I haven't posted a journal here in almost three years, because I couldn't find the button to start a new entry.
So... hi, Slashdot. I used to be really active here, but now I mostly lurk and read. I've missed you.
You misquoted me, so you fail at trolling. I said Bing was losing money which it is. It's losing crazy amount of cash.
I'm sure Office and Win7 can subsidize it for a long time, but facts are facts. Y! Is profitable, Bing is not.
Uhm, no. The submitted said in his submission that Yahoo! is losing money. It is not. As much fun as it may be to kick Y! I think one should at least use the facts. MICROSOFT is losing money fast, but Y! is profitable.
Say what you want about Yahoo! but it is not "money-losing". Yahoo! is profitable. Yes, top-line growth has been a problem but management of the bottom line has driven profits UP not DOWN. Bing may be losing money hand over fist but Yahoo! is still bringing in the cash.
I bet the folks who love to keep beating on Yahoo! also kick puppies for fun...
Amateur Radio has a secondary allocation on 900-928Mhz. The ordinance doesn't say anything about HF.
Also, there are first responder radio systems in 900Mhz, and these smart meters don't play nice.
I think the idea isn't to block just YouTube from Italy...block Italy from accessing ANY Google content. I bet the people of Italy need Google more than Google needs them.
Well, when I RTFA it said that no the cost of living wasn't that much cheaper. And you're talking almost a 50% paycut. So maybe you're making 50 to 60k, in a place with nothing to do, and a lower standard of living. I suppose it's better than being homeless...
Taking less pay for lower cost of living makes sense. But it sounds like other than housing the cost of living isn't much lower. Plus, interviewing for a job once the economy turns around will be hard and you'd have to relocate again. Where's the win in this?
tell her to plan on upgrading both her computer and her first-mile provider service in the next couple years
1. You have a choice in first-mile providers? Must be nice. I live in the middle of Mtn. View, home to Google. The heart of Silicon Valley. I can get nothing more than 1.5Mbps from AT&T. If I want something faster (which I do) Comcast is the only game in town. So no, changing carriers doesn't solve any problems.
2. Neither broadband carrier here currently offers native v6.
Kinda sad, isn't it?
Staying IPv4-only is just plain going to cost more in the long-run than moving to IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack.
This I agree with. I think CGN is not a solution and is a stupid and lame attempt by carriers to avoid switching to v6. However, you were the one who seemed to think it was fine. Just put your ad servers in their address realm you said.
The fact is that v6 is not going smoothly. I'm involved from the CP side and it's a bitch. However, it's a necessary evil. Trying to postpone things with CGN will not only just drag out the inevitable but it will jack things up for a lot of people It is pure fail.
And I won't have much sympathy for the people don't like being nickle-and-dimed for searches but can't bother to run a modern IP stack on a modern network that provides IPv6 service.
You may not care about them, but the CPs do since that's where their money comes from. Or are you gonna tell you grandma to get a tunnel to HE because Comcast, one of the biggest residential providers out there, doesn't have v6 yet? Well, *you* probably would. Normal people wouldn't.
Google has production IPv6 service now...
Well, if by "production" you mean that their load balancers are proxying v6 connections, yeah. The content providers are deploying v6 and not CGN.
The ISPs are way slower. I've been signed up for a Comcast trial forever and not heard anything.
Oh well...I'm sure Google's price-per-search will be pretty low. They'll probably offer discount packages like cell phone carriers...
That would be the motherfuckers that make the free services you enjoy (like, oh I don't know, Web Search) possible.
So yeah, what you're suggesting won't happen. I guess you'll enjoy google micropayments, paying them by the query....
How exactly is the CP supposed to get their ad server inside of a carrier's address realm without being inside their routing domain? Multiple private peering sessions with each carrier in some sort of MPLS VPN setup to keep the conflicting RFC1918 blocks separate?
The websites I frequent are not reliant on ad-revenue, and those that are are easily replaced with ad-free alternatives that have existed for years, if not decades.
You visit Slashdot (obviously) and you mention Facebook and Google. There are three sites right there that *are* reliant on ad revenue, so you might want to rethink the above statement. And two of those three rely on IP for geolocation. It's not the most precise way to do it, but it works.
I don't get your "You think that the carriers are going to let them?" comment. Carriers love it when CDNs want to park a server inside their network. Ads are no different: less traffic through the external tube, faster load times for customers.
I think you woefully underestimate the kind of data the ad network would need from the carrier to make that work. And somehow I doubt the carrier is gonna do that for free. So yeah, this is still going to kill the content providers.
CGN is just epic fail. And that's just one reason.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
