@e4tmyl33t Ah, you're probably right. It's been a while since I looked closely at one. They point out that what they advertise is the maximum that customers can expect, which was my main point.
Group Details Private
Mafia - Players
living players in the current Mafia game
RE: The Official Status Thread
If I had any power over what I use, I wouldn't use it. But I don't have that power. Most people don't
This is why I'm glad the people trying to push Git where I work currently seem to be listening to the feedback from me and others who are happy with TFS and have seen nothing in Git that improves our lives. They might end up going with it anyway and if they do I will be seriously considering looking for another job; not just because of forcing a bad tool on us but because of the lack of respect for our opinions that would show.
From blakey's article:
'm at a loss to understand how an open source tool as popular as Git has remained so mediocre for so long.
I'm not. That's what happens with open source tools when their developers know what they're doing so are apparently blind to the need to make them useful for new people
RE: Net neutrality non-neutrality
the capacity I've been fraudulently selling to customers without being able to deliver
It's been mentioned before, but they do differentiate between peak and sustained usage. If the customers don't understand the difference, that's not the fault of the ISPs.
FREE STUFF! FREE STUFF! FREE STUFF! WE WANT MORE FREE STUFF!
TDEMSYR. No one is asking for "free stuff" here. No one has ever been asking for "free stuff" in the context of net neutrality. What they are asking for is an end to the fraud: they are entitled to what they paid for, and the telcos are doing everything they can to not have to give it to them.
"What they paid for" is service that consists of (say) 10 Mbps download peak,
4 Mbps download sustained,1 Mbps upload (or whatever the numbers might be). These numbers are listed on every advertisement and service contract I've seen. It's the fault of neither the ISPs nor the content providers if the consumers don't understand or misunderstand what those mean.
@xaade No, we need to nationalize the infrastructure if we want to bring true competition. You think that's more politically feasible than net neutrality?
@xaade "Nationalize" is probably not exactly the right word, as it would most likely be owned locally, much like any other public utilities. But it carries the right basic understanding.
I take it you mean subsidies, then. That's socialism. But if you're restricting competition and pricing to the local level (county or smaller), then are you admitting that it would be appropriate for someone in Nowhere, OK to pay $45/mo. for the same level of service as someone in NYC who pays $15/mo.?
Oil companies will run their own fiber to their remote
devices. Netflix could do the same, but chooses not to.
Are you actually hearing what you are saying?!? Netflix does
nothave "its own remote devices." It has people like you and meconnected to the public internet.
Netflix was taking up too much of the infrastructure, and ISPs down the line couldn't get the money from Netflix's ISP to improve, so they asked Netflix directly.
Netflix said no.
They couldn't get someone else to pay them for doing what they should have been doing anyway as part of the ordinary course of doing business, so they tried to get a different someone else to pay them for it instead. They, unsurprisingly, also said no, because it is not their job.
The local ISPs were already being paid for that bandwidth, and the infrastructure that supports it, by their own customers. Period. If they weren't allocating that revenue to improving their infrastructure to meet increased demand, this is not the fault of the increased demand, it is the ISPs' fault. Period.
Netflix's ISP or their customers' ISPs? Or the intermediate "backbone" ISPs?
They had promised enough capacity to deal with Netflix to their customers.
Netflix wasn't paying their fair share, and the ISPs failed to cooperate to charge Netflix for it.
Don't be absurd. Netflix was paying its fair share to Netflix's ISP, which is the only obligation they had. Comcast was already being paid by Comcast's customers, and they had an obligation to use that money to make available the bandwidth that they were being paid for.
So everyone was fulfilling their contracts? Where's the problem?
curated internet packages
This is the part I don't understand.
How are curated internet packages legal if they're not supposed to be packet sniffing?
The contents of the packets, sure. But the "wrappers" that indicate the "to" and "from" addresses? Those can't be hidden.
@izzion Top comment:
We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.
RE: WTDWTF gets murdered by aliens and it's all Ben Lubar's fault!
front page authors
A terrible, brilliant idea is forming...
RE: The Official Status Thread
So my disk space was disappearing rapidly: yesterday I had 20GB left, tried to clear some space and it went down to 16GB. This morning I gor a message saying I had 0b left and should run disk cleanup. That succeeded masterfully by freeing a whole 200MB. That was also rapidly decreasing: every time I refreshed Explorer, another BB down.
Added the i/o writes column to task manager, and discovered there was a runaway installer. A bit of investigation (I wish the proxy allowed me to install WinDirStat) identified C:\Windows\Temp as taking over 100GB. On a 250GB SSD that's noticeable.
Most of the folder is a few megabytes. Then there's these two files
I have no text editor installed that can open a 74GB file, but I'm curious. Time to knock something up in C# to stream it to the console or something
This time I caught it early enough that Sublime was able to open it, although it froze up when I tried to scroll or select
RE: Break a site for me, earn real cash. Details within.
i'll announce the winners when i have some pants on.
We'll be waiting a while then