This is nothing but good advertisement for the casinos, "look our systems are not perfect, our machines can go crazy and make you rich". Isn't this exactly what all the players are praying for?
Divine comedy: Yes, your prayers have been heard, but sorry here is your get into jail free card
*Blush*, Amazing & Thanks, I'll immediately downgrade my English to "good".
Honestly, before posting I did check couple of the examples given in Webster's web dictionary.
Comprise
1 : to include especially within a particular scope...
2 : to be made up of...
3 : compose, constitute.. Also, I didn't find an equivalent word from my native language's vocabulary; at least not finding a word that would work that cleverly to both directions. But Yes, today's score English language 1 - me 0.
But hold your horses, fat lady - I have not started to sing yet
WTF
Fructose comprises 50% of table sugar and up to 90% of high-fructose corn syrup,... The one who wrote that must be high on sugar.
Fructoses are simple monosaccharides. I don't remember them having corn-atoms
Very good points,
Actually, I got a feeling that we are both describing the same system. Yes, from slightly different angles, but it is still the same system.
Why I think logging in and karma-points are needed?
1) All P2P- systems have quickly found enemies, who look to sabotage the system and ruin the user experience of the system. For example vandals have been
Feeding the P2P systems with bogus-files, for example music files with random noise in the middle of a song
Rating their bogus files to make them appear top-quality
Vandals have used hired contractors for inserting faulty packets in some P2P systems with weaker checksums
2) If the system allowed UPloadings without karma-points, the obvious method of choice for the vandals would be filling the system with bogus files
Think, their goal is just to eliminate the usability of that system.
They would also be likely to build scripts/ programs that would rate their bogus-files as being top quality
other things that would be cool: clouds, using kademlia (dht) with 512 bits to find nodes adjacent to a server followed by distance-vector routing to actually get to it, lots of hash verification... lots of ideas here.
True, for the purpose of making a speedy 'distributed internet', kademlia-like system could be required.
one thing about it though, is that keeping it decentralized is important; no one place to shut it down.
Definitely true,
the system, therefore, can't reliably do a karma system on the quality of 'uploads'; this would have to be decentralized.
I disagree, karma-points are needed (see 1.) and they can be implemented using registry keeping 'super-nodes'. Basically the system would select some of the nodes (with good uptime and upload records) to become 'Super-nodes' that would no longer be distributing the data, but focus in answering to registry queries.
The Super-node issue both simplifies and complicates the construction, but it certainly makes it more efficient and reliable. Importantly, it inserts a mechanism that is like the Internet's "Root nameserver"-system. So if kademlia provides the service like basic DNS-routing for the data - the 'Super-nodes' have (at least) the registry over the karma quality of the users. Naturally, the 'Super-nodes' would need to compare and duplicate their registry entries so that the system would survive. Another point with the 'Super-node' survivality is that queries to those should be routed with selected, best, most trusted nodes ('Mid-nodes') among the 'Common-nodes'.
I believe this kind of a (three-step) hierarchical node system would be more efficient than a system using less differentiated nodes. So the tasks for each node-level would be
Super-nodes
user-karma-registry
maintain registry over Mid-nodes, and (hash-name range) of files they host
update, dublicate and exchange registries among similar Super-nodes
answer to user queries mediated by Mid-nodes
Mid-nodes
maintain quality ratings (a file's own karma) over files
maintain comments about files
form together a search engine for files, that 'Common-nodes' can use
mediate info about user's karma and the level of service that that user can have
mediate information to Common-nodes about the where abouts of Mid-nodes that know the
computers having file chunks that that Common-node wants
update, dublicate and exchange these registries among similar Mid-nodes that deal within
the same (hash-name range) of files they host
agree with other Mid-nodes an onion routed route for UP-and DOWNloading the file-chunks
Common-nodes
act as a file-storage they report their hosted file-chunks, only to their supreme 'Mid-node'. Receiving Mid-node then announces these chunks to the mid-nodes that host files with that hash-n
Yes, I expect a new protocol that puts together the best parts of the past 10 years of P2P technologies. Especially the pest parts from Kazaa, Freenet, Tor and bittorrent.
+ Kazaa had an efficient algorithm for getting the file-chunks from various locatinos, it also had a decentralized packet quality voting system and an integrated search engine with specialized super-nodes. - Kazaa had not anonymity or encryption. Sharing files with other Kazaa users was voluntary and traceable, thus the fear among users was limiting the willingness to share.
+ Freenet is well-anonymized and encrypted file storage. It also maintains the hosted files and protects their existence by duplicating the file-chunks when needed and until needed. Nobody knows exactly what files are on any single user's computer, those encrypted file-chunks just came from somewhere, and that user will never know or don't need to worry about those files. - Freenet's internal search engine is underdeveloped. The Freenet's inability to search, rate and exchange comments about stored files is preventing Freenet from reaching true popularity among file sharers.
+ Tor network is good in protecting the identity of surfers. - Tor onion router system doesn't have file storage. Tor's potential to search, rate and comment files within P2P systems goes wasted, because it is not a part of any P2P file search engine
+ Bittorrent's torrent files allow dividing the media files into natural parts e.g. into individual songs. Tiny torrent files can also be semi-legally distributed searched commented and rated. Bittorrent also promotes file sharing among users by limiting user bandwidth according to past UP and DOWNloads. - Bittorrent network is not encrypted nor onion routed, so those who share can be traced and even the downloaders can be located.
What I expect the future P2P system (SYSTEM) to be like: (This is for the guy in patent office)
1) P2P file storage and distribution SYSTEM t h a t contains an encrypted file-storage much like the one used in Freenet-project
2) SYSTEM contains a search engine, which can be used so that the search queries are transmitted to and from the SYSTEM's distributed search engine, through an encrypting onion router network.
3) SYSTEM's Onion router network can also be used in publishing comments and ratings about the files that are maintained within the 'SYSTEM'. The SYSTEM can be configured to store the ratings and comments about the files with in the SYSTEM.
4) Individual user's influence into rating the files maintained by the 'SYSTEM', can be influenced by for example
4a) The amount of SYSTEM'S data that this user has allowed others to download from his computer unit, in comparison to the amount of SYSTEM's data that this user has downloaded from the other SYSTEM users computer units
4b) The difference between the user's rating of a certain file and the ratings that other SYSTEM users give to that SYSTEM's file. Thus each users influence into rating the files can be influenced by that users past actions within the SYSTEM (compare to Slashdot's karma-factor)
4c) The ratings that other users give for the files that this user has been inserting into the SYSTEM
5) Individual user's allowed download quality and or quantity from the SYSTEM can be regulated by the user's 'karma'-factor that can depend on for example of
5a) The amount of SYSTEM'S data that this user has allowed others to download from his computer unit, in comparison to the amount of SYSTEM's data that this user has downloaded from the other SYSTEM users computer units
5b) The difference between the user's rating of a certain file and the ratings that other SYSTEM users give to that SYSTEM's file. Thus each users influence into rating the files can be influenced by that users past actions within the SYSTEM (compare to Slashdot's karma-factor)
5c) The ratings that other users give for the files
You might want to start fixing that pesky abysmal latency and its friend, horrendously slow transfer rate; then we can talk. Fibre optics and hard disk makers will take care of the speed and volume. Think, you probably now have 6 times more HD space and 3X connection speed in comparison to what you had 5 years ago. In 2012 your system will again have 6X more space and 3X the network speed, in comparison to current.
The amount of anonymizing hops used in Tor / Freenet does not need to be increased.
So, time is clearly on a pirate's side.
The key is that one is allowed to vote unlimited number of times, last vote being the one that counts. So, if there is a pistol on your head demanding you to vote for someone you don't want to, then when the pistol has left the building you can cast another vote to revert that earlier one. The same goes for situations where somebody is giving you money for voting that somebody. After having been paid you could re-vote and cancel that vote that you were paid for.
Just how obvious does the corruption in the White House have to be before you demand a change of government?
It's the election system that needs to be re-designed. More parties improves democracy, increases political responsibility and transparency. Just ask the Chinese or Europeans.
'The Official Truth' must always be balanced by a counter-weight. Now Moore is needed for that - and he does his thing well. But after Moore, who could continue the good work of Larry Flynt and Michael Moore?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this exactly what all the players are praying for?
and soon BSA campaigns are screaming, You wouldn't steal a trojan creation tool...
Damn, yes I would
Just compare the world's oldest diving suit and a modern lightweight diving suit.
Every time physicist are trapped in a corner, they escape by inventing a new dimension
Honestly, before posting I did check couple of the examples given in Webster's web dictionary. Comprise 1 : to include especially within a particular scope... 2 : to be made up of
But hold your horses, fat lady - I have not started to sing yet
Fructoses are simple monosaccharides. I don't remember them having corn-atoms
Actually, I got a feeling that we are both describing the same system. Yes, from slightly different angles, but it is still the same system.
Why I think logging in and karma-points are needed?
1) All P2P- systems have quickly found enemies, who look to sabotage the system and ruin the user experience of the system. For example vandals have been
2) If the system allowed UPloadings without karma-points, the obvious method of choice for the vandals would be filling the system with bogus files
other things that would be cool: clouds, using kademlia (dht) with 512 bits to find nodes adjacent to a server followed by distance-vector routing to actually get to it, lots of hash verification... lots of ideas here.
True, for the purpose of making a speedy 'distributed internet', kademlia-like system could be required.
one thing about it though, is that keeping it decentralized is important; no one place to shut it down.
Definitely true,
the system, therefore, can't reliably do a karma system on the quality of 'uploads'; this would have to be decentralized.
I disagree, karma-points are needed (see 1.) and they can be implemented using registry keeping 'super-nodes'. Basically the system would select some of the nodes (with good uptime and upload records) to become 'Super-nodes' that would no longer be distributing the data, but focus in answering to registry queries.
The Super-node issue both simplifies and complicates the construction, but it certainly makes it more efficient and reliable. Importantly, it inserts a mechanism that is like the Internet's "Root nameserver"-system. So if kademlia provides the service like basic DNS-routing for the data - the 'Super-nodes' have (at least) the registry over the karma quality of the users. Naturally, the 'Super-nodes' would need to compare and duplicate their registry entries so that the system would survive. Another point with the 'Super-node' survivality is that queries to those should be routed with selected, best, most trusted nodes ('Mid-nodes') among the 'Common-nodes'.
I believe this kind of a (three-step) hierarchical node system would be more efficient than a system using less differentiated nodes. So the tasks for each node-level would be
Super-nodes
Mid-nodes
Common-nodes
Yes, I expect a new protocol that puts together the best parts of the past 10 years of P2P technologies. Especially the pest parts from Kazaa, Freenet, Tor and bittorrent.
+ Kazaa had an efficient algorithm for getting the file-chunks from various locatinos, it also had a decentralized packet quality voting system and an integrated search engine with specialized super-nodes.
- Kazaa had not anonymity or encryption. Sharing files with other Kazaa users was voluntary and traceable, thus the fear among users was limiting the willingness to share.
+ Freenet is well-anonymized and encrypted file storage. It also maintains the hosted files and protects their existence by duplicating the file-chunks when needed and until needed. Nobody knows exactly what files are on any single user's computer, those encrypted file-chunks just came from somewhere, and that user will never know or don't need to worry about those files.
- Freenet's internal search engine is underdeveloped. The Freenet's inability to search, rate and exchange comments about stored files is preventing Freenet from reaching true popularity among file sharers.
+ Tor network is good in protecting the identity of surfers.
- Tor onion router system doesn't have file storage. Tor's potential to search, rate and comment files within P2P systems goes wasted, because it is not a part of any P2P file search engine
+ Bittorrent's torrent files allow dividing the media files into natural parts e.g. into individual songs. Tiny torrent files can also be semi-legally distributed searched commented and rated. Bittorrent also promotes file sharing among users by limiting user bandwidth according to past UP and DOWNloads.
- Bittorrent network is not encrypted nor onion routed, so those who share can be traced and even the downloaders can be located.
What I expect the future P2P system (SYSTEM) to be like:
(This is for the guy in patent office)
1) P2P file storage and distribution SYSTEM t h a t contains an encrypted file-storage much like the one used in Freenet-project
2) SYSTEM contains a search engine, which can be used so that the search queries are transmitted to and from the SYSTEM's distributed search engine, through an encrypting onion router network.
3) SYSTEM's Onion router network can also be used in publishing comments and ratings about the files that are maintained within the 'SYSTEM'. The SYSTEM can be configured to store the ratings and comments about the files with in the SYSTEM.
4) Individual user's influence into rating the files maintained by the 'SYSTEM', can be influenced by for example
4a) The amount of SYSTEM'S data that this user has allowed others to download from his computer unit, in comparison to the amount of SYSTEM's data that this user has downloaded from the other SYSTEM users computer units
4b) The difference between the user's rating of a certain file and the ratings that other SYSTEM users give to that SYSTEM's file. Thus each users influence into rating the files can be influenced by that users past actions within the SYSTEM (compare to Slashdot's karma-factor)
4c) The ratings that other users give for the files that this user has been inserting into the SYSTEM
5) Individual user's allowed download quality and or quantity from the SYSTEM can be regulated by the user's 'karma'-factor that can depend on for example of
5a) The amount of SYSTEM'S data that this user has allowed others to download from his computer unit, in comparison to the amount of SYSTEM's data that this user has downloaded from the other SYSTEM users computer units
5b) The difference between the user's rating of a certain file and the ratings that other SYSTEM users give to that SYSTEM's file. Thus each users influence into rating the files can be influenced by that users past actions within the SYSTEM (compare to Slashdot's karma-factor)
5c) The ratings that other users give for the files
The amount of anonymizing hops used in Tor / Freenet does not need to be increased. So, time is clearly on a pirate's side.
encrypted and anonymous distributed p2p protocol will dominate forever and anti-pirates will be assimilated
The key is that one is allowed to vote unlimited number of times, last vote being the one that counts. So, if there is a pistol on your head demanding you to vote for someone you don't want to, then when the pistol has left the building you can cast another vote to revert that earlier one. The same goes for situations where somebody is giving you money for voting that somebody. After having been paid you could re-vote and cancel that vote that you were paid for.
l
A detailed description of Estonian model is available http://www.vm.ee/estonia/kat_340/pea_172/7025.htm
As a result; Estonians were again able to pull successful e-elections. Why should we reinvent the wheel and not use their E-voting model as a model?
'The Official Truth' must always be balanced by a counter-weight. Now Moore is needed for that - and he does his thing well. But after Moore, who could continue the good work of Larry Flynt and Michael Moore?
, if I could download one