Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why..... (Score 0) 259

by Rockoon (#48149465) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed

No. This is basic economics - when you make a product, you don't charge the consumer what it costs + x%, you charge what the market will bear. The primary control on the price of an item is the amount that the consumer is willing to pay for it.

Amazing how the anonymous simpletons neglect to deal with actual business economics but instead want to focus on some simplistic price model (that doesnt even include the basics .. supply, demand, and competition)

The idea that Apple would not in any way change its business practices if its profit margins change is laughably ludicrous. Only someone looking to justify their position with horseshit would ever believe otherwise. Picking theories first and then searched for shallow justifications is not rational. Stop doing it.

Comment: Re:Why..... (Score 0) 259

by Rockoon (#48148111) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed

I don't want it either, primarily because it ends up with poor people paying a higher percentage of their income in tax. You can make adjustments for necessities, like food and gas, but that tends to make it so the middle class is paying the highest percentage of their income in tax.

You seem to be missing the point that corporate taxes are already the exact "regressive" you are worried about. Businesses pass their expenses, such as taxes, along to their customers even when their customers are poor.

There are several differences. For instance those in the know can pretend that corporate taxes are not regressive taxes that effect poor people the most, while shallow slogan-chanting ignorant sheep have no clue that corporate taxes are regressive taxes that effect poor people the most.

End all indirect taxes, including corporate taxes.

Comment: Re:IRL (Score 1) 204

by Rockoon (#48140371) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

So if an ISP becomes a teir one or tier 2 provider up stream that gives them the right to bottle neck their customers and create toll roads that would never have been there?

If you dont like it, set up your own transit network and see how swell it is to increase your transit networks capacity in order to meet the needs of another transit networks profits.

I'm sure you are OK with being my networks transit bitch while I dominate the market with the lowest prices that I can offer because I get settlement free peering with a complete morons transit network.

Comment: Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week (Score 1) 204

by Rockoon (#48140265) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

They DID request it and they DID want it

On the internet, you cannot tell. You seem to be missing this key fact. If you make the receiver pay instead of the sender, I will set up a network tomorrow and send shit towards your network all day and night, and then when you refuse to pay the bill I send you I will file a lawsuit and send notice to your credit agencies. While you are busy deciding if its worth fighting me in court or not, I'll be speaking to the press telling them what a deadbeat you are for not paying your bandwidth bill.

Whats that? The way you imagine things requires honest actors? Yeah.. thats the point... thats why its not set up that way. its set up to that the sender pays so that it doesnt matter if they are honest or not.

Comment: Re:IRL (Score 1) 204

by Rockoon (#48139425) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

That is NOT how it has worked for decades. Sure there have been paid agreements, UPSTREAM, but not with ISPs, whose customers generate ALL the traffic.

ISP's have traditionally purchased transit. The idea that ISP's have commonly gotten settlement free peering is laughable because it is quite uncommon for an ISP to do any peering at all. The ISP's that do have peering agreements are tier 2 or tier 1, and there are only a few dozen of those each in the entire world. These so called ISP's are transit networks that happen to also be providers.

Transit networks have always had to be paid for asymmetric flow. Settlement free only lasts so long as the ratio to and fro isnt far from balanced.

Netflix's current ISP is Level 3. Back in the days when Cogent was Netflix's ISP, Level 3 ended their settlement free agreement, disconnected from Cogent, and demanded money because Cogent had a very imbalanced ratio with them. Now that Level 3 is Netflix's ISP, they pretend that ratios don't matter. Bullshit.

Comment: Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week (Score 3, Informative) 204

by Rockoon (#48139305) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.

Most last mile providers are tier 3 networks and purchase transit. Thats not "settlement free."

Even Comcast which is tier 2 purchase their primary transit from Tata. They don't get a free ride because they can't do the transit.

Verizon is tier 1. They dont buy transit. They do transit. You dont get to dump many times as much data on another transit network as they dump on yours without consequences. You cannot argue around this because this is the way it is, the way its been, and the way it will continue to be. The burden is on the sender because thats the only way it makes sense to do it. The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it. A lot of people bring up the idea that netflix users "requested" the data. The internet maintains no concept of "requested." Packets are pushed through the network, not pulled.

Netflix's old ISP was Cogent. Remember the issues between Cogent and Level3 back in 2005? Netflix's current ISP, Level 3, didnt want Cogent to get a free ride and shut down the interlinks, but now that Level3 is netflix's ISP they suddenly are all for free rides with everybody? Really?

There is the way you want things to work, and the way they actually work. There is good reason for the way things actually work.

Comment: Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week (Score 4, Insightful) 204

by Rockoon (#48138687) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

The scandal here is not the peering, but rather the fact that instead of being mutual (each side foots its own half of the bill), the ISP's are using their customers as leverage to get paid for it.

No, the scandal here is that the asymmetric arrangement isnt presented honestly, like you didnt do right here.

Settlement free peering has never existed when one side sends significantly more traffic than the other side. Period. Its not something that happens. You can call it extortion if you want, never the less thats not how the business operates now or has ever operated in the past.

In this case the peering agreement need to be asymmetric (one side pays the other) because the bandwidth simply isnt even close to symmetric, but Level 3 (the ISP Netflix uses) does not want to pay the difference. Level 3 approached Netflix with a sweetheart deal, got their business, but now don't want to pay other backbones for the consequences of being Netflix's ISP.

Now given that Netflix itself is saving money because Level 3 isnt charging them a traditional price for the amount of bandwidth that they push, and Level 3 gets away with this by not paying other backbone providers a traditional price for such asymmetric peering, then it only seems natural that Neflix takes that money they are saving using their cheapskate ISP and uses some of it to route around the issues that choosing a cheapskate ISP has caused them.

Decisions have consequences.

Comment: Re:Linked? (Score 1) 338

and the issue of optimisation has meant that game AI is generally coded very close to the metal (C++, quite often).

I'd beg to differ. Most game AI is now scripted so that the high cost engine devs can go work on the next project while the low cost monkeys program the a.i, the interaction mechanics, and integrate content.

Comment: Re:It's also hard to find a good balance (Score 1) 336

by Rockoon (#48072937) Attached to: Why the FCC Will Probably Ignore the Public On Network Neutrality

"You may throttle based on protocol (e.g. http, ftp, sip, bittorrent) but not by packet origin or destination."

This is the recipe of an idiot that isnt capable of foreseeing the vast amounts of inefficiency that will happen when everyone begins to use whatever packet type has the highest priority, rather than what is the most efficient. Disguising packets as HTTP has already been suggested as the "solution" to bittorrent throttling.

Comment: Re:Not that new (Score 1) 59

by Rockoon (#48012899) Attached to: Researchers Develop Purely Optical Cloaking

Now if they would only take those four lenses, put them in a tube and 'cloak' an absorber around the focal point to remove stray light, they would have a marvelous invention. I suggest calling it a telescope.

It really only requires 2 lenses, but in both a 4-lens (do such refractors exist? seems overly complicated) or 2 lens telescope the "cloaking" is only one direction and relies on the fact that the thing being "cloaked" is out of focus.

Anyone with a big aperture telescope can see this effect quick clearly without any fancy staging/setup at all. Simply look through the telescope at a distant object and then put your finger in front of the objective aperture. The only thing you will see is a very slight dimming as your finger passes in front of the aperture, and this includes the finger being right in the middle.

Comment: Re:Is it actually a bug at all? (Score 1) 208

by Rockoon (#48008807) Attached to: Apple Yet To Push Patch For "Shellshock" Bug

So why do we have the situation now, that internet services are calling bash scripts to run as root with data input from the internet without proper validation?

Because everyone forgot how insecure unix-likes were when windows joined the internet.

Take a look at the old CERT advisories and you will see exploit after exploit specifically via command-line shenanigans.

Comment: Re:is anyone really surprised here (Score 0) 201

by Rockoon (#48006947) Attached to: The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes
Most of slashdot thinks federalist means increasing power for the federal government, so no point mentioning it.

The sad fact is that while they continually cry for more central regulatory authority, they then also cry about the actual realized (and quite inevitable) consequences of central regulatory authority.

The only way to increase the influence of the average man is to decrease centralization of authority, and this also minimizes the damage potential of the corrupt. Its win-win, but the people around here argue for lose-lose.

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.