Strangely enough, it was UUNET that I asked and I was quoted a pretty hefty price. I asked my ISP (visi.com) first, and they said they had dropped it due to lack of interest and wouldn't pick it back up again just for me.:-) So, I was kind of stuck.
I also think this is too much to go through for multicast to work. It should just work without having to call someone to get a tunnel, and without having to look up a tunnel on some website.
I have no problem with this. As long as they still allow it to be freely redistributed and still provide source, it's still fine under the GPL.
Of course, a mirror will come up somewhere and people will be able to download for free from that I'm sure. While I wouldn't suggest you should be brought to court in any way for doing it, I would ask that people refrain from downloading from a free site out of courtesy.
Yes, it isn't too hard to program. It's simply has a reputation for being esoteric. Getting a multicast feed is more work then most people are willing to go through. I remember trying to get one about 2 years ago and not being able to because the people who could give me one wanted to charge me enormous sums of money (in the $100s to $1000s/mo range).
I want multicast that just works regardless of whether an ISP supports it or not, and if the ISP wants to reduce bandwidth usage on their network, the implement it.
Hmmm... Yes, you're correct. With single source multicast, this has a possibility of any easy solution. With any source multicast it's a lot harder.
OTOH, the bandwidth usage of gnutella searches vs. the total bandwidth available is a very small ratio. For this particular application, I don't think it'll be terribly important, but it's a good thing to think about.
You haven't thought through the problem very well. Right now, links involved in a gnutella network often see every single search packet many times, along with all the associated TCP ack packets. How is this reducing the burden on routers?
Gnutella wants every single node that's connected to see every search request. By any definition I can think of, that's anysource multicast. I don't care what you think of the efficiency of multicast, any layer 3 multicast scheme is going to be more efficient than gnutella currently is by virtue of the fact that physical network topology can be taken into account at layer 3.
Why don't you go read the chapter I was referring to before posting again? Better yet, please explain to me how what gnutella does isn't multicast, and how what gnutella does is better for any segment of the network than a good multicast implementation would be?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Gnutella's goal is to get a search packet to be seen by every node connected to the network. That sounds a lot like multicast to me.
At layer 2 and 3 multicast could be implemented via flooding every node on the network with your multicast packet, just like Gnutella does. So, the flood goes over a bunch of TCP links instead of a bunch of point to point WAN links and broadcast Ethernet links, what's the essential difference here?
Her idea is a sort of automatic tunneling system that leverages IP routing to build the multicast tree out of multicast aware routers. There don't actually have to be any multicast aware routers for it to work. They just make the tree more efficient.
I thought of an idea for fixing gnutella awhile ago, which largely involved gnutella nodes forming up into their own multicast trees where the multicast packets traveled over TCP links instead of point to point WAN links. When I read that part of Internetworking, I was so struck by the similarity of our ideas that I made a point to talk to her during IETF 50. Her's is a lot better than mine because implementing it at the IP layer leverages existing IP routing to avoid duplication of packets on any given link.
If easy to program, easy to implement multicast were available, gnutella would've used it and not been nearly as poor in the scalability department. Gnutella is basically a layer 5 implementation of anysource multicast that uses flooding to get its job done.
If anybody is interested, I talk to Radia Perlman at IETF 50 last week, and we would like to try to form a working group around making an RFC out of the simple multicasting protocol she describes in the last chapter of her book 'Internetworking'.
Yeah. Breaking the law is a good way to make a change happen in a civilized society...
It is actually. Organized and widespread civil disobedience has a long history. It is an excellent method when the people you're dealing with are not utter barbarians or ruthless despots, or are at least restrained from being so by some outside authority.
Windows 2000 is just mediocre as opposed to awful. Active Directory is the typical Windows byzantine mess. Whoever had to idea to do what they did to DNS ought to be taken out and shot.
I think the war on 32 bit platforms is only over in your head.
The DMCA even effects places that have 'common carrier' status. The particular title referenced essentially makes common carriers liable for the copyright violations of the people who post stuff on the Internet using their equipment if they don't take down copyright violations quickly when notified of them.
This is a summarization of the various things I've heard people say about it, and not a result of my own reading. I am also not a lawyer.:-)
This is my only Slashdot account, and always will be. And no, I didn't tell all my friends about the posting and ask any with mod points to mod me up. If they demonstrated such low integrity they wouldn't be my friends for long.
BSD people sporting chips
on
Tux in Space
·
· Score: 3
I'm just waiting for all the BSD people to come out, proudly displaying the chips on their shoulders, and decrying NASA for having picked such a non-free, unstable OS as Linux when BSD was perfectly available and they wouldn't have been forced into not making a profit on the spacecraft.
If this arrangement of hardware still qualifies in anyone?s mind as a video game, then he/she might wish to look into much earlier interactive uses of random access displays such as a scope. During and shortly after WW II both the US and the German army used such displays for missile tracking... definitely an interactive use....but were these video games? Not by any rational definition of that word. Nor is Higginbotham?s demo.
Well, of course it isn't a video game because it isn't a game! They're tracking real, live missiles. Stupid.
That whole entire page is the most self serving load of tripe I've ever read. Ralph Baer apparently managed to fool a judge into believing that HigginBotham's work didn't represent prior art and thinks it means something besides more than him retaining his ability to extort money over a long since dead piece of technology.
I wouldn't object to Napster if they charged. I think they'd just become as banal and marketing driven as radio then though. And all the money would go straight to the middlemen's pockets, not to artists.
As for the GPL Quake thing... I think the guy should be treated as a social outcast for doing what he did, but in my world, it wouldn't be legally actionable.
Once a piece of work has been released into the world, the artists wishes should be respected, but the artist shouldn't have legal control over whether they are or not. It should be based largely on reputation and social pressure.
Perhaps, after we'd done this for awhile, some conventions would arise that would be possible to enforce and maybe then laws should be enacted then. I think the incredible ease of digital copying changes the equation so fundamentally that a 'destroy the old and let a new arise' approach is the only thing that will work.
If you have to become a police state to enforce your law, the law is wrong.
You aren't actually interested in thinking, you're interested in calling people names. A great deal of the software I write is under GPL. I purposely do this so that people will be free to make copies and distribute it widely. I've purchased my music library. You wish to call people names simply because they have a different opinion than you.
Tell me then, do you want a 'war on copyright infringement'? If there isn't a different model, that's exactly what will happen. It'll be a nasty war, and a lot of people will end up in jail, and you'll end up having to feed them, and their contributions will be lost to society. Is that the right thing? Even then, it won't stop 'freeloaders'. They'll exist in even larger numbers.
Trying to stop the free flow of information is like trying to stop people from having kids. It just isn't going to happen. You can call people names all you want, but that fact won't change.
Copyright has now become a horrible solution to the problem it was meant to solve. Attempting to make it fit will cause some of the most horrible civil rights degredations that this country has ever seen. The DMCA was just the beginning. If that's what you want, just go right ahead and keep on being righteously moralistic about it, and above all, avoid thinking about something that might actually work.
Re:How about the human brain? (brain clock)
on
Clockless Computing?
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, but that clock is like the BIOS or hardware clock, not like the CPU clock. It times large scale activity in the brain, but not second by second activity. I remember reading about clocks that governed second by second activity that could be read in brainwaves.
no, they don't use the street performer protocol at all as a means of compensation. They bill an hourly rate. IOW, they have a depedable source of income that is not based on the goodwill of people who remain anonymous.
You're selectively misinterpreting the streetperformer protocol. I kinda wonder if you've actually read the paper.
Consultants often negotiate a specific compensation for a specific product. That's exactly what the streetperformer protocol is about. It's actually sort of misnamed. Go read it.
You are right in that they usually work for an hourly rate, but the kind of contract I talked about is not uncommon.
A great success that was, huh ? I find it implausible that the failure of it was due to his not following it precisely (rather it was due to the classic "free rider" problem). Why do you believe his version was less likely to succeed?
The streetperformer protocol stipulates that you ask for a specific total donation before you will release your work to the public. You then provide the work to people who've donated more than a certain amount for free, and charge everybody else to download it. You're only guaranteed to make the original required donation. As I said, that particular method doesn't do well for generated increasing returns for increasing popularity. Only in the sense that you can start asking for larger guaranteed donations. Combining (but not replacing) the protocol with one of the reputation and social pressure based protocols would result in more popularity based revenue, and still guarantee you the initial donation.
In the hopes of generating the more familiar popularity based revenue, Stephen King just sold it without requiring a fixed initial total donation. He based whether or not he'd release the next chapter not on getting a certain amount of money, but on the 'free rider' rate on the current chapter. Not the same at all.
Also, the success of his venture depends on how you measure. He made a great deal of money that way, and I think he got a much larger cut of it than he would've from a print publisher's royalties. I think, given that he largely set himself up for failure in the first place, that he did surprisingly well.
IOW, it reduces the artist's compensation -- "win-lose".
I think they have a chance of increasing compensation because the middleman is less able to demand a large cut, which is what happens now.
I object to 'masses ripping you off'. It presupposes a mindset that copyright is 'right' in some ethical sense.
And I guess that I mean it should be dead in the case of people giving copies to random other people or friends, but not in the case of someone selling many copies to large numbers of people.
Whether or not Napster falls into that category is highly questionable. They don't sell copies. They 'sell' a way for people to find other people who are willing to give them a copy, which isn't quite the same thing.
I also think the unenforceability problem is a very big problem. It really can't be enforced unless you want to wage a 'war on pirating' like we already have a 'war on drugs'. Even then, it can't be enforced. You'd practically have to have a police state if you wanted to enforce it.
Actually, as a consultant, I would use a variation on the streetperformer protocol. In fact, most consultants already do. Very rarely does a consultant impose any distribution or copying restrictions on what they produce for their client.
That is NOT a 'panhandling' style protocol. The closest an artist has come so far has been Stephen King with "The Plant", but he didn't follow it precisely. The streetperformer protocol tends not to let you reap as many rewards from popularity as some other ideas, and apparently either Stephen King didn't know about the streetperformer protocol, or he wished popularity to still figure strongly into how much money he got, so he used a variation that was less likely to succeed, but more likely to reap rewards proportionate to popularity.
Well, yeah, after copyright ceases to exist it is. It's partly useless after copyright is dead anyway. If you take out the anti-copyright portions of the GPL, you are left with a requirement that reverse engineering remain trivial because the source code is available, and a requirement to give changes back. Perhaps there would be some other way to handle this. I don't know.
Also, copyright does retain its usefulness against large scale distributors. Its still enforceable in that arena.
Slashdot Mirror
Strangely enough, it was UUNET that I asked and I was quoted a pretty hefty price. I asked my ISP (visi.com) first, and they said they had dropped it due to lack of interest and wouldn't pick it back up again just for me. :-) So, I was kind of stuck.
I also think this is too much to go through for multicast to work. It should just work without having to call someone to get a tunnel, and without having to look up a tunnel on some website.
I have no problem with this. As long as they still allow it to be freely redistributed and still provide source, it's still fine under the GPL.
Of course, a mirror will come up somewhere and people will be able to download for free from that I'm sure. While I wouldn't suggest you should be brought to court in any way for doing it, I would ask that people refrain from downloading from a free site out of courtesy.
Yes, it isn't too hard to program. It's simply has a reputation for being esoteric. Getting a multicast feed is more work then most people are willing to go through. I remember trying to get one about 2 years ago and not being able to because the people who could give me one wanted to charge me enormous sums of money (in the $100s to $1000s/mo range).
I want multicast that just works regardless of whether an ISP supports it or not, and if the ISP wants to reduce bandwidth usage on their network, the implement it.
Hmmm... Yes, you're correct. With single source multicast, this has a possibility of any easy solution. With any source multicast it's a lot harder.
OTOH, the bandwidth usage of gnutella searches vs. the total bandwidth available is a very small ratio. For this particular application, I don't think it'll be terribly important, but it's a good thing to think about.
You haven't thought through the problem very well. Right now, links involved in a gnutella network often see every single search packet many times, along with all the associated TCP ack packets. How is this reducing the burden on routers?
Gnutella wants every single node that's connected to see every search request. By any definition I can think of, that's anysource multicast. I don't care what you think of the efficiency of multicast, any layer 3 multicast scheme is going to be more efficient than gnutella currently is by virtue of the fact that physical network topology can be taken into account at layer 3.
Why don't you go read the chapter I was referring to before posting again? Better yet, please explain to me how what gnutella does isn't multicast, and how what gnutella does is better for any segment of the network than a good multicast implementation would be?
Why not just have routers drop packets like they do right now for TCP? Nobody ever claimed that multicast had to be reliable.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Gnutella's goal is to get a search packet to be seen by every node connected to the network. That sounds a lot like multicast to me.
At layer 2 and 3 multicast could be implemented via flooding every node on the network with your multicast packet, just like Gnutella does. So, the flood goes over a bunch of TCP links instead of a bunch of point to point WAN links and broadcast Ethernet links, what's the essential difference here?
Her idea is a sort of automatic tunneling system that leverages IP routing to build the multicast tree out of multicast aware routers. There don't actually have to be any multicast aware routers for it to work. They just make the tree more efficient.
I thought of an idea for fixing gnutella awhile ago, which largely involved gnutella nodes forming up into their own multicast trees where the multicast packets traveled over TCP links instead of point to point WAN links. When I read that part of Internetworking, I was so struck by the similarity of our ideas that I made a point to talk to her during IETF 50. Her's is a lot better than mine because implementing it at the IP layer leverages existing IP routing to avoid duplication of packets on any given link.
If easy to program, easy to implement multicast were available, gnutella would've used it and not been nearly as poor in the scalability department. Gnutella is basically a layer 5 implementation of anysource multicast that uses flooding to get its job done.
If anybody is interested, I talk to Radia Perlman at IETF 50 last week, and we would like to try to form a working group around making an RFC out of the simple multicasting protocol she describes in the last chapter of her book 'Internetworking'.
It is actually. Organized and widespread civil disobedience has a long history. It is an excellent method when the people you're dealing with are not utter barbarians or ruthless despots, or are at least restrained from being so by some outside authority.
Windows 2000 is just mediocre as opposed to awful. Active Directory is the typical Windows byzantine mess. Whoever had to idea to do what they did to DNS ought to be taken out and shot.
I think the war on 32 bit platforms is only over in your head.
Hi there! :-)
The DMCA even effects places that have 'common carrier' status. The particular title referenced essentially makes common carriers liable for the copyright violations of the people who post stuff on the Internet using their equipment if they don't take down copyright violations quickly when notified of them.
This is a summarization of the various things I've heard people say about it, and not a result of my own reading. I am also not a lawyer. :-)
Gee, strangely enough, Apple didn't feel the need to sue Palm over it. And I think they're hurting for cash a little more than NCR is.
This is my only Slashdot account, and always will be. And no, I didn't tell all my friends about the posting and ask any with mod points to mod me up. If they demonstrated such low integrity they wouldn't be my friends for long.
I'm just waiting for all the BSD people to come out, proudly displaying the chips on their shoulders, and decrying NASA for having picked such a non-free, unstable OS as Linux when BSD was perfectly available and they wouldn't have been forced into not making a profit on the spacecraft.
I have no clue what you're talking about.
From 'Who did it first?
Well, of course it isn't a video game because it isn't a game! They're tracking real, live missiles. Stupid.
That whole entire page is the most self serving load of tripe I've ever read. Ralph Baer apparently managed to fool a judge into believing that HigginBotham's work didn't represent prior art and thinks it means something besides more than him retaining his ability to extort money over a long since dead piece of technology.
I posted a reply to this that got lost.
I wouldn't object to Napster if they charged. I think they'd just become as banal and marketing driven as radio then though. And all the money would go straight to the middlemen's pockets, not to artists.
As for the GPL Quake thing... I think the guy should be treated as a social outcast for doing what he did, but in my world, it wouldn't be legally actionable.
Once a piece of work has been released into the world, the artists wishes should be respected, but the artist shouldn't have legal control over whether they are or not. It should be based largely on reputation and social pressure.
Perhaps, after we'd done this for awhile, some conventions would arise that would be possible to enforce and maybe then laws should be enacted then. I think the incredible ease of digital copying changes the equation so fundamentally that a 'destroy the old and let a new arise' approach is the only thing that will work.
If you have to become a police state to enforce your law, the law is wrong.
You aren't actually interested in thinking, you're interested in calling people names. A great deal of the software I write is under GPL. I purposely do this so that people will be free to make copies and distribute it widely. I've purchased my music library. You wish to call people names simply because they have a different opinion than you.
Tell me then, do you want a 'war on copyright infringement'? If there isn't a different model, that's exactly what will happen. It'll be a nasty war, and a lot of people will end up in jail, and you'll end up having to feed them, and their contributions will be lost to society. Is that the right thing? Even then, it won't stop 'freeloaders'. They'll exist in even larger numbers.
Trying to stop the free flow of information is like trying to stop people from having kids. It just isn't going to happen. You can call people names all you want, but that fact won't change.
Copyright has now become a horrible solution to the problem it was meant to solve. Attempting to make it fit will cause some of the most horrible civil rights degredations that this country has ever seen. The DMCA was just the beginning. If that's what you want, just go right ahead and keep on being righteously moralistic about it, and above all, avoid thinking about something that might actually work.
Yeah, but that clock is like the BIOS or hardware clock, not like the CPU clock. It times large scale activity in the brain, but not second by second activity. I remember reading about clocks that governed second by second activity that could be read in brainwaves.
You're selectively misinterpreting the streetperformer protocol. I kinda wonder if you've actually read the paper.
Consultants often negotiate a specific compensation for a specific product. That's exactly what the streetperformer protocol is about. It's actually sort of misnamed. Go read it.
You are right in that they usually work for an hourly rate, but the kind of contract I talked about is not uncommon.
The streetperformer protocol stipulates that you ask for a specific total donation before you will release your work to the public. You then provide the work to people who've donated more than a certain amount for free, and charge everybody else to download it. You're only guaranteed to make the original required donation. As I said, that particular method doesn't do well for generated increasing returns for increasing popularity. Only in the sense that you can start asking for larger guaranteed donations. Combining (but not replacing) the protocol with one of the reputation and social pressure based protocols would result in more popularity based revenue, and still guarantee you the initial donation.
In the hopes of generating the more familiar popularity based revenue, Stephen King just sold it without requiring a fixed initial total donation. He based whether or not he'd release the next chapter not on getting a certain amount of money, but on the 'free rider' rate on the current chapter. Not the same at all.
Also, the success of his venture depends on how you measure. He made a great deal of money that way, and I think he got a much larger cut of it than he would've from a print publisher's royalties. I think, given that he largely set himself up for failure in the first place, that he did surprisingly well.
I think they have a chance of increasing compensation because the middleman is less able to demand a large cut, which is what happens now.
I object to 'masses ripping you off'. It presupposes a mindset that copyright is 'right' in some ethical sense.
And I guess that I mean it should be dead in the case of people giving copies to random other people or friends, but not in the case of someone selling many copies to large numbers of people.
Whether or not Napster falls into that category is highly questionable. They don't sell copies. They 'sell' a way for people to find other people who are willing to give them a copy, which isn't quite the same thing.
I also think the unenforceability problem is a very big problem. It really can't be enforced unless you want to wage a 'war on pirating' like we already have a 'war on drugs'. Even then, it can't be enforced. You'd practically have to have a police state if you wanted to enforce it.
Actually, as a consultant, I would use a variation on the streetperformer protocol. In fact, most consultants already do. Very rarely does a consultant impose any distribution or copying restrictions on what they produce for their client.
That is NOT a 'panhandling' style protocol. The closest an artist has come so far has been Stephen King with "The Plant", but he didn't follow it precisely. The streetperformer protocol tends not to let you reap as many rewards from popularity as some other ideas, and apparently either Stephen King didn't know about the streetperformer protocol, or he wished popularity to still figure strongly into how much money he got, so he used a variation that was less likely to succeed, but more likely to reap rewards proportionate to popularity.
So is anyone who makes snide comments about people stealing music.
Well, yeah, after copyright ceases to exist it is. It's partly useless after copyright is dead anyway. If you take out the anti-copyright portions of the GPL, you are left with a requirement that reverse engineering remain trivial because the source code is available, and a requirement to give changes back. Perhaps there would be some other way to handle this. I don't know.
Also, copyright does retain its usefulness against large scale distributors. Its still enforceable in that arena.