Don't flamebait the title, please. Individual conjures up images of little Joey copying a game for his friend Billy and writing the CD key on the disk.
This is actual game piracy, you know the kind that's actually wrong? The profit-making kind?
This is the shit that's unfair to game manufacturers and really does cost them money. Joey and Billy's sharing is up for discussion.
"For each of the managed P2P protocols, the [Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch] monitors and identifies the number of simultaneous unidirectional uploads that are passed from the [Cable Modem Termination System] to the upstream router.
Sandvine checks uploads without downloads. It does this 'above' (in the hierarchy) from the head-end of the cable network (neighborhood box).
Because of the prevalence of P2P traffic on the upstream portion of our network, the number of simultaneous unidirectional upload sessions of any particular P2P protocol at any given time serves as a useful proxy for determining the level of overall network congestion.
P2P is used a lot, and fairly consistently. Therefore, the number of one-way uploads (not SSH or rdesktop like somebody else said) can be used to extrapolate the total congestion for much less 'thought' (for Sandvine)
For each of the protocols, a session threshold is in place that is intended to provide for equivalently fair access between the protocols, but still mitigate the likelihood of congestion that could cause service degradation for our customers."
We count the number (like, only 500 BitTorrent sessions) and cut off after that. -- My thoughts: I don't think this helps anything. I doubt anybody has much of a problem with them legitimately throttling P2P protocols, as long as it's done consistently and fairly (no need to throttle with plenty of upstream, right?). The real problem are the RSTs which impersonate each side of the connection to the other, saying that the other closed the connection. That's like Bob passing messages between Alice and Candice, and telling Candice that Alice called her a bitch, and telling Alice that Candice called her a bitch.
QoS isn't that hard, and I'm sure they know how. It's fairly easy to throttle back without sending RSTs, and allows for the full utilization of 'open' bandwidth.
This statement explains the rationale, but not the choice of methods.
More importantly, do you expect him to memorize everything about everything in his language? I'm most familiar with Java; I should just *know* the syntax of creating a JDBC driver? God forbid I look it up and have the ability to research for task-specific one-time information. After all, Slashdot is a terrible place to find experienced programmers willing to share what works for them in their daily jobs.
And it would just be stupid to use an existing library or algorithm. Duplication of effort leads to much better code, as we all know.
In any case, I'm guessing you're not a coder as the syntax of your above comment is piss-poor. I'm still not entirely sure if you're trying to insult him, make fun of yourself, or convince him to come on to you.
I suspect one of your games needed an update. If I unplug my Ethernet cable and try to start a game *in online mode* they all work fine. So it's not trying to check all the time.
If the game is waiting on an update, and the servers are swamped, it won't update. There's a setting along the lines of 'keep my games up to date' which will update the game before you play... maybe try changing that setting?
Theres nothing like an odometer to measure you're overall useage of bandwidth.
Stupidest comment I've heard today. There isn't one currently because bandwidth isn't charged per-gigabyte. Many (most?) cellphone companies have one for their bandwidth, there are a plethora of free programs to monitor bandwidth on one PC, and it's trivial to track bandwidth use by MAC address (cable) or PPPoE login (DSL)
Much of the rest of the world is pay-per-GB. They've figured out a way...
Google may be a bad example - I'd bet they have enough of their own network to be a Tier-1 peer by now (guess)
But imagine some random website, your favorite blog or something. Blog pays for bandwidth, you pay for bandwidth. AT&T (and the other providers) want to charge Blog for the right to use bandwidth they already paid for.
if AT&T decides to be an ass, it's beneficial for the big players to just avoid AT&T and call their bluff. You can't sell bandwidth that doesn't go anywhere, and AT&T is hoping that companies will just roll over and not realize that they add value.
Seems like the kind of thing Google would be liable to do... teach the ISPs a lesson and whatnot. If Google just avoided AT&T's network for a day, I guarantee that concessions would be made.
Bandwidth is already purchased at both ends - Slashdot pays for bandwidth, I pay for bandwidth, and it works. AT&T can't triple-dip.
Are we complaining that AT&T 'should' do something, or 'it would be courteous' if AT&T did something?
Because it's pretty damn clear that roaming voice is expensive, data is expensive, and roaming data is even more expensive.
Yes, it'd be courteous if they texted you something saying 'you've hit your free limit, we've turned it off for you just in case, but you can reply Y and we'll turn it on for another 5MB' (or something)
Yes, it'd be nice if it wasn't so expensive. However, I have a funny feeling that it's the CA teleco's (Rogers?) setting the price, so not AT&T's fault.
But this is part of having a cellphone plan. I don't really feel bad for this family, if you can't afford roaming data (it's not hidden!) don't use it/turn off your phone. If you can't afford a variable bill in general, they should have gone prepaid.
This is like that guy who bought the $1000 iPhone application because he 'thought it was a joke' until it charged his card... it's pretty clear what stuff costs and you have a choice.
Sounds like she understands basic science and theory just fine.
Obviously she doesn't. 'Having a debate' implies that two (or more) ideas are worth consideration, if nothing else. You can't debate between a scientific theory and a pie-in-the-sky guess to make your religion feel good.
Thing about a theory is, it can be tested and disproved. How do you test creationism? Convince Him to do it again? Consistently guess what He will do next? I don't think so.
Giving creationism a equal status as evolution, even so you can strike it down, is retarded. The only mention of creationism in a serious class should be something along the lines of 'some people believe that life could not have arisen naturally and must have had an influence from somewhere else. This is not science as it can not be tested. Evolution and natural selection, on the other hand, can be tested and used to make predictions'
Anybody giving any sort of credence at all to creationism - by definition - does not understand science and shouldn't be allowed to touch it.
I did PCR and created transgene bacteria (glowed under UV) in my High School biology class... in 9th grade. In a public school. And evolution was integral.
Slashdot Mirror
Perjury is a criminal offense, and it is serious.
Don't flamebait the title, please. Individual conjures up images of little Joey copying a game for his friend Billy and writing the CD key on the disk.
This is actual game piracy, you know the kind that's actually wrong? The profit-making kind?
This is the shit that's unfair to game manufacturers and really does cost them money. Joey and Billy's sharing is up for discussion.
Ah, so by monitoring in such a fashion, it's not a bottleneck. Clever.
That's not an excuse, though. Impersonation of that sort is likely illegal.
"For each of the managed P2P protocols, the [Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch] monitors and identifies the number of simultaneous unidirectional uploads that are passed from the [Cable Modem Termination System] to the upstream router.
Sandvine checks uploads without downloads. It does this 'above' (in the hierarchy) from the head-end of the cable network (neighborhood box).
Because of the prevalence of P2P traffic on the upstream portion of our network, the number of simultaneous unidirectional upload sessions of any particular P2P protocol at any given time serves as a useful proxy for determining the level of overall network congestion.
P2P is used a lot, and fairly consistently. Therefore, the number of one-way uploads (not SSH or rdesktop like somebody else said) can be used to extrapolate the total congestion for much less 'thought' (for Sandvine)
For each of the protocols, a session threshold is in place that is intended to provide for equivalently fair access between the protocols, but still mitigate the likelihood of congestion that could cause service degradation for our customers."
We count the number (like, only 500 BitTorrent sessions) and cut off after that.
--
My thoughts: I don't think this helps anything. I doubt anybody has much of a problem with them legitimately throttling P2P protocols, as long as it's done consistently and fairly (no need to throttle with plenty of upstream, right?). The real problem are the RSTs which impersonate each side of the connection to the other, saying that the other closed the connection. That's like Bob passing messages between Alice and Candice, and telling Candice that Alice called her a bitch, and telling Alice that Candice called her a bitch.
QoS isn't that hard, and I'm sure they know how. It's fairly easy to throttle back without sending RSTs, and allows for the full utilization of 'open' bandwidth.
This statement explains the rationale, but not the choice of methods.
[citation needed]
Look, I hate Comcast as much as the next guy and think this is all crap, but 'would anybody like to guess' what actually happens?
That's right, nothing. Vonage works fine over Comcast - Comcast isn't that stupid.
This is not official, only anecdotal, but from about 8 people scattered around the country with Comcast+Vonage... so it's a pretty fair statement.
Overhead transformers to one-oh-five percent...
It's probably nothing... probably... but I'm seeing a small discrepancy in the readings...
???
More importantly, do you expect him to memorize everything about everything in his language? I'm most familiar with Java; I should just *know* the syntax of creating a JDBC driver? God forbid I look it up and have the ability to research for task-specific one-time information. After all, Slashdot is a terrible place to find experienced programmers willing to share what works for them in their daily jobs.
And it would just be stupid to use an existing library or algorithm. Duplication of effort leads to much better code, as we all know.
In any case, I'm guessing you're not a coder as the syntax of your above comment is piss-poor. I'm still not entirely sure if you're trying to insult him, make fun of yourself, or convince him to come on to you.
I suspect one of your games needed an update. If I unplug my Ethernet cable and try to start a game *in online mode* they all work fine. So it's not trying to check all the time.
If the game is waiting on an update, and the servers are swamped, it won't update. There's a setting along the lines of 'keep my games up to date' which will update the game before you play... maybe try changing that setting?
None. The entire graphics part of the system (you know, the Mac OS X part) is closed, though.
You're thinking of Power+Home, not just Home.
Power+Home takes screenshots explicitly, and is very useful. Home takes a screenshot to scale in/out on program open and close
Actually, it'd cost you about 10 grand (what with the RIAA lawsuit and all)
(only half joking)
Things can look 'really good' by allowing content to scale to the screen (think CSS).
How do you propose to make the same code fit on a 60-pixel wide display and a 50,000 pixel wide display (and everything in between)?
I think you're looking for something called PDF
Well that's very raunchy and shocking...
Theres nothing like an odometer to measure you're overall useage of bandwidth.
Stupidest comment I've heard today. There isn't one currently because bandwidth isn't charged per-gigabyte. Many (most?) cellphone companies have one for their bandwidth, there are a plethora of free programs to monitor bandwidth on one PC, and it's trivial to track bandwidth use by MAC address (cable) or PPPoE login (DSL)
Much of the rest of the world is pay-per-GB. They've figured out a way...
Yes.
Google may be a bad example - I'd bet they have enough of their own network to be a Tier-1 peer by now (guess)
But imagine some random website, your favorite blog or something. Blog pays for bandwidth, you pay for bandwidth. AT&T (and the other providers) want to charge Blog for the right to use bandwidth they already paid for.
if AT&T decides to be an ass, it's beneficial for the big players to just avoid AT&T and call their bluff. You can't sell bandwidth that doesn't go anywhere, and AT&T is hoping that companies will just roll over and not realize that they add value.
Seems like the kind of thing Google would be liable to do... teach the ISPs a lesson and whatnot. If Google just avoided AT&T's network for a day, I guarantee that concessions would be made.
Bandwidth is already purchased at both ends - Slashdot pays for bandwidth, I pay for bandwidth, and it works. AT&T can't triple-dip.
Damnit, we're running out fast enough as it is!
TEH ALIENS ARE GONNA STEAL ALL OUR ADDRESSSPACE!!! /doomsday
Are we complaining that AT&T 'should' do something, or 'it would be courteous' if AT&T did something?
Because it's pretty damn clear that roaming voice is expensive, data is expensive, and roaming data is even more expensive.
Yes, it'd be courteous if they texted you something saying 'you've hit your free limit, we've turned it off for you just in case, but you can reply Y and we'll turn it on for another 5MB' (or something)
Yes, it'd be nice if it wasn't so expensive. However, I have a funny feeling that it's the CA teleco's (Rogers?) setting the price, so not AT&T's fault.
But this is part of having a cellphone plan. I don't really feel bad for this family, if you can't afford roaming data (it's not hidden!) don't use it/turn off your phone. If you can't afford a variable bill in general, they should have gone prepaid.
This is like that guy who bought the $1000 iPhone application because he 'thought it was a joke' until it charged his card... it's pretty clear what stuff costs and you have a choice.
Eh, not that close. Remember, the Apple guys fixed a bunch of CSS bugs (think Acid2) and passed them upstream.
They did a lot of work, and kudos to them.
Fair enough. I'm making judgments based on an abnormally good Biology class, and he's making judgments on an abnormally bad one.
Allowing discussion in the classroom should be limited to 'this is not science because x,y,z and there's no debate to be had'
Of course, in a proper science class, the students shouldn't even have the thought in their heads to begin with.
Sounds like she understands basic science and theory just fine.
Obviously she doesn't. 'Having a debate' implies that two (or more) ideas are worth consideration, if nothing else. You can't debate between a scientific theory and a pie-in-the-sky guess to make your religion feel good.
Thing about a theory is, it can be tested and disproved. How do you test creationism? Convince Him to do it again? Consistently guess what He will do next? I don't think so.
Giving creationism a equal status as evolution, even so you can strike it down, is retarded. The only mention of creationism in a serious class should be something along the lines of 'some people believe that life could not have arisen naturally and must have had an influence from somewhere else. This is not science as it can not be tested. Evolution and natural selection, on the other hand, can be tested and used to make predictions'
Anybody giving any sort of credence at all to creationism - by definition - does not understand science and shouldn't be allowed to touch it.
I did PCR and created transgene bacteria (glowed under UV) in my High School biology class... in 9th grade. In a public school. And evolution was integral.
What were you saying?
ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://it.slashdot.org/%23
The following error was encountered:
* Read Error
The system returned:
(104) Connection reset by peer
An error condition occurred while reading data from the network. Please retry your request.
Damn you!
2006 had an enormous turnout for a senatorial election... and look what good it's done us /too lazy to find numbers