Well, that place is going to be dug up soon according to this article.

"I can think of no circumstances under which a driver would want power going to the wheels while pressing the brake pedal (other than perhaps achieving the lowest possible 0-to-60-mph time)."

Drying the brakes after running through a puddle.

"Wipe them out, all of them."

No, I believe the article stated that Yahoo! was getting the bandwidth for "free". That is, Yahoo! is its own national network with POP's in all the big cities. Yahoo! is like an ISP, but unlike an ISP, Yahoo! did not sell transit. The only point of their network was to peer with large ISP's. They would drop in a router and get as many ISP's to connect their POP's to their router for free.

The difference today is that Netflix has a lot more data. A LOT more. Gone are the days of simple web sites. Depending on the size of the ISP that router and interface port might cost a heck of a lot of money. They might even have to upgrade the routers within their network. As demand for things like Netflix grows, the cost of that equipment grows. For what? Just so their customers can get Netflix? They think to themselves, "Why upgrade that port?" Customer start complaining to Netflix. The solution? Let Netflix (or Cogent) pay for the router/port. Seems fair to me. In the mean time, customers have to complain loud enough to get something done.

Not all content providers have this kind of network. Netflix is not Yahoo! or Google. They used Cogent to do all the work for them. In some ways that is better. If I was a small start up that was going to launch a new streaming service, I know where I would place my servers for good connectivity to Comcast. I'd place them in a Cogent colo!

That must have been *very* early on. I remember reading an article in the late 90's that stated that Yahoo! only payed for half of their total bandwidth requirements. Transit was costing them too much money. So they peered with large ISP's to cut their transit costs. They were connecting eyeballs to content. Both sides of the equation won because ISP's would take traffic off of their transit connection and so did Yahoo!. Yes, it does cost money to peer, but for Yahoo! it saved them money. How is this any different than Netflix? Same deal, eyeballs and content. The difference is that Netflix sends a lot more data. Even more reason that ISP's should want the traffic off of their transit connections.

The scenario with Netflix and ISP's is exactly what I've been describing for years. That is, use congestion on links to beat net neutrality. I would point this out and people would still focus on filtering and shaping. Who needs to filter when an ISP can just peer with a preferred VoIP provider? The link would have plenty of extra capacity and get very good quality of service. No neutrality rules have been broken because the ISP isn't shaping or filtering. They are using the inherit capability of the Internet to route traffic. So did the net neutrality people always see this issue or do they just not understand? Was the goal, all along, to control peering and they just hid their motives?

I've been skeptical of net neutrality because as soon as it was implemented, it wouldn't be "good enough" and they'd move on to more and more control. We all should be very skeptical of the government stepping in to regulate peering.

It is an embedded Windows XP. It's different from your normal Windows XP.

More like DOOM DOS that used DOS4GW. I remember typing dos4gw.exe doom.exe or something with its prereleases. ;)

I didn't do calculus well. :(

Yeah, that would be none of above.

Isn't that what oldstable is for?

I had 150 before too. Basically, I had a bunch of web page with data forms intact.