Regarding Galileo, I think he did not bother trying to convince his enemies
(who wanted to burn him at the stake, but had to turn to one of his followers
to carry out that revenge). I think he devoted time to explaining his ideas to
people who were interested in learning about them.
He wrote a book making his scientific case, and did not spend (waste) time
trying to figure out how to "convert" those that were trying to get the Pope to
do him in, by using logic.
I don't think it is useful to try to convince James Imhofe that global warming
has a scientific basis. He is convinced that it is a "fraud perpetrated by
scientists", and *nothing* will change his mind. If anything, trying to
convince him makes him appear to be important beyond his importance in the
matter.
And yes, the folks who set "Internet Land Speed Records" are just as important
to the Internet as people who drive Indycars (a fun thing to watch) contribute
to automobile engineering.
I respect their extremely narrow talents, but not necessarily their wisdom
outside their narrow field.
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 1:48am, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]> said:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I was suggesting that there is no reason to be intimidated.
>
> I was not intimidated, I just lacked data to actually reply to the
> statement made.
>
> > And yes, according to the dictionary definition, they are ignorant - as
> > in they don't know what they are talking about, and don't care to.
>
> I object to the last part of the statement. If you're a person who has
> been involved in winning an Internet Land Speed Record you probably care,
> but you're have knowledge for a certain application and a certain purpose,
> which might not be applicable to the common type of home connection usage
> today. It doesn't mean the use case is not important or that person is
> opposing solving bufferbloat problem.
>
> > As to being constructive, I'm not convinced that these people can be
> > convinced that their dismissal of bufferbloat and their idea that
> > "goodput" is a useful Internet concept are incorrect.
>
> I haven't heard any dismissal of the problem, only that they optimize for
> a different use case, and they're concerned that their use case will
> suffer if buffers are smaller. This is the reason I want data because if
> FQ_CODEL gets similar results then their use case is not hugely negatively
> affected, and there is data showing it helps a lot for a lot of other use
> cases, then they shouldn't have much to worry about and can stop arguing.
>
> Thinking of Galileo, he didn't walk around saying "the earth revolves
> around the sun" and when people questioned him, he said "check it out for
> yourself, prove your point, I don't need to prove mine!", right?
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
