>Relay all the traffic between us, rather than just brokering the connection.
That 'relaying' would imply that all traffic between clients passes through the server. "Brokering" would refer to having the server simply instruct both sides as to how to communicate more directly.
>Broker the connection in some way that magically splices together two client-initiated TCP sessions.
No that's not somethign that's done now, and I agree it sounds impossible, but what the author is implying is that we should look at a hack to allow a server to instruct two hosts that are only capable of initiating (outgoing) tcp connections to communicate directly anyway. I agree I can't see how it would be done, but I can't argue with the idea being good.
>I was sure Napster didn't do relaying, that would require massive bandwidth
Please! Help me! I am *paid* to know about networking. What is this "relaying" thing that 'requires massive bandwidth'? Am I going to lose my job?
Perhaps. I'd probably fire you:) It's simple.
Relaying is a common term in networking, especially on the internet, and in other forms of communication as well. You could look it up in teh dictionary. What he is suggesting is that napster relays all traffic between clients. I didn't think it did that (and still don't), but it's quite clear what he was talking about. IF you get paid to know this stuff, maybe you should start broadening your horizons a bit.
>Sorry, I am too scared to read further tosh like this. Either the author is a global telecoms guru, or he is a know-nothing fuckwit. If my diagnosis is wrong, then I have just lost my job.
Get off the high horse. He's a guy who has a decent understanding of how things work, but not a really low-level understanding. His ideas are correct, his motives are also correct. You are splitting hairs. He's not claiming to be an expert. Read between the lines. Just becuase he uses the word 'tcp' doesn't mean he understands it down to each bit of the conversation.
This was covered recently (relatively speaking) in a very good article regardign transparency of the internet, and how it's been shot.
The general concept is that, originally, IP addresses were issued based on network size, *NOT* based on size of the pipes and who they were connected to. It was presumed there was space for everyone. Of course, today's restrictions have changed things, and are due to a lack of address space.
Originally, it was safe to assume that any app would work so long as it adhered to using tcp/ip. Period. Now.. you have to take into consideration taht different sides of a conversation may be unable to initiate a connection....
The only bad thing,I think, we find, is when protocols include their own IP information in packet payloads.. this defeats the purpose of layering, and causes confusion. This is why gnutella and other software aks you for your 'visible' IP address.
At the heart of the issue is how the internet has changed; it used to be that IP address assignment, and acutal links were not tied together. Heck, it used to be you could have a large block allocated even though you were only potentially going to hook up to the network at some undetermined point in the future; the point of having unique addresses was merely to make it possible for internetworking to occurr.
This has been lost now. Address space is at a premium, and it's being controlled more and more by big players. YOu can't even GET your own address space anymore unless you have fat pipes to multiple providers.
NOw.. granted, there is a finite amount of space, and it IS fair to put it where it's best used.. but it must be temporary. THe real freedom of the net to grow without inhibition comes from having unique address space freely available. (Of course, convincing others to route your traffic was *always* a separate issue, but at least everyone agreed on who had what)
And when your ISP pointed out that the terms of service that you agreed to when signing up clearly indicated they would be deleting any and all mp3s found on their server, you would be out some legal fees, and look kind of stupid.
Rules regarding mp3 were posted in the Terms of Service. Presuming these were there when this person applied for his account, he has nothing to complain about.
Vote with your money people. If you don't like the TOS, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. You might find that the people who provide the kind of service you actually want actually cost more.
And, regardles of how much anti-ms sentiment there is, a GOOD option. Linux should *also* have something along these lines. Think of the security that is made possible.
And it's an *OPTION*. Microsoft would NEVER get away with making this mandatory. Not in the US, not in the UK. They would be SLAUGHTERED in court (or by every developer out there first)
Also, who says you can't use *other* keys? I assume this follows standard PKI? WHo says you can't give other CA certs who can be used to validate an executable, and then your IT Dept. can also 'authorize' apps, while preventing useless employees from running things that aren't certified?
They don't claim that fingerprints are not uniqe, and they don't claim that it's 'no more accurate that handwriting analysis'.
They simply claim that, according to principles of science, it is merely an *assumption* that no two fingerprints are the same. It is not a FACT.
They call into question not whether or not fingerprinting is of use, but whether or not fingerprint evidence should be taken as absolute. They cite the lack of an acknowledgement of an 'error rate', as any scientific method must have.
The point is, courts will jail people for life on fingerprint evidence, yet no modern (or historical) scientific study has *ever* been done to determine how accurate this is. No proper error rate studies have been done. They never take a thousand people and get them to leave prints all over different things, then lift them, and test to see how things work.
This wavelength is, contraty to popular belief, NOT the 'resonant frequency of water molecules', though in vacuo, an h2o molecule does have one resonant frequency near this (if memory servers). In liquid form, this gets far more complicated, and isn't useful. Also, if this WERE true, microwaves would not penetrate the object, but would be stopped by the first layer of resonanting molecules!
At this frequency, polarized molecules (such as water) are shaken as the field oscillates. And shaking molecules = heat, right?
The fact that microwaves operate at 2.45 Ghz is, I believe, the reason that the 2.4 Ghz ISM band exists in the first place. The band that is now used for a lot of htings, including wireless LAN stuff.
Keep in mind that this can, and will, change.
THe '.com' is only catchy.. I'm not sure why it's catchy. In ye olde days of the net.. people were mostly indifferent.
I think the main thing is, the commoner sheep don't like to remember more than one starting point. '.com' is all they wanna know. They don't care what it means.
See, they aren't selling you 'rights'. This isn't software. THey are selling you a recording on a certain medium. Sure, you may legally be allowed to make copies to other mediums (I say may.. I mean you ARE most certainly allowed.).
If you lost your old record... that's YOUR fault... their service is selling reproductions of music. Why should they charge you again? Because they are selling you something!
Now.. the real question is.. what if Johnny gives me a copy of his 2livecrew CD.. see, I bought it years ago too, but it got dropped in the lake. Is that fair? I mean, I did pay for it (this is like the beam-it situation)
The fact remains.. they did not sell me rights to reproduce the music. They sold me a recording.
I've had to deal with this as well, though not quite on the scale you are. SO many VPs and such seem to have come from using exchange somewhere else that they want it.
What do they want, though.. find out. THey obviously don't want exchange.. that's just a server. They probably want to use Outlook + appointment sharing. That's a big one. What else do they want?
On the bright side.. Exchange WILL support imap, and pop3, and has a web interface, and if you use any active directory stuff, it makes it even easier to use.. but wait.
If you are primarily a unix shop... there is a unix program (MailOne?) that supports exchange & exchange scheduling. Maybe check that out.
I think the issue is that, we say 'it's an internet email system; it's fine how it is now' but what they want is much more than that.
Show them the price of doing it properly (including such things as: all mail must be stored on server, redundant servers, single point of failure, etc). Draw it all up, and present it as a cost, because that's the bottom line.
MSN tech support telling customers to talk to maps if they have a problem? WOw. How arrogant.
The issue should be simple: If an ISP is not accepting your email to one of it's users, inform the user, and have them inform the ISP. As the ISP's customer, only they can affect what the ISP does with regards to maps.
An ISP's choice to use maps or not should be directly related to whether it's users wish to have the service.
Let's not forget who controls what.
on
MSN vs. MAPS
·
· Score: 3
As I have my own mail servers, who is anyone else to tell ME that I cannot use maps or anything like it? That choice is 100% up to me.
Yes, there may be problems.. but the fact remains: each individual network administrator who decides to use this service has the right to make that choice. They understand the consequences, and can also STOP using it at any time if they feel it is negatively impacting their service.
And I, for one, feel that spam is SO rude, that I don't need to do business with those who allow spammers.
Right in line with the 'Iridum is saved' article... we must have a 'Mir is doomed' article again.
In a day or two, there will be both 'Iridum deal quashed; sattelites to be de-orbited' articles, and 'Mir is saved!' articles.
both in the case of what's happend with DNS, and with other things throughout life/history.. is when something that was rather beautiful/elegant, and based on a simple service goes awry.
Take DNS.
I had no problem with NetSol running the Internic way back when. I had no problem with the 'rules' about who could regiser what. I even had no problem when the US Govt. stopped funding the thing, and Internic started charging a registration fee. (I mean, it DOES cost money to run the registry).
The thing that I have a problem with, is netsol went from honorably running the registry, to turning the registry database into a commoditty; rather than something available to everyone, anytime, it was now something they wanted you to pay to access. Then they started hiding email addresses.. and just basically changing the rules. Notice that they didn't even attempt to rock the boat until they got really big.
The thing that gets me is, they got the valuable information, or shoudl I say potentially valuable, because people, consciously or unconsciously, trusted them to run the registry in a cool manner.
Now they screw it up.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada, we call giving out false information FRAUD, and it's a crime.
Sure, they historically don't do anything about it.... but believe it or not, in this case, Mr. Gates *could* SUE you, quite easily, if you had pretended to be him registering a domain.
Let us not forget what DNS really is here... and please, let's not forget that the only thing that gives whoever the controlling body (ICANN & NETSOL) *any* real power is the fact that we all basically use the same root nameservers, and *let* them control them.
I actually believe two things.
1) The email addresses given for domain registrations should be *private* and for administrative purposes only. STRICTLY for administrative purposes only. Not to be sold to spammers.
2) Mailing addresses and other standard contact information should be made available as to who the registered owner is. Technical contact should always be reachable by phone. Real owner should as well. No fraudulent information should be accepted.
3) There should be a standard email address at every domain like 'domain@' whom will receive mail related to the domain.
But let's remember, again, what gives this power. If icann ever gets really out of hand, alittle friendly revolt (generally without some other party trying to rise to power) will take care of the situation.
I mean, I'm opposed to any new TLDs.. but beyond that.
This is not conspiracy.. this would actually not be bad (if I didn't disagree with the concept of adding new tld's in the first place).
Nothing is stopping them from doing this under who.int! or getting health.int up! After all, they are the world health organization!
The idea of 'okaying' things is just fine (ever read the Oceania constitution? Same idea). There is absolutely nothing wrong with an organization giving it's approval to many sites, and telling the public what that approval means.
So long as they don't try to eradicate sites that DON'T want their approval, I say it's perfectly fine.
This already happens to a degree. You can try alternative medacines if you want (kind of hard if the treatments you want require prescription drugs though). You do not HAVE to go to the health-board approved people. You only have to understand the difference.
1) wireless is just not that fast. Wireless cannot in any way compete with hardline for speed.
2) high frequency RF, needed for any kind of bandwidth, tavels in straight lines.
3) They run the cable all that way becuase that's where the data is, and that's where the market is.
4) Furthermore, they run the cable all that way because it's a bigger, safer investment.
10 years? we're still using undersea cable that's been down for 25 years+.... don't understimate just how much data that is.
If you are considering moving to some other city, looking at a map to get camera veiws, business info, etc, around where you might live is certainly more intuitive than looking at search results.
If you are looking for all worldwilde thingamajig wholesalers, geographic data is mostly useless to you.
I have to agree with you. It's based on pronunciation, not spelling.
HOwever... in my part of the world 'hotel' and 'home' are phonetically similar, both start off the same way. Same with historical. I always thought 'an historical' to be strange...
Slashdot Mirror
In this scenario, all traffic between many pairs of hosts wishing to communiate is 'relayed' through a common .. well.. relay! Figure it out...
It's like if during all file transfers on napster, all data was passed through the napster server.
>Relay all the traffic between us, rather than just brokering the connection.
:) It's simple.
That 'relaying' would imply that all traffic between clients passes through the server. "Brokering" would refer to having the server simply instruct both sides as to how to communicate more directly.
>Broker the connection in some way that magically splices together two client-initiated TCP sessions.
No that's not somethign that's done now, and I agree it sounds impossible, but what the author is implying is that we should look at a hack to allow a server to instruct two hosts that are only capable of initiating (outgoing) tcp connections to communicate directly anyway. I agree I can't see how it would be done, but I can't argue with the idea being good.
>I was sure Napster didn't do relaying, that would require massive bandwidth
Please! Help me! I am *paid* to know about networking. What is this "relaying" thing that 'requires massive bandwidth'? Am I going to lose my job?
Perhaps. I'd probably fire you
Relaying is a common term in networking, especially on the internet, and in other forms of communication as well. You could look it up in teh dictionary. What he is suggesting is that napster relays all traffic between clients. I didn't think it did that (and still don't), but it's quite clear what he was talking about. IF you get paid to know this stuff, maybe you should start broadening your horizons a bit.
>Sorry, I am too scared to read further tosh like this. Either the author is a global telecoms guru, or he is a know-nothing fuckwit. If my diagnosis is wrong, then I have just lost my job.
Get off the high horse. He's a guy who has a decent understanding of how things work, but not a really low-level understanding. His ideas are correct, his motives are also correct. You are splitting hairs. He's not claiming to be an expert. Read between the lines. Just becuase he uses the word 'tcp' doesn't mean he understands it down to each bit of the conversation.
This was covered recently (relatively speaking) in a very good article regardign transparency of the internet, and how it's been shot.
The general concept is that, originally, IP addresses were issued based on network size, *NOT* based on size of the pipes and who they were connected to. It was presumed there was space for everyone. Of course, today's restrictions have changed things, and are due to a lack of address space.
Originally, it was safe to assume that any app would work so long as it adhered to using tcp/ip. Period. Now.. you have to take into consideration taht different sides of a conversation may be unable to initiate a connection....
The only bad thing,I think, we find, is when protocols include their own IP information in packet payloads.. this defeats the purpose of layering, and causes confusion. This is why gnutella and other software aks you for your 'visible' IP address.
At the heart of the issue is how the internet has changed; it used to be that IP address assignment, and acutal links were not tied together. Heck, it used to be you could have a large block allocated even though you were only potentially going to hook up to the network at some undetermined point in the future; the point of having unique addresses was merely to make it possible for internetworking to occurr.
This has been lost now. Address space is at a premium, and it's being controlled more and more by big players. YOu can't even GET your own address space anymore unless you have fat pipes to multiple providers.
NOw.. granted, there is a finite amount of space, and it IS fair to put it where it's best used.. but it must be temporary. THe real freedom of the net to grow without inhibition comes from having unique address space freely available. (Of course, convincing others to route your traffic was *always* a separate issue, but at least everyone agreed on who had what)
And when your ISP pointed out that the terms of service that you agreed to when signing up clearly indicated they would be deleting any and all mp3s found on their server, you would be out some legal fees, and look kind of stupid.
Rules regarding mp3 were posted in the Terms of Service. Presuming these were there when this person applied for his account, he has nothing to complain about.
Vote with your money people. If you don't like the TOS, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. You might find that the people who provide the kind of service you actually want actually cost more.
I used to be the only person I knew who used Linux. Does that mean linux was crap?
And, regardles of how much anti-ms sentiment there is, a GOOD option. Linux should *also* have something along these lines. Think of the security that is made possible.
And it's an *OPTION*. Microsoft would NEVER get away with making this mandatory. Not in the US, not in the UK. They would be SLAUGHTERED in court (or by every developer out there first)
Also, who says you can't use *other* keys? I assume this follows standard PKI? WHo says you can't give other CA certs who can be used to validate an executable, and then your IT Dept. can also 'authorize' apps, while preventing useless employees from running things that aren't certified?
They don't claim that fingerprints are not uniqe, and they don't claim that it's 'no more accurate that handwriting analysis'.
They simply claim that, according to principles of science, it is merely an *assumption* that no two fingerprints are the same. It is not a FACT.
They call into question not whether or not fingerprinting is of use, but whether or not fingerprint evidence should be taken as absolute. They cite the lack of an acknowledgement of an 'error rate', as any scientific method must have.
The point is, courts will jail people for life on fingerprint evidence, yet no modern (or historical) scientific study has *ever* been done to determine how accurate this is. No proper error rate studies have been done. They never take a thousand people and get them to leave prints all over different things, then lift them, and test to see how things work.
The reason your lan doesn't boil your brains is elementary.
802.11b network card: 0.1W (100mW), open air. Power decreases as inverse square of distance from transmitter.
Microwave Oven: 600W. Contained in a microwave reflecting chamber so all radiation is absorbed by molecules in the food.
Microwave ovens operate at 2.45 Ghz.
This wavelength is, contraty to popular belief, NOT the 'resonant frequency of water molecules', though in vacuo, an h2o molecule does have one resonant frequency near this (if memory servers). In liquid form, this gets far more complicated, and isn't useful. Also, if this WERE true, microwaves would not penetrate the object, but would be stopped by the first layer of resonanting molecules!
At this frequency, polarized molecules (such as water) are shaken as the field oscillates. And shaking molecules = heat, right?
The fact that microwaves operate at 2.45 Ghz is, I believe, the reason that the 2.4 Ghz ISM band exists in the first place. The band that is now used for a lot of htings, including wireless LAN stuff.
Keep in mind that this can, and will, change.
THe '.com' is only catchy.. I'm not sure why it's catchy. In ye olde days of the net.. people were mostly indifferent.
I think the main thing is, the commoner sheep don't like to remember more than one starting point. '.com' is all they wanna know. They don't care what it means.
See, they aren't selling you 'rights'. This isn't software. THey are selling you a recording on a certain medium. Sure, you may legally be allowed to make copies to other mediums (I say may.. I mean you ARE most certainly allowed.).
If you lost your old record... that's YOUR fault... their service is selling reproductions of music. Why should they charge you again? Because they are selling you something!
Now.. the real question is.. what if Johnny gives me a copy of his 2livecrew CD.. see, I bought it years ago too, but it got dropped in the lake. Is that fair? I mean, I did pay for it (this is like the beam-it situation)
The fact remains.. they did not sell me rights to reproduce the music. They sold me a recording.
I've had to deal with this as well, though not quite on the scale you are. SO many VPs and such seem to have come from using exchange somewhere else that they want it.
What do they want, though.. find out. THey obviously don't want exchange.. that's just a server. They probably want to use Outlook + appointment sharing. That's a big one. What else do they want?
On the bright side.. Exchange WILL support imap, and pop3, and has a web interface, and if you use any active directory stuff, it makes it even easier to use.. but wait.
If you are primarily a unix shop... there is a unix program (MailOne?) that supports exchange & exchange scheduling. Maybe check that out.
I think the issue is that, we say 'it's an internet email system; it's fine how it is now' but what they want is much more than that.
Show them the price of doing it properly (including such things as: all mail must be stored on server, redundant servers, single point of failure, etc). Draw it all up, and present it as a cost, because that's the bottom line.
Also look at notes.
MSN tech support telling customers to talk to maps if they have a problem? WOw. How arrogant.
The issue should be simple: If an ISP is not accepting your email to one of it's users, inform the user, and have them inform the ISP. As the ISP's customer, only they can affect what the ISP does with regards to maps.
An ISP's choice to use maps or not should be directly related to whether it's users wish to have the service.
As I have my own mail servers, who is anyone else to tell ME that I cannot use maps or anything like it? That choice is 100% up to me.
Yes, there may be problems.. but the fact remains: each individual network administrator who decides to use this service has the right to make that choice. They understand the consequences, and can also STOP using it at any time if they feel it is negatively impacting their service.
And I, for one, feel that spam is SO rude, that I don't need to do business with those who allow spammers.
Right in line with the 'Iridum is saved' article... we must have a 'Mir is doomed' article again.
In a day or two, there will be both 'Iridum deal quashed; sattelites to be de-orbited' articles, and 'Mir is saved!' articles.
both in the case of what's happend with DNS, and with other things throughout life/history.. is when something that was rather beautiful/elegant, and based on a simple service goes awry.
Take DNS.
I had no problem with NetSol running the Internic way back when. I had no problem with the 'rules' about who could regiser what. I even had no problem when the US Govt. stopped funding the thing, and Internic started charging a registration fee. (I mean, it DOES cost money to run the registry).
The thing that I have a problem with, is netsol went from honorably running the registry, to turning the registry database into a commoditty; rather than something available to everyone, anytime, it was now something they wanted you to pay to access. Then they started hiding email addresses.. and just basically changing the rules. Notice that they didn't even attempt to rock the boat until they got really big.
The thing that gets me is, they got the valuable information, or shoudl I say potentially valuable, because people, consciously or unconsciously, trusted them to run the registry in a cool manner.
Now they screw it up.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada, we call giving out false information FRAUD, and it's a crime.
Sure, they historically don't do anything about it.... but believe it or not, in this case, Mr. Gates *could* SUE you, quite easily, if you had pretended to be him registering a domain.
And yes. I know you were being funny. And it was!
Let us not forget what DNS really is here... and please, let's not forget that the only thing that gives whoever the controlling body (ICANN & NETSOL) *any* real power is the fact that we all basically use the same root nameservers, and *let* them control them.
I actually believe two things.
1) The email addresses given for domain registrations should be *private* and for administrative purposes only. STRICTLY for administrative purposes only. Not to be sold to spammers.
2) Mailing addresses and other standard contact information should be made available as to who the registered owner is. Technical contact should always be reachable by phone. Real owner should as well. No fraudulent information should be accepted.
3) There should be a standard email address at every domain like 'domain@' whom will receive mail related to the domain.
But let's remember, again, what gives this power. If icann ever gets really out of hand, alittle friendly revolt (generally without some other party trying to rise to power) will take care of the situation.
So.. which came first.
the Systems Administrators Guild, or the Guild of Systems Administrators? (Sage or GSA?)
I'm a card-carrying sage member.... any others?
I mean, I'm opposed to any new TLDs.. but beyond that.
This is not conspiracy.. this would actually not be bad (if I didn't disagree with the concept of adding new tld's in the first place).
Nothing is stopping them from doing this under who.int! or getting health.int up! After all, they are the world health organization!
The idea of 'okaying' things is just fine (ever read the Oceania constitution? Same idea). There is absolutely nothing wrong with an organization giving it's approval to many sites, and telling the public what that approval means.
So long as they don't try to eradicate sites that DON'T want their approval, I say it's perfectly fine.
This already happens to a degree. You can try alternative medacines if you want (kind of hard if the treatments you want require prescription drugs though). You do not HAVE to go to the health-board approved people. You only have to understand the difference.
1) wireless is just not that fast. Wireless cannot in any way compete with hardline for speed.
2) high frequency RF, needed for any kind of bandwidth, tavels in straight lines.
3) They run the cable all that way becuase that's where the data is, and that's where the market is.
4) Furthermore, they run the cable all that way because it's a bigger, safer investment.
10 years? we're still using undersea cable that's been down for 25 years+.... don't understimate just how much data that is.
How is the vote screwed up by 'bad computer software'? It's not..
It's scrwed up by a bad PHYSICAL BALLOT.
That depends on what you are looking for.
If you are considering moving to some other city, looking at a map to get camera veiws, business info, etc, around where you might live is certainly more intuitive than looking at search results.
If you are looking for all worldwilde thingamajig wholesalers, geographic data is mostly useless to you.
I have to agree with you. It's based on pronunciation, not spelling.
HOwever... in my part of the world 'hotel' and 'home' are phonetically similar, both start off the same way. Same with historical. I always thought 'an historical' to be strange...