64 GB is supercomputing cluster level memory? I have a workstation with 192 GB and 40-core servers (still single-machines) have 512 GB RAM with the option to upgrade to 1TB if we really need it.

Seconded. I tried this and the WNDR3700 and Linksys (now Cisco) was much more stable.

As someone who has camped out for Black Friday: All 50 registers are open that morning.

Isn't this 1.21 Jiggawatts?

So what you're telling me is that if L3 Comcast link goes down for any reason at all, all Comcast customers would lose access to Netflix because L3 can't pass on their traffic?

Do you really think the internet is that fragile?

Why isn't Comcast paying me to transmit their packets? After all, they are dumping a lot more traffic into my network than I am into theirs.

I am using exactly their rationale they use to justify charging L3.

You are doing this wrong. AT&T is the one who announces routes to Comcast. If L3 depeers Comcast, it has no knowledge of how to get to Comcast. So it asks its peers (AT&T). AT&T routers would then announce their known route to Comcast and L3 would pass the traffic. Thanks for proving how much you know of the internet. If you are still not convinced. Think about this from the flow of money standpoint.. Netflix is paying L3 so it can move data across their network. Because they are a customer. Comcast subscribers are paying Comcast TO MOVE data across their network because they are a customer of Comcast. Why should L3 have to pay Comcast? Both networks are moving the same amount of data between both points.

Correct, my ISP has every right to say no. However, L3 wouldn't have to pay another network's transit fees, because Level3 could just hand off the content to one of its other Tier 1 peers. Those peering connections are orders of magnitude more voluminous than the L3 -> Comcast connection and wouldn't affect their ratio severely enough to warrant a renegotiation. So who pays Comcast for peering then? If every Tier 1 provider stuck to their guns, all the tier 1 providers would depeer Comcast and we would have a fractured internet. This is why L3 paid and sets a DANGEROUS precedent for the rest of the internet. It did not want to be the one who fractured the internet.

Sorry that should be ISP. I'm already paying my telco for physical usage of the line.

And why isn't the telco paying me the equivalent of 200 GB to get it from my WAN facing router to my computer? Pay to transmit indeed.

If I had mod points, I'd mod you down. What you just said exactly proved his point. DSL connections CAN be symmetric. Look up SDSL. The reason they are NOT symmetric because consumers WANT more download bandwidth. When ISP X supplies a symmetric connection, and ISP Y supplies an asymmetric connection, who do you think Person A would choose? Thus this is a lost opportunity cost to ISP X. Not technical. Similarly for DOCSIS. While there is small overhead for communication, there's no reason why the effective bandwidth can be made symmetrical if they had engineered the spec that way. Market forces are why we have asymmetrical connections.

All you people supporting Comcast need to stop. You clearly have no idea how the internet works. While I realize that cable ISP and the physical cable companies are the same entity so it's hard to separate the costs of renting a physical line vs sending/recieve data, let me demonstrate with what I think is a more apt analogy: DSL connections. Here I can rent a DSL line from the telco, and I can pick an ISP that is not the telco. I pay money to both. I understand that I have to pay my telco to rent a line. However, my DSL connection is highly asymmetric. I typically download 200GB/mo and upload maybe 5GB/mo. Should my ISP be paying me? After all, they are sending tons of data onto my internal network. Just like Level3 is doing to Comcast! The key point to note here is that I am an end-point (as viewed from my ISP). There are no other ways of getting data to where it is needed without passing through me. Thus I pay for the privilege to connect to the internet from my ISP. The same thing is true for Comcast. There are no ways of getting data into the customer's hands without going through Comcast. Sure L3 can depeer Comcast, but all that traffic must go through Comcast somehow. If Comcast is content to let their customers deal with subpar video streaming, then either their customers would complain to Comcast (ideally) or Netflix (who can explain that the customers need to complaint to Comcast, because it refuses to peer to get a faster route to their content)

90% of 10% is 9%. So only 91% of the OOo developers are staying put. :)

Maybe it is an OCR mistake.

Wrong. When you use (otherwised unused RAM as disk cache), you have 4 situations: 1) You open an app that is cached. This is massive speedThis takes virtually no time.up compared to accessing disk. 2) You open an app that is not cached. The OS clears out some room in the RAM (almost instantaneous), and loads from disk. This is no slower than the case where you had no cache. 3) An already running program requests more memory. Disk cache containing programs that are not running can be safely discarded to make room for the program requesting additional memory. This takes virtually no time. If you do not have enough room in your disk cache and have to go to disk to get memory, you do not have enough physical memory anyways. 4) An already running program discards its reserved memory. The OS repopulates the memory with disk cache data while the disk is idle. This again has no negative effect on performance. As you can see, disk cache (aka SuperFetch) can provide only performance increases and it also fills the RAM up with "crap". The Windows 7 OS itself without any of its caching technologies don't take up that much RAM, so your performance issues lie elsewhere in the OS.