Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:H-1b should not be used for lower-level workers (Score 1) 141

by guruevi (#47519283) Attached to: VP Biden Briefs US Governors On H-1B Visas, IT, and Coding

The problem is that the whole computer eco-system is built on the premise that whoever is buying doesn't have a clue what the fuck they are doing. Most of the niche and custom software (think PeopleSoft which comes as a set of basic HTML blocks and a database) is something that can be built much better for a company in less than 6 months by a team of dedicated and decent programmers.

Yet, the person buying doesn't have a clue what they are doing so they throw a few million at it and 2-3 years of H1B's and overpaid (for their qualifications) contractors to come up with a system that is more broken in the end than when it started. The same happens everywhere and at every level. Desktop software: Throw a few millions at Microsoft and Dell so everyone can browse the web and receive the occasional e-mail on a system that could run Crysis 5 when it comes out in 2020 even though a Raspberry Pi would be good enough for most of the fleet. Web software: throw a few millions in the directions of Oracle and IBM in order to serve out 99% static pages.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 0) 591

by drsmack1 (#47514979) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

>> There may be problems with socialism, but it's a better alternative than laissez faire capitalism.

Source? Because I don't see it based on the last 100 years. Can you point out positives that aren't just taking shots at whatever it is you don't like about the USA? Because I've noticed that most "socialists" are merely socially retarded individuals who have no concept of how normal people think and live their lives.

So, they decide FOR THEM how they should think and live their lives; then they urge them to do it. When that doesn't work they try to destroy the alternatives. When that doesn't work then they penalize the behavior they don't like. When that doesn't work, they coerce using the full weight of the government.

ALL liberal/socialist/communistic movements follow this same pattern.

Comment: Re:Local testing works? (Score 1) 772

by guruevi (#47498365) Attached to: States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

10-15%? Think more along the lines of 50%. You have to add ~15% in taxes but you don't just have to deal with SSI and taxes. You now also have to deal with accountants and lawyers to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, make sure your workplace conforms to OSHA and state standards, disability claims and benefits, vacation benefits and other employees to get coverage, FMLA, a variety of insurances to protect you from litigating employees, medical benefits...

Not saying that workers should go without all those benefits but for some that is a burden too heavy to carry if the competition doesn't follow the same rules.

Comment: Re:My story with those assholes... (Score 1) 112

by guruevi (#47498313) Attached to: Domain Registry of America Suspended By ICANN

They don't hijack it, the whois providers are themselves the hijackers. In case of your command line utility, it is possible your ISP simply provides their own whois (there is no requirement for whois to query the 'official' databases and it is trivial to put your own 'cache' in).

And the best thing is that most of these 'hijacked' domains are never paid for, ICANN allows for ~$0.25 (refundable) to 'reserve' a domain name. Eg. an ISP or web service may do this as a 'service' so you're sure to have it when you pay for it (with them). Then if you don't pay for it, the domain is set up for expire and goes on a feed where decisions are made (most likely an algorithm based on keywords and name lists) and then registrars are bombarded for seconds leading up to the expiration time by requests to register the domain in a similar 'reservation' fashion.

Comment: Re:I'm confused... (Score 1) 389

by putaro (#47484691) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

"That is correct, but you should be able to see that this is an unsustainable model. Let's say Netflix continues growing by leaps and bounds and absolutely dominates as the source of traffic on the Internet, even more so than it already does. L3 gets paid more and more by Netflix for their access bandwidth while Verizon gets absolutely nothing extra but is required to carry more and more load from L3."

The only reason that L3 would get paid more would be because Netflix was fully using their connection and getting their money's worth and needed to purchase additional bandwidth. Verizon would get paid more if either the number of customers increased OR their customers maxed out their bandwidth and needed faster connections. The reason Verizon would not get paid more is because Verizon is selling an oversubscribed service but likes to pretend that they are not.

So, what's really happening here is a mismatch between business models. When you buy a "business grade" Internet connection you pay more with the assumption that you are going to pump as much data down it 7x24 as you possibly can. You get what you contracted for.

When you purchase home internet connectivity, your price/bit/sec is considerably lower because it's on an oversubscribed network. However, the carrier will never say that, merely that your bandwidth isn't guaranteed. If you do try to use it 7x24 they'll try to find some way to wriggle out of the contract they made. And that's exactly what Verizon is doing here, by throttling the bandwidth from Netflix. Suppose all the traffic wasn't coming from Netflix. Would it make any difference? Not really, because as the L3 guy pointed out, the cost of the networknetwork hop is miniscule. Where it does cost is in the haul from the peering point to the house. So anything that increases the amount of traffic from the peering point to the house will cost Verizon money.

If someone were to come up with a peer-to-peer movie streaming service that ran entirely within Verizon's network but only on home connections they'd have a cow as well. What they really want is to be paid on a per-bit basis but that's not palatable in the consumer marketplace.

Comment: Re:Help me understand (Score 1) 389

by putaro (#47483863) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

And when you order a product from Amazon and they pay FedEx to deliver it, FedEx doesn't give you another bill when they show up at your doorstep.

There are different payment models. Home Internet access has been sold for a long time as "x bits/sec" use as much or as little as you like. Internet traffic was traditionally bursty, without long sustained transmissions so ISPs got into the habit of oversubscribing their networks and holding onto as much of the money as they can.

Netflix pays their ISP (Level 3) quite a bit a of money to provide network access. And Verizon's customers (collectively) pay Verizon quite a bit of money to provide network access. The problem is that the way Internet access is priced it's in the ISP's best interest to discourage you from using the network while promising you more and charging you more.

Per packet pricing, charged to someone, would be one solution to this problem but it's not very popular with people who have gotten used to "all you can eat". I'd certainly hate having my Internet bills jump up and down on a monthly basis.

Comment: Re:I'm confused... (Score 1) 389

by putaro (#47483711) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

How is traffic ever going to be balanced between a last mile provider like Verizon and a backbone provider?

Historically, if my memory serves, ISPs paid backbones for access to the Internet, not the other way around. The cash flowed from ISPs to backbones because ISP customers paid for Internet access and then the ISP paid their upstream provider. Backbones didn't pay each other and set up peering arrangements because they realized it was pretty much a wash.

The way I see it, Verizon is trying to double dip. Their customers have paid them for bandwidth and a connection to other networks. Netflix has paid L3 for their internet connectivity and L3 has delivered up to the Verizon network. Verizon chooses to not provide adequate access even though their customers are the ones pulling the data from Netflix.

Comment: Re:I disagree (Score 3, Insightful) 389

by putaro (#47482215) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

Level 3 doesn't pay Comcast for bandwidth. Why should they? Comcast customers have already paid Comcast for the links to their house and they're the ones pulling data from Level 3. Level 3's customers pay Level 3 to deliver to the edge of their network. As the Level 3 post points out, the cost for Verizon to add more bandwidth between the Level 3 network and the Verizon network is minimal.

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys