I'm pretty shocked at the number of times the RIAA has filed suits against people who had no idea what this was all about. One would think that ISPs would have better records of who owned which particular IP addresses at the time.
Unless the ISPs hate the RIAA as much as everyone else does, and the techs given the task of pulling the account information behind the IPs is handing them bogus data just to spite them. I'd probably do the same thing if it was my job...
Could it be possible that the hardware players contain multiple player keys, so that they don't become toasters if a single key is broken and later revoked?
Then again, if you can get one key out of the player, you'll probably be able to get all of them...never mind...
There are a decent number of companies (and non-profit orgs) that do exactlythissort of thing. Most of the big content distributors (iTunes, MySpace, CNN, etc) use at least one of them. The problem is that these companies work for the content distributor, not the ISP - the CDN "takes the bullet" for the content provider's main servers to offload demand, not offload capacity to the ISP. Unless the ISP sites one or more of the CDN's proxies at the customer edge of their network (which is not uncommon, but hardly ubiquitous), the ISP still has to pay to move the traffic to their customers from the proxy, and if they did have one it would be in their POP, not next to every DSLAM and cable head-end, which mean the path between the CDN proxy and the customer still has the same bandwidth requirements.
Every ISP oversubscribes at some point. It's a fact of the business. It's built into the competitive environment, and if you know anything about longhaul capacity and network hardware costs (I'm looking at you, Cisco), you'd know that the cost of moving a megabit of traffic across the country costs *much* more than what it costs for an ISP to deliver a megabit of capacity from its edge routers to your home. They have to play the averages, counting on only having to move a tenth or so of the available sold capacity as actual traffic. As I said above, if you really want a non-oversubscribed link, be prepared to pay $500 and up a month for it. In fact, that's how much Verizon Business, AT&T, and the other "Business Class" providers charge for a T1 circuit, which is 1.5Mbits of non-oversubscribed bandwidth.
Let me try to explain the problem from the ISP side (pardon me while I don Les Asbestos Underpantz)...
What we're seeing is the hazards of changing oversubscription ratios. I'm sure this term is familiar to many of you, but for those who don't, it's the concept that ISPs know that on average, each customer will only use a certain portion of the bandwidth that's made available to them. As such, an ISP doesn't have to provision one megabit of backbone capacity for each megabit it sells to a consumer; it might only have to upgrade on a 1:10 or 1:50 upstream-to-downstream ratio. There's no way that an ISP could sell bandwidth at a reasonable price without oversubscribing at some point. Without oversubscription your 1.5Mbit DSL line would be $500 a month, not $50. Those in the business know I'm not exaggerating here, given the cost of service provider network equipment and fiber capacity (which continues to fall, but not nearly fast enough).
What's causing the problem is that those ratios are changing, such that (for example) the 1:10 ratio an ISP built its business model around is now 1:5, thanks to YouTube, iTunes, Bittorrent, WoW, etc, not to mention 0wned machines spewing spam and DoS traffic, which is overtaxing its infrastructure and increasing costs. The ISP can't get away with raising prices, and obviously has to remain profitable, so congestion is the inevitable result.
Some ISPs, most notably Comcast, have gotten quite aggressive at disconnecting what they perceive as "abusive" customers whose usage is higher than the norm. This is absolutely the wrong way to go about this problem, but feeling of being between the proverbial rock and a hard place is understandable. ISPs simply can't stay in business if customers actually use all the bandwidth they're given, and if we all built our networks such that everyone could, no consumer would pay for it.
I think it was 1994 when AOL introduced its unlimited dialup service (prior to 1994 AOL billed dialup connection time by the hour). Because the user that before was spending an average of, say, 30 minutes a day online was now spending 3 hours a day connected, and because AOL woefully misforecast those ratios, it became next to impossible to connect to AOL for quite a while until they caught up with modem provisioning (That's when I got rid of my AOL account and got my first real ISP acccount, yay!). Looks like everything old is new again.
Another possibility is that in order to avoid potential interference with flight systems, they would have had to run the APs at some extraordinarily low power, limiting its range to the point that one AP per row would have been necessary to get a signal to every seat. IIRC WLAN client cards modulate their output power based on incoming signal strength, so the clients would have lowered their transmit power to match.
I think it will get there, but not in its current form. Remember, the iPod really didn't become a huge success until rev. 3...I think the first gen will sell well, but not to expectations, but once they're on version 3 or 4, the price/features mix will be much more compelling. And hopefully they'll have a removable battery by then...
Not to mention that most leased access circuits (T1, T3, etc) use PPP as the link-layer protocol as well, just with authentication disabled in most cases.
That's about the *only* place where I can see AT&T wanting the ability to prioritize their traffic. But there's nothing stopping them from extending the concept from prioritizing their own IPTV traffic to taking money from other concent operators to have their traffic prioritized, or even have access to the all of the customer's pipe. The real-world scenario here could be something like AT&T not allowing a single site to send traffic at the customer's full IP line rate unless they pay an extra fee to AT&T.
I think you have the concept a bit backwards...the "Net Neutrality" concerns aren't that AT&T will charge the customer more for access to more of the existing pipe; hell, that happens today. The concern is that AT&T will turn around and expect Google, Yahoo, etc. to pay extra for access to your pipe. You might have a 1.5Mbps connection, but if AT&T had its way, they would have the right to rate limit YouTube downloads to a lower rate, say, 500kbps per user, unless Google paid AT&T an extra fee. At the same time allowing their own video download services to operate at the maximum line rate. THAT's what has people worried.
Everyone, including Apple, knows that no copy/license protection system is foolproof. The best you can ask for is something that's difficult enough to break that it effectively deters the mainstream "casual pirate" - remember, even bank vaults are rated on how long it would take a skilled safecracker to open the lock, and never guaranteed to be impenetrable.
This has happened at my company too - in our case it was a lot of SFP modules (for those not in the business, these are small, hot-pluggable optical transceivers for Gigabit Ethernet and OCx ports). We had about ten of them going into a switch we were installing, and the switch refused to activate any of them beyond the first we plugged in because they all had the same serial number burned into their ROMs. Ouch.
If you listen to early-to-mid 80's synth music, you'll notice that samples were always drowned in reverb and other processing - this was primarily to "hide" the 8-and-12-bitness of the samplers. Early Art of Noise ("Beatbox", "Close To The Edit") is a great example.
This brings an interesting question - while it's clearly illegal to pump and dump, is it legal to short stocks for which you've gotten a spam touting? Is the spam run something that would fit the legal definition of public information (particularly if it gets forwarded to n.a.n.a.s.)?
Also, keep in mind that most brokerages won't let you short penny stocks. There's generally a minimum price per share before you can sell a stock short.
First off, in order to get the 720Gbps speeds out of a 6500 series box, you need not only the Sup720B, but every line card in your box needs to have a DFC (Distributed Fabric Card) slapped on...they run aroun $10-15K each IIRC. Without DFCs you'll top out around 40Gbps (still nothing to sneeze at, but not even close to 720Gbps). And even then you've got caevats out the wazoo, such as average packet size - at 64 bytes per packet the switching ASICs will get overloaded before the backplane fills up.
Secondly, the 6500 series is nowhere near the type of system this project is trying to replicate. This appears intended for the SOHO/branch office application - once you get to the enterprise/service provider level, where every minute of downtime has a real dollar cost, you need things like redundant power and management modules, NUBS compliance, and hot-swappable management/interface modules. You won't see any of that stuff in a PC anytime soon.
I'm wondering whether or not the DSP latency of these libraries is sufficient to use with real-time audio processing...if folks were to write RTAS/AU/VST plugins using the library, how they would compare to other hardware-assisted DSP solutions such as the PowerCore and Pro Tools farm cards. Then again, if you have to spend $500 on a card to get this goodness, it's hardly a bargain (albeit cheaper than the above products...)
If you RTFA you'll see that it was a typo - it's microseconds, not milliseconds. You can ping from New York to Seattle in less than a 100 milliseconds if you're on a decent pipe.
Site operators, not customers. I just don't think that operators would choose to use.xxx over the usual.com unless they had no choice, given how easy it would be for ISPs and other enterprises to block access to.xxx wholesale. And the only way to force adult site operators to use.xxx would be to police the.com/.org/.net/etc namespace for content. That's the slippery slope that I don't think ICANN (or any government agency) should be getting themselves into...
That's all well and good, right up until the moment that some other company tries to do the same thing with the same.xxx TLD (and don't think that no one will try...) You will use the global uniqueness of domain names that makes the net work - www.sex.xxx will go to one website for one user, and another for a different user whose ISP is pointing their.xxx resolution to a different registrar. And of course, it will go nowhere if your ISP hasn't added an NS record for the domain at all.
My issues with.xxx aren't moral, but practical. Who in their right mind would use a.xxx exclusively knowing how easy it is for providers to block? And how do you force all the sites currently using.com/.net/etc to switch? ICANN should not be in the business of policing content. If they did, slashdot wouldn't be a.org.:)
There are two types of rights here - mechanical rights (rights to the physical recording) and publishing rights (rights to the song). The record company most likely owns the mechanical rights to the original recording, and possibly the publishing rights, but any new recording of the song belongs to whomever the band is under contract to at the time of the recording (or the band themselves if they're not under contract). Publishing royalties still need to be paid to the owner of the publishing rights, but the recording does not automatically belong to the same record company.
Oingo Boingo's "Best O' Boingo" is a good example of this in play - the band switched record companies and released a compilation of original songs recorded with the new company alongside re-recordings of the songs that were originally recorded by the old (which presumably the band could not obtain the rights to use in the compilation). Same deal with live albums.
I'll say, the best manager I ever had was a guy who made sure that he called me out on every mistake I made, and made sure I understood why he wouldn't stand for me to make the same mistake in the future. I never walked away from a tongue-lashing thinking he'd singled me out or was going overboard.
The same guy also made damn sure he recognized us for a job well done whenever the situation warranted. And went out of his way to protect me and the rest of his crew from overhead interference whenever it reared its head.
Sadly, few managers strike that balance so well - they're either drill sergeants or your best buddy...
Let me interject here - I own a dual 1.8GHz G5 tower. Anyone who's looked inside one of these things has the same initial reaction - "god, those heatsinks are HUGE!". And while it's very quiet while idling, it does get noisy when it's under load. And you can feel the heat coming out the back if you put your hand back there. It's almost as bad as the dual Athlon XP system I used to have that would literally heat the room.
By contrast, I just got an IBM ThinkCentre desktop system at work, featuring a dual-core 2.8GHz Pentium D running Linux. The heatsink is a reasonable size, and the CPU fan is actually on the front of the tower chassis with a duct guiding the air over the CPU's heatsink. This thing is practically silent, and even when compiling a kernel with-j4 set you can't feel much hot air coming out the back.
The moral of the story is that IBM was waay behind Intel on the performance-per-watt game and had no signs of being able to catch up. People knew this well before the Intel switch was announced and so far there's no sign of Apple being proved wrong.
That said, anyone have any info on the heat dissipation on the dual-core G5s vs. the single core CPUs?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty shocked at the number of times the RIAA has filed suits against people who had no idea what this was all about. One would think that ISPs would have better records of who owned which particular IP addresses at the time.
Unless the ISPs hate the RIAA as much as everyone else does, and the techs given the task of pulling the account information behind the IPs is handing them bogus data just to spite them. I'd probably do the same thing if it was my job...
Could it be possible that the hardware players contain multiple player keys, so that they don't become toasters if a single key is broken and later revoked?
Then again, if you can get one key out of the player, you'll probably be able to get all of them...never mind...
There are a decent number of companies (and non-profit orgs) that do exactly this sort of thing. Most of the big content distributors (iTunes, MySpace, CNN, etc) use at least one of them. The problem is that these companies work for the content distributor, not the ISP - the CDN "takes the bullet" for the content provider's main servers to offload demand, not offload capacity to the ISP. Unless the ISP sites one or more of the CDN's proxies at the customer edge of their network (which is not uncommon, but hardly ubiquitous), the ISP still has to pay to move the traffic to their customers from the proxy, and if they did have one it would be in their POP, not next to every DSLAM and cable head-end, which mean the path between the CDN proxy and the customer still has the same bandwidth requirements.
Every ISP oversubscribes at some point. It's a fact of the business. It's built into the competitive environment, and if you know anything about longhaul capacity and network hardware costs (I'm looking at you, Cisco), you'd know that the cost of moving a megabit of traffic across the country costs *much* more than what it costs for an ISP to deliver a megabit of capacity from its edge routers to your home. They have to play the averages, counting on only having to move a tenth or so of the available sold capacity as actual traffic. As I said above, if you really want a non-oversubscribed link, be prepared to pay $500 and up a month for it. In fact, that's how much Verizon Business, AT&T, and the other "Business Class" providers charge for a T1 circuit, which is 1.5Mbits of non-oversubscribed bandwidth.
Let me try to explain the problem from the ISP side (pardon me while I don Les Asbestos Underpantz)...
What we're seeing is the hazards of changing oversubscription ratios. I'm sure this term is familiar to many of you, but for those who don't, it's the concept that ISPs know that on average, each customer will only use a certain portion of the bandwidth that's made available to them. As such, an ISP doesn't have to provision one megabit of backbone capacity for each megabit it sells to a consumer; it might only have to upgrade on a 1:10 or 1:50 upstream-to-downstream ratio. There's no way that an ISP could sell bandwidth at a reasonable price without oversubscribing at some point. Without oversubscription your 1.5Mbit DSL line would be $500 a month, not $50. Those in the business know I'm not exaggerating here, given the cost of service provider network equipment and fiber capacity (which continues to fall, but not nearly fast enough).
What's causing the problem is that those ratios are changing, such that (for example) the 1:10 ratio an ISP built its business model around is now 1:5, thanks to YouTube, iTunes, Bittorrent, WoW, etc, not to mention 0wned machines spewing spam and DoS traffic, which is overtaxing its infrastructure and increasing costs. The ISP can't get away with raising prices, and obviously has to remain profitable, so congestion is the inevitable result.
Some ISPs, most notably Comcast, have gotten quite aggressive at disconnecting what they perceive as "abusive" customers whose usage is higher than the norm. This is absolutely the wrong way to go about this problem, but feeling of being between the proverbial rock and a hard place is understandable. ISPs simply can't stay in business if customers actually use all the bandwidth they're given, and if we all built our networks such that everyone could, no consumer would pay for it.
I think it was 1994 when AOL introduced its unlimited dialup service (prior to 1994 AOL billed dialup connection time by the hour). Because the user that before was spending an average of, say, 30 minutes a day online was now spending 3 hours a day connected, and because AOL woefully misforecast those ratios, it became next to impossible to connect to AOL for quite a while until they caught up with modem provisioning (That's when I got rid of my AOL account and got my first real ISP acccount, yay!). Looks like everything old is new again.
Another possibility is that in order to avoid potential interference with flight systems, they would have had to run the APs at some extraordinarily low power, limiting its range to the point that one AP per row would have been necessary to get a signal to every seat. IIRC WLAN client cards modulate their output power based on incoming signal strength, so the clients would have lowered their transmit power to match.
Makes me wonder, if you shorted a stock that's being touted in a spam run, would that be considered insider trading?
I think it will get there, but not in its current form. Remember, the iPod really didn't become a huge success until rev. 3...I think the first gen will sell well, but not to expectations, but once they're on version 3 or 4, the price/features mix will be much more compelling. And hopefully they'll have a removable battery by then...
Not to mention that most leased access circuits (T1, T3, etc) use PPP as the link-layer protocol as well, just with authentication disabled in most cases.
That's about the *only* place where I can see AT&T wanting the ability to prioritize their traffic. But there's nothing stopping them from extending the concept from prioritizing their own IPTV traffic to taking money from other concent operators to have their traffic prioritized, or even have access to the all of the customer's pipe. The real-world scenario here could be something like AT&T not allowing a single site to send traffic at the customer's full IP line rate unless they pay an extra fee to AT&T.
I think you have the concept a bit backwards...the "Net Neutrality" concerns aren't that AT&T will charge the customer more for access to more of the existing pipe; hell, that happens today. The concern is that AT&T will turn around and expect Google, Yahoo, etc. to pay extra for access to your pipe. You might have a 1.5Mbps connection, but if AT&T had its way, they would have the right to rate limit YouTube downloads to a lower rate, say, 500kbps per user, unless Google paid AT&T an extra fee. At the same time allowing their own video download services to operate at the maximum line rate. THAT's what has people worried.
Everyone, including Apple, knows that no copy/license protection system is foolproof. The best you can ask for is something that's difficult enough to break that it effectively deters the mainstream "casual pirate" - remember, even bank vaults are rated on how long it would take a skilled safecracker to open the lock, and never guaranteed to be impenetrable.
Logic 7.0 has been cracked...I know this firsthand. I can't speak for 7.1 or 7.2, however.
This has happened at my company too - in our case it was a lot of SFP modules (for those not in the business, these are small, hot-pluggable optical transceivers for Gigabit Ethernet and OCx ports). We had about ten of them going into a switch we were installing, and the switch refused to activate any of them beyond the first we plugged in because they all had the same serial number burned into their ROMs. Ouch.
If you listen to early-to-mid 80's synth music, you'll notice that samples were always drowned in reverb and other processing - this was primarily to "hide" the 8-and-12-bitness of the samplers. Early Art of Noise ("Beatbox", "Close To The Edit") is a great example.
This brings an interesting question - while it's clearly illegal to pump and dump, is it legal to short stocks for which you've gotten a spam touting? Is the spam run something that would fit the legal definition of public information (particularly if it gets forwarded to n.a.n.a.s.)?
Also, keep in mind that most brokerages won't let you short penny stocks. There's generally a minimum price per share before you can sell a stock short.
First off, in order to get the 720Gbps speeds out of a 6500 series box, you need not only the Sup720B, but every line card in your box needs to have a DFC (Distributed Fabric Card) slapped on...they run aroun $10-15K each IIRC. Without DFCs you'll top out around 40Gbps (still nothing to sneeze at, but not even close to 720Gbps). And even then you've got caevats out the wazoo, such as average packet size - at 64 bytes per packet the switching ASICs will get overloaded before the backplane fills up.
Secondly, the 6500 series is nowhere near the type of system this project is trying to replicate. This appears intended for the SOHO/branch office application - once you get to the enterprise/service provider level, where every minute of downtime has a real dollar cost, you need things like redundant power and management modules, NUBS compliance, and hot-swappable management/interface modules. You won't see any of that stuff in a PC anytime soon.
I'm wondering whether or not the DSP latency of these libraries is sufficient to use with real-time audio processing...if folks were to write RTAS/AU/VST plugins using the library, how they would compare to other hardware-assisted DSP solutions such as the PowerCore and Pro Tools farm cards. Then again, if you have to spend $500 on a card to get this goodness, it's hardly a bargain (albeit cheaper than the above products...)
We're both right - there's a reference to microseconds in the first page, but the 100-millisecond figure shows up later on. Mea culpa.
If you RTFA you'll see that it was a typo - it's microseconds, not milliseconds. You can ping from New York to Seattle in less than a 100 milliseconds if you're on a decent pipe.
Site operators, not customers. I just don't think that operators would choose to use .xxx over the usual .com unless they had no choice, given how easy it would be for ISPs and other enterprises to block access to .xxx wholesale. And the only way to force adult site operators to use .xxx would be to police the .com/.org/.net/etc namespace for content. That's the slippery slope that I don't think ICANN (or any government agency) should be getting themselves into...
That's all well and good, right up until the moment that some other company tries to do the same thing with the same .xxx TLD (and don't think that no one will try...) You will use the global uniqueness of domain names that makes the net work - www.sex.xxx will go to one website for one user, and another for a different user whose ISP is pointing their .xxx resolution to a different registrar. And of course, it will go nowhere if your ISP hasn't added an NS record for the domain at all.
.xxx aren't moral, but practical. Who in their right mind would use a .xxx exclusively knowing how easy it is for providers to block? And how do you force all the sites currently using .com/.net/etc to switch? ICANN should not be in the business of policing content. If they did, slashdot wouldn't be a .org. :)
My issues with
There are two types of rights here - mechanical rights (rights to the physical recording) and publishing rights (rights to the song). The record company most likely owns the mechanical rights to the original recording, and possibly the publishing rights, but any new recording of the song belongs to whomever the band is under contract to at the time of the recording (or the band themselves if they're not under contract). Publishing royalties still need to be paid to the owner of the publishing rights, but the recording does not automatically belong to the same record company.
Oingo Boingo's "Best O' Boingo" is a good example of this in play - the band switched record companies and released a compilation of original songs recorded with the new company alongside re-recordings of the songs that were originally recorded by the old (which presumably the band could not obtain the rights to use in the compilation). Same deal with live albums.
I'll say, the best manager I ever had was a guy who made sure that he called me out on every mistake I made, and made sure I understood why he wouldn't stand for me to make the same mistake in the future. I never walked away from a tongue-lashing thinking he'd singled me out or was going overboard.
The same guy also made damn sure he recognized us for a job well done whenever the situation warranted. And went out of his way to protect me and the rest of his crew from overhead interference whenever it reared its head.
Sadly, few managers strike that balance so well - they're either drill sergeants or your best buddy...
Let me interject here - I own a dual 1.8GHz G5 tower. Anyone who's looked inside one of these things has the same initial reaction - "god, those heatsinks are HUGE!". And while it's very quiet while idling, it does get noisy when it's under load. And you can feel the heat coming out the back if you put your hand back there. It's almost as bad as the dual Athlon XP system I used to have that would literally heat the room.
By contrast, I just got an IBM ThinkCentre desktop system at work, featuring a dual-core 2.8GHz Pentium D running Linux. The heatsink is a reasonable size, and the CPU fan is actually on the front of the tower chassis with a duct guiding the air over the CPU's heatsink. This thing is practically silent, and even when compiling a kernel with-j4 set you can't feel much hot air coming out the back.
The moral of the story is that IBM was waay behind Intel on the performance-per-watt game and had no signs of being able to catch up. People knew this well before the Intel switch was announced and so far there's no sign of Apple being proved wrong.
That said, anyone have any info on the heat dissipation on the dual-core G5s vs. the single core CPUs?