Your insurance company won't normally pay out because effectively, you didn't really lock your door at all.
And I guess your insurance company also requires iron bars on windows? I suggest you move to a more civilized region. The whole idea here is backwards. If something is impossible, then you do not need a law to prevent it. Laws and punishment are used to prevent things that are not easy to prevent technologically.
Cable modem users may actually be some of the last to get hit. Universities, corporations, and the military are already moving to control bandwidth hogs. I suspect that's where a lot of today's Internet video has been happening--in places where there is no cable TV handy (work place, dorm rooms).
Sounds a bit circular. I buy ads on your site, you buy ads on mine, and we both book the revenue. Works great as long as there are investor dollars flowing into the system.
Was just looking at a list of the top 10 spenders on advertising. 4 of them are media companies (Time-Warner, Disney, GE (NBC), and News Corp) and 3 are telco's (ATT, Verizon, Sprint). If all of their products are going to be free, who will be left to buy ads?
Can you elaborate on "Multicasting the ISP's can't turn off"? Or, in general, how does IPV6 address any of the issues that have prevented widespread multicast support?
The economies of scale you point to were also the argument for mainframes in an earlier time. That got trumped by the economies of a mass market PC. If I can amortize development and production costs over millions of customers, I can deliver a lot more for the dollar. As services become centralized, the equipment will become increasingly specialized and expensive, and the pendulum will swing back to decentralization.
Yeah, all the tech companies like to keep the public informed of their internal staffing arrangements. Not. This is obviously PR with some ulterior motive. I'd say they are trying to reduce expectations for the iPhone.
Speakeasy used to be such an ISP And it was such a great business that they bailed out of it for 97 million. Has anyone noticed that the only players left standing in the ISP game are large corporations who can subsidize it with some other business (TV, telephony)? Once everyone else is driven out of the business, they will start to turn the screws down. And consumers will have only themselves to blame for thinking they could have a free lunch. If you aren't paying for it, then someone else is, and then it really isn't yours.
I can't see any value either. I just pretend I am using my cell phone and everyone thinks I have a lot of friends. I shut off the service a year ago. Planning to upgrade to a Blackberry if I can find a broken one for cheap.
Imagine if they started selling that data to investment groups. Or, using it to guide their own investments. According to http://www.computers.net/2006/08/google_in_dange.h tml Google holds 5.8 billion in marketable securities. As this is more than 40% of their assets, they are at risk of being classified as an "investment fund" by the SEC, and subject to different reporting rules.
What I thought was a future concern may already be happening. According to http://www.computers.net/2006/08/google_in_dange.h tml Google holds 5.8 billion in marketable securities. This is more than 40% of their assets, which by SEC rules means they are a "investment fund" and subject to different reporting and operating rules.
Everyone is worried about their own personal privacy, without thinking about the power Google is accumulating even if the data is totally anonymous. E.g., if everyone suddenly starts searching for a certain product, Google knows before anyone else, and could buy out the company who makes it, or sell that information to others. As long as the Google data repository is limited to www searches and click-through behavior, there is some bound on their power. It would become really scary if they were able to analyze what people are talking about in e-mail each day.
who you send email to (if you use Gmail) And, also, if my understanding is correct, what you say in your e-mail. I am not concerned about issues of personal privacy. But, what kind of power does Google obtain by the ability to analyze our communications in the aggregate? The kind of information they might track and analyze for the purpose of ad targetting would seem to have all kinds of other commercial implications. E.g., if everyone is talking about a certain new web site, Google could move to buy it, or launch a competitor. Information is power, and Google is amassing unprecedented amounts of it.
Yes, it could well go in the opposite direction: small companies using Vorbis can't afford royalties and get shut down; Microsoft pays the settlement/royalties on mp3 etc. and passes the cost on to all Windows users.
Exactly. If masses of users can find it, then Google can find it too. I mean, isn't that supposed to be the core mission of Google, to let people find what they are looking for? If Google can't find the Jon Stewart clips on the net, why would I use them as a search engine? And if the copyrighted content is stashed away in secret places that only those "in the know" can find, then it's really not much of a threat to the media companies.
the networks still focus exclusively on ultra-wide appeal. And so must also the commercials. Joost will enable ads to be targetted toward a particular viewer, rather than the broad demographic of people who watch a certain show.
What does Google have in its YouTube acquisition? By overpaying for YouTube, Google unleashed millions in VC capital and entrepreneural energy toward becoming the next Google acquisition. People love to gamble. Offering a giant prize for a few winners will generate more vigorous effort than paying the same amount out in salaries. Plus, all those new companies trying to make a name will spend a lot on Internet advertising, contributing directly to Google's bottom line.
I suppose they could filter certain titles like 'Daily Show' but then the uploader could use 'Daily_show' instead. And who would know to type "Daily_show" to find it? If it is easy for masses of users to find some content, then it is easy for the content owners to find it, and for Google to as well. If it is hard to find, then it is probably not causing much damage to the content owners.
If ISP's had to ENSURE bandwidth past their own networks was sufficient for what they were selling off So, if you buy a 1 Mbps connection and want to connect to your grandma, your ISP is obligated to upgrade her 56k modem to broadband? And, if she lives on the other side of world, your ISP needs to upgrade the undersea cables to insure you can get the rate you paid for? The Internet is a collection of shared communication channels with varying capacity. The bandwidth you pay for is the 1st hop access speed, not an end-to-end promise.
advertise the REAL bandwidth (ie average connection speed) That's exactly why ISP's throttle heavy users. The connection speed they advertise IS the rate you should expect, as long as your neighbors are not running torrents round the clock. ISP's scale their backbones based on expected usage. If demand goes up, the average connection speed must go down. So, they throttle a few heavy users to maintain the average speed for everyone else.
Over-subscription is your friend. If you wanted fixed bandwidth, you would get about 1/40th the bit-rate for the same price. Most of us would rather have 40 times the speed, even if we can only use 1/40th of the time, rather than working round the clock at a steady snails pace.
But, focusing on torrents is stupid. They just need to limit each user, regardless of what protocols they are using.
Wavelets work well for a single image, but I don't think anyone has figured out how to improve on the block based motion compensation techniques used to exploit temporarl redundancy in most video coding. And once you are doing block based motion prediction, then the residuals tend to have a block structure that is better compressed with a block based transform, rather than wavelets.
Content producers won't show up until there is an audience, but the audience won't show up until there is content. I have a hard time seeing how Joost inserts themselves in the middle of this equation. What do they bring to the party? Maybe they can build an initial audience by distributing stolen content or free porn.
Slashdot Mirror
Your insurance company won't normally pay out because effectively, you didn't really lock your door at all. And I guess your insurance company also requires iron bars on windows? I suggest you move to a more civilized region. The whole idea here is backwards. If something is impossible, then you do not need a law to prevent it. Laws and punishment are used to prevent things that are not easy to prevent technologically.
Cable modem users may actually be some of the last to get hit. Universities, corporations, and the military are already moving to control bandwidth hogs. I suspect that's where a lot of today's Internet video has been happening--in places where there is no cable TV handy (work place, dorm rooms).
Sounds a bit circular. I buy ads on your site, you buy ads on mine, and we both book the revenue. Works great as long as there are investor dollars flowing into the system.
Was just looking at a list of the top 10 spenders on advertising. 4 of them are media companies (Time-Warner, Disney, GE (NBC), and News Corp) and 3 are telco's (ATT, Verizon, Sprint). If all of their products are going to be free, who will be left to buy ads?
Can you elaborate on "Multicasting the ISP's can't turn off"? Or, in general, how does IPV6 address any of the issues that have prevented widespread multicast support?
The economies of scale you point to were also the argument for mainframes in an earlier time. That got trumped by the economies of a mass market PC. If I can amortize development and production costs over millions of customers, I can deliver a lot more for the dollar. As services become centralized, the equipment will become increasingly specialized and expensive, and the pendulum will swing back to decentralization.
Yeah, all the tech companies like to keep the public informed of their internal staffing arrangements. Not. This is obviously PR with some ulterior motive. I'd say they are trying to reduce expectations for the iPhone.
I can't see any value either. I just pretend I am using my cell phone and everyone thinks I have a lot of friends. I shut off the service a year ago. Planning to upgrade to a Blackberry if I can find a broken one for cheap.
What I thought was a future concern may already be happening. According to http://www.computers.net/2006/08/google_in_dange.h tml Google holds 5.8 billion in marketable securities. This is more than 40% of their assets, which by SEC rules means they are a "investment fund" and subject to different reporting and operating rules.
Everyone is worried about their own personal privacy, without thinking about the power Google is accumulating even if the data is totally anonymous. E.g., if everyone suddenly starts searching for a certain product, Google knows before anyone else, and could buy out the company who makes it, or sell that information to others. As long as the Google data repository is limited to www searches and click-through behavior, there is some bound on their power. It would become really scary if they were able to analyze what people are talking about in e-mail each day.
Yes, it could well go in the opposite direction: small companies using Vorbis can't afford royalties and get shut down; Microsoft pays the settlement/royalties on mp3 etc. and passes the cost on to all Windows users.
Exactly. If masses of users can find it, then Google can find it too. I mean, isn't that supposed to be the core mission of Google, to let people find what they are looking for? If Google can't find the Jon Stewart clips on the net, why would I use them as a search engine? And if the copyrighted content is stashed away in secret places that only those "in the know" can find, then it's really not much of a threat to the media companies.
Wavelets work well for a single image, but I don't think anyone has figured out how to improve on the block based motion compensation techniques used to exploit temporarl redundancy in most video coding. And once you are doing block based motion prediction, then the residuals tend to have a block structure that is better compressed with a block based transform, rather than wavelets.
Content producers won't show up until there is an audience, but the audience won't show up until there is content. I have a hard time seeing how Joost inserts themselves in the middle of this equation. What do they bring to the party? Maybe they can build an initial audience by distributing stolen content or free porn.