Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Seriously, fuck Greenpeace. (Score 1) 288

by jcr (#47541405) Attached to: Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

They're like the goddamned Westboro Baptist Church, trying to leech publicity from anything that makes the news. They are not, and have never been an environmentalist organization. They're a marketing organization, that sucks up money by guilt peddling.

If you want to help the environment, then donate to a local group in your area, the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, or any of dozens of others.

-jcr

Comment: Re:Symmetrical? (Score 1) 234

by laird (#47541031) Attached to: Verizon Boosts FiOS Uploads To Match Downloads

There's plenty of legal p2p traffic. Almost all large videogames, particularly MMORPGs, use p2p to deliver installers and updates. At Pando, what we found was that not only were the economics much better, but the successful download percentage for managed p2p downloads, measured by people completing the download and getting the game installed and running, was MUCH higher for p2p downloads than HTTP downloads. It's pretty easy to see why - p2p protocols detect and correct for errors, and are quite persistent at getting people correct data, and are engineered to move huge files, while HTTP was never really intended to move single files the size of a modern MMORPG.

Comment: Re:Symmetrical? (Score 1) 234

by laird (#47541021) Attached to: Verizon Boosts FiOS Uploads To Match Downloads

Perhaps I should explain - the Pando P2P network delivered guaranteed throughput by using both traditional CDN and P2P networking. For example, if a video stream has a target of 1 mbps rate, and it's getting 700 kbps from peers, it'll pull the remaining 300 kbps from a CDN. This reduces the CDN deliver volume (and cost) by 70%. And it turns out that when peers can pull from thousands of other peers, the comulative delivery rate can often exceed the traditional CDN delivery rate, and it's generally more resilient to networking issues, because an issue that might throttle or stall a single stream, such as a congested router, often won't affect other streams in parallel because they're independent routes.

The 80% was actually measured in a test run in partnership with a number of major ISPs (Verizon, Comcast, Telefonica, AT&T, etc.). We captured all p2p data transfer volumes, then analyzed them to analyze the network data flows, and compared a number of different peer allocation algorithms. Peer assignment that is aware of network topology did, in fact, reduce inter-ISP traffic volumes by 80%. And by rather more on the ISPs that provide symmetric bandwidth, because peers within an ISPs network can exchange data faster than with peers outside the ISP network.

More details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... .

Comment: Re:Heck, we probably already fund them (Score 0, Troll) 125

by jcr (#47535129) Attached to: The NSA's New Partner In Spying: Saudi Arabia's Brutal State Police

They bomb hospitals under UN protection

They bomb hospitals that UN personnel have allowed Hamas to use as weapons depots, and they call and warn people to get out of them first.

Taking Hamas propaganda at face value is a good way to make an ass of yourself.

-jcr

Comment: Re:No More Limited Upload Globally (Score 1) 234

by laird (#47502635) Attached to: Verizon Boosts FiOS Uploads To Match Downloads

IMO, it's Verizon (finally) getting smart and taking advantage of their superior fiber network, giving their customers symmetric bandwidth that cable providers can't provide. Cable companies built a cheaper infrastructure, that physically can't provide as much uplink as downlink. So if Verizon can get people to value symmetric bandwidth, instead of just downlink, suddenly they have the winning network!

Comment: Re:Symmetrical? (Score 4, Interesting) 234

by laird (#47502607) Attached to: Verizon Boosts FiOS Uploads To Match Downloads

I built that network (Pando Networks) a few years ago. The content companies were generally pretty slow to adopt p2p technology, but game companies are all over it. One pleasant aspect was that the advantage of p2p wasn't just economics, though those were great, it was performance. Because downloading from dozens of sources is much more resilient, and on good networks more performant, than downloading from one source. And, with an intelligent network, it could connect you with peers that are close to you in the network, reducing network congestion at the interconnects by 80%. When we ran a large scale test across all the major ISPs, we in fact saw that p2p clients were able to reduce inter-ISP data exchanges (for the p2p network) by 80%, simply through intelligent peer selection, which ISPs loved, and download performance was better, which downloaders loved.

And symmetric fiber networks are awesome at p2p.

Comment: Irrelevant. (Score 1) 778

by jcr (#47497465) Attached to: States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

The minimum wage affects those who are unable to earn some arbitrarily-set cutoff price. Growth of any jobs that pay that much or more is entirely beside the point.

Statists like to pretend that they're helping the poor with law that says "here you go, you get to earn at least this much!", but what these statues really do is say is "UNLESS you can earn this much, no job for you!"

-jcr

Comment: Re:n/t (Score 1) 278

by laird (#47489279) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..

Newton's philosophical point was that thinking that there must be a model that is absolutely "right" and all others are "wrong" isn't useful for evaluating scientific theories, because that kind of absolutist thinking kept humanity in the dark ages with competing cults of faith in ancient texts, and he proposed a more enlightened approach as being required to make progress. So, the more constructive question is not "who is right", it is whether a theory makes accurate predictions or not. If a theory makes accurate predictions, verified by independent testing, then it's useful. If a theory fails that test, it's not useful. But models are only useful in a specific domain, and only until there's some cast where it doesn't work, and a new or more refined theory takes its place and extends it. And, for the domain where it applies (i.e. the conditions we all live in normally), Newton's laws of motion work well and are quite useful.

It's true that Einstein's Theory of Relativity refined Newton's Laws of Motion to cover additional domains (e.g. near the speed of light). And numerous others have come up with additional refinements to address other specific domains. But none of those make Newton's Laws of Motion "wrong" in any useful sense. They build on Newton's Laws of Motion and extend them, which is (IMO) the opposite of disproving them!

Comment: Re:n/t (Score 1) 278

by laird (#47489179) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..

The "debate about climate change" is about whether it's going on and is affected by human behavior.

In scientific terms there's no debate on that topic - it's settled.

In political terms, there's lots of debate, disconnected from scientific facts.

It all reminds me of the decades where medical science knew that smoking killed people, but cigarette companies tried to present the illusion of a debate, through paid fake "research" and massive marketing campaigns, "donations" to politicians, etc., and it took a long time for the political situation to acknowledge reality. This was a clever business tactic, because it let the cigarette companies sell billions more cigarettes, while the people that they killed didn't cost them anything. Not ethical, or good for the country as a whole, of course, but highly profitable for a few companies.

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Working...