Comment Re:Equality (Score 1) 490
So what's the article trying to say? That a toy which inspires a child's interest in science and technology is BAD unless it inspires boys and girls in equal proportions? Get outta here.
So what's the article trying to say? That a toy which inspires a child's interest in science and technology is BAD unless it inspires boys and girls in equal proportions? Get outta here.
I already practice dual stream recyling: paper goes to the dump while plastic and metal goes in the blue bin.
Maybe it's time to stop treating mixed paper products that come from renewable resources as if they are worth recycling.
Trump is pretty good at enriching himself. Not so good at enriching his investors. If it's the economy you care about, pick someone else.
Exactly. Favoring PBS' superb programming and supporting donation and sponsorship to keep it going is a separate issue from disapproving of government funding.
Ron Paul supporters are against government funding for a lot of activities they strongly support. That's kinda the whole idea of libertarianism: personally support the stuff you like but get the government out of it.
Div by zero means my program encountered an error. If it continues anyway, it could corrupt its database or misbehave in other destructive ways. Worse, it could provide the operator with incorrect results leading to real-world destruction.
So yeah, I want divide by zero to throw an exception and I don't wish to ignore the exception.
Stephen Cole Kleene and Ken Thompson
Your reasoning does not make sense. If each packet benefits each side equally then the benefit from all of the packets is exactly equal. Direction ratios, length of travel and phase of the moon are all irrelevant bits of information that don't apply to the question.
In a functional free market, Time Warner and Comcast would be paying Netflix the same way they pay ABC and CBS. Let's not have any delusions about the current monopoly/duopoly state of affairs being a functional free market.
That sounds so reasonable. Just one problem: those customers you took where you found them paid you to take them where you found them and connect them to the Content networks. Refusing to provide that paid-for service (or throttling it) until the Content networks _also_ pay you is fraudulent double-billing.
Outbound traffic is much cheaper than inbound traffic. You can dump outbound traffic off at the nearest meeting point with its destination network. But you have to carry inbound traffic from wherever the source network gives it to you.
That's a half-truth.
At any connection with the source network, you advertise the destinations you're willing to accept traffic for. Nothing requires you to accept packets for your entire global network at every location where you interconnect; that's something you choose (or choose not) to do.
Sending packets for destinations you did not advertise has long been deemed a violation of any peering agreement, subjecting the transgressor to disconnection.
Likewise, most service providers respect the destination network's advertised priority for each of its destinations. If the "AS path" is "shorter" at the distant connection point, packets are sent to the distant interconnection, not the nearby one. When offered at the same priority from each interconnection point, the packets do of course travel to the nearer one.
The few networks who disregard these advertised priorities and just send to the nearest interconnect tend to suffer from greater malfunction and customer ire.
They might agree to not exchange any money so long as each of them carries about 50% of the packages across the ocean. But if the US post office carries 80% of the packages across the ocean, some money is going to have to change hands to keep it fair.
That's totally disingenuous. The postal systems are sender-pays systems. Of course a portion of that payment must be passed forward to each of the postal systems in the delivery chain.
The Internet is a meet-in-the-middle system in which both sender and receiver pay to reach any of the midpoints where packets are exchanged. Regardless of any ratios, the packets transiting those interconnects have already been paid for in both directions.
If you want to convert to a sender-pays system where everybody gets free gigabit fiber in their homes but Netflix has to pay for access then sure, your example would make sense.
Which AT&T? The rebranded Cingular or the old one that collapsed to nothing allowing Cingular to buy them? Nortel, of course is in bankruptcy. And you wrote the software that managed their money you say? Did it round off the pennies?
Peering is not an uplink at all. It has different characteristics.
Internet Transit service (that uplink) connects you with the rest of the Internet. It's expansive. It connects you to "everything."
Peering connects you with your neighbor and his paying customers. Nothing else, just the folks who have paid your neighbor to connect them with "the Internet."
Are you comprehending the difference? One connects you with everything, even when the ISP has to pay for it. The other connects you only to folks who have already paid the ISP to connect them to you.
"Bandwidth is bandwidth." Sure, if you're ignorant about how networks actually work.
The ATO is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Getting an Authority To Operate is a paperwork beast which nonsensically requires you to not do the things which your computer must do in order to achieve its mission. This compliance problem consumes the technical staff. Staff directed to work towards compliance are pushing paper, not identifying or correcting security flaws within the context of the system's operation. This leaves the flaws unknown and unaddressed.
It works fine on non-windows OSes and has no particular speed problems that I've observed.
It is, as you say, complicated and confusing to use. They send a browser certificate you have to use to authenticate which basically nobody else does, and the process for using it is clunky. Then you have to find the sign-this-certificate functionality which while not exactly hard is also not exactly obvious.
That's the spin anyway. Ask any network cut out of the peering process (which is most of them) whether not they "accept" the practice.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
