Just look at it this way, the content provider sends a single stream, not 1000, just one. That stream is sent to the first router then stops. If someone on the other side of the router reqests the stream, the router sends it through, still a single stream. But, if another person on the same segment as the original requester want's the same stream, they just "listen" on that that particular muticast address. You still only have one stream, router to router, ever. With proper multicast you should never have multiple streams per route.
So, in this situation, the content provider is using very little bandwidth at all, much better than normal unicast. This should "save" the content provider big bucks on ISP bandwidth. And so for the end point user, since they only need one stream that 1000 people can listen in on, it's still one stream. It should save them big bucks too.
Multicast...allowing multiple clients to "listen-in" on the same IP address data stream. It's just like publicly acceptable snooping!
Hold on here. My little knowledge of the way the mbone was implemented under IPv4 says that no one will change the way they are charged for bandwidth. A user on a network who wants to receive an mbone feed runs a program that talks to the upstream router. The program asks the router to "switch-on" the route that would allow the user to receive the feed. When the user is done, or after a certain time-out has occured, the upstream router switches off. I'm thinking BGP (protocol) but it's been a while. This operation seems similar to telling a website to "send a stream", except that everyone along the way can "tee off of it when they want". In this manner "unicasting sucks!" and the mbone is seen as a "broadcast" service similar to how television works.
If the mbone were correctly implemented and companies knew how to use it, I suspect the available bandwidth of the Internet would "shoot through the roof" because we'd get back all that bandwidth used up by all those millions of single point to single point unicast streams.
The original poster is correct. With multicast, you would be able to download movies, software, and music without batting an eye!
But, multicasting is a group cooperative, and I don't see many companies giving up on their control (the ability to find out what you are streaming) to send streams directly to users. Companies want to control you, and they can't do that without information. Proper multicasting prevents companies from finding out who is connecting to the stream and when. Multicasting is a good internet privacy method if you ask me.
umm, would you like to expand on "you can protect yourself from that (javascript) quite easily"? Just -how- do you protect yourself? eh? Just what browser allows you to specify what javascript commands can run and which can't?
BTW, i'd love to see a browser like that. I'd like to see a browser with a reverse style cookie management too. One where you can selectively deny cookie lookups instead of cookie stores.
...Microsoft is already making code obfuscation a natural part of their development process. Most likely they are going to release their code open source at some point in the future, after they've obfuscated it to death.
This thread should be titled "New York City Examines Law Mandating Linux". Why does Linux continually hide under the guise of open source? If Windows was open source this article would take on a somewhat curious tone right? I mean, we'd be confused about whose open source they suggest. Ok, so they should use open (as in readable) software, that just makes sense right? What about open source applications that run on a closed source OS? Would that be ok? If not, should the entire hardware platform be open too? You need open source hardware spec too? Since Linux -is- the only open source platform, there's no reason to minc words. Say what you mean.
I didn't buy my computer to "just do work". I bought it for entertainment, hobby, research, etc. You said "simple interface", so you do agree that the Mac is somehow simple, right? My reasoning is that it is so simple as to "dumb down" the average joe computer person to the point of just being an appliance. This is sort-of the same thing that happens when you turn on a television, a well organized and yet simple interface, very little interaction, just an on switch, and you are "dumbed down". And yet, some people can't even program their VCR's. Yep, the Mac is a computer for "those" people. The fact that Apple has the audacity to ship the thing with a single button mouse says volumes about who they expect their computers to be used by. These are not people who "think for themselves", these are people for whom marketing and sales work so well. The mouse debacle makes me think of paraplegics like Steven Hawking who can only press one button vs. someone like Joe Satriani. It's like Apple is saying "you really only need a one button mouse because we don't believe you will ever be a maestro, so that is all we're shipping". What kind of reasoning is this?
The flip side is that Unix'en are people who always, "think for themselves". These are the type of "geek rebel" culture folks who don't even agree between themselves about the way things should be done. So you end up with too many variants of the OS, too many languages, too many scripting tools, too many user interfaces. This is the point where complexity of choice and variation breed a woefully overly complex set of solution paths.
The new Mac OS, being unix based under the hood, and with a single Mac simplified interface may blend the two worlds to create a good environment for the future. Or, the result could be something closer to the Microsoft culture...yea, the Microsoft culture, where you are given a single interface on top of a unix like environment.
So, I tend to disagree with you. Microsoft seems to be a company who's product has been "in the middle" from the beginning. Although lately they seem to be catering more and more to the Mac types...making the OS into an appliance. Even Linux seems to be going down the appliance road. It seems to make sense right? I mean I can't seem to convince my non-computer friends that PC gaming is where things should stay. They seem to only want to purchase consoles. I dislike consoles very much. I'm the type of person who wants a swiss army knife type of vehicle, and the PC used to be it. But because PC types of devices don't break the market up into lots of little sellable units, they don't make good business sense any more. Much better to sell things individually I guess. I'm going to miss PC gaming.
Hrm... Is is just me, or does it seem like Apple makes things too simplistic, while Unix makes things too complex, yet Microsoft sort-of just sits in the middle?
hiding under the pillow of the "Open Source" mantra.
This article should really be titled...
"Why do people write Unix software?"
Right? I mean, that's really what we mean here right? All those things about being creative and experimenting and having fun coding...well, I mean that can all be done with closed source programming too...right? The only difference is that when you are ready, you throw your code to the hounds for inspection, and acceptance.
Anybody can "code". Whether it is closed source, open source, shared source, bla source doesn't matter. I've been coding for years. All my code is closed in the manner that I haven't released it. Yet, I still get joy out of being creative.
Most, so called "open source" coders are simply programmers who want their codebase to "take-off" so they won't be so alone in the world and they can be recognized with fame and possibly fortune. It works that way in the "closed source" world too. How do you think people like the "Woz", McAfee, Norton got started?
If anything you do is included into a greater whole it will give you more security. Open source coding is possibly a "vice" for some people, a "coping strategy" for others. Some people drink too much, smoke too much, do drugs, gamble, talk on the cell phone too much, there are many vices in this world for coping.
I suppose many code "open source" to support and protect their knowledge base. That's what this is really about right? You spend years learning and perfecting your skills in an OS, or language, and you don't want someone to just take all that away. You don't want Microsoft to "win" and Unix/Linux/Open source to just die, right? I mean, that's what E.S.R was doing when he wrote his famous paper right? He was protecting his investment.
Well, what happens when someone who has invested their life in Microsoft products and tools sees that others are encroaching on their turf? Don't they fight? Don't you fight to defend and protect your life and investment? Don't you write more code that people might use freely so that you won't lose everything you have in your head?
In short, there are many reasons people "code". Some learn, some create, some research, some use that code to support an existing infrastructure, some want success, fame, and money. These things have nothing to do with "open-source" per se, except supporting an infrastructure, and even that does not require you to "release" your code.
As devices get smaller, manufacturers have a tendency to start using smaller batteries. The unfortunate side effect of this is...
a. The batteries last no time at all. b. The bud earphones can't be driven with enough current to get the volume you might want. c. Switching on anything marked "turbo" bass will eat those batteries even faster. d. Leaving the device off for a few weeks may actually drain the battery anyway if the device uses some kind of static memory storage.
I recently purchased a cheap ordinary AM/FM stereo portable from Emerson with 10 station memory (model HR2001). The device uses 2 AAA batteries. The max volume is poor, and when it is turned off for more than 2 weeks at a time, the batteries are totally drained from storing the stations in memory.
When I read about that yepp device I cringed. Who in their "right mind" would buy such a thing. I loath any portable device that uses less than 2 AA size cells. There's just not enought juice to run the circuitry and audio amplifier.
The conspiracy is that now the battery companies are owned by the portable manufacturers, so like the Lexmark printers and printer cartridges, you are getting suckered into a recurring cost business model.
And yes, the 3D "surround sound" audio from "bud" earphones is a joke, a marketing gimmick, the wool is being pulled over your eyes. It's just like the tube amplifier mobos, if a company can market to just the right segment of the population that can be sold to, they will. You are being used! Don't fall for it. Take some engineering and physics classes! Think for yourself! Don't let someone else think for you!!!
..."Although I'm not currently using it, AFS/Code seems to be a cross platform (win, mac, unix) secure replacement to NFS."
AFS, or OpenAFS is not -only- a replacement for NFS it is way over NFS in terms of security and scalability. If you aren't using a global namespace filesystem, then you can't actually call yourself knowledgeable of system administration. The only replacement for AFS that is even close is Microsoft's "Win2k AD'd dfs", and even it is missing a large number of features that AFS has.
I'm rather shocked that people don't use global namespace network filesystems for data storage and application servers. The redundancy is excellent.
And, since AFS can be modularly seperated from the authentication system and client OS, it makes for an excellent tool for system upgrades.
um...no, not really. We already know the universe exists, since we have information about it. We have no information about gods. None. Nada. The word god isn't even defined with any certainty. The word dog is better understood and more defined than the word god. Most people make up the properties of gods that they want them to have. You can't have proofs where you have no information. So god(s) are currently a meaningless morass of ideas.
In your response paragraph, replace every word of "God" with "Universe". That being done, since we know the universe already exists...and by your logic, infinite, then there's no requirement for a creator. Hence, gods are the illogical dreams of men.
...I just don't understand how some people are having so much trouble with it.
I've had the same email address since Sept 1992. We don't use any filtering on the mail server. I only get about 5 or 6 spam messages a day. On a bad day I might...might get up to 10. Granted, I have seen a marked increase in spam in the last year. True, it's probably going to get worse. I sometimes get more telemarketer calls a day than email spam tho...that says something.
I can only surmise that some people don't know how to browse the internet securely.
First rule of the internet, create a hotmail account for anything non-professional like general browsing and usenet. For professional sites, always uncheck the boxes that request news and updates. This is no-brainer stuff.
If you really want to eliminate spam, get rid of drop-box mail solutions like SMTP. Require the sender to request a token for email transfer.
...properly implemented we'd all have excellent download speed. But...noooooooo, everybody had to go off and do their own thing. Stupid corporate monkeys.
...you get the moon instead. Run, run as fast as you can away from Citrix. They work very much like IBM. The Citrix system is setup such that they manage your setup and control the show, you are left with the bill, and what a large bill it is indeed. They even have people they send on site for making changes. If you want to be in control, if you want to manage your own network setup and configuration, stay away from Citrix.
The reason is simple. Because of the worlds population increase there are now more people in the world with the will to destroy than there ever were with the desire to create.
It's just simple arithmetic. For any given population there will be some proportion of citizens who, by nature (in the genes) will commit crime. In the past the population of the whole world was so low that you could actually live for time intervals N without crime. Increase the population and the value of N increases so that crimes will be committed in overlapping (parallel) N intervals.
The future can only grow worse. We've already surpassed a sustainable (good) lifestyle. Just prepare yourself for the resource wars.
Every camera sold can have internal circuitry to take the CCD image and perform an MD5 hash of the pic. The MD5 hash would then be XOR'd with a one-time-pad. The OTP would be burned into the camera at the factory and would be inaccessable from outside the camera CPU. The OTP would then be databased (also inaccessibly) into the grand federal OTP camera registry database. The OTP having been XOR'd with the MD5 hash of the pic, would then be put into the pic filename. Now, whenever someone wants to check to see if the picture has been unaltered they just have to go to the federal camera database website and submit the picture. The backend will then validate the pic.
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at it this way, the content provider sends a single stream, not 1000, just one. That stream is sent to the first router then stops. If someone on the other side of the router reqests the stream, the router sends it through, still a single stream. But, if another person on the same segment as the original requester want's the same stream, they just "listen" on that that particular muticast address. You still only have one stream, router to router, ever. With proper multicast you should never have multiple streams per route.
So, in this situation, the content provider is using very little bandwidth at all, much better than normal unicast. This should "save" the content provider big bucks on ISP bandwidth. And so for the end point user, since they only need one stream that 1000 people can listen in on, it's still one stream. It should save them big bucks too.
Multicast...allowing multiple clients to "listen-in" on the same IP address data stream. It's just like publicly acceptable snooping!
Do you hear me now?
5 pints.
Hold on here. My little knowledge of the way the mbone was implemented under IPv4 says that no one will change the way they are charged for bandwidth. A user on a network who wants to receive an mbone feed runs a program that talks to the upstream router. The program asks the router to "switch-on" the route that would allow the user to receive the feed. When the user is done, or after a certain time-out has occured, the upstream router switches off. I'm thinking BGP (protocol) but it's been a while. This operation seems similar to telling a website to "send a stream", except that everyone along the way can "tee off of it when they want". In this manner "unicasting sucks!" and the mbone is seen as a "broadcast" service similar to how television works.
If the mbone were correctly implemented and companies knew how to use it, I suspect the available bandwidth of the Internet would "shoot through the roof" because we'd get back all that bandwidth used up by all those millions of single point to single point unicast streams.
The original poster is correct. With multicast, you would be able to download movies, software, and music without batting an eye!
But, multicasting is a group cooperative, and I don't see many companies giving up on their control (the ability to find out what you are streaming) to send streams directly to users. Companies want to control you, and they can't do that without information. Proper multicasting prevents companies from finding out who is connecting to the stream and when. Multicasting is a good internet privacy method if you ask me.
+1 cent.
...between ext2 and ext3? Or, for that matter, jfs?
+$.01+$.01.
duh.
Think first...yea, that's the ticket!
-$.02
that Sun wasn't brought down by Billy Gates. It was brought down by Linus, E.S.R, Bob Young, Richard Stallman, IBM, and everything GNU.
+2 cents.
umm, would you like to expand on "you can protect yourself from that (javascript) quite easily"? Just -how- do you protect yourself? eh? Just what browser allows you to specify what javascript commands can run and which can't?
BTW, i'd love to see a browser like that. I'd like to see a browser with a reverse style cookie management too. One where you can selectively deny cookie lookups instead of cookie stores.
+2 cents.
...Microsoft is already making code obfuscation a natural part of their development process. Most likely they are going to release their code open source at some point in the future, after they've obfuscated it to death.
r l= /library/en-us/dnnetcomp/html/netcfobfuscation.asp
See...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u
+2 more cents.
This thread should be titled "New York City Examines Law Mandating Linux". Why does Linux continually hide under the guise of open source? If Windows was open source this article would take on a somewhat curious tone right? I mean, we'd be confused about whose open source they suggest. Ok, so they should use open (as in readable) software, that just makes sense right? What about open source applications that run on a closed source OS? Would that be ok? If not, should the entire hardware platform be open too? You need open source hardware spec too? Since Linux -is- the only open source platform, there's no reason to minc words. Say what you mean.
+2 cents.
I didn't buy my computer to "just do work". I bought it for entertainment, hobby, research, etc. You said "simple interface", so you do agree that the Mac is somehow simple, right? My reasoning is that it is so simple as to "dumb down" the average joe computer person to the point of just being an appliance. This is sort-of the same thing that happens when you turn on a television, a well organized and yet simple interface, very little interaction, just an on switch, and you are "dumbed down". And yet, some people can't even program their VCR's. Yep, the Mac is a computer for "those" people. The fact that Apple has the audacity to ship the thing with a single button mouse says volumes about who they expect their computers to be used by. These are not people who "think for themselves", these are people for whom marketing and sales work so well. The mouse debacle makes me think of paraplegics like Steven Hawking who can only press one button vs. someone like Joe Satriani. It's like Apple is saying "you really only need a one button mouse because we don't believe you will ever be a maestro, so that is all we're shipping". What kind of reasoning is this?
The flip side is that Unix'en are people who always, "think for themselves". These are the type of "geek rebel" culture folks who don't even agree between themselves about the way things should be done. So you end up with too many variants of the OS, too many languages, too many scripting tools, too many user interfaces. This is the point where complexity of choice and variation breed a woefully overly complex set of solution paths.
The new Mac OS, being unix based under the hood, and with a single Mac simplified interface may blend the two worlds to create a good environment for the future. Or, the result could be something closer to the Microsoft culture...yea, the Microsoft culture, where you are given a single interface on top of a unix like environment.
So, I tend to disagree with you. Microsoft seems to be a company who's product has been "in the middle" from the beginning. Although lately they seem to be catering more and more to the Mac types...making the OS into an appliance. Even Linux seems to be going down the appliance road. It seems to make sense right? I mean I can't seem to convince my non-computer friends that PC gaming is where things should stay. They seem to only want to purchase consoles. I dislike consoles very much. I'm the type of person who wants a swiss army knife type of vehicle, and the PC used to be it. But because PC types of devices don't break the market up into lots of little sellable units, they don't make good business sense any more. Much better to sell things individually I guess. I'm going to miss PC gaming.
Off soapbox.
+1 nickel.
Hrm... Is is just me, or does it seem like Apple makes things too simplistic, while Unix makes things too complex, yet Microsoft sort-of just sits in the middle?
+2 tokens
hiding under the pillow of the "Open Source" mantra.
This article should really be titled...
"Why do people write Unix software?"
Right? I mean, that's really what we mean here right? All those things about being creative and experimenting and having fun coding...well, I mean that can all be done with closed source programming too...right? The only difference is that when you are ready, you throw your code to the hounds for inspection, and acceptance.
Anybody can "code". Whether it is closed source, open source, shared source, bla source doesn't matter. I've been coding for years. All my code is closed in the manner that I haven't released it. Yet, I still get joy out of being creative.
Most, so called "open source" coders are simply programmers who want their codebase to "take-off" so they won't be so alone in the world and they can be recognized with fame and possibly fortune. It works that way in the "closed source" world too. How do you think people like the "Woz", McAfee, Norton got started?
If anything you do is included into a greater whole it will give you more security. Open source coding is possibly a "vice" for some people, a "coping strategy" for others. Some people drink too much, smoke too much, do drugs, gamble, talk on the cell phone too much, there are many vices in this world for coping.
I suppose many code "open source" to support and protect their knowledge base. That's what this is really about right? You spend years learning and perfecting your skills in an OS, or language, and you don't want someone to just take all that away. You don't want Microsoft to "win" and Unix/Linux/Open source to just die, right? I mean, that's what E.S.R was doing when he wrote his famous paper right? He was protecting his investment.
Well, what happens when someone who has invested their life in Microsoft products and tools sees that others are encroaching on their turf? Don't they fight? Don't you fight to defend and protect your life and investment? Don't you write more code that people might use freely so that you won't lose everything you have in your head?
In short, there are many reasons people "code". Some learn, some create, some research, some use that code to support an existing infrastructure, some want success, fame, and money. These things have nothing to do with "open-source" per se, except supporting an infrastructure, and even that does not require you to "release" your code.
Off soap box.
-2 cents.
As devices get smaller, manufacturers have a tendency to start using smaller batteries. The unfortunate side effect of this is...
a. The batteries last no time at all.
b. The bud earphones can't be driven with enough current to get the volume you might want.
c. Switching on anything marked "turbo" bass will eat those batteries even faster.
d. Leaving the device off for a few weeks may actually drain the battery anyway if the device uses some kind of static memory storage.
I recently purchased a cheap ordinary AM/FM stereo portable from Emerson with 10 station memory (model HR2001). The device uses 2 AAA batteries. The max volume is poor, and when it is turned off for more than 2 weeks at a time, the batteries are totally drained from storing the stations in memory.
When I read about that yepp device I cringed. Who in their "right mind" would buy such a thing. I loath any portable device that uses less than 2 AA size cells. There's just not enought juice to run the circuitry and audio amplifier.
The conspiracy is that now the battery companies are owned by the portable manufacturers, so like the Lexmark printers and printer cartridges, you are getting suckered into a recurring cost business model.
And yes, the 3D "surround sound" audio from "bud" earphones is a joke, a marketing gimmick, the wool is being pulled over your eyes. It's just like the tube amplifier mobos, if a company can market to just the right segment of the population that can be sold to, they will. You are being used! Don't fall for it. Take some engineering and physics classes! Think for yourself! Don't let someone else think for you!!!
Just my 2 cents.
..."Although I'm not currently using it, AFS/Code seems to be a cross platform (win, mac, unix) secure replacement to NFS."
AFS, or OpenAFS is not -only- a replacement for NFS it is way over NFS in terms of security and scalability. If you aren't using a global namespace filesystem, then you can't actually call yourself knowledgeable of system administration. The only replacement for AFS that is even close is Microsoft's "Win2k AD'd dfs", and even it is missing a large number of features that AFS has.
I'm rather shocked that people don't use global namespace network filesystems for data storage and application servers. The redundancy is excellent.
And, since AFS can be modularly seperated from the authentication system and client OS, it makes for an excellent tool for system upgrades.
Just my 2 cents.
um...no, not really. We already know the universe exists, since we have information about it. We have no information about gods. None. Nada. The word god isn't even defined with any certainty. The word dog is better understood and more defined than the word god. Most people make up the properties of gods that they want them to have. You can't have proofs where you have no information. So god(s) are currently a meaningless morass of ideas.
+4 cents.
In your response paragraph, replace every word of "God" with "Universe". That being done, since we know the universe already exists...and by your logic, infinite, then there's no requirement for a creator. Hence, gods are the illogical dreams of men.
+2 cents contributed.
That is just my point. My email address is clearly public already. In fact, it has to be. Yet, I get very little spam!
You could say people who get lots of spam are like people who don't practice safe sex!
+2 more cents.
...I just don't understand how some people are having so much trouble with it.
I've had the same email address since Sept 1992. We don't use any filtering on the mail server. I only get about 5 or 6 spam messages a day. On a bad day I might...might get up to 10. Granted, I have seen a marked increase in spam in the last year. True, it's probably going to get worse. I sometimes get more telemarketer calls a day than email spam tho...that says something.
I can only surmise that some people don't know how to browse the internet securely.
First rule of the internet, create a hotmail account for anything non-professional like general browsing and usenet. For professional sites, always uncheck the boxes that request news and updates. This is no-brainer stuff.
If you really want to eliminate spam, get rid of drop-box mail solutions like SMTP. Require the sender to request a token for email transfer.
Just my 2 cents.
...properly implemented we'd all have excellent download speed. But...noooooooo, everybody had to go off and do their own thing. Stupid corporate monkeys.
+2 cents contributed.
...you get the moon instead. Run, run as fast as you can away from Citrix. They work very much like IBM. The Citrix system is setup such that they manage your setup and control the show, you are left with the bill, and what a large bill it is indeed. They even have people they send on site for making changes. If you want to be in control, if you want to manage your own network setup and configuration, stay away from Citrix.
These were my opinions. Take them as you please.
+2 cents contributed.
The reason is simple. Because of the worlds population increase there are now more people in the world with the will to destroy than there ever were with the desire to create.
It's just simple arithmetic. For any given population there will be some proportion of citizens who, by nature (in the genes) will commit crime. In the past the population of the whole world was so low that you could actually live for time intervals N without crime. Increase the population and the value of N increases so that crimes will be committed in overlapping (parallel) N intervals.
The future can only grow worse. We've already surpassed a sustainable (good) lifestyle. Just prepare yourself for the resource wars.
Did my comment make you happy?
Just my 2 cents.
Doh! You are right. I didn't give this much up front thought. Ouch, game over man! Next idea please.
+2 cents amortized.
Ah, I've no bubble to burst. This idea was too quickly created from my idea generator. Since the idea doesn't work, please discard and move along.
:)
You are correct, thanks for your advice, and have a nice day!
+2 cents deducted.
Every camera sold can have internal circuitry to take the CCD image and perform an MD5 hash of the pic. The MD5 hash would then be XOR'd with a one-time-pad. The OTP would be burned into the camera at the factory and would be inaccessable from outside the camera CPU. The OTP would then be databased (also inaccessibly) into the grand federal OTP camera registry database. The OTP having been XOR'd with the MD5 hash of the pic, would then be put into the pic filename. Now, whenever someone wants to check to see if the picture has been unaltered they just have to go to the federal camera database website and submit the picture. The backend will then validate the pic.
Will it be done? Not in your lifetime.
+2 cents contributed.
You are right. This is the future...parallel (multi-channel) optical serial.
http://www.xanoptix.com/xtmseries.htm
+2
Um, hold on here. What features of Direct X qualify it to be "technically superior" to OpenGL?
What does "technically superior" mean anyway?