my internet's pretty slow, but i ain't going to not believe you.

this was the excerpt from the nation. that's my starting point.
they reference the reports as a useful guide. it makes me think it's a little more reliable than any one person's number, but i get like 1mbps where i am to about 200km away. unsure if its in bits or bytes. is your number in bytes?

Your number is bits. I bolded bytes. Actually any one test matters more than the average. They are making a claim "there does not exist an internet connection fast enough to have downloaded at that rate". The existence of a single counterexample invalidates their argument. I provided that counterexample on my first test of a good connection.

Most people using speedtest are testing their home connections because they care about their homes -- they can't really do anything about work. That is the average being reported.

Other organizations have good connections, which is what I tested today. For fun I asked a google employee what his bandwidth was when transferring a file across the world. His answer was at least 5000 times faster than the DNC case. (He didn't actually test it but his personal experience using the internet from google is infinite bandwidth) It's good to be google!

http://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/

they suggest in the vips report higher speeds are very unlikely. idk. meh.

Big difference between higher average speeds and higher speeds

i guess. that presupposes he has a friend in an organization like google that is privileged.

what sort of connection is it? fios verizon was reported to be 4 times as fast on uploads as its competition due to fiber optic cables. that speed you had would be consistent with that, no?

in the vips report, they said nothing came close to that sort of value, but just in case i want to make sure they didn't have access to something like fiber optics.

it's hard to tell however. maybe they did, or maybe it doesn't matter because the variance is too high even though they claimed otherwise.

and i'm trying to read something on how varied the tests are, but not really sure if i'll get through it.

or they hacked google.

i'm not serious.

This is not required. Google gets 5000x difference. Which is to say if the 'impossible' speed was me walking, google is as fast as a nuclear missile.

Ordinary, everyday organizations will often have more than 23 MB/s. Example: large businesses, universities, governments.

Where vips could have a point is if they know something about the DNC server's internet connection. Like: On date X, machine Y had IP Z which belongs to ISP Q and could only be a connection of type R limiting their bandwidth to S. That would make sense. What they wrote is nothing like that.

http://www.ookla.com/speedtest-intelligence

it has their sample data. i'm not sure if there is more than raw information.

i got that. still, if you're doing it from a large organization that can build that infrastructure or buy that privelege, you should cover your tracks.

eh, it might not be a secret. you can probably research this sort of thing. the possible places the data would go. the source was the dnc, while the hack originated elsewhere.

not exactly discrete. what we don't know is where it was sent to at first i guess...? as you mention of course. but if we're assuming it was sent to Europe, then do we not know the destination? Is this not enough information?

https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Pub..._TPRC_2010.pdf

2010. outlines the speedtest methodology at the time.

edit: for some reason i'm spending a lot of time on figuring out how to communicate what i want to. so i deleted a comment like this, so i could spend a little time refining. this is mostly for myself as the people who would want to read this probably already have.

@chips,
As clarification, you're right, there isn't enough detail in their letter, or what they've said yet. Wanted to get that out of the way, so I wasn't inadvertently shifting any goalposts.

What I'd ask is, sure, they aren't being fully open, but is this grounds to discount what they say? I think you've asked the same question and have decided they aren't, perhaps.

If we wanted to dig to the truth, there is a lot of useful information to parse that is public. I'd bet we could do it on this particular front with effort.

It is also important to me to establish that your particular case does not disprove their claim, speaking technically. One instance in mid-late 2017 of a high upload speed from an unknown place to an unknown server on some fixed connection?

It doesn't seem relevant yet afaict.

As to businesses or large organizations, I'm not clear on how they get the congestion free bandwidth you're implying. As I've never investigated it this is probably as you'd expect, but I'll take you at your word and assume they're purchasing a lot of privilege from the ISPs they need, or they've built their own infrastructure to facilitate it. In either case it seems like a stretch the hacker would have immunity when hacking the dnc from such a place, so I am skeptical of the argument's capacity to hold up to reality. Perhaps VIPS also discounted the possibility for a similar reason.

As well, if they had access to such a connection, they limited themselves to 22 mbs a lot of the time. It's less suspicious than uploading at whatever the bottleneck is for the dnc is through whatever port they might have used, but in such a world they limited themselves as much as possible. Is 22 mbs the slowest they could go then?

I wanted to start posting here. Too bad I don't get the chance. Instantly told I'm not welcome. **** you anyways man

You know nothing, John Snow. I didn't give you any points so it's not even as much as a slap buddy.

And it so happens that the only thing political you wanted to talk about was Zorkman. Well, my apologies for not recognising the enormous coincidence of your desires and what's going on in the thread.

BTW, it's not really how people talk to each other to tell them to **** themselves. But that's why we don't have any werewolf any more. But you did the wrong thing however you cut it and broke rules of the thread. You can say you didn't know the rules and that's fair but if you haven't posted before, it's probably sensible to figure out the dynamics before you post.

Also, "don't post about other people" does not mean "don't post". Why would I want a rule like that? Well, here we are. It's so we don't get bogged down on you telling me to **** myself, me upbraiding you about how rude that is like you're a small child, you getting all upset like you didn't actually know that in the first place, and me being forced to infract you for your language your behaviour whatever way you display a lack of respect for anything but what you want.

And then half the thread complains that I infracted someone who was interacting with me and the only reason I am interacting with them is I am trying to maintain a decent thread and consequently I think it would be better to do it in private, where it might surprise you, most people are actually a bit different, a bit more measured, because it's easier to do performance arsehole when it is actually a performance rather than when no one can see. But when you do things in private, even though you can resolve more or less anything without fuss, you have to actually do it in public as well so everyone knows you didn't let it pass, you took action, there's no need for anyone else to get upset.

So here we are. Now, two days ago, I'd give you a warning not to abuse me or any other poster. I'd have reminded you of the rules, which you broke, completely unaware I'm sure. Other people were breaking them, so you're not to know, and it feels like you've been picked on. You weren't. If you read the past two dozen posts, you can see Myrologue crying because he got an infraction. He does know the rules. And the infraction didn't have any points, it was just a warning. Another poster was also infracted. Only those two because the other miscreants only made one post and weren't carrying on with it.

Now though, lucky you. I'm not bothering with it. You get to tell me to **** myself and be happy. And of course you're welcome. I'd rather you used the thread to talk about politics but if you want to use it to tell other posters they should be banned or to **** themselves, you go right ahead. Cheers now.

smh. the conversation was dead bro.

thread sucks

ban the OP

Idiot on the radio spewing the false flag thing and now claiming George Soros paid both sides to start violence including the ******* that killed Heather.

One good thing to come out of this is Alex Jones formally and unequivocally outting himself as an anti-semite.


At least, I think it's a good thing.

Come on, that dude's not had any credibility in a long time.

Not according to Luckbox.

*kof*