Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... Last
[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 11:44:53 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

From pastries back to politics.

What do people think of Instant Runoff Voting? (aka ranked choice voting)

I think it would be great except the American people can barely handing the voting system we have now, this
would only confuse them more.

[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 12:53:14 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What do people think of Instant Runoff Voting? (aka ranked choice voting)


I'm lukewarm. The game theory of it shows that it can produce perverse results, in which arguably the person who is nobody's preference, wins anyway.

[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 14:53:42 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

well, yes, in the whole rest of germany, a Berliner references s.th. like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_%28doughnut%29

however in Berlin itself its called Pfannekuchen and you will probably get angry looks and no goods if you demand a Berliner in the bakery over there.



[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 15:49:29 EST from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

One could only think that JFK, with all his classical education and alleged smarts, should have simply said "Ich stamme aus Berlin" which would never have had the infamous "pastry ambiguity" (hah! a potential Big Bang Theory episode title!).

--K2NE

[#] Sat Nov 08 2014 09:43:32 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm lukewarm. The game theory of it shows that it can produce perverse
results, in which arguably the person who is no body's preference, wins
anyway.


I don't know if I really like that the person who has the lowest votes gets eliminated and their votes go to the
next person ranked above them. I understand it but I don't know if it is truly a good idea.

What is nice is it eliminates the least voted person from winning. In 1992 there were more total votes for Bush
Sr. and Ross Perot than there were for Clinton, but Clinton had the most votes of any one candidate.
Clinton (44,909,806 43.0%)
Bush 39,104,550 (37.4%)
Perot 19,743,821 (18.9%)
Marrou 290,087 (0.3%)
More people voted against Clinton than for him.
(Source Wikipedia)

Same with 2000 if you add Gore and Nader's votes together it would have beaten Bush.

The biggest problem I see with this is education of the public, people barely understand the current system.

[#] Sat Nov 08 2014 12:01:34 EST from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

There is no "upside" to any method that would *ever* manage to elect *any* Clinton to *any* office anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

clinton == evil

[#] Sat Nov 08 2014 13:44:22 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]



The biggest problem I see with this is education of the public, people barely understand the current system.

The biggest problem with the current system is that we give these positions to people who want them.



[#] Sun Nov 09 2014 20:23:32 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If I'm not mistaken, Burlington Vermont tried ranked-choice aka Insant Runoff Voting, it got weird, and they abandoned it.

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/IRVassessment.pdf

"In essence what IRV is, is an attempt to use a technological fix to solve a political problem."

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 08:01:44 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I knew Burlington used it, I didn't know they stopped using it, but Burlington is pretty weird.

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 10:20:41 EST from rss @

Subject: Obama wants ban on Internet 'fast lane' deals

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

President Barack Obama says Internet providers shouldn't be allowed to cut deals with online services like Netflix, Amazon or YouTube to move their content faster.

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/prwv01G0G6Q/


[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 12:49:47 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

Subject: Re: Obama wants ban on Internet 'fast lane' deals

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nov 10 2014 7:20am from rss @cascade in >
Subject: Obama wants ban on Internet 'fast lane' deals
President Barack Obama says Internet providers shouldn't be allowed
to cut deals with online services like Netflix, Amazon or YouTube to
move their content faster.

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/prwv01G0G6Q/


Strange.
Obama said this.
And I agree with it.
Weird...

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 13:51:37 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Broken clocks are right twice a day.

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 14:20:13 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


See, I understand where people are coming from when they say things like "last-mile providers shouldn't be able to extort cash from websites to move their content faster"


But when you say "they shouldn't be able to charge netflix money", I'm not sure I agree. Netflix is collocating boxes in local cable-company datacenters. That's resources that are being devoted solely to Netflix.


I don't see why Netflix shouldn't pay for that--directly rather than indirectly.

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 14:16:29 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nov 10 2014 10:51am from fleeb @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics & Propaganda>


Broken clocks are right twice a day.



If the clock in my ham shack were broken it would only be "right" **once** a day.

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 14:28:30 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Well, most people do 12 hour clocks. I prefer 24 as well, but... y'know...

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 14:49:30 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


But when you say "they shouldn't be able to charge netflix money", I'm

not sure I agree. Netflix is collocating boxes in local cable-company

datacenters. That's resources that are being devoted solely to Netflix.



When you "co-locate" your machine in an internet provider's "machine room", be it your local ISP or a Tier 1 provider, you pay for the bandwidth you use, and if you exceed your allotted bandwidth, you pay more - you do NOT get "throttled." It's included. Just by colocating, Netflix (and any other such entity) is **buying** their bandwidth.

To charge SEPARATELY for TRANSPORTING the bandwidth for which they have already paid is larcenous and anti-competitive. Period.

--Vince (founder, NetK2NE)
"Serving the OnLine Community since 1983."

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 15:56:12 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: Obama wants ban on Internet 'fast lane' deals

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Strange.
Obama said this.
And I agree with it.
Weird...

It's the standard liberal position on Net Neutrality. And it's one of the few liberal positions I agree with, although not for the same reason they do.

Folks like us know that the tendency of last-mile providers to conduct business in an anti-competitive way is a big problem, and that we need to protect end nodes from those providers making themselves a choke point or a toll booth.

Liberals want Net Neutrality because it's an easy in-point for the government to control the Internet.


I have two answers to the problem. Both make more sense than any traditional answer.

Solution #1: If you act as anything other than a dumb pipe, totally blind to who or what is going over it, you lose your common carrier protection.
You can and will be named as a party to any lawsuit involving something that happened over someone's Internet connection.

Solution #2: The Bell System Breakup done right. If you provide last mile wiring, you can't provide anything else. Equal access begins as soon as the cable enters the central office or head end building. The last mile provider gets you into that building; someone else colocated there provides you with voice, data, and television.

(We should also put Barack Obama and Bill Gates on a rocket which explodes shortly after liftoff, but that's just something all sensible people want, not really something that will solve the Net Neutrality debate.)

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 16:00:30 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

more - you do NOT get "throttled." It's included. Just by colocating,

Netflix (and any other such entity) is **buying** their bandwidth.

I'm not sure Netflix actually *is* paying. I've read some of the open letters they've been sending to some of the cablecos they're fighting with... I admit I don't know all the details, but I think Netflix is taking the stance that "hey mister ISP, your customers are sending a lot of traffic to us. We'll be nice and provide a free box you can colocate so all that traffic doesn't have to transit. As part of our free colo program yada yada yada. Look how nice we are. OBTW, we won't pay you a cent."

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 18:48:07 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm not sure Netflix actually *is* paying. I've read some of the open


They're paying.
You do NOT get rack space and a connection in *any* NAP site for free unless you are the ISP that owns the NAP.
Period.

The exact terms of their co-lo agreement, including the money part, may well be confidential. I know that all of *our* co-lo agreements with our co-lo customers were confidential. We even included a "will not disclose to law enforcment except on presentation of a warrant signed by a judge and issued out of a Court of Competent Jurisdiction" clause. In fact, our collection of Acceptable Use Policies and customer contracts were judged by the EFF, back in the mid 1990s as "the example by which all others must be judged."

I do absolutely know that of which I speak on this issue.

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 18:52:49 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

One thing which seems to have been overlooked in all of this hoopla...

You can have all the boxen you want co-located at any NAP site you choose, and pay the owner of the NAP whatever they set as the price to "be there."

...and then there's the Elephant In The NAP....

Peering.
Good luck with that.
Hint: it ain't free these days, UNLESS you bring HUGE amounts of content to the table.
And therein lies the area where Netflix just might be getting something without paying money. They are bringing HUGE amounts of content to the table. And in the "peering negotiation" content equals currency (money).

Go to page: First ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... Last