Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 526

by DarkOx (#47935999) Attached to: AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough

It used to be people only had one TV and everyone watched the same thing. It isn't a lie that 4Mbps is enough! You can utilize pretty much any online service offering with that. You are not missing out on any economic opportunities etc with access to that much speed. You can telecommute with that just fine.

Would you like more so everyone can use it at the same time, sure you'd probably also like everyone in the family to have their own bathrooms and their own car too but plenty of house holds can't afford those either. Unlimited wants limited resources is nothing new.

Lets be careful with "needs" vs. "wants" here. I think it would be a good policy to try and make sure everyone has access to "broadband" and that needs to be defined so 128k does not get called broadband, but we also need to avoid setting the bar to high so the effort does not fail or get written off as too pricey.

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 526

by DarkOx (#47935921) Attached to: AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough

2 Netflix streams is asking a lot from 3Mbps but have you considered it might be your router that is the issue. I have a 3up/6dn connection and I don't have any of the problems all these people are complaining about with their 10Mbps+ connections.

So either their ISPs suck and are way over subscribed so the fact they get 10Mbps to the CO is meaningless because from there they just queue

Or their home routers are not up to the task. That 7 years Linksys probably can't handle large numbers of flows and high packet rates well. Probably not even enough to saturate 3Mbps connection in worst case conditions. Really get yourself and ASA off Ebay or go buy a nice shiny new higher end consumer device on Newegg. You will probably find things run much better.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 3, Informative) 116

by DarkOx (#47935753) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

Maybe you should consider living somewhere else than if you want a career in IT. Through all of history the characteristics and features of a geographic location have dictated the type of economic activity that goes on there.

Ever wonder why big cities tended to be near rivers or coasts ( at least prior the development of the automobile? ) there is a reason!

Wonder why all those orange groves get planted in Florida and not Maine?

I do IT consulting work mostly from home, but hop a plane about one a month currently. I am looking to live to more rural area myself because I am hiker and it would be nice to near on of the big State or National parks, but I have made it perfectly clear to my real estate agent that I can't look at properties unless they have good high speed internet service available at the location (by good I mean 800Kbps up down or better low latency; which is enough to remote into virtual servers where you do your real work from at the corporate offices).

You just don't always get to have it both ways! If you want to work in Information technology you probably have to stick close to where certain infrastructure is, and there are good economic reasons for where that is and isn't. You probably should consider another career path or maybe moving.

Comment: Re:Worse than it seems. (Score 2) 199

by DarkOx (#47930669) Attached to: Obama Presses Leaders To Speed Ebola Response

I am not sure where some of your numbers are coming from but you are correct about one thing. There are likely *many* unreported cases out there.

I hope we are not putting our service people into harms way against an enemy that they are not trained or equipped to fight; just to look like we are 'doing something'.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1) 832

by DarkOx (#47929117) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

I got news for you a whole lot of people are going to die and suffer no matter what. The only question is where will the blame fall. As long as we are involved in the conflict there will be anti-western propaganda and spin that blames their problems and misery on us and there will be at least some who believe the lies and half truths.

Where as if we let a generation of those folks grow up without seeing a American war plane fly over, without knowing anyone first hand that dies in an American air strike, without watching NATO soldiers walking through their streets; the idea that all their problems are because of the "Great Satin" will ring a little more hollow.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 3, Interesting) 832

by DarkOx (#47928991) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Do you really think if expended even 1/4 the amount of resources we invest in the middle east on controlling our boards they'd have the slightest chance of being able to pull off another attack like that?

I don't.

We could be opening every shipping container unloading , inspecting every truck, doing background checks on every inbound traveler, before admitting them and probably save tons in both blood and treasure. It would be far more effective at controlling the risk and threat of terror.

I'll admit I bought into the "we have to fight them over there..." rhetoric when Bush fed us those lines too. I know better know. I think Obama is probably the worst president of this nation has had post WWII and am still glad we did not elect McCain.

We also need to "get real" about the seriousness of the problem. 9/11 was shocking but it was a one time event they have not been able to repeat. Its hard to say for sure with all the crazy government secrecy but the evidence that is out there suggests it has not been the security apparatus that has prevented a repeat but rather the extremists own inability develop the assets here will the skill sets required to execute a successful attack. Statistically you about as likely to die falling out of bed as you are from some kind of terrorism connected event.

Considering just the lives we have "invested" in this fight we could suffer at least more several 9/11s before it will have made any kind of economic sense.

Considering the dollars, I can't find many good numbers because its hard to separate the economic costs associated with the attack from the costs we incurred in our war runup/execution. I'd be they could crash lots of jets into lots of towers with all the economic knockon effects there in before it come close though to the wealth we have thrown away in the middle east.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 3, Interesting) 832

by DarkOx (#47927643) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Which is exactly why we should 'STOP' fighting them. If we want to see an end to militant Islam we ought to let ISIS have their run of things for a while. I am sure after a couple decades of ISIS rule the only holy war any Muslim will ever sign up to fight again will be against these 12th century throw backs!

Comment: Re:This isn't scaremongering. (Score 1) 465

by DarkOx (#47927169) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

That and as much noise Lloyds and RBS are making about moving to London assumes the will have time before the generally leftist Scottish government nationalizes them. That is not something I think they were planning but I would not be surprised at all if someone gets that idea when they make moves to flee.

Comment: Re:Natural immunity (Score 1) 113

by DarkOx (#47925641) Attached to: Farmers Carry Multidrug-Resistant Staph For Weeks Into Local Communities

I don't think its as clear cut as are you going to die without antibiotics. I and I think everyone pretty much believes they are over prescribed.

However you have to consider that most of us are not living in sparse populations with infrequent travel anymore. Its not like if you are sick you can do the minimal work to keep the farm running and for go that trip into town for a couple weeks while we convalesce.

Most folks have jobs they have to be at with only an handful of sick days and they have to go to shared grocery stores, many might use public transportation, children go to school, etc. If you don't treat them they will have higher levels of infection longer, and are more likely to infect others. More people infected means more bugs out there total, which probably also means more mutations and more potential for a really virulent strain to develop as well.

That is one of the concerns with the Ebola outbreak right now, there is concern that if some intervention does not arrest the total number of infected individuals it could evolve into something airborne and we may find a really uncontrollable plague on our hands.

So there is probably some fuzzier line the medial professionals will have to draw. As a lay person I can't say much more than its probably NOT a good idea to keep passing them out to healthy livestock. Doctors should probably stop giving them to kids they think have viral infections just to make parents feel like they are doing something, but perhaps if they feel it might prevent a complicating infection maybe they still should. We probably should continue to use them on people and pets when we believe the infection is bacterial; but really impress on patients the need to complete the therapy and ensure that the colony is completely wiped out.

Comment: Re:Attacker is your Peer (Score 1) 84

by DarkOx (#47925457) Attached to: Why Is It Taking So Long To Secure Internet Routing?

The thing is AS admins have been lazy. Broadly speaking I agree with what you have to say and I agree a central authority would very likely cause more problems than it solves. AS admins do need to take a middle ground though, and implement some route filters. For instance if you have a route that sits on transpacific cable in California you should probably be filtering routes with at least a few broad rules like; !ARIN

A little direction for a central authority like IANA that laid down some rules like filter routes along political and regional boundaries could go along way to prevent things from happening like half the US getting routed via China, etc; while doing little harm to the resiliency of the network (so long as rules remain simple and few). Will it stop things like that bitcoin theft a few weeks back, nope but it will keep them in country where there will be a consistent legal framework in place to handle shenanigans

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 1) 235

by DarkOx (#47917103) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise

That is pretty much because the router you are using is weak sauce. Its partly true. Protocols without congestion control UDP/ICMP for example could saturate your connection. The Internet as it exists today though is mostly a TCP affair. TCP has congestion control. To manage the incoming priority what you do is have your local router queue the ACK responses and delay them for the TCP flows you have at lower priority. The remote side will slow down its send rate until the ACK response rate falls inside a window.

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 1) 235

by DarkOx (#47917053) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise

Lets assume a customer is to be given three tiers default (PHB), EF ( voice/video etc), BLK (bulk torrents etc dropped first)

The ISPs router should be configured to accept X bandwidth at priority EF from any given customer. Packets that exceed that rate are simply be demoted to EF. That is fair to everybody. All of us get a little media priority that can cut in line ahead of someone else's PHB or BLK traffic. All of the EF is aggregated into one fair queue, all the PHB traffic fair queues, finally all the BLK traffic fair queues, the EF queue outbound is served first, followed by EF, than by bulk if there is space. Customers can use the BLK queue or not but if they are running something like torrents its to their advantage because it will mean those packets get dropped before things like browsing when there is congestion. Or customers can do NOTHING at all and everything just defaults to EF.

And exactly how does your hypothetical user control incoming bandwidth with their "home router?"

Simple they manage the outbound rate at which they send ACKs and let TCP on the rremote host figure out the rate limiting.


Comment: Re:Time for new terminology (Score 4, Insightful) 599

by DarkOx (#47910163) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

You jest but first it was global warming, then global cooling, than warming again and finally climate change. What it should be is "atmospheric CO2 level rise"

That is all the more we can really say in macro. All these attempts to predict outcomes have only damaged their credibility. Rational thinking people should still find it of great concern that we have ever increasing and never before seen (while humans have walked the earth) CO2 levels, and you follow that up with and their exist relation ships between solar energy retention, ocean currents, ocean acidity, and mean temperatures, etc with that.

Nobody really knows what will happen at least not on a short ( 0-50 year) time scale. If they just would have been honest up front about the fact that human activity is radically altering the composition of the atmosphere and that there will be consequences but those can't be entirely identified because its a hugely complex interconnected system maybe it would be taken seriously.

Instead we got decades of alarmist and bogus predictions. its no surprise that so many folks are so dismissive now.

People are always available for work in the past tense.