You said misuse the line. I presume by misuse you mean attempting to do malicious things other than peer to peer?
No. Not at all. Misuse is almost impossible, but an example could be running your new YouTube adult videoservice on it. Or run your own ISP and resell the bandwidth to 10,000 other people.
Since they are selling below cost, they are not expecting you to use the line 100% 24/7. They are expecting normal usage from an individual, family or small business (not hosting).
If you keep to that usage pattern, even if you do bittorrent 24/7, they will make a ton of money. Because you will not be using that gigabit of bandwidth for more than a very small fraction of the time.
It is $0,35 per Mbps. Not even Cogent sells it that low.
The catch? There does not need to be one. If only one user in three will misuse the line, but the other two use it reasonably, they will still come out with a profit.
In fact, it is too expensive. Where I live we have 500 Mbps internet on a shared connection. We pay what equals 5 USD/month. At any given time I can transfer with 200-300 Mbps because people do not use the net as much as you would think.
And when you accidentally insert an allow any-any in front of the deny? That's what "fail" means
You never inserted a forward everything to your laptop rule in your NAT config? That's what "fail" means. Yours fails -open-.
That forward everything rule is btw standard in quite a few NAT devices to make it "easier" for the user. They will by default forward everything to the first computer connected.
Honestly a broken config is broken. You need to scan your firewall if you care about being secure.
Of course, you've never made a firewall configuration mistake that allowed more through the firewall than you intended and you never will, right?
My hypothetical organization is NATted. How many computers are on my network? You can't tell. Or, at least, I'm not just giving away that information.
You can not tell without NAT either. What is the point?
An IPv6 subnet is 64 bit. It is infeasable to prope it. If the machines are using the privacy extension they will be changing host IP regularly so you can not count by storing "seen" addresses.
This is because a C fragment turns into something very efficient
No it _can_ turn into something very efficient. But usually it is too much bother or the programmer is not competent enough and the program ends up being no more efficient than something coded in a different language.
Take a look at the programming language shootout. The C programs usually win the contest, but they do it by doing crazy things like looking up the cache size of the CPU and implementing their own version of malloc to fit a page size. The run of the mill C program is not like that.
For many or even most tasks stability and security is more important. Other languages provide those properties better than C.
BTW: Please includes some kind of citations. Sorry, but in the game of Slashdot dick wagging it is becoming harder to believe anything anyone says around here.
I got a quotation. It is in danish, sorry. Maybe you can use Google Translate or some such to understand it. The link is to a governmental site which provides public information about the powergrid in Denmark.
There are no nuclear facilities in Denmark. The nuclear power is import from Sweden.
These numbers are not power generated but power used. Thus any claims that Denmark simply exports all the wind based power is false. It is true there is a large export but it is then imported later as hydro. It is a storage mechanism.
As can seen, 34% of power in the west and 38% (including 7% nuclear) in the east is CO2 neutral.
The implied claim of the grandparent that no fossil fuels are being replaced is completely off.
Of course they also did this so called "dynamic" pricing in the 60's. That is why they invented the batch job and scheduling priority. So you could run stuff at off hour and get it cheaper.
It appears they are as much testing the speed of your computer and the internet connection of a few popular sites.
Your ISP could be selling you a 100 Mbps fiber, but only have a 50 Mbps uplink themselves and you would never know. Or more likely they have higher upstream but insufficient to provide for all customers.
So PCMag figured they would measure download from well known sites.
But it could also be that your ISP are honest guys that have plenty of upstream. Your download is limited by the well known site instead. PCMag completely fails to take this into account.
You are talking about launch #2 of Falcon 1 (failed). They have since done launch #3 (failed), #4 (success), #5 (success put a commercial satelite in orbit), #6 (success, first launch of Falcon 9).
Never said it wasn't. Just that the guy needs to check what his usage levels really are instead of guessing.
The average usage seems to be about 30 GB/month download and 40 GB/month upload at the apartment complex I live. We got free uncapped 500/500 Mbps internet in all apartments with no restrictions.
I expect this to go dramatically up when watching TV on the net becomes more popular.
Watching a 2 Mbit/s TV stream for 8 hours a day 30 days a month is 648 GB/month. In this country the average home has 2.5 TVs. I don't know how many hours a TV is on as an average, but I would think 1000 GB/month on average for TV would not be unrealistic.
If you upgrade the TV stream to 10 Mbit/s HDTV you can do the math yourself. Multiply with 5.
But our IP-TV solution uses multicast which changes everything.
The boy might be watching something on Netflix in HD
Ok, say 1 GB
my brother in law might be watching something on tvshack.com
That will only be 250 MB
while my daughter is digging on something on Hulu
Also only 250 MB
my wife is downloading a WoW update
100 MB
and I'm pulling down a few torrents
Unspecified, but how many games can you "test" each day? How many movies do you need? But I will give you 2 GB daily average on torrenting until MPAA comes busting your ass.
That adds up to 3.5 GB daily. Or 100 GB monthly.
250GB/mo ain't gonna cut it.
Yes it will.
In my experience the only way to reach such high usage levels is by seeding torrents 24/7, and then you will reach it on your upload - not download.
Which is why in many countries, you are allowed to own a gun for harmless recreation. Of course, you are required to leave the gun at the shooting range, and can not bring it with you when you go shopping.
Germany has higher population density than Denmark.
I do not see any powerlines on every streetcorner in the cities in Germany like is often seen in USA. Those have been buried for half a century in most of Europe. Also in some areas in the states.
Apologies for the choosing of words "less developed". It was meant as a joke on countries or states that choose to spend less on esthetics and not as a statement to the usefulness of spending money on such things.
Cables in the ground do tend to be better protected however, which is part of why we bury them here. Long term it might even be more cost effective that way.
Some countries, like the one I live in, have all cables in the ground. That includes the high power cables powering industries much more power hungry than a small datacenter.
It is slightly more expensive. Therefore countries that value the esthetics of the landscape will bury the cables. Less developed countries will have them on poles...
We pay ca. USD 5000 per month for 500/500 Mbps internet. This includes both cost for the circuit (fiber) and unlimited internet service.
It is possible to do even cheaper. Cogent claims to sell internet at USD 1 per megabit if you are buying at least 10 gigabits. Cost for establishing a circuit comes on top of that however.
Dedicated point to point fibers are not that expensive, at least not in this area.
I got a gigabit connection at home. So do all my 1650 neighbors that live in this apartment complex.
Download test to a server local to the ISP (it is NOT on my home network): baldur@pkunk:~$ wget -O/dev/null http://bolignet.farummidtpunkt.dk/1GB 2010-04-25 10:32:37 (111 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [1073741824/1073741824]
Download test to a server in a different country and a different ISP: baldur@pkunk:~$ wget -O/dev/null http://speedtest.tele2.net/1GB.zip 2010-04-25 10:36:42 (13,8 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [1073741824/1073741824]
My experience is that many gigabit routers can not actually deliver full line speed. The CPU is too weak to perform NAT at those speeds.
Before anyone asks for it, here is traceroute dumps to document the ISP locations:
baldur@pkunk:~$ traceroute bolignet.farummidtpunkt.dk traceroute to bolignet.farummidtpunkt.dk (79.98.195.61), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 79.98.193.129.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.193.129) 4.188 ms 4.148 ms 4.138 ms
2 79.98.195.61.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.195.61) 0.181 ms 0.171 ms 0.160 ms
baldur@pkunk:~$ traceroute speedtest.tele2.net traceroute to speedtest.tele2.net (90.130.66.198), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 79.98.193.129.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.193.129) 4.555 ms 4.517 ms 4.508 ms
2 79.98.199.153.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.153) 0.744 ms 0.714 ms 0.733 ms
3 79.98.199.149.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.149) 5.577 ms 5.623 ms 5.595 ms
4 ge-2-3.bgp1.ip.telelet.net (77.75.166.237) 2.259 ms 2.230 ms 2.201 ms
5 gi9-8.ccr01.cph01.atlas.cogentco.com (149.6.136.57) 2.172 ms 2.176 ms 2.234 ms
6 te1-1.ccr01.mmx01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.0.50) 3.761 ms 3.294 ms 3.261 ms
7 te1-1.ccr01.sto01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.3.10) 11.951 ms 12.268 ms 12.235 ms
8 avk-core-2.gigabiteth3-18.swip.net (130.244.200.165) 12.430 ms 12.533 ms 12.587 ms
9 kst-core-1.tengigabiteth5-0-0.swip.net (130.244.39.9) 12.266 ms 12.219 ms 12.189 ms 10 kst-ncore-1.tengigabiteth2-1.swip.net (130.244.52.106) 12.803 ms 12.565 ms 12.373 ms 11 kst-ncore-2.tengigabiteth2-2.swip.net (130.244.52.110) 12.254 ms 12.452 ms 12.427 ms 12 kst-spe-2.tengigabiteth3-4.swip.net (130.244.206.134) 12.964 ms 12.935 ms 12.907 ms 13 warp9.tele2.net (90.130.66.198) 12.856 ms 12.828 ms 12.803 ms
baldur@pkunk:~$ traceroute speedtest.it-borger.dk traceroute to speedtest.it-borger.dk (130.226.157.50), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 79.98.193.129.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.193.129) 4.334 ms 4.289 ms 4.281 ms
2 79.98.199.153.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.153) 0.974 ms 0.956 ms 0.928 ms
3 79.98.199.149.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.149) 5.765 ms 5.764 ms 5.749 ms
4 ge-2-3.bgp1.ip.telelet.net (77.75.166.237) 1.759 ms 1.798 ms 2.026 ms
5 194.19.218.157 (194.19.218.157) 10.441 ms 10.541 ms 12.759 ms
6 194.255.42.249 (194.255.42.249) 3.467 ms 2.976 ms 3.117 ms
7 194.255.186.126 (194.255.186.126) 2.870 ms 2.957 ms 2.891 ms
8 130.226.157.50 (130.226.157.50) 2.718 ms 2.838 ms 2.726 ms
Before anyone more think this will split water molecules magically. It also requires a catalyst, so it will not spread by itself in the ocean.
Missing totally from the article, is any hard numbers about efficiency. Is it converting solar energy at 1%, 10%, 20% ? How is compared to PV-cells? If it is anywhere near, it could be very neat to get your solar energy as hydrogen instead of electricity. Hydrogen can be stored and converted to electricity when you need it.
Slashdot Mirror
You said misuse the line. I presume by misuse you mean attempting to do malicious things other than peer to peer?
No. Not at all. Misuse is almost impossible, but an example could be running your new YouTube adult videoservice on it. Or run your own ISP and resell the bandwidth to 10,000 other people.
Since they are selling below cost, they are not expecting you to use the line 100% 24/7. They are expecting normal usage from an individual, family or small business (not hosting).
If you keep to that usage pattern, even if you do bittorrent 24/7, they will make a ton of money. Because you will not be using that gigabit of bandwidth for more than a very small fraction of the time.
It is $0,35 per Mbps. Not even Cogent sells it that low.
The catch? There does not need to be one. If only one user in three will misuse the line, but the other two use it reasonably, they will still come out with a profit.
In fact, it is too expensive. Where I live we have 500 Mbps internet on a shared connection. We pay what equals 5 USD/month. At any given time I can transfer with 200-300 Mbps because people do not use the net as much as you would think.
And when you accidentally insert an allow any-any in front of the deny? That's what "fail" means
You never inserted a forward everything to your laptop rule in your NAT config? That's what "fail" means. Yours fails -open-.
That forward everything rule is btw standard in quite a few NAT devices to make it "easier" for the user. They will by default forward everything to the first computer connected.
Honestly a broken config is broken. You need to scan your firewall if you care about being secure.
Of course, you've never made a firewall configuration mistake that allowed more through the firewall than you intended and you never will, right?
I did and I was using NAT.
Topology hiding.
My hypothetical organization is NATted. How many computers are on my network? You can't tell. Or, at least, I'm not just giving away that information.
You can not tell without NAT either. What is the point?
An IPv6 subnet is 64 bit. It is infeasable to prope it. If the machines are using the privacy extension they will be changing host IP regularly so you can not count by storing "seen" addresses.
This is because a C fragment turns into something very efficient
No it _can_ turn into something very efficient. But usually it is too much bother or the programmer is not competent enough and the program ends up being no more efficient than something coded in a different language.
Take a look at the programming language shootout. The C programs usually win the contest, but they do it by doing crazy things like looking up the cache size of the CPU and implementing their own version of malloc to fit a page size. The run of the mill C program is not like that.
For many or even most tasks stability and security is more important. Other languages provide those properties better than C.
BTW: Please includes some kind of citations. Sorry, but in the game of Slashdot dick wagging it is becoming harder to believe anything anyone says around here.
I got a quotation. It is in danish, sorry. Maybe you can use Google Translate or some such to understand it. The link is to a governmental site which provides public information about the powergrid in Denmark.
http://www.energinet.dk/NR/rdonlyres/52355784-4E5D-452B-B034-08B015BA590F/0/Genereldeklaration2009.pdf
Denmark is divided in two areas, west and east that are not connected. There are therefore different numbers for the two areas:
West:
Coal: 45%
Oil: 1%
Gas: 20%
Wind, hydro, solar: 25%
Waste, biomas, biogas: 9%
Nuclear: 0%
East:
Coal: 40%
Oil: 5%
Gas: 17%
Wind, hydro, solar: 18%
Waste, biomas, biogas: 13%
Nuclear: 7%
There are no nuclear facilities in Denmark. The nuclear power is import from Sweden.
These numbers are not power generated but power used. Thus any claims that Denmark simply exports all the wind based power is false. It is true there is a large export but it is then imported later as hydro. It is a storage mechanism.
As can seen, 34% of power in the west and 38% (including 7% nuclear) in the east is CO2 neutral.
The implied claim of the grandparent that no fossil fuels are being replaced is completely off.
Say, how much has fossil fuel use dropped in Denmark then? Speak up, I can't hear you... [crickets]
About 20%.
Of course they also did this so called "dynamic" pricing in the 60's. That is why they invented the batch job and scheduling priority. So you could run stuff at off hour and get it cheaper.
It appears they are as much testing the speed of your computer and the internet connection of a few popular sites.
Your ISP could be selling you a 100 Mbps fiber, but only have a 50 Mbps uplink themselves and you would never know. Or more likely they have higher upstream but insufficient to provide for all customers.
So PCMag figured they would measure download from well known sites.
But it could also be that your ISP are honest guys that have plenty of upstream. Your download is limited by the well known site instead. PCMag completely fails to take this into account.
Please post your math...
240 hz * 1920 px * 1080 px * 24 bit = 11,943,936,000 bit/s = 12 Gbit/s.
Seems to me that you could watch multiple 1080p uncompressed videos at 240 hz at 100 Gbit/s.
In what parallel world are you living in? The press release is titled "SpaceX Achieves Orbital Bullseye With Inaugural Flight of Falcon 9 Rocket".
The launch was a complete success except for failing to recover the first stage for reuse.
Is this a message from the past?
You are talking about launch #2 of Falcon 1 (failed). They have since done launch #3 (failed), #4 (success), #5 (success put a commercial satelite in orbit), #6 (success, first launch of Falcon 9).
Never said it wasn't. Just that the guy needs to check what his usage levels really are instead of guessing.
The average usage seems to be about 30 GB/month download and 40 GB/month upload at the apartment complex I live. We got free uncapped 500/500 Mbps internet in all apartments with no restrictions.
I expect this to go dramatically up when watching TV on the net becomes more popular.
Watching a 2 Mbit/s TV stream for 8 hours a day 30 days a month is 648 GB/month. In this country the average home has 2.5 TVs. I don't know how many hours a TV is on as an average, but I would think 1000 GB/month on average for TV would not be unrealistic.
If you upgrade the TV stream to 10 Mbit/s HDTV you can do the math yourself. Multiply with 5.
But our IP-TV solution uses multicast which changes everything.
64 Kbit/s stream always on for a month: 64÷8÷1000000×60×60×24×30 = 21 GB/month.
Basic calc for you:
160÷8÷1000000×3×60×60×24×30 = 155 GB.
So no, not even that will bust your 250 GB cap.
It will make the radio unhappy though. They also have to pay for bandwidth.
The boy might be watching something on Netflix in HD
Ok, say 1 GB
my brother in law might be watching something on tvshack.com
That will only be 250 MB
while my daughter is digging on something on Hulu
Also only 250 MB
my wife is downloading a WoW update
100 MB
and I'm pulling down a few torrents
Unspecified, but how many games can you "test" each day? How many movies do you need?
But I will give you 2 GB daily average on torrenting until MPAA comes busting your ass.
That adds up to 3.5 GB daily. Or 100 GB monthly.
250GB/mo ain't gonna cut it.
Yes it will.
In my experience the only way to reach such high usage levels is by seeding torrents 24/7, and then you will reach it on your upload - not download.
Which is why in many countries, you are allowed to own a gun for harmless recreation. Of course, you are required to leave the gun at the shooting range, and can not bring it with you when you go shopping.
Germany has higher population density than Denmark.
I do not see any powerlines on every streetcorner in the cities in Germany like is often seen in USA. Those have been buried for half a century in most of Europe. Also in some areas in the states.
Apologies for the choosing of words "less developed". It was meant as a joke on countries or states that choose to spend less on esthetics and not as a statement to the usefulness of spending money on such things.
Cables in the ground do tend to be better protected however, which is part of why we bury them here. Long term it might even be more cost effective that way.
Some countries, like the one I live in, have all cables in the ground. That includes the high power cables powering industries much more power hungry than a small datacenter.
It is slightly more expensive. Therefore countries that value the esthetics of the landscape will bury the cables. Less developed countries will have them on poles...
We pay ca. USD 5000 per month for 500/500 Mbps internet. This includes both cost for the circuit (fiber) and unlimited internet service.
It is possible to do even cheaper. Cogent claims to sell internet at USD 1 per megabit if you are buying at least 10 gigabits. Cost for establishing a circuit comes on top of that however.
Dedicated point to point fibers are not that expensive, at least not in this area.
I got a gigabit connection at home. So do all my 1650 neighbors that live in this apartment complex.
Download test to a server local to the ISP (it is NOT on my home network): /dev/null http://bolignet.farummidtpunkt.dk/1GB
baldur@pkunk:~$ wget -O
2010-04-25 10:32:37 (111 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [1073741824/1073741824]
Download test to a server in a different country and a different ISP: /dev/null http://speedtest.tele2.net/1GB.zip
baldur@pkunk:~$ wget -O
2010-04-25 10:36:42 (13,8 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [1073741824/1073741824]
Download test to a server in same country but different ISP: /dev/null http://speedtest.it-borger.dk/speedtest/random4000x4000.jpg
baldur@pkunk:~$ wget -O
2010-04-25 10:38:33 (16,8 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [31625365/31625365]
My experience is that many gigabit routers can not actually deliver full line speed. The CPU is too weak to perform NAT at those speeds.
Before anyone asks for it, here is traceroute dumps to document the ISP locations:
baldur@pkunk:~$ traceroute bolignet.farummidtpunkt.dk
traceroute to bolignet.farummidtpunkt.dk (79.98.195.61), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 79.98.193.129.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.193.129) 4.188 ms 4.148 ms 4.138 ms
2 79.98.195.61.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.195.61) 0.181 ms 0.171 ms 0.160 ms
baldur@pkunk:~$ traceroute speedtest.tele2.net
traceroute to speedtest.tele2.net (90.130.66.198), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 79.98.193.129.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.193.129) 4.555 ms 4.517 ms 4.508 ms
2 79.98.199.153.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.153) 0.744 ms 0.714 ms 0.733 ms
3 79.98.199.149.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.149) 5.577 ms 5.623 ms 5.595 ms
4 ge-2-3.bgp1.ip.telelet.net (77.75.166.237) 2.259 ms 2.230 ms 2.201 ms
5 gi9-8.ccr01.cph01.atlas.cogentco.com (149.6.136.57) 2.172 ms 2.176 ms 2.234 ms
6 te1-1.ccr01.mmx01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.0.50) 3.761 ms 3.294 ms 3.261 ms
7 te1-1.ccr01.sto01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.3.10) 11.951 ms 12.268 ms 12.235 ms
8 avk-core-2.gigabiteth3-18.swip.net (130.244.200.165) 12.430 ms 12.533 ms 12.587 ms
9 kst-core-1.tengigabiteth5-0-0.swip.net (130.244.39.9) 12.266 ms 12.219 ms 12.189 ms
10 kst-ncore-1.tengigabiteth2-1.swip.net (130.244.52.106) 12.803 ms 12.565 ms 12.373 ms
11 kst-ncore-2.tengigabiteth2-2.swip.net (130.244.52.110) 12.254 ms 12.452 ms 12.427 ms
12 kst-spe-2.tengigabiteth3-4.swip.net (130.244.206.134) 12.964 ms 12.935 ms 12.907 ms
13 warp9.tele2.net (90.130.66.198) 12.856 ms 12.828 ms 12.803 ms
baldur@pkunk:~$ traceroute speedtest.it-borger.dk
traceroute to speedtest.it-borger.dk (130.226.157.50), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 79.98.193.129.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.193.129) 4.334 ms 4.289 ms 4.281 ms
2 79.98.199.153.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.153) 0.974 ms 0.956 ms 0.928 ms
3 79.98.199.149.customers.telelet.dk (79.98.199.149) 5.765 ms 5.764 ms 5.749 ms
4 ge-2-3.bgp1.ip.telelet.net (77.75.166.237) 1.759 ms 1.798 ms 2.026 ms
5 194.19.218.157 (194.19.218.157) 10.441 ms 10.541 ms 12.759 ms
6 194.255.42.249 (194.255.42.249) 3.467 ms 2.976 ms 3.117 ms
7 194.255.186.126 (194.255.186.126) 2.870 ms 2.957 ms 2.891 ms
8 130.226.157.50 (130.226.157.50) 2.718 ms 2.838 ms 2.726 ms
Come back in a year or so.
Before anyone more think this will split water molecules magically. It also requires a catalyst, so it will not spread by itself in the ocean.
Missing totally from the article, is any hard numbers about efficiency. Is it converting solar energy at 1%, 10%, 20% ? How is compared to PV-cells? If it is anywhere near, it could be very neat to get your solar energy as hydrogen instead of electricity. Hydrogen can be stored and converted to electricity when you need it.
It is a debian with a 5 year support contract. I use it for my servers for that reason.
You are wrong. "Theft" is a legal term that nowhere appears in the copyright act. It is not theft, it is copyright infringement. That is the law.