Would that be a recently cleaned toilet seat, one that's been used, or one that someone left a hot steamy load on?
I'm pretty sure this wasn't a stewardess. The guy is a preferred business customer so he gets to board before everyone else as would be marked on his ticket. His children were not and were supposed to board with their boarding group. Previously, other boarding agents had permitted him to board the plane with the preferred business customers and have his children board at the same time. This time the boarding agent didn't allow him.
So I'm pretty sure Kimberly S. was not a stewardess and in fact was a boarding agent. So the whole "not speaking to you during the flight" bit is completely off.
I have very small cataracts forming and my family has a history of cataracts. I could go for the cosmetic surgury now, but the cataracts are still likely to form. I could wait until those form then get a non-cosmetic lens replacement surgery. Granted, that won't likely happen at least for another 30 years so it might still be worth it but that is one reason to consider not getting lasik.
It means the use a droplet that forces your pupils to dilate wide open. Normally your pupil isn't dilated very much unless it's dark and if a bright light would be shown in your eyes it will contract and narrow. The dilation allows them to widen your pupils while still using a bright like which allows them to see far more of the inside of your eye.
You pay with a credit card, at a location that has suffered a credit breach, for a gift card to a service like Sony, because you're concerned about security and credit card breaches at Sony?
Does that about sum it up?
What exactly are they supposed to offer?
There's two concessions that would grease the wheels to allow peace to happen. Either Hamas is barred from any government capacity in Palestine or Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist. Barring either of those concessions, any cease fire will only last until something else relights the powderkeg. You cannot negotiate with a party that doesn't recognize your existence unless you have leaders in that party that can see the forest for the trees like Anwar Sadat following the Yom Kippur War who was, incidentally, assassinated by Islamic jihadists for signing peace with Israel. That peace treaty also lead to Egypt getting kicked out of the Arab league until 1989.
Israel has demonstrated in the past that it wants peace. It has removed Israeli settlers from Gaza, forceibly. It returned the entire Sinai pennisula to Egypt once the peace treaty following the Yom Kippur War was concluded. However that requires that the other party will engage honestly in negotiations that are seeking lasting peace. I cannot honestly say that will ever occur with Hamas.
The missile would be successful by the attacker's criteria. If Israel's criteria is that missiles don't land and explode in civilian centers then it is quite possible that the missile could be a success by Hamas's definition and an Iron Dome success by Israel's.
Damn. Who could stomach being a grandparent in their forties?
Did they? Last I had heard the US was confirming the launch but not from where.
Okay, let's go with that. Netflix is throttling it's own traffic. Verizon can't control where the traffic is coming in. Netflix chooses which provider it sends out its traffic. It could engage in load balancing among multiple providers, like other CDNs, so that all it's traffic isn't going out across one provider.
Sequence of events may make it possible to identify where the missile struck the plane. If that is the case that may be able to limit the trajectories from which the missile could have approached the plane. All sides are denying culpability right now.
I'm not willing to go so far as to suggest that the same % utilization in L3 and Verizon suggests that Verizon could handle the additional traffic. First of all, it's a percentage and not an absolute number. 50% of 500 Gbps is different from 50% of 100Gbps (just used numbers that probably don't reflect actual values). So it's actually very likely that L3 is carrying drastically more traffic than Verizon. Second of all, the utilization is almost certainly network wide and has no bearing on the interconnect between Verizon and L3. 100% of the traffic they carry is not isolated to just between them. There's going to be traffic between L3 and Cogent, for example, which would be included in Cogent's figures and there's going to be traffic between Cogent and Verizon, which would be included in Verizon's figures.
In order words, the diagrams are relatively meaningless.
Netflix paid for more direct access which means directly between Netflix and Verizon rather than using an intermediary like L3. Upgrading capacity between L3 and Verizon would not satisfy such an agreement.
Verizon's diagram shows a 46-56% utilization. L3 was suggesting doubling the number of interconnects between L3 and Verizon which would jump their capacity from 40Gb to 80Gb. You're absolutely right. The effects of doubling the amount of available bandwidth on their most congested interconnect are not going to be easy to determine. There's going to be other downstream upgrades that will likely need to occur. This is why Verizon wants a settlement for upgrading.