Except that its not $.03/"click" for the superbowl, its $.03/impression. So for all the Bud Light adds, it may have been $.03 per person that watched it, but who knows how much for those who:
a) Paid attention to it
b) Drink wretched, watered-down beer
c) Drink a different brand of canoe beer and decide to switch or c') Drink bud lite and decide that "hey, I should buy more"
With pay-per-CLICK advertising for Bud Lite, you would only be paying for people who are at least in category B, and probably in category C.
If we've reached "peak advertising" its not Google which will suffer but TV and print...
Part of the beauty of what Google has done is made advertising cheap, quantifiable, and universal. Anyone can do it, anyone can measure it, and its cheap.
If a company wants to spend advertisement money efficiently, they spend it through Google. If they don't, they throw it away on the Superbowl, where the audience is 100M, and $3M an add, so that costs $.03 for each person who sees the add, regardless of whether they are interested, paying attention, or relevant.
Compare that with advertising through Google, where if you say, advertise on slashdot, not only is it cheaper per person, but its only geeks who may be interested in the ads presented.
Really, what google has done is change their reverse information for a LOT of their stuff to point to 1e100.net rather than google, since Google these days is so much more than google: you have youtube, blogger, analytics, doubleclick, and a host of others.
The 1e100.net name is nice because it allows admins etc to go "this is GOOGLE" rather than "this is X" (which got assimilated by google).
Written material by others, namely, course readers, have to abide to copyright: there is no fair-use exemption that allows the readers to be made without paying the copyright holders, nor for faculty to copy textbooks.
Why should videos not done by the faculty be any different?
Isn't that already called Google, where you give them your email, your pictures, your videos, your calendar, all your documents, all your web searches, and about half of your total web surfing (*cough* analytics *cough* doubleclick *cough)?
Basically, this is based on the correlation that "hey, most of the stuff through a trackerless BitTorrent setup is pirated movies/tv, porn, and software, almost no pirated music" and "you can get DRM-free music easily, but not movies/tv, porn, and software" as implying "its because of DRM that people pirate stuff".
Unfortunately, there are two problems here:
a) Music is not just DRM-free, its also SMALL. BitTorrent's strength is moving big files, while pirated songs are very small in comparison, you can just email em to your friends.
b) A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?
Jammie Thomas-Rasset lost in court. She should have settled in the first place.
But really, she's judgement proof: whether its $50K or $5M or $5B, they can't get blood from that stone, she's Judgement Proof.
So really, its principle on both sides. The RIAA wants a scary number to prevent solvent people from fighting these cases, and she wants the RIAA to get zippo. Neither will give in, and dollars-to-doughnuts says the judgement of at least $50K will withstand appeals and the RIAA will be left to try to collect it before just giving up, with both sides in that case winning: the RIAA gets their huge verdict through and tested, and Jammie Thomas-Rasset gets to tell the RIAA's bill collectors to go F-themselves.
Actually, it DOES expire after a year, or at least mine did.
I don't blame apple however. Developers are a real support cost, and $99/year is enough for the developer to say "Yeah, I'm at least trivially serious about this".
If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer, and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices. The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).
Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices, for $250/year.
Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker, instead they realize that for most users, having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants: it means they have confidence in the system.
How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store? Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"
Actually, there are blocking strategies which ISPs could use that put the onus on the copyright owners to identify the bad content, and would have reasonably limited collateral damage eg, DMCA-style graph takedown.
You can do copyright enforcement on the wire without DPI, without blocking all bittorrent, and putting the onus on the copyright owners to directly identify infringing content. I think this would be a horrible idea, but you can do copyright enforcement on the wire without blocking all BitTorrent.
And blocking all BitTorrent is very difficult for an ISP to do today. Even an actual sensible BitTorrent policy, such as only blocking pure uploads (seeds and leeches), while also providing web space for customers to distribute their own content, creates a massive PR Fecal Tornado that no US ISP would dare risk again.
The key word here is: "unlawful transfer of content"
The reason BitTorrent has not suffered the fate of Napster is that there is significant noninfringing uses, ranging from Linux ISOs to public broadcasting to companies like Vuse which use BitTorrent for purely legal, liscenced content.
Thus you could do blocking of specific torrents under this proposed regulation, but you couldn't block all bittorrent.
It is questionable to include, because I don't like the idea of copyright enforcement in the wire (its too easy to abuse), but the headline is wrong: this would not block BitTorrent.
You got trapped by OpenDNS. OpenDNS is VERY agressive at wildcarding network failures:
132.219.67.208.in-addr.arpa. 18794 IN PTR hit-nxdomain.opendns.com.
So even though there is a valid name for ipv6.google.com (the Google DNS servers return a valid reply with a 0-size answer for an A query, and the whole data for an AAA query), OpenDNS instead goes "hey, lets wildcard it and return our server!"
ipv6.google.com is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.
We actually used this for the IPv6 test in Netalyzr as the basis of the IPv6 connectivity test. Our servers don't have IPv6, but we have a small amount of javascript on the analysis page that tries to fetch the logo from IPv6.google.com and reports success or failure back to the server.
Just like airplanes are always falling from the sky because they are owned by private, cost sensitive companies...
Just because its private sector doesn't mean it won't be safer than the atrociously bad safety record of NASA-run manned space flight (which is about a one-in-fifty chance of killing everyone onboard).
Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work. How many publishers would love to say "this book is for retail sale only: all lending is prohibited" on all their books?
Sometimes, the interest is maximized when the copyright owner/author/interest holder does NOT have control.
I think, under a slight variation (ALL others can be under the same terms as google), the proposed Google settlement would be a good thing.
(Of course, with Google getting effective exclusivity under this agreement, I think its a bad thing, but for a very different reason).
REALLY odd, Java is not supposed to do that because we are directly connecting to port-80. Could you contact netalyzr-help@icsi and send us the URLs for the results pages?
The big deal is DNSCurve doesn't solve the real threat:
DNSCurve provides transport integrity against in-path adversaries OTHER than the recursive resolver. DNSSEC provides protection against malicious recursive resolvers.
But transport integrity for DNS is pointless, as anyone in-path on your DNS data is also in-path on the rest of your data.
As important, DNSCurve does NOT protect against the resolver misbehaving, which we have witnessed on multiple occasions (some ISP's will MitM google by returning a bogus A record, malcode related resolvers that will return a bogus record for ad.doubleclick.net, etc).
DNSSEC still has some serious problems. EG, in our preliminary analysis, a shockingly large number of Netalyzr users are behind DNS resolvers that can't handle fragmented traffic. Yet a large number are behind resolvers that do request DNSSEC data.
Since DNSSEC replies are often large (and can easily be over the 1500B response limit), turning on DNSSEC could very well mysteriously slow down DNS by causing large timeouts as the UDP reply fails to arrive and the DNS resolver, after a long timeout, then resorts to a TCP connection, even when the signatures are not validated, simply because there are a lot of resolvers that request DNSSEC but actually can't handle large replies.
Diesel, wholesale, is a couple bucks a gallon. Which means it is far FAR less than a dollar a pound.
A good algae is worth far MORE than that per pound as animal feed, dietary suppliments, etc. So why turn something that you can sell for $2/lb into something you can only sell for less than $.5/lb?
Bad in-path caches are something we specifically check for on Netalyzr. Its suprising the number of BAD in-path caches still exist, which cache data that the HTTP server said "for the love of god, don't cache".
More, what has happened is that bandwidth has gotten cheap, so fewer people are DOING caches, and when they are caching, its more likely for latency not bandwidth savings (eg, we see a lot of caching for users from South Africa).
On the IP layer, this wouldn't happen, because there are cookies contained in the web traffic that are used to route things on the Facebook end, simply because there are NATS and the like.
Thus the problem is whatever in-path HTTP proxy AT&T is using for their phones that crossed things over.
In-path HTTP proxies and caches can be very hard to find and may produce all sorts of interesting subtle problems when there are bugs in them.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that its not $.03/"click" for the superbowl, its $.03/impression. So for all the Bud Light adds, it may have been $.03 per person that watched it, but who knows how much for those who:
a) Paid attention to it
b) Drink wretched, watered-down beer
c) Drink a different brand of canoe beer and decide to switch
or
c') Drink bud lite and decide that "hey, I should buy more"
With pay-per-CLICK advertising for Bud Lite, you would only be paying for people who are at least in category B, and probably in category C.
If we've reached "peak advertising" its not Google which will suffer but TV and print...
Part of the beauty of what Google has done is made advertising cheap, quantifiable, and universal. Anyone can do it, anyone can measure it, and its cheap.
If a company wants to spend advertisement money efficiently, they spend it through Google. If they don't, they throw it away on the Superbowl, where the audience is 100M, and $3M an add, so that costs $.03 for each person who sees the add, regardless of whether they are interested, paying attention, or relevant.
Compare that with advertising through Google, where if you say, advertise on slashdot, not only is it cheaper per person, but its only geeks who may be interested in the ads presented.
Really, what google has done is change their reverse information for a LOT of their stuff to point to 1e100.net rather than google, since Google these days is so much more than google: you have youtube, blogger, analytics, doubleclick, and a host of others.
The 1e100.net name is nice because it allows admins etc to go "this is GOOGLE" rather than "this is X" (which got assimilated by google).
Written material by others, namely, course readers, have to abide to copyright: there is no fair-use exemption that allows the readers to be made without paying the copyright holders, nor for faculty to copy textbooks.
Why should videos not done by the faculty be any different?
Isn't that already called Google, where you give them your email, your pictures, your videos, your calendar, all your documents, all your web searches, and about half of your total web surfing (*cough* analytics *cough* doubleclick *cough)?
Basically, this is based on the correlation that "hey, most of the stuff through a trackerless BitTorrent setup is pirated movies/tv, porn, and software, almost no pirated music" and "you can get DRM-free music easily, but not movies/tv, porn, and software" as implying "its because of DRM that people pirate stuff".
Unfortunately, there are two problems here:
a) Music is not just DRM-free, its also SMALL. BitTorrent's strength is moving big files, while pirated songs are very small in comparison, you can just email em to your friends.
b) A lot of porn online is DRM free, so why so much porn in BitTorrent?
Correlation does not mean causation.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset lost in court. She should have settled in the first place.
But really, she's judgement proof: whether its $50K or $5M or $5B, they can't get blood from that stone, she's Judgement Proof.
So really, its principle on both sides. The RIAA wants a scary number to prevent solvent people from fighting these cases, and she wants the RIAA to get zippo. Neither will give in, and dollars-to-doughnuts says the judgement of at least $50K will withstand appeals and the RIAA will be left to try to collect it before just giving up, with both sides in that case winning: the RIAA gets their huge verdict through and tested, and Jammie Thomas-Rasset gets to tell the RIAA's bill collectors to go F-themselves.
There are already many uses where the IP address of the resolver is used to determine service, basically every CDN etc uses this technique.
This extension is needed if you want OpenDNS and the like to Not Suck when fetching Akamai sourced content, youtube videos, etc.
And its not like the owner of the DNS authority won't find out who you are anyway, after all, you then CONTACT THEM DIRECTLY WITH YOUR IP ADDRESS!!
Actually, it DOES expire after a year, or at least mine did.
I don't blame apple however. Developers are a real support cost, and $99/year is enough for the developer to say "Yeah, I'm at least trivially serious about this".
If you want what the FSF purports to want in the iPad and iPhone, its only $99/year more to be a certified developer, and that allows you to upload your own code onto up to a hundred selected devices. The process to become a developer is pretty painless (I did it for my own iPod touch, simply to have the potential to do some hacking down the road).
Similar abilities exist for companies to upload their own selection of apps to corporate devices, for $250/year.
Apple really isn't limiting the freedom to tinker for those who actually WANT to tinker, instead they realize that for most users , having an approved-code-only model is something the users actually wants: it means they have confidence in the system.
How many people will happily grab tons of random free apps off the app-store? Would they have the same attitude if they didn't have apple saying "we've at least done a cursory check of this to make sure these free random apps won't *BLEEP* you up the rear"
Actually, there are blocking strategies which ISPs could use that put the onus on the copyright owners to identify the bad content, and would have reasonably limited collateral damage eg, DMCA-style graph takedown.
You can do copyright enforcement on the wire without DPI, without blocking all bittorrent, and putting the onus on the copyright owners to directly identify infringing content. I think this would be a horrible idea , but you can do copyright enforcement on the wire without blocking all BitTorrent.
And blocking all BitTorrent is very difficult for an ISP to do today. Even an actual sensible BitTorrent policy, such as only blocking pure uploads (seeds and leeches), while also providing web space for customers to distribute their own content, creates a massive PR Fecal Tornado that no US ISP would dare risk again.
The key word here is: " unlawful transfer of content"
The reason BitTorrent has not suffered the fate of Napster is that there is significant noninfringing uses, ranging from Linux ISOs to public broadcasting to companies like Vuse which use BitTorrent for purely legal, liscenced content.
Thus you could do blocking of specific torrents under this proposed regulation, but you couldn't block all bittorrent.
It is questionable to include, because I don't like the idea of copyright enforcement in the wire (its too easy to abuse), but the headline is wrong: this would not block BitTorrent.
You got trapped by OpenDNS. OpenDNS is VERY agressive at wildcarding network failures:
132.219.67.208.in-addr.arpa. 18794 IN PTR hit-nxdomain.opendns.com.
So even though there is a valid name for ipv6.google.com (the Google DNS servers return a valid reply with a 0-size answer for an A query, and the whole data for an AAA query), OpenDNS instead goes "hey, lets wildcard it and return our server!"
This behavior is why I'm NOT a fan of OpenDNS.
ipv6.google.com is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.
We actually used this for the IPv6 test in Netalyzr as the basis of the IPv6 connectivity test. Our servers don't have IPv6, but we have a small amount of javascript on the analysis page that tries to fetch the logo from IPv6.google.com and reports success or failure back to the server.
Just like airplanes are always falling from the sky because they are owned by private, cost sensitive companies...
Just because its private sector doesn't mean it won't be safer than the atrociously bad safety record of NASA-run manned space flight (which is about a one-in-fifty chance of killing everyone onboard).
Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work. How many publishers would love to say "this book is for retail sale only: all lending is prohibited" on all their books?
Sometimes, the interest is maximized when the copyright owner/author/interest holder does NOT have control.
I think, under a slight variation (ALL others can be under the same terms as google), the proposed Google settlement would be a good thing.
(Of course, with Google getting effective exclusivity under this agreement, I think its a bad thing, but for a very different reason).
REALLY odd, Java is not supposed to do that because we are directly connecting to port-80. Could you contact netalyzr-help@icsi and send us the URLs for the results pages?
No it doesn't.
The big deal is DNSCurve doesn't solve the real threat:
DNSCurve provides transport integrity against in-path adversaries OTHER than the recursive resolver. DNSSEC provides protection against malicious recursive resolvers.
But transport integrity for DNS is pointless, as anyone in-path on your DNS data is also in-path on the rest of your data.
As important, DNSCurve does NOT protect against the resolver misbehaving, which we have witnessed on multiple occasions (some ISP's will MitM google by returning a bogus A record, malcode related resolvers that will return a bogus record for ad.doubleclick.net, etc).
DNSSEC still has some serious problems. EG, in our preliminary analysis, a shockingly large number of Netalyzr users are behind DNS resolvers that can't handle fragmented traffic. Yet a large number are behind resolvers that do request DNSSEC data.
Since DNSSEC replies are often large (and can easily be over the 1500B response limit), turning on DNSSEC could very well mysteriously slow down DNS by causing large timeouts as the UDP reply fails to arrive and the DNS resolver, after a long timeout, then resorts to a TCP connection, even when the signatures are not validated, simply because there are a lot of resolvers that request DNSSEC but actually can't handle large replies.
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg01513.html
Diesel, wholesale, is a couple bucks a gallon. Which means it is far FAR less than a dollar a pound.
A good algae is worth far MORE than that per pound as animal feed, dietary suppliments, etc. So why turn something that you can sell for $2/lb into something you can only sell for less than $.5/lb?
Bad in-path caches are something we specifically check for on Netalyzr. Its suprising the number of BAD in-path caches still exist, which cache data that the HTTP server said "for the love of god, don't cache".
More, what has happened is that bandwidth has gotten cheap, so fewer people are DOING caches, and when they are caching, its more likely for latency not bandwidth savings (eg, we see a lot of caching for users from South Africa).
On the IP layer, this wouldn't happen, because there are cookies contained in the web traffic that are used to route things on the Facebook end, simply because there are NATS and the like.
Thus the problem is whatever in-path HTTP proxy AT&T is using for their phones that crossed things over.
In-path HTTP proxies and caches can be very hard to find and may produce all sorts of interesting subtle problems when there are bugs in them.
Sorry, got slighty confused. Oops.
But testing on VMs has its limits: they do introduce abberations so you should test on real systems too.
The poster specifically asked for RAW IRON testing: no vm, no nothing.
And it works just fine on little $400 fanless Intel Atom systems, thats what we use.
Trinity Rescue Kit is a network boot/CD boot linux that reads and writes NTFS etc.
We use it here to image and deimage windows systems, it takes ~10 minutes boot-to-boot to bring up a raw windows system in a known state.