http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg19609.html

The president of unWired (a much more reputable ISP) has also blocked the same server. A DDoS was apparently attacking said server which wast travelling over both lines. According to this post, the block was due solely to stop the DDoS.

The reason films are acceptable at 24 frames is because there's a very large amount of motion blur inherent to the format. This blur smooths out movement and hides the low frame rate. Stop-motion animation *doesn't* have this motion blur, which becomes obvious whenever you see it.

I'm currently playing MGS4 on an SDTV and... good god, everything's tiny. It's nearly impossible to read half the material on the screen!

I was in this chat, and here's a partial summary of what was discussed:

The current behavior is this:
The redirected urls are of the form www.*.com/net/org

They have partnered with Yahoo to give the results, and are using this as an excuse for the ads.

They do not deny this is a revenue source, and claim it's for "adding speed", etc.

They claim they will not block port 53.

Don't blame me, I voted for Cromartie!

Montgomery Scott?

If, before you could eat it, you were somehow required to add Monopolorton(tm) brand Sodium, and they somehow stuck you with the sodium chromate?

I'd call that the restaurant's problem.

I love how the previous story was this one:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/09/220244

I remember an item duplication bug from FF7..

If you had W-Item, you would select and use an item, then use it again, then unselect it. This would give you an extra item. You could do this with any item and suddenly have 99 Elixirs.

This was doubly useful in the last dungeon, when you had an enemy that would give you a large amount of experience, but was only defeatable after being given an Elixir.

One issue is the fact that there is usually an entrenched monopoly or duopoly in most markets. This is due usually to two reasons:

Creating a brand-new ISP usually has an extremely high barrier to entry, in that you would have to lay down cable to every possible premise in the market. This is *extremely* expensive, and the situation naturally lends itself to a monopoly.

Less common, but still a factor, is a *legally mandated* monopoly. Some communities sign exclusivity agreements with providers, meaning you only can have just the one provider.

In addition, the control of deciding the path of your packets is something that actually lies in the routers that are on the path between you and your target. You don't control it, and it is decided according to algorithms that determine the path of least resistance for your data. You really *can't* have the control necessary to decide the best path for *you*. This automated routing actually a necessary element in load balancing that is inherent to the Internet, and couldn't really be removed without damaging the usability of the internet.

Giving these ISPs the kind of control necessary to overcome network neutrality means that they can give themselves what is effectively censorship control over the communities they serve. Some of us consider preventing that level of control is worth regulating the control ISPs have over their own networks.

Oh yeah.. "their own"...

A significant portion of their networks is actually funded by the taxpayer. The U.S. government gave them $200 billion in order to expand their networks. Government money should come with government regulations.

How fitting that his name means "stupid" in Japanese...