|
I think "suddenly" is a little bit off. I don't think an elephant (or any other animal) is becoming aggressive just suddenly, without a reason. To my experience, animals - excluding primates maybe, and unlike humans - only get aggressive when they feel threatened and see their life, their herd, their territory etc. in danger. They act on instinct, and sometimes they get triggered by subtle things you (as a human) don't recognize or interpret as such a possible threat. Humans might do that too, but I've seen many of my kind becoming agressive without good reason, just "suddenly". I've seen people getting agressive at me just because they didn't like my looks (and what kind of "threat" is that, please? And spare your jokes  ). Maybe it has to do with our inherent violence.
Anyway  my point is in defense of the elephant, because too often we translate human behavior to animals.
|
|
|
|
|
Bull Elephants, amongst numerous other mammals, will enter a state called "musth^".
They become quite aggressive.
An interesting proposition: since human females are always receptive, rather than only when in heat, could not human males have a corresponding (and more aggressive) state?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: could not human males have a corresponding (and more aggressive) state?
Point to ponder: Maybe human males are indeed in a permanent aggressive state? Maybe we got so used to it that we don't recognize it anymore? Human males do commit far more violent crimes than females do.
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
Cornelius Henning wrote: Human males do commit far more violent crimes than females do.
Yes, but beware if a human female gets violent...
But seriously, I'd assume it must be tied to the testosterone. Pair that with latent violence and you get a permanent agressive human being. Too simplified of course. I suspect our society plays another big role in constant aggressivity.
About the receptiveness... I think the reason because it doesn't match with most females in our society is their denial of natural drive (it actually applies to both male and female). And by "natural drive" I'm not only referring to the primitive ones of course...
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: since human females are always receptive
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where did you find these human females? You're not keeping them all to yourself are you?
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: human females are always receptive
 Evidently you know a very different set of human females to me!
|
|
|
|
|
FIorian Schneidereit wrote: I don't think an elephant (or any other animal) is becoming aggressive just suddenly, without a reason.
Well, you are right - the problem is that hysterical tourist may easily give that elephant a reason...
I have no experience with elephants, but a lot with dogs. And humans. It takes me about a tenth of a second to know whether that human approaching me and my St. Bernard will commuticate well with the dog. The body language of that guy with the elephant clearly reminds me of those people who can handle any dog, no matter how agressive or dangerous - they have a lot in common. The "dog whisperers" would, in a similar (potentially) dangerous situation behave very much in the same way.
For going to the other extreme: When walking my dog, encountering a group of school kids, this boy around 11 or 12 years asks me in dead earnest, after having petted my dog: "Can I step on his paw, to see if he gets angry?" - Sure, that was a kid (but not a small one; in other cultures a boy of 12 goes with the men, not with the small kids), but I ask myself: When parents bring up a kid so that the kid thinks hurting a dog for fun is a reasonable proposal, what could those parents do to see a little action on a tourist safari in Africa?
In case you wonder: I did not allow that kid to step on my dog's paw...
|
|
|
|
|
Get's Ticketed in Crydon[^]
It did make me chuckle, what a way to get ready for Fridays kick off 
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Geez. It's not bad enough they're having to stay in Croydon in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
Coprolites[^] - but it turns out that was just the same old...
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe you. Your story smells bad. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
No wonder no one every wanted to get stoned with you.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
What a waste of time.
Think about it and there are two there.
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
I know some of you have posted from time to time battles with your internet supplier. Mine has gone to the surreal level. Here in the US, the cable companies are pretty much a monopoly. If you want performance, it's the rare location that has a choice of multiple suppliers. In my area it's ATT UVerse (max speed around 30 Mbps, maybe) and Comcast (100+ Mbps and climbing).
Against my better judgment and giving in to household members, I switched us to Comcast for the higher speed. Fully aware of the data caps they "measure", I did their estimate and reasonably concluded there was no way we would touch the 300 GB / month cap. Wait for it....
First month came in at nearly 800 GB. No elephanting way. Since I had a three month grace period, I wasn't worried (well into my second month now), but I became more watchful. In the next week, we allegedly used 300GB. Hmmm, might have an issue (I do have some heavy gamers, and one daughter loves YouTube). Made sure there were no bit torrents running, changed the Wi-Fi password, etc. Almost had a stroke talking to their support staff. They tried to explain that if you were streaming movies it would use data (no $hit sherlock). Data continues to hemorrhage.
Bought a new router, changed passwords, the flood, according to their meter continues. The problem is that the router tracks the data coming and going on a mac address level. I know who is using what. I see my heavy data users as expected, but nothing to absurd levels - calculating the daily rate, we're averaging 150 GB / month.
I installed network monitoring software on all major devices - PCs, laptops, and I'm still looking for something for a chromebook (if you know of any app?). Those numbers track nearly 1:1 with the router.
Of course, when I feed this data to Comcast, I get the same automated cut/paste response from their "techs" - change your wifi password, our numbers are correct, blah, blah, blah.
There are some s/w packages I can download for a month that will monitor traffic across a lan, I might try one of those.
I know my ultimate alternative is to cancel and go back to uverse, but this has sort of pissed me off, so I'm not willing to let it go. Data is data, and you imply I don't know what I'm talking about, then back it up with data.
Any ideas from you other techies about tracking data usage like this?
Appreciate any suggestions. Let the beating commence 
I have a friend who went away for a 5 day weekend
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Is there not some functionality available in your router that will at least correlate the figures with the ISP's?
I did that with my ADSL router (Netgear) and showed at least that I really was using that much traffic!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
To be clear:
The #s on my router are a factor of 10 less;
The #s on my router are tracking 1:1 with a network usage tool I installed on my laptop. This is over a wired and wireless connection. I don't have a reason to distrust the numbers from the router as assigned to mac addresses.
Like I said, if I SAW we were using that much data, I could address it, but it isn't there. Comcast goes, "sniff, sucks to be you, our numbers are correct."
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
You got it wrong! It is not gigabyte but gigabit.
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
You might have a point. But they all say "GB"
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Not only "might have a point", but "That's it!"
Network people ALWAYS count bits, not bytes. They always did.
First: Networking standards were established before a byte was fixed to be 8 bits. At least up to 1980, a byte could be anywhere from 5 bits and upwards - 7 was a common size, as was 9. A byte was the space requrired to store a single character.
Second: Communication overhead comes is bits (or even half bits, in modem communication). What's interesting to the cable guys is how much they have to carry, whether usable data, check digits, start/stop bits, preamble bits, link layer bit stuffing or whatever. It doesn't matter whether that 36 bit Univac word carries six 5-bit Fieldata characters, five 7-bit ASCII characters or four 9-bit characters.
Another thing to remember: Communication guys have ten fingers. Like in 56kbps channels - they are 56,000 bits/sec, not 57,344 (that is 56 * 1024) bits/sec. Or in more modern unit: 1 gpbs is 1,000,000,000 bits/sec, not 1,073,741,824. (So you get 7% less than you expected.)
About B/b: Some computer guys (those not working with communication) has tried to establish a convention of B = Byte, b = bit - but without success. Certainly not in communication; those guys do not have any 'byte' concept. They carry bits, period. Besides, the computer guys are not at all consistent themselves: You frequently see the size of a data structure given as, say, 1.5 kb, references to 4kb disk pages etc. The context tells you that these are byte sizes, not bit sizes, whether you use upper or lower case b. A communication context is similar: They are bit sizes, not byte sizes, whether you use upper or lower case b.
|
|
|
|
|
Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
As a former subscriber to Comcast (I moved out of their area, and now I'm stuck with Charter's bullshit instead), I can at least confirm that the 300GB data cap they list is actually 300 gigabytes, as it reads. I frequently crossed it on my 50up/10down gbps connection, but they were not enforcing the cap at the time, and my router's logs (I have and had an ASUS RT-AC66U, behind my own Motorola Surfboard modem) agreed with Comcast's.
I do wonder how accurate OP's router logs are. I normally wouldn't have any doubts that Charter was overcounting (and 800GB seems excessive even considering the following concern), but my household crossed 300GB regularly with only two users, and habits similar to those described by OP. If his logs are showing only 150GB with more users, then I have a hard time trusting those logs.
|
|
|
|
|
Just FYI: On a wire, if you want to send 8 bits, you may need, 8, 9, 10, or 11 bits. It depends on the electrical wiggle that sends a bit. Some wire standards use simple DC levels to signal bits. If you don't have a "start bit" that is always a non-default value, there's no way to tell the difference between a stream of 0's from a disconnected cable, and no way to tell when the next nonzero byte begins. These days there are a million different wire protocols (level 1 for you ISO network model fans). But for reasons that depend on the exact nature of the wire wiggle, you usually send some extra bits with each byte (um, octet) of data. Comparing byte rates among different wire protocols with different goals might cause fistfights at IEEE meetings. Bit rates can't meaningfully be compared either, but they mean something useful to the RF engineers and DSP programmers who build cable boxes, so we're stuck with 'em. You can't just divide the bit rate by 8. Say that at a standards meeting and see how long it takes to restore order.
|
|
|
|
|
SeattleC++ wrote: On a wire, if you want to send 8 bits, you may need, 8, 9, 10, or 11 bits
I would like to see some citations that indicate that protocols on the optic fiber that net work providers are laying in the modern era are using anything but 8 bit protocols.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
