Trump Planning On Turning Internet Into Toll Road

[ExiledInIllinois]

Seriously? The team from DC?

I threw that in there on purpose just to see if anybody would notice.

 

Washington Redskins, the story I was telling took place in 1990/1991.

 

:-P

[grinreaper]

This was years ago... Erie Harbor and Presque Isle beach project was not during high summer season. I want to say I was staying @ The Ramada (is that the Hammett exit, Parade Street, I90?)... Anyway...

 

...I was young and in love... On weekends I would beat out of town back to BFLo or Champagne, IL where the future Ms. Crazy EiL (1994) was in grad school. We worked compressed week so it gave me Thursday after work to getting back in @ 07:00 on Monday.

 

This was before Freecell and internet. ;-)

 

LoL... I remember one argument in the construction trailer between a guy on the crew & me... Sports... "How many SuperBowls were The Team from DC in to date. I think I said 4 and my co-worker 3. Anyway, pre-internet... We had to call the reference librarian @ the Erie Library! LoL... I won the bet.

 

Traveling through now, we do hit a falafel place next to to brew pub, post office. LoL... I am so multi-cultural, hope Trump hasn't shut the place down, they were Syrians that ran it. :-/

Now that is one schitty hotel. It explains a lot.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Now that is one schitty hotel. It explains a lot.

Per diem sucked as a Fed for that area. Now, Cleveland Harbor work, nicer per diem. Pay even worse, hydrographic survey tech was only $7 bucks an hour. It was a room to sleep in 4 nights a week while on TDY.

Edited February 8, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Hey, I did that too.

 

Then I learned it was easier to just by a router.

This was in 1996...when I was a punk ass high school kid, but also a part-time contractor for a company you've heard of.

 

So, no, back then, we couldn't just "go buy a router". And especially: not for Macs. That's the problem with this thread: words mean things. The word "Macs" changes the entire discussion. Back then, Steve Jobs was still convinced he could force the entire world to buy a Mac, so, he made them network with each other, but with nothing else. My "original" hackintosh server/router, fooled them into thinking it was just another mac.

[DC Tom]

This was in 1996...when I was a punk ass high school kid, but also a part-time contractor for a company you've heard of.

 

So, no, back then, we couldn't just "go buy a router". And especially: not for Macs. That's the problem with this thread: words mean things. The word "Macs" changes the entire discussion. Back then, Steve Jobs was still convinced he could force the entire world to buy a Mac, so, he made them network with each other, but with nothing else. My "original" hackintosh server/router, fooled them into thinking it was just another mac.

 

And I was networking Macs with a Sparc workstation with a VAX/VMS mainframe with IBM PS/2s with a CCD camara using off-the-shelf equipment six years before you couldn't just "go buy a router."

[OCinBuffalo]

Drviel

We've already established above that you think switches do things they don't do. All you've done in both subsequent posts above is backtrack....and go googling for things to try and play CYA.

 

I'm not gonna waste bits tracking and reply to your entire backpedal. I am going to pick out some of the dumber things you said. for their humor value:

 

1. This all started because you said "there is no server"(or routers). Switches do everything. Now you are linking to a vid about a DNS SERVER? So, what, did you think we forgot? Post 1000 links: You're not walking this idiocy back.

 

2. Unequivocally? All you have unequivocally shown is that you can do what I told to you do, literally: "google DNS Server". You proven again that you still don't understand how things actually work. You can coordinate some of the key words into sentences. But coordination is not the same thing as command.

 

3. For example: DNS's DO NOT do what you say they do. Jesus. The word DOMAIN is in the name of thing. What is a domain? Or, let's use your example: http://www.google.com. Using that, please define domain.

 

4. Yes, what a surprise that your own 3 (internal) DNS severs, aren't publicly facing. This, right here, shows it all in a nutshell. How the hell does a DNS server do what it does, if the "public" can't access it? How do we get to http://www.google.com, if by your own, albeit shoddy definition above, a DNS doesn't send us there?

 

None of this yap contradicts my original statements:

a.) Clearing traffic off of ALL (DNS) servers, in general, but specifically off servers responsible for propagation/maintenance of address is literally in everybody's best interest.

b.) The notion that somebody would intentionally slow that activity down, NO MATTER WHAT, and especially regarding who paid for what. is buffoonery.

 

4. "Routers don't assign addresses" Wait: you can't seem to make up your mind, do these various terms you throw around actually combine more than one thing,or don't they? Find me a DHCP-only, "commercial" appliance. I wanna buy one(you can't). No: we call them Routers, because we have for a very long time, and one of things they can do is DHCP. Go ahead and use my link(Cisco) and find me a DHCP machine, since...according to you: " In the commercial world these functions are not usually combined in one box". Nonsense. The real reason is that DHCP is largely a software thing now, and that software can be installed on my phone, TV, or just about anywhere else, including: a router.

 

Yeah, and Cisco hasn't been doing exactly that, and getting into the software business because of it, for the last 10 years. Make up your mind. You carelessly explain that DNS servers are combined with...stuff...when they aren't, AND, tell me that DHCP is sold separately?

 

5. In ALL cases: a switch STILL doesn't do everything, and it never will, no matter how much buffer it has. There will ALWAYS be something called a DNS server, and always be something called a router, and it will NEVER make sense to combine their functionality into a mere switch. And yeah, if CISCO ever does that? I WILL know better than them, because I already know better right now.

 

Go ahead and prattle on. The fact remains that you said "there is no server"...when servers, of all sorts, ARE the internet.

Edited February 10, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

 

And I was networking Macs with a Sparc workstation with a VAX/VMS mainframe with IBM PS/2s with a CCD camara using off-the-shelf equipment six years before you couldn't just "go buy a router."

Schit I forgot. That was the other fun bit. We had to make everything work with VAX too. My boss and I were the only 2 people who knew PC and TCP/IP in the entire division. Every day we had to fight on two fronts: the scientists/applied engineers with their stupid F'ing macs, the operations people with their "never say die" vax nonsense, as well as our own department who were all vax programmers/techs. Meanwhile, we had the salespeople screaming for Stinkpads and the line engineers talking "orders of magnitude" of losses for every day we didn't drop a brand new PC on their desks...that could talk to the macs and the vax.

 

That's probably why I forgot. Post traumatic stress.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

I'm going back to Off the Wall now...

I can't decide who contributed less to this thread, you, or not-Crayonz. And believe me, that is a rare occurrence.

 

I have it: why don't you take not-Crayonz with you and keep him at OTW? I'm sure you guys could be just as...witty there as you have been in this thread. Oh, the whimsical times you will have.

 

It has the added benefit of saving us from our weekly reminder of what has become of a once-awesome handle here.

Edited February 10, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[snafu]

I can't decide who contributed less to this thread, you, or not-Crayonz. And believe me, that is a rare occurrence.

 

I have it: why don't you take not-Crayonz with you and keep him at OTW? I'm sure you guys could be just as...witty there as you have been in this thread. Oh, the whimsical times you will have.

 

It has the added benefit of saving us from our weekly reminder of what has become of a once-awesome handle here.

 

Every post is a contribution, jackass. Even yours.

You can wipe your ass with my contributions and I'll continue to wipe my ass with yours.

[OCinBuffalo]

i am years behind most everyone here when it comes to understanding many things on this forum. I still have fun here and stir the pot, but its amazing that someone like OC who has knowledge of the topic can be so shortsighted and obtuse. While free markets and capitalism are great things but neutrality is an entirely different beast that is lost on everyone.

 

I'm sorry, is there something obtuse about Obama handing Google et al a government-provided Get Out of Jail Always card when it comes to writing crappy software, that slows down the entire internet, and me calling BS?

 

Is there something obtuse about removing a giant cost incentive, bandwidth consumption, from Google's business model, and in so doing, allowing them to get away with adding tons of unnecessary browser callbacks(literally means Http requests coming from your browser, not them, so you "use" the bandwidth, not them)? You want a definition of obtuse: giving huge companies whose "gas" was regulated by market price...unlimited use of "gas", so they can slow things down as much as they want(for GregF: using software, not hardware), and turn around and charge you to speed them up again...because "premium membership".

 

I'll try this a different way:

Is Netflix one day soon offering said premium membership for 2x the $, for the "new"(old) service, because they "break" the old service on purpose...too obtuse for you to consider? Or is it merely too abstract for you to consider?They can chew up the bandwidth to do that, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop them under Net Neutrality. Since we all love talking about packets so much, lets use them: what's to stop netflix from sending you ads in the middle of your movie(extra packets), or, only one real packet followed by 2 null ones(extra packets) to slow you down just enough to not quit them, but enough to make you shell out for the "fast" version? They don't have to pay for the extra packets. Oh nooooes! That would be evil. No, you and everybody else has to pay, because all these useless packets are being generated by Netflix without cost considerations, and not even GregF's infallible switches can exceed their design parameters. More **** down the tube slows down the tube. It's f'ing physics for god's sake.

 

Look: either you don't understand, or, you don't want to understand.

 

Short-sighted? What I am talking about is perhaps more forward-looking that you can probably handle right now, because, as you said, you don't know much. That's fine. But, don't confuse something that is necessarily abstract, with something that is obtuse. And, as I'm writing I'm thinking hell "I could put this into terms of farm subsidies"...if that will help.

 

Finally, after all of the Big Government Massive F Ups in the last 10 years, why in the sam hell would you think they got this one right? That's obtuse. We have no (EDIT: current) way of measuring "forced" bandwidth consumption via software douchebaggery, and there are very few places where you will find this massive unintended consequence addressed by anyone. It sure as hell isn't addressed in the current regulations.

 

It's not even considered.

 

That's because most of the people, in this thread and everywhere else, either have a selfish agenda going in and don't care, or, they don't have the capacity, or, they don't the "bandwidth" to consider this.

Edited February 10, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[boyst]

I'm sorry, is there something obtuse about Obama handing Google et al a government-provided Get Out of Jail Always card when it comes to writing crappy software, that slows down the entire internet, and me calling BS?

 

Is there something obtuse about removing a giant cost incentive, bandwidth consumption, from Google's business model, and in so doing, allowing them to get away with adding tons of unnecessary browser callbacks(literally means Http requests coming from your browser, not them, so you "use" the bandwidth, not them)? You want a definition of obtuse: giving huge companies whose "gas" was regulated by market price...unlimited use of "gas", so they can slow things down as much as they want(for GregF: using software, not hardware), and turn around and charge you to speed them up again...because "premium membership".

 

I'll try this a different way:

Is Netflix one day soon offering said premium membership for 2x the $, for the "new"(old) service, because they they "break" the old service on purpose...too obtuse for you to consider? Or is it merely too abstract for you to consider?They can chew up the bandwidth to do that, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop them under Net Neutrality. Since we all love talking about packets so much, lets use them: what's to stop netflix from sending you ads in the middle of your movie(extra packets), or, only one real packet followed by 2 null ones(extra packets) to slow you down just enough to not quit them, but enough to make you shell out for the "fast" version? They don't have to pay for the extra packets. Oh nooooes! That would be evil. No, you and everybody else has to pay, because all these useless packets are being generated by Netflix without cost considerations, and not even GregF's infallible switches can exceed their design parameters. More **** down the tube slows down the tube. It's f'ing physics for god's sake.

 

Look: either you don't understand, or, you don't want to understand.

 

Short-sighted? What I am talking about is perhaps more forward-looking that you can probably handle right now, because, as you said, you don't know much. That's fine. But, don't confuse something that is necessarily abstract, with something that is obtuse. And, as I'm writing I'm thinking hell "I could put this into terms of farm subsidies"...if that will help.

 

Finally, after all of the Big Government Massive F Ups in the last 10 years, why in the sam hell would you think they got this one right? That's obtuse. We have no way of measuring "forced" bandwidth consumption via software douchebaggery, and there are very few places where you will find this massive unintended consequence addressed by anyone. It sure as hell isn't addressed in the current regulations.

 

It's not even considered.

 

That's because most of the people, in this thread and everywhere else, either have a selfish agenda going in and don't care, or, they don't have the capacity, or, they don't the "bandwidth" to consider this.

that is a loooottttt of words and way too many typos. calm down take a breath and try again, sweetie.

 

i know you have a point to make but that is some exiled stuff right there.

 

edit. i wanted really cute emogis too.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Boyst62

[OCinBuffalo]

Every post is a contribution, jackass. Even yours.

You can wipe your ass with my contributions and I'll continue to wipe my ass with yours.

Oh, no whimsy? Strike a nerve did we?

 

How quaint. Run along back to OTW. Here we don't tolerate idiocy, just ask Tom.

that is a loooottttt of words and way too many typos. calm down take a breath and try again, sweetie.

 

i know you have a point to make but that is some exiled stuff right there.

 

edit. i wanted really cute emogis too.

Ah, so your answer is: too abstract.

 

Fine. In a few years this will become clear as water to you. I can't speed it up for you. All I can do is try putting into terms you might understand, like I said: perhaps farm subsidies?

[boyst]

Oh, no whimsy? Strike a nerve did we?

 

How quaint. Run along back to OTW. Here we don't tolerate idiocy, just ask Tom.

Ah, so your answer is: too abstract.

 

Fine. In a few years this will become clear as water to you. I can't speed it up for you. All I can do is try putting into terms you might understand, like I said: perhaps farm subsidies?

I'm not a proponent of net neutrality, brah. I'm not ready for it yet

You know how I know businesses are still behind on the internet game? It took until 4 yrs ago for someone to figure out live naked girls on webcam = big money. And that since the day after Hore made the intertubes everything was now free i still have songs from Napster, kazaa and so many other archaic forms. All of this because as of now and as of the next 3-4 years, especially with Trump, businesses won't be able to maximize revenues from interneting. There is no way the government is ready tomtackle it if bug business can't yet.

 

But in time we will need legislation for what was once the wild west. Where the silk road could have me a kilo of coke in 10 hours. Where a prostitute of any age or sex could be here in an hour. Where I could order a stollen iPhone for $20. Where all of this still goes on today we just brush it up and forget the darknet

Edited February 10, 2017 by Boyst62

[Greg F]

We've already established above that you think switches do things they don't do. All you've done in both subsequent posts above is backtrack....and go googling for things to try and play CYA.

Back from you butt hurt. What has been established is you don't have a clue past the $50 home router you have. Even that is doubtful.

 

I'm not gonna waste bits tracking and reply to your entire backpedal. I am going to pick out some of the dumber things you said. for their humor value:

 

1. This all started because you said "there is no server"(or routers). Switches do everything. Now you are linking to a vid about a DNS SERVER? So, what, did you think we forgot? Post 1000 links: You're not walking this idiocy back.

Since you seem to lack even the most basic cognitive skill I will have to remind you what that was in response to:

 

"Could it be that overages in the lower bandwidth ranges, or giving people more than they paid for, is...because it's cheaper to clear those requests off of a server than to hold them up?"

 

What you clearly don't understand is the network determines the bandwidth or speed. A network is composed of switches/routers. DNS servers are irrelevant. DNS requests will constitute significantly less than 1% of your network traffic. Average web page is around 1MB, DNS request to get the address is under 1kB.

 

2. Unequivocally? All you have unequivocally shown is that you can do what I told to you do, literally: "google DNS Server". You proven again that you still don't understand how things actually work. You can coordinate some of the key words into sentences. But coordination is not the same thing as command.

Sheesh ... a lot of words with no meaning.

 

3. For example: DNS's DO NOT do what you say they do. Jesus. The word DOMAIN is in the name of thing. What is a domain? Or, let's use your example: http://www.google.com. Using that, please define domain.

Go watch the video again. You may have to rinse and repeat so that it sinks in.

 

4. Yes, what a surprise that your own 3 (internal) DNS severs, aren't publicly facing. This, right here, shows it all in a nutshell. How the hell does a DNS server do what it does, if the "public" can't access it? How do we get to http://www.google.com, if by your own, albeit shoddy definition above, a DNS doesn't send us there?

 

My DNS servers are not public facing because I don't want the public accessing them. They are for the clients on our internal private network only. That crappy little router you use to connect to the Internet also has a DNS server built in that isn't public facing. Don't believe me? Check your IP settings. The DNS server will be your crappy little routers address. The only requests that can be sent to your crappy little routers DNS server have to come from you internal private network. IOW, the DNS server in your crappy little router is not public facing. To understand how you get to google.com watch the video again.

 

None of this yap contradicts my original statements:

a.) Clearing traffic off of ALL (DNS) servers, in general, but specifically off servers responsible for propagation/maintenance of address is literally in everybody's best interest.

 

b.) The notion that somebody would intentionally slow that activity down, NO MATTER WHAT, and especially regarding who paid for what. is buffoonery.

 

The bottle neck is the network, not the ability of DNS to resolve your requests.

 

4. "Routers don't assign addresses" Wait: you can't seem to make up your mind, do these various terms you throw around actually combine more than one thing,or don't they? Find me a DHCP-only, "commercial" appliance. I wanna buy one(you can't). No: we call them Routers, because we have for a very long time, and one of things they can do is DHCP. Go ahead and use my link(Cisco) and find me a DHCP machine, since...according to you: " In the commercial world these functions are not usually combined in one box".

 

Yeah, and Cisco hasn't been doing exactly that, and getting into the software business because of it, for the last 10 years. Make up your mind. You carelessly explain that DNS servers are combined with...stuff...when they aren't, AND, tell me that DHCP is sold separately?

Any server (Windows, Linux, Solaris) can be setup as a DNS or DHCP server.

 

How to setup Linux DNS server.

Configuring a Basic DNS Server + Client in Solaris 11

Windows DNS Server Configuration

 

Note: In Windows DNS is usually integrated with Active Directory although DNS can be installed as a stand alone service.

 

All the above can also be setup as DHCP servers.

 

Windows Server DHCP

Solaris DHCP Setup

Linux DHCP Setup

 

Once again you prove your ignorance claiming a "DHCP-only" doesn't exist when it clearly does. Your crappy little router is just a combination router/switch/DNS/DHCP/NAT firewall box with limited functionality. For example, your crappy little router lacks the flexibility to configure almost all of the possible DHCP scope options but is simple enough for even you to setup.

 

5. In ALL cases: a switch STILL doesn't do everything, and it never will, no matter how much buffer it has. There will ALWAYS be something called a DNS server, and always be something called a router, and it will NEVER make sense to combine their functionality into a mere switch. And yeah, if CISCO ever does that? I WILL know better than them, because I already know better right now.

 

Go ahead and prattle on. The fact remains that you said "there is no server"...when servers, of all sorts, ARE the internet.

Despite showing you previously that DNS doesn't work like you think it does. That routers are not DHCP servers just because you happen to have one in that crappy little box of yours. Nor did I say a switch does everything. The fact is Cisco, as well as every other switch manufacturer, makes Layer 3 switches (usually called edge switches). Layer 3 switches have routing tables so technically they are routers cost determining how extensive the routing tables can be configured.

 

Finally, it makes sense to combine DNS, router, DHCP, a switch, and NAT (sometimes wireless) into one box for consumer uses as there is no chance that someone like OC could possibly understand how any of it works.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm not a proponent of net neutrality, brah. I'm not ready for it yet

You know how I know businesses are still behind on the internet game? It took until 4 yrs ago for someone to figure out live naked girls on webcam = big money. And that since the day after Hore made the intertubes everything was now free i still have songs from Napster, kazaa and so many other archaic forms. All of this because as of now and as of the next 3-4 years, especially with Trump, businesses won't be able to maximize revenues from interneting. There is no way the government is ready tomtackle it if bug business can't yet.

 

But in time we will need legislation for what was once the wild west. Where the silk road could have me a kilo of coke in 10 hours. Where a prostitute of any age or sex could be here in an hour. Where I could order a stollen iPhone for $20. Where all of this still goes on today we just brush it up and forget the darknet

Just remember one thing and you'll be fine:

 

At it's most embryonic stage, the internet was designed to withstand a nuclear attack. Thus, decentralization is in its genes. Government, by definition, or at least by Democratic definition, seeks to centralize all . And, by the way, so do a lot of corporations. This is why, as I've said at least 100 times on this board regarding ALL the attempts to control/tax;/regulate the internet: "It will never work". Why? Because design...is design.

 

Big Business can't succeed for the same reason Government will never succeed: you can't override a fundamental design tenet. The code is the code. Period.

[OCinBuffalo]

Back from you butt hurt. What has been established is you don't have a clue past the $50 home router you have. Even that is doubtful.

 

Since you seem to lack even the most basic cognitive skill I will have to remind you what that was in response to:

 

"Could it be that overages in the lower bandwidth ranges, or giving people more than they paid for, is...because it's cheaper to clear those requests off of a server than to hold them up?"

 

What you clearly don't understand is the network determines the bandwidth or speed. A network is composed of switches/routers. DNS servers are irrelevant. DNS requests will constitute significantly less than 1% of your network traffic. Average web page is around 1MB, DNS request to get the address is under 1kB.

 

Sheesh ... a lot of words with no meaning.

 

Go watch the video again. You may have to rinse and repeat so that it sinks in.

 

 

My DNS servers are not public facing because I don't want the public accessing them. They are for the clients on our internal private network only. That crappy little router you use to connect to the Internet also has a DNS server built in that isn't public facing. Don't believe me? Check your IP settings. The DNS server will be your crappy little routers address. The only requests that can be sent to your crappy little routers DNS server have to come from you internal private network. IOW, the DNS server in your crappy little router is not public facing. To understand how you get to google.com watch the video again.

 

 

The bottle neck is the network, not the ability of DNS to resolve your requests.

 

Any server (Windows, Linux, Solaris) can be setup as a DNS or DHCP server.

 

How to setup Linux DNS server.

Configuring a Basic DNS Server + Client in Solaris 11

Windows DNS Server Configuration

 

Note: In Windows DNS is usually integrated with Active Directory although DNS can be installed as a stand alone service.

 

All the above can also be setup as DHCP servers.

 

Windows Server DHCP

Solaris DHCP Setup

Linux DHCP Setup

 

Once again you prove your ignorance claiming a "DHCP-only" doesn't exist when it clearly does. Your crappy little router is just a combination router/switch/DNS/DHCP/NAT firewall box with limited functionality. For example, your crappy little router lacks the flexibility to configure almost all of the possible DHCP scope options but is simple enough for even you to setup.

 

Despite showing you previously that DNS doesn't work like you think it does. That routers are not DHCP servers just because you happen to have one in that crappy little box of yours. Nor did I say a switch does everything. The fact is Cisco, as well as every other switch manufacturer, makes Layer 3 switches (usually called edge switches). Layer 3 switches have routing tables so technically they are routers cost determining how extensive the routing tables can be configured.

 

Finally, it makes sense to combine DNS, router, DHCP, a switch, and NAT (sometimes wireless) into one box for consumer uses as there is no chance that someone like OC could possibly understand how any of it works.

I'm not replying to any of this until you convince me of 1 thing:

 

That you actually understand what a domain is. I don't want to hear another word until you show at least decent proficiency. I gave you a URL. Take that, or any URL, and explain domain. Until you do, the rest of what you have written is pointless, because, quite simply, if you don't understand what a domain is: I can't even begin to explain your errors to you.

 

Also, you might want to check the link I provided: from Cisco. I assure you there are no $50 routers there. This is hilarious: the total value of the equipment I've bought from Cisco for projects over the years is I'd guess around 10-15x your lifetime net worth. I've gotten to know many Cisco, and F5, and Dell people over the years, but yeah, you're probably right: I can't see past my home router.

 

So, that's why I say: explain domain. Do it now, or stop wasting bits.

[Benjamin Franklin]

The troll is back. Yay.

[GG]

I'm not replying to any of this until you convince me of 1 thing:

 

That you actually understand what a domain is. I don't want to hear another word until you show at least decent proficiency. I gave you a URL. Take that, or any URL, and explain domain. Until you do, the rest of what you have written is pointless, because, quite simply, if you don't understand what a domain is: I can't even begin to explain your errors to you.

 

Also, you might want to check the link I provided: from Cisco. I assure you there are no $50 routers there. This is hilarious: the total value of the equipment I've bought from Cisco for projects over the years is I'd guess around 10-15x your lifetime net worth. I've gotten to know many Cisco, and F5, and Dell people over the years, but yeah, you're probably right: I can't see past my home router.

 

So, that's why I say: explain domain. Do it now, or stop wasting bits.

 

This has ZERO, ZERO (Did I say ZERO?) effect on network speeds or available bandwidth.

 

But carry on with the charade.

[snafu]

Oh, no whimsy? Strike a nerve did we?

 

How quaint. Run along back to OTW. Here we don't tolerate idiocy, just ask Tom.

Ah, so your answer is: too abstract.

 

Fine. In a few years this will become clear as water to you. I can't speed it up for you. All I can do is try putting into terms you might understand, like I said: perhaps farm subsidies?

You (plural?) touched a nerve a long time ago. It would be dishonest of me to say otherwise. I started with humor a few pages back but you obviously don't understand humor or irony or sarcasm (and I''m the one who's stupid) or why I come to TSW or PPP or OTW. That's okay, maybe you will figure it out someday. I am thankfully not like you -- thank God almost nobody is like you.

[4merper4mer]

 

This has ZERO, ZERO (Did I say ZERO?) effect on network speeds or available bandwidth.

 

But carry on with the charade.

Short version: Welcome to the group of dummies

 

Next up: 14 pages of blather from OC explaining in a poorly communicated and incorrect way how you don't understand anything because he was an uber programmer in High School and he has purchased a lot of Cisco equipment....or something.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 4merper4mer