Replace "Comcast users" with "customers of ISPs who have partnered with Netflix to provide content" and I'm on board. As it is, those of us with non-asshole providers already get more bang for our buck, because we can access SuperHD content and typically don't deal with the dropped connections users of other ISPs have to face, as a result of the content being served locally.
AT&T doesn't want this, though, because they don't want to reduce incoming traffic (which they could do by letting Netflix put their equipment in AT&T's facilities, which they'll do free of charge), they just want to charge more for it.
That's all fine and dandy; then AT&T customers who want access to that content can move to another provider. My ISP was literally the first on board for SuperHD peering; Netflix provides the equipment, the uplink (bandwidth), and the content, at no cost to their peer, why should they be paying to provide this?
But, that's not actually the issue here. AT&T wants Netflix to pay them for their data that hits the AT&T network via their peering agreement with Cogent. Figure that one out... Netflix pays Cogent, AT&T users pat AT&T, AT&T peers with Cogent; if there's an imbalance in that peering agreement, that's between AT&T and Cogent, not AT&T and Cogent's customer.
Cogent doesn't want to pay the transit fee. If they had to pay the transit fee, they'd have to pass that along to Netflix, and Netflix would have to raise the rates they charge their subscribers.
And that would be fine, honestly. AT&T wants Netflix to foot the bill for this, when in reality, as far as AT&T's peering is concerned, the data is coming from Cogent and Netflix may or may not even exist. That's what the problem is.
It's inconsequential that Netflix will ultimately pay for the bandwidth; the point is that Cogent should pay AT&T and Netflix should pay Cogent; Netflix should not ay AT&T, nor should AT&T expect them to.
Right and that peering would be between AT&T and Netflix's provider, not AT&T and Netflix. Netflix pays their provider already; if, as a result of the peering imbalance, Netflix ends up costing their provider more, then it is up to that provider to negotiate a better contract with Netflix to compensate for that. AT&T should never collect a penny from Netflix unless Netflix is connecting directly to AT&T's network.
To put it another way, peering only considers one level when determining where a packet originates. That is to say, it doesn't matter of Bob passed the packet off to Joe to pass along to Mary, as far as Mary is concerned, the packet came from Joe; as far as Joe is concerned, yes, the packet did come from Bob, but Mary didn't accept the packet from Bob, Joe did, so Joe gets to charge Bob for the delivery and Mary gets to charge Joe for the acceptance. Bob and Mary don't even need to be aware of each other.
Appropriate? Yes. Correct? Almost. When the data is on Netflix's network, it's in a Netflix truck. When it reaches their provider's router, it gets moved into their provider's truck and they pay their provider to deliver it to the end user. When it arrives at, say AT&T's network, in the Netflix's provider's truck, it is the provider, and not Netflix, who is asking AT&T to complete the delivery; and Netflix's provider is paying AT&T to do this.
Think of it like FedEx SmartPost. You drop the package off with FedEx, who passes it off to USPS, who then delivers to your recipient. You don't pay USPS for their leg of the delivery, FedEx does.
It would the the flipside of what AT&T is doing here, and it would be just as wrong. I'd be cool with it if they both agreed to pay each other, though; the amounts would zero out and we'd be right back where we started. Well, except for the higher prices we'd all have to bear to cover the cost of them invoicing and paying each other for nothing. But, then, they'd agree, behind closed doors, to forgo that whole process and keep the inflated billing rates, after the fact.
And they pay for that bandwidth. And the providers they pay either peer with, or purchase bandwidth from the providers between you and them. Why should that bandwidth be paid for twice? There is no problem here. Honestly, there's not. That's why it hasn't been solved yet.
Your customers pay you, as their provider, Netflix pays their provider, and it's between you and their provider to determine who, if anyone, pays who, based on the flow of traffic.
You didn't contest the sentiment of my post, you failed to understand it. I never called for a war on douchebags. Keep reading until that thought falls from your head. Also, how many Feminists do you know? Actual Feminists, not whiny "I'm a Feminist, I'm a strong, empowered, female" bitches, because those aren't Feminists.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this post, but it sure sounds like a whole lot of "we'll never get everyone on board, so there's no point in anyone getting on board". When you recognize the first half of my post as satire (I mean "but we all have to get on board and do it", come on -- if it were that simple, we'd have no social ills whatsoever, right?), the rest, after the list, should just fall right into place for you.
This is the first time I've been called out for doing too much, though. Thanks, it's nice to see the flipside of the coin, for once.
Until women are treated as equals in all aspects of life where physical differences don't preclude that possibility, Feminism will be necessary. If you want to take any and all power from the Feminist movement, it can be done in a few simple steps, but we all have to get on board and do it. Here's how:
Treat all women with respect based on the merits of their actions. If you would respect a man for acting a certain way, respect a woman just the same. Likewise, if you would lose respect for a man acting a certain way, a woman acting the same way should also lose your respect.
Provide the same level of assistance to a woman that you would to a man; expect the same response from both. That is, hold doors for both nearby men and women, expect a "Thank you" from both. If you would do something for a man, do that thing for a women, but, if you would rather teach a man how to do it himself, likewise teach a woman.
If you cling to the magazine-cover ideal of a woman, stop. First of all, none of that is real, so you're only alienating the women in your life by lusting after that image. Second, none of that is real, so you'll only ever be net with disappointment. Letting go of it is a win-win.
As long as Feminism is necessary, as long as the movement by and far has a point, and they very well do, those of us who do treat women as our equals will still be called out by the "fake" Feminists as not doing enough, because we don't respect all women equally, we don't go out of our way to "raise up" the weaker women, and we still hold on to societal ideals of what a woman should look like. Well, the flipside of that is that we don't respect all men equally or "raise up" the weaker men, and we most certainly still cling to societal ideal of what a man should look like. Once we're able to honestly apply the same measures for respect to both men and women, truly provide the same level of aid and assistance to both men and women, and admit that both genders hold ideals for the appearance of the other which are neither realistic, nor healthy, true Feminists will be satisfied and the whiny bitches from my previous post lose their teeth.
Then, and only then, does it become acceptable to call a girl a girl, a woman a woman, and a bitch a bitch. And we all know there are bitches out there that make even the most empowered Feminist wish there were a third gender to assign to them; just like we have douchebags, who do nothing but serve to make all men look like woman-users.
When you do something (that is, perform an action) in public, assume someone else can see, photograph, and/or take video of you doing it. By definition, that's what "in public" means. If you happen to be breathing (judging by the apparent brain damage, it's possible that you're not), then yes, I mean breathing. If you're in public, you may be observed, photographed, and/or video taped in the act of breathing.
In the US, which just so happens to be the region we're talking about here, the law is pretty clear, as well; except for areas with peeping-tom laws, where it's illegal to photograph or take video through the window of a private residence without permission, if you can see it from public property, or private property you have legal access to, you have the right to photograph or shoot video of it. Obviously, you can ban cameras from your own property, but even then, it's perfectly legal for someone to stand at the border of your property and photograph whatever they can see from there (with the caveat regarding peeping-tom laws, above), so you may want to make sure you're not doing anything you don't want recorded from anywhere that can be seen from the border of your property.
The word "action" makes all the difference. How do you search someone's actions? You don't, but you sure can observe and record them. "Expectation of privacy in public" is something that is perfectly reasonable, as it implies that you don't expect your personal effects to be searched simply because you're in public; "expectation of privacy in public action" is not reasonable at all, as it implies that you don't expect to even be so much as looked at while you're in public.
There's a difference between saying "we're not gonna be dicks and make you eat a loss because customs thinks your orange is too close to our yellow" and "we think this is a fine product and are willing to let you use our trademark". Admittedly, it's a fine line, but they could easily make it clear which side of that line they are on.
No, but they could, and perhaps (debatable) should retroactively license their trademark for this one shipment. Retroactive, because an agreement entered into today won't apply to prior shipments, otherwise, and limited to just this shipment, so SparkFun can't keep using the trademark. That would make Fluke look AWESOME, here, while letting SparkFun carry on without a huge loss. Hell, Fluke could even charge something along the lines of 1/3 of the cost of the shipment and still come out heroes.
And you still think I disagree with you. Enough so that you wrote all of that. After I straight-up said we agree on that point. Because we do. I'm using short sentences now. For your benefit. Can you guess why?
Well, yeah, you can reduce any scenario down to black and white if you define it narrowly enough. It's a hell of a good way to stifle intelligent discussion on a topic, though, which is why it's generally frowned upon by those of us who are interested in that aspect of the debate scene.
What indication did I ever give that my opinion was anything but? As for admitting that it is my opinion, in case it was not already clear before I did so, I did that in my previous post. My point, however is based in fact, which is why I'm more than a little perturbed by your inclination to not only gloss over, but ignore it, based on your perception of bias in my opinion.
In fact, my opinion only came into this in my last two posts; it was all point and fact prior to that, so your stated reasoning is not only flawed, it's complete and utter lame-attempt-to-cover-your-ass made-up bullshit. Good day, Sir.
I'd like to clarify on this point. I know several feminists and none of them are whiny little bitches. Weak women (and men) are whiny little bitches; feminists are, by and far, stronger than that. And they hate the whiny "I'm a feminist, I'm powerful, but I'm going to whine about you not recognizing that" girls (I won't degrade women by calling these girls women) with a passion.
Feminism is real. Feminism is powerful. Feminism is something men can and should support. Feminism is also invoked by girls who have no real self-image, to the detriment of real women everywhere, feminist or not; and I just can't support that.
This. And it's damaging the the valid points of the movement.
Honestly, if equality movements, be they gender, racial, or whatever else, want to be taken seriously, they need to crack down on this behavior. You can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and their sisters, Tammy, Dottie, and Harriet, speaking in the name of your movement, saying things your movement doesn't actually stand for; and there needs to be some standard punishment for doing it, as well.
Women have every right to the same rights I have as a man; if they choose to reject the responsibilities that come with those rights, society has the same right to deal with them they way they'd deal with me if I did the same. If a woman can't deal with that, then she can't handle those rights; just like a man who can't come to terms with their own personal responsibility. That's what equality is, and that's what I'm a huge proponent of; gender/race/status equality, across the board. If you can't get behind that, then I would ask you to either explain why I'm wrong (I'm open to hearing it, but nobody has ever tried -- not that they've tried and failed, but nobody has ever stood up and told me that across-the-board class equality is wrong) or spend some time considering your perspective on the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Replace "Comcast users" with "customers of ISPs who have partnered with Netflix to provide content" and I'm on board. As it is, those of us with non-asshole providers already get more bang for our buck, because we can access SuperHD content and typically don't deal with the dropped connections users of other ISPs have to face, as a result of the content being served locally.
AT&T doesn't want this, though, because they don't want to reduce incoming traffic (which they could do by letting Netflix put their equipment in AT&T's facilities, which they'll do free of charge), they just want to charge more for it.
That's all fine and dandy; then AT&T customers who want access to that content can move to another provider. My ISP was literally the first on board for SuperHD peering; Netflix provides the equipment, the uplink (bandwidth), and the content, at no cost to their peer, why should they be paying to provide this?
But, that's not actually the issue here. AT&T wants Netflix to pay them for their data that hits the AT&T network via their peering agreement with Cogent. Figure that one out... Netflix pays Cogent, AT&T users pat AT&T, AT&T peers with Cogent; if there's an imbalance in that peering agreement, that's between AT&T and Cogent, not AT&T and Cogent's customer.
That would make AT&T the provider, would it not? Nice try, though.
Cogent doesn't want to pay the transit fee. If they had to pay the transit fee, they'd have to pass that along to Netflix, and Netflix would have to raise the rates they charge their subscribers.
And that would be fine, honestly. AT&T wants Netflix to foot the bill for this, when in reality, as far as AT&T's peering is concerned, the data is coming from Cogent and Netflix may or may not even exist. That's what the problem is.
It's inconsequential that Netflix will ultimately pay for the bandwidth; the point is that Cogent should pay AT&T and Netflix should pay Cogent; Netflix should not ay AT&T, nor should AT&T expect them to.
Right and that peering would be between AT&T and Netflix's provider, not AT&T and Netflix. Netflix pays their provider already; if, as a result of the peering imbalance, Netflix ends up costing their provider more, then it is up to that provider to negotiate a better contract with Netflix to compensate for that. AT&T should never collect a penny from Netflix unless Netflix is connecting directly to AT&T's network.
To put it another way, peering only considers one level when determining where a packet originates. That is to say, it doesn't matter of Bob passed the packet off to Joe to pass along to Mary, as far as Mary is concerned, the packet came from Joe; as far as Joe is concerned, yes, the packet did come from Bob, but Mary didn't accept the packet from Bob, Joe did, so Joe gets to charge Bob for the delivery and Mary gets to charge Joe for the acceptance. Bob and Mary don't even need to be aware of each other.
Appropriate? Yes. Correct? Almost. When the data is on Netflix's network, it's in a Netflix truck. When it reaches their provider's router, it gets moved into their provider's truck and they pay their provider to deliver it to the end user. When it arrives at, say AT&T's network, in the Netflix's provider's truck, it is the provider, and not Netflix, who is asking AT&T to complete the delivery; and Netflix's provider is paying AT&T to do this.
Think of it like FedEx SmartPost. You drop the package off with FedEx, who passes it off to USPS, who then delivers to your recipient. You don't pay USPS for their leg of the delivery, FedEx does.
It would the the flipside of what AT&T is doing here, and it would be just as wrong. I'd be cool with it if they both agreed to pay each other, though; the amounts would zero out and we'd be right back where we started. Well, except for the higher prices we'd all have to bear to cover the cost of them invoicing and paying each other for nothing. But, then, they'd agree, behind closed doors, to forgo that whole process and keep the inflated billing rates, after the fact.
Maybe I'm just a cynic.
And they pay for that bandwidth. And the providers they pay either peer with, or purchase bandwidth from the providers between you and them. Why should that bandwidth be paid for twice? There is no problem here. Honestly, there's not. That's why it hasn't been solved yet.
Your customers pay you, as their provider, Netflix pays their provider, and it's between you and their provider to determine who, if anyone, pays who, based on the flow of traffic.
You didn't contest the sentiment of my post, you failed to understand it. I never called for a war on douchebags. Keep reading until that thought falls from your head. Also, how many Feminists do you know? Actual Feminists, not whiny "I'm a Feminist, I'm a strong, empowered, female" bitches, because those aren't Feminists.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this post, but it sure sounds like a whole lot of "we'll never get everyone on board, so there's no point in anyone getting on board". When you recognize the first half of my post as satire (I mean "but we all have to get on board and do it", come on -- if it were that simple, we'd have no social ills whatsoever, right?), the rest, after the list, should just fall right into place for you.
This is the first time I've been called out for doing too much, though. Thanks, it's nice to see the flipside of the coin, for once.
Also, why the fuck did Slashdot eat my <ol>?
Before I get flamed to hell and back, "take any and all power from the Feminist movement" may have had some sarcasm behind it.
Until women are treated as equals in all aspects of life where physical differences don't preclude that possibility, Feminism will be necessary. If you want to take any and all power from the Feminist movement, it can be done in a few simple steps, but we all have to get on board and do it. Here's how:
As long as Feminism is necessary, as long as the movement by and far has a point, and they very well do, those of us who do treat women as our equals will still be called out by the "fake" Feminists as not doing enough, because we don't respect all women equally, we don't go out of our way to "raise up" the weaker women, and we still hold on to societal ideals of what a woman should look like. Well, the flipside of that is that we don't respect all men equally or "raise up" the weaker men, and we most certainly still cling to societal ideal of what a man should look like. Once we're able to honestly apply the same measures for respect to both men and women, truly provide the same level of aid and assistance to both men and women, and admit that both genders hold ideals for the appearance of the other which are neither realistic, nor healthy, true Feminists will be satisfied and the whiny bitches from my previous post lose their teeth.
Then, and only then, does it become acceptable to call a girl a girl, a woman a woman, and a bitch a bitch. And we all know there are bitches out there that make even the most empowered Feminist wish there were a third gender to assign to them; just like we have douchebags, who do nothing but serve to make all men look like woman-users.
When you do something (that is, perform an action) in public, assume someone else can see, photograph, and/or take video of you doing it. By definition, that's what "in public" means. If you happen to be breathing (judging by the apparent brain damage, it's possible that you're not), then yes, I mean breathing. If you're in public, you may be observed, photographed, and/or video taped in the act of breathing.
In the US, which just so happens to be the region we're talking about here, the law is pretty clear, as well; except for areas with peeping-tom laws, where it's illegal to photograph or take video through the window of a private residence without permission, if you can see it from public property, or private property you have legal access to, you have the right to photograph or shoot video of it. Obviously, you can ban cameras from your own property, but even then, it's perfectly legal for someone to stand at the border of your property and photograph whatever they can see from there (with the caveat regarding peeping-tom laws, above), so you may want to make sure you're not doing anything you don't want recorded from anywhere that can be seen from the border of your property.
The word "action" makes all the difference. How do you search someone's actions? You don't, but you sure can observe and record them. "Expectation of privacy in public" is something that is perfectly reasonable, as it implies that you don't expect your personal effects to be searched simply because you're in public; "expectation of privacy in public action" is not reasonable at all, as it implies that you don't expect to even be so much as looked at while you're in public.
There is no expectation of privacy in public action. Nobody ever says the last word, but it makes all the difference.
There's a difference between saying "we're not gonna be dicks and make you eat a loss because customs thinks your orange is too close to our yellow" and "we think this is a fine product and are willing to let you use our trademark". Admittedly, it's a fine line, but they could easily make it clear which side of that line they are on.
No, but they could, and perhaps (debatable) should retroactively license their trademark for this one shipment. Retroactive, because an agreement entered into today won't apply to prior shipments, otherwise, and limited to just this shipment, so SparkFun can't keep using the trademark. That would make Fluke look AWESOME, here, while letting SparkFun carry on without a huge loss. Hell, Fluke could even charge something along the lines of 1/3 of the cost of the shipment and still come out heroes.
Huh. Learn something every day. Thanks!
I'm glad to see this project has kept on since I learned about it at the first Node Colony meetup a few months back. Looks great, guys! Great work!
And you still think I disagree with you. Enough so that you wrote all of that. After I straight-up said we agree on that point. Because we do. I'm using short sentences now. For your benefit. Can you guess why?
Well, yeah, you can reduce any scenario down to black and white if you define it narrowly enough. It's a hell of a good way to stifle intelligent discussion on a topic, though, which is why it's generally frowned upon by those of us who are interested in that aspect of the debate scene.
Oh, we're in full agreement on this point. It never hurts to see counterexamples, though; keeps the world-view from getting too narrow, y'know.
What indication did I ever give that my opinion was anything but? As for admitting that it is my opinion, in case it was not already clear before I did so, I did that in my previous post. My point, however is based in fact, which is why I'm more than a little perturbed by your inclination to not only gloss over, but ignore it, based on your perception of bias in my opinion.
In fact, my opinion only came into this in my last two posts; it was all point and fact prior to that, so your stated reasoning is not only flawed, it's complete and utter lame-attempt-to-cover-your-ass made-up bullshit. Good day, Sir.
I smell a GitHub employee with a grudge, here. Even if what you're saying is true, kind Sir, the way you're saying it is making us all look bad.
I'd like to clarify on this point. I know several feminists and none of them are whiny little bitches. Weak women (and men) are whiny little bitches; feminists are, by and far, stronger than that. And they hate the whiny "I'm a feminist, I'm powerful, but I'm going to whine about you not recognizing that" girls (I won't degrade women by calling these girls women) with a passion.
Feminism is real. Feminism is powerful. Feminism is something men can and should support. Feminism is also invoked by girls who have no real self-image, to the detriment of real women everywhere, feminist or not; and I just can't support that.
This. And it's damaging the the valid points of the movement.
Honestly, if equality movements, be they gender, racial, or whatever else, want to be taken seriously, they need to crack down on this behavior. You can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and their sisters, Tammy, Dottie, and Harriet, speaking in the name of your movement, saying things your movement doesn't actually stand for; and there needs to be some standard punishment for doing it, as well.
Women have every right to the same rights I have as a man; if they choose to reject the responsibilities that come with those rights, society has the same right to deal with them they way they'd deal with me if I did the same. If a woman can't deal with that, then she can't handle those rights; just like a man who can't come to terms with their own personal responsibility. That's what equality is, and that's what I'm a huge proponent of; gender/race/status equality, across the board. If you can't get behind that, then I would ask you to either explain why I'm wrong (I'm open to hearing it, but nobody has ever tried -- not that they've tried and failed, but nobody has ever stood up and told me that across-the-board class equality is wrong) or spend some time considering your perspective on the topic.