antics

19 ms·

451.
by antics 16y ago
Actually, that last part is not correct. Torrents are not always legal [ http://ask-leo.com/is_it_illegal_to_download_torrent_files.h... ], and spam is not always illegal [ http://spam.abuse.net/faq/ ]. It's abusive to say otherwise. I torr
452.
by antics 16y ago
I don't see your point at all. The fact that you want the bandwidth you were supposedly "sold" is the very justification ISPs give for throttling the traffic of, say, spammers, or torrenters. Why should those practices make for a worse expe
453.
by antics 16y ago
I'm for net neutrality, but the argument that they are "selling bandwidth" is ridiculous -- in fact that's the very argument ISPs have for disallowing it! [Pete Ashdown is the president of a Utah ISP called Xmission: http://peteashdown.org
454.
by antics 16y ago
So your proposal to fight one of the biggest lobbying forces in the world [ http://www.freepress.net/node/62059 ] is to demand that everything just be fixed all at once? You are out of your mind.
455.
by antics 16y ago
Not inspecting packets is only the beginning. I for one don't just want people to not snoop around my data, I want more or less unbiased service. Remember, Comcast would throttle users who were constantly uploading a lot of information, whi
456.
by antics 16y ago
You have been most helpful. Thank you indeed.
457.
by antics 16y ago
But WHY are they trivial? Because we can extract metadata that help us prune the solution pool? And if that's the case for the KNAPSACK problem, does this hold for all such problems?
458.
by antics 16y ago
I have a question, as a CS student. Why is finding a set for which the algorithm does not work (edit:) WELL so hard? I have admittedly not read anything about -- or indeed, heard of -- KNAPSACK, but my impression was that we could estimate