I remember when I was playing Monkey Island 2 in hard mode, all my high school class was playing the same and it took a LONG time to solve in a group effort. Today people are lazy and want instant satisfaction, they go to the internet and download the solution right away and the game is spoiled.

Even I would think that maybe this could happen to me, some of this games where damn hard, but what a great satisfaction when you solved it on your own.

I second that, I was just going to post that when I saw your post.

Really, I'm not really sure how much of this is true or enforceable, but I'm sure that ICANN being an us headquartered organization is not helping the matter.

We should we (rest of the world) care what an US Association thinks about anything?

It's interesting how around there are all praises, and around here are all rants. I wonder why's that... (I'm with the latter group, obviously)

At the moment I saw the picture I knew this wouldn't work, that's it... NEXT!

I don't think there is a possible absolute perfect score, since score depends on number of barrels you jump and barrels you smash with the hammer, but at the same time, the bonus score (earned at the end of the level) is decreased as time goes by, so you can't keep jumping barrels to earn score. (it turns out to be increasingly difficult too)

Yes, because most of the people of third world countries are rapists and starving to death. Why don't you make yourself a favor and travel around a little?

Third world citizen

But that's exactly the point, you can do that, and would be the same as the ISP configuring low (normal) sized buffers.

And yes, ISPs are stupid, or not, depending on the way you see it. The side effect of reducing buffer sizes is that you reduce throughput, so you will have to configure more bandwidth to the customer, so that the customer "sees" it's 3M, 7M, or whatever that he paid for. But believe me, ISPs do this, first hand experience.

No, the article is about buffers set on interfaces on network operators, mostly on access interfaces, but also somewhere on "the rest of the internet", although it's not very specific on that. TCP window size IS NOT a buffer, by definition.

I wouldn't say you're stupid, but you're not understanding the problem right. ISPs configure high buffers on low bandwidth links so that the total throughput is higher, at the expense of latency, since, as you say, packets have to wait in queue until they go out when you max out the connection.

This is NOT the right way of doing things, buffers should be smaller, if you max out your connection, your packets will drop, this will cause either TCP (at the protocol level) or the application if there is no support at the protocol level (UDP for example) to back out and lower the transmission rate, WHILE keeping your latency at normal levels.

You'll still have some packet loss, sure, but the overall experience should be better if applications act nice.

And no, QOS is not the solution to this, QOS should work end to end on a connection and that's simply not possible for internet users. What you mean is shaping, or policing, at the interface level, but if you're doing that, you're just avoiding the filling up the buffers, so that you achieve what I described earlier.

It's not blaming on the buffers, it's blaming on the practice of configuring high sized buffers instead of having proper network infrastructure.

Have you no sense of humor?, he MUST be kidding...

PS: if he isn't, I'll second you

What I mean is that the information is not necessary wrong or biased if it was taken from Wikipedia. If they used an argument to make a point, and it was taken as valid, what does it matter where it was taken from if it's valid?, that the ultimate source was wikipedia doesn't make it less valid, and thus, all was said in the trial is still valid if the wikipedia material was well founded, so how is the trial not valid in this case?
 

EVERYTHING has some bias, we are human.

I hope the decision was not made just "because it came from wikipedia". I would look up the references, if the references are valid and from a trustful source (who decides that anyway), the jury decision shouldn't change, right?

I've just switched jobs from a very big international corporation to an ISP, and in both places there is strong investment (in both, time and money) to prepare for IPv6 and the feeling is that vendors are behind expectations.

I don't think it's customers not asking for it, maybe you wont find a lot of customers upgrading equipment just for IPv6, but if you are minimally capable on your job you will ask that any new equipment you're willing to buy from a vendor to have IPv6 support at this point. Even if you're not planning to upgrade on the short term.