You know we're about to have a bad time when the highly tech savy crowd on HackerNews is left asking "what does this mean?" All over the comments in the thread...
ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
31–40 of 161 posts
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is DPI related to needing more bandwidth needed per base station or residential area?
Bandwidth is the measure of data over time. DPI is a process which inspects each piece of data and that takes time. Therefore, the bandwidth will decrease.
Latency != bandwidth. Also, one goal of DPI is to enable granular QoS policy. So the total bandwidth available would stay the same, but the bandwidth available to each app would vary depending on network conditions and the will of the network operator.
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is DPI related to needing more bandwidth needed per base station or residential area?
I think he is referring to the fact that significant CPU resources are required for DPI and if the DPI can't keep up, things will slow down.
I think you're underestimating the limit to how fast DPI is or can get. The computations aren't complicated and like many kinds of algorithms you can trade space with time.
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#34I think it is a good time to start incorporating DJB's NaCl into ... everything. And also run HTTP Everywhere in the meantime. And set up opportunistic IPSEC. Sad day. On a related note, I suggest we stop calling the heads of state and bureaucratic organizations like the UN "Leaders" and starting referring to them by their real self appointed role, "Rulers". Language shapes perception, and we've been using the wrong…
> Language shapes perception Isn't this an argument to to continue using the term "leaders"? Surely calling them "rulers" would, under your logic, push them further towards "rulership"?
[deleted]
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#35The hardest thing for me to understand is how every telco can complain of congestion, but they're perfectly willing to introduce unnecessary overhead for DPI. This is not a good day, not a good day at all.
Perhaps they are of the opinion that DPI will better-enable them to apply QoS rules, resulting in a net improvement in perceived performance?
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#36I think it is a good time to start incorporating DJB's NaCl into ... everything. And also run HTTP Everywhere in the meantime. And set up opportunistic IPSEC. Sad day. On a related note, I suggest we stop calling the heads of state and bureaucratic organizations like the UN "Leaders" and starting referring to them by their real self appointed role, "Rulers". Language shapes perception, and we've been using the wrong…
> Language shapes perception Isn't this an argument to to continue using the term "leaders"? Surely calling them "rulers" would, under your logic, push them further towards "rulership"?
Seriously, though, who are these people? I mean, how can I get a cushy gig like that?
You have to wonder about them as individuals, right? What path has their lives taken that they step into a room make a horrible decision like this and not retch. Is it a perverse sense of superiority over the people who are left out from the decision-making? Is it a complete lack of personality and individual thought? Or is it just an attempt to climb one more rung up the ladder, maybe move into that slightly nicer home in McClean or DuPont Circle?
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#37I think it is a good time to start incorporating DJB's NaCl into ... everything. And also run HTTP Everywhere in the meantime. And set up opportunistic IPSEC. Sad day. On a related note, I suggest we stop calling the heads of state and bureaucratic organizations like the UN "Leaders" and starting referring to them by their real self appointed role, "Rulers". Language shapes perception, and we've been using the wrong…
> Language shapes perception Isn't this an argument to to continue using the term "leaders"? Surely calling them "rulers" would, under your logic, push them further towards "rulership"?
The argument is that they need no push, they act that way already. It's everybody else who needs to recognize them for what they are.
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#38And of course you can't even read what they approved, because this extra-governmental body inexplicably restricts the text of their decisions to a nebulous list of "TIES users". Fucking awful.
The technical PDF is here (I shortened it because it was a long Google link): http://bit.ly/Yx0Sya
Non-Google version: http://committee.tta.or.kr/include/Download.jsp?filename=cho...
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#39 What is the big deal?
Re: ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection Recommendation
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Language shapes perception Isn't this an argument to to continue using the term "leaders"? Surely calling them "rulers" would, under your logic, push them further towards "rulership"?
Seriously, though, who are these people? I mean, how can I get a cushy gig like that? You have to wonder about them as individuals, right? What path has their lives taken that they step into a room make a horrible decision like this and not retch. Is it a perverse sense of superiority over the people who are left out from the decision-making? Is it a complete lack of personality and individual thought? Or is it just…
From what I've experienced (as someone who occasionally rubbed elbows with such UN technocrats when I worked in international health), it's your last path that rules their lives. They are almost without exception climbers, both social and professional, much more anxious to climb the next step on the ladder than actually to build or change something for the better. Often, they start out idealistic and slowly change into jaded climbers. It's an outlook on life that would be foreign to many people here.
Edit: grammar