Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Well, here's the solution... (Score 1) 146

by AK Marc (#47709591) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

If Netflix is running the backbone and doing the content they are, for all intents and purposes, acting as an ISP.

Why is the "I" in there? If Netflix is doing it, then it's a private network, not unlike an '80s frame relay network (just faster). They aren't providing "Internet". They are providing a video service.

By your logic, a cable TV network (with no data services) is an ISP because they are running a backbone and providing content.

Comment: Re:Well, here's the solution... (Score 2) 146

by AK Marc (#47709229) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem
Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content. It's when you buy from an ISP who determines that they will not deliver part of the Internet they don't like. I've bought leased fibre services in many places, and nobdy has ever asked to put their content on it. The users have already paid someone for access to that Netflix stream, but that access provider is trying to extort additional profit from content providers.

Comment: Re:Big Data (Score 4, Insightful) 146

by AK Marc (#47709161) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

Netflix does not have to pay ATT/Comcast/Verizon a single dime. All it needs to do is [...] buy proper transit

So they don't need to pay those three, but they must pay someone, for what amounts to transit to themselves. Transit was a concept when a small ISP bought from a large ISP to get the small number of users to The Internet across unequal networks. Peers are when the networks were more even.

It was always from the consumer point of view. Only recently did the concept of charging content for content transit. If my ISP is charging for content transit, I want my rebate/discount. They are getting paid twice for the same thing.

Comment: Re:So what (Score 1) 168

by AK Marc (#47709051) Attached to: Processors and the Limits of Physics
async is still synchronous. You would have the region close to the clock input running at C+0. on the other side of the chip, you'd be running with a clock at C+0.9. Where the sections converged, the clocks would also converge. Two related synchornous functions (even off the same clock) are not async just because they are not synchronous.

My words fail me. The operation is clocked. That the clock doesn't happen at the same time everywhere doesn't change the nature of the operation being clocked. And all of them from the same clock.

Also, hard problems often have simple solutions. The clock doesn't propogate across the chip? The send it to all the chip at the same time. Car analogy. Shortest-path headers are inefficient. So you "tune" the headers. How do you do that? You change the path so they are closer to equal distance.

For a chip, a clock cycle that's exactly one cycle late is perfect. So drift is more important to minimize than lag/delay. So run the clock to the middle of the chip, then equal distant traces to multiple pins. The clock will be the same in as many places in the chip as necessary for proper synchronous operation. Even if the clock speed wasn't enough to cover 10% of the chip, it can still be the same +-5% over the whole chip. It'll just take more pins for clock.

Comment: Re:MUCH easier. (Score 1) 236

The question at its heart is not about object avoidance in the's about choices between objects. And that requires identification.

Such dichotomies are not realistic. When defined they are always spelled out like "The car is going 300 mph in a 30 mph zone, with lines of parked cars on both sides, and low visibility. A passing plane looses a set of seats, unoccupied, landing facing away from the car at a distance of 50 foot. At the same time, a kid runs out from between parked cars. The road is completely blocked by the child and the seats. What do you hit?"

Yeah, it takes magical couches appearing from nowhere and impossible starting parameters of overly unsafe driving and such. Any "realistic" scenario leaves one clear point of action that is best for all. For 99.9%, braking within your lane is the best action. That last 0.1% could always be the wrong answer and the sum total would be much better than leaving humans in control.

Comment: Re:So ... (Score 1) 213

by AK Marc (#47707743) Attached to: How to Maintain Lab Safety While Making Viruses Deadlier
I was always taught Hubris from the Greek tragedy perspective. Hubris is pride, especially when that pride leads to their own downfall. A sitting king who makes bad choices because they are too prideful isn't "hubris" until one of those choices becomes their downfall.

So in the Greek Tragedy definition, it can't be hubris until after the bad decision results in a problem. Aside from some bad P.R., I don't see any problems caused by the excessive pride of the US, or those who work for it, so hubris can not yet be the accurate word.

"Life is a garment we continuously alter, but which never seems to fit." -- David McCord