It is really quite simple: If the US administration was not attacking Iraq for economic (read oil) interests, it could bar US/UK owned companies from the newly exploitable reserves in Iraq. That way people in the rest of the world might actually believe them when they are going to start a war to (ahem) ensure peace.
The US interest in oil, as the largest net consumer, is in a low price for oil. Install a US-friendly in Iraq that will encourage development of Iraqi reserves, and OPEC's power weakens. With Iraq pumping out much more oil, the price of oil will drop. Much of the US Petroleum industry will be screwed if they have investments producing oil at $X per barrel and the price drops below $X with the collapse of OPEC price controls.
The Bush Administration has made a dangerous decision by not barring US/UK oil interests (well, by not screwing the oil companies, really) in post Saddam Iraq. Extremists in the Muslim world will be able to point to this war and easily frame it in terms of a resource grab against the Arabs--most of whom are poor. This will swell the ranks of those that hate the West, and we all know what that means. Wish I could say that the Administration has chosen to preserve lives of Americans over the well being of American oil companies but it just ain't so. Not quite blood for oil, but close.
Why do they do this? Perhaps: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/in dus.asp?In d=E01
Kuwait and Saudi are US allies. While these countries are members of OPEC, US oil companies already operate freely there. I believe Saddam hands out most contracts to the French & Russians and hence they are holding out for a better deal from the Americans on a post-Saddam Iraq. (Quelle Humanity!) Otherwise, their existing contracts will go bye-bye.
If the US really pissed off Saudi Arabia by calling it a "terrorist state", Saudi could punish the US by restricting supply and that would damage the US economy. With Iraq pumping out oil however the US can take the diplomatic gloves off against Saudi Arabia without fear.
So while Oil is not 100% of the reason to fight Iraq it probably hovers around 89% with 10% going to freeing the US from Saudi dependence and 2% going to ridding the world of a dime-a-dozen evil dictator.
I mean, can anyone think of a country in the region that: a) does not have WMD (most do) b) would hesitate to use WMD if they had a reason to do so (none would) or c) was not US backed militarily.
Iraq does not stand out in terms of it's WMD programs. Syria (just to the North) has a bigger WMD program. Anyone doubt the Syrian government's will to use them?
Iraq does stand out because of its anti-US rhetoric and because it is practically floating on top of yummi yummi un-tapped $1,000,000,000,000.00 of crude. MY Precious!
Most of the world *does* deal with monopolies differently than your average company. Traditionally monopolies have been created by fiat that is an exclusive contract by a government over a certain geographic territory for certain business activities such as the Hudson's Bay Company, or the East India Tea company.
But you're right, just because it is law, does not make it good law.
"Challenges to the Company's Business Model. Since its inception, the Company's business model has been based upon customers agreeing to pay a fee to license software developed and distributed by Microsoft. Under this commercial software development ("CSD") model, software developers bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenues received from the distribution of their products. The Company believes that the CSD model has had substantial benefits for users of software, allowing them to rely on the expertise of the Company and other software developers that have powerful incentives to develop innovative software that is useful, reliable and compatible with other software and hardware. In recent years, there has been a growing challenge to the CSD model, often referred to as the Open Source movement. Under the Open Source model, software is produced by global "communities" of programmers, and the resulting software and the intellectual property contained therein is licensed to end users at little or no cost. Nonetheless, the popularization of the Open Source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to the Company's business model, including recent efforts by proponents of the Open Source model to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of Open Source software in their purchase and deployment of software products. To the extent the Open Source model gains increasing market acceptance, sales of the Company's products may decline, the Company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and operating margins may consequently decline."
bwa ha ha...The monopolist eats their own words.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/0001 03221002001614/d10q.htm#tx220_6
There are some easy ways to be safe in an interdependent community: pay close attention to your government and get them to try and be a force for good in the world.
1) Instead of bombing attacking Iraq for oil (come on, you don't honestly expect the rest of the world to believe its a terrorist thing do you?) why not actually encourage democracy in the Middle East? Sure there will be some Islamic governments elected. Let them run things for a bit to deflate them. It has been said by a late Quebec politician that "when one is in opposition, one can speak poetry, but when one is in power, one must speak prose." Let the fundamentalists speak prose for a while. That'll allow their voters to see the backwards bumkins they really are.
If you absolutely insist upon bombing Iraq, state that you could live with Iraq's next government joining OPEC and pledge that no US owned oil industry interests will be allowed to profit from Iraqi reserves (That goes for you too Cheney! ; ) ). Only then will most of the world know that the Administration is sincere. (Like that is going to happen.)
2) Try giving some aid to help out the little guys in under developed countries instead of supporting brutal regimes which happen to be friendly to your economic 'interests'. Sure you can cow-tow governments, but you can't cow-tow people living under those governments, and those people hating the US government has been your problem of late. Continuance of this policy just helps the recruitement efforts for Al Qaeda and other organizations like it. US supported Egypt (a "friendly") will round up more fundamentalists in the name of a "war on terror", torture them, and eventually release them as well adjusted citizens without a care in the world. Egypt's government has helped create this froot loop:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonigh t/WTC_zawahiri0101002.html
The USA doesn't give much aid to the poor in the world in terms of its wealth. And one third of that budget goes to Isreal to buy helicopters, tanks, etc. The Isreali government is not the "kinder gentler" sort--not that the PLO or Hamas is... But when non-US news casts show the results of helicopters firing missles at a car full of Hamas dudes on a crowed street, everyone knows that Apache(TM) helicopters--"Made in the USA". Whether you agree with the Isreali actions or not, this imagery speaks louder than any US government commercial could to Muslims. In order to extend the image of the US being a "promoter of democracy, peace and freedom" outside your borders, your government should learn when to "take the toys from the boys". Not simply for the symbolism, but also for the practical well being of the world, and for your own citizens too.
3) Take a stand. Take a stand for democracy in China. Trade is important but not everything. Don't pander to the Russian government for their vote on the security council by giving them a free ride on their war in Chechnia. They are brutal to the Chechins who want their own state, and always have. Not saying taking hostages is a great thing either. duh.
4) If Americans truely believe in democracy, they cannot simultaniously believe that the US government's foreign adventurism can be represented by the wishes of foreign citizens. These people do not vote on the policies that affect them and so their well being is not a major consideration. Nobody asks average Iraqis whether they are "better off now than in the last four years". Not the Iraqi government for obvious reasons, but not the US government either. They're screwed either way.
How to change that? Participate in the international community when others want help, not just when you want help. There have been a bunch of international agreements which the US has been absent from the table: Agreements on child soldures, land mines, non-proliferation of nuclear materials, international courts, Kioto. The US has not been at the table with most other civilized countries, but suddenly GB wants the UN's help to legitimize it's war efforts, saying the UN will be a League of Nations if it allows Iraq to ignore the UN!!!! Well, kettle black pot calling. George shoulda been there two years ago. Not like the UN is far away.
It isn't that the US is a modern Roman Empire or a Nazi Germany. It is simply that the US uniquely has such an opportunity to make the world a better place and in so doing, earn a good name for itself. Sadly, it appears to be squandering this opportunity because it can't get out of it's 50s thinking: play this state against that state and we'll come out ahead. Al Qaeda has begun to think out of the box and shown that individuals--not only states--can have tremedous destructive power. As a countermeasure, shouldn't the US learn to think outside of the box to help improve the lot of the unlucky individuals in the world, not simply the wellbeing of their puppet governments?
Improving the security of US citizens in the world cannot be viewed as simply a military affair. Nor can it be improved simply by espionage as the NSA would have people believe. It is not closing off your borders to someone who happens to be born in Syria.
It is largely because the US is being seen as the power that helps prevent you from voting for the future leaders in your own country, as in Saudi Arabia. Or being buddy-buddy with the state that shells your house as in the refugee camps in Palistine. Or pals with the Russian government that deports your village to Siberia as in Chechnia. Or financier of the government that tortures you for your regigious beliefs.
Rationally none of this justifies killing people, but if it was your country, family, village or you, you might not be rational anymore.
So improve your image in the world by improving yourselves. This is how to be safe.
The States will form a committee and get to look at all MS code, documents, etc, etc as relating to the decree and MS must get a compliance officer too.
MS has to disclose apis,protocols but not those which would compramise security, licences, IP, drm, etc to businesses. I guess that might include book publishers so they'll be pretty much open, I think.
There will be bickering b/c of overlapping. Not sure how they'll settle that kind of thing.
OEMs cannot be discriminated against for selling linux/non-ms boxen. (Yippi!)
OEMs can add their own icons, etc.
users/OEMs can add/remove MS "middleware" via start button.
That is my quick read summary! I missed lots of stuff no doubt.
Looks like the ruling is not in MS's favour to me.
Wow. That is terribly untransparent; it is no wonder that these representatives are viewed as unrepresentative. Is there any reason not to ban voice voting?
How about that guy in a top hat & tux from the Monopoly board game? http://www.monopoly.com but more specifically: http://www.monopoly.com/images/mono poly/historypar agraph.gif
To make silly laws moot, we simply need a nice generic library that:
1) uses simple xml to define protocols, and therefore allows mimicing of known, popular protocols like ftp, http, pop, etc. Stuff that never will be blocked. 2) routes (and spreads around) p2p packets. 3) resistant to attacks. (perhaps some nodes that perform the "white blood cell" role. 4) can preserve anonymity. 5) uses strong encryption, including the use of key servers and have nodes rotate keys every week or so. 6) The ability to 'tunnel' other applications through it, much like ssh.
If that existed, they can legislate 'till the cows come home.
Wouldn't small movie producers will have higher costs b/c they cannot simply produce one dvd for all markets? Does this not favor large (aka Hollywood) producers of movies?
MS threatened to jack up their prices for W95 if they marketed their competition, and that would have been the death of their PC line. IBM was *forced* not to market OS/2.
It didn't make any sense why OS/2 was left to die at the time but it all came out in court documents later.
Happily, Linux being a kind of "public good" this is a real problem for MS this time around. No one set of thumbs to screw, nails to pull.
Are not over 90% of H1B visa holders natives of India, and hence of Indian decent? I think it is premature to rule out Racism as a contributing factor.
Not many companies are hiring H1Bs right now anyway though there are probably a few exceptions. For people to think that removing H1B workers will solve the problem it is incorrect and sad.
Companies hiring always occurs at the later stages of an economic recovery. Hope it happens soon.
Coase described the size of the firm within the market, and claimed that with competition it would gravitate to the most efficient size.
So if one can call, for instance, the Linux kernel folks a firm, their fixed costs are fixed, but their marginal costs are zero. (barring Linus's scaling issues of course).
Marginal costs being the added cost of each extra unit of "firm size".
So organizations will scale to be quite big over the 'net because of low marginal costs.
"You actually think Americans call anyone who has a differing opinion a terrorist?" I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the term: "Freedom Fighter".
So Jews are justified to live on land b/c they evicted others by force. Palastinians are *not* justified to live because jews were evicted by force.
Arabs are *evil* b/c of war to take over land. Jews *rightfully* conquered land through war.
I think the best argument against yours it to point out that "money talks" and that our opponents are very wealthy.
Sure you may have found an honest politician but the majority (who don't know http from ftp) need financial support to keep their jobs. They would gladly sacrifice non-profit internet radio in order to stay in office, and I don't blame them.
Music listeners have already been branded as thieves. This won't change no matter what we do in the public sphere--the music companies control the agenda. If we don't buy CDs b/c on principle, the drop in sales will be blamed on priacy. If most write our representatives they will think we just want something for free, where the music industry supports jobs.
There is no winning in the political or the economic spheres. Let them legislate. Let the laws become draconian. Only then will regular people see them for their true colours. -b
1,2) These are problems if you are hiding behind the NSA but not the RIAA. The RIAA cannot chase every single source of a p2p radio program. Also, who cares if the music is live? Each peer could have a random delay assiociated with it. 3) The distributed naming service doesn not necessarily have the true source, just middle men. 4) A relay would have the same packets in and out. Not necessarily the source.
I like what I think you term flood-fill: First, the source distributes menu of music. Each tune is broken into small parts. These are md5sum'd. That is stored on the menu. Source distributes music files to friends. Each friend does same.
listeners connect to node, get menu, get node's friends and pull music. Peers also store music which supplants their network resources. Each music part is downloaded and compared to md5sum. If digest is wrong, dump the node and tell your friends.
To listen to a broadcast means you must serve some songs worth of data and also be wiling to serve these parts too, within reasonable bandwidth bounds.
Slashdot Mirror
It is really quite simple: If the US administration was not attacking Iraq for economic (read oil) interests, it could bar US/UK owned companies from the newly exploitable reserves in Iraq. That way people in the rest of the world might actually believe them when they are going to start a war to (ahem) ensure peace.
n dus.asp?In d=E01
The US interest in oil, as the largest net consumer, is in a low price for oil. Install a US-friendly in Iraq that will encourage development of Iraqi reserves, and OPEC's power weakens. With Iraq pumping out much more oil, the price of oil will drop. Much of the US Petroleum industry will be screwed if they have investments producing oil at $X per barrel and the price drops below $X with the collapse of OPEC price controls.
The Bush Administration has made a dangerous decision by not barring US/UK oil interests (well, by not screwing the oil companies, really) in post Saddam Iraq. Extremists in the Muslim world will be able to point to this war and easily frame it in terms of a resource grab against the Arabs--most of whom are poor. This will swell the ranks of those that hate the West, and we all know what that means. Wish I could say that the Administration has chosen to preserve lives of Americans over the well being of American oil companies but it just ain't so. Not quite blood for oil, but close.
Why do they do this? Perhaps:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/i
Kuwait and Saudi are US allies. While these countries are members of OPEC, US oil companies already operate freely there. I believe Saddam hands out most contracts to the French & Russians and hence they are holding out for a better deal from the Americans on a post-Saddam Iraq. (Quelle Humanity!) Otherwise, their existing contracts will go bye-bye.
If the US really pissed off Saudi Arabia by calling it a "terrorist state", Saudi could punish the US by restricting supply and that would damage the US economy. With Iraq pumping out oil however the US can take the diplomatic gloves off against Saudi Arabia without fear.
So while Oil is not 100% of the reason to fight Iraq it probably hovers around 89% with 10% going to freeing the US from Saudi dependence and 2% going to ridding the world of a dime-a-dozen evil dictator.
I mean, can anyone think of a country in the region that:
a) does not have WMD (most do)
b) would hesitate to use WMD if they had a reason to do so (none would)
or
c) was not US backed militarily.
Iraq does not stand out in terms of it's WMD programs. Syria (just to the North) has a bigger WMD program. Anyone doubt the Syrian government's will to use them?
Iraq does stand out because of its anti-US rhetoric and because it is practically floating on top of yummi yummi un-tapped $1,000,000,000,000.00 of crude. MY Precious!
Cheers,
-b
They could call it "San Jose" or just "Jose".
Phoenix (the BIOS company) happens to be based in San Jose, CA.
-b
Most of the world *does* deal with monopolies differently than your average company.
Traditionally monopolies have been created by fiat that is an exclusive contract by a government over a certain geographic territory for certain business activities such as the Hudson's Bay Company, or the East India Tea company.
But you're right, just because it is law, does not make it good law.
Cheers,
-b
I'm missing Soma too.
I feel for you.
Maybe there should be a support group?
-b
bwa ha ha...The monopolist eats their own words.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000
Cheers,
-b
What kind of firewall would do that!?!?!? = )
-b
There are some easy ways to be safe in an interdependent community: pay close attention to your government and get them to try and be a force for good in the world.
h t/WTC_zawahiri0101002.html
1) Instead of bombing attacking Iraq for oil (come on, you don't honestly expect the rest of the world to believe its a terrorist thing do you?) why not actually encourage democracy in the Middle East? Sure there will be some Islamic governments elected. Let them run things for a bit to deflate them. It has been said by a late Quebec politician that "when one is in opposition, one can speak poetry, but when one is in power, one must speak prose." Let the fundamentalists speak prose for a while. That'll allow their voters to see the backwards bumkins they really are.
If you absolutely insist upon bombing Iraq, state that you could live with Iraq's next government joining OPEC and pledge that no US owned oil industry interests will be allowed to profit from Iraqi reserves (That goes for you too Cheney! ; ) ). Only then will most of the world know that the Administration is sincere. (Like that is going to happen.)
2) Try giving some aid to help out the little guys in under developed countries instead of supporting brutal regimes which happen to be friendly to your economic 'interests'. Sure you can cow-tow governments, but you can't cow-tow people living under those governments, and those people hating the US government has been your problem of late. Continuance of this policy just helps the recruitement efforts for Al Qaeda and other organizations like it. US supported Egypt (a "friendly") will round up more fundamentalists in the name of a "war on terror", torture them, and eventually release them as well adjusted citizens without a care in the world. Egypt's government has helped create this froot loop: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonig
The USA doesn't give much aid to the poor in the world in terms of its wealth. And one third of that budget goes to Isreal to buy helicopters, tanks, etc. The Isreali government is not the "kinder gentler" sort--not that the PLO or Hamas is... But when non-US news casts show the results of helicopters firing missles at a car full of Hamas dudes on a crowed street, everyone knows that Apache(TM) helicopters--"Made in the USA". Whether you agree with the Isreali actions or not, this imagery speaks louder than any US government commercial could to Muslims. In order to extend the image of the US being a "promoter of democracy, peace and freedom" outside your borders, your government should learn when to "take the toys from the boys". Not simply for the symbolism, but also for the practical well being of the world, and for your own citizens too.
3) Take a stand. Take a stand for democracy in China. Trade is important but not everything. Don't pander to the Russian government for their vote on the security council by giving them a free ride on their war in Chechnia. They are brutal to the Chechins who want their own state, and always have. Not saying taking hostages is a great thing either. duh.
4) If Americans truely believe in democracy, they cannot simultaniously believe that the US government's foreign adventurism can be represented by the wishes of foreign citizens. These people do not vote on the policies that affect them and so their well being is not a major consideration. Nobody asks average Iraqis whether they are "better off now than in the last four years". Not the Iraqi government for obvious reasons, but not the US government either. They're screwed either way.
How to change that? Participate in the international community when others want help, not just when you want help. There have been a bunch of international agreements which the US has been absent from the table: Agreements on child soldures, land mines, non-proliferation of nuclear materials, international courts, Kioto. The US has not been at the table with most other civilized countries, but suddenly GB wants the UN's help to legitimize it's war efforts, saying the UN will be a League of Nations if it allows Iraq to ignore the UN!!!! Well, kettle black pot calling. George shoulda been there two years ago. Not like the UN is far away.
It isn't that the US is a modern Roman Empire or a Nazi Germany. It is simply that the US uniquely has such an opportunity to make the world a better place and in so doing, earn a good name for itself. Sadly, it appears to be squandering this opportunity because it can't get out of it's 50s thinking: play this state against that state and we'll come out ahead. Al Qaeda has begun to think out of the box and shown that individuals--not only states--can have tremedous destructive power. As a countermeasure, shouldn't the US learn to think outside of the box to help improve the lot of the unlucky individuals in the world, not simply the wellbeing of their puppet governments?
Improving the security of US citizens in the world cannot be viewed as simply a military affair. Nor can it be improved simply by espionage as the NSA would have people believe. It is not closing off your borders to someone who happens to be born in Syria.
It is largely because the US is being seen as the power that helps prevent you from voting for the future leaders in your own country, as in Saudi Arabia. Or being buddy-buddy with the state that shells your house as in the refugee camps in Palistine. Or pals with the Russian government that deports your village to Siberia as in Chechnia. Or financier of the government that tortures you for your regigious beliefs.
Rationally none of this justifies killing people, but if it was your country, family, village or you, you might not be rational anymore.
So improve your image in the world by improving yourselves. This is how to be safe.
Cheers,
-b
Oh, sorry, is this Kuro5hin? ; )
The States will form a committee and get to look at all MS code, documents, etc, etc as relating to the decree and MS must get a compliance officer too.
MS has to disclose apis,protocols but not those which would compramise security, licences, IP, drm, etc to businesses. I guess that might include book publishers so they'll be pretty much open, I think.
There will be bickering b/c of overlapping. Not sure how they'll settle that kind of thing.
OEMs cannot be discriminated against for selling linux/non-ms boxen. (Yippi!)
OEMs can add their own icons, etc.
users/OEMs can add/remove MS "middleware" via start button.
That is my quick read summary!
I missed lots of stuff no doubt.
Looks like the ruling is not in MS's favour to me.
Cheers,
-b
My installer (at&t cable) got confused at lilo.
; )
-b
http://cryptome.org/
: )
Wow. That is terribly untransparent; it is no wonder that these representatives are viewed as unrepresentative. Is there any reason not to ban voice voting?
Cheers,
-b
How about that guy in a top hat & tux from the Monopoly board game?o poly/historypar agraph.gif
http://www.monopoly.com but more specifically:
http://www.monopoly.com/images/mon
Cheers,
-b
Oh pshaw.
It is only a cute little game!
count to ten.
Relax!
-b
To make silly laws moot, we simply need a nice generic library that:
1) uses simple xml to define protocols, and therefore allows mimicing of known, popular protocols like ftp, http, pop, etc. Stuff that never will be blocked.
2) routes (and spreads around) p2p packets.
3) resistant to attacks. (perhaps some nodes that perform the "white blood cell" role.
4) can preserve anonymity.
5) uses strong encryption, including the use of key servers and have nodes rotate keys every week or so.
6) The ability to 'tunnel' other applications through it, much like ssh.
If that existed, they can legislate 'till the cows come home.
Cheers,
-b
Wouldn't small movie producers will have higher costs b/c they cannot simply produce one dvd for all markets? Does this not favor large (aka Hollywood) producers of movies?
Cheers,
-b
I remember!!!
MS threatened to jack up their prices for W95 if they marketed their competition, and that would have been the death of their PC line. IBM was *forced* not to market OS/2.
It didn't make any sense why OS/2 was left to die at the time but it all came out in court documents later.
Happily, Linux being a kind of "public good" this is a real problem for MS this time around. No one set of thumbs to screw, nails to pull.
Cheers,
-b
Are not over 90% of H1B visa holders natives of India, and hence of Indian decent? I think it is premature to rule out Racism as a contributing factor.
Not many companies are hiring H1Bs right now anyway though there are probably a few exceptions. For people to think that removing H1B workers will solve the problem it is incorrect and sad.
Companies hiring always occurs at the later stages of an economic recovery. Hope it happens soon.
-b
Coase described the size of the firm within the market, and claimed that with competition it would gravitate to the most efficient size.
So if one can call, for instance, the Linux kernel folks a firm, their fixed costs are fixed, but their marginal costs are zero. (barring Linus's scaling issues of course).
Marginal costs being the added cost of each extra unit of "firm size".
So organizations will scale to be quite big over the 'net because of low marginal costs.
And this is what we have witnessed.
I hope the paper has graphs. I like graphs.
-b
I'm curious what exactly makes this not a bribe?
Is it because it is public?
Cheers,
-b
"You actually think Americans call anyone who has a differing opinion a terrorist?"
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the term: "Freedom Fighter".
So Jews are justified to live on land b/c they evicted others by force. Palastinians are *not* justified to live because jews were evicted by force.
Arabs are *evil* b/c of war to take over land. Jews *rightfully* conquered land through war.
You Sir, are a logical three ring circus.
-b
...I thought that it was just my ass getting numb.
Big noises at odds over the sound of silencet ory=30744 9
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?s
From the daily rotten:
http://www.dailyrotten.com/
Cheers,
-b
bobzibub@a t t b i . c o m
I'd be interested!
Cheers,
-b
I think the best argument against yours it to point out that "money talks" and that our opponents are very wealthy.
Sure you may have found an honest politician but the majority (who don't know http from ftp) need financial support to keep their jobs. They would gladly sacrifice non-profit internet radio in order to stay in office, and I don't blame them.
Music listeners have already been branded as thieves. This won't change no matter what we do in the public sphere--the music companies control the agenda. If we don't buy CDs b/c on principle, the drop in sales will be blamed on priacy. If most write our representatives they will think we just want something for free, where the music industry supports jobs.
There is no winning in the political or the economic spheres. Let them legislate. Let the laws become draconian. Only then will regular people see them for their true colours.
-b
1,2) These are problems if you are hiding behind the NSA but not the RIAA. The RIAA cannot chase every single source of a p2p radio program. Also, who cares if the music is live? Each peer could have a random delay assiociated with it.
3) The distributed naming service doesn not necessarily have the true source, just middle men.
4) A relay would have the same packets in and out. Not necessarily the source.
I like what I think you term flood-fill:
First, the source distributes menu of music. Each tune is broken into small parts. These are md5sum'd. That is stored on the menu.
Source distributes music files to friends. Each friend does same.
listeners connect to node, get menu, get node's friends and pull music. Peers also store music which supplants their network resources. Each music part is downloaded and compared to md5sum. If digest is wrong, dump the node and tell your friends.
To listen to a broadcast means you must serve some songs worth of data and also be wiling to serve these parts too, within reasonable bandwidth bounds.
Cheers,
-b