When reading a general statement about a technology such as caching, it is up to you to consider all of the reasonably applicable implementations. If you thought I would be calling a DVR a provider cache, then just remember my name and please don't read anything I write.;) If you want to bother, put a little more effort into attempting to parse out the most correct reading of the words, instead of getting stuck on impossible meanings that were obviously not intended. That it would be an incorrect statement was your clue that it isn't the intended meaning. That is on you.
Well, the article was probably fine and your comprehension wasn't sufficient. I didn't say that they weren't classified as common carriers; they were. I said they didn't ban backbone ISPs from charging for access, they simply limited it to reasonable fees without defining what is reasonable. Presumably most fees are reasonable, and outliers might not be.
Common carriers do charge for access on both sides, even for telephone systems; but there are limits. For POTS the limits are more clearly defined.
I don't know where they got you new kids, but I don't remember changing any paradigms. Some of us are backwards compatible and still doing things the old way, still thinking about tech, still running weird software on breadboards and wishing we had breadboard GPUs.
Kids these days, and their astronomology obsessions.
Yeah, just you wait until then... and you'll find out that they're a tiny tiny fraction of the multi-trillion dollar US economy, and that lower gas prices helps the economy way way more than the income from the US fossil fuel sector.
Guess what, the rest of the business lobby is more powerful than the oil guys are by themselves. When their interests conflict with the economy in general, you should expect government to turn away from them. In this case, the international politics of the US in regard to Russia is aligned with the general US business desire for low energy prices. That combined with Iran getting ready to rejoin the market, combined with projected reduction in fossil energy demand in few years, (based on the level of investment growth in renewable generation and the growth of electric car demand) leaves the Saudis happy to protect their market share by having a price war with US producers. Under normal conditions the US would be inclined to try to protect the US producers, so the Saudis wouldn't have tried it in an adversarial way; it is obvious they cleared the policy with the US first.
You might want to check again on that. They specifically declined to make that rule. It was among the things people asked for.
Pay more attention, FCC rules are important these days!
In general, there is no business principle against a middleman getting paid on both sides. Generally it is regarded as proof that he's adding value. If he wasn't, both sides would be motivated to go around him. That is probably why it is hard to get the FCC to include that sort of rule; there are better general principles to use in regulating unfair access fees. Indeed, being common carriers provides a bunch of general rules where excess access fees get banned, without banning average access fees.
The problem with that observation is that in many cases, tree limbs that are determined by a city arborist to endanger a public road might have to be removed. This is enabled by various laws including zoning laws. Grass or dry plants determined by the Fire Marshall to be a hazard might be forcibly removed from private land, the resident sent the bill.
Sounds good at first, but I'm not convinced it is a great solution when it requires O(n) bandwidth for n available channels. The current system only requires O(1) bandwidth for n available channels. Obviously multiple viewing devices changes it slightly, but the proportions remain similar.
The purpose of ClearQAM is to fit the limited number of analog broadcast channels into a fixed bandwidth range of the digital cable broadcast. It doesn't solve the same problem that cable solves. You'd be back to a few channels. I may only watch PBS, but many consumers value and covet access to a larger selection.
The flappy heads seem to somehow enhance their witchcraft. I'm not sure what the mechanism is. But the net results seem to be mostly the ability to conjure petroleum balrogs out of frozen sand, and lots of hot pagan babes.
They'll get their money one way or the other. Eventually they'll probably charge Netflix, on top of us, to deliver their content so they'll get paid on both ends as the middle man.
I could be wrong, but isn't that illegal under current laws?
Nope. What law was that? If you don't even know what the law says, it probably doesn't say whatever you "think" it says.;)
BTW, not only is it legal for middle-men to get paid on both ends, it is a common practice in many industries. Why would it be wrong by default?
I always find semantics works really well for making customers happy.
It works great as long as it leaves them feeling like it was explained to them why the inconvenient or annoying part sucks. Then they're ready to suck it up. They'll often even repeat fragments of it to socially shame anybody who complains.
It wasn't intended as a "blanket" statement, it was a general statement. And it is generally true. Try harder next time. Does your attempted refutation even attempt to refute the main thrust of my claim, or does it leave the main thrust intact?
Please tell me you arent actually in charge of anything.
He did, he said he was talking about a "school district." When you're older, you'll realize that teachers are not authorities, schools are not valued institutions, and they don't have enough of an IT budget to even attempt to do things the "right way." And nobody cares, because none of their files are important.
I'd be more concerned if they were out of paper than if they had awful computers.
Or, we could just scan his brain, show him the scan to prove he's in the computer, "delete" the original, and call it a day. If you don't feel the magic that doesn't mean you have to rain on his parade.
From my experience with unicorns, it really depends on diet. If they're shitting skittles you should reduce their food intake before bed. If they're pissing moonbeams, you smoked the exact right amount.
The Mirror isn't a good source for anything, but it is a great starting point for people to research the claims made by the people they quoted.
If you're inclined to "believe" things about them that are disprove, and wave away counter arguments using guilt-by-association, you're probably being an idiot. They murder people over what is said about them. Did you know that? I'll bet if you had a news source you could check on it.
OOOoooooh, you think Daesh is secretly the CIA? As a great man once said, "What a maroon."
The CIA got caught "so many" times funding Daesh. How many is "so many?" Zero. LOL
Silly cowherd, she doesn't have a current job in government; she isn't authorized to receive any information she would have to keep secret. If you had a case to make that somebody violated the secrecy act, she'd be the one person we could reliably rule out.
Grandpa woke up from his nap and decided to explain the meaning of life to the whippersnappers, that's sweet.
But gramps, they can't hear you. Their ears are so stuffed with neckhair they've become allergic to social justice, so it is physically impossible for them to comprehend civics or representative democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
When reading a general statement about a technology such as caching, it is up to you to consider all of the reasonably applicable implementations. If you thought I would be calling a DVR a provider cache, then just remember my name and please don't read anything I write. ;) If you want to bother, put a little more effort into attempting to parse out the most correct reading of the words, instead of getting stuck on impossible meanings that were obviously not intended. That it would be an incorrect statement was your clue that it isn't the intended meaning. That is on you.
Well, the article was probably fine and your comprehension wasn't sufficient. I didn't say that they weren't classified as common carriers; they were. I said they didn't ban backbone ISPs from charging for access, they simply limited it to reasonable fees without defining what is reasonable. Presumably most fees are reasonable, and outliers might not be.
Common carriers do charge for access on both sides, even for telephone systems; but there are limits. For POTS the limits are more clearly defined.
I don't know where they got you new kids, but I don't remember changing any paradigms. Some of us are backwards compatible and still doing things the old way, still thinking about tech, still running weird software on breadboards and wishing we had breadboard GPUs.
Kids these days, and their astronomology obsessions.
Very similar, yes, with a hard A instead of an oo.
I'm definitely going with Daeshbags from now on. Thank You!!!
You forgot to add a cache before calculating the on-demand impact :)
That makes me want a T-shirt that says, "I'm no worse than Earth Sugardrink"
Yeah, just you wait until then... and you'll find out that they're a tiny tiny fraction of the multi-trillion dollar US economy, and that lower gas prices helps the economy way way more than the income from the US fossil fuel sector.
Guess what, the rest of the business lobby is more powerful than the oil guys are by themselves. When their interests conflict with the economy in general, you should expect government to turn away from them. In this case, the international politics of the US in regard to Russia is aligned with the general US business desire for low energy prices. That combined with Iran getting ready to rejoin the market, combined with projected reduction in fossil energy demand in few years, (based on the level of investment growth in renewable generation and the growth of electric car demand) leaves the Saudis happy to protect their market share by having a price war with US producers. Under normal conditions the US would be inclined to try to protect the US producers, so the Saudis wouldn't have tried it in an adversarial way; it is obvious they cleared the policy with the US first.
You might want to check again on that. They specifically declined to make that rule. It was among the things people asked for.
Pay more attention, FCC rules are important these days!
In general, there is no business principle against a middleman getting paid on both sides. Generally it is regarded as proof that he's adding value. If he wasn't, both sides would be motivated to go around him. That is probably why it is hard to get the FCC to include that sort of rule; there are better general principles to use in regulating unfair access fees. Indeed, being common carriers provides a bunch of general rules where excess access fees get banned, without banning average access fees.
The problem with that observation is that in many cases, tree limbs that are determined by a city arborist to endanger a public road might have to be removed. This is enabled by various laws including zoning laws. Grass or dry plants determined by the Fire Marshall to be a hazard might be forcibly removed from private land, the resident sent the bill.
Luckily, others are making better arguments.
Sounds good at first, but I'm not convinced it is a great solution when it requires O(n) bandwidth for n available channels. The current system only requires O(1) bandwidth for n available channels. Obviously multiple viewing devices changes it slightly, but the proportions remain similar.
The purpose of ClearQAM is to fit the limited number of analog broadcast channels into a fixed bandwidth range of the digital cable broadcast. It doesn't solve the same problem that cable solves. You'd be back to a few channels. I may only watch PBS, but many consumers value and covet access to a larger selection.
The flappy heads seem to somehow enhance their witchcraft. I'm not sure what the mechanism is. But the net results seem to be mostly the ability to conjure petroleum balrogs out of frozen sand, and lots of hot pagan babes.
They'll get their money one way or the other. Eventually they'll probably charge Netflix, on top of us, to deliver their content so they'll get paid on both ends as the middle man.
I could be wrong, but isn't that illegal under current laws?
Nope. What law was that? If you don't even know what the law says, it probably doesn't say whatever you "think" it says. ;)
BTW, not only is it legal for middle-men to get paid on both ends, it is a common practice in many industries. Why would it be wrong by default?
Cable and satellite doesn't insert the commercials, the network does. They just broadcast what the network gives them.
Do you guys even fucking understand basic shit?
Sometimes true, other times not. Do you cowherds even fucking understand basic shit?
I always find semantics works really well for making customers happy.
It works great as long as it leaves them feeling like it was explained to them why the inconvenient or annoying part sucks. Then they're ready to suck it up. They'll often even repeat fragments of it to socially shame anybody who complains.
It wasn't intended as a "blanket" statement, it was a general statement. And it is generally true. Try harder next time. Does your attempted refutation even attempt to refute the main thrust of my claim, or does it leave the main thrust intact?
Both are accused in TFA. So, yeah. One part is Apache and didn't list changed files as required, the other is GPL and source code has been refused.
Please tell me you arent actually in charge of anything.
He did, he said he was talking about a "school district." When you're older, you'll realize that teachers are not authorities, schools are not valued institutions, and they don't have enough of an IT budget to even attempt to do things the "right way." And nobody cares, because none of their files are important.
I'd be more concerned if they were out of paper than if they had awful computers.
http://www.apache.org/licenses...
The claim is that they're violating section b. They have not identified the changed files.
The claims about not distributing source are for the GPL parts.
Or, we could just scan his brain, show him the scan to prove he's in the computer, "delete" the original, and call it a day. If you don't feel the magic that doesn't mean you have to rain on his parade.
From my experience with unicorns, it really depends on diet. If they're shitting skittles you should reduce their food intake before bed. If they're pissing moonbeams, you smoked the exact right amount.
Well if you didn't know, I'll file your comment under "wild speculation disguised as analysis."
And the answer to your question, of course, is "The original." You didn't even consider if your phrasing made sense, did you?
Also, "atom for atom" isn't even the right scale to attempt what you think you're describing. :o
Indeed, and the spores are already floating around in orbit too. They don't even need to bring them in.
The Mirror isn't a good source for anything, but it is a great starting point for people to research the claims made by the people they quoted.
If you're inclined to "believe" things about them that are disprove, and wave away counter arguments using guilt-by-association, you're probably being an idiot. They murder people over what is said about them. Did you know that? I'll bet if you had a news source you could check on it.
OOOoooooh, you think Daesh is secretly the CIA? As a great man once said, "What a maroon."
The CIA got caught "so many" times funding Daesh. How many is "so many?" Zero. LOL
Silly cowherd, she doesn't have a current job in government; she isn't authorized to receive any information she would have to keep secret. If you had a case to make that somebody violated the secrecy act, she'd be the one person we could reliably rule out.
Haters don't think first, they just hate.
Grandpa woke up from his nap and decided to explain the meaning of life to the whippersnappers, that's sweet.
But gramps, they can't hear you. Their ears are so stuffed with neckhair they've become allergic to social justice, so it is physically impossible for them to comprehend civics or representative democracy.
Thanks for trying, though.