I hate to spam, but here is something you need to look at if you're looking to get an accredited online degree: www.wgu.edu. Western Governors University is affordable: $3000 per 6 month term, where you can do as many credits as you can. I got my MSc in 18 months, for 9k. Everything was online, except graduation, which was a big party in Utah.

5 Stars, strongly recommend.

Yes, you are right.14 CFR specifies that the FAA has authority over everything that is man-made and flies.

The FAA has authority to create rules, but the current set of rules need to be applied to newer technology. In short, the rules are limited to:

(source: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...)

What we should have is a set of rules which make a clear distinction between a "drone" and a toy aircraft. For example, I have one of those tiny Hubsan x4 quadcopters. The maximum distance it can fly is 300ft according to the spec, but by then I've already lost it as it is so tiny. A friend of mine has a $2000 GPS-equipped quadcopter with a call-home function. That would probably fit in the not-so-toy specification.

At this time, no skill-test is required to fly a heavy drone. All I'm advocating for is that we get people certified in rules and regulations, and make RC pilots aware of the NOTAM and TFR systems.

No, the FAA should have clear authority in clearing the airspace. The FAA should regulate drones as any other aircraft, and make a clear distinction between a "drone" and an RC toy.

That means that drone operators must comply with FAA rules, check weather briefings and NOTAMs before every flight and stay the F out of a TFR.

Bill, you should know that peering has nothing to do with CoS (fast lanes). Peering is about two networks agreeing to directly exchange traffic when that makes operational and business sense. When Snake Oil Inc with a /19 and 5000 dsl subs wants to peer with Cogent, I will guarantee you that they will be redirected to the sales department. And justly so.

If you're advocating that unless one peers with everyone who sends a peering request, one is violating "net neutrality", you really need to go back to networking school.

I totally understand your point that refusal to peer can be construed as willingly disrupt the shortest path between two networks, but that is an operational decision left to the owner of the network, and does not imply a lower priority on the network. If the FCC would mandate all networks to have a public and open peering policy, I will guarantee you that they will lose every single lawsuit as the government does not need to dictate how someone routes their traffic.

Sabri
JNCIE-M #261, JNCIE-SP #261, JNCSP-SP, ECE-IPN #2, ECP-FB

You clearly don't understand the internet.

Peering (as opposed to transit) is two private networks deciding that they exchange enough traffic that it justifies the capex and opex of a dedicated network port or dedicated peering session between the two networks.

If large network A already sees small network B through peering with large network C (in which case usually B is a customer of C), there is little reason for A to peer with B unless bi-directional traffic reaches certain levels. Those levels are part of network A's peering policy.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Total and utter bullshit, and FUD originating from Netflix etc in their "peering dispute" with Comcast. Network B can purchase enough bandwidth from network C. If there is an issue with bandwidth between network B and network A, they will figure it out and add additional ports.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

So, stop using GitHub and post it on your own blog.

Hypothetical question with no real-world application.

1. The guy talks about "5s ping". That means 2500ms latency one-way.
2. You will not find 2500ms latency anywhere in the world. You did not even find that in 1994.
3. Even satellite will provide better than that: ~300ms.
4. Your question lacks an important parameter: bandwidth and server/receiver memory.

As long as you have enough memory, you can store the entire transmission without acking.

Yes, totally agree. Line all of them up against a wall in Utah please.

Disagree there. The attendant is most likely a minimum wage working hanging on to a job to make a living. I don't think a lot of people would like to have that job. That worker did not deserve that treatment. The attack was not aimed at the company or even at the fact that a car was being towed, but merely to humiliate someone in a low-income job who is most likely struggling to meet ends (otherwise, why take such a shitty job?). All out of sheer frustration.

Being nicer would probably have helped a lot more. I had a similar experience the other day. A company did something I did not like, in fact, I was more than pissed. I called the company and before a started my rant, I told the person on the other line: "I know you're only picking up the phone so what I'm about to say is nothing personal. BUT I AM PISSED LIKE CRAZY FOR COMPANY XYZ TO DO ABC". She totally understood ("yes sir, I'd be quite upset as well), and fixed the problem on the spot, apologized on behalf of the company and sent an internal note to prevent this from happening again.

I agree, but for a different reason.

I would have threatened to sue the school for the lack of proper information security. If teachers are allowed to use their last name as their password and type it out in front of students then something is severely wrong and it has to be assumed that a data breach has already happened undetected.

Totally fair comments. My goal was not to say that you are wrong, but to point out that a significant amount of the current tech force may come from oversees. One thing that rarely gets mentioned in the H1-B discussion but should be included is the amount of L1s that are working in the tech industry. For L1s it is more difficult to displace US workers as they are already working for the same company, but with an L1-A it is extremely easy to get a green-card so the chances of actual displacements are higher.