Peering is for peers. For backbone providers.

Comcast is not a peer. Comcast is an end user. Comcast should pay for both the inbound and outbound traffic onto a backbone.

Nowwww, this gets complicated as hell if Comcast owns or bought a backbone network.

I don't know. Maybe the old model just doesn't work any more, because in the old days "soruces" and "sinks" were spread out, now they're not, they're all segregated, network A is all sinks, network B is all source. And the idea that "source pays" seems kind of stupid. The siniks are the information consumers. Although I guess that provides no incentive for sources to get good network connections.

Maybe the "net source pays" should only apply if the traffic is traversing a network. If it's destination is on the given network, it should be "sink pays". If the source is on the given network, then it should be "source pays".

So you have a hosting plan, you are a source, you pay your hosting provider who pays their ISP. You have DSL or Cable, you are a sink and you pay your provider who pays for network. In between the two, anyone who accepts traffic that transits their network, well those peering points should obviously operate on some kind of "net source" manner, because that provides incentive for networks to build themselves out to reduce their "net source" charges.

> Arcs are a lie

Arcs are TESTABLE. Imarsat staff can look at live online airliner data and live ping timing data, and calibrate their calculations. If it's "plus or minus 5000 miles", it will be obvious. If it's "plus or minus 100 miles", it will also be obvious.

Please leave the eningeering and science to the Engineers and Scientists.

Did anyone OTHER than a bloody news organization specifically actually say this?

I'm certain it was a MISQUOTE or a badly written vague re-summary. Literally 12 hours ago I read a two part sentence, where the first part was based on what an "un-named source said", and the second part of the sentence even to my ears clearly was a vague rewrite of what the idiot reporter "understood" from what the source said but was note specifically quoted on.

Read one way the sentence the REPORTER wrote could be interpreted as "they have 4 hours of engine data", read the other way it was clear that the reporter was told "the engines were working at xpm and had fuel for 3 more hours"... and the fucking REPORTERS wrote up a summary that would OBVIOUSLY be misleading.

Seriously, the MEDIA is the biggest problem with this entire fucking thing. I.M.P.O.

Yup, same here. It's annoying, having twice as many hard drives as one needs including one entire set on the shelf, but it's the way to go.

I don't actually have a raid array for the live data, I have just a collection of disks mounted individually and so the files are already forced into "appropriate sized sets" suitable for a simple full disk robocopy.

I'm not sure what I'd do if I had a massive raid array of that size. Probably just grin and bear it and have a single 1-3 TB "new/incoming" that can be regularly backed up, and when it was full then make a final backup for the shelf and move it's contents into the long term raid array storage area, and I'd (try) and never make changes to the main long term raid files.

Are you sure he said "video"?

Running a shower against a wall is something I might do to defeat laser reflector and conduction audio taps.

They might just have an audio tape with nothing but the thunder of water on it, and be really pissed :)

> There was a trial

In Italy. I grew up assuming Italy was a first world western country, and from a few select aspects it is. But there's a whole bunch of other things that they are almost no better than 2nd or 3rd world at. The fact that they prosecuted and convicted someone of something like this in my and many people's books is utterly and completely worthless.

> Ownership of copyright means you should be able to stop publishing new html

Just because you own the copyright doesn't mean you get to demand that everyone in the world burn the books you sold them.

> enforcing Firefox with Adblock and Noscript

Yup, this. My 65 year old mom was able to put up with the annoyances of Noscript. She told me all the websites she regularly uses and I went through her bookmarks and history and configured Noscript to allow the minimums necessary on the sites that didn't quite work without partial permissions.

I even went so far as to install a local copy of VMware and put a browser in it without noscript (but with adblock), and told her to use it if she was ever "browsing dark corners and stuff she doesn't normally browse, wanted to click on a link in e-mail, or wanted to install something".

The computer within a computer confused her a little bit, don't think she ever did really understood that, but she got used to it and knew how to use it.

I think I was lucky that she'd not been on the internet long nor signed up for anything ever -- she got zero spam. That might be your second biggest viral vector. To counter that, I'd say tell her she's not to look at attachments or click on links in e-mail, even and especially if the e-mail came from friends or family, without forwarding the e-mail to you first.

Yeah, but when they're communicating via e-mail and filing bug reports and writing documentation, they're SKIMPING heavily.

The difference in quality and quantity of written content between people who can touch type and people who can't, is pretty big.

impo touch typing should be a mandatory class in high school these days.

Oh look, another company to whom I've entered into a commercial agreement with that now has a right to my entire browsing history and "public metadata". Super.

> proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.

Yeah and my Mom tells me not to stay out past midnight.

Is it illegal for you to walk around your neighbourhood and talk to people?

Dude, I'm the second Canuck you've run into tonight, and I'm left leaning - and you're the one coming off to me as "off your rocker".

..way back in the 90's for a while it was "a thing" to attach fake "false positive" sentences and words to online posts and e-mails to "gum up" the data collected by echelon. How come American's haven't immediately started that up again? I haven't even heard the idea mentioned. You'd think Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would think of and be on board with something like that.

They could call it "talk like a terrorist" month.

> Actually, and you are gonna laugh your ass off as it'll probably sound like a sales pitch but

Yes. You've replied to almost every single person saying the exact same thing. Sales pitch. Obviously. Amd is paying you to push the E350. Got it.

> and finally the electric bill will just drop like a stone

I live in a place where 8 months of the year you have to heat your home, and the building I'm in uses electricity, not natural gas or fuel oil. So I'm going to save NOTHING. But it would result in a whole shit ton of electronic waste going to the "recyclers" (India and China where they melt stuff down in open air vats and poison themselves and their towns) and a whole second batch being created in factories (nasty nasty processes and chemicals are involved).

So. Um. NO. Not going to replace equipment just because an AMD salesperson keeps going on and on about how much I'll "save" in power bills.

When you spec the power needed by your E350, what is the power comparison look like when you add the hard drive, LCD, and other common peripherals? Sure cpu to cpu you're going from 80W to 18W, but full system it's going from what, 250W to 200W? 150W to 100W? Who cares. And none of this applies to people running modern 100W GPUs, unless they're NOT playing modern games:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+6310

All of that being said -- it is entirely valid to point out to people that they do not need to buy bleeding edge CPUs, and that for most business staff an E-350 cpu would be an excellent affordable option.

Disclaimer - I own a C-50 Acer AspireONE netbook and a Phenom 8750 triple core with a GTX 260, and I have NO PLANS to upgrade anything unless my motherboard goes "pop".

And I don't work for AMD. :)

You know that.
I know that.

90% of people who "code" or deal with software -- should not be allowed anywhere near anything that has aspects of security aspects of systems and software.

Good luck trying to find a manager that a) understands that, b) can identify the 10% vs the masses, c) is willing to pay that 10% what they're worth.

Shit, the 50% of managers and "architects" and developers who create unscalable crap are long gone off to their next task before whatever they last created gets to the point of implosion.

> You can create backups of TC containers

If you use a file based container, BEWARE any backup software that first looks at the timestamp of the file to determine if the file should be backed up or refreshed.

Truecrypt does not modify the timestamp of file containers.

Thank God I noticed that before I someday needed to use one of my backups. I would have opened up a "recent backup" to discover that it was in fact very very old.