....was eager to know...
....was eager to know...
Of course. By now, they dont need cookies: they have all the data they need already through simple transparent snort and span ports.... man oh man....
Some more than a hundred billion dollars beg to disagree with your statement there, sir. As for your final question, I propose as an answer "Who cares?". Nobody cares about intrinsic built-in trust of a civilised society. All they want is profit to have as many bitches sucking on their dicks and their kids dicks. Human lifespan is short and the rich are accutely aware of this. This is why they take what they can when they can.
You seem to believe someone out there in industryland cares even a little bit about the rest of society and their future: good luck with that.
Okay, point granted on rural access, but I think you miss the important part. WE pay for access. WE have a contract for speed delivered. ISPs make deals or charge for access and interconections: the value of their bussiness is the bandwidth.
I dont give a flying fuck if Mary McBrotherFuck up in the Kentucky mountains cant see House of Cards because she doesnt have the bandwidth: if she wants more bandwidth so much, then she should pay for it or move to civilization. I pay for bandwidth, netflix pays for bandwidth. Why in the world would they, or us, have to pay for 'heavyer content' like high resolution video? If the video rate is more than my bandwith, then I cant see it instantly. Period. If I want to see it instantly, then I should pay more and thus, the incentive of the ISP is merely mantaining infrastructure and its growth: a low margin bussiness it is, but a huge profit cow in the long run.
Why in the world should I, or netflix, pay more than our bandwith usage? Because ISPs, on the one hand, FAILED in the projection of bandwidth demand and thus heavyer content eats into their projected profits. On the other, because ISPs are also cable companies, and to them the cable bussiness, which is clearly a content-control racket, is more profitable than a flat internet.
And this is what is in front of us: the 'channelization' of internet content. They want it to be like cable tv.
Well yeah. But if this was the case, then the buyers are to blame: if they were going to wing it, they would have been way, way better hiring opensource consultants and an open source database and then get to coding like hell and even open source their whole op. If the case is that the state didnt purchase a fire and forget project, then they are as stupid as the oracle salesmen is a ghoul.
A word for 'buyers': if you are going to go macho on a thing like this, you cant be a little bitch and buy oracle. You go at it like a man and actually learn to code.
Why you trollin? Everything is flammable.
Whats the recoil on this thing?
I believe you, but i think youd agree that arround that, lies the problem. Its not an easy problem, but I dont think liberally charging whomever is to blame for extra demand than planned is a good solution either. Thats why I say '*or* be agressively and intelligently modified is the oversubscription model'. Hey, if we all have to pay for the extra demand, then we should: be transparent and fair about it and maybe it can be handled.
And yeah, maybe some small ISP's can't handle the increase in demand and yeah I feel shitty for thiking this, but hey, the market is obviously different than what the current model can handle.
How about you guys actually plan for your infrastructure to meet demand and charge accordingly. What needs to go, or be aggressively and intelligently modified is the oversubscription model.
Your low ID attests to your wisdom, oh elder of the internet. It cannot be said any better (or in a shorter sentence for that matter).
Its not appropriate: bytes arent cars. Bytes are bytes, 8 bits the last time I checked, and they dont 'damage' anything. For example, ISP's promise to the customer 1mbit on delivery, and they charge for it. Netflix's ISPs (they are probably many and/or all of them) promises, for example, 1tbits/s and charges for it. If there is enough infrastructure to comply with the promise, then why would you need to charge any of your good customers anything?
Thats the thing: its called oversuscription. They NEVER have the infrastructure to actually give all that bandwidth to everyone that pays them. It used to be you only had 30% of the absolute full use of your network. I dont know now, but that used to be the number back in the day (it worked fine with phonelines for example). That model, now that demand of bandwidth is growing much faster than they expected, needs to change. Simply, they didnt expect that people would actually demand, en masse, what they bought. And now they want us to pay for it and we will, because somebody has to and it sure as fuck isnt going to be them.
YES!: really man, are there ANY hackers left on slashdot?
All languages share that characteristic, you insensitive clod.
I have one word for your feeble heart, infidel: Cthulhu.
This is pure FUD: nothing can "generate" "humnoungous" quantities of bitcoin on demand. The coins got stolen or didnt, but nothing was "generated" in a faster pace than it can be generated by whatever mining farm they had in gox.