This is BP's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following BP's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
City of Hate
The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.
Recent Activity
So, I haven't made a comment here for months. I figure this, if anything, is worth it. I'll be short and sweet for once: I was completely, utterly wrong in my defense of Netflix's practices, as was everyone else. Though many arguments were petty, the anti-change crowd were right. It will be extremely clear who is astroturfing after this change; just look for those wearing the pro-Netflix/pro-Qwikster hats. Hindsight is 20/20. It should be clear to everyone now that every single one of those decisions was calculated with this end in mind. Qwikster won't be a wholly owned Netflix subsidiary within 2-3 years, perhaps less. The new Netflix is positioning itself to be the new low rent mass media distribution house for 21st century America. There's no room for a smart, efficient, consumer-centric service. The new way forward is low rent, low brow, catering to what the average American wants while the loyal customer base they built the company up on goes away looking for someone that cares about them. I don't blame them all that much. It's just business, and this is the inevitable end run of every company: to sell out for that extra percentile. I hope that Reed and company are happy being that ever so slightly much more rich, because apparently merely being rich and running one of the most successful and revered companies in American history isn't enough. -BP
Thank you, Jeremy. That's a fantastic reply. I don't mean to be playing the "NoSQL is nonsense" card. If there's a use for technology, and in this case it's obvious more mature technologies weren't cutting it in data-and-IO heavy applications like social networking, then I firmly believe new technologies will be created and, eventually, mature. I can see how my posts would definitely give off that impression, and I'm sorry I didn't clarify or research my points better. Thanks for being the bigger man and stopping this snowball before it got any bigger. That said, and please stick with me here: Cassandra powers, at least in part, a lot of services that are having massive problems with reliability. Most of these services are being run from the other people's managed clouds (Twitter being the exception, I believe?). Again, most of these services rarely, if ever, communicate their issues to their users - reddit being a glorious exception. That's fantastic that you were able to sit in on the talk at Strata, but for a large chunk of the rest of us, downtime is rarely ever explained at length and even when it is it is detail light. That leads to some fairly rampant speculation, of which I'm guilty. Combine all of the above with the fact that, when downtime is explained, it almost always is the result of administrator error. "We misconfigured our servers" or "We weren't monitoring for errors" or the likes. I realize that as an early adopter of a software that's being field tested you are always going to run into problems, which unfortunately can give the impression that it is the software that is unreliable instead of the admins that are incompetent, lazy, forgetful or just plain doing the best they can with what they've got. And that sucks, because it affects everyone involved. I'm not trying to convince you of my viewpoint, or even explain away the errors in my arguments, merely why I thought the way I did. You've got to admit, Web 2.0 has an extremely bad reputation for (1) extensive downtime, (2) massive error rates, and (3) not interacting with its users when both of the above eventually happen, and at length. It's unfair to solely blame the software, but a lot of rather brilliant people were positing that is was in fact the software, and an especially poor implementation of it, that was the problem. It would appear that those opinions could very well be every bit as outdated as the facts surrounding Cassandra's previous faults. I still maintain that Cassandra could eventually go the very same route as Ruby. Again, I'm not an engineer, I don't understand the levels at which this software is meant to work and if I tried my head might likely explode. That said, some extremely smart people have made arguments against a large portion of what Cassandra is supposed to do, and knowing how fad heavy a lot of the younger Web 2.0 crowd can be, it's easy to believe that it is being used for purposes it is ill-suited for, if it is really suited for any. I couldn't claim to know. It's hard to wade through what is simply tech evangelizing and what is simply turf pissing matches, though I thought, perhaps wrongly, I did a good job of separating it all. What I can claim to believe, though empirical evidence is so often flawed, is that Reddit is less reliable than Twitter, which is less reliable than Facebook, which is less reliable than even the busiest of traditionally hosted (eg non-distributed, non-cloud based) sites (like imgurl). That is an unfair comparison, but Netflix now is far less reliable than Netflix circa 2007, and aside from a massive jump in subscribers, they've also substantially changed the way they host and serve data. It is easy, although most likely unfair, to blame the software and its implementation. You make a convincing argument that Netflix might have far more downtime without their current setup, but the fact is that the amount of errors people have been having over the past few months make a far more convincing argument that they're doing something very wrong. Again, maybe it's just an issue of scale. You'd know better than I. Sorry for the long post. Thanks, again!, and very much, for your response. You give me hope that a lot of time isn't being wasted reinventing the wheel, again, and after reading of Cassandra's progress 2010, I'm thinking it might pay off. -BP
Ah crap, the syntax of that sentence sucked. It looks like I'm saying Netflix weren't affected by the outage at all, when in reality I'm trying to say that the way they engineered their backend is what saved their asses. If they were using Cassandra merely for its performance gains then they would have been screwed, but because they're Smart Peoples (tm) who do stuff like this ( they weren't taken down like so many AWS-dependent websites were. Perhaps that's because Netflix are using Cassandra correctly whereas everyone else isn't, but I'd also wager that the engineers at Netflix are smart enough not to rely purely on Cassandra for critical applications because they know that it's unreliable. I really don't get the whole NoSQL thing. It's fashionable, but seems extremely limited in actual applicability. It's an incompetently over-engineered solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Google don't even use it for their most important service (Adsense), and they bloody pioneered the entire concept. Of course, I could be wrong and, most likely, I am. I'm not an engineer. I don't understand the systems the same way you likely do. What I do have a keen spider sense for is bullshit. Had you come along and simply said "NoSQL is in its infancy, it has problems but it is great for " then there wouldn't be a problem. Instead you come in and start arguing technicalities. TIL NBA Western Conference Finals Referees Also Moonlight as Software Developers. For reals. -BP
Man, I'd really kill for Roy to come in here and set the story straight, regardless of who is right or wrong. Someone stand in front of a mirror and say his name three times fast. Remember to have a laptop ready with this page open so he can respond after gutting you with a meat hook. -BP
Oh great, I say I won't post here anymore and then you come along. OK, let's play. (1) - Cassandra is one of the responsible parties for reddit's constant downtime. Everyone knows this. Reddit admit it. Nowhere in my post did I say Cassandra was the sole reason reddit went down, but you're attempting to give off the impression that it wasn't responsible at all. Who's trying to push an agenda here again? (2) - They were originally going to use Cassandra to store tweets as well, but decided not to. This remains unchanged, AFAIK. When you refuse to change over the software that powers the core of your service, and instead relegate it to the most useless aspects of your backend, that sends an extremely strong negative signal. (3) LOL. That's the stupidest fucking response I have ever read. "Facebook has never used open-source Cassandra" - fucking so? - Facebook finds Cassandra to be lacking for their new inbox/e-mail/im system, so they are moving away to HBase. Seriously, though, I'm not sure saying that "Facebook uses (x) to perform (y)" is all that smart of an argument considering the massive amounts of problems the service has. (3) YOU HAVE TWO THREES! OH FUCK THE SYSTEM HAS FAILED! I never said it did. Learn to read. I said relying on new unproven fashionable tech is crap when you are running an uptime and response time critical application. Cassandra can't handle either at the large volume it was specifically designed for. (4) You're being disingenuous again. Netflix weathered the AWS US-East outage because their fucking nodes weren't affected. They said so in their blog post on the subject. Fucking really, you're going to lie to make your point? Cassandra had nothing to do with their uptime and everything to do with the way Netflix manages their backend at the server level. Perhaps you should include in your post a disclaimer that you work for a consultancy firm that has a strong self-interest in pimping out Cassandra. "Where I work" includes your clients, and you certainly wouldn't want to be shit-talking the software you're selling them support for, now would you? Don't be disingenuous, punk. It works great because you're paid to say it works great. I bet you fucking love Ruby on Rails. -BP
Ha ha ha. I'm fairly sure that as a fellow reddit user you weren't actually shocked by what Tester said, Mike. It might have caught you off guard, but I highly doubt it actually shocked you. Come on, man, try and tell me you haven't been tricked by a fake link to tubgirl once or twice. Try it. Oh how I wish I could claim I haven't had that experience. :( Still, I said I'd leave if Jolly was allowed to persist. It was an ultimatum before, now it's the truth. I've been a part of, and been witness to, far more communities falling apart due to bad moderation than I'd like to admit. I really don't get why you're choosing to make Hacking Netflix one of them, but hey, that's your prerogative. "Not my chair, not my problem." Last thing, and this is a pet peeve of mine, it's dangerous to assume that because a debate gets heated or personal attacks fly that a person is upset. You diminish the importance of what they are saying by dismissing the actual context behind why they are saying it. Some guy tries to steal my car, you'll see me mad. Some guy on a website I enjoy is being a jerkass, you'll see me enjoy responding at length. Because I enjoy writing, it's a part of what I do, and engaging in, er, lofty(?) intellectual games is every bit as much fun as mowing down Hare Krishnas in Grand Theft Auto. More, even, because I like to picture that I'm the driver, my words are my car, and I'm repeatedly running down stupid people during a high scoring Kill Frenzy. So, yeah, I know what I'll be doing instead of writing on Hacking Netflix now... and that is, err, running over pedestrians in my van? Wait, something's not right, what the... Later. -BP
I'm not sure how I feel about Netflix using Cassandra. I agree with Ted Dziuba in that it's a solution without a problem for engineers who think they're clever, but I could be agreeing out of ignorance as I'll never work on a system that scales to that level. It just seems to me that everything Cassandra touches has problems and eventually moves away from the platform. Reddit has had endless problems with Cassandra and Twitter moved away from it almost as fast as they adopted it. Even Facebook, who invented it, have dropped it. I hope this makes the Netflix backend perform better... but it just seems to keep getting worse and worse as they insist upon dabbling in whatever new and fashionable interests them that given week. Me? I want the website from 2007 back. You know, the one that just plain worked. -BP
You know, I feel the need to post this, as well. I see a lot of folks on the internet use the word "trolling" as a catch-all for things they don't like. If I say something people dislike, I'm trolling. If I say something controversial, I'm trolling. If I say something inflammatory, I'm trolling. And it doesn't just go for me, it goes for everyone. And that's inaccurate. Trolling originated on Usenet as a way to get the goat of new members, or as a way of generating controversy vis a vis devil's advocacy. Both of those are healthy, and is a perfectly normal and healthy function of human discourse. The problem comes when people refuse to endear themselves to a community and instead simply troll. This is how the noun form of trolling came about, and there's quite an obvious difference. A community member, whether held in esteem or not, can troll perfectly healthily, and generate a controversial discussion that can easily alter people's perceptions or broaden their views. It is a good thing, and helps keep communities vibrant. A perfect example of this would be Edward R Murrow and PatB. I rarely ever agree with them and for the most part I think they're both a couple of nonces (non-traditional, modern definition), but they provide a vital service to this community in that they stimulate a conversation that otherwise wouldn't exist. Despite how I respond to them and the "attacks" I might drop while engaging them, I respect their position within this community and wish they would post more often, if for no other reason than they provide an outlet with which to debunk claims or myths people might not otherwise read about. The point I am trying to make is that there is good trolling and bad trolling. Some people get that, some don't. There is the act of trolling, there are lower-case trolls (good community members who occasionally make extremely controversial statements or, more often, are simply taking the piss) and there are Capital-T Trolls (bad community members who want nothing more than to disrupt a community and ruin it). I enjoy trolling, and view myself as a lower-case troll. I think that's obvious. Sometimes I forget that I don't make it obvious enough - it's a flaw derived from my perception that everyone views the internet in the same light - that any personal attacks I might issue are akin to the sort of shit you give your best mate at a pub. That's it, really. Then there are Capital-T Trolls like Jolly. They aren't 4channers or SA goons simply taking the piss - that's a subset of good trolling - they're fucked up crazies with no ability to actually interact with actual humans hellbent on destroying communities. The sort of people who had no friends in high school not because they were awkward, shy, socially inept computer geeks, but because they're the sort of kid that everyone secretly suspects lives in a house with fifty cats because he always reeks of urine, who wears hand me down clothes because his parents blow all their money on meth, and who doesn't really know how to talk about things that aren't directly related to putting hamsters into microwaves, and all that's A-OK really because it's more pitiable than it is actionable, but the real problem comes when that same kid is so socially maladjusted that his response to bullying isn't to put up his fists and defend himself or even report it to the authorities, but to instead make up a shit list while listening to Rammstein (because emo is so much moar bettar in German!) and then go indiscriminately spread a dozen bullets around campus for each and every ignored Valentine's card he ever sent. Which is why nobody likes him in the first place, because for all his faults, it's really only the fact that he gives off the Crazy Unhinged Douche vibe that ever damned him to being a social outcast in the first place. Which is a long-winded way of saying that by having multiple, competing definitions of trolls and trolling, we actually weaken our argument for dealing with truly poisonous community members. It's all fine and good to say I troll, or he trolls, or to even pick out individual statements as merely being trolls. Being able to discern chicken shit from chicken salad is an important life skill. At some point, though, we've just go to call it like we see it, and say that crazy is crazy and, trolling or not, the community would be better off without them. -BP, Honorary Doctorate in Interwebs Lolcology from Encyclopaedia Dramatica Gooniversity, PhD in Drama, Esq
Aw, it used to be on watch it now! Damn, it was a nice transfer, too. The Criterion DVD is gorgeous, though. I have a catch-all setup on my domain, Tester, so if you want to reach me you can just send an e-mail to and I'll get it. -BP
Is it REALLY not that obvious to you, Mike, that Johnson1965Tony is also Jolly/BP108/etc? I mean, really, is it not that obvious? When you switched to requiring TypePad registration/OpenID, Jolly signed up for a brand new twitter account that (1) had no tweets and (2) no followers/no followings. Johnson1965Tony appeared immediately after you banned BP108 using the exact same system - new twitter, no tweets, no followers/followings. Do you really think it's not the same person? Perhaps you simply should close down the comments section of Hacking Netflix. There are other Netflix communities to comment in, though I do view this one as the best. That said, one guy is ruining it, and you're enabling it by endorsing some pretty hefty false equivalency, and even engaging in some yourself. Let's see here... Many folks here swear and engage in "personal attacks" against Jolly. Jolly says that the only way he would drop cable and use Netflix is if he found himself living in abject poverty. This equates poor people with Netflix, and is an attack worse than anything anyone else has ever said on this blog. Not only do you endorse that attack, but you say it would make Jolly a valuable community member. Then, in the same breath, you compare many commentator's contributions to this blog - namely, taking Jolly down a peg or five - to being every bit as bad as, if not worse than, flat out stating that Netflix is a service for poor people. That's the worst of his false equivalences, but insinuating that Netflix users are basement dwelling couch potatoes is pretty bad, too. So what, exactly, does he have to add again, and why, exactly, do you expect us to act civil when you're failing to moderate your own forum? I'm beginning to think you WANT Jolly here, and that's fine, but don't go looking for bullshit reasons to get rid of people who actually contribute. He's the problem, and so's your comparing his bullshit to our coping-with-his-bullshit-mechanisms, not us. You seem like a nice enough guy, and Hacking Netflix provides an invaluable service, but you're making the one mistake that inevitably every internet nice guy makes: trying to provide an even and level playing field. That always destroys communities, and it's almost done that to Hacking Netflix on repeat occasions. People fight, that's natural. I fight. That's good. Communities need controversy, it's good for the heart and soul. What they don't need is obvious out-and-out trolling - I'm talking people with no other purpose than to disrupt discussion. So, let's recap that point: Good community members trolling = healthy Bad community members trolling = unhealthy There is a distinction, and it's one I am so utterly amazed at just how often people fail to understand. Without healthy trolling, you develop a hivemind. With unhealthy trolling, you develop into Usenet. And guess what? Usenet's fucking dead. -BP
@ Tester Not sure if you're asking me to elaborate because you've never seen it and are curious or if you have and merely wonder why I'd watch it as my last film on Earth, but here goes... :) I'm hesitant to link this, but I am hoping that it won't ruin the film for you if you decide to watch it. I could write at length about the film, but I never do, as I could never do it justice. It is my favorite film. As a lover of all cinema, it is my favorite. As an artist (yeah, like you guys couldn't call that one, what with my being a moody asshole), it is my favorite. As a charlatan, it is my favorite. It is the film that righted my wrong concepts of art and artistry, and serves as the enduring context with which I view all films, songs, books, paintings and works of all art. Sorry, I said I wouldn't write on it, but that's about all I feel I can say. You obviously love classic film. You also enjoy hacking, which, though most people don't realize it, is an artform which renders upon its creators a complete and total permanent anonymity - which is intimately related to the point this film makes. I can't say you'll enjoy F For Fake, but I can say you'll love it. You'll also see why it's the last film I'd ever watch before falling away into the universal ash. I would greatly enjoy reading what you think of the film. You can pull my e-mail address from the linked webpage in my Typepad profile (sorry, don't dare type it out here, ha). Do take the time to tell me what you think, love it or hate it. :) -BP
That's it. I've had it. I'm done with this. Ban BP108 or I'm gone, Mike. He is a troll or a spammer with no desire to legitimately discuss any of the topics presented to us or that come up naturally in the flow of conversation. Moreover, he constantly changes the goal posts to suit his own arguments, thereby rendering any attempt at actually refuting his "points" worthless. I suspect I'm not the only one tired of dealing with this, Mike. You've spent the last month enacting rule after useless rule. Not useless because they aren't good rules, useless because you refuse to enforce them. I've said it once, I'll say it again, if your enforcing the rules means my swearing/attitude causes me to get banned, then so be it. BUT FUCKING TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN FORUM LIKE YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT IT. -BP
@ Roy Well, Netflix has said time and again that their cost to deliver data is less than a penny a gigabyte. Whether this takes into consideration storage fees or not I can't say, but what I can say is that it is extremely easy to quote out a price for per gigabyte storage and delivery with services such as Amazon. I guarantee that whoever is Netflix's CDN offers far, far, far, far cheaper pricing than Amazon, especially at the sort of level Netflix is using, but let's do the math based on a high/low scenario: According to a survey (I believe, or was it Netflix?), the average Netflix user watches 27 hours of content a month. Let's, for argument's sake, say it's HD content. That's 2.5gb/hr * 27 = 67.5gb a month per user. Let's spread that across all 20 million users, so that's 20m * 67.5 = 1,350,000,000 gigabytes (or 1.35 million terabytes, or 1350 petabytes, or 1.35 exabytes) that Netflix transfers in a month. I think this is probably high-balling it, but let's go with it. So, using the high ball cost of a half a penny a gigabyte transferred, Netflix would be spending about $72,000,000/yr on bandwidth costs. That's 1.35 billion gigabytes * $00.005 * 12. The low ball cost of a tenth of a penny a gigabyte would cost Netflix just over $16,000,000. To transfer all of the bandwidth the use for streaming content delivery. In a whole year. Now, storing data is a lot cheaper than transmitting it, but just to make a point, let's simply assume it costs the same. So that would be another $72,000,000 or $16,000,000 a year for storage. That means that at the highest end of the highest high ball Netflix would be spending just about $144,000,000 a year for their entire streaming library. On the flip side, they'd be spending just a tad over $32,000,000. According to Netflix's own SEC filings, they spend $203,000,000 a year on "Fulfillment Expenses" - a category which includes streaming costs as well as the cost of operating their brick and mortar DVD shipping business. Now, I'd wager a bulk of that $203m is spent on the DVD end of the business, as there you have a massive amount of overhead - labor costs, property, upkeep, so on and so forth. So that automatically requires you to throw out the larger $144m number as the cost of their streaming business - or does it? Further down in the filing you find that they spend $163,000,000 a year on Technology and Development, a category which includes, and I quote, "certain costs paid for third-party Internet-based or “cloud” computing services used in connection with our business." I'm no fan of the way Netflix files their annual reports, but it isn't as if it takes a rocket scientist to figure them out. So how much does the streaming end of things really cost? In the end, somewhere in the middle of the two numbers, which would peg it square at $88,000,000. I'm going to say that's how much it costs Netflix yearly to host their content and deliver it from their network to my home. That includes the highest of all the numbers: average number of hours a month watched, times total number of subscribers, in the highest resolution possible (which means more bandwidth and larger files), without taking into consideration the real costs of storage, too. And if that's all they spend? Man, that's just fucking marvelous. And it fits in perfectly with Netflix's stated cost of less than a penny per gigabyte to deliver those movies from their servers to my home. The cost might be a bit higher, or it might be a bit lower, who knows, but them's the maths as best as I can work them, and it wasn't too hard to figure out, either. -BP
@ Hypocrite who complains about people's swearing even though he's a fan of the guy who ran You didn't ask a question in good faith. You're well known as being anti-Netflix, and it was a fairly jerk-ass remark. Moreover, you didn't respond to a single point I brought up. You don't care to have a real conversation about this, and never have. What you really meant by your question was "Does Netflix pay for 22.2% of North America's bandwidth costs OR IS IT A GIANT LEECH?" You can try and deny it, but you know, and I know, and everyone else here knows that it is exactly what you meant. As I illustrated in my post, I pay for the bandwidth costs associated with bringing Netflix's data through my pipe to my network, while Netflix pays for the bandwidth and storage costs associated with transmitting their data from their servers to my ISP's network. Most likely, the ISP profits off of both Netflix and I, as that is how most peering agreements work. But you don't care. You're a hypocritical troll whose only function is to serve as a fractionally more literate version of BP108, seeking to lend whatever slight amount of credence to whatever anti-Netflix bias you both share. The thing is, and I'm going to dumbfuck this down for you so you can fucking understand it: Companies exist to make a profit. Netflix makes a profit off of us. Akamai makes a profit off of Netflix. Amazon makes a profit off of Netflix. Level 3 makes a profit off of Netflix. The studios make a profit off of Netflix. AT&T makes a profit off of Netflix. AT&T makes a profit off of its customers. That is the way the world works. These entities would not exist if they were not making profit. CDNs and intermediaries would not exist if they did not make a profit. Telcos would not exist if they did not make a profit. Every company involved, from the content creators to the retail (end user) bandwidth providers, makes a profit off of Netflix. If they didn't, they simply wouldn't exist, as there is no room in this industry for an entity which cannot monetize something as simple as cheaply delivering another person's content. Your argument is invalid and you are a fucking jackass for continuing to act like an obtuse wank who doesn't get it despite continually having it put to you like you are a fucking infant. Every single post you have made here is anti-Netflix. Nearly every single post you have made is a one-off. You rarely return to a thread to debate the discussion your comments have sparked. When you do return to a thread, you never participate in the discussion, instead spouting off some contrived platitudes about how all you wanted was a simple answer from someone at Netflix - which is suspiciously similar to BP108's constant siren song - and how you never get it. Well guess what, you don't get it because your comments are biased, your questions are loaded and your purpose false. Fuck off. -BP @ BP108 s/your full of shit/you're full of shit/ Hope that helps.
@ BP108 "Look BP I can copy and paste to....." That's all you do, shitberg.
@ Pud I pay generic ISP n dollars monthly for a service with y throughput and, more and more often these days, z amount of bandwidth. Netflix pays generic CDN o dollars for a service that both provides storage and has peering agreements with generic ISPs as well as generic middlemen transit networks that results in part of Netflix's contract with generic CDN worth o dollars going to pay for the entire route their data takes from generic CDN to generic ISP. Depending on the peering agreement, generic ISP profits not only off of my n dollars monthly, but also off of Netflix and co's o dollars monthly. Therefore, combining data I have previously extrapolated in posts you completely ignored with data newly created in this one, it is possible to further extrapolate the profit margin within which generic ISPs are operating. Not only that, but using the data presented in the above article, in combination with data from generic ISP and generic CDN and generic transit network, it would be possible to determine how many ISPs, CDNs and middlemen networks wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the massive amount of data Netflix pushes down their pipes. Without a service with which the end user desires to create a connection, there would be no connection. If Napster heralded the era of 56k (and the beginnings of DSL) and Bittorrent heralded the era of even faster DSL (and DOCSIS 2.0 cable) then it stands to reason that Youtube, Netflix and other bandwidth-intensive streaming data sites heralded the era of fiber and DOCSIS 3.0. Per usual, it is the content creators, in a shaky agreement with content distributors, as well as pornography and piracy, that have led to a massive increase in downstream speeds and the technology behind them. At every turn ISPs have sought to sell consumers this technology, make them and all of the above pay for it while simultaneously claiming that those are the exact reasons you should have it, because if you can download movies faster you can watch more movies, and oh by the way you've now watched too many so we'll be capping how many you can watch, but you can watch more for an additional fee... and, well, there you have it, but will you care? To wit, I pay my fair share, and so does Netflix. The only people not paying their fair share are the ISPs, who charge you, very rarely fairly, for having their technology installed, for using it, for using it too much, and then sometimes even for having it removed. I pay for the rollout of the technology, I pay for the use of the technology and then, depending on the peering agreement, the ISP either makes money or breaks even on the backend. Now how is that for some crap? Is it worth mentioning the number of tax breaks and tax loopholes companies exploit to make all ready profitable new tech rollouts even more profitable? Not that you'll care, as you never do. You're here to do the exact same sort of crap jolly/BP108 does. This time you won't have anything to hide behind, though, as there are no swear words or personal attacks in this entire post. Your move. -BP
@ BP108 That is factually incorrect. It is not "220 people sign up anonymously" it is data collated from organizations which includes over 220 international ISPs. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? -BP
@ Jason Peak internet traffic is a specific time of day, whereas the 22% figure is when Netflix's traffic is averaged over the entire day. -BP
I wouldn't discount the iPhone or any other smartphone as being popular amongst the deaf. They are TTY capable and present people with a powerful internet capable computer. I see where you are coming from - it's a phone, why do deaf people need a phone? Smartphones are so much more than just that, though. To really answer your question, I'd simply say that Apple provided Netflix with the ability to easily integrate captions. Maybe there's a more lengthy answer, or malicious motivations behind why iPhone is one of the first with captions, but that would be a stretch. -BP
@ Tester Reading is obviously not your strong suit. So is not coming across like a condescending prick. Hey, that's something I'm an expert in being, so it appears I'm qualified to comment here! My entire point in that post was to point out that the tools needed to perform said hacking are extremely obtuse. The Android SDK is universally recognized as being a gigantic piece of dog shit. Hacking an Android phone is easy so long as you are not trying to bake your own rom, which is why easy bake websites have popped up that do the hard work for you. Even so, many of the guides written on how to do this or that are incoherent messes. When you inevitably do fuck something up, and if you claim you've never had any problems ever then you're either full of it or your idea of hacking was running an AoLZ ProGGiE, it will be a massive pain in the ass to fix using the SDK. Most of the time your best bet is to perform a nandroid restore and start over from scratch. Would you care to explain how, exactly, you physically hacked an optical disc? Because unless you think taking a felt tip sharpie and blocking out the copy protection on certain consoles' discs, which would be a laugh to consider hacking, then I know of no way to hack a physical disc. Warmest regards! -BP
You certainly enjoy finding motivations that aren't there, Tester. My internal machinations are no more complex than that being how I write, how I have always written and how I always will. You have this problem on Hacking Netflix a lot. Searching by both "Tester" and "Bogarts_Falcon" reveals your combative attitude towards other members and a fairly large persecution complex. Welcome to the internet, kid. Deal with it. I couldn't give a shit less about what you or Pud (WHO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, ONCE AGAIN, RAN A FAMOUS WEBSITE CALLED "FUCKED COMPANY") think about my writing or the words I choose to use. As far as I am concerned, if you're full of shit, I'm going to say you're full of shit. There's no sense in dressing up chicken shit and calling it chicken salad just to appease your fashionably delicate sensibilities. If Mike dislikes it, so be it, I am sure he'll say. He's got my e-mail address, and my url. If he doesn't want to address the topic with me and decides to outright ban me, so be it, his prerogative. If you think for one second that my calling bullshit when I see bullshit is in any way worse than said bullshit then you have some fairly damaged reality perceptors that you should take in to Tyrell for maintenance. -BP
You can be real thick sometimes, Pud. No one is advocating driving on the roads for free. Further, that analogy is shit, and you know it. City/county/state infrastructure is paid for on a sliding scale basis - the more money you make, the more stuff you buy, the more expensive your house, the more in taxes you pay - nowhere in the bargain struck between a taxed citizenry and the taxing government does there exist a "metered usage" clause. The agreement is that we, the taxed, will continue to earn a wage, shop and endure home ownership, and the government can take a percentage rake off of all three of the above, and in return they build us roads that we can use for free, in nearly whatever way we see fit, as much as we see fit, for as long as we see fit. On occasion that agreement is altered and roads, which are viewed as a necessity by the self-interested populace but of which demand has not yet reached a critical mass sufficient to warrant building, are built and tolled. It is the only way to ensure that some avenues of transport are built. Other times, unnecessary toll roads are built out of a need for a corporate profit. For the most part, though? Taxes. We pay them. They use them. They build the road. We use them. However much we want, whenever we want. So, thusly, your analogy is shit. You know that, of course, but that's never stopped you from making one of your quarterly quintessentially business ignorant non-points. Here's what I, and everyone else, wants: access to world class internet at a price that guarantees the corporation a solid future with enough profit to see that the world class internet that they provide us with stays world class. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. Bandwidth costs between $0.005-$0.02 a gigabyte in the United States. That is between a half a penny and two pennies, depending. That is the full cost of transport, from the brick and mortar infrastructure to the cost of the peering agreements and everything inbetween. That includes the multi-billion dollar rollouts of FiOS and the maintenance of antiquated copper lines. It even includes a profit. Nice, huh? So, knowing that cost, and using the worst case estimate (two pennies a gig), my $45/month AT&T bill would require me to use 2.2 terabytes of data in one month just for AT&T to lose profit and merely just break even. AT&T state that 98% of their U-Verse customers stay under a 250gb/month cap, which means that 98% of their 2,000,000 (circa 2009) subscribers pays AT&T anywhere between $15 and $60 a month in pure profit. I imagine the profit margin for much slower DSL is even better. Though AT&T do not release statistics of the overage amount of that 2%, let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say that that 2%, which equates to 40,000 customers, saturate all of their bandwidth every month. For one of the faster plans - 12mbps - that equates to 37 terabytes (times $0.01/gb, as you can damn well guarantee that with that amount of data usage AT&T would negotiate the best possible rates for themselves) of transfer a month, which means each of those 40,000 customers costs AT&T $378 - $45 bill = -$333 a month * 40,000 = total net less of nearly $14,000,000 a month. That's a shitfuckton of money, I admit, but using even a conservative estimate of all of their other customers (1,960,000) only being worth $15 a month in profit still yields $30,000,000 in profit which, when taking in the $14,000,000 loss the "freeloaders" incur, still yields a net profit of $16,000,000. $16,000,000. In profit. After ALL costs and losses are factored in. A month. Worst case scenario in losses, middle of the road estimate in profit. If they want to be treated like a utility, that means being regulated, which is the one part of metered billing they don't find acceptable. If you accept that they are analogous to the taxed citizen / taxing government relationship, which they are so fucking not, then you would have to accept the fact that, as with any government, they are being run inefficiently and not for profit and instead for the greater good. They would still make money hand over fist, just not as much of it, and even that would be a step above how governments operate now. So what, exactly, is your argument? You don't have one, because you're full of shit, just like AT&T. The only entity practicing the parasite business model in this entire situation is AT&T. Eat it, Boss Hogg. -BP
Hey guys, what's goin' on? Thanks for enabling openID login, Mike. It's a great system. I tried hard to find an out of the box OID server I could run at home or on my host but couldn't find one that I liked too much, so it's Google Auth for me. Yay! No, I don't wear pocket protectors. Not for fun, anyway. :) -BP
I would like to point out that BP108 and I aren't the same person. Wouldn't put it past Jolly to sign up to try and imitate my username, but it could just merely be a coincidence. Mike can confirm if he wants to. To address the bulk of (whoever) BP108's (is) arguments, jailbreaking phones and modifying their code has long been deemed legal. There exist exemptions for it within the DMCA and recently the Library of Congress reaffirmed those exemptions. Nothing illegal going on here. Don't be a pillock. -- Anyway, I've gotta agree with Roy on this. Hacking an Android phone is kind of a gigantic pain in the ass. The dev tools are fucking stupid (the hoops you have to jump through to get adb to work properly is just dumb) and there exists a high likelihood of breaking something that will be a massive exercise in what will equate to cheesegrating your own balls just to fix it. -BP