Haven't dealt much with cable tech support much, have you? They couldn't figure out what is wrong with a line if you handed them a cable cut in half. They'd first ask you to try and reboot the computer to make sure it wasn't that.
What does the average tech support flow chart reading monkey have to do with automated CPE monitoring setup by the network engineers?
I assume it is rate limited in some way
Just to clarify, it is rate limited in the same way your existing connection is (though likely more so)
Docsis 3 configured with 4096 QAM can push 10 gbps down and 1 gbps up the coax.
Out of that, your service will be allocated some bandwidth over a number of channels, depending on what the ISP feels like offering and how much you are paying them. In the US, lets say you get a 20mbps down package (For our UK friends, pretend it's 100mbps down) - and that is your rate limit.
Now they can allocate a new channel for the other virtual circuit. This is equivilent to having two people in your house each subscribing to the same cable ISP and having their own cable modem on the wire.
Short of massive bandwidth packages requiring many channels, both modems can live and operate quite happily on the same coax, each tuned to a different channel. (Only if multiple channels are bonded to give more bandwidth are dedicated coax runs involved)
In this case, there is a channel your modem uses for your own service, capped at whatever you pay for.
There is a seperate channel the modem also tunes to and sends to the wifi access point built in, that other subscribers can login to.
This unrelated channel will also be capped, and likely much lower than your own service.
That channel is bound to a virtual circuit that isn't under your name, and shows as a dialup pool or the like, where radius logs can link usernames and login times with DHCP logs and the IP(s) being used by whom.
In both cases, a metric crapton of unused and unallocated bandwidth over the coax is sitting there idle. Instead of 10000-20 mbps unused, there will be something like 10000-20-5 (or whatever they end up allocating the wifi)
The bottle necks are further up stream within the ISP network (typically at their edge routers, which link them to other networks) - no longer at the last mile.
In fact the only difference between two virtual circuits terminating in the same modem (one going to ethernet and wifi radio 1 for you, the other going to wifi radio 2 for others) is the hardware being used to do it.
Accounting, bandwidth, and cost wise there is no difference between this setup, and both you and the person next door subscribing to the same ISP.
As far as the network itself goes, this is already a well known and quite solved problem, and has been going on for decades.
The only real concern is the piece of hardware servicing these two circuits in the same software stack. Any security flaws that would let one circuit route to another in any way differently than if they were separate routers would be a "very bad thing"(tm)
Right now I can only reach you over the network by that ethernet jack in the cable modem, that your firewall names "the outside". Any packets I send must abide by your firewall rules to make it through.
A flaw in the router might possibly allow routing between wifi radio 2 and ethernet/wifi radio 1 in a different way than from coax to ethernet/wifi radio 1 and coax to wifi radio 2.
Imagine iptables setup on a machine with 3 ethernet jacks. #1 is ISP, #2 is you, and #3 is the roommate. Packets from #3 to #2 should NOT flow if they wouldn't also be able to go from #1 to #2, or from #1 to #3 even.
Docsis even provides security features where all the cable modems on the same coax can only communicate with the CMTS. You and the person next door, or even the room mate in the same house, willingly communicating over the network will route packets from you out to the cable co and back to the same house to the room mate. Replies take the same long path back. Each cable modem encrypts using unique keys.
Having two such encryption channels in the same cable modem is part of the 3.1 spec at least, so this is more like using an existing feature instead of inventing a brand new home grown solution out of a linux box with multiple network adapters.
(Which I'm not knocking! But sometimes carrier grade router gear is the better bet, and with the public masses involved this would be one of those times)
Some also question the competence of the IT staff comcast chooses to retain, and question if they are capable of realizing such a problem exists as well as can apply the industry standard "fix" defined in the 80s (ie correct filtering rules on the correct interfaces)
There are a number of ways to do this setup properly and securely. But this is comcast here, not the network professionals.
Except your argument has been proven false - many eyes DID catch the bug!
You are posting to an article plainly stating the bug exists, while your post claims such an article doesn't and can't exist because this very bug you are commenting on hasn't and can't be found.
You state this falsehood while at the same time argue the only process that "works" is one where not only would this bug have been around for a decade but still to this day would only be known to the black hat hackers who will use it for ill, depriving the software users (us) of being allowed to even know there is a problem under threat of lawsuits.
I have to seriously question your motives for such a desire and why you don't want people to be secure...
(let's call him Rob)
No no no, scientifically his name must be Carl! Did no one teach you your A B C's?
and of course when you start dealing with SSD's or more expensive drives with smarter controllers your ability to actually do a write to every sector to achieve this goal is somewhat questionable
Every IDE drive made since the 90s has a multicore processor on it that is already more powerful than most hobbiest computers sold as actual computers just the decade before.
The translation between an address on disk to read or store a byte has not matched a static physical location since MFM drives, which most people these days have never seen or heard of.
Some brilliant hackers are only just recently reverse engineering these controllers, learning to run code directly on them.
This guy even has a Linux kernel running on a 2tb Western Digital HD controller chip, and reprogrammed it to silently watch for a certain string to be written by the PC and then return additional data.
His idea was to create a program that could be triggered remotely by getting said string to be written to disk, say by utilizing a webserver log file which puts even invalid requests into an error log.
That drive has a 150mhz 3 core ARM processor, which has a 32 bit memory map, direct access to the sata bus and direct access to the raw storage.
By pausing the HD CPU, memory locations can be changed and the currently running program modified, then the CPU can be unpaused and the code continues to run.
Basically anything you can do from the sATA interface is pretty garenteed not to be able to touch or even be aware of specific locations on the platters where data is stored.
No he means Silicone. Calculators obtain that by displaying 58008
You can't spell out "mama" on a 7 segment display
(Kids these days!)
And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
http://us/org/slashdot/tech//d... (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.
Actually in the 80s that is pretty much how it was.
UUCP mail was routed from one mail server to another to another before finally (hopefully!) landing in a users mail spool on a server they frequently checked more than others. This one done with whats called "bang paths" as they used ! as the separator, and the route was listed left to right ending with a double colon and the username.
Even at the time DNS replaced hosts.txt on the ARPAnet, there were still other connected networks like BITnet and CSnet using different protocols that used mixed forms of routing paths, and neither network required NSF approval to join like the ARPAnet did.
BITnet was IBMs VMS network, and anyone that had a VAX with the RSCS software installed and could afford a leased line was able to get on the network and get data to/from the arpanet.
There was a serious perceived threat from these other protocols, most of which lacked a unified or centrally managed naming lookup scheme (although that is exactly what RSCS was, although only for VAX)
At the time each protocol pretty much only looked out for their own, except for DNS which was advertized as "generic" and "non-proprietary" as only IP was required. DNS was also an open standard like IP and TCP. That was enough for DNS to "win" and become the one true naming system.
I'm not sure why they decided to use a right to left hierarchy beyond just trying to differentiate themselves from existing protocols...
But it doesn't follow the URL/URI standard because that wasn't to be invented for another 10 years or so.
As you say, hindsight is always 20/20
Excluding all ccTLDs, the original gTLDs are:
The first expansion added:
Then ICANN opened this new gTLD program. The listing of new gTLDs approved are here
I had the idea to use it for pre-blacklisting each and every one in my mail and web filters, but opted instead to go with a whitelisting approach hoping for easier maintenance (Thus the easy copy/pasting of the list at the top - sorry, I don't have link references anymore)
The applicant status page makes for better comedy however, as it lists the existing company name that requested the new top-level instead of the fake company name setup to handle domain registrations. (Currently the english TLDs start at page 4)
Most make sense from the twisted world view of trademark holders, but some are true WTF moments...
Amazon for example requested some obvious ones like
But they also have some strange requests like
Amazon requested a whole 76 TLDs, Google requested 102, Microsoft only 11, and surprisingly Apple only requested
ICANN bitched and moaned about not wanting to create
Also interesting is they already approved and delegated
Filtering on similarities shows
A whole 6 pages worth of results have objections linked to them, which sounds promising except there are 56 pages total
Sadly there is way too much money involved for much success of a massive grass-roots preemptive blocking and agreement to not allow such TLDs to resolve.
But I have no qualms about doing so and only white listing individual and specific domains if any of our customers or vendors go the retarded route of making their primary email or websites use one of these.
I'd give our non-english speaking friends a break, because despite the great technical problems involved at least they have a valid reason wanting a TLD in their native language.
Beyond that however, the rest so far look like money grubbing land grabs, stupid branding, or obvious scamming/spammer havens.
I wasn't disagreeing with the facts that were cited, only pointing out that the amount of work that you are going to get out of a particular amount of charge for a given application is directly proportional to that amount of charge, regardless of what the current or voltage levels are, because for any single given electrical application, the power demands tend to be invariant. Under such circumstances, more charge available means powering that particular application for more time, which results in more work being done.
A 12 volt 1 amp-hour battery will store the exact same amount of energy as a 6 volt 2 amp-hour battery. Both store 12 watt-hours of energy.
However if your load requires 12 volt, minimum 10.5 volt, then being powered by the 12 volt 1 amp-hour battery will provide for an hour of useful work, while being powered by the 6 volt battery will likely result in NO work what so ever, despite both providing the same amount of energy.
It's hard to argue 1 hour of work is less than zero hours of work, or that one equals zero.
Meanwhile, money made from selling Windows software to computer makers slid by three percent due to continue soft demand by consumers for personal computers
Yes, I too have been both softly demanding and loudly demanding a personal computer OS from Microsoft, yet all they want to push is some tablet OS unsuited for business work on a personal computer.
At least they aren't acting surprised about their choice.
Dark Matter on the other hand, is something which is not predicted by any theory we currently have.
Before you are at all taken seriously, you have a ton of explaining to do then.
Since you claim General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the laws of Thermodynamics are all not current theories we have, you must start by explaining what each one of those theories explains and then some
You have to explain why the Sun exists, since it can't with the amount of gravity we actually see.
You have to explain the cosmic microwave background image, and why it shows in multiple ways what you claim doesn't exist.
Why does the image indicate 25% barionic matter and 75% non-barionic if that isn't actually the case?
Why does the image show missing spectral lines for missing matter which you claim isn't missing because it doesn't exist?
Why are solar systems the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim?
Why are galaxies the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim?
Why are galactic clusters the shape we see them in if gravity works the way you claim?
How do you explain the galactic filaments since there isn't enough gravity for the universe to look the way it looks?
Once you create a theory to answer all of those, you'll finally be caught up to "now" and can then proceed to wow us with the additional predictions your theory makes that turn out to be the case.
Until then, the evidence is strongly against all of your claims.
You and the people who modded you up should be ashamed.
I don't think time spent studying the monster manuals or magic would be of much aid in the actual spiritual journey we face on earth even if you could make various other claims of benefit.
I don't think the time you personally spend posting to slashdot is of much aid in real life either.
You stop all of your hobbies at my request, and we will talk about me stopping mine at yours.
My own character (who appears whenever I need to advance the metaplot or something) is a Paladin of Khorne, and if you know the lore behind those two things you're probably wondering what the hell I'm smoking)
Khorne the chaos god? A paladin?!
I find what you've been smoking interesting, and would like to subscribe to your campaign!
When you call Bradley Manning a whistle blower, you lose all credibility.
Pft, coming from yourself - who just committed 10 federal crimes today alone - you sir have less than no credibility.
The people with zero credibility have way way more credibility than you do, so naturally they win.
Stop being a criminal and perhaps others might care somewhat about your opinions of the law.
The key thing often forgotten by those who argue against anyone ever voting for a 3rd party is that they somehow think that all voters are "owned" by the 2 major parties. And if someone chooses to vote for a 3rd party, they are somehow "taking votes away" from a major party candidate.
I've never understood that line of reasoning.
Voting 3rd party is akin to "stealing" votes from the two major parties exactly the same as me purchasing a bag of potato chips is "stealing" that money from the entertainment industry.
If someone wishes to claim I was "stealing" my own vote which is mine to do with as I please, then let them step up to the plate first and allow me to dictate how they spend their vote. Otherwise it's nothing more than hypocritical to demand the same of me.
As you already mentioned, each person who votes increases the fractions denominator, and the fact neither of the major two parties counters show an increase in the numerator is by intent and design. This despite the system in place that declares a winner based off the largest fraction, no matter how small of a percentage it normalizes to in the end.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
