Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yeah, too bad there's no real reason to do so.. (Score 1) 292

by gclef (#46543639) Attached to: Back To the Moon — In Four Years

Agree. The moon's dust problem alone makes it problematic. I'd argue for L4 or L5 before the moon. There's still some dust at L4 & L5, but the sheer amount of it is much lower, and the gravity well to get there (and leave again) is much lower. It's not as inpsiring to say "we're on L4!", but it's also a first-person-gets-it kinda can have multiple moon bases, but really only one at L4 or L5.

Comment: Re:It's not legal issues, it's production issues (Score 1) 77

by gclef (#46492547) Attached to: Why Are There More Old Songs On iTunes Than Old eBooks?

The difference, which the summary alludes to, but doesn't call out, is that it's very typical for book contracts to contain a clause that reverts all copyrights back to the author after the book falls out of print for some period of time. Music contracts very rarely have that. Music contracts may or may not have covered the right to distribute the works digitally, but the music publishers still have *some* rights to old works, where the book publishers will have none.

The Internet

Crowdsourcing Confirms: Websites Inaccessible on Comcast 349

Posted by timothy
from the have-your-friends-drop-the-dime-on-your-non-friends dept.
Bennett Haselton writes with a bit of online detective work done with a little help from some (internet-distributed) friends: "A website that was temporarily inaccessible on my Comcast Internet connection (but accessible to my friends on other providers) led me to investigate further. Using a perl script, I found a sampling of websites that were inaccessible on Comcast (hostnames not resolving on DNS) but were working on other networks. Then I used Amazon Mechanical Turk to pay volunteers 25 cents apiece to check if they could access the website, and confirmed that (most) Comcast users were blocked from accessing it while users on other providers were not. The number of individual websites similarly inaccessible on Comcast could potentially be in the millions." Read on for the details.

Comment: Re:If Comcast were Exxon (Score 1) 520

by gclef (#46321945) Attached to: Netflix Blinks, Will Pay Comcast For Network Access

It's not quite that simple. The GP post is correct that Cogent has a horrible reputation in the industry. Here's a synopsis of the most common Cogent dispute:

1) User in New York on ISP A requests data from Server in San Francisco on Cogent.
2) ISP A and Cogent interconnect in San Francisco and New York.
3) ISP A wants Cogent to carry the traffic to New York and drop it onto the ISP's network as close a possible to the customer (cold-potato routing), Cogent wants it off their network as soon as possible so they drop it onto the ISP A San Francisco interconnect (hot potato routing).

The question boils down to: which one of them is going to have to build a bigger national backbone to handle the extra traffic from the user in New York? Neither one wants to, and wants to force the other one to do it.

As to why ISPs are not blacklisting Cogent: they are. That's what all these bandwidth problems with Netflix are about: ISPs are playing chicken with Cogent, trying to force Cogent's customers to bully them into upgrading their network. ISPs aren't limiting Netflix: they're refusing to upgrade interconnects with Cogent until Cogent starts using cold-potato routing.

In this case, one of Cogent's customers blinked before Cogent did, and side-stepped the problem.

Comment: Re:Politics as usual (Score 1) 348

by Continental Drift (#45715703) Attached to: Red Light Camera Use Declined In 2013 For the First Time
Baloney. We've been changing the length of lights, and drivers know it, which is why they run them all the time. We should make them standard based on length of the intersection, lanes, and speed limits throughout the US. Add in the RLC when the light length is well known, and it will help keep intersections safer.

Comment: Re:Please ruin it like you did Star Trek (Score 0) 376

by gclef (#44985065) Attached to: An Animated, Open Letter To J.J. Abrams About <em>Star Wars</em>

Star Trek was "serious scifi"? Since when?

The original series had hot babes in filmy, barely-there outfits and paper-thin allegories about the cold war, but very little science. The next generation had morality plays, and tried (and failed) to do science by changing of the polarization of the deflector dish (or whatever "insert sciency bit here" they did that week). The others I didn't bother to watch (though I hear there's an episode where a character is "evolved" into a lizard and then back again.....really?).

Star Trek has always been terrible at the "serious" sci-fi. It's just terrible at serious scifi in a very different way than Star Wars is.

Comment: Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 5, Insightful) 332

by gclef (#44836561) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View

If you run an ISP and still don't understand that you're not the interesting part of the internet, then you have never understood your place on the 'net. ISPs exist for one reason, and one reason only: to allow people to access content. Period. The "Economic Balance" isn't "tipping towards content companies"...the content companies *are* *the* *things* *your* *customers* *want*. The only thing they want from you is to get to those companies (or each other). You are a conduit, a tube, even. Nothing more.

The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth

If your users want the traffic, then the content providers aren't "wasting" it...your customers (who are already paying you for those bits, I should point out) are using what they've paid for. Saying that content providers are wasting bandwidth is basically complaining that your users are actually *using* what you sold them...which is really not a winning argument.

Comment: Re:Privacy in 2 years (Score 1) 158

by gclef (#44540565) Attached to: After Lavabit Shut-Down, Dotcom's Mega Promises Secure Mail

Spam was and still is an enormous economic incentive to replace SMTP....and yet, after a decade of avalanches of spam, we haven't replaced SMTP with something that addresses any of the aspects of SMTP that permit spam to happen. This situation isn't even on the same order of magnitude of economic burden as spam is every single day. So, yes, the current situation *economically* is exactly like it was the last decade: we're paying for the design decisions of SMTP, and will continue to do so until something shinier comes along that people move to. That migration will happen slowly, over years, and SMTP will slowly wither away as the migration happens.

The devil finds work for idle circuits to do.