Never bring politics... to an electronic documentation of timeline fight with a database company.

Almost all router bandwidth management is shit.

Bandwidth management schemes currently used by everything you mention are all base on rate limiting packet delivery based on some mythical QoS value, and they ignore the actual problem that the people who are using these things are attempting (and failing) to address.

The problem is that the point of a border routers is to hook a slower border uplink to a faster interior connection; on the other end of the slower uplink, you have a faster ISP data rate. In other words, you have a gigabit network in your house, and the ISP has a gigabit network at their DSLAM, but your DSL line sure as hell is *NOT* a gigabit link.

What that means is that software that attempts to "shape" packets ignores an upstream-downloads or a downstream-uploads ability to overwhelm the available packet buffers on the high speed side of the link when communicating to the low speed side of the link.

So you can start streaming a video down, and then start an FTP transfer, and your upstream router at the ISP is going to have its buffers full of untransmitted FTP download packets worth of data, instead of your streaming video data, and it doesn't matter how bitchy you are about letting those upstream FTP packets through your router on your downstream side of the link, it's not going to matter to the video stream, since all of the upstream router buffers that you want used for your video are already full of FTP data that you don't want to receive yet.

The correct thing to do is to have your border router lie about available TCP window size to the router on the other end, so that all intermediate routers between that router and the system transmitting the FTP packets in the first place also lie about how full the window is, and the intermediate routers don't end up with full input packet buffers with nowhere to send them in the first place.

Does your border router do this? No? Then your QoS software and AltQ and other "packet shaping" software is shit. Your upstream routers high speed input buffers are going to end up packed full of packets you want less, and you will be receiver live-locked and the packets that you *do* want won't get through to you because of that.

You can either believe this, or you can get a shitty router and not get the performance you expect as the QoS software fails to work.

Then you can read the Jeffrey Mogul paper from DEC Western Research Labs from 1997 here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... ...after which, you should probably ask yourselves why CS students don't read research papers, and are still trying to solve problems which were understood 27 years ago, and more or less solved 17 years ago, but still have yet to make their way into a commercial operating system.

BTW: I also highly recommend the Peter Druschel/Guarav Banga paper from Rice University in 1996 on Lazy Receiver Processing, since most servers are still screwed by data buss bandwidth when it comes to getting more packets than they can deal with, either as a DOS technique against the server, or because they are simply overloaded. Most ethernet firmware is also shit unless it's been written to not transfer data unless you tell it it's OK, separately from the actual interrupt acknowledgement. If you're interested, that paper's here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... and I expect that we will be discussing that problem in 2024 when someone decides it's actually a problem for them.

1. On the Start Screen, click Desktop.
2. Open Internet Explorer.
3. Go to ClassicShell.net.
4. Download and install the Classic Shell application.
5. Congratulations! You have upgraded to Windows 7.1. Now watch our Windows 7 video.

Yes, that's how important I think Classic Shell is: it goes on even before Firefox.

Fraid not. If it's convention for people to carry a gun for defence, they will also be used offensively. If you have a gun, I'll assume you'll use it offensively as well. If you're prepared to kill someone rather than look for ways to de-escalate an argument, even at some personal risk, then I would assume you are not right in the head, and inclined to be unpredictable.

And you method favours those who would kill rather than suffer a punch. Psychopaths, in other words.

Then it's a good job that Apple won't be installing anything in a vehicle.

This is about the Carplay protocol, not about Apple making head units or stereos.

Man, I know that slashdot users can't read the articles, but it's getting bad when they don't read the summary either before rushing to post.

My goodness you really made yourself look foolish didn't you?

This is about a protocol that head units can support. It is not about an Apple-made head unit. Apple will not be making a head unit. Companies like Alpine and Pioneer (and others, but not Apple) who do make head units can implement the CarPlay protocol allowing the extension of the phone's interface beyond more than the current protocol enables.

These head units, of course, can/will/may not implement other protocols, such as the similar one that supports Android phones.

You mean the new magsafe connectors that have a $10 adaptor that Apple sells to convert between the two?

Oh, sorry, you were making an uninformed Apple bash for karma, sorry to interrupt with something as trivial as fact.

http://store.apple.com/us/prod...

You're old enough to drive? You do surprise me!

I charge my iPhone with an Android charger.

Next question?

There are areas where land's contribution to the cost of food and shelter can far exceed the contribution of labor. How much does farmland cost again? And where can one lawfully pitch a tent to sleep for the night?

My understanding is that capital gains tax is lower because the business you're investing in has already paid its half in corporate income tax. It's like the FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax in the United States: part of it gets deducted from gross income, and part of it the employer has to pay separately.

Not necessarily. From the article:

A spinning HDD might require more power than an idle SSD but it is not necessarily true that a HDD requires more power all the time. Also if you look at wattage per GB, HDDs are more efficient as you need more SSDs right now to match the same capacity as a HDD. For consumers, it's a small difference but enterprises requiring lots of drives look at efficiency more closely.