thanks... so is L3 an end-user service provider as well? I.e., do they deliver content last-mile to consumers? If not, then it seems like the business arrangement is itself faulty from the get-go. One should *expect* the majority of flow to be from the producers (like Netflix) to the consumer (me). Is the bidirectional peering arrangement based on the *ability* to accept equivalent flow, or on *actual* balanced flow? If the former, then it's not L3's fault if they've built out to handle it but the customers just aren't demanding the content from Verizon's side of the interconnect. If the latter, then yes it sounds like L3 may have signed up to an agreement that inherently (contractually) limits their ability to deliver content across the interconnect, towards Verizon's network. It sounds like this is more of a poor contracting arrangement, and there aren't any real technology and associated cost issues here, but just that Verizon feels they're getting screwed, or at the very least have an easy excuse to claim contractual foul (just trying to be objective; trust me, I'm no supporter of the major ISPs). In that context I guess I understand Verizon's argument better now - they're essentially claiming Netflix/L-3 isn't a "peer", because of their high-content production and deliver - and want them to pay the "imbalanced" rates.

Perhaps it is one or the other (or both) parties' intentions, but I'm now totally confused as to how the business arrangements are set up relative to the network architecture... I pay my ISP (happens to be Verizon but that's irrelevant for the purpose of this thought experiment) a certain amount per month to deliver content at a certain bitrate. Now I realize that's not a "guaranteed" rate, especially for peak times, but that's another issue (IMO, Verizon should not be overselling their bandwidth to such an extent that they can't deliver a certain minimum threshold of performance during peak usage, or minimum likelihood of achieving published bandwidth during peak usage). Do the content providers (and by proxy or extension their network hardware and infrastructure subs) - especially the high-bandwidth content providers like Netflix - *not* pay for a certain network capacity? If, for example, as a content provider, I expect to need to deliver 50 Gbps based on the size of my customer base and peak usage rates, then I would build out my network infrastructure to supply that, and contract with the service providers to provide appropriately sized interconnects and deliver that to subscribers. That sounds like a pretty simple arrangement to me - simple enough that it should be relatively easy to identify who's not holding up their end of the bargain. But it must not be the case, becase that doesn't seem to be happening. Verizon is talking about balanced vs. imbalanced arrangements, and Level 3 is talking about proportionate mileage costs etc. Perhaps one of you telecom experts - hopefully someone who is independent of either type of provider - can illuminate the situation for "lay" people.

Just tried going to the link, it's been 404'ed.

I would have modded +1 funny if I could. My first impression with the headline was similar.

I haven't read that specific work but I have read "Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity", so I am generally familiar with his conceptual framework. I agree, they are all offering the same explanation. I think the difference may be that Holland did not lay it out mathematically in a game theory framework. For another perspective, check out Stuart Kauffman's "Origins of Order", which also provides an analytical (though not equation-based) treatment.

It still needs to make it through the Senate.

'nuff said

In the first paragraph, it states the drug "increases exercise endurance in animal models". It goes on to say "activation of Rev-erbα with SR9009 led to increased metabolic activity in skeletal muscle in both culture and in mice. The treated mice had a 50 percent increase in running capacity, measured by both time and distance."

I doubt the implication is that you can sit around on your ass popping these pills and expect to get buff...

I discovered a couple days ago that NMCI blocked access to the Guardian's online site, period.

It's really as simple as this: yes, the information is out there and you can get it at home (though we were directed not to look for it), but the bottom line is, if classified info ends up on unclass machines, somebody needs to "clean" the machine.

It's easier to just block the website and save themselves the trouble of having to clean up any incidental/accidental "spillage", regardless of how widespread or easily available the content actually is.

Love the Banks reference.

Dr. Pei!

I'm surprised nobody else has pointed out yet, the headline for the first-linked article says "Curiosity rover finds organic compounds...", directly refuting the statement in the first sentence of the article: "Curiosity rover hasn't yet confirmed the detection of organic compounds on Mars"... geez, what a flub. Who's editing at cosmiclog.nbcnews.com?

For what it's worth, I am a federal government employee, and I agree with you. Just because we're employees of the government doesn't mean we have to agree with everything the government does, or make us complicit in it's actions on principle.

Plus, it's a p.i.t.a. getting all those ribbons nice and neat on a dress uniform...