on traffic allows ISP's to maximize their over subscription and cater to people that want low cost Internet service. We *want* people to afford Internet services. The market chooses. If you are a big user of P2P, then you will have to go with another ISP that does not have caps. You may have to pay more for this privilege... sorry, but that is how things go. The market must have a way to manage scarcity of resources. If you want more of a resource, you will have to pay for it even it if looks the same (e.g. 5mbit from Cox versus 5mbit from FiOS).
Don't confuse QoS with net neutrality. As long as the QoS is applied equally, then it should be perfectly fine.
Yes, the technology could be the same, but let's keep the issues separate. After reading about this stuff for a while now it hit me that there is confusion. I am starting to wonder if the confusion is on purpose.
One issue is over subscription. Unless a company is large enough to have lots and lots of peer connections, your ISP is probably over subscribes their upstream connections. This is fine, because on average traffic goes in bursts. The problem is that everything starts to break down once you have a small pool of people running P2P 24/7. These people are just as greedy as the ISP's they complain about. They want a huge "dedicated" pipe, but have others subsidize it. I have no issue with someone like Cox de-prioritizing their traffic so that the people that just want their Vonage to work don't get squashed out. This is a temporary solution because the ISP will eventually have to up their pipe speed.
The other issue is granting certain companies privileges on a network and penalizing other companies they don't like (e.g. penalize Vonage and prioritize a VoIP partner). This should be illegal. This is a clear case of violation of neutrality. At the same time, the company should be able to directly peer with a company (say a VoIP provider) without violating the law. This may seem unfair, but peering has been a perfectly valid way of reducing traffic on a transit connection.
The last issue is traffic caps. I don't think there should be a law against it as long as the company is upfront about it. Putting caps on traffic allows ISP's to maximize their over subscription and cater to people that want low cost Internet service. We *want* people to afford Internet services. The market chooses. If you are a big user of P2P, then you will have to go with another ISP that does not have caps. You may have to pay more for this privilege... sorry, but that is how things go. The market must have a way to manage scarcity of resources. If you want more of a resource, you will have to pay for it even it if looks the same (e.g. 5mbit from Cox versus 5mbit from FiOS).
Don't confuse QoS with net neutrality. As long as the QoS is applied equally, then it should be perfectly fine.
Even big pipes can get congested. P2P programs can generate 100's of connections for each client. For VoIP, it is just a single connection. Why have the router process 2,000 packets of P2P for one connection of VoIP? The router should make sure time sensitive things like VoIP get the priority so people that use VoIP can use it without getting crammed out by P2P traffic
The people that browse and have Vonage expect the same level of service as someone that is running P2P 24-hours a day.
I think the discussion of net neutrality keeps getting confused. Maybe confused on purpose. For what reason I am not sure. It seems to me that making sure that, known, time sensitive traffice *should* get priority. Isn't that what TOS bits are for in the IP stack?
The article shows that law enforcement was using the FISA court to get warrants based on leads from the NSA. This would fall under the retroactive portion of the law.
Second of all, even if the FBI had information about some drug deal, they couldn't use it unless the court agreed that it was a valid use of the foreign intelligence program. Once the warrant is granted, the FBI could build a case against you.
Third, if you call or receive a call from someone that is a target of a wiretap, you certainly can get caught up in the case. Nothing new there. Have you been calling terrorists?
A court just recently affirmed the legality of it. Obama continues in the tradition.
The reality is that this stuff has done on for decades. The tradition is that any intelligence collected could not be used to build a case against a US citizen. It is not admissible in court. You cannot be prosecuted based on the intelligence.
Call Detail Records and metadata are owned by the telco's and are therefore proprietary and not private. They can do whatever they want with them.
The *only* thing that has changed is that the wall between the FBI and the NSA built during the Clinton administration was torn down. NSA/CIA can now give leads to the FBI that can be taken to a FISA court. The court can provide a retroactive warrant. Only after FISA court approval can the FBI and the Justice Department use the lead to build a case.
Metadata or Call Detail Records are proprietary -- not personal and private. They are owned by the communications companies, not by the subscriber. Since they own the data, they can do whatever they want with it -- including handing it over to the government. Metadata can also include the address of the subscriber. This does not require a warrant. By this tradition, triangulating where a cell phone is transmitting from would not require a warrant. The lat/long data could be generated by the phone company when you use their towers. They can do whatever they want with it.
If you run a web server, do you own the access log? Do the people browsing the content on your server own the log?
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, I should have left off the '2'
Are you sure you are not talking about ocfs2? ocfs2 was designed to run Oracle clusters.
btrfs's stated goal is to eventually replace ext2/3/4.
How many people died from the Three Mile incident? Chernobyl didn't have to happen. They purposely overrode the safeties to test a turbine. Chernobyl did not have secondary containment.
How many people die in coal mining every year? Based on those numbers alone, nuclear is an easy choice.
Well, well. Some truth about energy! Amazing. Lets take this a bit further and say that if certain groups haven't scared the hell out of people about nuclear, we wouldn't have so many coal plants in the US. We could be selling the coal to other countries. :)
I wish these people would live in places where this kind of regulation is normal. Can they move to Cuba? How about moving to Sweden or some of those ex-Soviet states that still think in terms of what is best for the state?
This has to be the most offensive thing I will read today. The idea that the government can tell a person what color their car can be should deeply offend every American, even those living in California.
... and schools. Parents don't teach their kids that some things are just simply part of life. You have to do it whether you like it or not. You have to do it even if you don't get an allowance or a gold star. Some things are worth doing even if you don't feel good about doing it.
Schools affirm this by removing competition and focus on making sure kids feel good about themselves. This is reflected in a recent survey where US kids scored lower on things like math, but felt that had done well on the test. Non-US students felt that they had not done well on the test, but scored higher. In other words, stupid US kids feel really good about themselves. Heck, they've been rewarded not for getting things right, but for trying! Why wouldn't they expect to get constant affirmation in the professional world?
Bring back competition. Bring back winning and loosing. Bring back hard work. Dump the ego-centric psychology.
Alternatives to *embryonic* stem cells are in medical trials right now. It is called adult stem cells and something like 80 real-world trials are happening right now. One of the first uses of adult stem cells goes back a few years, it is known as "bone marrow transplant."
I don't think I have heard of a single clinical trial using embryonic stem cells. That is why embryonic stem cells need government subsidies. The real money is in treatments that have hope of working.
The problem with net neutrality is that there is no definition of it. I am against net neutrality for this reason. I fear that whatever law is passed will be overreaching. Then, all a company has to do is setup more peering on their network, which is a perfectly valid thing to do, to get around the law.
Personally, if I am buying VoIP from my ISP, I *want* them to guarantee that VoIP traffic gets priority. Since they are terminating it within their network, they can control the QoS from my PBX to their gateways. That is a *good* thing. I specifically choose an ISP for a company because the ISP provided gateways within their network.
The only definition of net neutrality should be that QoS has to be applied equally. Even this that rule, the ISP could still give their VoIP traffic better quality by putting their VoIP traffic on a VoIP-only network and telling all their routers about it.
The Republicans probably want to see business starting to use the spectrum and getting rid of the redundancy of analog and digital transmissions. This would then create a new or exapand an existing segment of the economy -- creating jobs.
The Democrats are worried that a minority of people (poor, minorities, etc) will be oppressed by greedy businesses wanting to make use of the spectrum. People need to be protected from this greed. The government should hold their hand until they are able to veg out on the new digital transmissions.
See? Both sides are voting their conscience.
Verizon is deploying GPON or Gigabit Passive Optical Network. The Ethernet port on the Optical Network Terminator outside my house is labels 1000Mbit. My area was lit 4 months ago. That means it was something like 5 years for Verizon to get to my area of Los Angeles... not for lack of effort.
It takes a long time to pull that much fiber.
How much do T1s cost these days? Isn't it still in the hundreds?
Yup.
You can get a T1 anywhere. You can have transit on the T1 from anyone you choose. Yes, it's expensive, but you do have that choice.
Keep a look out for 2Base-TL or "metro Ethernet over copper." The footprint is small right now, but it allows for reliable highspeed Internet anywhere DSL is offered. Unlike DSL, it is business class and is unlikely to have filtering or caps.
You can get a T1. Everyone can get a T1. Yes, it's pricey, but you can pick and choose where your transit comes from.
As far as I know, you can get a T1 anywhere. Get a few and setup your own wireless ISP for your neighbors.
My understanding is that, currently, routers don't work this way. They pass each packet more or less equally (some ToS bits) as it comes in. A single customer running P2P can monopolize the traffic on a router. The P2P customer gets 90 out 100 packets coming in and the VoIP customer gets 10 of the 100. ToS change things up a bit, but not enough to balance out how much point to point traffic a P2P program can generate.
What you are talking about is a router that looks at all the IP's or customers (if a customer has more than one IP) and gives each customer an equal slice. The effect could be that the P2P traffic would be slowed down. Do the Google tools point out a "fair" slowing down or all slowing down?
Define slowing.
You have choices. How much are you willing to spend? I bet you a T1 provider won't cap you, but you have to pay for that privilege.
You could go with:
o Dial up (blazing 56kbps)
o DSL
o ISDN BRI (128kbps baby!)
o T1
o Satellite
So what? Yes, they want to manage costs. So does everyone. They have a business model, if you don't like it, go with someone else. If you think you have a better idea, then build out your own ISP and compete with them.
The end game on that is a lose-lose proposition. When dial-up was still popular this over-subscribed broadband plan was workable.
It still is workable.
The traffic generated by file sharing, email, web browsing etc. could be handled in this manner. The trouble is that ISPs did not update or upgrade the 'tubes' to handle the traffic that they themselves intended on selling to users.
They have, maybe not as big an upgrade as you want, but they have had to compete with other ISP's offering 6Mbit, etc.
All this crap about bundled services (triple-play and Quadruple-play) for the last 5 years is about ISP's selling you streaming content and high-bandwidth content. To claim that they need to 'manage congestion' while trying to sell data content is absolute BS.
No it isn't. An ISP's VoIP and video is most likely going to stay inside their network where they can control the QoS and never touch their transit links where they cannot control the overall QoS. As long as the QoS is applied evenly, no problem. Don't confuse the issue!
P2P can also degrade cable networks where a neighborhood is contending for a small uplink speed.
What they want is carte blanche to tell you what data you are allowed to send and receive. period. no arguing.
This is the real issue.
We tend to forget that they have this plan to sell you streaming data that has to fit in the same damned pipes as the data you are using now, that they claim are not big enough to handle some file sharing. I call bullshit. The ISPs cannot force the Internet to be how it used to be. Rich Internet content, web 2.0, streaming content... all of this is ruining their original over-subscription network configuration plan.
But they can, for the average user. It is only when you get a group of heavy P2P users flooding pipes and routers does it become a problem. Why should the casual use subsidize your 24/7 P2P traffic? You are being just as greedy as the ISP. The ISP should cap you... as long as they were upfront about it. If you don't like it, go to another ISP have has bigger transit connections. You might pay more, but that is how things go.
Now, the very same ISPs that are complaining about congestion are fully into planning and implementation of bandwidth intensive services they want to sell you. What they want is for you to only use bandwidth on data services that you have purchased from them. They are double dipping on this, and there is no other way to see it.
Okay, what if their "triple play" extra features went over a special network, just for their traffic... a sort of internal peering. No QoS, no shaping, no capping, just peering to their internal servers. Peering is a perfectly acceptable way of handling network traffic. Would you still be pissed if their VoIP services had 40-60ms less latency than their competitors?
Let's keep the definitions clear. I see no problem with peering. I see no problem with QoS, as long as it is applied evenly.
We need to be clear on what neutrality is. Neutrality should be about a company purposely punishing a competitor's traffic to their own advantage.
What do they mean by slowing? You can "slow" Bittorrent by shaping or by giving it less priority? Again, is this being confused on purpose? To what end? From my post on the Cox story:
One issue is over subscription. Unless a company is large enough to have lots and lots of peer connections, your ISP is probably over subscribes their upstream connections. This is fine, because on average traffic goes in bursts. The problem is that everything starts to break down once you have a small pool of people running P2P 24/7. These people are just as greedy as the ISP's they complain about. They want a huge "dedicated" pipe, but have others subsidize it. I have no issue with someone like Cox de-prioritizing their traffic so that the people that just want their Vonage to work don't get squashed out. This is a temporary solution because the ISP will eventually have to up their pipe speed.
The other issue is granting certain companies privileges on a network and penalizing other companies they don't like (e.g. penalize Vonage and prioritize a VoIP partner). This should be illegal. This is a clear case of violation of neutrality. At the same time, the company should be able to directly peer with a company (say a VoIP provider) without violating the law. This may seem unfair, but peering has been a perfectly valid way of reducing traffic on a transit connection.
The last issue is traffic caps. I don't think there should be a law against it as long as the company is upfront about it. Putting caps on traffic allows ISP's to maximize their over subscription and cater to people that want low cost Internet service. We *want* people to afford Internet services. The market chooses. If you are a big user of P2P, then you will have to go with another ISP that does not have caps. You may have to pay more for this privilege... sorry, but that is how things go. The market must have a way to manage scarcity of resources. If you want more of a resource, you will have to pay for it even it if looks the same (e.g. 5mbit from Cox versus 5mbit from FiOS).
Don't confuse QoS with net neutrality. As long as the QoS is applied equally, then it should be perfectly fine.
Yes, the technology could be the same, but let's keep the issues separate. After reading about this stuff for a while now it hit me that there is confusion. I am starting to wonder if the confusion is on purpose.
One issue is over subscription. Unless a company is large enough to have lots and lots of peer connections, your ISP is probably over subscribes their upstream connections. This is fine, because on average traffic goes in bursts. The problem is that everything starts to break down once you have a small pool of people running P2P 24/7. These people are just as greedy as the ISP's they complain about. They want a huge "dedicated" pipe, but have others subsidize it. I have no issue with someone like Cox de-prioritizing their traffic so that the people that just want their Vonage to work don't get squashed out. This is a temporary solution because the ISP will eventually have to up their pipe speed.
The other issue is granting certain companies privileges on a network and penalizing other companies they don't like (e.g. penalize Vonage and prioritize a VoIP partner). This should be illegal. This is a clear case of violation of neutrality. At the same time, the company should be able to directly peer with a company (say a VoIP provider) without violating the law. This may seem unfair, but peering has been a perfectly valid way of reducing traffic on a transit connection.
The last issue is traffic caps. I don't think there should be a law against it as long as the company is upfront about it. Putting caps on traffic allows ISP's to maximize their over subscription and cater to people that want low cost Internet service. We *want* people to afford Internet services. The market chooses. If you are a big user of P2P, then you will have to go with another ISP that does not have caps. You may have to pay more for this privilege... sorry, but that is how things go. The market must have a way to manage scarcity of resources. If you want more of a resource, you will have to pay for it even it if looks the same (e.g. 5mbit from Cox versus 5mbit from FiOS).
Don't confuse QoS with net neutrality. As long as the QoS is applied equally, then it should be perfectly fine.
Even big pipes can get congested. P2P programs can generate 100's of connections for each client. For VoIP, it is just a single connection. Why have the router process 2,000 packets of P2P for one connection of VoIP? The router should make sure time sensitive things like VoIP get the priority so people that use VoIP can use it without getting crammed out by P2P traffic
The people that browse and have Vonage expect the same level of service as someone that is running P2P 24-hours a day.
I think the discussion of net neutrality keeps getting confused. Maybe confused on purpose. For what reason I am not sure. It seems to me that making sure that, known, time sensitive traffice *should* get priority. Isn't that what TOS bits are for in the IP stack?
Actually, some of the FISA court judges did not agree with using NSA leads in granting warrants. See:
Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data
The article shows that law enforcement was using the FISA court to get warrants based on leads from the NSA. This would fall under the retroactive portion of the law.
Second of all, even if the FBI had information about some drug deal, they couldn't use it unless the court agreed that it was a valid use of the foreign intelligence program. Once the warrant is granted, the FBI could build a case against you.
Third, if you call or receive a call from someone that is a target of a wiretap, you certainly can get caught up in the case. Nothing new there. Have you been calling terrorists?
It was politics all along.
A court just recently affirmed the legality of it. Obama continues in the tradition.
The reality is that this stuff has done on for decades. The tradition is that any intelligence collected could not be used to build a case against a US citizen. It is not admissible in court. You cannot be prosecuted based on the intelligence.
Call Detail Records and metadata are owned by the telco's and are therefore proprietary and not private. They can do whatever they want with them.
The *only* thing that has changed is that the wall between the FBI and the NSA built during the Clinton administration was torn down. NSA/CIA can now give leads to the FBI that can be taken to a FISA court. The court can provide a retroactive warrant. Only after FISA court approval can the FBI and the Justice Department use the lead to build a case.
Metadata or Call Detail Records are proprietary -- not personal and private. They are owned by the communications companies, not by the subscriber. Since they own the data, they can do whatever they want with it -- including handing it over to the government. Metadata can also include the address of the subscriber. This does not require a warrant. By this tradition, triangulating where a cell phone is transmitting from would not require a warrant. The lat/long data could be generated by the phone company when you use their towers. They can do whatever they want with it.
If you run a web server, do you own the access log? Do the people browsing the content on your server own the log?