From this month's GQ.
The things I am interested in. Not all of them. Just the one's top of mind now. And now. And ... oh, look a bird!
![]() |
| From theCoolist.com (c) Johan Rosenmunthe |

"My next door neighbour gets up on an average Saturday morning. No different than you or me, he has breakfast with his wife and kids, he brushes his teeth, combs his hair, and gets dressed. He puts on his underwear first, then his socks. He pulls on a T-shirt and a comfortable pair of jeans. Lastly he dons an Oakland A's jersey and cap. The name written on the shirt is 'Bowen,' their catcher.Why does that second story sound so much more normal? But none of those men were 'Bowen,' 'Sundin,' or 'Kazmir.' They weren't even close. They were middle-aged fathers wearing the sports jerseys of their heroes, of guys they think are cool. Maybe they are guys whose lives they'd kinda like to live.
He calls to the kids, "C'mon guys, we're going to the mall." The family piles into the car and off they go. At the mall they shop for a while, then have lunch. At the mall he sees a couple of other guys. One has a Toronto Maple Leafs shirt on with 'Sundin' written across his back. The other guy is wearing a Tampa Bay Rays shirt and matching cap. His name on the shirt says 'Kazmir.' They don't notice each other. Later, they all go home. What a great Saturday."

I've been following the net neutrality issue with a keen eye.
I'm not a FileSharer; I don't use P2P. I haven't even taken a position on the subject. I can see pros and cons to the matter. I suppose, if you were to press me, I believe that the buyer of content has rights just as the seller/creator; and I subscribe to a fair use policy (let me buy it, let me make personal copies, don't let me resell anything nor redistribute on a mass scale).
But that's neither here nor there.
I am developing a growing concern over the long-term impact recent regulatory incursions by ISPs and government bodies will have over the future of the Internet; particularly with respect to traffic shaping as it leads to content control.
Today, the net neutrality debate surrounds the rights of ISPs to shape their traffic when they see congestion. Makes sense so far. Using a variety of diagnostics and statistics , they claim that P2P networks are taking a disproportionately large amount of bandwidth versus the number of users and that the ISP's networks can't cope with all that and still deliver useful bandwidth to its customers.
I'm not going to try and cover the details of the issue; they are complex and lengthy and you can read all about it here.
What I find concerning are three things that the debate has uncovered.
First, in its response to a complaint over traffic shaping, filed with the CRTC by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), Bell Canada responded:
"The introduction of traffic shaping was a necessary measure to manage investments in the network to address the congestion at peak periods. Since traffic shaping has been introduced, Bell Canada has observed that non-P2P traffic has significantly increased during peak periods. This increase is likely the result of two main events: 1) other non-P2P types of traffic such as streaming are growing at a faster pace than in prior years; and 2) non-P2P traffic is now able to use up and flow more freely using the bandwidth previously occupied by P2P traffic."
Bell Canada has a congestion problem regardless of the source of traffic!! P2P was easy to pick out and pick off, but its bandwidth consumption has now replaced and is being consumed by "other non-P2P types of traffic such as streaming ..."
So to follow Bell Canada's logic, if P2P bandwidth consumption led to a need for proactive net management, and now in its place 'streaming' content is filling the same bandwidth, then they will need to start traffic shaping everything; all sources of bandwidth consumption will need to be managed directly until they get to -- what? No consumption??
My second concern stems from the same CRTC submission. Bell Canada provides two charts, a consumption chart and a bandwidth chart.
The first chart below illustrates the growth of traffic (in Gigabits per second) in various parts of Bell Canada's network for the years 2004 to 2008 while the second chart illustrates the growth of capacity in the network for the same period.
Uhmmm. I'm seeing 125 G/bits of demand versus about 420 G/bits of DSLAM capacity. Is that what you're seeing?
In response to the obvious Bell Canada adds some confusion: "Although capacity is shown to be at all times above the total traffic demand, these figures can be misleading since they are simply averages of traffic measured at specific moments in time and are not able to reflect the peak traffic usage every day."
Huh? Those charts show there is about 295 G/bits of unused bandwidth - or about 2.4x more available headroom. How much freaking stuff were the FileSharers supposedly downloading??? I am more inclined to believe this story is about network mismanagement.
Lastly, it seems my idle concerns weren't big enough. On this website my petty Libertarian fears get wrapped up and injected with steroids. When I consider the theories posed by these European activists, who claim traffic shaping is the thin edge of the wedge, I get all wobbly and start mumbling. Their unnamed 'sources' claim that the new model for the Internet (due by 2012) is the old model for television programming: with advanced traffic shaping, your Internet service with come like cable TV channel packages.
"$29.95 for HighSpeed that includes CNN.com, ABC.com, and YouTube. Add another 5 websites for just $4.99"
While I don't think this is the plan -- yet -- I do think it could happen and by granting ISPs the right to manage not the data but rather the content based on its type and source, that would be a first dangerous step in that very bad direction. Imagine how shitty that would be!!!
I'm just saying ...
Last weekend, I won the privilege to see the band in "concert" - a private 2-hour set so they could record their soon-to-be- released new album, Beyond the Horizon, for a North American TV show profiling new bands.
against "If you Talk to Much," the new album rocked with similar and engaging contrasts. The band was amazing live - the dynamic between Gareth and Peter (who rocked out better than anyone I've ever seen!) made it a show within a show.
Seinfeld Flips over Vintage Car on HighwayI can't resist posting this. It's too, too funny. And the best part? The moment of Zen, to quote Jon Stewart? That is towards the end when the bicycle cops show up. Priceless.
I'm just saying.
Two Fathers
Original Air Date: 7 February 1999
After being gone for almost a year following her abduction, Cassandra Spender reappears, in perfect physical condition as the first successful alien/human hybrid.

plotlines may be, at the end of the day, we forget all that and say, "Oh, they survived." Or, "Jeez, too bad. They all died." We forget all the meandering and depth, the false starts, red-herrings, plot twists, and nudity (just checking that you're still reading). And it's all boiled down to 'safe.' Or 'not safe.'
At first I found this compelling, interesting.