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


dahat dahat inanity makes my head hurt
  • SpaceX successfully lands stage 1 rocket

    , figuerres wrote

    It's a step but we need to challenge the scientific and industrial minds to push for better ways.

    They have been, for quite some time, unfortunately it doesn't seem to be that easy.

    I always enjoy reading old science fiction where it was clear the belief was that transportation would be the industry in the future which would achieve massive advances... instead we've had massive advances in communication with only incrementally better forms of transportation.

  • Dear Microsoft

    One thing to add to your list... IoT.

    As wonderful of a product as Windows Home Server was, I always thought that in many respects it was hampered by the fact that it required a full on PC to run, but now with Windows 10 running on something like a $35 Raspberry Pi 2, so many possibilities are opened up.

    One of these days/weeks/months I really need to see how much of the old WHS backup engine (now living in Server Essentials) can be made to work on IoT.

  • Because we are geeks ...

    The minor dialogue differences between the US & Japanese versions are telling.

    Potential Spoilers:

    American: "Nothing will stand in our way", "I will finish what you started"
    Japanese: "I will fulfil our destiny, I will finish what you started"

    "There are stories about what happened..."
    American: "It's true, all of it"
    Japanese: "The Force. It's true, all of it"

    Given the # of tickets which have sold for early showings and having a three year old, somehow I don't see myself getting to see this film until sometime next year *grumble* so until then, my theories and these previews will have to suffice.

  • Microsoft Redmond campus tour


    Offices are quite boring, and while there are probably unicorns & pixie dust in those super confidential locations where things like HoloLens & Surface Book are designed, built & tested (all without seeing daylight before release)... only employees directly working on those projects get to go near them.

    The visitors center is really the only open to the public area which has things worth seeing.

  • Apparently, WMC is no longer part of Win10

    , figuerres wrote

    they could have put in a cable card slot but the cable companies never wanted that to happen.

    They could have... but what would the cost be of putting a cable card slot & tuner into every single box? What % of users would use that? While an OTA users might just plug in an antenna, satellite TV users would be completely left out.

    While perhaps not as cool as having MCE in box, the new ability to plug a TV tuner in does open up wider possibilities.

    The loss of MCE has been much lamented in certain circles internally as well, and while always a passionate group, it's clear we were always a minority.

    When it comes to replacements, Silicondust (the folks behind the HDHomeRun) recently had a successful Kickstarter to build such a thing for multiple platforms.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , ScanIAm wrote


    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.

    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.

    Of course some traffic requires lower latency than others.

    Did I say otherwise?

    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.

    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.

    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!

    The horror!

    You know this is the purpose of 'Net Neutrality(tm)' and yet you still make these "pipes are roads" and "bandwidth is limited" arguments.

    Sorry for seeing the bigger picture.

    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.

    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.

    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?

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , cbae wrote

    If you're going to use a "pipe" analogy,

    Has that rather common metaphor fallen out of favor?

    then the pipe that your ISP builds, maintains, and controls is the one that goes from your house down to the river.

    Rather simplistic with a single pipe and a single source... also leaving out the decreasing diameter of the pipe from source destination, the variable width at some destinations (residential vs industrial), fire hydrants, etc.

    Nobody owns the river.

    Never heard of riparian rights eh?

    The Internet backbone is the river in this analogy, and likewise no single company owns the Internet backbone.

    'the' Internet backbone? You realize there are multiple networks of backbones... right? And while connected at different points are what ISPs plug into one or more of?

    Your ISP already control the pipes from your house to the river and they can already throttle you and charge a premium for higher flow if they want to.

    Which is what people here don't seem to like... even though the bigger beef that most net neutrality supporters have is with explicit or implicit throttling closer to 'the' backbone where a peering agreement may no longer be effective due to unequal traversal (a common thing with video services) which means either paying more (ie a transit agreement) or suffering with a over saturated pipe.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , bondsbw wrote


    That's not levying taxes at origin and destination, that's deciding who you want to support through taxes (which is a flaw of the tax structure of our transportation system).  Completely different concepts.

    You'll note I also pointed out registration which also pays for roads (granted to a lesser degree).

    That has nothing to do with net neutrality, at all.  Even with net neutrality, the ISP is free to set up the charging structure they want against their end users.

    Re-read this thread... you'll notice I'm the only one pointing that out, something virtually every net neutrality discussion lacks... in fact some here are arguing against the possibility of a (higher) fee.

    Remember when dial-up charged per hour?  And of course, cell data charges per MB or per GB and home broadband service charges a flat rate with data caps.  All of these are completely fine under net neutrality.

    That depends on who you ask... which you actually argue against below without realizing it.

    What the ISP can't do under net neutrality is throttle, alter, or delete packets based on content within the packet or the origin of the packet.

    I'm familiar with the bumper sticker claim.

    Bandwidth is a limited resource, both how much can enter/leave your home, but also at the ISP. Unlike you, the ISP usually has multiple connections to other data networks, some bigger than others, some more heavily utilized than others. When one of those pipes gets full throttling happens.

    It is no different than if everyone on your block flushed their toilets at the same time.

    Just because the road way says the upper limit is 55 doesn't mean you'll be able to do that if there is bumper to bumper slow moving traffic.

    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.'

    Do you want an virtually unlimited connection without any artificial throttling? You can have that today... you just have to pay for it... it's just going to cost more than most are willing to pay.

    For every torrent mad basement dweller there are a couple dozen little old ladies who have a 50mbs connection that they only use for Facebook, email and a Roku. While overkill for them, this makes the economics work out so that we can all have a pretty fast internet connection for not a lot of money (kind of like how insurance is supposed to work)... but does not automatically mean that it's cost effective to upgrade a specific pipe when it is saturated.

    Supporters of net neutrality generally ignore the costs involved in running a large scale network and discount the possibility that heavy users will see significant bills due to them having to bare the costs of their usage.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , JohnAskew wrote


    No, that is what you are doing.

    So your response is... "I know you are but what am I?

    Unfettered pipe flow is not "unequal treatment", knucklehead.

    You've repeatedly ignored the fact that there are countless other areas in life where pipes exist that you use and which have limitations on them, I am highlighting your duplicity of wanting special treatment only for one kind of pipe.

    Again I will ask: Why should the concepts that rightfully apply to every other pipe you deal with not also apply to the internet?

    Paying for greater bandwidth can be a way to eliminate competition from start ups.

    Because startups have been failing left and right solely because of the cost of bandwidth.

    Again, you keep talking hypotheticals, how about dealing in solid facts instead of feelings?

    Through collusion of Corporations, which is the norm, making the bandwidth necessary for a garage start-up so expensive that only deep pockets can afford it is what you are advocating.

    I know you've got a big hate on for the evil corporations... but it's not the corporations which granted themselves regional monopolies on various utility services... it's your elected or appointed government official who is supposed to be acting in the public-trust that did that.

    Have a beef with the state of affairs because you only have internet option? Take that up with your local government.

    You are turning a blind eye to this anti-public-trust inevitability.

    I don't even know what that means.

    You support oppression of emerging business in favor of the Goliath's. That sucks. That doesn't have to happen. The internet and it's copper or glass is not going away.

    *facepalm* such utter inanity.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , bondsbw wrote

    This analogy is flawed, as are the remainder of the posts based on it.

    Agreed, which is why I was poo pooing it.

    The one who pays for the roads is the driver of the vehicle (via gasoline tax), but in the analogy the vehicle is equivalent to the data packet.  Obviously, the data packet is not itself paying for the Internet.

    Correct, the operator of the packet/vehicle is the one who pays for it's transport.

    Inversely, if a car were like the internet, then taxes would be levied at the origin and destination of the drive.

    They are actually for any distance driving. I've driven through Idaho plenty along I-90 and have never once fueling up there and with a vehicle registered out of state.

    Speed limits on the road are provided for safety.  There is nothing inherently dangerous about streaming at 100 Gbps versus 1 Mbps, so I don't see how this even compares at all.

    The excuse is safety, however the lack of uniformity and even arbitrariness says otherwise.

    Why is it when driving from South Dakota into Minnesota along I-90 the speed limit goes from 75 to 70? Is the stretch of I-90 in Minnesota that much more dangerous?

    Why is it that when crossing from Idaho to Utah along I-84 I suddenly get to go from 75 to 80 MPH?

    I pine for the German system where there are stretches where you can open it up... just so long as you do so safely.

    You are right though... there is nothing inherently unsafe about higher speed data transfers (other than perhaps reliability and cost)... my point again was pointing out the poor example used.

    , cbae wrote

    @bondsbw: Well, if you wanted to try using a car analogy, it'd be like charging toll on I-5 and adding a surcharge for those cars that are heading home from Disneyland.

    That'd probably depend on the traffic at that exit or section of road way... something we already have an analog to today... congestion pricing.

    Here in Washington it costs a driver more to drive over the tolled 520 bridge to Seattle than it does during non-peak times... just as a bus riders pay more during peak time than not.

    During peak times electricity costs more... (land line) long distance calls, cell phone minutes... odd how so many things react to peak demand and yet this one area we expect to be nearly free and unlimited.