Netflix may be paying their ISP/transit provider for bandwidth, but is that ISP/TP actually living up to their agreement(s) with other ISP/TPs?
So, why is Netflix even part of this discussion? It sounds like a simple contractual problem. There are already mechanisms in place for people who don't live up to agreements. You sign a contract, you perform or don't perform. You don't get to say, "Hey, this turned out to be more expensive than I thought, so we have to make certain bits on the Internet more expensive than other bits on the Internet."
The first step in the solution is to not allow ISPs to be in the content business. The second is to increase competition, even if it means municipal ISPs.
It is certainly true to say that Newton was ignorant of the fields of quantum physics, general/special relativity, semiconductor physics, etc.
That doesn't make his work wrong. Newton created a model that successfully described the universe given the data that was available. That is the best science can ever do.
Their ISP/transit provider isn't paying or isn't paying enough for their side of the connection or this wouldn't be a problem.
Their ISP/transit provider isn't paying or isn't paying enough for their side of the connection or this wouldn't be a problem.
What does that mean "not paying enough"? Are they paying for their bandwidth? Do you think Netflix pays for the bandwidth that their servers use or not? And if not, how do they get their connections to the Internet?
Do you think Netfix is just stealing a neighbor's Wi-Fi? Of COURSE they're paying for the bandwidth they use.
The more people like him insult the people that support politicians like Trump, the more effort they'll put into making sure their candidate gets elected.
That's like saying teachers should never give out bad grades, because they will only convince Trump supporters they should apply to MIT.
The kicker is that at the very end of that video, Trump challenges the questioner to give him a "physics question", which, he assures us, he can "handle".
You know, before you open your mouth you should truly stop once in a while and think what it is that you are trying to say in the first place. What 'sustained growth' are you talking about?
I'm talking about the post-war period, when the labor participation rate was much lower than it is now.
What time did you start drinking today? I'm a let this one go because you're doubling down on the ridiculous notion that things are worse today than they were in 2008. I'll chalk it up to too much holiday for you.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015 Labour force participation rate 62.5, which was 1/10 of a percent from the lowest level since mid 70s. Biggest surge, 300,000 part time jobs created rather than full time jobs Janet Yellen 'was looking for improvement of the job market'. How is that an improvement. Manufacturing ISM number on that day was at a 6 year low Service sector ISM number was below estimates Retail sales were abysmal Consumer confidence was falling everything was pointing to a slowing economy
First, labor force participation rate is a total bullshit statistic. During the country's biggest periods of sustained growth, the labor force participation rate was at its lowest. It's a BS statistic because nobody knows what it's supposed to be or if it's supposed to be 59% or 83%. Higher workforce participation does not indicate a strong economy.
And maybe you don't remember what was going on in 2008, when in one year we lost 2.6 million jobs.
If you want a fair comparison you should add the following costs; 1. The transmission lines to get the electricity to where it is used. Dams have a tendency to be far from population centres.
Whereas nuclear plants are built downtown in city centers?
2. Maintenance on the generators and transmission lines.
Nuke plants don't need maintenance, apparently.
3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
No environmental costs with nukes. You can use the waste for fertilizer.
$8.3 Billion [wikipedia.org] is not cheap. While it will last for 100 year
Do you even hear what you're saying? $8.3 billion for a source of clean energy that will last for 100 years? If you don't think that's "cheap", then you need to go take a look at what a new nuclear plant costs (hint: It's around $9billion). And then you've got the little issue of having to put fuel in it.
Net neutrality addresses first-world problems. He rightly points out that there are more important problems in the world, even the world of the internet.
Wales saying, "there are more important problems in the world" is meaningless blabbering.
If my roof is leaking, I could say, "well, there are more pressing problems in the world", but that doesn't change the necessity to fix the fucking roof.
Disagree. Let's say I'm AT&T and I notice that one of my backbone connections is much more saturated than another. To the point where traffic over that connection is effectively bandwidth throttled. I collect some stats and notice that a disproportionate amount of traffic over that pipe is, say, Netflix, but not all. This has happened "organically" without my trying to charge Netflix and/or intentionally give them the shaft. Does the principle of net neutrality obligate me to upgrade that pipe when I might otherwise choose not to do so? Etc
No, what obligates them to "upgrade the pipe" is that the Netflix traffic represents users who are paying customers. Now, they might decide, "Fuck those Netflix users, we're not upgrading shit" but then those paying customers can decide, "Let's see what kind of deal I can get from Comcast".
Because a critical part of any Net Neutrality discussion is competition, and the implicit threat that broadband should be a public utility anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you know what alchemy actually is, you know that he was as rigorous with alchemy as he was with physics and math.
I hope we don't have to have the "Alchemy is woo, and it's just stupid" discussion again.
So, why is Netflix even part of this discussion? It sounds like a simple contractual problem. There are already mechanisms in place for people who don't live up to agreements. You sign a contract, you perform or don't perform. You don't get to say, "Hey, this turned out to be more expensive than I thought, so we have to make certain bits on the Internet more expensive than other bits on the Internet."
The first step in the solution is to not allow ISPs to be in the content business. The second is to increase competition, even if it means municipal ISPs.
And a terrific alchemist.
That doesn't make his work wrong. Newton created a model that successfully described the universe given the data that was available. That is the best science can ever do.
Their ISP/transit provider isn't paying or isn't paying enough for their side of the connection or this wouldn't be a problem.
What does that mean "not paying enough"? Are they paying for their bandwidth? Do you think Netflix pays for the bandwidth that their servers use or not? And if not, how do they get their connections to the Internet?
Do you think Netfix is just stealing a neighbor's Wi-Fi? Of COURSE they're paying for the bandwidth they use.
But the people who are watching Netflix are customers of the broadband company AND THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEIR BANDWIDTH.
You think people migrate to the US so they can become part of a voting bloc? You really think that's the reason they come here?
You're a fucking idiot. And that's not a charge I make lightly. Actually, it IS a charge I make lightly, but in your case it really applies.
He forgot the most important part: Trump will make fun of Hawking's disability. He thinks disabled people are hilarious.
I don't think you get how science works. Let me guess: you're a Trump supporter, right?
That's like saying teachers should never give out bad grades, because they will only convince Trump supporters they should apply to MIT.
The kicker is that at the very end of that video, Trump challenges the questioner to give him a "physics question", which, he assures us, he can "handle".
Stephen Hawking is a loser. He's stupid and says stupid things, not like Trump, who is smart, has a good brain and a lot of words.
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/...
I'm talking about the post-war period, when the labor participation rate was much lower than it is now.
What time did you start drinking today? I'm a let this one go because you're doubling down on the ridiculous notion that things are worse today than they were in 2008. I'll chalk it up to too much holiday for you.
Because Netflix customers are already paying for bandwidth.
First, labor force participation rate is a total bullshit statistic. During the country's biggest periods of sustained growth, the labor force participation rate was at its lowest. It's a BS statistic because nobody knows what it's supposed to be or if it's supposed to be 59% or 83%. Higher workforce participation does not indicate a strong economy.
And maybe you don't remember what was going on in 2008, when in one year we lost 2.6 million jobs.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/0...
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Maybe I'm thinking of Freedonia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Whereas nuclear plants are built downtown in city centers?
Nuke plants don't need maintenance, apparently.
3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
No environmental costs with nukes. You can use the waste for fertilizer.
The biggest surprise from this story is that it turns out Estonia is a real place. Who knew?
Do you even hear what you're saying? $8.3 billion for a source of clean energy that will last for 100 years? If you don't think that's "cheap", then you need to go take a look at what a new nuclear plant costs (hint: It's around $9billion). And then you've got the little issue of having to put fuel in it.
Hey, dumbfuck. Yeah, I'm talking to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wales saying, "there are more important problems in the world" is meaningless blabbering.
If my roof is leaking, I could say, "well, there are more pressing problems in the world", but that doesn't change the necessity to fix the fucking roof.
No, what obligates them to "upgrade the pipe" is that the Netflix traffic represents users who are paying customers. Now, they might decide, "Fuck those Netflix users, we're not upgrading shit" but then those paying customers can decide, "Let's see what kind of deal I can get from Comcast".
Because a critical part of any Net Neutrality discussion is competition, and the implicit threat that broadband should be a public utility anyway.
Yes, we all have assholes.
Sure, just ask her!