In the beginning there was only one path and that was the cloud service. Later came the web site jobs (for a lot of the logic you describe from what I recall).
Last time I opened an HDD (last week), the mechanism still used a magnet on the armature to flip the bits. I'm pretty sure a speaker magnet stuck to the platters will wipe it. So I'm with John on this one.
I wonder if they have a magnetic field map that shows the layout of the magnetic field in relation to the component layout within the case?
At some point of miniaturization, it seems like a nudge from a magnetic field would cause some sort of interference with an electron moving between points.
I'll do some more digging on this to find out if the "Internet" definition is inclusive of the TCP/IP protocol running across the network. If it is then I stand corrected as the TCP/IP protocol is what does the retries. When I wrote the comment I was under the assumption the "Internet" was an Ethernet network (which doesn't necessarily specify the protocols running on top).
Addition: Yep. Internet protocol suite does specify TCP/IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite
"The layers of the protocol suite near the top are logically closer to the user application, while those near the bottom are logically closer to the physical transmission of the data. Viewing layers as providing or consuming a service is a method of abstraction to isolate upper layer protocols from the details of transmitting bits over, for example, Ethernet and collision detection, while the lower layers avoid having to know the details of each and every application and its protocol."
Thanks Toast. I hadn't realized it was restricted in this way.
Okay. After some more reading it does look like the stack stops as IP. Thanks Figs. I was thinking I just got old or something.
"The Internet layer has the task of exchanging datagrams across network boundaries. It provides a uniform networking interface that hides the actual topology (layout) of the underlying network connections. It is therefore also referred to as the layer that establishes internetworking, indeed, it defines and establishes the Internet. This layer defines the addressing and routing structures used for the TCP/IP protocol suite. The primary protocol in this scope is the Internet Protocol, which defines IP addresses. Its function in routing is to transport datagrams to the next IP router that has the connectivity to a network closer to the final data destination."
"IP is not designed to be reliable and is a best effort delivery protocol. This means that all transport layer implementations must choose whether or how to provide reliability. UDP provides data integrity via a checksum but does not guarantee delivery; TCP provides both data integrity and delivery guarantee by retransmitting until the receiver acknowledges the reception of the packet."
Let's not lose track of the 3 key parts involved here:
1. Supply side. These are providers who put packets onto the network.
2. Network. This is the collision based network system created many moons ago.
3. Consumption side. These are the consumers of the network packets from a provider.
The Supply side is where the Netflix and Level 3 type of peering issue(s) resides.
The Network is where the dropping of packets can and by design does occur.
The Consumption side is where local ISPs a) have been given monopolies as an incentive to spend a huge amount of money to implement last mile network cabling, and b) have a end user subscription model that intentionally over subscribes actual bandwidth.
Yes Consumers can also be Providers and vice-versa as well as Network providers can also be a Consumer or Provider in addition. However, I think we need to partition the discussion to the 3 parts individually or we will never come to any type of solution.
1) The FCC apparently needs to hear from every living soul in the country. 4 million people commented already, but it's not enough?!?!?
Thanks for the link. Bless her. I wanted to reach out and give her a hug with life energy (sounded like she was about to keel over).
As for the 4 million. They didn't say what the context of those 4 million feedback inputs were, how many were duplicates of the same entity, how many were for or against ... but lets assume all 4 million were unique requests for one side ... that is still a small percentage of the broadband customer base. Just looking at a quick search turned up some 2011 numbers
and here is just some numbers for verizon
When policies that impact entire markets are up for discussion the numbers need to be overwhelming and not 1% or 2%.
2) Very often during the debate, the panelist who was against NN would make a statement of fact and it would be immediately refuted. This wasn't of the "well hey, that's like just your opinion, man" kind of refutes, it was more like "What you just said was utterly false and here is proof".
Yea. I'm not sure who this was but it was weird.
3) Classification as Title II would not require broadband providers to follow every rule. The FCC can pick and choose, so I'm sure any change will have limited teeth.
I'm not sure what their approval process is when they refer to "pick and choose". If the approval isn't from outside the FCC then "pick and choose" is open for abuse. Checks and balances are a must. It wouldn't surprise me if this pick and choose exists today for other matters of their jurisdiction. However, continuing such a pattern is not palatable.
Oh come on. Weeds. We are on the same page here.
If someone suggested that instead of net neutrality, we force cities and counties to let every tom, dick, and isp dig up the roads to lay cable, it would be even worse.
We don't know how they will implement it. It has not been done. They might lease bandwidth on existing lines or come up with all kinds of creative solutions.
I agree that monopoly protection for ISP providers should end, but I would hope you would be able to see that providing fast lanes is not a solution. And, since we are on the topic of how well the market would respond, remember that nothing currently stops the ISPs from charging Netflix, google, or whoever more money for the volume of traffic they send over the wire, but they don't because the smaller guys will eat their lunch. This whole 'faster lane' crap is being discussed as yet another form of rent-seeking. They are providing what nobody is asking for and a price nobody wants because they can get away with it.
If "fast lane" is being equated to "biggest bandwidth consumer" (which I'm not sure that is what your saying) then I don't see why the biggest bandwidth consumer isn't paying the biggest chunk of money.
@davewill:There's the saying, and then there's the doing. Exactly how would you "open up the competition" between providers such that they wouldn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming into relinquishing their regional monopolies, and without additional regulation, which you clearly dislike?
While imperfect, reclassifying them under Title II would be a concrete step to address the issue.
The regional monopoly protection is provided by the regulator. Once the regulator stops providing this protection they will not be kicking and screaming. Rather they will be changing their operations to either thrive or die.
I don't really see how this is any different than say the span of physical coverage the shipping industry covers (i.e. FedEx and UPS).
Hmmmm...I'm agreeing with you that monopolies are bad, but I don't feel like we are making a real connection here. Must be the 50 year old copper lines in my neighborhood :)
I recognize that onerous regulation can be a problem, but what you seem to be fighting for is to allow incumbent ISPs to continue to raise rates while providing no better service under the false idea that regulation of any kind is bad. Only Bad regulation is bad.
If you think net neutrality is a bad thing, what do you think would be a better way to address the issues resolved by net neutrality? The providers haven't given a valid argument for why they need to do this, just that they want to do so.
So far the theme seems to be:
1. Prices are too high.
2. Margins are too large.
3. Product quality offered is too low.
All three of those are naturally balanced in a competitive market. So open up the competition and let's ignore this more-regulation distraction.
Unless ..... some or all of those 3 things aren't true.