> Although, it really doesn't matter if Alice gets 99% of the bandwidth if Bob is only trying to use.1 % of the bandwith. As long as he gets that.1% that he wants.
> it takes more computing resources to implement a source based priority queue than to implement a simple fifo queue.
Similarly it takes more computing resources to do what ISPs are already doing (throttling, disconnects based on XYZ) than to implement a simple fifo queue.
> to be of any use such prioritisation needs to happen at the pinch point (that is at the place there is actually a queue built up), unless you deliberately pinch off bandwidth
I'm sure they can find the pinch points - they're the spots where they keep having congestion (which should show up on one of their monitoring screens).
Quote: "Esophageal cancer numbers rose in regions where people preferred their tea very hot, and dropped where tea was served at a cooler temperature. "
"But unlike booze and cigarettes, Malekzadeh said evidence in his study showed it's not the chemicals in the tea that matters. "
> Much of the load from P2P networks would be immensely reduced if providers started implementing XCAST
Actually much of the load from P2P networks would be immensely reduced if: 1) providers wouldn't get sued for running special P2P Auto caching seeders that detect P2P traffic from their customers and automatically start downloading and then seeding stuff on their networks. 2) The providers can then throttle any P2P traffic to/fro their network from/to the rest of the internet that's not to/from their caching seeders. Their customers wouldn't care because they still get fast connections from the caching seeders.
I think the technology is already there (some/all implemented already), the laws in most countries just don't make it viable;).
One problem is by default many network devices/OSes do bandwidth distribution on a per _connection_ basis not on a per IP basis. So if there are only two users and one user has 1000 active connections and the other has just one active connection the first user will get about 1000 times more bandwidth than the second user.
P2P clients typically have very very many connections open. Wheres other clients might not.
A much fairer way would be to share bandwidth amongst users on a per IP basis. That means if two users are active they get about 50% each, even if one user has 100 P2P connections and the other user has only one measly http connection.
Then within each customer's "per IP" queue, to improve the customer's experience you could prioritize latency or loss sensitive stuff like like dns, tcp acks, typical game connections, ssh, telnet and so on, over all the other less sensitive/important stuff.
Of course if you have oversubscribed too much, you will have way too many active users for your available bandwidth. A fair distribution of "not enough" will still be not enough.
If you have two people and you give each a fair slice of one banana, they each get half a banana. Maybe both are satisfied. If you have 1000 people and you give each a fair slice of one banana, they each get 1/1000th of a banana. Not many are going to be satisfied;).
And that's where we come to the other problem.
The problem with P2P is many customers will often leave their P2P clients on 24/7, EVEN when some of them don't really care very much about how fast it goes (some do, but some don't). To revisit the banana analogy, what you have here is 1000 people, and 1000 of them ask for a slice of the banana, EVEN though some of them don't really care - they'll only really feel like having a slice next week, when they're back from their holiday!
So how do you figure out who cares and who doesn't care?
Right now what many ISPs do is have quota limits - they limit how much data can be transferred in total. When the quota runs out "stuff happens" (connections go slow, users get charged more etc). So the users have to manage it.
BUT this is PRIMITIVE, because if you can figure out when a user doesn't care about the speed etc, technology allows you to easily prioritize other traffic over that user's "who cares" traffic.
So what's a better way of figuring it out?
My proposal is to give the customers a "dialer" which allows users to "log on" to "priority Internet" (and then only something starts counting the bytes;) ), BUT even when they "log out" they _still_ get always-on internet access except it's just on a lower priority (but NO byte quota!). A customer might be restricted to say 10GBs at "priority" a month.
The advantage of this method is: 1) There is no WASTED capacity - almost all the available bandwidth can be used all the time, without affecting the people who NEED "priority" internet access (and still have unused quota). 2) It allows a ISP to better figure out how much capacity to actually buy. 3) If there is insufficient capacity for "priority Internet" the ISP can actually inform the user and not put the user on "priority" (where the quota is counted). While the user might not be that happy, this is much fairer, than getting crappy access while having your quota still being deducted.
Perhaps this system is not needed and will never be needed in countries that don't seem to have big problems offering 100Mbps internet access to lots of people.
But it might still be useful in countries where the internet access and telcos are poorly regulated/managed. For example - you run a small ISP in one of those crappy countries and so you pay more for bandwidth from your providers- this system could allow you to make better use of your bandwidth and to be a more efficient competitor. And maybe even give your customers better internet service at the same time.
Yes the ISP could always buy enough bandwidth so that _everyone_ can get the offered amount even though not everyone really cares all the time (believe me this is true). But that could mean the ISP's internet access packages being much more expensive than they could be.
If you were trapped in a sunken submarine just pounding on the hull will do, assuming they were able to rescue you. It'll be pretty obvious you want to get out ASAP.
But if they can't rescue you and they ask you for your last words and intended recipients, Morse may be useful...
I believe this and other "see through wall tech" (UWB radar) can filter out most stationary stuff (doppler effect).
So if you want a wall that blocks it, keep it moving enough.
Or shake/flap/wave a solid/film enough or have moving liquids in the way e.g. water walls at an angle with big bubbles going up all the time, and/or "waterfall" walls. Not sure which is cheaper to run.
Or have big fans spinning slowly all the time. Or any cool stuff that shows up as a false blip in the motion detectors in those Alien movies;).
Lastly, I'm no expert but 6 inches of soft wood is unlikely to stop a rifle bullet. Get some kevlar and line important bits of your walls:).
> > Cache coherency should be handled by the programmer, not by the hardware.
> I hope you meant compiler, not the programmer.
Sounds like everyone wants to make it someone else's problem:).
I thought Intel and AMD were running out of ideas on what to use their transistors for. Can't the hardware people sit down with the software guys and work out a better way to fix it _together_? Rather than keep shoving the problem at each other... It seems to be a common problem whether your "units" are CPUs or servers or racks or datacenters. While it is mainly a software problem, I'm thinking the CPU bunch can still lend a hand for the "lower levels".
You think Google can't figure out who is and isn't likely to pull a particular trigger?
Oh and there are plenty more ways that even I can think of:).
p.s. if anyone thinks Google is good they should remember the motto is "Don't be evil", not "Be Good". Somehow so many people seem to think that's aiming high. Perhaps it is by the standards of US corporations, but then that's pretty dismal eh?;).
> At what point does it become acceptable to punish the entire population for the crimes of a few pirates? > Can you punish innocent people for the crimes of their neighbours
But that's what most wars end up doing too. A high percentage of the people may not have wanted the war[1] in the participating countries but they get killed, crippled, hurt anyway.
In the old days when Britain, France, USA etc were at war, "Letters of Marque" were issued which allowed privateers to attack ships of enemy countries. Privateers were basically pirates that were "legally" allowed (by their own country) to rob ships of other countries. If the Somalian Government was caught doing something vaguely like that, a country might be justified in declaring formal hostilities. Probably not worth it from a economics and political cost PoV. But hey not all countries have sane governments.
> In effect Google has given me a "hit" on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.
Google punished BMW.de for doing something similar to this before.
Quote: This is a violation of our Webmaster quality guidelines, specifically the principle of 'Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users,'" Cutts' blog said.
> If it gives no competitive advantage then why in the world would it be worth real money?
Many people spend money on decorative stuff in games. Stuff that doesn't give them competitive advantage in the actual game itself.
In real life lots of people spend a lot of money on decorative stuff too. They don't work better (heck some of it doesn't work at all except as a decoration).
But in the other sorts of games and metagames they might be worth it...
[2] See "Enteric Nervous System" [3] See: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k51335l4k4676577/ That's somewhat anecdotal but I won't be surprised if your organs and other parts have some say on what you feel like eating (it'll be an evolutionary advantage if done "right").
Slashdot Mirror
> replace the fan and its good to go.
If you're replacing fans 3 x more often (due to 3 x higher usage than normal), it's going to cost more.
> Although, it really doesn't matter if Alice gets 99% of the bandwidth if Bob is only trying to use .1 % of the bandwith. As long as he gets that .1% that he wants.
It depends, if you allow "bursting" it matters.
I still haven't got a +5 Troll mod. Is there a "Slashdot achievement" for that? ;)
I don't normally troll anyway, but I do get modded troll for posting true stuff from time to time. Just one of those things I guess.
> it takes more computing resources to implement a source based priority queue than to implement a simple fifo queue.
Similarly it takes more computing resources to do what ISPs are already doing (throttling, disconnects based on XYZ) than to implement a simple fifo queue.
> to be of any use such prioritisation needs to happen at the pinch point (that is at the place there is actually a queue built up), unless you deliberately pinch off bandwidth
I'm sure they can find the pinch points - they're the spots where they keep having congestion (which should show up on one of their monitoring screens).
There's also Maps - http://www.bing.com/maps/
Microsoft actually did maps before Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraServer-USA
Before even Google was founded.
And there's Photosynth except now it requires installation of Silverlight, which I can't be bothered to install.
> > Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?
> No, radio waves are non-ionizing.
> You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.
Cooking = damage. And the damage can increase the odds of cancer.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7965380.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=7182731&page=1
Quote: "Esophageal cancer numbers rose in regions where people preferred their tea very hot, and dropped where tea was served at a cooler temperature. "
"But unlike booze and cigarettes, Malekzadeh said evidence in his study showed it's not the chemicals in the tea that matters. "
> Much of the load from P2P networks would be immensely reduced if providers started implementing XCAST
;).
Actually much of the load from P2P networks would be immensely reduced if:
1) providers wouldn't get sued for running special P2P Auto caching seeders that detect P2P traffic from their customers and automatically start downloading and then seeding stuff on their networks.
2) The providers can then throttle any P2P traffic to/fro their network from/to the rest of the internet that's not to/from their caching seeders. Their customers wouldn't care because they still get fast connections from the caching seeders.
I think the technology is already there (some/all implemented already), the laws in most countries just don't make it viable
One problem is by default many network devices/OSes do bandwidth distribution on a per _connection_ basis not on a per IP basis. So if there are only two users and one user has 1000 active connections and the other has just one active connection the first user will get about 1000 times more bandwidth than the second user.
;).
;) ), BUT even when they "log out" they _still_ get always-on internet access except it's just on a lower priority (but NO byte quota!). A customer might be restricted to say 10GBs at "priority" a month.
P2P clients typically have very very many connections open. Wheres other clients might not.
A much fairer way would be to share bandwidth amongst users on a per IP basis. That means if two users are active they get about 50% each, even if one user has 100 P2P connections and the other user has only one measly http connection.
Then within each customer's "per IP" queue, to improve the customer's experience you could prioritize latency or loss sensitive stuff like like dns, tcp acks, typical game connections, ssh, telnet and so on, over all the other less sensitive/important stuff.
Of course if you have oversubscribed too much, you will have way too many active users for your available bandwidth. A fair distribution of "not enough" will still be not enough.
If you have two people and you give each a fair slice of one banana, they each get half a banana. Maybe both are satisfied.
If you have 1000 people and you give each a fair slice of one banana, they each get 1/1000th of a banana. Not many are going to be satisfied
And that's where we come to the other problem.
The problem with P2P is many customers will often leave their P2P clients on 24/7, EVEN when some of them don't really care very much about how fast it goes (some do, but some don't). To revisit the banana analogy, what you have here is 1000 people, and 1000 of them ask for a slice of the banana, EVEN though some of them don't really care - they'll only really feel like having a slice next week, when they're back from their holiday!
So how do you figure out who cares and who doesn't care?
Right now what many ISPs do is have quota limits - they limit how much data can be transferred in total. When the quota runs out "stuff happens" (connections go slow, users get charged more etc). So the users have to manage it.
BUT this is PRIMITIVE, because if you can figure out when a user doesn't care about the speed etc, technology allows you to easily prioritize other traffic over that user's "who cares" traffic.
So what's a better way of figuring it out?
My proposal is to give the customers a "dialer" which allows users to "log on" to "priority Internet" (and then only something starts counting the bytes
The advantage of this method is:
1) There is no WASTED capacity - almost all the available bandwidth can be used all the time, without affecting the people who NEED "priority" internet access (and still have unused quota).
2) It allows a ISP to better figure out how much capacity to actually buy.
3) If there is insufficient capacity for "priority Internet" the ISP can actually inform the user and not put the user on "priority" (where the quota is counted). While the user might not be that happy, this is much fairer, than getting crappy access while having your quota still being deducted.
Perhaps this system is not needed and will never be needed in countries that don't seem to have big problems offering 100Mbps internet access to lots of people.
But it might still be useful in countries where the internet access and telcos are poorly regulated/managed. For example - you run a small ISP in one of those crappy countries and so you pay more for bandwidth from your providers- this system could allow you to make better use of your bandwidth and to be a more efficient competitor. And maybe even give your customers better internet service at the same time.
Yes the ISP could always buy enough bandwidth so that _everyone_ can get the offered amount even though not everyone really cares all the time (believe me this is true). But that could mean the ISP's internet access packages being much more expensive than they could be.
Don't overdo it:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=492577
If you like that sort of thing (learning all sorts of skills that "normal" humans don't need), how about adding echolocation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation#Notable_individuals_who_employ_echolocation
Daniel Kish's organization and others even conduct courses/classes on it.
Not sure sighted people are allowed or welcomed (but you could always wear very dark sunglasses ;) ).
> Anything faster is $1000+ for the charging module, and pretty much requires 30A circuit and a garage (sorry apartment dwellers)
Wait... Can anyone describe in detail how the alternative to the "Anything faster" method even works for apartment dwellers?
Most apartment car parks here don't have power sockets nearby.
Over time, reduce the number of TOR nodes?
If you were trapped in a sunken submarine just pounding on the hull will do, assuming they were able to rescue you. It'll be pretty obvious you want to get out ASAP.
But if they can't rescue you and they ask you for your last words and intended recipients, Morse may be useful...
And in the final analysis what will most of us have achieved in our "real" lives?
Nothing really much.
I believe this and other "see through wall tech" (UWB radar) can filter out most stationary stuff (doppler effect).
So if you want a wall that blocks it, keep it moving enough.
Or shake/flap/wave a solid/film enough or have moving liquids in the way e.g. water walls at an angle with big bubbles going up all the time, and/or "waterfall" walls. Not sure which is cheaper to run.
Or have big fans spinning slowly all the time. Or any cool stuff that shows up as a false blip in the motion detectors in those Alien movies ;).
Lastly, I'm no expert but 6 inches of soft wood is unlikely to stop a rifle bullet. Get some kevlar and line important bits of your walls :).
See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/rifle.htm
And note that the figures are for 5.56mm rounds which I guess won't normally penetrate as well as hunter rifle rounds.
Cirrusly?
> > Cache coherency should be handled by the programmer, not by the hardware.
:).
> I hope you meant compiler, not the programmer.
Sounds like everyone wants to make it someone else's problem
I thought Intel and AMD were running out of ideas on what to use their transistors for. Can't the hardware people sit down with the software guys and work out a better way to fix it _together_? Rather than keep shoving the problem at each other... It seems to be a common problem whether your "units" are CPUs or servers or racks or datacenters. While it is mainly a software problem, I'm thinking the CPU bunch can still lend a hand for the "lower levels".
Or have they given up?
> In a FPS game, people usually don't really care what the others look like. Unless they have flashy colors that make them much more visible...
:).
Some people might pay even if it only gives them personalized tattoos.
Of course with the potential lawsuits, trademark infringements, censorship battles, cry babies etc, it could be hard earned money
Blocking would be "stupid evil"
There are so many deviously evil ways to get back at Optus that Google can do, with a low chance of getting caught.
Even if it's actually someone else pulling the trigger...
e.g. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/
You think Google can't figure out who is and isn't likely to pull a particular trigger?
Oh and there are plenty more ways that even I can think of :).
p.s. if anyone thinks Google is good they should remember the motto is "Don't be evil", not "Be Good". Somehow so many people seem to think that's aiming high. Perhaps it is by the standards of US corporations, but then that's pretty dismal eh? ;).
> At what point does it become acceptable to punish the entire population for the crimes of a few pirates?
> Can you punish innocent people for the crimes of their neighbours
But that's what most wars end up doing too. A high percentage of the people may not have wanted the war[1] in the participating countries but they get killed, crippled, hurt anyway.
In the old days when Britain, France, USA etc were at war, "Letters of Marque" were issued which allowed privateers to attack ships of enemy countries. Privateers were basically pirates that were "legally" allowed (by their own country) to rob ships of other countries. If the Somalian Government was caught doing something vaguely like that, a country might be justified in declaring formal hostilities. Probably not worth it from a economics and political cost PoV. But hey not all countries have sane governments.
[1] Hence my proposal: http://slashdot.org/journal/208853/How-to-reduce-unwanted-wars
> In effect Google has given me a "hit" on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.
Google punished BMW.de for doing something similar to this before.
http://news.cnet.com/Google-blacklists-BMW.de/2100-1024_3-6035412.html
Quote: This is a violation of our Webmaster quality guidelines, specifically the principle of 'Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users,'" Cutts' blog said.
Go figure.
Doesn't have to refuse. Just set the latency accordingly.
You can increase latency on a per IP basis on Linux or *BSD. The gameserver itself could delay stuff.
I'm not sure how that will increase long term game profitability though. Not even sure if it will significantly increase short term profitability.
> If it gives no competitive advantage then why in the world would it be worth real money?
Many people spend money on decorative stuff in games. Stuff that doesn't give them competitive advantage in the actual game itself.
In real life lots of people spend a lot of money on decorative stuff too. They don't work better (heck some of it doesn't work at all except as a decoration).
But in the other sorts of games and metagames they might be worth it...
Nah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognac_(drink)#Grades
Just hope you don't get too many stem cells from them that survive in your body.
A few might lodge in your brain[1] (or your stomach "brain"[2] - which might change some of your dietary preferences[3]).
[1] If fetal stem cells can end up in their mother's brains, why not other transplanted stem cells?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725134.300-baby-comes-with-brain-repair-kit-for-mum.html
[2] See "Enteric Nervous System"
[3] See: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k51335l4k4676577/
That's somewhat anecdotal but I won't be surprised if your organs and other parts have some say on what you feel like eating (it'll be an evolutionary advantage if done "right").