Why would I use an intermediary to do it, and if I did then how would the intermediary make any money competing with a free service?
PayPal has strong buyer protections, even if they're completely boning the sellers.
If buyers insist on PayPal, there will be sellers who have to go along.
Namely that they deliberately under-produced them so they'd be out of stock and thus seen as more desirable, and then suddenly just discontinued their production for no apparent reason.
it was actually before the 2600, I think it might have been the VCS.
2600/VCS are two different names for the same thing. VCS was the original name then they started calling it the 2600 the year the 5200 came out.
And my friend had a cartridge we could program basic. circa 79 - 80, but I can find no reference online that such a cartridge existed.
It exists, IIRC it actually uses the keypad accessory...TWO of them.
No need to type "go64", just hold down the C= key, and turn it on, then it boots as a C64.
My first computer was a used C128 found at a garage sale, with 2 1571's, 1902/a monitor, a few other gizmos, much software, including C128 specific stuff.
Thanks. I like the look of those a lot. It's a good deal cheaper than a similar Netgate device (my go to since they own PFSense). Only real area it looks like it would have notably worse performance would be VPN since it lacks AES acceleration. But so long as that isn't being used it should be around the same speed as the 4 core atoms Netgate uses.
I may think about one for home. I'll probably stick with my Edgerouter Lite since those Cavium chips just get lower latency than you can get in pure software at this point, but I am a bigger fan of PFSense than EdgeOS for sure.
You have any companies that make a setup you like for it? I'm always shopping for new places to get low power/embedded type network devices.
Moving to a better router? DD-WRT isn't as updated as it should be these days and has slow performance. Modern consumer routers are fast because they use packet acceleration tech built in to their chips. DD-WRT doesn't know how to do that (at least not that I've ever seen).
So what I recommend for geek types is go to three devices: Modem -> router -> wireless. You can repurpose your existing router as a WAP, or get a purpose built WAP. Either way, you don't do routing on it. Then get a purpose built router.
My top recommendation is a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite. About $100 for a little wired 3-port device that'll pass a gig of traffic with low latency since it has packet acceleration and knows how to use it. It's a bit on the complex side and you can't do all setup through the GUI (IPv6 requires commandline work) but it is powerful, and they are pretty good at updating it. Runs a customized version of VyOS and provides you with access to all the low level stuff. You can compile your own shit for it if you like (is MIPS64 though).
If that isn't to your taste my second choice is PFSense. You can run that on anything x86 but the devices they sell on their site, made by Netgate, are great choices. Its more expensive to hit a gigabit speed because it runs all in software, and that also means its latency is higher. However that said I like the interface better and it is an exceedingly powerful and flexible firewall. It's updated regularly, you can buy professional support, and since it is software you can run it on anything, including a VM. Runs BSD underneath and you can get access to the low level if you want to mess with it.
Third choice would be a something like a Cisco RV340 or maybe RV320. It's the same general hardware as the EdgrRouter Lite, a Cavium Octeon processor which is MIPS64+packet processing, but with Cisco's OS whacked on. Easier to use overall, though not as flexible. Cisco tends to be ok with security updates. They use a slower CPU and less RAM so you aren't going to get a full gig, but they are pretty fast and are nice and low latency. Not too bad price wise either, like $150 for the RV320.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately contrarian or if you're legitimately dense.
Saying they "paid for lower QOS for Google" is misleading; they would actually have paid for higher QOS for themselves, which is perfectly reasonable.
It wouldn't have been of any benefit to Yahoo to increase their QOS with Google's remaining unchanged. I'm saying that they could have partnered with companies that owned large portions of the network to slow down Google's access. If Google couldn't crawl it, it couldn't index it. If they couldn't index it, their search results wouldn't have been as good.
Google won because they were better, and they were better because they won?
Pretty much, yeah.
That's rather circular reasoning.
Perhaps but it's not wrong.
In actual fact, Google's search engine business would never have been a viable business on its own; it simply didn't make enough revenue. Google's search engine only survived because it was cross-subsidized by Google's advertising revenue.
It's extraordinarily difficult to make a profit on a "Free" service without advertising.
Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't support the argument that it was "better".
No, more people choosing Google over Yahoo, Bing and AOL means that it is/was better.
Net neutrality, in the end, is an arrangement where companies like Google can push ads on you and monetize free content and have you pay for the privilege through your ISP fees.
Except that with Net Neutrality in place, you are free to choose one of their competitors without the network penalizing you.
A few big companies have come to completely dominate the market because of that particular arrangement.
In a market where all are given the same access, a few companies dominating it are just proof that the market chose them.
Even if the completely unrealistic worst-case scenario of ISPs all replacing Google and Facebook with their own private offerings
That's a strawman. I never argues that.
They wouldn't be able to directly replace them, they would be able to give preferential treatment to the traffic of their own competitor. They can't replace them but they can make them near unusable to their customers.
Oh ok, gotcha. In that case, I'd go for Private Internet Access. Their privacy rules are very good (in all cases we have to take the company's own statement on it), price is good, performance seems to be good, and it uses open standards for VPN connections. It also isn't like some where they are located in some minor island nation you've never heard of, they are in the US.
It's what I use and what my instructor at SANS recommended to someone else this week who asked the same question.
If you wanted to filter all systems though it you'd just need a router/fw that did it, again PFSense would do. It uses OpenVPN by default (can do IPSec as well) and PFSense supports that. Your internal systems talk to PFSense, have PFSense VPN to PIA and then set your routing to do 0.0.0.0 over the VPN. Make sure outbound rules are properly configured so traffic is only allowed over VPN interface and you've got an automatic, transparent, system where all systems will communicate via the VPN. You can always change rules if needed to permit direct communication.
If you don't want a network box you can set up your OSes to auto-dial PIA on start. For Windows this is best accomplished with the inbuilt IPSec VPN client, on Linux OpenVPN works nicely (though either can do both). Again you set local firewall/routing rules to prohibit traffic over the local net and require the VPN to be up. Then just treat it like dialup from the old days.
So give PIA a look, they seem to do well.
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.