Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Alternative explanation (Score 1) 393

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

No. That is not how it works. The truth is that the smaller provider pays the larger provider, no matter which direction the traffic flows. Some companies, like Netflix, are nice enough to not use their size as an excuse to charge people -- they offer free peering at internet exchanges. Other companies are maximally greedy.

That's not how it works, either. A peering arrangement is an interconnection between two providers in which neither pays the other for traffic. Verizon would like to change this model and receive payment.

Comment: Re:Alternative explanation (Score 1) 393

They are the entity in this arrangement that has actively encouraged assymetric use of the net by offering assymeteric service.

This is half true. Verizon is selling asymmetric services (although they are changing most FiOS plans to symmetric).

What is not true is that asymmetric connections encourages asymmetric usage. It's the other way around, and has been since the days of dialup.

Comment: Re:Alternative explanation (Score 2) 393

It's not just Level3 (not Layer 3), it's also Alternet and possibly others. Peering has gotten tough. It's supposed to be hey, let's connect our stuff together because I want to send you a bunch of stuff and you want to send me a bunch of stuff and we both win. The Internet has evolved and that has resulted in asymmetric traffic flows where one party carries more (sometimes far more) of the burden than the other, but the cost models have remained the same.

In Verizon's mind, they receive no benefit from increasing peering capacity in cases where they receive far more traffic than they can send. They forgot one thing, though; their residential customers. They are the ones who need the additional capacity, and without it their service will continue to degrade.

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 4, Informative) 393

It is also possible the the VPN packets are transiting a different upstream peer from Verizon and bypassing the peering bottleneck at issue. Assuming that Verizon is performing inspection of packets and throttling only Netflix packets is quite a leap.

This is exactly what's happening. I do the same thing for a specific server I use. Standard routing via FiOS results in consistent 1mb download speeds. I set up a GRE tunnel to my VPS host and I get consistent 10mb download speeds. The culprit appears to be a shitty peering connection between so-4-1-0-0.LAX01-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.151.246) and 0.ae2.XL3.CHI13.ALTER.NET (140.222.225.187).

Comment: Re:Is this an achievement? (Score 1) 47

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47517271) Attached to: Autonomous Sea-Robot Survives Massive Typhoon

No, it doesn't impress me but for different reasons.

Surviving a typhoon on the surface is none trivial for any vessel of any size. Waves are no fun at all during a storm of that size. I think you underestimate how well the equipment in the steel container would have to be hardened. Its not unusual to suddenly fall a hundred feet or more, only to smack into water which is rapidly raising as you run into it. Imagine repeatedly being dropped from 100 feet or more into a pool for hours on end. Thats what being in a hurricane is like. Unless you're an experience engineer, I doubt you'd make something that survived without several tries.

On the other hand, for a submersible? Meh, not impressive. Dive below and it gets calm fairly quickly. The surface waves of a storm like that don't have that great of an effect on the ocean bottom at sufficient depth. The direct effects of the waves themselves end at about one half the wave length below the wave troughs. Indirect effects are probably worse though, and those can extend down to 300-400 feet.

If the water is deep enough and the USV can dive deep enough, its trivial to wait it out. A submarine for instance has little fear of a hurricane unless its stuck trying to get out of port because they waited too long.

It's not designed to be a submersible.

Comment: Re:Occams Scalpel (Score 1) 960

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47516877) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

They aren't complaining about being sexualized, as far as I can tell. They are complaining about being harassed. And the fact that some men get their rocks off on violence between women doesn't make the concept inherently sexual. The first page of google hits on that term include a film about a woman boxer and a women's martial arts academy.

I purposefully used Bing instead of Google, because Bing does not filter NSFW and Google does. I did that because it more accurately represents the topic at hand. Google's results, in this case, will skew towards "girlfight" being more or less innocent of innuendo, which is simply not representative of the topic at hand.

What is the difference between being sexualized and being harassed, in this specific case? It's the difference between what I think (they want me to think about sex when I see their brand; they chose a name that would provide some level of flirtatious innuendo) and what I say (they don't want me to actually tell them I think about sex when I see their brand; they only want passive attention that furthers their own interests).

I am in no way arguing that sexual harassment does not exist. I'm not even arguing that it isn't a huge problem in the gaming industry. I am saying that Girlfight is a poor example if the goal is to generate dialog and, eventually, change.

Comment: Re:Occams Scalpel (Score 1) 960

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47516273) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

I don't think there's anything overtly sexual about "Girlfight".

You're wrong (NSFW): http://www.bing.com/images/sea...

If you had a company named "Manfight" you wouldn't think of it as sexual.

You're right. Women don't overwhelmingly tend to sexualize the image of men fighting, although there are certainly cases where they do.

Plus, even if it is somehow intended to have sexual connotations - that doesn't in any way justify harassment. That's essentially the same as blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively.

I don't think it justifies sexual assault. But you cannot use sexuality to promote your brand, then complain that you're being sexualized.

Comment: Re:Occams Scalpel (Score 2) 960

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47511831) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

Just how annoying is this person that she generates that kind of hate ?

I have worked with/under/and above women and the only time I have ever seen anyone get this kind of reaction, male or female is when it is provoked or the people perpetrating it were a few punch cards short of a program.

I tend to agree with you, in general. However, I do think it is disingenuous to name a company "Girlfight" in a clear attempt to cash in on their sexuality, then contribute to an article complaining about it.

Comment: Re:Will this affect overseas profits tax evasion? (Score 1) 749

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47454233) Attached to: Obama Administration Says the World's Servers Are Ours

I would never voluntarily pay more tax than I am legally required.

Really? What if you could direct where a voluntary overpayment went (NASA for example)?

No. One of the things our government does extremely competently is siphon off funds to pet projects. I would make donations directly to the agency if I thought they needed extra funding.

Comment: Re:Will this affect overseas profits tax evasion? (Score 1) 749

Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance, which is what these companies are practicing, is not.

I've heard this argument from neoliberals on CNBC. It reminds me of a teenager whose parents catch him high as a kite: "You said I shouldn't smoke pot. You didn't say anything about cooking it in brownies and eating it."

It's a reminder about why corporations are regulated. They will do their best to circumvent laws using lawyers, unless they can be sufficiently frightened into behaving. Human beings are capable of discerning right and wrong and society holds them accountable. Corporations' charters specifically require that they not discern between right and wrong and then avoid accountability by saying, "But I didn't pinky swear!".

I would never voluntarily pay more tax than I am legally required. I do not know anyone who would voluntarily pay more tax than is legally required, regardless of their political beliefs. I do not think it is wrong to take advantage of any legal means at my disposal to reduce my tax burden. This problem will continue until the lawmakers start actually doing their job instead of trying to shift the blame for their failure.

Comment: Re:Will this affect overseas profits tax evasion? (Score 5, Interesting) 749

Will this influence the tax gimmick where the HQ is overseas so the profits don't have to have taxes paid on them?

Why is it the money can evade the government but the data can't?

Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance, which is what these companies are practicing, is not. There's no criminal wrongdoing taking place.

Even though the politicians bluster on and on about the problem, they always forget to mention that they are the ones with the power to fix it, if they chose to.

Comment: Re:Maybe, maybe not. (Score 5, Insightful) 749

Microsoft is based in the United States, so there may be some valid argument here that as an American company, Microsoft data regardless of where "in the cloud" it is stored is subject to American legal rulings.

The *real* question is what about companies that do business here but are based in other countries?

There must be precedents or applicable laws for physical analogies. If a company operating in the US happens to store physical records somewhere outside the US, and those records are pertinent to the case, would those not be covered by a US subpoena? If the company has access to them and the ability to procure them, what does the physical location of the records or their headquarters matter?

"Just the facts, Ma'am" -- Joe Friday

Working...