Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Peering and Bandwidth Symmetry (Score 2) 182

That does not mean you can not work out effective deals where everyone wins. If I peer with you in several geographic locations, it takes load off your backbone links, lowering your cost (L3 example). If I am a small operator peering in one area, an arrangement could be worked out where my prefixes are only advertised in the region through the use of bgp communities, reducing the other providers backbone costs. This is effectively what should have been done with netflix. L3 taking this issue up is a major game changer though, a old school tier 1 who peers with no one is fighting for capacity on several eyeball networks, rules be a changing...

Comment Re:Peering and Bandwidth Symmetry (Score 4, Insightful) 182

Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge. If one direction generates more traffic than the other, the source pays for the asymmetry.

This model is outdated, in the good old days networks had a mix of eyeballs and content, now we have completely separate eyeball and content networks. This is mostly the result of the cable/telco monopolies. In the new normal, traffic will never be balanced. I am paying comcast for internet access, it is their responsibility to provide be high quality service. In order to accomplish that they should have an open peering policy and connect at all public exchanges. If the large providers don't get on board with more open peering policies they are going to eventually run into a consumer or small NSP brought anti-trust lawsuit.

Comment Re:The Day After (Score 1) 878

I disagree with your assertion. Why can't an interceptor system not address a massive first strike? Are you current on missile defense? The currently deployed ground based midcourse defense system works, its just a matter of rolling out sufficient launch facilities and interceptors. The US has between 30-200 operational ground based midcourse interceptors operational. If we rolled these systems out to deal with a massive first strike, we would likely have good success if it were needed. We should continue to develop this technology, rome wasn't built in a day.

Comment Re:They're scared they won't be able to. (Score 2) 878

Why do people keep saying that only a 100% effective missile defense system is acceptable? Why is 50% not acceptable? MIRV ICBM's are no different for launch and mid stage interceptors, the thing we put all of our effort into. The Russians have ~350 ICBM's, we should have 5x as many interceptors that are designed for each stage. These can be capable on subs launched ICBM's as well, its just a matter of investment. I would be very happy to have a even a 20% success rate from a missile defense system in an all out attack. Thats a lot of people, equipment, and industrial capacity saved.

On the topic of MIRV's, we gave our up to appease Russia but they backed out of returning the gesture. Its time we bring them back, they were an effective deterrent.

Comment Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor (Score 5, Interesting) 878

This risk is outdated. With the amount of bond buying that the US Federal Reserve has engaged in over the past few years buying all of the debt held by Russia and China combined would not even make a dent should they desire to sell it all, the FED and other nations (Japan) will happily buy. Russia's $100 billion and even China's $1.2T are small potatoes compared to the $16T+ the fed and friends have printed with little consequence as of yet.

Russia relies on Europe energy sales for 25% of its GDP, Europe relies on Russia to provide 6% of its energy. Sanctions targeting this will hurt Russia very badly and they know it. They have been strong arming Europe for years on energy, delaying their economic recovery. Its time the tables were turned.

Comment Re:The importance of a strong military (Score 1) 498

Ukraine has a strong military, for reasons I can not explain the media has been representing them as not being a match for Russia. Raw equipment and manpower does not win a conflict. There are far more factors to consider. Russia has a total military strength of ~775k. Of that 57% of them are 1 year conscripts (publicly pledged not to be used in combat last year).The other 334k professional soldiers and officers (how many do you think are required to keep the conscripts under control), what percentage do you really think they can commit to Ukraine's 129k+ personal force plus their 1 million reserves (who all had 18-24 months service). Do you think Russia will abandon the defense of the entire country to invade Ukraine? Because thats what it would take. Do you really think Russia can call up their reserves when draft dodging and desertion have them 225k men under their legally required minimum strength? Perhaps thats the plan spread Russia thin, militarily and politically.

Comment Re:Go wireless (Score 1) 324

Find someone who can get 50mb+ cable/dsl that is near your subdivision and put up a mesh network connecting the homes with that site. Get a VPS that is geographically near you or in the normal path for your internet traffic with sufficient ip addresses that you tunnel back to your subdivision. Instant ISP, the cable/dsl guys will just see tons of VPN traffic and never know....

Comment Re:Too bad (Score 1) 277

Does Canada have some form of energy assistance that Theo can apply for to keep the power on in his garage? Many US states have programs that cap power under 7% of your income if you are poor as I assume he is with the lack of donations paying his bills, surly Canada does as well.

Comment Re:Minimal ghg impact (Score 3, Interesting) 314

I looked at several ethanol proposals back in the 2000's, every single one I took a pass on investing in because it was obvious that I would loose my shirt the second the government pulled the rug. These things, just like wind, have never been or never could be profitable without the subsidy. Anyone who was dumb enough to invest in these things deserves to lose their shirt. I completely gave up on renewable energy in 2008 when it was clear to me that no one wanted real solutions, just government handouts. I saw several technologies and processes never built because they were profitable on their own and everyone wanted something with a government handout attached.

Another major issue is with renewable power generation that isn't wind or solar. I can list off 10 projects that the utilities conspired to kill because they would be able to drive down the price of electricity in an area forcing them to shut down their legacy generation due to oversupply. The wind/solar mandate is the culprit in many of these cases as they have no choice but to buy X amount of wind/solar and they have to buy at the public market (electricity is traded electricity on a market based system in regional markets) so anything other than what they have and the feds require is a major threat for them.

Comment Re:Diesel is a better solution (Score 1) 314

People need to stop projecting their values and worldview on valueless lying politicians whose worldview is you could never imagine. Many smart and decent people assume that politicians (usually the ones on the team they support) are also smart, decent, and share their values. Where in fact they may be smart, they are not decent and care nothing for the greater good, only their own good disguised as the greater good, open your eyes.

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...