I've done something pretty similar with an Adafruit Macropad, Karabiner Elements (and Zoom's global hotkey support), hass-cli, and a few esphome-loaded ESP32 devices. Physical audio/video mute, raise hand, lights, speaker/headphone switch, and screen lock buttons are wonderful.
I just wound up using translucent ones which came with them, with the LEDs set to solid colors to group functionality together, and a legend on the display. Zoom keys blue, lights yellow, etc.
I had an XKeys strip for a previous iteration, which included similar keycaps. My hand-written labels were ugly, so I skipped them this time around.
After the EMV liability shift date (October 2015), the fraud liability for a card-present, non-EMV transaction falls on the party which was noncompliant, the issuer or the merchant. Hopefully this will be a significant driver of EMV adoption by both issuers and merchants.
Comcast simultaneously claims that some of their own VoD services -- services delivered via your cable modem, through your router and home wifi network -- don't count, because they're part of your cable service, not the internet, so they're allowed to treat them differently.
I thought the VoD services were implemented by having a bunch of HD channels reserved as VoD stations. Then when you order something, the system tells your cable box to change to X channel, where the VoD stream plays. So it's not actually using the same system as your internet service.
The alternative is for Comcast to buy enough transit to receive those bits from Netflix. I'm sure Netflix would be happy enough to deliver those bits to Comcast via transit, if enough capacity was available.
Shouldn't Comcast be required to purchase enough capacity to provide high-quality service to their residential customers? SFI between a content provider and an eyeball network should be a mutually beneficial cost reduction, but Comcast has enough market power (captive broadband subs) that they can get away with intentionally not buying enough capacity to serve their customers.
Comcast does transit with many peers, but Netflix doesn't do business with any of them because they want to lower their own costs by cutting out the middlemen.
A peering agreement is free when both sides are accepting traffic for the others, but that's not what is happening in this case. Netflix -> Comcast is one way.
Still waiting for an answer to my previous question, should Comcast delivery my personal website to their customers for free?
Netflix never attempted to directly send data one-way to Comcast for free. It paid tens of millions of dollars a year to a transit provider, Cogent, that has a peering agreement with Comcast. It only stopped paying Cogent and started paying Comcast (an estimated $25-50M/year) after Comcast refused to provide adequate connectivity between its customers and Cogent for months, despite their links being maxed out at peak hours. Netflix was becoming a casualty of a long-term contract dispute between Comcast and Cogent over peering fees. Comcast was being greedy, trying to get paid twice for the service its customers already pay it to provide.
Cogent is the bottom of the barrel transit provider. You use Cogent when you have a lot of bits to push and don't particularly care if they're going to get there (seriously, Cogent has like 25% packet loss at peak times.) Most companies use Cogent for overflow; i.e. they purchase enough transit through other providers for 80-90% of peak load, then fill out the rest with Cogent. It's not that Cogent is a terrible company or anything; they just provide an inferior product at an appropriate price point. Cogent wasn't interested in paying Comcast for better service because quality of service is not the product that Cogent provides. Their business model is to take advantage of their free peering status to sell unreliable transit at rock-bottom prices. Again; it's not evil or anything, but when you use Cogent that has to be what you expect.
But Netflix was using them for almost 100% of their traffic delivery. That's insane. There are other transit providers they could have paid more to and gotten better service, but that would have meant higher costs.
The whole irony of this situation is that I've heard rumors that Netflix is paying less per gigabit to Comcast than they paid Cogent while getting better service than they would get from a top-tier provider. If that's true, other companies will be lining up to get a similar deal because they'd just be cutting out the middlemen.
Netflix is attempted to send one-way data right now. That's what their whole campaign is about, shifting their costs onto everyone else. They don't want to go back to paying Cogent, that was much more expensive.
Where are you getting this info that Netflix didn't want to pay Cogent and Level3?
It seems like Comcast entered a shitty peering arrangement with Cogent and decided not to upgrade the interconnect links in retaliation. Netflix gets caught in the crossfire and ends up having to pay Comcast directly to avoid a few million angry customers. Is there any transit provider that Netflix could have gone with that has enough interconnects with the Comcast network? If not, Netflix is forced to pay whatever price Comcast names for their customers to receive adequate video streams.
This is kind of off-topic, but I don't know where else to ask.
Have we seriously entertained using "OSS" licenses that would prevent NSA & co. from using them?
I know Douglas Crockford has his "don't be evil" JSON license that got everybody's knickers in a twist. And I know OSI has a nice page on why field of use restrictions are bad.
However... I wonder if these pre-Snowden viewpoints credibly consider an organization that uses the software community's tools to conduct targeted attacks on that community. I mean, these documents suggest a much scarier attack on software developers than, say, putting the Linux kernel in a TiVo or whatever they changed in the GPLv3.
On the other hand, maybe FOU restrictions are still bad on principle. What do you all think?
This is an amusing suggestion... do you really think the people who are bugging just about every line of communication in existence and subverting every possible method of secure communication and storage give two shits about the terms of software licenses?
In the US, sovereign immunity doesn't exempt the federal government or its employees from criminal prosecution, and there are statutes on the books that explicitly waive immunity for civil cases that arise as a result of contract disputes (among other things).
Suppose you wrote MediaWiki, by yourself, and thus had the authority to change its license. Further suppose you did so, adding in restrictions like you mentioned that forbid the NSA from using it.
Now, assume you found out, via a leak of some of these classified documents, that they were using it -- in violation of your license -- and you decided to sue.
Having seen some of the excuses they've come up with before (and assuming that you have as well, which seems like a reasonable assumption), why wouldn't they simply argue that the software applications they use internally are classified, that disclosure of such would be detrimental to national security, and, because of that, your case should be thrown out (like they have argued so many other times)?
The only juche I know of is the north korean one[1], guessing this is just a random joke, just wanted to ask in case there's an alternate meaning I'm missing?
hahaha, I hadn't heard that. Sounds quite funny actually, definitely feels like an NSA worker wearing an EFF t-shirt would have to understand the irony of their situation.
Assume Comcast has about 10 Tbps of traffic at peak, single-counting all traffic that transits AS 7922 (Comcast's national backbone network). [1] Now assume that a full 50% of that traffic is originated by Netflix, and the market price for transit is $2/mbps. The percentage is likely quite lower than that, and given 5 Tbps of traffic volume and coordination between the two networks to reduce the number of miles the bits need to be hauled by both networks, the per-megabit price is almost certainly quite a bit less.
But even with these obviously flawed guesses, we're only talking about $120mm/year in costs. Netflix's worldwide revenue in 2013 was $4.3b [2]; Comcast's 2013 revenue from their US HSI business alone was $10.3b. [3] If 50% of Comcast's $10.3b business was in jeopardy, don't you think they'd find a way to absorb that $120mm?
I don't think so. It's multiple direct 10GE ports. Given the traffic volume the two networks exchange, there's no way it would be economical to move these bits over a public peering exchange (which Comcast doesn't participate in in the first place).
Even so, if it were in fact going via the IX, you'd see Netflix's IP from the exchange (206.223.116.133) as hop 8 in the traceroute.
Am I understanding this right? If I am an ISP, I can request a Netflix appliance and serve customer requests for netflix content from this appliance directly?
