Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:They re-invented static scheduling (Score 4, Informative) 83

by postbigbang (#47479521) Attached to: MIT May Have Just Solved All Your Data Center Network Lag Issues

Nah. They put MPLS logic-- deterministic routing by knowing the domain into an algorithm that optimizes time slots, too.

All the hosts are know, their time costs, and how much crap they jam into wires. It's pretty simple to typify what's going on, and where the packet parking lots are. If you have sufficient paths and bandwidth in and among the hosts, you resolve the bottlenecks.

This only works, however, if and when the domain of hosts has sufficient aggregate resources in terms of path availability among the hosts. Otherwise, it's the classic crossbar problem looking for a spot marked ooops, my algorithm falls apart when all paths are occupied.

Certainly it's nice to optimize and there's plenty of room for algorithms that know how to sieve the traffic. But traffic is random, and pathways limited. Defying the laws of physics will be difficult unless you control congestion in aggregate from applications where you can make the application become predictable. Only then, or you have a crossbar matrix, will there be no congestion. For any questions on this, look to the Van Jacobsen algorithms and what the telcos had to figure out, eons ago.

Comment: Re:I don't know any such thing (Score 1) 52

by postbigbang (#47463263) Attached to: Telcos Move Net Neutrality Fight To Congress

The throttling began long ago, when we let carriers give us asymmetrical connections, e.g. (ex:) 80% download and 20% upload. This is how FIOS, and many other schemes will come unraveled. Upload speed is important if for this fact: pooling web services is now done via ISPs/MSPs and other data centers, instead of a distributed pattern of symmetrically-supplied carriers-- like your own home. It requires us to host our stuff at ISPs, and even more-- if you're delivering streaming content-- via specialized providers called content delivery networks/CDNs, like Akamai instead of some place else. This tends to optimize delivery for multicasted services and on-demand services, but screws anyone wanting to make the next YouTube without an oceanliner full of cash-up-front.

We're already heavily throttled. This just prevents it from getting WORSE.

Comment: Re:Watches? (Score 1) 129

by postbigbang (#47399793) Attached to: Android Wear Is Here

And all the ostensible features of the watch that are worth something beyond geek chick are at the full whimsy of Google. Will they support this five years down the road?

Most people use their smartphones for watches these days, and the rest is usually for glitz or weaponry. Those values-- glitz and weaponry-- aren't dependent on vendor services from a vendor that tosses them away seemingly at will. Not gonna view a map on my wristwatch, so that's out. No phone calls. Movies are impossible. Browsing would be a joke, and a built-in camera would be pretty silly.

Dick Tracy aside, I can see some cultures adopting such a thing, but the prices are huge for such frivolity.

Comment: Re:What happens if (Score 4, Funny) 281

by postbigbang (#47244569) Attached to: Bitcoin Security Endangered By Powerful Mining Pool

There are still botnets, yes running on ancient XP machines with CPUs best measured in furlongs per fortnight, with zillions of captured kernels that might, for that brief moment, create hashing power of the kind that the world has never known. Dimming the planetary grid, perhaps even the very sun itself, t even phashes would be spewed higher than a volcano, and for that brief moment, a new zillionaire would be annointed.

And at the end, we'd just have more hash. Pass me the ketchup bottle, please.

Comment: Re:That's literally the worst idea I ever heard (Score 1) 69

by postbigbang (#47238871) Attached to: Transforming the Web Into a Transparent 'HTTPA' Database

You're missing a bunch of steps.

You need to diff it all, make sure it MD5s (or better). Other dependencies have to be checked. While many of the Deb repos are fine, there's then the rest of the stuff you're using-- whose dependencies might not be in a cute and highly watched (if we're lucky) spot.

So you can apply this technique with other OS families and come up with similar questions, and no good airgap answers. You update only a core set of stuff, yes, the OS, but only after a lot of steps. And we hope you don't use a flash drive or other media that doesn't have/get an infected bootsector. Rootkits are ugly.

Comment: Re:That's literally the worst idea I ever heard (Score 1) 69

by postbigbang (#47238779) Attached to: Transforming the Web Into a Transparent 'HTTPA' Database

But no one ever really does that. Although you can state-freeze an OS, none of the OS makers have useful constructions that allow vetted air-gap updates via media transfer.

The entire scheme looks like a paradise for someone that wants to crack it like an egg. This, too, shall pass.

Comment: Re:Corruption (Score 2) 140

You're talking about sales models, not the wholesale carriage that telcos, actually datacom providers, are supposed to render. I'm not talking about parochial harrassment of companies, rather that regulated utilities ought to be scrutinized at both state and federal levels. The for-profit model that most utilities have changed to was a mistake. Shareholder profit, rather than the basic needs of basic infrastructure to be a world-class connected republic, is the rule.

We're almost a third-world-quality connected country in the US. Consideration for ALL of the connectivity needs, from central switching right down to the WiFi in your home/office, cellular data transport, to tip-and-ring telephony needs to be made where the jurisdiction makes sense: central to the last few inches. The Feds are awful at the last few inches-- states much better. Decency issues are another topic for another time.

Comment: Re:Corruption (Score 5, Interesting) 140

You ignore the public utility regulatory agencies of the 43 states that have them. This entire morass came after the TCA of 1998 and subsequent revisions of the FCC rules and regs brought on in the post Judge Greene rulings that initially broke up the Bell System.

Public utilities had to deal with all of these regulatory authorities, and then calculatedly lobbied to create US Federal control so that they'd only have to bribe-- I mean lobby and render campaign contributions-- to one target instead of so many. In-state vs Intrastate vs Interstate issues helped hold them to the floor.

NYC is not a regulatory authority. NY State is, as is the FCC, and to a smaller extent, the NTIA.

Decentralization was good for several reasons: rights of way and easements are local, even personal issues. These are last-mile issues. State issues concern everything from keeping infrastructure support fair and even (including low-profit/sparsely populated areas) to zoning policy, and so forth.

The FCC has evolved what was once called "data communications" as a separate classification, away from telephony. Now these things are the same, but the public's needs have evolved. Decentralization isn't so much meaningless as it's the ability to tailor historical infrastructure to locally evolving needs, and is better democracy.

  It's time to conflate consumer communications into a single mandate, IMHO. It has to service we consumers, whether in urban, suburban, or rural areas. Whether it's a text, phone call via wire or cell, or a browser session, it ought to have to meet a set of basic standards, where consumers have well-known and flexible rights.

Comment: Re: A Pox on Google! (Score 4, Interesting) 225

by postbigbang (#47104659) Attached to: Google Starts Blocking Extensions Not In the Chrome Web Store

You're not alone, but then again, neither are they. The new world order is to host your own store, and reap the rewards, control your clientele, and do so in the superficial PR mechanism of controlling bad stuff, where the actual motive is more like: profit and gleaning market trends.

Altruism is NOT Google's business model.

Comment: Re:Surface: the only Hope (Score 1) 379

Part of the problem is: device drivers and the morass of problems you get when you try to get hardware device makers to think in non-Intel terms.

Even if you got Win 8.1 to work on ARM, there's more than one ARM family to deal with, not to mention reference chipsets that are almost insanely different. Windows and Microsoft are pretty glued to Intel, although at some point, ARM starts having the density of Intel CISC and mini-CISC (Atom) and then uses more power, and becomes less useful.

Comment: Re:Surface: the only Hope (Score 1) 379


They believe that if others sell their stuff, they make money. Apple believes if they sell their stuff, they make money.

It's all about who they believe pays the bills. Apple: end-user. Microsoft: businesses. Linux: cheap is good, free is best. Very simple.

Comment: Re:Surface: the only Hope (Score 1) 379

Apple is very user-focused, while Microsoft is very business-focused. Apple wants to control your experience very thoroughly, whether you like it or not. Microsoft is more laissez-faire.

You can't change three characteristics of current tablets: their form factors are convenient, but not that of a notebook or desktop, their keyboards have gradients of: suck, and their native power is curtailed for general purposes because of the form factor. As battery technology gets better, you can sustain more CPU vs battery drain.

But the keyboards have been shades of useless, unless you get a bluetooth keyboard or USB etc that allows for additional work product to be performed on a tablet.

Microsoft is entirely late to the game as you suggest, but tablets make more sense to their sense of their clientele and like many times before, they'll work doggedly to improve a product to better its appeal.

Were I a Microsoft shareholder, I'd be happy. But I also know their sins intimately, and I'll NEVER be a Microsoft shareholder from my sense of ethics.

"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27