Except Businesses have had access to higher speed symetric DSL for a lot longer; though that's typically a dedicated line instead of one sharing its bandwidth with a voice line.

NetFlix has contracts with lots of folks - Level3 included. These are with respect to pushing content from NetFlix over the backbone into various networks.

NetFlix also promotes having a CDN end-point within an ISP's network to alleviate the need for as much peering; which is what I believe the NetFlix-Verizon deal was about, which Verizon may have (or may not have, we don't really know) charged NetFlix for installing in the datacenters/hubs/central-offices.

However, the fact that NetFlix has done that, which should IMPROVE speed on Verizon's network, and there are still major issues shows that there is something else wrong with Verizon's network. Of course, they might rely on the back bone having sufficient capacity to pull down the information over the CDN too; or it might be that NetFlix installs a direct pipe for the CDNs, we don't know the details. Most likely NetFlix has a contracted pipe with a Level3 interconnect to these, and that is why we're hearing all about it between Level3 and Verizon as Verizon doesn't want to increase their interconnects with Level3 over which those CDN systems are suppose to operate.

But that's just a bit of (educated) guess work as I don't know the details of the Netflix-Verizon arrangement or the network layouts or the NetFlix CDN provisions.

No. Try the 1930's through the 1970/1980's. It wasn't until the 1960's that things started to filter down enough that you didn't need as much background in to the computer systems, and some where in the 1970's/early-1980's it became what you knew, namely as the micro-computer (aka PC, Macintosh inclusive) took over.

However, prior that - and even during the 1980's in corporate environments - most every programmer had to know a lot about the Electric Engineering of the computer. Most all of them had EE degrees; some had math degrees; a fewer had the new CS degree (started in the 1970's, but not really popular until the 1990's; I think the first CS program was late 1960's, circa 1968).

Hmm...that actually makes for an interesting case.

So Level3 basically pointed out the issue with User focused ISP's - that they're asymetric and would never provide the ability for those ISPs to compete in the peering arrangements that back-bone providers have. So now if they go to being symetric, it would allow the users to do more and possibly try to combat what the ISP (e.g Verizon) thinks is a fallacy but they can only prove if they make all their links symetric.

Problem for the ISP is users don't really upload a whole lot any way. So it's not going to change anything for a while. It may get Level3 to drop the "symetric vs asymetric" part of their argument, but it won't change the amount of traffic going from the ISP to back-bone provider.

What will be telling is if they do the same to the DSL customers in the near future as well. Otherwise they are still primarily an asymetric provider as they have more DSL than FiOS customers.

Question is: Will Verizon only do this temporarily as part of an argument with Level3? If so, expect a change in the future when their plan doesn't work out. If not, then hopefully other ISPs will follow in order to "compete".

Well, NetFlix could also enter into agreements with ever backbone provider, thereby forcing Verizon to either do the same to everyone or start upgrading.

Just saying, there's multiple ways to skin the pig that is Verizon...and AT&T for that matter.

Slow down command won't mean a thing when the criminals rip out the necessary parts to make it moot or reprogram it to do something - ignore the command, do the opposite, or even blow up the vehicle.

True, aside from it being a "guided" missile - just set a target in the GPS and off it goes....again, the potential is there and criminals won't allow it to stop just because of a "slow down" or "stop" command. They'll figure out a way to override that before using it.

And again, if they really wanted to do it the technology is already out there and nothing is going to stop them from using it if they really wanted to.

NASA/DoD does a form of Software Engineering based on Engineering principles from other disciplines, namely mechanical and electrical engineering. Much of what they do there doesn't really apply to Software.

What we need to do is define Software Engineering in a manner that is practical for everyone to do it such that no one has any kind of excuse not to do it. To me, it's a matter of doing software in a very discipined manner and has nothing to do with whether you've documented every function at 30 different layers for 10 different stake holders across 5 different organizations.

I'd rather it not be "Americanized"...yes, not all jokes transfer, but it's still good as it is.

I was just noting the irony. That said, I would personally put forward that people doing programming in the real world need a software engineering degree, not a computer science degree as you don't do computer science when writing real-world applications - you apply the principles of Computer Science in an disciplined/engineering methodology.

But then, software engineering as a discipline is in such poor shape that it is not really helpful to anyone but NASA and DOD as currently defined, and that needs to change.

So I do development and I want to cut my costs down. I presently have a desktop at home with a 600W supply and a server with a 250W supply, as well as laptops with 60-90W supplies. As I use the desktop for other things (e.g playing DVDs, Netflix, etc.) I'm satisfied to leave it for now; laptops might get replaced by tablets or chromebooks.

But the server? I keep it on a UPS, and would love to be able to keep it up for a very long time. On the UPS it would only get between 10-30 minutes if power fails (APC 1500). I am very interested in switching it out for a few lower power devices. In fact, I'm targetting replacing it with 3 devices (a Rasberry Pi for authentication, a Udoo for disk storage, and a Routerboard for firewall support) with a total power envelope of 50W.

Do I still intend to do software development on the server? Yes.
Do I still intend to do DNS, DHCP, Samba, WebServers, etc on the server? Yes.

But you know what - unless I'm building something targetting a mainframe, some heavy video driven application (e.g games, autocad, etc) then I really don't need a very powerful system. Point being - a beagleboard, Udoo, or Rasberry Pi really is sufficient for most people doing software development....well, unless you're trying to use Eclipse or Visual Studios, but then you're just asking for trouble.

I'd be amazed if a Civil Engineer could design a skyscraper, and I'd be more amazed at the firm and its insurance backer that allowed them to, and the construction company that did it.

Why? A Civic Engineer doesn't design skyscapers. They decide only where the skyscapers can go and make sure the location can support it.

It's the structural engineer that designs the skyscaper based on the concepts from the architectural engineer that the client wanted to put in the space that the civic engineer told them they had on the land they own.

Of course, all of this was done in software designed by people without any engineering experience at all...go figure.

I think this is more of deluded statement than anything. In the old days you typically had to have an Electrical Engineering degree to do programming - at a time when having a college degree was not the norm. This only filtered out of that circle as geeks took interest before college and tools became easier and costs were greatly reduced. The point: programming has always been done by a small group - the "elite" - at any time in the history of computer systems.

Again, progress has certainly occurred towards this, but the fact of the matter is that most people are not interested in being creative the way programming requires you to be. They'll be happy to play around with HyperCard or Excel long enough to get some basic thing done, but they'll be atleast equally happy to pass it on to some one so they can focus on what their actual job in stead of trying to figure out how to make a fancy little graph.

Many of those things are because of people not skilled enough making the decisions - not understanding what's there and trying to fix it, only to realize later when they do understand it better that they royally screwed it up.

Funny...Java only lasted may be 10 years as the "first" language for CS curriculae. C++ laster longer (15+ years), and C longer than that.

Now unlike with C and C++ they did find bigger issues with Java being the first course - as upper level classes (e.g Networking) found they had to teach kids C/C++ first before they could get into the course material. Not to say that won't still be an issue with Python...it'll probably have its own layer of issues.

Needless to say, if I had to learn programming my freshman year of college I would rather have had Python than Java. (I didn't; I learned to program in High School in a far superior manner than taught at the college level; but that's beside the point here.)

If so, it goes to the central idea behind Airbus designs, which is the very European mentality of design by committee and the government knows best. Remember, Airbus is a conglomerate of nearly all the European nations.

So if the system is working perfectly fine, but the pilot wants to do something that the system thinks the pilot shouldn't do, then who gets to determine the end result? What if doing what the system wanted to do would lead to the system having an issue? Or if the system did not detect that one of its sensors (and the backups) had degraded because they all failed the same way?

There are a million scenarios where the system thinks it is right and the pilot knows the system is wrong but needs to do something else. Time matters in all scenarios where the plane may be in trouble.

Beoing may be fly-by-wire, but there is a difference between fly-by-wire and pilot vs computer being in control. You can design fly-by-wire such that the pilot still has the last say in the matter without having to have the system enter into a degraded mode first.