Come up with a new network application after music sharing and become famous!
Non-starters:
VoIP (savings is tiny when backbone bandwidth is counted; with different calling plans and simpler billing traditional telephony might be preferred for its guarantees);
Interactive video (nobody wants it, good cameras are expensive, there's no good lighting in normal offices, and you cannot currently make eye contact);
Games (they barely ever use any bandwidth because they are always designed for diverse connectivity).
I guess for a while we'll just see Fasttrack and Gnutella used to distribute movies... How utterly boring.
In the context of file-sharing applications, however, it might not be quite what an administrator is looking for. Usage-based pricing probably would solve the problem better. Hey, people don't expect to be able to print 50000 pages on the printer in the hallway for free; why should packets be any different? Internet2 connection is unmetered and isn't the problem (i.e., file sharing on Internet2 has a marginal cost of very close to zero for campuses).
Internet1 connection is pay-per-bit for the campus and typically pay-per-month for the resnet user. And exactly this is the problem.
Oh, of course, it will be running over DWDM (as any other long-haul new fiber deployment these days).
To another poster: Buying dark fiber works
in metropolitan areas, but not with nation-wide backbones. You need to regenerate the signal every 300km or so.
If you search for "teoma" on Teoma, it comes up with two relevant topics ("WEB PAGES GROUPED BY TOPIC" header at the top): Teoma Search Engine and Gambling Casino. Apparently, some garbage portals to porn and online gambling include Teoma as one of the search engines they link to.
It's funny that Teoma has trouble defining its own identity. So, are you guys a search engine or a gambling casino? At least the users get to pick what they like most.
I wish them best of luck. Google is good now. What is to keep it from selling out like Yahoo is doing now? Competition is good. Now, I wish Teoma had a news archive.
I am not saying that the authors might not have been inspired by Google, but I am saying that Google isn't the only possible
source of their inspiration.
The concept of using links as votes to rate resources is simply not novel anymore. Everyone knows about it. I'm not claiming that Google invented it (not being a very non-obvious idea, this was probably independently developed at a number of places); but presenting stuff familiar to everybody as "Invented Here" news sounds like PR.
But wait, it was a press release. Submitted by someone from IBM, too.
People actually vote their preferences by providing links to different documents.
You may be able to determine that a page is authoritative because lots of people have
found it important enough to have links to it. People explicitly create links from page
one to page two, and if many people point to page two it looks like it is an important
link to something.
This Discoverylink(TM) search engine concept somehow sounds very familiar. Where could I have heard this innovative idea before? Or, as the press release asks, "Where did I read that?" Ah, yes!
Currently, if you want to do network testing in the lab, you have two options for emulating the delay of a real WAN:
An electronic delay generator that simply buffers packets;
Fiber loops.
Fiber loops are better (they introduce no jitter), but more expensive and cumbersome. Maybe in a few years you'll be able to get a short strip of fiber that'll generate tens of milliseconds of delay.
I wonder whether there's any signal degradation in the light that passes through the crystal.
Your assertion that quantum computers would be the end of conventional cryptography is incorrect. While it's true that Shor's algorithm would enable you to break RSA and other public key cryptosystems such as DSS and ElGamal, the impact of quantum computers on conventional symmetric cyphers (such as, e.g., AES) is understood and limited.
Namely, Grover's algorithm would enable you to brute force a symmetric key of size N in O(exp(N/2)) time rather than the current O(exp(N)) time.
In other words, if quantum computers (even with very large number of qubits) are built, today's public key cryptosystems would no longer be secure, but today's symmetric cyphers would simply need to have their key length doubled to keep the same rough level of security.
And interstate workers have cut the line like 3 times in the last week.
If fiber cuts on your local connection are such a problem, why doesn't your institution get a redundant SONET ring? Most Internet2 connections are POS.
It supports both IPv4 (for the huge existing installed base) and IPv6. Having the network do IPv6 is quite far from actually being able to use it meaningfully. While standart Unix stuff, especially under BSD, mostly supports IPv6 now, how about a file sharing application? A hardware video conferencing box?
The right question to ask oneself: Does your computer support IPv6 today? Internet2 does.
However I2 isn't just supposed to set FTP speed records. Connecting educational institutions was designed to advance research
in high speed network and practical applications.
Actually, FTP (well, bbcp and the like to be precise) are very important applications for high-energy physics community. Wait till you have a petabyte database, you'll appreciate a 100Mb/s transmission.
This is not to say that new kinds of applications aren't important. And significant progress is being made here. Remote musician collaboration (reduces travel), remote control of heavy lifting equipment (reduces injuries while training), etc., have been demonstrated to work. Deploying stuff is harder, because it's driven by demand and demand is determined by users' expectations.
i'd rather have service that is stable where the provider doesn't play any tricks (ahem, Cox@home blocking port 80,
ahem), etc.
Internet2 is committed to maintaining transparent nature of its networks. Internet2 core is fully transparent with respect to IP protocols, port numbers, etc.
The key issue with file sharing is network capacity consumption, not legal issues (which are generally dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and universities are subject to the same--good or bad--laws as everybody else).
Universities generally aren't concerned with P2P file sharing over Internet2. We have plenty of capacity. No Internet2 core circuit was ever saturated. Congestion on campus connections to GigaPoPs and GigaPoP connections to Abilene is very infrequent and easy to deal with (usually, by upgrading the circuit).
What universities are concerned about is Internet1 usage. They generally have metered commodity connections that cost a lot of money and are often congested.
Many universities have unwittingly become information producers for home users on cable and DSL connections, who download a lot of stuff from university dorms. This costs universities serious money while it's hard to argue that it furthers any educational goals.
TeraGrid will be present at SC2001 (a yearly conference and expo for supercomputing and high-performance networking). Just to give you a hint of what it is like, the showfloor will have more than 10Gb/s of total outgoing Internet capacity (plus more private/non-IP circuits).
If you're going to be in Denver the week of Nov 12, 2001, consider stopping by. If nothing else, the place will have free and open 802.11b!
Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all
non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
As an EFF member and supporter, I would like to state as clearly as
possible: You don't speak for me when you say this. I am opposed to
your position on spam.
You raise a number of valid points. The crux is that users might have
their mail filtered without knowledge. This is undesirable. Users
must be told what is happening with their incoming mail and under what
circumstances it can be bounced. However, it's fine for users to be
able to choose to use any filtering system they like; including ones
that have false positives (are there any that don't? even Brightmail
with its human intervention has them).
I personally don't use any spam filtering. My position on spam is
summarized at http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/nouce.html:
I do not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email or
unsolicited bulk email (spam). I get on average 2.5 junk messages
a day (and several hundred real messages).
I never buy anything from a spammer. I never support a spammer in
any way. I never reply to spam.
I never disguise (munge, forge) my email address. (I find it
inconsiderate to people who wish to send me mail; if we break the
way email works, spammers win.) This doesn't apply to email
addresses that are actually mapped to more expensive or more
intrusive delivery mechanisms (fax, pager, etc.). I regularly post
to Usenet and to numerous openly archived mailing lists with my
real address.
I always report all my spam, including spam I get through numerous
mailing lists I am subscribed to (using Spamcop currently). I
often call relevant parties in addition to sending electronic
reports. I sometimes (rarely, because it takes time) place fake
"orders" based on information provided in spam.
This is my service to all people who use email. I consider this
service useful. (And I only spend seconds per day doing it.)
If you came here, you may be interested in my ideas on reporting
spam and uce.el.
However, ISPs are free to offer to their users optional spam-filtering
services or even make them part of standard offering that users can't
reject *as long as the users know how their mail is being treated*.
Blacklists have been an effective pressure tool.
ORBS et al. were what has really improved the situation with open
relays: Without pressure of legitimate mail being rejected, far fewer
people would fix their systems.
It's one right to refuse to accept mail from misconfigured systems.
If they act as an open relay (or, in fact, if I feel like it), it's my
right to not accept mail from them. If they are friendly to spammers,
it's my right not to do business with them.
I urge you to reflect this alternative point of view, which, I am
sure, is shared by many technically-minded members of the EFF in the
next issue of EFFector and on the website where this one-sided view is
presented as an opinion of EFF as a whole.
Sincerely yours,
--
Stanislav Shalunov
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject. -- Winston Churchill
It's fascinating how drooling journalists and business suits thoughtfully discuss Internet architecture. Somehow, these people believe they're qualified to make judgements on issues they have no clue about, such as the end-to-end design principle.
We cannot give these people an Internet that's good for their needs without throwing away the net as we have it now. Perhaps it's very good that Michels (whoever this guy is) says in the article:
"We don't have any control over the Internet". Mr. Michels, it's by design. Even bright people don't have control over the Internet. Business suits should think about what they understand and leave engineering alone.
For those who don't know, HDTV can work fine over IP. A lot of HDTV/IP work is happening at University of Washington.
I have seen 1.5Gb/s HDTV streams (and interactive video) at SC2000 (this particular demo wasn't over IP; University of Washington uses Gigabit Ethernet cards and interlaced HDTV: roughly 700Mb/s). It's quite impressive; now I know why I never want to watch movies on regular TV.
IP packets carry electricity in discrete, digitized form.
Each packet would deliver electricity to its destination (e.g., a
device with an IP address) on-demand.
MPLS control will be used to switch packets within the core LDS,
and in the edge premises. The architecture for this is referred
to as Mostly-Pointless Lamp Switching (MPLampS).
The MPLampS architectural model will accommodate both the overlay
model, where the electricity consuming devices (referred to as
"lamps") are operated over a distinct control plane, and the peer
model, in which the lamps and the distribution network use a
single control plane.
RSVP-TE (RSVP with Tariff Extensions) will be used for
establishing paths for electricity flow in a de-regulated
environment.
COPS will be used to support accounting and policy.
I have access to a nice LCD monitor that can be conveniently rotated into portrait mode (and I'd love to use it this way!). However, no free X appears to allow that. It's not in the new XFree86 release either.
Somehow, I don't see why anyone in their right mind would technically prohibit children to do X. Technical prohibition gives the restrained an impression that if the block can be avoided, it's OK to do X.
I don't use an electric fence to protect stuff from my one-year-old. She knows it's not OK to take my laptop from the couch and play with it (I suppose it'd be fun to take the wireless card out?) Result: better protection for my laptop (I don't need to worry about forgetting to put it away), and more knowledge of life for my child.
People who need "parental controls" are lazy parents who find it easier to use filtering software than to teach their children to tell right from wrong and to accept existence of different opinions. Taking bad parents' needs into special consideration is just plain silly.
Now, what actual implications this parental control grading system in X-box could have is a different question. It's quite possible that it'll lead to creation of more games that parental control advocates wouldn't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-starters:
I guess for a while we'll just see Fasttrack and Gnutella used to distribute movies... How utterly boring.
In the context of file-sharing applications, however, it might not be quite what an administrator is looking for. Usage-based pricing probably would solve the problem better. Hey, people don't expect to be able to print 50000 pages on the printer in the hallway for free; why should packets be any different? Internet2 connection is unmetered and isn't the problem (i.e., file sharing on Internet2 has a marginal cost of very close to zero for campuses).
Internet1 connection is pay-per-bit for the campus and typically pay-per-month for the resnet user. And exactly this is the problem.
You know, you could actually look at the Abilene Weekly NetFlow Reports yourself. It's not like this stuff is a dark secret for our eyes only.
To another poster: Buying dark fiber works in metropolitan areas, but not with nation-wide backbones. You need to regenerate the signal every 300km or so.
It's funny that Teoma has trouble defining its own identity. So, are you guys a search engine or a gambling casino? At least the users get to pick what they like most.
I wish them best of luck. Google is good now. What is to keep it from selling out like Yahoo is doing now? Competition is good. Now, I wish Teoma had a news archive.
But wait, it was a press release. Submitted by someone from IBM, too.
- An electronic delay generator that simply buffers packets;
- Fiber loops.
Fiber loops are better (they introduce no jitter), but more expensive and cumbersome. Maybe in a few years you'll be able to get a short strip of fiber that'll generate tens of milliseconds of delay.I wonder whether there's any signal degradation in the light that passes through the crystal.
Namely, Grover's algorithm would enable you to brute force a symmetric key of size N in O(exp(N/2)) time rather than the current O(exp(N)) time.
In other words, if quantum computers (even with very large number of qubits) are built, today's public key cryptosystems would no longer be secure, but today's symmetric cyphers would simply need to have their key length doubled to keep the same rough level of security.
The right question to ask oneself: Does your computer support IPv6 today? Internet2 does.
This is not to say that new kinds of applications aren't important. And significant progress is being made here. Remote musician collaboration (reduces travel), remote control of heavy lifting equipment (reduces injuries while training), etc., have been demonstrated to work. Deploying stuff is harder, because it's driven by demand and demand is determined by users' expectations.
Internet2 is a non-profit organization. You can't invest in it. However, this doesn't mean it doesn't have industry partners.
Universities generally aren't concerned with P2P file sharing over Internet2. We have plenty of capacity. No Internet2 core circuit was ever saturated. Congestion on campus connections to GigaPoPs and GigaPoP connections to Abilene is very infrequent and easy to deal with (usually, by upgrading the circuit).
What universities are concerned about is Internet1 usage. They generally have metered commodity connections that cost a lot of money and are often congested.
Many universities have unwittingly become information producers for home users on cable and DSL connections, who download a lot of stuff from university dorms. This costs universities serious money while it's hard to argue that it furthers any educational goals.
If you're going to be in Denver the week of Nov 12, 2001, consider stopping by. If nothing else, the place will have free and open 802.11b!
Stanton McCandlish writes:
Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all
non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
As an EFF member and supporter, I would like to state as clearly as
possible: You don't speak for me when you say this. I am opposed to
your position on spam.
You raise a number of valid points. The crux is that users might have
their mail filtered without knowledge. This is undesirable. Users
must be told what is happening with their incoming mail and under what
circumstances it can be bounced. However, it's fine for users to be
able to choose to use any filtering system they like; including ones
that have false positives (are there any that don't? even Brightmail
with its human intervention has them).
I personally don't use any spam filtering. My position on spam is
summarized at http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/nouce.html:
I do not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email or
unsolicited bulk email (spam). I get on average 2.5 junk messages
a day (and several hundred real messages).
I never buy anything from a spammer. I never support a spammer in
any way. I never reply to spam.
I never disguise (munge, forge) my email address. (I find it
inconsiderate to people who wish to send me mail; if we break the
way email works, spammers win.) This doesn't apply to email
addresses that are actually mapped to more expensive or more
intrusive delivery mechanisms (fax, pager, etc.). I regularly post
to Usenet and to numerous openly archived mailing lists with my
real address.
I always report all my spam, including spam I get through numerous
mailing lists I am subscribed to (using Spamcop currently). I
often call relevant parties in addition to sending electronic
reports. I sometimes (rarely, because it takes time) place fake
"orders" based on information provided in spam.
This is my service to all people who use email. I consider this
service useful. (And I only spend seconds per day doing it.)
If you came here, you may be interested in my ideas on reporting
spam and uce.el.
However, ISPs are free to offer to their users optional spam-filtering
services or even make them part of standard offering that users can't
reject *as long as the users know how their mail is being treated*.
Blacklists have been an effective pressure tool.
ORBS et al. were what has really improved the situation with open
relays: Without pressure of legitimate mail being rejected, far fewer
people would fix their systems.
It's one right to refuse to accept mail from misconfigured systems.
If they act as an open relay (or, in fact, if I feel like it), it's my
right to not accept mail from them. If they are friendly to spammers,
it's my right not to do business with them.
I urge you to reflect this alternative point of view, which, I am
sure, is shared by many technically-minded members of the EFF in the
next issue of EFFector and on the website where this one-sided view is
presented as an opinion of EFF as a whole.
Sincerely yours,
--
Stanislav Shalunov
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject. -- Winston Churchill
We cannot give these people an Internet that's good for their needs without throwing away the net as we have it now. Perhaps it's very good that Michels (whoever this guy is) says in the article: "We don't have any control over the Internet". Mr. Michels, it's by design. Even bright people don't have control over the Internet. Business suits should think about what they understand and leave engineering alone.
I have seen 1.5Gb/s HDTV streams (and interactive video) at SC2000 (this particular demo wasn't over IP; University of Washington uses Gigabit Ethernet cards and interlaced HDTV: roughly 700Mb/s). It's quite impressive; now I know why I never want to watch movies on regular TV.
IP over electrical lamps is boring.
No, really. Just today the IESG has approved for publication a new Informational RFC: MPLampS: Electricity over IP (with an MPLS control plane).
From the document:
There's also whole Tele-Immersion Initiative, as well as smaller things like audio teleportation and Virtual Halloween.
It's a pity.
I don't use an electric fence to protect stuff from my one-year-old. She knows it's not OK to take my laptop from the couch and play with it (I suppose it'd be fun to take the wireless card out?) Result: better protection for my laptop (I don't need to worry about forgetting to put it away), and more knowledge of life for my child.
People who need "parental controls" are lazy parents who find it easier to use filtering software than to teach their children to tell right from wrong and to accept existence of different opinions. Taking bad parents' needs into special consideration is just plain silly.
Now, what actual implications this parental control grading system in X-box could have is a different question. It's quite possible that it'll lead to creation of more games that parental control advocates wouldn't like.