Yik Yak isn't a valid comparison to the rest of the Internet, because it is only anonymous. It is the smartphone app for /b/, and it comes with the same issues.

If they want to change the app to something that has a persistent ID, then there is all sorts of methods to start weeding out assholes. The moment they do that, though, it stops being completely anonymous and starts becoming just a localized version of Twitter.

Even this site relies on pseudonyms to maintain some level of reputation. Anonymous posts have no reputation, no history of being a productive or disruptive member. The idea of being able to be completely anonymous requires acceptance that some will misuse it. Either embrace it or stay away from it, because there simply is no way to "fix" it without changing it into something else entirely.

Your reference only looked at 3rd shift.

When you look at all workers in the US, your 97% figure turns into 52.6% when you factor in all of the various work arrangements outside of the normal working arrangements.

So, only slightly better than flipping a coin. Try again.

However, if we took all of the money we're spending on trying to find this wreck and build a next-gen blackbox system that streams all cockpit voice and aircraft telemetry over satellite links, we'll never have to search like this again to get those answers.

I downloaded Yik Yak and used it for about a week. I saw what was going on there.

If you are disturbed by what you see on there, delete the app. Let those idiots spew toxic shit at each other, and you can go on unaware of their ramblings.

Eventually, Yik Yak will die off, and the "problem" is solved.

Or, do you somehow think we can pass some law that will change human nature?

That is only for transit. If I want to send traffic THROUGH Comcast to reach Mom & Pop ISP, then yes, I have to pay Comcast.

The way that it has always been is that the ISP charges their customers ONLY, and the ISP has to pay for connections unless they can arrange peering. What is crazy is that Comcast should actually have been paying Cogent for requesting so much traffic from them without sending an equal amount of content in return.

Again, Comcast's customers are the ones increasing the traffic. Netflix has nothing to do with the traffic on Comcast's network.

That would be like blaming UPS and FedEx for creating too much traffic on my street because I'm ordering so much product. I'm the cause of the traffic, not UPS or FedEx. They wouldn't be on my street unless I ordered something.
In this example, the owners of the street (government) pay to make the street able to handle the traffic, and charge the uses of the street (residents) more in taxes to cover it.

Sure, and I never said it was a bad thing. I just don't think it should be legal for a duopoly to impose a fee for peering, nor should they be required to peer. The ISP and the content producer can look at their costs and decide if they want to peer or not.

Netflix has not asked for a dime of ISP money to peer, and will even provide caching devices for free. They're not keen on paying for ISP infrastructure, though, and I don't see why they should.

I'm a network engineer that has been working with ISPs since the early 90's. I do understand this.

Prioritization only comes into play when there is congestion. Yes, QoS can be designed to let the little game packets ahead of the big video packets, but as a network engineer, I constantly see this:

1. Congestion starts
2. Someone implements QoS, taking a TON of time and using all sorts of advanced features on the gear. Sometimes this causes CPU use to spike, requiring more faster hardware. Sometimes you run into a bug that only relates to QoS, etc. Lots of time, money, and maybe some downtime before the dust settles.
3. Everyone is happy for a week because it works right.
4. Since everyone is happy, no additional capacity is ordered
5. Traffic continues to increase, causing even small packets to get delayed
6. Buy extra bandwidth anyhow
7. QoS tuning done before is not used because there is ample bandwidth
8. Traffic increases, reaching bottleneck again
9. QoS engages again, no one notices the increase
10. High-priority packets start dropping again, requiring more bandwidth that takes a long time to show up.
11. Order more bandwidth, and piss everyone off as they wait.
12. GOTO 3
Why do all of that when you can:

1. Monitor usage. Look at history to predict congestion
2. Order more bandwidth 90 days before you must have it.
3. Repeat

Also, keep in mind that QoS only works on traffic your're SENDING, not the traffic you get. By the time you get it, it has already dropped the packets and your link is full.

So, all of this QoS work needs to be done by the people that want you to buy more bandwidth. This is why it will never happen at the ISP level.

Bandwidth and latency are interlinked in most cases.

Bandwidth is how much you can fit down the pipe.

Latency is how long it takes to get there.

If you don't have enough bandwidth, you get latency as the packet queue up trying to get past the bottleneck. Increasing the bandwidth in this case decreases latency.

The only other reason you get latency is because of the speed of light and the distance you're trying to cover. The only cure for this is to reduce that distance.

QoS is only a bandwidth management practice, only coming into play when you have a bottleneck. I've found that in terms of overhead and headache, more bandwidth is ALWAYS cheaper than QoS.

So, for your desire for low latency for one and high bandwidth for the other, they're likely the same thing.

Keep something in mind here. Netflixs is not sending a SINGLE PACKET to Mom and Pop's ISP that their paying customers didn't ask for.
Those customers are paying Mom and Pop for a service, which in your example, seems to be getting to Netflix.

Now, if Mom and Pop don't like that and can't afford more bandwidth, they have a few choices. They can reduce the speed to all customers, thereby reducing the demand for Netflix. Their customers won't be able to stream an HD movie, for example, because the customer pipe isn't big enough.
They could also allow 30-minute full-speed bursts, followed by 30 minutes of reduced speed. This would allow all non-streaming customers faster downloads in most cases, but would limit streaming video equally, because after 30 minutes your movie quality goes to crap.

They could also prioritize ALL video as lower priority than ALL VPN or HTTP traffic. NETWORK neutrality does not mean PACKET neutrality. It just means I can't give preference to Netflix and screw Hulu over.

As for your Walmart comparison, the reverse is also true. If you allow ISPs to slow traffic from a content provider unless they pay more, only the Walmarts of streaming video will be able to pay more.

The up and coming Mom and Pop streaming video company won't be able to pay off Comcast and AT&T, so Netflix and Hulu will be the only ones that live.

Network Neutrality means NOT picking winners and losers.

Not for the service they're getting. Let's say I'm a Speakeasy customer, and I also pay for Netflix.

You're a Comcast customer, and you also pay for Netflix.

Speakeasy is network neutral, so Netflix has no disadvantage compare to any other provider. If Speakeasy has congestion, Netflix and Amazon will be just as slow. To relieve this, they increase their bandwidth do their peering points, and all networks are again running fast. I may have to pay more to Speakeasy for this speed increase.

However, in your case, Comcast segregates Netflix's traffic and slows it down to relieve congestion, instead of treating all networks as equal. Comcast says their networks are not the issue, because they show you perfect speed from Amazon. You complain to Netflix, who must pay Comcast to get their speed increased.

Now, this is where the bullshit starts: Netflix passes the cost for the Comcast toll on to both you and ME, even though I'm not a Comcast customer, and this toll did nothing to increase MY speed. In fact, I already had to pay extra to my ISP to get my speed fixed.

Actually, IIRC the Xbox One controller uses WiFi direct, so it should be just a matter of connecting over wifi from the PC.

If prompted to do this, I'd tell the wrong number and insist they're typing it in wrong. After they show me what they are typing, I'll remember that PIN was for something else and "remember" a new one. After 10 attempts, my device will wipe.

I keep a backup online and restoring is trivial once through customs.

I don't have anything criminal on my phone, but it is none of their business.

Not enough. Quoting Spaf:

http://spaf.cerias.purdue.edu/...

Two reasons:
1. Because those services require the use of radio frequencies, which is considered public property. The FCC decides if the reservation of a frequency is for the public good or not when it is given to a private company. If the only way to use those services is through a single company, it may not be for the public good.

2. Monopolies are illegal-ish, because they stifle innovation. See AT&T

Not if you're running a core install, which is happening more.