You're kidding right? Books are freaking heavy.
There are no man in the middle machines. The taps they use for monitoring are passive, not active. If the tap goes down, it has no effect on the data transferring across the wire that's being tapped.
Most providers will simply capitulate to a request and turn down the links and/or bgp sessions instead of actually having their gear powered off. Cutting power to a datacenter, or even a floor of a datacenter, can have a major impact in the ability to recover. If the government is going to shut me down anyway, I'd rather kill the peering sessions myself rather than risk additional loss of revenue due to equipment becoming unrecoverable.
Ah Waldenbooks, how I miss thee. many hours of a misspent youth in malls with Waldens...
DirectTV has their rental service, in which you pay 3 to 5 bucks for a movie, and that streams from the sat feed. It is, essentially, pay per view, though the terms of the rental may let you watch it more than once over a day or so, and it also gives you the ability to watch relatively recent movies in your home for alot less than theatre.
Traditional Video on Demand is stuff like your weekly television shows, or older movies which are long out of the theatre and not currently being hyped for DVD sales. That kind of Video on Demand, as delivered by DirectTV, does stream over your internet connection, as the sat feed doesn't have nearly enough bandwidth to handle that level of VOD. I work as a network engineer for one DirecTV's competitors, and the bandwidth that VOD consumes is one of our biggest hogs, easily outpacing linear video.
Goodbye, Medicare. Goodbye, Social Security. Goodbye, foodstamps and welfare and section 8. Hello, social upheaval. Hello, desperation-induced crime wave. Hello, Great Depression.
That's your idea of "annoying"? I'd say "catastrophic" is a far more apt description.
Wow, the amount of pessimism here is amazing. Do you really believe that the entire health of US economy and society is dependent on our entitlement programs?
I don't think we've quite reach the point where the majority of Americans are proles on the dole, I don't think losing those entitlement programs would be a bad thing. Would it cause some problems? Of course it would, and the politicians would take a heavy beating in the media (which, don't kid yourself, is the *real* reason this was never going to default), but ultimately, it would be to the benefit of the country.
Gold is an excellent safe haven in the sense that if you have 1kg of gold about $40,000K and civilization collapsed tomorrow you would still have 1kg of gold. If you had that in hard currency all you would have is 40,000 pieces of paper. Though 40,000 pieces of paper would be very valueable as toilet paper. Hmmmmm maybe gold isn't as good of a safe haven as I thought. I need to stock up on US currency.
This is why I don't get folks that want to hoard gold as a hedge against economic fallout. If civilization collapses, gold becomes worthless. In a collapsed economy, gold has no practical value. If civilization collapses, I want things that will actually be useful. Food. Water. Shelter. Guns. Clothing. These are the currency of a collapsed economy, not pretty baubles or shiny bricks.
Or maybe because what I buy is my business and my business alone? Without anonymity, it makes it trivial for people to track my purchases. If people can track my purchases, they can target me for their sales campaigns in order to try and manipulate me into giving them more money, Since I'm not terribly fond of being manipulated, nor am I terribly fond of junk mail or spam, I prefer my transactions to be as anonymous as possible.
But yeah, I guess you're right, it's all about the hookers and blow, Couldn't possibly be any other reason I don't want folks up in my business.
Which doesn't really apply to the nuclear industry in the southeast, seeing as how the NRC has the oversight, and not state agencies. Federal law actually places severe constraints on any states ability to regulate nuclear plants, which results in the ball being pretty much entirely in the NRC's court.
Someone very close to me happens to be employed as a civil engineer at a southeastern nuclear plant. The NRC is constantly in their business. Right now, my acquaintance has spent the last two weeks in hectic meetings over a "potential" hazard that someone at the NRC thought might could happen (the chances are astronomically small) because they saw a video from a vendor trying to sell a solution to the problem and directed the plant to make sure that particular issue could never, ever happen.
The consequence is that the culture at the plant is one where safety is the paramount concern, because they don't want the NRC to make their lives any harder than it already is. As a consumer and someone who's outside of the industry, I can actually appreciate that. I suspect that the higher rate of incidents out west has alot more to do with bad NRC oversight than with southeastern state agencies keeping things on the down low.
However, we don't have one anymore; we have the poor, and the super rich. The line separating those two is getting thinner every year.
Uhm, I think you may be just a little too broad in your definition. I fit neither category. I am not super rich. I make a good living, and the work I do makes me better paid than the majority of americans, but I'm not even regular old rich, let alone super rich. I own my car, and I have some nice toys to play with. I can pay all of my bills on time. However, I also have a mortgage, and in order to meet my financial obligations, I do have to continue to work. I'm not poor, I receive absolutely no government assistance (nor do I want any). I'm pretty much the definition of middle class, and most of the people I know and associate with are the same.
I think your views might be just a tad bit skewed.
I wish someone would make a cop show a la Breaking Bad. A good cop, doing the best that he can. Bends the rules occasionally to get the job done but things slowly, inevitably get out of hand as the bending becomes breaking and the breaking becomes outright flaunting.
They did. It was called The Shield.
The NSA will still get the data one way or another as long as they are not stopped. To stop the NSA we indeed do not need a technical solution for a social problem.
It seems that everybody is relative OK with what the NSA does. Otherwise there would have been a lot of REAL protests.
Overly pessimistic. If the source point and the destination point do not transit US controlled routers, then the NSA can't sniff the traffic. The only way for them to get it would be for someone in the transit path to sniff the data and forward it on to them. Which isn't entirely impossible, but it'd dependent on country of origin and country of destination before I'd automatically assume that to be the truth. Believe it or not, some foreign intelligence agencies don't play nice with the US based ones!
Short of a new network protocol you might have issues getting the IP blocks for international routing. The only way I can see it happening is during the migration to IPv6 and only if either the world unanimously votes to start their own equivalent of IANA allows current non-US blocks to remain allocated without paying a second time (perhaps simply paying their next renewal fee to the Internationalized replacement to 'port over')
No. You don't understand how it works.
The IANA delegated the IP blocks (and it's done with that, it doesn't have anymore left) to the Regional Internet Registrars, of which there are 5. Brazil gets it's global IP's from LACNIC, which is not the IANA, is independant from the IANA, and is not US-based. US based companies get their IP's from the US based LACNIC equivalent, ARIN. The only real question would have been possibly DNS, since all the root servers used to be located in the US, but that hasn't been true for a long time.
There is absolutely nothing that would prevent Brazil from doing this technology wise. The only question is one of infrastructure.
You are incorrect. I am a network engineer for Comcast, so I have direct knowledge of this.
Comcast previously did have a cap of 250 GB transfer a month. Last year, the caps were suspended and have yet to be reinstated, if they ever will. If you're a customer, your usage per month will still show on your account page when you login, but the references to caps have been removed.
Now, I'm not going to say caps will never come back. That decision is far, far above my pay grade.
It's not just the HFC network that's required to make the bandwidth available. Converting from analog to digital channels does regain an awful lot of spectrum, which can then be repurposed for data channels. With a digital conversion and using multicast to distribute linear video, you can mux a crap load of channels into a single 38 meg stream, especially standard def.
However, keeping the cable plant clean enough to actually support all of that is not a trivial task, especially in a rural environment. Finding people who are qualified to do it is also difficult.
Then there's all of the equipment on the backend. Converting a CMTS infrastructure from DOCSIS 2 to DOCSIS 3 is not a trivial undertaking either. It requires a fairly significant investment in equipment. For metro areas this is a no brainer, the investment easily returns. For rural areas, it's a much much harder sell. Giving a thousand rural customers the same quality of service as 10,000 in a metro area costs very nearly the same amount of capital, but the rural area returns the investment a hell of alot slower.