Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Reasonable throttling (Score 1) 222

by Agent.Nihilist (#45416731) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

The player would need to embed that into the beginning of the stream, or announce it during quality changes. I would expect that the streaming sites would be happy to do this, as it would reduce their bandwidth costs by greatly reducing overuse.
Streaming services really don't care if you get the full buffer in 5 minutes or 50, as long as you can play the video back with out waiting.

Comment: Re:Reasonable throttling (Score 1) 222

by Agent.Nihilist (#45416487) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

Again, this is why my suggestion prevents throttling below the bitrate(read as playback rate) of the video.
They would be disallowed from reducing bandwidth below what is necessary to play back the video without waiting for a buffer.

AKA if there is available bandwidth to watch a video without pause from start to finish, they can not reduce the speed to the point where you would need to let it buffer. However they could reduce the speed so you aren't using 10 times the bandwidth need to actually watch it.

Comment: Re:Reasonable throttling (Score 1) 222

by Agent.Nihilist (#45416353) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

The problem with this is most consumer connections do not have guaranteed bandwidth, meaning that legally speaking, it's perfectly fine for you connection speeds to drop to 1/100th of its rated value from heavy use by other users.
Using my 10GB hour video as an example along with a 1000 user node , the 10 minute(unthrottled) client would use 18 MB/s for ten minutes, or 1.8 GB/s of bandwidth for 100 users. If their connection node only has 2 GB/s of bandwidth available that leaves 200 MB/s for the remaining 900 users.

If the steaming was throttled to bitrate+20%, then that same video, at the same quality with the same experience(hit play watch video) would instead only use 3.5 MB/s.
400 users could then watch the video simultaneously, while still providing 600 MB/s of bandwidth for the remaining 600 users.

In other words, 4 times as many users can utilize the same service while allowing 3 times more bandwidth for everyone else, and the only people negatively affected are those attempting to rip the stream. Even then they aren't prevented from doing so, just prevented from using bandwidth from someone that's actually watching said video, and not violating the sites ToS.

Comment: Re:Reasonable throttling (Score 1) 222

by Agent.Nihilist (#45416079) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

You don't "stream" a download. It's a totally different type of traffic that is already easily identifiable, they already know the difference
And again, the idea in the OP is to limit throttling to bitrate +20%, meaning that would could just hit play and it would go without buffering.

Comment: Re:Reasonable throttling (Score 3, Interesting) 222

by Agent.Nihilist (#45415985) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

I think you misread that a bit.
Both the 10 minute buffer and the 48 minute buffer can hit play and start watching immediately. The example is an hour long video, the difference being the 10 minute download used 5 times the bandwidth for the same end effect, meaning in a bandwidth limited scenario that user prevent 5 other users from being able to do the same thing.

That's the basis of the idea, allowing throttling that doesn't effect playback, but prevents spikes in usage from preventing others the same access.

Comment: Re:No such thing (Score 2) 222

by Agent.Nihilist (#45415909) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

You are advocating not overselling line capacity. While noble, this would result in large decreases in top speeds, a large increase in pricing or both.
If the throttling was limited to bitrate +20%, as long as the video source has available bandwidth you can hit play and watch till the end, or skip to any point in the video and continue watching without pause.
The only users that would be affected would be those using steam capturing software, something generally against the ToS of whatever service they are using.

This would allow far more bandwidth to be available for other users, meaning generally faster speeds in other services. Ideally, the ISP would just build more infrastructure, but we all know they won't do that until they have to. Unfortunately we can't force them to do that, so allowing for throttling without effecting the user experience is the better solution.

Comment: Reasonable throttling (Score 1) 222

by Agent.Nihilist (#45415661) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

I'm against throttling as much as the next guy, but I do see the need to manage bandwidth on a large scale.
I'd think any ban on streaming video throttling should allow throttling down to a minimum of the video's bitrate +20%.

If you are streaming an hour long 10GB video, does it matter if it buffers in 10 minutes or 48 minutes? As long as there are no service interruptions the experience to the user would be exactly the same.

Comment: Re:Police are right; easyDNS response is drama-que (Score 1) 251

by Agent.Nihilist (#45075653) Attached to: Police Demand Summary Domain Takedown, Traffic Redirection

[quote]easyDNS Terms of Service: easyDNS reserves the right to revoke any or all services associated with a domain or user account, for policy abuses. What constitutes a policy abuse is at the sole discretion of easyDNS and includes (but is not limited to) the following: ... copyright infringement ...[/quote]

Right, and interestingly enough the site in question is not serving copyrighted information. It's a torrent site. It hosts information on copyrighted content, but has none itself.
If they want easyDNS to take it down, then they need to show that actual infringement has occurred.

Comment: Re:IRS Star Trek Video (Score 4, Informative) 147

by Agent.Nihilist (#44394227) Attached to: 'Space Vikings' Spark (Unfounded) NASA Waste Inquiry

The video was made as a training exercise for the new facilities. The studio wasn't built to do the star trek video, the star trek video was done to train people for the studio.
In other words they used the existing training budget to do a fun exercise instead of filming 70's style PSAs that would never see the light of day.

Comment: Re:Impostor Syndrome (Score 2) 1145

by Agent.Nihilist (#43241673) Attached to: SendGrid Fires Employee After Firestorm Over Inappropriate Jokes

It doesn't matter what syndrome she has, it doesn't matter that she is a women. It doesn't matter that the "offenders" are male, or if they have any syndrome.

What matters is a person, reacting in offense publicly shamed two other people after eavesdropping on a conversation that did not involve said person.
What matters is that said person used a company linked public account to do said shaming, and did not make any attempt to rectify the situation through lesser means, direct or indirect.

Said person could have request the behavior be stopped, or if said person was unable/unwilling/otherwise incapable of of doing so privately contacted staff to rectify the situation.
Instead said person choose to make the affair public, with an audience of thousands and now millions.

Said persons actions cost a supporter of 3 minor dependents their job, over an inappropriate sexual comment that was not directed towards said person, not sexual harassment, nor was sexist in nature.
Said persons actions caused damage to both the commentor's and their own company's image by the public nature and use of company associated social media.

This is what this is about. Both sides acted shamefully, and one side decided to make it a public affair. That is all.

Comment: Re:Wow, there's a lot of women haters here (Score 5, Insightful) 1145

by Agent.Nihilist (#43241527) Attached to: SendGrid Fires Employee After Firestorm Over Inappropriate Jokes

News flash:
They didn't make a sexist joke
They made a penis joke via "dongle"

Jokes about male genitalia are not inherently sexist. In order to be sexist, the joke would need to directly denigrate women.

Inferring that any joke that referencing male genitalia is sexist on the other hand, is sexist in and of itself.

Comment: Re:Missing the point (Score 1) 268

by Agent.Nihilist (#42946661) Attached to: TPB Files Police Complaint Against CPIAC for Copying Website

Copyright wasn't "Invented" to restrict the printing press. Yes, the first copyright laws on the books(that we have records of) were due to the printing press, but the idea of ownership over ones own creations is a much older idea.
The printing press is only relevant because prior to it's existence there was no economic advantage to mass copying. You couldn't sell books in quantity at the costs it took to produce them. Only once that became possible did you see laws start to pop up around them.

Remember laws don't have to follow their purposes or original intents. However the concepts and issues they are built around can be used to rebuild them in a way that does.

Comment: Missing the point (Score 5, Informative) 268

by Agent.Nihilist (#42940233) Attached to: TPB Files Police Complaint Against CPIAC for Copying Website

If you first though is hypocrisy, you've missed the point.
If you believe a tool or process is broken, and have advocated about how it needs to change, then using said tool to directly illustrate how broken something is is far from hypocrisy. In this case they are using it to highlight the hypocrisy of the groups promoting high levels/draconian enforcement of copyright.

There is also the issue of actual content theft. Not the MPAA/RIAA's so called theft, where a distribution control is being breached, but taking content developed by another and claiming it as your own. You know, the thing copyright was actually invented for.
Remember, even the Pirate Party doesn't call for a total abolition of copyright, just a reform to more reasonable terms instead of multiple lifetimes.

Comment: Re:When Did Judge Judy Become a Patent Lawyer? (Score 5, Insightful) 318

Uh, Apple has 4 hours left to give any of their arguments. They gave her a list of 75! witness that she had to read and familiarize herself with overnight. Even apple themselves said they would only get 20 of the witnesses on the stand in 4 hours.

To recap.
4 hours
20 planned witnesses
75 objections to review.

That's straight up bullshit.
They are being unprofessional, she is simply taking them down a peg.

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...