From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V12 #115 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Saturday, May 6 2006 Volume 12 : Number 115 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Happy & Bob [Nichols ] Re: Happy & Bob ["Xenu's Sister" ] Re: CONGRATULATIONS TO HAPPY! (Take 2) [wojizzle forizzle ] Re: Net Neutrality law? [Ken Descoteaux ] Freakonomics takes note of Jane Siberry's way of selling music [Michael C] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 07:29:03 -0400 From: Nichols Subject: Re: Happy & Bob Happy and Bob will be getting married this Sunday, May 7. They have already left for Florida. Merry Beltane! Sharon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 05:23:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Xenu's Sister" Subject: Re: Happy & Bob Whooops! I didn't have the exact date. I thought it was sooner than it was. Thanks Sharon! V - --- Nichols wrote: > Happy and Bob will be getting married this Sunday, May 7. They > have already left > for Florida. Merry Beltane! Sharon > - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Music, all I hear is music, guaranteed to please... Happy's MySpace profile: http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodes Happy Rhodes song samples and rarities: http://wretchawry.com - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:00:52 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: CONGRATULATIONS TO HAPPY! (Take 2) one time at band camp, Xenu's Sister said: > As far as I know, there were no hurricanes, earthquakes, > tsunamis, typhoons, cyclones or other wedding-interuppting > natural events in south Florida in the past few days, so I think > I can say, Happy and Bob are almost certainly probably now > married! yippee! *breaks out the champagne* woj n.p. thomas dolby -- 2006-04-15 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 20:58:13 -0400 From: Ken Descoteaux Subject: Re: Net Neutrality law? robert bristow-johnson wrote: >i'm not sure exactly what is different in the proposed legislation compared to the status quo. i am sure that the servers that host ecto or smoe do not have the net bandwidth that the servers that host amazon or google. and the reason is money. a commercial venture on the internet cannot afford to have customers wait too long for their clicks to respond. a vendor with a large customer base must have more bandwidth to the internet backbone than a vendor with a smaller customer base. that bigger bandwidth cost more but is paid for because of bigger sales volume. > > You have to think about the future. The Telcos are getting in position for Video on demand over IP, and for that matter, its another way to try to pre-empt Vonage's VOIP services. Today almost everything is still "Best Effort" but DiffServ and things like it were standardized years ago. DiffServ is a way to create an express lane for low-latency low-jitter traffic (like VOIP and interactive Video) but suffers from low deployment mostly because the Telcos haven't figured out how to pay for it. The only way it'll work is to limit access to the service much like a highway with ramps every 1/4 mile gets bogged down easily. Here's the thing, the Telcos want to use the express lane for their OWN traffic, their own Video servers, their own Music stores, their own e-commerce sites. To wrestle money away from the incumbents by making them pay for access. Even if they didn't want to run their own sites, it's still a bad idea, look at the Mass Turnpike: No potholes anywhere, repaved every couple of years... why? Because they raise the tolls to pay to keep the road crews busy. Now look at the other major highways in Mass, they are in much worse condition because they costs can't be immediately recovered. That's what'll happen to the "Best Effort" traffic. Why invest in improving that network when you can't easily recover the expense? The Telcos have made noises like "Amazon gets a free ride, they haven't paid for all their bits and bytes to be delivered." Which is when you should slap them with a cluestick and say "*I* paid for that traffic. *I* asked for it. Shut up and deliver it!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:19:17 -0400 From: Michael Curry Subject: Freakonomics takes note of Jane Siberry's way of selling music How Is a Canadian Art-Pop Singer Like a Bagel Salesman? http://tinyurl.com/pshpb ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V12 #115 ***************************