I won't play this I really like the books. I won't play this. I won't play this I won't play this. I won't play this I won't play this. I really like the books. I won't play this I won't play this. i really like the books.
Well, that was what we found by driving around and checking it. Maybe the digital handles adjacent channel interference better? The FM band is pretty crowded.
But, that people are having a harder time getting the digital signal.
I used to work for the engineer of a radio station. A year or so ago I went back to visit. He showed me their new shiny new digital transmitter. It is putting out a small fraction of the wattage of the analog one into the same antenna. (sorry I don't remember the numbers). Anyway, their digital signal now has a wider reception area than their analog one!
True, and I love to hate the government and the telcos as much as the rest of them. But, the telcos are paying Billions b/c consumers in general are demanding their services (regardless of if you are one of them). Over the air bandwidth is a limited resource and you can't have it all.
"...Supply and demand will kick... so prices will go up"
In the short term yes. But... with those prices flying high, manufacturers will have gold in their eyes and kick up production big time. Then they will satiate their temporarily expaned market. Warehouses will be full of TVs with nowhere to go but the bargain isle.
Carefull pushing the NAT. I have no problem with 1 ip per home and a NAT box. Same goes for an office full of business machines or even a university lab.
Still, I fear the day when there is no public ip in the home, or in those college dorm rooms. Certainly public IPs do open up all sorts of room for abuse and security issues but they are also what make the internet a public network.
With a public ip anyone can set up a server to share information, or create new kinds of servers/protocols then test how they perform in the real world with the help of a friend on another network somewhere distant.
If the world doesn't eventually switch to IPV6 or something similar NAT is all we will have. Then I think the internet will end up evolving into just another proprietary network like AOL.
-Personally I'm kinda hoping that cellular style access will improve in most areas
I agree, it's more usefull as you get to take it with you. Although... RF bandwidth is a limited resource, you can improve this by making more cell sites which cover smaller areas but only to an extent before adjacent cellsites interfere with one another. Wire or fiber based networks can always be expanded with more wire or fiber.
I hope that in the future we all have both good cellular connections to take with us and then really fast fiber connections at home for a low price. I have no idea if this is realistic. I'm imagining cellphones with desktop like power and built in projectors (the death of the laptop/pda/etc...) VPN clients standard on the handheld and nice big media servers in the house. As for where the bandwidth for this would come from... no more TV, Radio, etc... just roll this all into the software. (please keep a few bands open for experamenters, home tinkerers and radio astronomers).
OK, head out of the clouds.
Yes, we are almost arguing the same thing. In fact, in my first post I was arguing the same thing but as I think about it more, I think the problem is more in the software than in the hardware. Comcast does already allocate a lot of physical resources to it's different areas. I think the problem is in how the packets are handled. The network is prioritizing users by what they ask for rather than splitting it up evenly. Your big downloader, he has 50 connections at once while your average user's browser is only making 1. So... big downloader is given 50x the access to the network. Thus the average user experiences a large slowdown. I think that big downloader's ongoing connection should slow a little to let the average user's web page get through then it should speed back up. Kind of like when someone has a cartload of groceries and let's someone behind them cut b/c that person is only carrying one item. The big downloader will be there a while anyway and will hardly notice the difference.
This can be implemented, see the article linked in my last post. It just requires a bit of investment in reprogrammig those routers, or replacing them with ones which can be reprogrammed.
I guess we are using two different deffinitions of the word "overselling". Certainly providing every home with 20Mb every second of every day would be impossible to do in a way that customers could afford and the provider could make money. Fortunately the service isn't going to be used that way so yes, they can and must sell more service than the network can provide.
However, there is a limit. All users will be on some of the time and some will be on all of the time. For whatever bandwidth they advertise there is some amount they must be able to provide. I am saying that they are not doing this.
Now, as for that one guy whom is supposedly dragging down his whole block by downlaoding TBs of p0rn every day... Personally I've never lived on this guy's block. The only service issues I have had have involved weak or noisy signals coming through bad cable lines. (And i've had many of those) But, if this problem really does exist... why is it possible?
Why is one person able to pull more bandwidth than another? I don't know the actual numbers on this but lets say for example that an area of 100 people can be assumed to at most have 10 people online at a moment. So.. to give them 20Mb each the cable co sets up a 200Mb network. It's expected they may be a little congested during peak hours but such is life. These numbers are of course totally made up and way oversimplified I am sure. Now let's say that 1 user has nothing better to do than download movies all day long. Let's say he is using his full 20Mb. Right now there are 10 "normal" users on. With 190Mb between them should they even notice the difference?
If 1% of the users are able to noticeably affect the other 99% then I still argue the problem is at the ISP, not the individual users. Perhaps this article http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078 linked to on here a while back holds a real solution. Not rules which tell users they cannot use the bandwidth they pay for.
>> Everyone gets to have nice fast access, but only if people are nice and share it.
Umm... No...
I don't go to a restaurant and expect to pay for a nice meal but I only get it if I share my plate with all the other customers.
I don't pay for X Mb/sec and expect to share it with others.
The problem is that Comcast is overselling their network in some areas. It would prefer to attack it's own customers (sound familiar RIAA) than upgrade the product.
They certainly can afford to do an upgrade too, I used to work for that company and back when they tried to fool their employees into buying their failing stock they bragged about the internet service being something between 80 and 90% proffit.
However, internet was always the red-headed stepchild of Comcast, those profits will always go towards propping up their core business 'video' and pushing out their phone service b/c they think that selling phone will make AT&T go away.
OK, looks like lots of people caught the fact that this has been tried with the web many many times since the 90s. But it even predates the web.. anyone remember 3D Gopher?
More likely they paid someone to do it. I mean, can't you just imagine Tom Cruse sitting behind a mostly plain black screen which says "Palin's Email" at the top and has the word password blinking in the middle. He types the word "override" or something stupid like that and nothing happens. "Hey come on, it worked on the set..."
"Yes but what makes you think the government will respect those privacy "laws"?"
They will not. They already have not. Still, I don't think the time has come to give up on using the law to protect our constitutional rights. If it has then what else do we have? Give up and let the tyrants rule? Revolution? I just don't think we are there yet.
It's the minds of the people we have to change. Make them stop believing in the growing dictatorship. It's hard to imagine doing that while turning our backs on the erosion of our constitutional rights. What kind of example is that?
It's not about stopping the DOJ or any other agency from tracking down a killer. They can always get a warrant and do that. It's about not letting certain parts of the government do as they please without any accountability to the rest or the people.
Besides, does this fall under the same rules as wiretapping? If so, then if the need is great enough and time is short they have always had the opportunity to take the information right away but explain themselves and get the warrant at the first possible moment.
"If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws."
The point is to head things off with the privacy and other civil liberties laws long before it reaches the point of people disapearing into secret prisons, etc...
I think history shows us pretty clearly that tyranny is the natural end that governments evolve towards if they are not constantly kept in check by their citizens.
Then again.... our government already has it's secret prisons, doesn't it....
True, but there might be lots of Slashdotters whom have less techy friends/family they would be happy to see using this rather than constantly asking them to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be worse... what if the magazine and tape libraries had IPs. Then all that's left is the backup - backup plan... the wife!!
Wrong focus... IPV6 has to happen with the companies which produce those items. Very few home users are going to install ipv6 themselves.
I had no idea Eliza was so advanced... Who's been coming out with all the updates.
Read the conversations at the bottom of the article, recognize "her"?
Kevin Warwick (KW) is actually Eliza in a lifelike android body!
haven't tried any MMOs, They look too addictive.
I won't play this
I really like the books.
I won't play this.
I won't play this
I won't play this.
I won't play this
I won't play this.
I really like the books.
I won't play this
I won't play this.
i really like the books.
i will play this.
Well, that was what we found by driving around and checking it. Maybe the digital handles adjacent channel interference better? The FM band is pretty crowded.
Oh, come on, the election isn't that bad.
It's the 4 years which follow that we can really do without!
Not the complaints, people love to do that!
But, that people are having a harder time getting the digital signal.
I used to work for the engineer of a radio station. A year or so ago I went back to visit. He showed me their new shiny new digital transmitter. It is putting out a small fraction of the wattage of the analog one into the same antenna. (sorry I don't remember the numbers). Anyway, their digital signal now has a wider reception area than their analog one!
I wonder what is making TV so different...
True, and I love to hate the government and the telcos as much as the rest of them. But, the telcos are paying Billions b/c consumers in general are demanding their services (regardless of if you are one of them). Over the air bandwidth is a limited resource and you can't have it all.
"...Supply and demand will kick... so prices will go up"
In the short term yes. But... with those prices flying high, manufacturers will have gold in their eyes and kick up production big time. Then they will satiate their temporarily expaned market. Warehouses will be full of TVs with nowhere to go but the bargain isle.
Just be patient.
Carefull pushing the NAT. I have no problem with 1 ip per home and a NAT box. Same goes for an office full of business machines or even a university lab.
Still, I fear the day when there is no public ip in the home, or in those college dorm rooms. Certainly public IPs do open up all sorts of room for abuse and security issues but they are also what make the internet a public network.
With a public ip anyone can set up a server to share information, or create new kinds of servers/protocols then test how they perform in the real world with the help of a friend on another network somewhere distant.
If the world doesn't eventually switch to IPV6 or something similar NAT is all we will have. Then I think the internet will end up evolving into just another proprietary network like AOL.
"So, this doesn't work for Sociopaths, or people who firmly believe in their religious reasons for doing something and thus have no fear?"
Of course not!
If so it would be detecting the person holding the device!
Maybe they have or will test it by following around actual known terrorists and letting them do what they intend to do.
-Personally I'm kinda hoping that cellular style access will improve in most areas
I agree, it's more usefull as you get to take it with you. Although... RF bandwidth is a limited resource, you can improve this by making more cell sites which cover smaller areas but only to an extent before adjacent cellsites interfere with one another. Wire or fiber based networks can always be expanded with more wire or fiber.
I hope that in the future we all have both good cellular connections to take with us and then really fast fiber connections at home for a low price. I have no idea if this is realistic. I'm imagining cellphones with desktop like power and built in projectors (the death of the laptop/pda/etc...) VPN clients standard on the handheld and nice big media servers in the house. As for where the bandwidth for this would come from... no more TV, Radio, etc... just roll this all into the software. (please keep a few bands open for experamenters, home tinkerers and radio astronomers).
OK, head out of the clouds.
Yes, we are almost arguing the same thing. In fact, in my first post I was arguing the same thing but as I think about it more, I think the problem is more in the software than in the hardware. Comcast does already allocate a lot of physical resources to it's different areas. I think the problem is in how the packets are handled. The network is prioritizing users by what they ask for rather than splitting it up evenly. Your big downloader, he has 50 connections at once while your average user's browser is only making 1. So... big downloader is given 50x the access to the network. Thus the average user experiences a large slowdown. I think that big downloader's ongoing connection should slow a little to let the average user's web page get through then it should speed back up. Kind of like when someone has a cartload of groceries and let's someone behind them cut b/c that person is only carrying one item. The big downloader will be there a while anyway and will hardly notice the difference.
This can be implemented, see the article linked in my last post. It just requires a bit of investment in reprogrammig those routers, or replacing them with ones which can be reprogrammed.
I guess we are using two different deffinitions of the word "overselling". Certainly providing every home with 20Mb every second of every day would be impossible to do in a way that customers could afford and the provider could make money. Fortunately the service isn't going to be used that way so yes, they can and must sell more service than the network can provide.
However, there is a limit. All users will be on some of the time and some will be on all of the time. For whatever bandwidth they advertise there is some amount they must be able to provide. I am saying that they are not doing this.
Now, as for that one guy whom is supposedly dragging down his whole block by downlaoding TBs of p0rn every day... Personally I've never lived on this guy's block. The only service issues I have had have involved weak or noisy signals coming through bad cable lines. (And i've had many of those) But, if this problem really does exist... why is it possible?
Why is one person able to pull more bandwidth than another? I don't know the actual numbers on this but lets say for example that an area of 100 people can be assumed to at most have 10 people online at a moment. So.. to give them 20Mb each the cable co sets up a 200Mb network. It's expected they may be a little congested during peak hours but such is life. These numbers are of course totally made up and way oversimplified I am sure. Now let's say that 1 user has nothing better to do than download movies all day long. Let's say he is using his full 20Mb. Right now there are 10 "normal" users on. With 190Mb between them should they even notice the difference?
If 1% of the users are able to noticeably affect the other 99% then I still argue the problem is at the ISP, not the individual users. Perhaps this article http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078 linked to on here a while back holds a real solution. Not rules which tell users they cannot use the bandwidth they pay for.
I would suggest dd-wrt
>> Everyone gets to have nice fast access, but only if people are nice and share it.
Umm... No...
I don't go to a restaurant and expect to pay for a nice meal but I only get it if I share my plate with all the other customers.
I don't pay for X Mb/sec and expect to share it with others.
The problem is that Comcast is overselling their network in some areas. It would prefer to attack it's own customers (sound familiar RIAA) than upgrade the product.
They certainly can afford to do an upgrade too, I used to work for that company and back when they tried to fool their employees into buying their failing stock they bragged about the internet service being something between 80 and 90% proffit.
However, internet was always the red-headed stepchild of Comcast, those profits will always go towards propping up their core business 'video' and pushing out their phone service b/c they think that selling phone will make AT&T go away.
this link is better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GopherVR
OK, looks like lots of people caught the fact that this has been tried with the web many many times since the 90s. But it even predates the web.. anyone remember 3D Gopher?
http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/GopherVR.html
I guess some ideas just don't die.
I wonder if they got to them....
More likely they paid someone to do it. I mean, can't you just imagine Tom Cruse sitting behind a mostly plain black screen which says "Palin's Email" at the top and has the word password blinking in the middle. He types the word "override" or something stupid like that and nothing happens. "Hey come on, it worked on the set..."
Hmm, let's see, what's more likely to be in a plastic container...
Fast Food
Candy Bar
Pop (Soda)
Snack Cakes
A good healthy home-cooked meal...
SeaLand? Prior Art?
Isn't ThePirateBay's attempt to buy Sealand for this purpose good enough?
"Yes but what makes you think the government will respect those privacy "laws"?"
They will not. They already have not. Still, I don't think the time has come to give up on using the law to protect our constitutional rights. If it has then what else do we have? Give up and let the tyrants rule? Revolution? I just don't think we are there yet.
It's the minds of the people we have to change. Make them stop believing in the growing dictatorship. It's hard to imagine doing that while turning our backs on the erosion of our constitutional rights. What kind of example is that?
It's not about stopping the DOJ or any other agency from tracking down a killer. They can always get a warrant and do that. It's about not letting certain parts of the government do as they please without any accountability to the rest or the people.
Besides, does this fall under the same rules as wiretapping? If so, then if the need is great enough and time is short they have always had the opportunity to take the information right away but explain themselves and get the warrant at the first possible moment.
"If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws."
The point is to head things off with the privacy and other civil liberties laws long before it reaches the point of people disapearing into secret prisons, etc...
I think history shows us pretty clearly that tyranny is the natural end that governments evolve towards if they are not constantly kept in check by their citizens.
Then again.... our government already has it's secret prisons, doesn't it....
True, but there might be lots of Slashdotters whom have less techy friends/family they would be happy to see using this rather than constantly asking them to do it.