First they need older hackers, not script kiddies. Black hats, or at least former black hats.
Lot's of Jolt Cola, Cold Pizza and some dark dungeon supplied with what ever mind altering substances needed and a steady supply of nerdy Asian girls to look after them.
Also the boxed set of all Stargate, Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica and.. Na on second thought, we'll just grab them off Bit Torrent. Same for the HDTV, UPS delivery off some stolen credit card, old habits die hard.
Maybe more useful would be legal immunity/amnesty, from all of the collateral damage from relaxing hobbies like taking down the RIAA or Microsoft in the process, (oops).
But seriously, a License to hack anything domestic and foreign with total immunity as long at it's primarily against the enemy would be totally cool, I think a lot of us who had to give up the black hat because we have kids and just can't afford to go to prison, would be all over this.
Anyhow you can't play by the rules, if they think you can launch and offensive attack without some pre-preparation your wrong.
Making an offensive toolkit is fantasy. By definition this is script kiddie and lame.
> where vulnerabilities are introduced into chipsets during manufacturing that an adversary can then exploit, and electronics vulnerabilities.
I have been told years ago that this is already being done at Taiwanese fabs to us. Chips were designed to be resonant at some Ghz ranges and would be equivalent to an EMP when hit. This is done at the fab without changes to the chip design but layer thicknesses that is something the fab has total control over.
These attacks should be in any OS, Router, or any other electronic devices that get sold and without the knowledge if it manufactures either. This would hackers the greatest flexibility to exploit them when needed. They key is to make sure it's not detectable or exploitable by other hackers. An example would be to hack into Microsoft and muck with their distro before it goes out.
Of course with Microsoft and Apple, this would already seem to be unnecessary.
No it more of the level of compute power available to the NSA is orders of magnitude more then we think it is. Many orders of magnitude, and specifically designs for cracking specifically these types of codes.
In addition it's been 1 single Chinese woman Xiaoyun Wang in Beijing who in 10 years cracked 5 of the most secure hashes we have.
So if one woman in China can crack so many of these, then what can an army of Benchley park types do?
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-11/50336.html article in the Epoch Times (a Chinese newspaper) about a brilliant Chinese professor who has cracked her fifth encryption scheme in ten years. This one's a doozy, too: she and her team have taken out the SHA-1 scheme, which includes the (highly thought of) MD5 algorithm. As a result, the U.S. government and major corporations will cease using the scheme within the next few years. From the article: " These two main algorithms are currently the crucial technology that electronic signatures and many other password securities use throughout the international community. They are widely used in banking, securities, and e-commerce. SHA-1 has been recognized as the cornerstone for modern Internet security. According to the article, in the early stages of Wang's research, there were other data encryption researchers who tried to crack it. However, none of them succeeded. This is why in 15 years Hash research had become the domain of hopeless research in many scientists' minds. "
Wang announced at an international data security conference that her team had successfully cracked four well-known hash algorithms--MD5, HAVAL-128, MD4, and RIPEMD--within ten years.
A few months later, she cracked the even more robust SHA-1.
I have read Philip Zimmermann book when It came out and clearly remember the remark.
Problem is several fold.
1.) SMTP is by default clear text. 2.) POP3 & IMAP are also. 3.) There is a shortage of good mail clients that can support PGP or any encryption. 4.) It was probably too lated to change things when Philip wrote those words in 91.
I remember the resistance and confusion with getting Kerberos, SSH, SSL and IPSEC out there. 5.) Key exchange has always been awkward at best, and has it's problems. 6.) When I started to work on massive arrays parallel small fast processors with Chuck Moore, I very quickly learned there had been other before, it all went black, and it would be excellent at cracking PGP, DES, MD5, AES etc. 7.) Why do you think the governments restriction about encryption suddenly ended so abruptly in 1996 and 1997? http://www.cdt.org/crypto/clipper311/961230_ear.txt &
When 386BSD was released internationally 1992 libcrypt was just a dummy that did nothing, so the systems master password file had passwords in clear text. If it didn't it do this it would have violated munitions export laws with very severe punishments.
I can only assume either they had a sufficient way to break these codes in 1997 or there was too much critical mass to change clear text systems to encryption. Maybe both.
99% of us are really doing the most mundane of things, and little that any government agency would care about.
Heck we would even had a hard time even figuring out how to do something they would even care about.
This stuff where domestic terrorist spying was used against Eliot Spitzer's bank transactions is just plain wrong. But in the end there is no point it crying about it, again most of us will also not be worth bothering with. I am more concerned with then starting to going after tax evaders or pot smokers, by wholesale automated domestic spying.
From my former hacking past. If they thought you were involved in something they'd just ransack your house, empty it and deny doing it. google "steve jackson games" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games for example. The Wiki entry doesn't do justice to the severity of what really happened.
So electronically seeing everything I am doing so they can see it's really nothing of any interest to them is better at least for me on some level.
It's been my experience with cops and other groups like this that if you walk around with black cloths and black ski mask at night this will draw far more attention if you'd planning on doing something wrong then if you wore a bright orange reflective jacket and helmet, and white overalls in the middle of the afternoon.
In black they will arrest first and ask questions later where with the bright uniform, you just look like your supposed to be there, and never get a second glance.
Same with technology, I have friends that do everything with PGP, 3DES, AES etc. It will only make them get put under more scrutiny.
I'd bet I were planning on doing something wrong that I could get away with so much more if I just keep everything in clear plain text, just for the fact that they are expecting people to act secretive and raise a red flag when doing something wrong.
On 9/11 they were looking for all kinds of secret dangerous thing, explosives, and poisons etc..
But no it was Box Cutters, We are talking about a few f**king 99 Cent box cutters that took down the 2 tallest building in the United States, and brought our economy to a stall, started 2 wars, and cost us Billions upon Billions looking for all of the wrong things and push our gas prices to $4 per gallon, and it still not over. That box cutter might even escalate with WW III.
Albert Einstein quote - I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones. This is more damage then what we could ever do with Billions of dollars of super secret high tech aircraft.
This an example where KISS - Keep it stupid and simple is most effective.
If you think about all of the homeland security, there is still painfully little they can do against the box cutter type of attack. Something so mind boggling trivial and stupid you'd never think about it.
But it's these things that could lead to a terrifying chain reaction.
So if all my docs are up on Google and easily readable, these numb nuts of the government are far less likely to even notice me or bother me, then if I were trying to pass around encrypted docs, then they will spend millions to decode them and then start monitoring my every action. Because If I am hiding something I must be doing something wrong?
They never believe it was just grandma's cookie recipe as you try to explain this while being water boarded.
I am still trying to figure out what people are talking about with web 2.0?
With compuserver (1969), BBS's (1970's), UseNet, E-mail & The Source (1979), The Well & Q-link (1985) we have online communities this whole time. With IRC we have been IM Chatting since 1988. And almost all of this existed over the IP based Internet starting around 1983 and starting in 1993 it became http/browser based. I have been using all of these early after their inception.
So what is new about Web 2.0? I can't see anything new at all, not even a little. Am I missing something.
Same with Parallelism.
I was a member of the Parallel Computing Connection PPC a club run by Mitchell Loebel in Silicon Valley going back to 1989 that later renamed itself into the Tech Startup Connection http://www.techstartupconnection.org/ . From that club things like the NUMA Architecture arose.
Before that Thinking Machines Corporation by Danny Hillis 1982 with the "Connection Machine" and nCUBE.
Earlier was Control Data Corporation (CDC) and Cray which although technically not parallel processors used parallel Arithmetic circuits.
But even the Code breaking machines in WW2 used massive parallelism.
Richard Feynman's work on the Manhattan project, in which in one of his books (I think is was "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!") he describes a human assisted parallel computer with banks of Primitive IBM computers with humans moving stacks of punch cards between them to plow through the math needed to build the Bomb.
Point being, that in all of the excitement of Internet for the average Joe we forgot about most of these technologies and are now returning to it. So there isn't anything new here, just a rediscovery.
What do you think the odds of them destroying the earth as it gets swallowed into a giant black hole.
Let's take bets on it. I'll good for about $100K that it will not destroy the earth. Any takers?
I ran this past some friends a bit smarter about this sort of stuff then I am, below is their responses.
Duh-didn't they ask this question when they started work on the LHC? And what about the center of the sun? Don't see any strangelets there..... Sandya Narayanswami, PhD ---------------------
Does this come with an Earth-back guarantee?
The first scenario is absurd, since black holes are not physically possible. It is as if he were claiming that faeries and demons would be produced in the collisions. The next two may also be on a par with the faeries, I'm not entirely sure. If any of them were true, then high-energy, heavy-nucleus cosmic rays should have long since destroyed all the stars and planets in the Universe.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bit Torrent and there partners threatened ComCast, maybe with a boycott or civil action.
I now predict that Bit Torrent or it descendant will obsolete BlueRay and Cable for recorded video content distribution, Even 1080i HD
Now not to tangent too much:
In the short term BlueRay will clearly kill off DVD, DVD-R, and HD-DVD had already just died.
I just talked yesterday with the only BlueRay disk manufacturer in the US.
They were talking about 500GB disks, so I think will be a long time before Bit Torrent will be able to compete with that. (Especially when spray on 4K Digital Cinema video walls come out in 20 years.. )
500GB BlueRay-R when it arrives sounds like a great media to back up my Torrent downloaded pirated movie collection.
But seriously how the heck can I back up 1TB Sata drives?
Now for the Wacky Idea: first run movies on Bit Torrent.
I have the rights to make a movie based on a famous SciFi writer short story who just passed away at age 90.
Can not share his name, but you can easily guess this one.
After 3 years of rejections from Hollywood, I was thinking that maybe we can fund the movie with donations and grants and release the movie freely (GPL style) over Bit Torrent and BlueRay and then see what it will take to get it played in theaters. I really think it would be so cool and set a whole new model for film production, copyleft movies. Am I a nut job or is this just crazy enough to work?
power usage of computers has only increased since 2001 Actually that hasn't been the case, which has also been a surprise.
Manufacturers hit a wall on 100 watts CPU's were the heat sinks became too heavy to mount on the PCB. And even though there are alternative solutions for some reason they just set that as the limit for desk top CPU's.
So all systems since 2000 and maybe even earlier have had about the same power consumption peak and idle.
What has happened is they lower the voltage on the CPU while increasing clock rates, and density. In the end it keeps the power consumption at about the same level.
This was something I found frustrating since with improved cooling they could increase power levels and run processors even faster, but if you notice the P4 hit 3.8 Ghz in 2004 and they just stopped flat.
It's bad enough passing the oil refinery on the 101 north of Ventura, that has it's eternal 30 foot flame of burning Hydrogen sulfide. The stench is nauseating along one of the most visually beautiful stretches of highway on earth as is hugs along side the pacific.
Now your telling me that we are going to have to smell this nasty stuff all the way to mars and beyond? Talk about ruining the trip of a lifetime. I'd rather take my chances with being frozen.
The FCC RF emission problems is first hand experience from product development I am working on.
There are no published references and since we are not paid for science no effort was spent to tracking down the cause. A design that was already shipping with standard tin/lead consistently failed RF emissions testing after a RoHS manufacturing. This required us to shield the cases and re-route signals differently from the earlier non-RoHS design that did pass earlier with an unshielded case. I understand "technically" the RoHS board design shouldn't have needed any board changes but in practice this was not the case.
At my now dead startup Nisvara we where building Silent computers using passive cooling, and figure out how to build server rooms that didn't require air conditioning just outside evaporative cooling towers.
We did this very profiling, out designed cooled each component individually. I dont' have the numbers in front of me, but if I recall for a typical P4 3Ghz system we saw the total average power consumption at something like 75 watts when idle and 150 watts or more under load. With the ACPI on it would drop considerably when idle. (I am not including the monitors that also draw 75 watts or so)
Again we were more interested in were heat was generated so we measured power dissipation per component which is directly equivalent to watts used.
But watts for a component was quite different then the watts on the power line.
Why? Because in this breakdown almost 40 to 50% of the power was lost in PC's power supply's! Both main and on the motherboards on board supply's needed for the CPU and chip sets. This was very high since most PC power supply were only 60% efficient! So all loaded inside the PC show up as almost 2x on the 110 volt power line.
So of the peak 150W coming in what's left after being stepped down is a remaining 80W or so.
Hard Drive 12 watts assuming 1 80Gb Maxtor DiamondMax. North and South Bridge, 1 to 6 watts Support chips, almost 1 maybe 2 watts, things like the NIC and other support components were insignificant.
CPU which could vary from 20 watts to 100 watts depending on it's load.
Running like CPU burn, CPU test or CPU stress would max out the CPU's power, again with the power supply low efficiency an 80 watt increase in CPU power use results in an 160 Watt increase on the 110V power line! We didn't not expect this when we started.
If you add a high end graphics (Nvidia/ATI) card then add on another 40 watts 2x so 80 watts on the power line.
Another interesting thing was 10 watts for fans!
Here is another shocker, the hotter the system ran the more power each component draw. This could add another 10% or so. So a cold system like just after power up uses less then a hot one.
>Still, it looks like this site will have to add hard drives to their saved watts: http://www.whosavedwatt.com/ "And Bill saved 2,000,000 Watts by changing his indoor growing operation to LED lighting." Joking. ;) Sorry just couldn't resist after reading that site.
I have found most drives run at around 12 watts, so saving 10 is really significant. Also with less power the drives should run cooler, this would really increase drive reliability.
I found most CoLo servers don't properly cool their drives especially 1U servers, where it seems I loose a few every year, but at home I can run those same drives for 5 years or more. Even the desktop servers I run in a dusty shed that freeze in the winter and bakes in the summer the drives are more reliable then the ones running in a CoLo with constant 50 degree super clean air, just because drives in 1U's run hotter constantly and under a heaver load.
RoHS is another story, it's been a somewhat difficult transition, unexpectedly is make passing FCC compliance more difficult because for the exact same board layout it had higher RF emissions. Don't know why, wonder if others have also seen that.
I don't see how RoHS is going to be any more "green", the largest change is moving away from tin/lead to Lead-free solders that contain some mix of tin, copper, silver, bismuth, indium, zinc, and antimony. It's more expensive, and brittle which could decrease reliablity. If the circuit boards are actually getting recycled instead of landfilled, it wouldn't make much difference anyhow.
Yes, I see, hadn't even considered that. For wireless this is indeed true. This is where things like Mesh networks really shine.
I had a sprint wireless internet access in San Jose till they pulled the service, guess it never made a profit. It was ashame, it worked great, they had this 1 foot square antenna on my roof and it talked with a tower some 15 miles away in the hills in Fremont.
Anyhow, for Cable and DSL hugging the net should improves things.
Humm, I am now thinking. Is there some way to detect if your on a wireless link? WiFi or any other types?
Maybe some user defined setting could be added. Where it's something that wouldn't really effect the users other then improving there performance by setting the last mile type.
Thanks for that paper, someone mod the parent up please.
I remember loving CPM and Digital Research, and also Unix which I still love.
I also remember loving Apple and the Apple II as well as Atari, C64 and the TRS-80's. And the CoCo's.
But IBM PC's and DOS I have always hated, for as long as I can remember.
I ended up becoming a DOS person for one reason. Apple scr***ed it's developers in 1985. I did a lot of Apple II code, and Lisa and then very early Mac's from 128K to 512K.
The Apple, TRS-80's, IBM PC and even the S100 CPM systems were all totally open. Heck even the Amiga shipped with Full Schematics in the manual!
But the Mac started a little open then went closed. They started charging $5000 for their developers kids and conferences also became also too expensive something like $1000 entrance fees. I was 18 at that time, far too rich for my blood.
So it was either stick with the kiddy boxes, C64, Amiga, CoCo which were all just lacking that clean professional edge. The TRS-80's were really showing their age too, Z80's just didn't cut it.
So that left the PC's which I really resisted for a long time. DOS was always a kludge and ugly. 64K segmentation, I want to hurl just thinking about it.
No, I never had any love for Microsoft ever. But when apple forsaken us upstart hacker kids, I was left with few alternatives. I don't think to this day Jobs realized he threw away the top spot leaving Microsoft to scoop it up by being more open! PC's also published Full schematics, even gave a source code listing of the BIOS, although not open source it was still working example code. Even DOS came with debug allowing us broke kids a crude environment that we could write assembly language programs and simple scripts. God knows I wished I could have stuck with Mac's, but I have never been back and to this day feel slighted.
As a matter of fact I disliked Microsoft and DOS so much I was involved in several attempts to get a decent Unix on PC's and was involved early in 386BSD which was the first really useful Unix Port.
I am sure a large part of Linux's and later Netscape's success was driven by the same motives, to get back to Open.
So Don Reisinger of ITworld.com, where the hell were you in the 70's, 80's and most of the 90's? You must have come on the scene in the mid internet boom. 98 maybe and smoked a little too much of the hype. God I can't remember even a single person other then totally clueless newbies loving Microsoft. Even that didn't last long once the booze wore off and they realized she was really a pig with lipstick, but it was too late to back out then.
That article isn't worth the bit's it's written on.
it can sometimes cost an ISP much, much more to transfer data between customers than out to the general internet. It just doesn't make sense to me that communication between 2 customers on the same (lan) segment or in the same neighborhood on the same ISP's network would cost more then going out across the internet.
If it does then they must be doing something really stupid.
I am familiar with both DOCSIS and DSLAM's so I'd love to see the article where hugging the edge of the network could cost more.
People are also downloading porn and pirate content on http also, So p2p is no different in that respect.
There are more and more P2P set top boxes on the market with licensed content using Bit Torrent. These could eventually compete with the cable companies offering quality HD content.
Look at the http://www.bittorrent.com/ site. They have customers such as Fox, Lionsgate, Paramount, MTV, Warner Brothers, SEGA, Comedy Central and Netgear using their P2P networking protocols.
And your hindering it. As a side effect this thinking is assisting Comcast's monopoly.
If they might be download porn then why don't you just block the IP address blocks of known porn sites, why draw the line at P2P?
Your applying your moral codes on customers access because it might be porn or pirated movies, it's just a matter of degree then which we all know is a slippers slope.
Why does it matter of the customer is downloading the latest Ubuntu or a porn movie.
If you agreed to offer flat rate X Kbps of service with no mention of limiting or filtering.
It quite clear either you are or you are not?
Unless you have put this in the service contract of up front, you are cheating them.
>> textbooks are awful because they are thick and black and white and contain long equations (i don't know if i should laugh or what)..
No that is not the reason.
I am autodidactic also know as self-taught, I have never had the luxury to attend college.
I spend much of my time collecting, reading and struggling to understand master and Ph.D Level texts with out the benefit of a professor around to answer questions. Often I must get 5 or more book on a subject and read them all before I can get a complete picture because so much is left out.
Black and White, thick and full of long equations is great. My problem is the simplest of math and concepts becomes an unsolvable riddle when your missing a few simple things like the context or what A, B, and C mean in an equation when a book failed to explain this. By using several books each leaving out different things the combination allow me to find in one book things left out in another.
Unless you happen to be there when the professor explains it, it's not only non-obvious but it is unsolvable using just the text alone. So when I finally find someone who understands it, one or two simple questions can allow me to move past it.
I almost feel the authors are deliberately leaving out key pieces of information so that without the oral tradition of a professors lectures the text is a dead end. Those students that fail to pay attention they are SOL if with just there text books alone.
I am not sure if this is deliberate or they are just so used to being in circles that understand this, that take it for granted that things like Lambda are obviously the conductance of an electrolyte or represents a wavelength. Gee that one must have taken me about a month to chase down.
One blurb on something like this can really save a lot of time and effort.
Assuming that the reader is versed in things like Galois fields when talking about elliptical curves is a bad assumption, especially when one page could cover the basics and allow the reader to proceed without a large tangent into yet more text books.
This is why Richard Feynman is so loved, because he was able to break things down and explain seemingly complex concepts in a complete yet understandable manner while not being dumbed down.
Yes many people use P2P for piracy, but it's much more.
Many companies also use it for Legitimate video distribution.
Many Linux Distro's use it to distribute ISO CD and DVD ROM images.
Bit Torrent is a medium for robust large file exchange, HTTP/FTP is far worse, as every time the connect drops the downloads are often resumed at the very beginning and use even more bandwidth.
With normal streaming and downloads it doesn't scale because the content offerer gets saddled with 1/2 to bandwidth cost on a $ per bit, where end receiver get a flat rate.
With P2P the end user pays close to 100% of the bandwidth costs, but again this is absorbed by their flat rate.
Nature of the Internet:
To the average FOX news viewer the Internet is just web (HTTP) hyperlink text browser experience.
But the Internet is an open communications channel for anything, and far more then http web.
There is Streaming audio, and video, live web cams, other data feeds, such as weather, news, stock,
grid computing(SETI at home), a research tool, remote monitoring, telepresence, online gaming, video conferencing, VOIP, VPN, IRC, MAIL (POP3, IMAP, SMTP), Professional Video interchange (digital fountain, digital rapids), professional movie production where masters are sent back daily "daily's", real-time medical imaging, and realtime communication with Supercomputers, realtime automotive diagnostics (tis2web), shared virtual environments, remote robotic control, SSH remote server shells and management, X windows, and so so much more.
P2P vs things like web(access to wikipedia) priority should be the choice of the customer.
How they choose to use their bandwidth is their business, you sold it to them, if you don't like it change your sales terms so they can cancel your service and go to someone else that will let them have the service they want.
In my case I used it as an uplink for live video to replace Satellite transmissions. Also we are using it from a DVR to a remote backup (CoLo) site for 100's of customers. Again close to 100% peak data getting pushed. It's might as well be P2P, it would look the same, 16 connections pushed 24/7 live video up the pipe (Tube , hehe)
How can you discriminate between my non-HTTP vs P2P. All you know is I am using a lot of bandwidth and sabotage it.
if you want to create a spit tier where high bandwidth users pay more, that's fine, but offering unlimited flat rate and then sabotaging some users is bate and switch.
Your not providing to all of your users the service you agreed to provide, just some of them at the expense of the heavy users.
So basically anyone who is a high bandwidth Internet user you trip up, assuming they are pirates and providing a lower quality of service to.
Mean while someone downloading video masters for use with Avid or final cut pro because it is part of their job and why they bought your connection gets identified as P2P because of Bit Torrent. While they use it to do their large file transfers more reliably and faster and to them your service just starts sucks mud when compared to someone who doesn't interfere with BT traffic.
Back in 1994 to 1997 I was in many debates on just this subject.
We were buying T1 and T3 for use with video streaming and the ISP where getting upset that we were using 90% of the capacity they sold us. Apparently they specked out their cost based on office use doing web surfing. And based their models on older Telco traffic models where they needed 100 lines of outbound bandwidth for every 10000+ phone lines based on supporting 95% of the peak throughput.
But we concluded if you are selling us 1.5Mbps I dam well better be able to use 1.5Mbps, don't blame me when I use what was sold to me.
Well I see this as the same problem. If Comcast or Verizon sells me internet at at data rate, then I expect to be able to use all of it. There is nothing unfair about me using what I was sold. If they don't like it then they need to change their contractual agreements with me and change their hardware to match!
Same goes with the internal infrastructure, backbones and exchange point. If you can't support it don't sell it! Don't attack the P2P users, they are using what they PAID FOR and what was sold to them!!! If they are not getting it, they should file a class action suit. No more then if you local cable company decided that 4 hr of TV was your limit and they would start to degrade your reception if you watched more, though this wasn't in the contract you signed up for.
On the other side, P2P should be given the means to hug the edges of the network. By this I mean communication between 2 cable modem or DSL users running off the same upstream routers (less hops) should be preferable and more efficient, not clogging up the more costly backbones. Currently P2P doesn't take any of that into consideration. Maybe ISP's could consider some technical solution to that rather then trying to deny customers the very access they are contractually bound to provide...
The (DOS) or flood of data would come at the blocked machine on comcast from other ISP's increasing his throughput. Each sender would only send a little, but PC a comcast would end up with a lot of data from many sources pouring in.
So disconnecting the user will not protect Comcast bandwidth and they would have to outright and overtly lock out a users connection. The penalty could be a 10 minute flood of 1Gps of UDP with legitimate data trying to reach it's destination.
"It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
Is beer a cause of effect.
It could be that less capable scientists are more social or have other factors that also make them more prone to beer drinking and if they stopped there consumption it may not have any improvement in there work.
It could very well be that there education was impair by earlier beer drinking or that the scientist that are more consumed and passionate about there science were far less likely to waist time drinking beer and participating in Social activities. Basically the more nerdy, the less beer drinking.
As a hard core nerd, and in a circle of friends who are hard core nerds, none of us drink beer. And maybe drink one bottle ever 5 years or less. We just don't tend to end up in places with beer and don't tend to fit in or be comfortable in those environments but stay in our comfort zone of logic, science and think Chess, prime numbers and Pi are fun.
Is there any reason the virus's and worms can get through the P2P can't?
Bit Torrent is already showing it's age.
I would like to get some team together to create on based on erasure codes, ECIP http://www.ecip.com/
or LT Code, the Luby Transform (Michael Luby), Fountain Codes (from Digital Fountain), network codes, Tornado codes, Online Codes, and Raptor codes.
In addition the P2P engine should morph and change it's communications similar to stealth viruses do.
So no static filtering scheme could work.
And it should also detect networks that attempt to block them and immediately launch a DOS attack against the router and infrastructure that attempts to block them. Let's not call is DOS attack, but basically by attempting to slow or stop P2P transfers to conserver bandwidth the system just starts to pour on the traffic even higher.
back in 1996 to 1999 Aryeh Friedman and myself worked on what we called Rude protocols, SPAC.
the basic idea was to provide a guaranteed data throughput on the receiver side without any regard to how much it had to send on the sending side.
This is critical for fix rate video transmission if you are to get good quality and is a very different approach to the QOS RSVP where your begging ISP's to allow your traffic to have a higher priority. We just Take it very rudely.
In 1997 we did a broadcast with Sir Arthur C. Clarke (who died yesterday) from Sri Lanka to the US.
It was over the Island of Sri lanka's only internet connection and 64K line that had 90% packet loss.
By pushing out almost 1 Mbps at the 64K like we were able to get a clean 60Kbps at the receive side for a live streaming video event! We had permission from the country's ISP at that time since the event lasted only for 1 hour. http://www.livecamserver.com/ and http://www.dnull.com/~sokol/clarke.html
But during ours test in So Cal, we were on a Dual T3 Circuit that went into Mae West, Large data interchange, pushing 10Mbps video and the network had some small outage and we pummeled the entire California internet down to an almost complete outage, 1997. this only lasted for maybe 10 minutes or so as almost every network Backbone admin was scrambled to try to stem the 100Mbps flood of UDP packets that our protocol started to push down the line.
We took a lot of flack for that out, lost our Co-Lo at that location.
Anyhow since that time we just added some cap's on the maximum.
Point being, that any deliberate attempts to stem the flow would in a sense create back pressure, that would only force an increase of the data being sent, and so creating network blockages would have the opposite of the desired effect by costing them even more bandwidth instead of saving it.
Slashdot Mirror
Kudos, couldn't have said it better myself.
"With great bandwidth comes great responsibility"
I am waiting for them to call me and my buddies.
First they need older hackers, not script kiddies.
Black hats, or at least former black hats.
Lot's of Jolt Cola, Cold Pizza and some dark dungeon supplied with what ever mind altering substances needed and a steady supply of nerdy Asian girls to look after them.
Also the boxed set of all Stargate, Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica and.. Na on second thought, we'll just grab them off Bit Torrent. Same for the HDTV, UPS delivery off some stolen credit card, old habits die hard.
Maybe more useful would be legal immunity/amnesty, from all of the collateral damage from relaxing hobbies like taking down the RIAA or Microsoft in the process, (oops).
But seriously, a License to hack anything domestic and foreign with total immunity as long at it's primarily against the enemy would be totally cool, I think a lot of us who had to give up the black hat because we have kids and just can't afford to go to prison, would be all over this.
Why domestic, I almost don't want to say this publicly but the best way to get in is start in.
http://www.c-program.com/kt/reflections-on-trusting.html
Anyhow you can't play by the rules, if they think you can launch and offensive attack without some pre-preparation your wrong.
Making an offensive toolkit is fantasy. By definition this is script kiddie and lame.
> where vulnerabilities are introduced into chipsets during manufacturing that an adversary can then exploit, and electronics vulnerabilities.
I have been told years ago that this is already being done at Taiwanese fabs to us.
Chips were designed to be resonant at some Ghz ranges and would be equivalent to an EMP when hit.
This is done at the fab without changes to the chip design but layer thicknesses that is something the fab has total control over.
These attacks should be in any OS, Router, or any other electronic devices that get sold and without the knowledge if it manufactures either. This would hackers the greatest flexibility to exploit them when needed. They key is to make sure it's not detectable or exploitable by other hackers.
An example would be to hack into Microsoft and muck with their distro before it goes out.
Of course with Microsoft and Apple, this would already seem to be unnecessary.
No it more of the level of compute power available to the NSA is orders of magnitude more then we think it is.
Many orders of magnitude, and specifically designs for cracking specifically these types of codes.
In addition it's been 1 single Chinese woman Xiaoyun Wang in Beijing who in 10 years cracked 5 of the most secure hashes we have.
So if one woman in China can crack so many of these, then what can an army of Benchley park types do?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/16/0146218
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/07/2019244
Associate professor Wang Xiaoyun of Beijing's Tsinghua University and
Shandong University of Technology,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaoyun_Wang
Chinese Prof Cracks SHA-1 Data Encryption Scheme
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/20/1936257
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-11/50336.html
article in the Epoch Times (a Chinese newspaper) about a brilliant
Chinese professor who has cracked her fifth encryption scheme in ten
years. This one's a doozy, too: she and her team have taken out the
SHA-1 scheme, which includes the (highly thought of) MD5 algorithm. As
a result, the U.S. government and major corporations will cease using
the scheme within the next few years. From the article: " These two
main algorithms are currently the crucial technology that electronic
signatures and many other password securities use throughout the
international community. They are widely used in banking, securities,
and e-commerce. SHA-1 has been recognized as the cornerstone for
modern Internet security. According to the article, in the early
stages of Wang's research, there were other data encryption
researchers who tried to crack it. However, none of them succeeded.
This is why in 15 years Hash research had become the domain of
hopeless research in many scientists' minds. "
Wang announced at an international data security conference that her
team had successfully cracked four well-known hash algorithms--MD5,
HAVAL-128, MD4, and RIPEMD--within ten years.
A few months later, she cracked the even more robust SHA-1.
I have read Philip Zimmermann book when It came out and clearly remember the remark.
Problem is several fold.
1.) SMTP is by default clear text.
2.) POP3 & IMAP are also.
3.) There is a shortage of good mail clients that can support PGP or any encryption.
4.) It was probably too lated to change things when Philip wrote those words in 91.
I remember the resistance and confusion with getting Kerberos, SSH, SSL and IPSEC out there.
5.) Key exchange has always been awkward at best, and has it's problems.
6.) When I started to work on massive arrays parallel small fast processors with Chuck Moore, I very quickly learned there had been other before, it all went black, and it would be excellent at cracking PGP, DES, MD5, AES etc.
7.) Why do you think the governments restriction about encryption suddenly ended so abruptly in 1996 and 1997? http://www.cdt.org/crypto/clipper311/961230_ear.txt &
When 386BSD was released internationally 1992 libcrypt was just a dummy that did nothing, so the systems master password file had passwords in clear text. If it didn't it do this it would have violated munitions export laws with very severe punishments.
I can only assume either they had a sufficient way to break these codes in 1997 or there was too much critical mass to change clear text systems to encryption. Maybe both.
Heck we would even had a hard time even figuring out how to do something they would even care about.
This stuff where domestic terrorist spying was used against Eliot Spitzer's bank transactions is just plain wrong. But in the end there is no point it crying about it, again most of us will also not be worth bothering with. I am more concerned with then starting to going after tax evaders or pot smokers, by wholesale automated domestic spying.
From my former hacking past. If they thought you were involved in something they'd just ransack your house, empty it and deny doing it. google "steve jackson games" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games for example. The Wiki entry doesn't do justice to the severity of what really happened.
So electronically seeing everything I am doing so they can see it's really nothing of any interest to them is better at least for me on some level.
It's been my experience with cops and other groups like this that if you walk around with black cloths and black ski mask at night this will draw far more attention if you'd planning on doing something wrong then if you wore a bright orange reflective jacket and helmet, and white overalls in the middle of the afternoon.
In black they will arrest first and ask questions later where with the bright uniform, you just look like your supposed to be there, and never get a second glance.
Same with technology, I have friends that do everything with PGP, 3DES, AES etc. It will only make them get put under more scrutiny.
I'd bet I were planning on doing something wrong that I could get away with so much more if I just keep everything in clear plain text, just for the fact that they are expecting people to act secretive and raise a red flag when doing something wrong.
On 9/11 they were looking for all kinds of secret dangerous thing, explosives, and poisons etc..
But no it was Box Cutters, We are talking about a few f**king 99 Cent box cutters that took down the 2 tallest building in the United States, and brought our economy to a stall, started 2 wars, and cost us Billions upon Billions looking for all of the wrong things and push our gas prices to $4 per gallon, and it still not over. That box cutter might even escalate with WW III. Albert Einstein quote - I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones. This is more damage then what we could ever do with Billions of dollars of super secret high tech aircraft.
This an example where KISS - Keep it stupid and simple is most effective.
If you think about all of the homeland security, there is still painfully little they can do against the box cutter type of attack. Something so mind boggling trivial and stupid you'd never think about it.
But it's these things that could lead to a terrifying chain reaction.
So if all my docs are up on Google and easily readable, these numb nuts of the government are far less likely to even notice me or bother me, then if I were trying to pass around encrypted docs, then they will spend millions to decode them and then start monitoring my every action. Because If I am hiding something I must be doing something wrong?
They never believe it was just grandma's cookie recipe as you try to explain this while being water boarded.
I am still trying to figure out what people are talking about with web 2.0?
With compuserver (1969), BBS's (1970's), UseNet, E-mail & The Source (1979), The Well & Q-link (1985) we have online communities this whole time. With IRC we have been IM Chatting since 1988.
And almost all of this existed over the IP based Internet starting around 1983 and starting in 1993 it became http/browser based. I have been using all of these early after their inception.
So what is new about Web 2.0? I can't see anything new at all, not even a little. Am I missing something.
Same with Parallelism.
I was a member of the Parallel Computing Connection PPC a club run by Mitchell Loebel in Silicon Valley going back to 1989 that later renamed itself into the Tech Startup Connection http://www.techstartupconnection.org/ . From that club things like the NUMA Architecture arose.
Before that Thinking Machines Corporation by Danny Hillis 1982 with the "Connection Machine" and nCUBE.
Earlier was Control Data Corporation (CDC) and Cray which although technically not parallel processors used parallel Arithmetic circuits.
But even the Code breaking machines in WW2 used massive parallelism.
Richard Feynman's work on the Manhattan project, in which in one of his books (I think is was "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!") he describes a human assisted parallel computer with banks of Primitive IBM computers with humans moving stacks of punch cards between them to plow through the math needed to build the Bomb.
Point being, that in all of the excitement of Internet for the average Joe we forgot about most of these technologies and are now returning to it.
So there isn't anything new here, just a rediscovery.
How to use so many cpu's under Panic in Multicore Land March 11, 2008
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=483070&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=22719658
Ask Chuck Moore About 25X, Forth And So On , Aug 28, 2001
http://slashdot.org/developers/01/08/19/1712249.shtml
Hey I am just relaying it.
Let's take bets on it.
I'll good for about $100K that it will not destroy the earth. Any takers?
I ran this past some friends a bit smarter about this sort of stuff then I am, below is their responses. Duh-didn't they ask this question when they started work on the LHC? And what about the center of the sun? Don't see any strangelets there.....
Sandya Narayanswami, PhD --------------------- Does this come with an Earth-back guarantee?
The first scenario is absurd, since black holes are not physically
possible. It is as if he were claiming that faeries and demons would be
produced in the collisions. The next two may also be on a par with the
faeries, I'm not entirely sure. If any of them were true, then
high-energy, heavy-nucleus cosmic rays should have long since destroyed
all the stars and planets in the Universe.
Forrest Bishop
If you can't support it don't sell it!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=497516&cid=22848256
I wouldn't be surprised if Bit Torrent and there partners threatened ComCast, maybe with a boycott or civil action.
I now predict that Bit Torrent or it descendant will obsolete BlueRay and Cable for recorded video content distribution, Even 1080i HD
Now not to tangent too much:
In the short term BlueRay will clearly kill off DVD, DVD-R, and HD-DVD had already just died.
I just talked yesterday with the only BlueRay disk manufacturer in the US.
They were talking about 500GB disks, so I think will be a long time before Bit Torrent will be able to compete with that. (Especially when spray on 4K Digital Cinema video walls come out in 20 years.. )
500GB BlueRay-R when it arrives sounds like a great media to back up my Torrent downloaded pirated movie collection.
But seriously how the heck can I back up 1TB Sata drives?
Now for the Wacky Idea: first run movies on Bit Torrent.
I have the rights to make a movie based on a famous SciFi writer short story who just passed away at age 90.
Can not share his name, but you can easily guess this one.
After 3 years of rejections from Hollywood, I was thinking that maybe we can fund the movie with donations and grants and release the movie freely (GPL style) over Bit Torrent and BlueRay and then see what it will take to get it played in theaters. I really think it would be so cool and set a whole new model for film production, copyleft movies. Am I a nut job or is this just crazy enough to work?
If you have any thoughts on that hit me up on http://videotechnology.blogspot.com/2008/03/now-for-wacky-idea-first-run-movies-on.html I tried posting this as a Ask SlashDot article but was rejected for some reason.
I have another blog post here.
http://johnsokol.blogspot.com/2008/03/copyleft-movies-can-it-be-done.html
Manufacturers hit a wall on 100 watts CPU's were the heat sinks became too heavy to mount on the PCB.
And even though there are alternative solutions for some reason they just set that as the limit for desk top CPU's.
So all systems since 2000 and maybe even earlier have had about the same power consumption peak and idle.
What has happened is they lower the voltage on the CPU while increasing clock rates, and density.
In the end it keeps the power consumption at about the same level.
This was something I found frustrating since with improved cooling they could increase power levels and run processors even faster, but if you notice the P4 hit 3.8 Ghz in 2004 and they just stopped flat.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,118424-page,1/article.html 2004 they changed there tune.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_44_48/ai_93735204 2002 planning 5 & 6 Ghz
Yet overclockers make it to 6 Ghz with P4's as early as 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eSwf5LxGAM
&
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/26/0019229&tid=222&tid=118&tid=164&tid=1
It's bad enough passing the oil refinery on the 101 north of Ventura, that has it's eternal 30 foot flame of burning Hydrogen sulfide. The stench is nauseating along one of the most visually beautiful stretches of highway on earth as is hugs along side the pacific.
Now your telling me that we are going to have to smell this nasty stuff all the way to mars and beyond?
Talk about ruining the trip of a lifetime.
I'd rather take my chances with being frozen.
Sure if I wanted to spend 3K instead of 1K on my server. New drives are $100 each. It's just darn inconvenient.
The FCC RF emission problems is first hand experience from product development I am working on.
There are no published references and since we are not paid for science no effort was spent to tracking down the cause.
A design that was already shipping with standard tin/lead consistently failed RF emissions testing after a RoHS manufacturing.
This required us to shield the cases and re-route signals differently from the earlier non-RoHS design that did pass earlier with an unshielded case.
I understand "technically" the RoHS board design shouldn't have needed any board changes but in practice this was not the case.
Not sure what the typical experience is.
At my now dead startup Nisvara we where building Silent computers using passive cooling, and figure out how to build server rooms that didn't require air conditioning just outside evaporative cooling towers.
;) Sorry just couldn't resist after reading that site.
We did this very profiling, out designed cooled each component individually.
I dont' have the numbers in front of me, but if I recall for a typical P4 3Ghz system we saw the total average power consumption at something like 75 watts when idle and 150 watts or more under load. With the ACPI on it would drop considerably when idle. (I am not including the monitors that also draw 75 watts or so)
Again we were more interested in were heat was generated so we measured power dissipation per component which is directly equivalent to watts used.
But watts for a component was quite different then the watts on the power line.
Why? Because in this breakdown almost 40 to 50% of the power was lost in PC's power supply's!
Both main and on the motherboards on board supply's needed for the CPU and chip sets.
This was very high since most PC power supply were only 60% efficient!
So all loaded inside the PC show up as almost 2x on the 110 volt power line.
So of the peak 150W coming in what's left after being stepped down is a remaining 80W or so.
Hard Drive 12 watts assuming 1 80Gb Maxtor DiamondMax.
North and South Bridge, 1 to 6 watts
Support chips, almost 1 maybe 2 watts, things like the NIC and other support components were insignificant.
CPU which could vary from 20 watts to 100 watts depending on it's load.
Running like CPU burn, CPU test or CPU stress would max out the CPU's power, again with the power supply low efficiency an 80 watt increase in CPU power use results in an 160 Watt increase on the 110V power line! We didn't not expect this when we started.
If you add a high end graphics (Nvidia/ATI) card then add on another 40 watts 2x so 80 watts on the power line.
Another interesting thing was 10 watts for fans!
Here is another shocker, the hotter the system ran the more power each component draw. This could add another 10% or so. So a cold system like just after power up uses less then a hot one.
>Still, it looks like this site will have to add hard drives to their saved watts: http://www.whosavedwatt.com/
"And Bill saved 2,000,000 Watts by changing his indoor growing operation to LED lighting." Joking.
I have found most drives run at around 12 watts, so saving 10 is really significant.
Also with less power the drives should run cooler, this would really increase drive reliability.
I found most CoLo servers don't properly cool their drives especially 1U servers, where it seems I loose a few every year, but at home I can run those same drives for 5 years or more. Even the desktop servers I run in a dusty shed that freeze in the winter and bakes in the summer the drives are more reliable then the ones running in a CoLo with constant 50 degree super clean air, just because drives in 1U's run hotter constantly and under a heaver load.
RoHS is another story, it's been a somewhat difficult transition, unexpectedly is make passing FCC compliance more difficult because for the exact same board layout it had higher RF emissions. Don't know why, wonder if others have also seen that.
I don't see how RoHS is going to be any more "green", the largest change is moving away from tin/lead to Lead-free solders that contain some mix of tin, copper, silver, bismuth, indium, zinc, and antimony.
It's more expensive, and brittle which could decrease reliablity.
If the circuit boards are actually getting recycled instead of landfilled, it wouldn't make much difference anyhow.
Yes, I see, hadn't even considered that.
For wireless this is indeed true. This is where things like Mesh networks really shine.
I had a sprint wireless internet access in San Jose till they pulled the service, guess it never made a profit.
It was ashame, it worked great, they had this 1 foot square antenna on my roof and it talked with a tower some 15 miles away in the hills in Fremont.
Anyhow, for Cable and DSL hugging the net should improves things.
Humm, I am now thinking. Is there some way to detect if your on a wireless link? WiFi or any other types?
Maybe some user defined setting could be added.
Where it's something that wouldn't really effect the users other then improving there performance by setting the last mile type.
Thanks for that paper, someone mod the parent up please.
I remember loving CPM and Digital Research, and also Unix which I still love.
I also remember loving Apple and the Apple II as well as Atari, C64 and the TRS-80's. And the CoCo's.
But IBM PC's and DOS I have always hated, for as long as I can remember.
I ended up becoming a DOS person for one reason.
Apple scr***ed it's developers in 1985.
I did a lot of Apple II code, and Lisa and then very early Mac's from 128K to 512K.
The Apple, TRS-80's, IBM PC and even the S100 CPM systems were all totally open. Heck even the Amiga shipped with Full Schematics in the manual!
But the Mac started a little open then went closed.
They started charging $5000 for their developers kids and conferences also became also too expensive something like $1000 entrance fees.
I was 18 at that time, far too rich for my blood.
So it was either stick with the kiddy boxes, C64, Amiga, CoCo which were all just lacking that clean professional edge.
The TRS-80's were really showing their age too, Z80's just didn't cut it.
So that left the PC's which I really resisted for a long time. DOS was always a kludge and ugly.
64K segmentation, I want to hurl just thinking about it.
No, I never had any love for Microsoft ever.
But when apple forsaken us upstart hacker kids, I was left with few alternatives.
I don't think to this day Jobs realized he threw away the top spot leaving Microsoft to scoop it up by being more open! PC's also published Full schematics, even gave a source code listing of the BIOS, although not open source it was still working example code. Even DOS came with debug allowing us broke kids a crude environment that we could write assembly language programs and simple scripts.
God knows I wished I could have stuck with Mac's, but I have never been back and to this day feel slighted.
As a matter of fact I disliked Microsoft and DOS so much I was involved in several attempts to get a decent Unix on PC's and was involved early in 386BSD which was the first really useful Unix Port.
I am sure a large part of Linux's and later Netscape's success was driven by the same motives, to get back to Open.
So Don Reisinger of ITworld.com, where the hell were you in the 70's, 80's and most of the 90's?
You must have come on the scene in the mid internet boom. 98 maybe and smoked a little too much of the hype.
God I can't remember even a single person other then totally clueless newbies loving Microsoft.
Even that didn't last long once the booze wore off and they realized she was really a pig with lipstick, but it was too late to back out then.
That article isn't worth the bit's it's written on.
If it does then they must be doing something really stupid.
I am familiar with both DOCSIS and DSLAM's so I'd love to see the article where hugging the edge of the network could cost more.
People are also downloading porn and pirate content on http also, So p2p is no different in that respect.
There are more and more P2P set top boxes on the market with licensed content using Bit Torrent.
These could eventually compete with the cable companies offering quality HD content.
Look at the http://www.bittorrent.com/ site.
They have customers such as Fox, Lionsgate, Paramount, MTV, Warner Brothers, SEGA, Comedy Central and Netgear using their P2P networking protocols.
And your hindering it. As a side effect this thinking is assisting Comcast's monopoly.
If they might be download porn then why don't you just block the IP address blocks of known porn sites, why draw the line at P2P?
Your applying your moral codes on customers access because it might be porn or pirated movies, it's just a matter of degree then which we all know is a slippers slope.
Why does it matter of the customer is downloading the latest Ubuntu or a porn movie.
If you agreed to offer flat rate X Kbps of service with no mention of limiting or filtering.
It quite clear either you are or you are not?
Unless you have put this in the service contract of up front, you are cheating them.
>> textbooks are awful because they are thick and black and white and contain long equations (i don't know if i should laugh or what)..
No that is not the reason.
I am autodidactic also know as self-taught, I have never had the luxury to attend college.
I spend much of my time collecting, reading and struggling to understand master and Ph.D Level texts with out the benefit of a professor around to answer questions. Often I must get 5 or more book on a subject and read them all before I can get a complete picture because so much is left out.
Black and White, thick and full of long equations is great. My problem is the simplest of math and concepts becomes an unsolvable riddle when your missing a few simple things like the context or what A, B, and C mean in an equation when a book failed to explain this. By using several books each leaving out different things the combination allow me to find in one book things left out in another.
Unless you happen to be there when the professor explains it, it's not only non-obvious but it is unsolvable using just the text alone.
So when I finally find someone who understands it, one or two simple questions can allow me to move past it.
I almost feel the authors are deliberately leaving out key pieces of information so that without the oral tradition of a professors lectures the text is a dead end. Those students that fail to pay attention they are SOL if with just there text books alone.
I am not sure if this is deliberate or they are just so used to being in circles that understand this, that take it for granted that things like Lambda are obviously the conductance of an electrolyte or represents a wavelength. Gee that one must have taken me about a month to chase down.
One blurb on something like this can really save a lot of time and effort.
Assuming that the reader is versed in things like Galois fields when talking about elliptical curves is a bad assumption, especially when one page could cover the basics and allow the reader to proceed without a large tangent into yet more text books.
This is why Richard Feynman is so loved, because he was able to break things down and explain seemingly complex concepts in a complete yet understandable manner while not being dumbed down.
> instead of 'fast' movie leeching ?
I think this is a terrible assumption.
Yes many people use P2P for piracy, but it's much more.
Many companies also use it for Legitimate video distribution.
Many Linux Distro's use it to distribute ISO CD and DVD ROM images.
Bit Torrent is a medium for robust large file exchange, HTTP/FTP is far worse, as every time the connect drops the downloads are often resumed at the very beginning and use even more bandwidth.
See my paper http://www.videotechnology.com/economics_of_video.htm
With normal streaming and downloads it doesn't scale because the content offerer gets saddled with 1/2 to bandwidth cost on a $ per bit, where end receiver get a flat rate.
With P2P the end user pays close to 100% of the bandwidth costs, but again this is absorbed by their flat rate.
Nature of the Internet:
To the average FOX news viewer the Internet is just web (HTTP) hyperlink text browser experience.
But the Internet is an open communications channel for anything, and far more then http web.
There is Streaming audio, and video, live web cams, other data feeds, such as weather, news, stock,
grid computing(SETI at home), a research tool, remote monitoring, telepresence, online gaming, video conferencing, VOIP, VPN, IRC, MAIL (POP3, IMAP, SMTP), Professional Video interchange (digital fountain, digital rapids), professional movie production where masters are sent back daily "daily's", real-time medical imaging, and realtime communication with Supercomputers, realtime automotive diagnostics (tis2web), shared virtual environments, remote robotic control, SSH remote server shells and management, X windows, and so so much more.
P2P vs things like web(access to wikipedia) priority should be the choice of the customer.
How they choose to use their bandwidth is their business, you sold it to them, if you don't like it change your sales terms so they can cancel your service and go to someone else that will let them have the service they want.
In my case I used it as an uplink for live video to replace Satellite transmissions.
Also we are using it from a DVR to a remote backup (CoLo) site for 100's of customers. Again close to 100% peak data getting pushed. It's might as well be P2P, it would look the same, 16 connections pushed 24/7 live video up the pipe (Tube , hehe)
How can you discriminate between my non-HTTP vs P2P. All you know is I am using a lot of bandwidth and sabotage it.
if you want to create a spit tier where high bandwidth users pay more, that's fine, but offering unlimited flat rate and then sabotaging some users is bate and switch.
Your not providing to all of your users the service you agreed to provide, just some of them at the expense of the heavy users.
So basically anyone who is a high bandwidth Internet user you trip up, assuming they are pirates and providing a lower quality of service to.
Mean while someone downloading video masters for use with Avid or final cut pro because it is part of their job and why they bought your connection gets identified as P2P because of Bit Torrent. While they use it to do their large file transfers more reliably and faster and to them your service just starts sucks mud when compared to someone who doesn't interfere with BT traffic.
Back in 1994 to 1997 I was in many debates on just this subject.
We were buying T1 and T3 for use with video streaming and the ISP where getting upset that we were using 90% of the capacity they sold us. Apparently they specked out their cost based on office use doing web surfing. And based their models on older Telco traffic models where they needed 100 lines of outbound bandwidth for every 10000+ phone lines based on supporting 95% of the peak throughput.
But we concluded if you are selling us 1.5Mbps I dam well better be able to use 1.5Mbps, don't blame me when I use what was sold to me.
Well I see this as the same problem. If Comcast or Verizon sells me internet at at data rate, then I expect to be able to use all of it. There is nothing unfair about me using what I was sold. If they don't like it then they need to change their contractual agreements with me and change their hardware to match!
Same goes with the internal infrastructure, backbones and exchange point. If you can't support it don't sell it! Don't attack the P2P users, they are using what they PAID FOR and what was sold to them!!! If they are not getting it, they should file a class action suit.
No more then if you local cable company decided that 4 hr of TV was your limit and they would start to degrade your reception if you watched more, though this wasn't in the contract you signed up for.
On the other side, P2P should be given the means to hug the edges of the network. By this I mean communication between 2 cable modem or DSL users running off the same upstream routers (less hops) should be preferable and more efficient, not clogging up the more costly backbones. Currently P2P doesn't take any of that into consideration. Maybe ISP's could consider some technical solution to that rather then trying to deny customers the very access they are contractually bound to provide...
The (DOS) or flood of data would come at the blocked machine on comcast from other ISP's increasing his throughput. Each sender would only send a little, but PC a comcast would end up with a lot of data from many sources pouring in.
So disconnecting the user will not protect Comcast bandwidth and they would have to outright and overtly lock out a users connection. The penalty could be a 10 minute flood of 1Gps of UDP with legitimate data trying to reach it's destination.
"It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
Is beer a cause of effect.
It could be that less capable scientists are more social or have other factors that also make them more prone to beer drinking and if they stopped there consumption it may not have any improvement in there work.
It could very well be that there education was impair by earlier beer drinking or that the scientist that are more consumed and passionate about there science were far less likely to waist time drinking beer and participating in Social activities. Basically the more nerdy, the less beer drinking.
As a hard core nerd, and in a circle of friends who are hard core nerds, none of us drink beer. And maybe drink one bottle ever 5 years or less.
We just don't tend to end up in places with beer and don't tend to fit in or be comfortable in those environments but stay in our comfort zone of logic, science and think Chess, prime numbers and Pi are fun.
J
Is there any reason the virus's and worms can get through the P2P can't?
;)
Bit Torrent is already showing it's age.
I would like to get some team together to create on based on erasure codes, ECIP http://www.ecip.com/
or LT Code, the Luby Transform (Michael Luby), Fountain Codes (from Digital Fountain), network codes, Tornado codes, Online Codes, and Raptor codes.
In addition the P2P engine should morph and change it's communications similar to stealth viruses do.
So no static filtering scheme could work.
And it should also detect networks that attempt to block them and immediately launch a DOS attack against the router and infrastructure that attempts to block them. Let's not call is DOS attack, but basically by attempting to slow or stop P2P transfers to conserver bandwidth the system just starts to pour on the traffic even higher.
back in 1996 to 1999 Aryeh Friedman and myself worked on what we called Rude protocols, SPAC.
the basic idea was to provide a guaranteed data throughput on the receiver side without any regard to how much it had to send on the sending side.
This is critical for fix rate video transmission if you are to get good quality and is a very different approach to the QOS RSVP where your begging ISP's to allow your traffic to have a higher priority. We just Take it very rudely.
In 1997 we did a broadcast with Sir Arthur C. Clarke (who died yesterday) from Sri Lanka to the US.
It was over the Island of Sri lanka's only internet connection and 64K line that had 90% packet loss.
By pushing out almost 1 Mbps at the 64K like we were able to get a clean 60Kbps at the receive side for a live streaming video event! We had permission from the country's ISP at that time since the event lasted only for 1 hour.
http://www.livecamserver.com/ and http://www.dnull.com/~sokol/clarke.html
But during ours test in So Cal, we were on a Dual T3 Circuit that went into Mae West, Large data interchange, pushing 10Mbps video and the network had some small outage and we pummeled the entire California internet down to an almost complete outage, 1997. this only lasted for maybe 10 minutes or so as almost every network Backbone admin was scrambled to try to stem the 100Mbps flood of UDP packets that our protocol started to push down the line.
We took a lot of flack for that out, lost our Co-Lo at that location.
Anyhow since that time we just added some cap's on the maximum.
Point being, that any deliberate attempts to stem the flow would in a sense create back pressure, that would only force an increase of the data being sent, and so creating network blockages would have the opposite of the desired effect by costing them even more bandwidth instead of saving it.
Wouldn't that be a fun thing