SD card MB blanking plates exist where you can throw a microSD card in there for secondary storage, which is quite useful since you can get 256GB and 512GB cards in there to back up or use on machines that were speced with smaller storage or when you run out of space. What can you do to internalize secondary storage now? Nothing.
I'm pretty sure you just nailed the real reason they removed the slot.
Thank you! I've been posting this for years now and you're the first person to actually acknowledge it.
Incidentally, I just got a call from my local DMV office to remind me of an appointment I have later this week. I didn't answer because they user the international format for their DID, so I assumed it was a scammer because, well, most calls from 800 numbers are scams and this one made itself look extra suspicious. If they hadn't left a message, I wouldn't have known who called in order to call back to confirm.
This wouldn't be a problem and I'd have answered the call if not for the prevalence of illegitimate DID spoofing.
This. And every time the subject comes up, I propose that carriers should only automatically allow a company's PBX to request the display of a number that also appears on the same bill as the number placing the call.
There would have to be some manual verification process to cover cases where several companies share a number (for example, a contract customer service call center) or one company uses numbers from several providers, since these would not appear on the same bill. That should be as simple as dialing a * code, perhaps *24 (*CI, for Caller ID), which then prompts you for the number you would like to add to your available list and a 4 digit PIN. That system would then call that number with a brief explanation of what the call was about and request the PIN. PINs mach? Call added to list. No match? No add. You'd have to get a few tries during that one call. because it shouldn't allow more than one attempt per week in order to keep people from using the automated call as a form of harassment.
Performing the above verification should allow the number to be used by any line on the bill, not just the line that called it, as there are often hundreds or thousands of lines that may need to use that number for inbound calls within an organization.
Current switching equipment should be able to handle this already. Implement. Problem solved.
Hell, the use of a number not on your bill could be something providers charge monthly, and per number, for. If they don't think they can profit more from fixing this than they do from letting it slide, they're not being creative enough. And I've read my fucking bill. I know they're creative.
Did you time a lengthy 3D rendering process or something that taxed the CPU for more than 5 minutes? My MBP is a secondary machine, despite being less than 2 years old. because anything that pegs the CPU for more than a few minutes causes it to thermal-throttle itself back to Pentium 4 speeds. I bet that's not the case with the, larger and heavier due to having proper cooling, Lenovo. That said, the MSI gaming laptop I bought 9mo after the MBP, which is actually a 6mo older model than the MBP, blows it out of the water in all aspects. It's a actually thinner and lighter, and has a faster, better GPU (GTX 970) with more VRAM (6GB), faster PCIe SSD RAID and supplemental HDD for bulk storage, and a higher resolution and larger display (4k @ 17" vs 2880x1800 @ 15"), in form-factor that's only 1" wider and 1/2" deeper than the MBP to accommodate the larger display. Oh, also, user-replaceable RAM. And it runs cooler at full-tilt than the MBP does at idle.
No Linux vendor wants to pay for the certification, but most mainstream Linux distros follow the standards and could be certified for a price. This is the problem with pay-for-certification programs.
If your software bypasses the kernel it doesn't matter what OS you run it on and, well, what OS you run really shouldn't matter to custom hardware, either. You can get faster hardware than anything you can get in a Mac and shave off a few more microseconds, you know.
Oh, for sure. There were never enough moderators and the few there were were too lax in their duties until the well of shit overflowed and, now, no amount of moderation can save it, I believe.
Oh, how I wish that was true. More hipsters would die trying to perform the body mod themselves because having a brain surgeon do it is too mainstream, and the world would be such a better place.
I don't think he was defending Twitter so much as defending peoples' right to commit the grand error of using Twitter. He even, later, said as much; he believes Twitter should die, but a natural death, one borne of people realizing it sucks, rather than one borne of a few script kiddies attacking it and taking away the freedom of choice that others currently enjoy.
In other words, Twitter should die because we, as a society, exercised our freedom of choice to stop using it, not because a few assholes exerted force to take that choice away from us.
What's funny is... as bad as people thought 4chan was 6 years ago, it's so much worse now. At least there was some substance to some of what's posted there, at some point... Now? Not so much. The best of 4chan has moved on and the worst has multiplied itself. I still browse there on occasion, much for the same reason I still browse here: hope that the good will come return. Not that there was ever that much good on 4chan to begin with, but what there was was really good.
Well, I was going to be done with you, but you've finally made clear which part of this you aren't understanding.
Deprioritized packets = inferior quality usage to what one would otherwise have received at the time.
Wrong. When there is no congestion, priority doesn't have any effect and it doesn't matter of you're at the front of the queue or the back. However, when there is congestion, if left unmanaged it causes packet loss as more packets try to fit through the "pipe" than can actually fit, which leads to retransmits; that is, everyone's talking and trying to be heard, bot nobody can really hear anyone else, so everyone keeps repeating themselves. All of this just exacerbates the congestion, as more and more packets are dropped and begin the re-send cycle. It's a snowball effect, at first it's just one dropped packet being resent, so that packet has now been sent twice, but in that time 10 more packets were dropped and must be re-sent; and some of those re-sent packets will get dropped, so they'll have to be sent a 3rd time, maybe a 4th or a 5th, until you've got so many packets not making it through that the bulk of your traffic is retransmits. Eventually, those retransmits will exceed the available bandwidth (on top of new traffic which is already exceeding that physical limit) and the majority of those will be dropped, as well.
In that situation, once the snowball has gotten itself rolling, nobody gets any of their data until everyone shuts up and lets the noise die down. And nobody is coordinating to allow that to happen, so it never does unless network management is applied, to force the issue.
By queuing the packets of some users, you prevent this contention for bandwidth and avoid the dropped packets and eventual retransmit storm.
To be clear: left unmanaged, heavy users get nothing (just like everyone else) on a congested node; managed, they get the data they request.
Did you, after I've explained it several times, honestly not understand that? Or are you attempting to claim an unusable connection is of superior quality to one that is stable and usable?
And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.
Whereas, with properly implemented QoS, as we have here, nobody's usage suffers during periods of high or low congestion.
I'm done trying to educate you, though; you simply do not want to learn, because to do so would require you to admit you were wrong. Peruse my posting history and see what that looks like.
What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for.
I'm not missing that at all, actually. As I've stated previously, deprioritization increases the overall available bandwidth by eliminating retransmits caused be contention; that is, it stops people from having to talk over each other and repeat themselves, so everyone can talk, hear, and be heard. Without it, when there is congestion, throughout quickly approaches zero, for everyone; with it, everyone gets their data.
It's a logical fact that some (and I mean explicitly some, not all) users must be deprioritized when there is contention over limited available bandwidth (e.g. congestion) in order for the network to remain usable. If you deprioritize every user equally, you may as well have done nothing, the contention remains, and nobody can use the resource.
You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.
And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.
That is a limit. Properly implemented QoS, which is what T-Mobile has here, is a workaround for that limit.
You very clearly aren't capable of understanding this. Again, I don't fault you for that, it's not something that's obvious (or, really, believable) unless you've actually seen it in action as I have. I'd say we should just agree to disagree, but I can't do that with someone whose opinion is based on a factually incorrect understanding.
What you're missing, the point I'm really trying to drive home, is that deprioritizing heavier users increases available bandwidth for everyone, even the heavy users. This is true because it frees up bandwidth that would be wasted by the contention it prevents.
A limit, in the context of a service, is something that reduces your ability to utilize the service. This increases your ability to do so, regardless of which side of the queue you are on, ergo not a limit.
You're always affected by the contention control, you never transfer so much as a single byte without it. You benefit from it when you're not the one being deprioritized, by being placed ahead of those who are; and you benefit from it when you are being deprioritized, by actually having available bandwidth due to the contention control being implemented in the first place.
I'll repeat: contention control actually effectively increases the limit of overall available bandwidth (e.g. you get faster speeds no matter which side of the priority queue you're on) by preventing people from talking over each other and causing massive floods of retransmitted packets.
I would agree with you if anyone were receiving worse service as a result, but the reality is quite the opposite.
I'm not sure how many different ways I can word that, but I feel as though I'm just repeating myself at this point. Since I'm already repeating myself:
If you've never implemented proper QoS on a congested network and seen the immediate impact it had on the traffic flow, this isn't something that is obvious to most people, so i fully understand how you might think it's a limit of sorts, but the reality is that it enables all users to effectively get their data instead of flooding the data with retransmitted packets as everyone attempts to talk over everyone else.
It's literally the opposite of a limit; it enables everyone to use more data. Period.
when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize
Funny, I routinely hit 50+GB and have never run into an imposed limit. The limit is that of the network itself, a physical one, minus everyone else's traffic. Implementing some form of contention control ensures that I'm consistently able to access what many people refuse to accept as a scarce resource.
It's not like wireline or fiber, where you just run more cables and everything is good; wireless bandwidth is, really and truly, a scarce resource. Network management is not limiting usage, it's enabling it. That some ISPs *cough*Comcast*cough*AT&T*cough*Time Warner*cough* implement usage limits and hard throttling and call it network management does not make it so.
The reality is that T-Mobile queues the packets of heavier users behind those of lighter users, but it does not drop or refuse those packets (not that would be a limit), and it does deliver them before connections time out (save for network issues, where they would time out regardless of priority).
I get what you're saying, though. I do. It's just logically impossible. You want everyone to be deprioritized equally when there's congestion and, well, if everyone starts out at the highest priority and they, simultaneously, all drop to the lowest priority, they're all still the same priority, there is no hierarchy, everyone's still equal, there's still contention and everyone is still trying to talk over everyone else and the network is still completely unusable.
I'm sure there are providers who do this. Go find one, switch to them, and tell me you still want that.
So you'd rather have contention prevent anyone from using the service, rather than network management that allows everyone to use it?
From your previous posts, it seems as though you think there's a speed limit or throttle placed on users exceeding 26GB when this is, in fact, not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
SD card MB blanking plates exist where you can throw a microSD card in there for secondary storage, which is quite useful since you can get 256GB and 512GB cards in there to back up or use on machines that were speced with smaller storage or when you run out of space. What can you do to internalize secondary storage now? Nothing.
I'm pretty sure you just nailed the real reason they removed the slot.
Thank you! I've been posting this for years now and you're the first person to actually acknowledge it.
Incidentally, I just got a call from my local DMV office to remind me of an appointment I have later this week. I didn't answer because they user the international format for their DID, so I assumed it was a scammer because, well, most calls from 800 numbers are scams and this one made itself look extra suspicious. If they hadn't left a message, I wouldn't have known who called in order to call back to confirm.
This wouldn't be a problem and I'd have answered the call if not for the prevalence of illegitimate DID spoofing.
This. And every time the subject comes up, I propose that carriers should only automatically allow a company's PBX to request the display of a number that also appears on the same bill as the number placing the call.
There would have to be some manual verification process to cover cases where several companies share a number (for example, a contract customer service call center) or one company uses numbers from several providers, since these would not appear on the same bill. That should be as simple as dialing a * code, perhaps *24 (*CI, for Caller ID), which then prompts you for the number you would like to add to your available list and a 4 digit PIN. That system would then call that number with a brief explanation of what the call was about and request the PIN. PINs mach? Call added to list. No match? No add. You'd have to get a few tries during that one call. because it shouldn't allow more than one attempt per week in order to keep people from using the automated call as a form of harassment.
Performing the above verification should allow the number to be used by any line on the bill, not just the line that called it, as there are often hundreds or thousands of lines that may need to use that number for inbound calls within an organization.
Current switching equipment should be able to handle this already. Implement. Problem solved.
Hell, the use of a number not on your bill could be something providers charge monthly, and per number, for. If they don't think they can profit more from fixing this than they do from letting it slide, they're not being creative enough. And I've read my fucking bill. I know they're creative.
has a faster, better GPU
should read
has a faster CPU, better GPU
Did you time a lengthy 3D rendering process or something that taxed the CPU for more than 5 minutes? My MBP is a secondary machine, despite being less than 2 years old. because anything that pegs the CPU for more than a few minutes causes it to thermal-throttle itself back to Pentium 4 speeds. I bet that's not the case with the, larger and heavier due to having proper cooling, Lenovo. That said, the MSI gaming laptop I bought 9mo after the MBP, which is actually a 6mo older model than the MBP, blows it out of the water in all aspects. It's a actually thinner and lighter, and has a faster, better GPU (GTX 970) with more VRAM (6GB), faster PCIe SSD RAID and supplemental HDD for bulk storage, and a higher resolution and larger display (4k @ 17" vs 2880x1800 @ 15"), in form-factor that's only 1" wider and 1/2" deeper than the MBP to accommodate the larger display. Oh, also, user-replaceable RAM. And it runs cooler at full-tilt than the MBP does at idle.
Price? $800 less than the MBP.
+1, nailed it
No Linux vendor wants to pay for the certification, but most mainstream Linux distros follow the standards and could be certified for a price. This is the problem with pay-for-certification programs.
If your software bypasses the kernel it doesn't matter what OS you run it on and, well, what OS you run really shouldn't matter to custom hardware, either. You can get faster hardware than anything you can get in a Mac and shave off a few more microseconds, you know.
Oh, for sure. There were never enough moderators and the few there were were too lax in their duties until the well of shit overflowed and, now, no amount of moderation can save it, I believe.
It's pretty simple, really. When the big players are so easy to take down, what hope is there for mom and pop?
He wasn't condoning anything, just answering the simple question that was asked: What did these companies do wrong?
Oh, how I wish that was true. More hipsters would die trying to perform the body mod themselves because having a brain surgeon do it is too mainstream, and the world would be such a better place.
I don't think he was defending Twitter so much as defending peoples' right to commit the grand error of using Twitter. He even, later, said as much; he believes Twitter should die, but a natural death, one borne of people realizing it sucks, rather than one borne of a few script kiddies attacking it and taking away the freedom of choice that others currently enjoy.
In other words, Twitter should die because we, as a society, exercised our freedom of choice to stop using it, not because a few assholes exerted force to take that choice away from us.
And he doesn't even realize he was enjoying great freedom in doing so.
What's funny is... as bad as people thought 4chan was 6 years ago, it's so much worse now. At least there was some substance to some of what's posted there, at some point... Now? Not so much. The best of 4chan has moved on and the worst has multiplied itself. I still browse there on occasion, much for the same reason I still browse here: hope that the good will come return. Not that there was ever that much good on 4chan to begin with, but what there was was really good.
Deprioritized packets = inferior quality usage to what one would otherwise have received at the time.
Wrong. When there is no congestion, priority doesn't have any effect and it doesn't matter of you're at the front of the queue or the back. However, when there is congestion, if left unmanaged it causes packet loss as more packets try to fit through the "pipe" than can actually fit, which leads to retransmits; that is, everyone's talking and trying to be heard, bot nobody can really hear anyone else, so everyone keeps repeating themselves. All of this just exacerbates the congestion, as more and more packets are dropped and begin the re-send cycle. It's a snowball effect, at first it's just one dropped packet being resent, so that packet has now been sent twice, but in that time 10 more packets were dropped and must be re-sent; and some of those re-sent packets will get dropped, so they'll have to be sent a 3rd time, maybe a 4th or a 5th, until you've got so many packets not making it through that the bulk of your traffic is retransmits. Eventually, those retransmits will exceed the available bandwidth (on top of new traffic which is already exceeding that physical limit) and the majority of those will be dropped, as well.
In that situation, once the snowball has gotten itself rolling, nobody gets any of their data until everyone shuts up and lets the noise die down. And nobody is coordinating to allow that to happen, so it never does unless network management is applied, to force the issue.
By queuing the packets of some users, you prevent this contention for bandwidth and avoid the dropped packets and eventual retransmit storm.
To be clear: left unmanaged, heavy users get nothing (just like everyone else) on a congested node; managed, they get the data they request.
Did you, after I've explained it several times, honestly not understand that? Or are you attempting to claim an unusable connection is of superior quality to one that is stable and usable?
And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.
Whereas, with properly implemented QoS, as we have here, nobody's usage suffers during periods of high or low congestion.
I'm done trying to educate you, though; you simply do not want to learn, because to do so would require you to admit you were wrong. Peruse my posting history and see what that looks like.
What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for.
I'm not missing that at all, actually. As I've stated previously, deprioritization increases the overall available bandwidth by eliminating retransmits caused be contention; that is, it stops people from having to talk over each other and repeat themselves, so everyone can talk, hear, and be heard. Without it, when there is congestion, throughout quickly approaches zero, for everyone; with it, everyone gets their data.
It's a logical fact that some (and I mean explicitly some, not all) users must be deprioritized when there is contention over limited available bandwidth (e.g. congestion) in order for the network to remain usable. If you deprioritize every user equally, you may as well have done nothing, the contention remains, and nobody can use the resource.
You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.
And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.
That is a limit. Properly implemented QoS, which is what T-Mobile has here, is a workaround for that limit.
You very clearly aren't capable of understanding this. Again, I don't fault you for that, it's not something that's obvious (or, really, believable) unless you've actually seen it in action as I have. I'd say we should just agree to disagree, but I can't do that with someone whose opinion is based on a factually incorrect understanding.
It appears we're at an impasse, here.
What you're missing, the point I'm really trying to drive home, is that deprioritizing heavier users increases available bandwidth for everyone, even the heavy users . This is true because it frees up bandwidth that would be wasted by the contention it prevents.
A limit, in the context of a service, is something that reduces your ability to utilize the service. This increases your ability to do so, regardless of which side of the queue you are on, ergo not a limit.
I'll repeat: contention control actually effectively increases the limit of overall available bandwidth (e.g. you get faster speeds no matter which side of the priority queue you're on) by preventing people from talking over each other and causing massive floods of retransmitted packets.
I would agree with you if anyone were receiving worse service as a result, but the reality is quite the opposite.
I'm not sure how many different ways I can word that, but I feel as though I'm just repeating myself at this point. Since I'm already repeating myself:
If you've never implemented proper QoS on a congested network and seen the immediate impact it had on the traffic flow, this isn't something that is obvious to most people, so i fully understand how you might think it's a limit of sorts, but the reality is that it enables all users to effectively get their data instead of flooding the data with retransmitted packets as everyone attempts to talk over everyone else.
It's literally the opposite of a limit; it enables everyone to use more data. Period.
A duck always quacks. A mallard always quacks.
A throttle always slows your connection. Deprioritization queues some packets behind others, but results in faster speeds for all users.
This is not a duck.
when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize
Funny, I routinely hit 50+GB and have never run into an imposed limit. The limit is that of the network itself, a physical one, minus everyone else's traffic. Implementing some form of contention control ensures that I'm consistently able to access what many people refuse to accept as a scarce resource.
It's not like wireline or fiber, where you just run more cables and everything is good; wireless bandwidth is, really and truly, a scarce resource. Network management is not limiting usage, it's enabling it. That some ISPs *cough*Comcast*cough*AT&T*cough*Time Warner*cough* implement usage limits and hard throttling and call it network management does not make it so.
The reality is that T-Mobile queues the packets of heavier users behind those of lighter users, but it does not drop or refuse those packets (not that would be a limit), and it does deliver them before connections time out (save for network issues, where they would time out regardless of priority).
I get what you're saying, though. I do. It's just logically impossible. You want everyone to be deprioritized equally when there's congestion and, well, if everyone starts out at the highest priority and they, simultaneously, all drop to the lowest priority, they're all still the same priority, there is no hierarchy, everyone's still equal, there's still contention and everyone is still trying to talk over everyone else and the network is still completely unusable.
I'm sure there are providers who do this. Go find one, switch to them, and tell me you still want that.
So you'd rather have contention prevent anyone from using the service, rather than network management that allows everyone to use it?
From your previous posts, it seems as though you think there's a speed limit or throttle placed on users exceeding 26GB when this is, in fact, not the case.
Likewise here. It affected me for an hour the first month I was with T-Mobile, several years ago; then, I upgraded to unlimited.
"flooding the network"... heh..