I'm inclined to agree. People rarely forget their smartphones

I've been looking at DuoSecurity. Rather than SMS they send a push notification to your phone before clearing your login. No screwing around typing codes, just a "was that you logging in from 1.2.3.4?" popup on the phone that I can use to authorize the connection.

Anyone actually used them? Is it as good as their demos?

When have consumer ISPs ever been equal peering partners? Most of them offer asynchronous service and actively discourage the running of servers and peer to peer applications. They've always received far more data than they've sent.

Presumably netflix have a boatload of available inbound bandwidth. Maybe they could set verizon users so they streamed all the data back to them. That'd make verizon happy with their untimely claim about traffic ratios

But what Verizon aren't really saying is whether the bottleneck on that path is on their side or netflix' side.

I recognize that Neflix hold the power here, they have the popular service, they deliver most of the internet's traffic (in the US at least) and when they say "jump" my ISP should say "how high?". They are the primary reason a lot of us have broadband.

That annoys me too. I usually pay to check my bag specifically so I can feel entitled putting my camera/laptop bag in the overhead bin and getting a little more legroom for myself. Having to cram stuff at my feet because others are too cheap to check cases (or even gate check them when it's free) is frustrating.

My understanding is that the license would cost at most 1.064% of their gross revenues, and potentially less as there are preferential rates for cable companies with smaller revenue amounts (and I'm unclear if it's done on a per-market basis)

Netflix could certainly roll out a p2p model like Spotify does. I'd be quite surprised if they haven't already developed a prototype just in case. I'm any event I doubt Verizon will really push the "balanced traffic ratio" argument because there are many ways it could end badly for them

Yeah that could have been more clear. I'm suggesting sending a constant stream of packets until the target asks you to stop. No need for windowing or flow control, but pretty computationally expensive

Netflix almost certainly has done tests on actual residential connections where they control for poor Lan setup.

They can also probably reach a statistical conclusion just fine because those customers with bad wifi setups likely exist on well performing isps as well

Surely Verizon can't expect balanced peering when they sell asymmetrical service to their customers. Suggesting they should get paid by Netflix because of the imbalance doesn't seem fair.

And really, if Netflix offered cloud backup service they could probably right a whole lot of that balance while causing even more headaches for isps

I can't wrap my head around exactly how, but it seems that the block chain is the closest thing we have to a cryptographic timestamp

Since the government have control of all those computers now, would it be ethical for them to go in and actually install the patches to stop them being easily becoming victims next time around?

The story linked to seems to have an awful explanation of what's going on. This makes a lot more sense:

http://www.codeontechnologies....

Reminds me a little of a random project I started back in college where I'd transmit a file in a bunch of packets where each contained the original file modulo a specified prime number. That way, if the file was split into 10,000 packets, then the transmitter could send out a constant stream of packets module different primes and as soon as the receiver got any 10,000 of them they could use the extended euclidean algorithm to reconstruct the original file.

I was hoping we'd someday be able to multicast udp over the net to multiple random locations and this would be a fast way to send files.

Only over a very long timeline.

I almost thing the best solution would be to put something so radioactive right by the door that anyone who enters will be dead within a few days. That way there's much less chance of future archaeologists from pulling out fuel rods and stuff that will cause a slow death to many people.

You are clearly confusing a legal requirement with a good practice. It's absolutely a good idea to get a model release and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. However it's mostly required for editorial and advertising photography because the potential lawsuit risks are so high (and typically people doing advertising have the dollars to be forced into big payouts).

Go read up on Arne Svenson - he shot artistic photos of his neighbors through their open windows. A lawsuit against him was dismissed last year and the judge said ”An artist may create and sell a work of art that resembles an individual without his or her written consent".

The Svenson case is even more egregious because it covers photographs taken without any consent (written or otherwise). I see why it's an obvious target but I don't think changing the rights of photographers and other artists is an appropriate response to this.

Generally no. You can indeed take artistic pictures and hang them in a gallery, for sale, without a release.

It's certainly prudent to have a release and I wouldn't consider shooting someone without one, but you don't NEED one unless the image will be used for advertising or promotion.