Comment Re:Because TCP is broken? (Score 1) 97
Mod parent up, please!
Mod parent up, please!
Lol, and sadly, it does. But it isn't true for many other sites.
You should open up the perf tab of your browser and look at this page to see if it supports your conclusions.
Ensuring that men have and *must take* as much leave when a child is born ends up improving equality *for women*, as now employers have no productivity basis for discriminating against women w.r.t. having kids.
Actually, it is possible to set up a circle of ownership, and lose the share that was owned by someone.
At that point, there is no longer any owner who is a real person.
Firstly: their property is on our (the public's) right of way.
Secondly: Clearly I should apply your reasoning to other utility companies.
Lets assume you're a libertarian, and out of touch with reality.
As a result, your utility company, which is run by a greedy bastard, has decided to cut you off from water and electricity because:
a) He doesn't like you
b) You didn't buy his brother's product when it was offered to you
In any case, according to your argument, that is perfectly fine.
Wait, it gets better!
Lets assume you have a river running through your property...
Is it ok to drop some poison into the stream? It is on your property at the time, right?
Mapping back to today:
The bits flowing over Verizon's wires are NOT (for the mostpart) Verizon's. Why do they get to touch them?
Too late.
Shooting a man in the leg doesn't stop him from speaking directly.
By your definition, this would not be eroding someone's freedom of speech.
"The public venue" is no longer the public street corner. It is no longer newspapers.
It is the internet.
If we wish to be able to converse freely and in a public venue today, it is done online.
Net Neutrality says that you cannot choose to censor or delay messages that you don't like on the network.
This kind of thing is essential to free speech, now that the gov't has given away the public resources to make the public venue to private corporations.
Yes. Pipelining support was optional in HTTP/1.1 effectively.
Multiplexing in SPDY is so essential that if you mess it up, Google (and probably all other sites that use SPDY) won't work at all.
People are thus strongly motivated to get it right, which wasn't true of many of HTTP/1.1's effectively optional features.
As one of the creators of SPDY I can say: SPDY as specified today requires TLS and is only deployed using TLS.
yesh.
We definitely looked at SCTP.
It wasn't, and unfortunately isn't deployable.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that improving HTTP means we can't eventually improve the transport, btw. I think we can, but that it will take longer (e.g. ~10 years or more).
It all depends on the nature of the loss on the path the packets traverse.
Correlated (i.e. simultaneous) loss will be *worse* to the many-connection case. When a network is congested this is the likely loss-type.
Actual random loss (e.g. when using wifi and someone turns on the microwave) can cause a single connection to perform worse than many.
In most cases, the single connection can outperform multiple connections after a bit of startup time.
In all cases many connections adds to buffer bloat and decreases the ability of the TCP stack to react to real congestion.
As for server push... in that case, the server determines what the browser may need. The browser can cancel streams if it finds it already has the resource being pushed.
The server must announce what resources it will push before they're referenced in another resource (to avoid data races).
This assumes some smarts in the servers that doesn't exist in typical HTTP servers (unless they're doing inlining).
All your files have been destroyed (sorry). Paul.