I'm guessing you missed the whole lawsuit in New Jersey where Blockbuster got sued for false advertising because they do actually still have late fees -- namely the ones where they charge you for the DVD.
It's my understanding that the bandwidth problems exist not at the backbones where all the big networks join up but rather at the last mail to the home. In most cases, a consumer shares a given amount of bandwidth with all of his/her neighbors because it's rather inexpensive to build things that way. Your proposed solution does nothing at all to alleviate this bottleneck that exists at the boundaries of the network. What it *does* do is introduce a lot of overhead to track who is trading bandwidth with whom.
I believe that the designers of the TCP/IP protocol probably tried to set up the protocol to work as well as possible under adverse conditions such as heavy load. In that sense 'the Internet' was designed for maximum usage at all times.
At the same time I am absolutely certain that the ISPs who have built networks have used statistical assumptions about who wants how much bandwidth and when. I'm also certain that these assumptions don't reflect the real bandwidth demand we can expect shortly. It's only a matter of time before we have a similar showdown here in the United States. The difference is that there is no government-supported entity like the BBC with a vested interest in either side. In the UK, ISPs will likely demand government financial support in order to bear the burden of all this traffic that is being 'forced' upon them. In the United States, that devil Jim Griffin has proposed that ISPs become pimps for the content industry, charging all their customers a fee in order to prop up the ailing music industry. There can be no doubt that ISPs will jump at the chance to take a percentage of this money for their collection efforts. As of yet, there is no clear proposal but I suspect that it will be difficult to opt out of this supposedly optional payment. I had a brief correspondence with Jim in which he suggested that customers might sign an affidavit to opt out -- which seems a bit heavy IMHO.
What kills me about this whole situation is that legislators and industry players will tell us that the free market should run its own course when in reality the market is not free at all. If we in the United States have a choice at all for our broadband needs, it's basically a choice between a rock and a hard place. In my case, it's between AT&T and Time Warner--and AT&T only offers speeds 'up to 1.5Mbits/sec'. I have never once actually hit that speed downloading anything no matter how late at night. Furthermore, the 700MHZ auction didn't do shit. Basically, Verizon bought half and AT&T bought the other half. There is no real competition in the broadband industry. Given the law of supply and demand, we can probably expect some kind of price increase for broadband service.
I read both those articles and got the impression that the attack was 'social engineering' meaning that phpBB's only role was to allow someone to post a URL to a site which actually hacked the stupid victims. There is no specific mention of any exploit.
There *is* a mention of an exploit on ASP machines.
I've read that article a dozen times. That description seems pretty vague to me. Can YOU tell me *exactly how the money gets divided* ? Do you know how ASCAP or BMI money gets divided? I get checks from ASCAP and have NO IDEA how much money is paid to accountants, lawyers, and the people who film those "i create music" testimonials at the convention. How much do the ISPs keep? Are they still gonna be shaping packets?
Think about it.
For anyone who's interested, I've posted my correspondence with Jim. He definitely seems to be a lobbyist of some kind. He doesn't address the issues, he just doles out some rhetoric.
Don't confuse net worth with the amount AAPL stands to make off the deal. AAPL's share is likely to be a tiny fraction of the total revenue of the beatles franchise.
We musn't confuse gross revenues with AAPL's take. We also musn't ignore a couple of other things: 1) there might be some kind of term limit for this deal 2) I doubt AAPL keeps 100% of each download 3) I seriously doubt AAPL will have 100% of the market share for beatles music 4) Sir Paul and company have had very long careers and have made money from many other sources and have had plenty of time to invest their earnings in various investements.
We simply cannot make a comparison of net worth to revenues for AAPL.
Yes but how does AAPL recoup that payment if they are only making a fraction of the total cost of each download and AAPL is only a fraction of the total market for beatles music? If they make 10 cents each, that's 4 billion downloads of beatles music. If they make 1 cent each, that's 40 billion downloads of beatles music. If we assume 100 million ipods in circulation and AAPL making 10 cents each, that means that every single ipod user has to download 40 beatles songs. If it's 1 cent per song for AAPL, that means 400 songs per ipod.
If, on the other hand, it's a lump sum and AAPL keeps all the revenue from beatles record sales, it's a very reasonable proposition.
As for the net worth of Sir Paul and company, keep in mind that their net worth also included later records, movies, touring and many other sources -- including his lame paintings.
So I find myself wondering if the beatles have grossed $400 million in total for their music since it was written. I'm sure it's possible but would like to know for sure. Anyone?
I also find myself wondering if AAPL expects to make all that money back before the entire beatles catalog enters the public domain. Of if the beatles catalog will ever enter the public domain.
Lastly, I find myself wondering if Jacko can avoid foreclosure on Neverland ranch with his piece of the pie.
I wish Adobe would port Flash to the iPhone. Also, I haven't looked at the SDK, but how can Apple prevent folks from installing this newly built Java thang on their iPhone? Granted, Apple can control which apps are for sale in their fancy app store, but if you have the SDK, doesn't that mean you can build and install things on the phone?
'Web 3.0 is taking what we've built in Web 2.0--the wisdom of the crowds--and putting an editorial layer on it of truly talented, compensated people to make the product more trusted and refined.'
Truly talented, *compensated* people. Thank god that capitalism is finally in charge. They had take the elections but I just new it had to be media too.
I listened to it. If Trent has an elevator in his home, this is probably what plays in it. Or if you were taking an elevator ride down to Heck it might be playing in that elevator. If you like dark music, it's better than instrumental versions of the carpenters but it's no March of the Pigs.
I'm picturing him working on this music with a pirated copy of Reason on his laptop while he's waiting on a flight or something.
Your point is a good one (that comcast is not a governmental organization), however there have been legal constraints applied to other 'private' organizations to enforce the First Amendment. An example that comes to mind is that TV stations and newspapers must give equal coverage to both Democrats and Republicans before an election. I think there are also special rules that relate to monopoly situations as is effectively the case in my neighborhood.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing you missed the whole lawsuit in New Jersey where Blockbuster got sued for false advertising because they do actually still have late fees -- namely the ones where they charge you for the DVD.
I can't wait to start paying late fees when my computer can't download their movies fast enough due to my poor broadband service!
It's my understanding that the bandwidth problems exist not at the backbones where all the big networks join up but rather at the last mail to the home. In most cases, a consumer shares a given amount of bandwidth with all of his/her neighbors because it's rather inexpensive to build things that way. Your proposed solution does nothing at all to alleviate this bottleneck that exists at the boundaries of the network. What it *does* do is introduce a lot of overhead to track who is trading bandwidth with whom.
I believe that the designers of the TCP/IP protocol probably tried to set up the protocol to work as well as possible under adverse conditions such as heavy load. In that sense 'the Internet' was designed for maximum usage at all times.
At the same time I am absolutely certain that the ISPs who have built networks have used statistical assumptions about who wants how much bandwidth and when. I'm also certain that these assumptions don't reflect the real bandwidth demand we can expect shortly. It's only a matter of time before we have a similar showdown here in the United States. The difference is that there is no government-supported entity like the BBC with a vested interest in either side. In the UK, ISPs will likely demand government financial support in order to bear the burden of all this traffic that is being 'forced' upon them. In the United States, that devil Jim Griffin has proposed that ISPs become pimps for the content industry, charging all their customers a fee in order to prop up the ailing music industry. There can be no doubt that ISPs will jump at the chance to take a percentage of this money for their collection efforts. As of yet, there is no clear proposal but I suspect that it will be difficult to opt out of this supposedly optional payment. I had a brief correspondence with Jim in which he suggested that customers might sign an affidavit to opt out -- which seems a bit heavy IMHO.
What kills me about this whole situation is that legislators and industry players will tell us that the free market should run its own course when in reality the market is not free at all. If we in the United States have a choice at all for our broadband needs, it's basically a choice between a rock and a hard place. In my case, it's between AT&T and Time Warner--and AT&T only offers speeds 'up to 1.5Mbits/sec'. I have never once actually hit that speed downloading anything no matter how late at night. Furthermore, the 700MHZ auction didn't do shit. Basically, Verizon bought half and AT&T bought the other half. There is no real competition in the broadband industry. Given the law of supply and demand, we can probably expect some kind of price increase for broadband service.
BigDog totally fucking rules. I agree with the post that it looks like two guys in a dog suit.
I love PHPBB, but I am truly disappointed with both responses I've seen from the phpBB guys. It's really a shame.
Does *anyone* know how to detect this exploit in your PHPBB install?
I read both those articles and got the impression that the attack was 'social engineering' meaning that phpBB's only role was to allow someone to post a URL to a site which actually hacked the stupid victims. There is no specific mention of any exploit.
There *is* a mention of an exploit on ASP machines.
I agree. I've been pestering him about that and some other things. You can too.
You should write him. I have.
I feel a lot like you. I've been writing to Jim about my feelings.
You can tell Jim yourself. I did.
I've read that article a dozen times. That description seems pretty vague to me. Can YOU tell me *exactly how the money gets divided* ? Do you know how ASCAP or BMI money gets divided? I get checks from ASCAP and have NO IDEA how much money is paid to accountants, lawyers, and the people who film those "i create music" testimonials at the convention. How much do the ISPs keep? Are they still gonna be shaping packets? Think about it.
If you really want to be heard, TELL JIM YOURSELF. I have been here.
For anyone who's interested, I've posted my correspondence with Jim. He definitely seems to be a lobbyist of some kind. He doesn't address the issues, he just doles out some rhetoric.
what SPEED are they? Anything higher than 150x?
Don't confuse net worth with the amount AAPL stands to make off the deal. AAPL's share is likely to be a tiny fraction of the total revenue of the beatles franchise.
Yes, great music like 'Rocky Raccoon'. Gimme a break.
We musn't confuse gross revenues with AAPL's take. We also musn't ignore a couple of other things:
1) there might be some kind of term limit for this deal
2) I doubt AAPL keeps 100% of each download
3) I seriously doubt AAPL will have 100% of the market share for beatles music
4) Sir Paul and company have had very long careers and have made money from many other sources and have had plenty of time to invest their earnings in various investements.
We simply cannot make a comparison of net worth to revenues for AAPL.
Yes but how does AAPL recoup that payment if they are only making a fraction of the total cost of each download and AAPL is only a fraction of the total market for beatles music? If they make 10 cents each, that's 4 billion downloads of beatles music. If they make 1 cent each, that's 40 billion downloads of beatles music. If we assume 100 million ipods in circulation and AAPL making 10 cents each, that means that every single ipod user has to download 40 beatles songs. If it's 1 cent per song for AAPL, that means 400 songs per ipod.
If, on the other hand, it's a lump sum and AAPL keeps all the revenue from beatles record sales, it's a very reasonable proposition.
As for the net worth of Sir Paul and company, keep in mind that their net worth also included later records, movies, touring and many other sources -- including his lame paintings.
So I find myself wondering if the beatles have grossed $400 million in total for their music since it was written. I'm sure it's possible but would like to know for sure. Anyone?
I also find myself wondering if AAPL expects to make all that money back before the entire beatles catalog enters the public domain. Of if the beatles catalog will ever enter the public domain.
Lastly, I find myself wondering if Jacko can avoid foreclosure on Neverland ranch with his piece of the pie.
I wish Adobe would port Flash to the iPhone. Also, I haven't looked at the SDK, but how can Apple prevent folks from installing this newly built Java thang on their iPhone? Granted, Apple can control which apps are for sale in their fancy app store, but if you have the SDK, doesn't that mean you can build and install things on the phone?
'Web 3.0 is taking what we've built in Web 2.0--the wisdom of the crowds--and putting an editorial layer on it of truly talented, compensated people to make the product more trusted and refined.'
Truly talented, *compensated* people. Thank god that capitalism is finally in charge. They had take the elections but I just new it had to be media too.
I listened to it. If Trent has an elevator in his home, this is probably what plays in it. Or if you were taking an elevator ride down to Heck it might be playing in that elevator. If you like dark music, it's better than instrumental versions of the carpenters but it's no March of the Pigs.
I'm picturing him working on this music with a pirated copy of Reason on his laptop while he's waiting on a flight or something.
Your point is a good one (that comcast is not a governmental organization), however there have been legal constraints applied to other 'private' organizations to enforce the First Amendment. An example that comes to mind is that TV stations and newspapers must give equal coverage to both Democrats and Republicans before an election. I think there are also special rules that relate to monopoly situations as is effectively the case in my neighborhood.
*sigh* I hate my ISP.