Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


ScanIAm ScanIAm This is an...
  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , kettch wrote


    From what little I've bothered to look at, it seems that most uninformed people are just looking at this as:

    (net neutrality) == (screw Comcast) == (sounds good to me)

    touché.  There is plenty of ignorance to go around. 

    Comcast hasn't done itself any favors, however, given how it forced Netflix to pay for peering.  It's highly likely that they'd be the first to try this crap given the chance.


  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , dahat wrote


    So... my statement is correct... but making it makes me look clueless? What an odd thing to say... well not as odd as what you go on to say.

    No, your disingenuous argument works well on clueless people who aren't aware of how the intertubes works.  I was attempting to imply that you and I both know better.

    Did I say otherwise?

    No, but you cross-contaminated the issue by bringing up the legitimate need vs. the business desire to create haves and have-nots

    I don't think anyone is advocating for Amazon to be able to pay UPS to slow down the delivery of packages from Best Buy. But shouldn't they have the option for different shipping speeds depending on need? Sometimes that means lower priority parcels may not get processed as fast.

    No, they should not.  The packages (packets) that need fast delivery conform to QOS which is known and understood by everyone.  QOS packets take precedence over other packets regardless of source.  I shouldn't be able to pay more to supersede QOS rules.

    Doesn't relate to the internet you say? You really should re-read the specs on the IPv4 packet... specifically the differentiated services field. It's almost as if the idea of prioritization was something that's been around for quite some time!

    Yes.  Almost as if.  Smart-guy :)

    I missed the part, however, that said that 2 packets from different sources can be given different priorities based on the amount of money given to the ISP. 

    Sorry for seeing the bigger picture.

    You are dumbing it down and muddying the waters.  And as much as I try, I tend to believe it's on purpose due to your pathological hatred of regulation.

    To paraphrase /. today: regulation is what keeps your lungs working, your heart beating, and it stops all your muscles from firing off at the same time.  Regulation has a purpose in the universe.

    You assume the routes that Hulu and Netflix take in order to get to your house are the same... and that the routes do not vary depending the ISP someone is using. Spoiler: Not all of the connections between user and service are equal in capacity or utilization.

    No.  No I don't.  And that is why I purposely, and specifically said "Any variation had best be due to geography and physics.

    Such an assumption is not only woefully naïve, but absolutely incorrect.

    Maybe you need to spend a little more time with tracert and less time arguing about things you don't understand?

    You can argue a point and not be a d*ck about it.  You should try sometime.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , dahat wrote

    Like it or not, throttling is a reality, both online and off and net neutrality can do little about it... and sometimes it's even a necessity.

    If a small subset of users are using a significant portion of the available bandwidth, throttling them makes sense to ensure other customers are able to have a quality experience. It's a simply a case of prioritizing the 'needs of the many.'

    Anyone who seriously looks at this issue knows this is how it works.  This argument is constantly being used to confuse uninformed people on the topic, and as usual, it tends to make sense if you are clueless.

    Of course some traffic requires lower latency than others.  But the traffic of two content providers of the same kind of traffic should not be allowed to be prioritized to the advantage of one and the detriment of the other.  You know this is the purpose of 'Net Neutrality(tm)' and yet you still make these "pipes are roads" and "bandwidth is limited" arguments.  If Hulu and Netflix each pay for 1 gbit connections to the network, then every client on every ISP had better get the same latency from each.  Any variation had best be due to geography and physics, not purposeful throttling.  . 

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , TexasToast wrote


    That's why you should be against net neutrality.  Some applications need small amounts of data with a fast response back and forth.  Other applications are more one way with large amounts of data like streaming or serving large web pages.   The streaming has to be within a time limit to prevent wait I am buffering messages.   So based on the application,  the network use matters

    That's not what net-neutrality is meant to address.  Voip, for example, takes priority over email for the very reason that we don't need millisecond timing for email delivery.  What net neutrality is meant to cover is that Comcast can't throttle Netflix to the detriment of Hulu (unlikely) or Comcast VOD (more likely).

    and therefore also be tolled for its use. 

    It is tolled at the entrance and exit.  The content provider pays for a pipe and bandwidth in and the customer pays for a pipe and bandwidth out.  Paying for faster delivery of certain traffic by origin is rent-seeking behavior and unnecessary to anything other than padding pockets.


    Netflix is not a good application for local ISP's because it chokes down their limited bandwidth. 

    Bullsh*t.  Their limited bandwidth chokes because they failed to upgrade the network after decades of exhorbitant payments from both sides. 

    Seriously.  Bullsh*t.

    If we all had high speed fiber to our house/apt I would be ok with Net Neutrality because the streamers would not be hogging the pipe and hurting the shared use by others.  

    And why don't you have it?  You've paid enough for them to have laid that fiber but you know, they were too busy enjoying their local monopolies.

    I bet any money that when Net Neutrality passes, you will be paying for data usage.   Just like electric, you will pay premium dollar for evening usage.  ISP wont care what data it is,  it will just bill you for the bits going back and forth.

    Aaaaaaaaand that is what you and I are already paying for.  That's the point.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    I'd like to see the promise of mesh networks fulfilled.  There's this idea that the internet demands low-latency to be good, but there are very few applications that require it.  The vast majority of applications can handle satellite latency, so mesh networks would be fine.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , bondsbw wrote

    That said, there is an argument against making the internet a utility, namely that we may not see many improvements once that occurs.  While there isn't much competition, there is some.  It isn't enough to bring down prices, but it is enough to see improvements over time.

    That's a reasonable argument if you think about what is happening with our aging power infrastructure.  But the blame doesn't fall to government being unable to control the infrastructure, it falls to government being purposefully dysfunctionalized for the last 6+ years in every possible way. 

  • Solar energy technology advancement

    All power production seems to involve some kind of pollution.

    That said, things like solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are all much cleaner to run once the hardware is created.  The others actively produce pollution as a byproduct of power generation, so we're trading livelyhoods for lives.

  • Solar energy technology advancement

    , cbae wrote


    It's probably a sarcastic remark aimed at low-information morons that want to blame Obama for all of their travails. Just a guess.

    I can't tell anymore when I'm being sarcastic.  Obama caught a lot of crap for his association to the program that brought us Solyndra, however we found out just recently that the loans were paid back and then some, so perhaps thanks are in order.


  • Nano batteries are just a few years away (for phones & laptops, anyway)

    @Bas: True, but in the battery manufacturer's defense, we have definitely improved in the last 10 years or so.  Sadly, as soon as we get lower power chips or better storage, some genius decides we need 4k oled screens that can be seen from space.

  • Solar energy technology advancement

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Now that oil and gas are cheaper, renewable energy research is destined to lag... drats.

    Thanks, Obama!

    This looks promising for solar cells...

    ...and it's not like fossil fuels get less polluty when whey get cheaper.  Any improvement is a good thing.