Berating the stupid is being "professional" in my books.

Molllycoddling the incompetent just leads them to think they're better than they are.

Wireless bandwidth is limited by the allocated spectrum. With landlines, you can always drag more fiber or copper, hook it up, and expand your bandwidth. You can't do that with wireless.

But I expect to be modded down because I'm not jumping on the "everything should be unlimited" bandwagon.

Parents are and have always been responsible for the behaviour and expenses incurred by their children. If they go on a rampage of vandalism, the parents are responsible for the damages. If they steal a car and wreck it, the parents are responsible for the damages.

This is no different. The parents are being held responsible for the damages done by their children.

To hell with absentee parenting that lets children do whatever the hell they want with no restrictions or monitoring.

You bred your rug rats -- now bloody well take responsiblity for the results of your actions: raising and training your children!

Gates and his ilk want consumption taxes instead of capital taxes because they don't spend anywhere near as much as they have consuming things.

As per usual, it's the rich trying to protect their ill-gotten gains.

Let me guess: "This content is not available in your region" messages for anyone outside the US. :(

Had the goobernmint not let the NSA run roughshod over the constitution and the rights of people both foreign and domestic, the general public would not be baying for the means to keep them out.

The goobernmint brought this upon themselves through their abuses.

Screw 'em.

The idea that there are few women gamers has always been a myth in the first place. Sure there are certain genres where men and boys dominate the demographic, but there are also genres where women dominate the demographic.

The idea that women "don't belong in gaming" or are "under-represented in the gaming community" is a myth perpetrated by the same kind of childish mentality that thinks "l33t speak" makes one cool and special.

The reality is that doing security audits and code reviews are boring. Unless you have someone who is really dedicated and knows their stuff taking on the task for an open source project, or someone paying a team to do it (TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt), it's not going to happen. In theory corporations are paying their staff so it should happen, but in reality corporations are likely to push such reviews way down the priority list because they cost money. Spending money is bad to a corporation, m'kay?

Personally I've never believed in the "many eyeballs" approach because even when porting an open source project to a new release of an OS or a custom distribution, I only learn the bare surface of the code -- enough to get the port running. I most certainly do not do an in-depth learning and understanding of the code being ported.

As a result, the only one who does any sort of real review is usually the original developer -- the person(s) least likely to see the flaws in their work that are caused by misunderstandings and erroneous assumptions -- because they don't know any different than they did when writing the code in the first place!

Apparently having a different view on things is discouraged nowadays, because every time I disagree with the slashbot masses on politics and theory, I get modded down.

Mod points aren't "disagree" points, assholes. If you disagree, start a discussion.

And it mattered not one whit to me because I don't use any bandwidth-heavy video services like Netflix in the first place. I couldn't care less about the quality of Netflix streams.

None of the services I use are bandwidth intensive. None of those websites are big enough to pay for customized or specialized hardware and links. They've always been at the mercy of the congested public net.

And getting as much of the Netflix traffic off that congested public net as possible can only improve the bandwidth availability for all those other sites.

Anyone who relies on the security of a cloud server to protect information that other people want is a fool. Period.

I don't care if it's nude pictures, your stock reports, or your financial data.

The internet is not secure. Sooner or later, a flaw will be found and your data is out in the wild.

There's a big difference between buying a box and funding the research as Microsoft has done.

Channel bonding sends pieces of the request in parallel over the different channels. It does not send the same request over multiple channels. Channel bonding's goal is to increase total bandwidth, not to reduce latency.

Hmm. I just caught the part about the Linux server at the data center doing the demultiplexing.

I suppose, at least in theory, you could go on the assumption that both channels are always sending the same data, and have them forward the request appropriately, cache the message block, and do a comparison on all message blocks incoming over both channels before forwarding one to eliminate the duplicates.

You'd then have to do the same thing on the Windows "client" box at home.

Quite frankly, I can't see how it wouldn't be easier to just get a landline connection. You certainly couldn't rely on "normal" multipath software solutions to do this -- they're designed to switch back and forth between a primary and a failover route, not transmit over both routes at the same time.

You'd also have to become very familiar with the internal driver coding for both Windows and Linux. Certainly not a project for a "new to programming" person who wouldn't think up the simple solution of keeping a queue/cache of requests to check for duplicates in the first place.

TCP can deal with duplicate packets from the same endpoints. Sending duplicate packets over two entirely seperate routes would require that the server be able to deal with demultiplexing the requests. I seriously, seriously doubt that any game servers are set up to do that. As far as the game server would be concerned, it's two seperate clients for the same account connected.