A little off topic I know....
What's dumb is that the existance of the Coral Web Cache system which is available to EVERYBODY was posted as a story on this site
http://www.coralcdn.org/
As a solution to the "slashdot" effect. It works..proven. All the slashdot editors have to do is put a "suggestion" when people link stories to use the cache if they think they don't have the bandwidth and everybody would be a LOT better off.
In order for it to work though, the MAIN link needs to be a coralized link. Which is easy enough to do. BEFORE the slashdot effect happens.
What would really be neat is if there was a way to let a console and PC communicate via high speed interface.
So for instance you could run your console game within a window on your PC (or full screen). Or take advantage of the PC's network interface or mouse/keyboard.
Is there a way to have javascript only on sites you specifiy? It would be great to have javascript disabled by default and then have a function key so that I could allow it for a specific site.
From what I've read it seems that IBM is going to commit to making sure that there is a LINUX (Mac too?) client for IBM workspace.
I watched the demo and it looks interesting enough. The question is, do you trust IBM not to lock you into their "all encompassing" back-office infrastructure with no-interoperability? Or Do you just want to swallow the pill and drink MS's cool aid?
What I would like to see is some sort of reasonably easy to program middleware that is cross-platform (XUL for example) to take the place of platform specific proprietary clients. This way the user's PC is not weighed down.
I suppose some people might point out that you can already kind of do this with X terminals, but it seems that using the browser as the way to do everything, either through XUL or HTML/J2EE..ect is the direction people WANT to move in.
Multicast cuts down on this consideribly (not the real bandwdith...but with many customers). Hopefully this will increase the use of Multicast (I'm not holding my breath). It would be nice to see wide deployment of multicast across the Internet (Internet2 is already fully multicast enabled)
A "little" off my own topic since I submitted the story....but the result of this I would imagine would be that p2p will start using SSL to encrypt the traffic (I put this in my text blurb for the story...but slashdot editors chopped it). Anyhow...this will NOT only defeat the MPAA, but MANY universities use trafic shapers to fingerprint Bittorrent and p2p traffic to keep it from saturating their bandwidth to the Internet. SSL encrypted p2p will effectively make packet shaping these services impossible.
They funny thing is, I submitted the article with the extra sentence "How long will it be before p2p clients like Bittorrent use SSl?" and they clipped it from the text! LOL
The reason why the IPOD sells is not price/performance. Its STYLE, and coolness and the ease of use (software and hardware).
There have been players that are MUCH cheaper on a price/performance ratio than the ipod/ipod mini. Apple knows how to appeal to people's emotions and that is why they sell. NOT a cold rational evaulation of the "features".
These are the same people who look at the Mac Mini and try to put together a Dell for the same price and exclaim the Mini is not worth it....but they don't take into account the look, feel of the hardware and the robustness of OS X vs windows.
Re:computers for the Masses not the classes
on
The Sub-$100 Laptop?
·
· Score: 1
Oh I don't disagree with you. It's just that it was PROVEN back in teh 80's that people consider $200 bucks to be not so expensive that they will not consider a purchase....$500 and more people automatically say "NO WAY"
Why not? Do you know how bittorrent works? The content is mirrored by "seeds" in the torrent.
The "streams" don't come from the site....it's Peer to peer...
Seriously...not to be insulting. Do you understand how bittorrent works?
Re:computers for the Masses not the classes
on
The Sub-$100 Laptop?
·
· Score: 1
$200 is a psychological sweet spot. There is something about that price that makes people belive it's not that expensive and are willing to give it a try.
The argument that they are a bunch of sleezy bastards who will not accept any loss of profit is not one I can argue against...and my be true.
How would they incur "substantial" costs for storage and transmission bandwidth using bittorrent? Currently these shows are being seeded by people with cable modems to THOUSANDS of people at the same time.
I understand your point, but my argument is that the studios already take that into account. There is NO way to know if sombody is actually watching an ad or taking a wiz or staring off into space.
This is true of nielson ratings and bittorrent file downloads.
Of course if you have a PVR they'd know:(
Unless you had cameras IN the homes.
Re:computers for the Masses not the classes
on
The Sub-$100 Laptop?
·
· Score: 1
The future of TV is digital. I predict that very soon ALL TV's will be HD capable...and at an affordable price (not a couple grand)
I like your idea of the file that expires (I hate DRM as well).
On the ADs...they could just provide a new file every so often with different ads.
You are right on the HDTV sources comment...but I've seen HDTV XVID rips that have resolutions FAR higher than standard NTSC (but not as high as HDTV). Alias, and LOST are good examples of REAL high quality XVID rips...about 700 Meg a show.
You don't NEED to get people to give up the couch. They can continue to distribute it the normal way, but provide the show online at the same time it comes out on cable.
People that download shows do so because they don't have access to the the cable network where the show is playing or they want to watch back episodes..or possibly for their personal collection(more problamatic for DVD sales)
I have NO illusions that they'll go for it...but...just might since the show is to be cancelled anyhow.
The future of content distribution is user controll. The only way to get people to pay for shows in a NON-PUSH media (unlike TV..where they push to you what they want you to see...like ads) is to provide some sort of incentive for people to WANT to watch the ads.
I think the point of my post (even though it's mainly technical in it's solution) is that users don't mind ads if they choose to watch them and know that their decision actually makes a difference.
Oh...and the video MUST be available at the same time as the show comes on in the EARLIEST market. Example...if the first time the show comes on is in Eastern Canada (like Stargate Atlantis) before the rest of Cable gets it...they NEED to have the video up WHEN the first Airing occures.
Rabid fans want it the moment it gets released and will go for some other torrent site that has it if the "offical" version is not out.
If Paramount would provide a Bittorrent of the Show WITH the commercials on the site AND make sure the quality of the video is as good or better than what can be gotten off of bittorrent web sites, they might be able to get people to watch.
Here is how it would work. You make it freely available but make users go through a page that informs them that by getting the video from an offical Paramount site they (Paramount) can prove to their advertizers that people are watching the show with ads (arguably...how do you know if people are ACTUALLY watching them...but then they don't know if nielson watchers actually watch the ads either).
By publicly advertizing that if people want to support the show they can download it from the their torrent (or web link) would provide an incen tive for people to get it from them instead of off of some offshore web torrent site.
They could update the commercials evey now and then if they wanted.
The KEY though is that the video HAS to be better than what is being distributed right now! If what is on tvtorrent or tvswarm is XVID HDTV 5.1 surround then they need to match or exceed it.
Fans of the show could then DIRECTLY support the show. People who get the non-advertzing version off of some peer to peer network are people who don't give a rats ass about the show making it anyhow.....but give people a way to pay (without money) and they'll take it (My theory of course!)
Slashdot Mirror
Why more people don't use the Coral Web Cache when submitting links in their story is beyond me.
Coralized link below
http://www.tpu.fi.nyud.net:8090/~t4jlaaks/ep3/
A little off topic I know.... What's dumb is that the existance of the Coral Web Cache system which is available to EVERYBODY was posted as a story on this site http://www.coralcdn.org/ As a solution to the "slashdot" effect. It works..proven. All the slashdot editors have to do is put a "suggestion" when people link stories to use the cache if they think they don't have the bandwidth and everybody would be a LOT better off. In order for it to work though, the MAIN link needs to be a coralized link. Which is easy enough to do. BEFORE the slashdot effect happens.
What would really be neat is if there was a way to let a console and PC communicate via high speed interface.
So for instance you could run your console game within a window on your PC (or full screen). Or take advantage of the PC's network interface or mouse/keyboard.
Is there a way to have javascript only on sites you specifiy? It would be great to have javascript disabled by default and then have a function key so that I could allow it for a specific site.
Just curious, was it visable to the naked eye? Could we have seen it if we had known before hand?
From what I've read it seems that IBM is going to commit to making sure that there is a LINUX (Mac too?) client for IBM workspace.
I watched the demo and it looks interesting enough. The question is, do you trust IBM not to lock you into their "all encompassing" back-office infrastructure with no-interoperability? Or Do you just want to swallow the pill and drink MS's cool aid?
What I would like to see is some sort of reasonably easy to program middleware that is cross-platform (XUL for example) to take the place of platform specific proprietary clients. This way the user's PC is not weighed down.
I suppose some people might point out that you can already kind of do this with X terminals, but it seems that using the browser as the way to do everything, either through XUL or HTML/J2EE..ect is the direction people WANT to move in.
Multicast cuts down on this consideribly (not the real bandwdith...but with many customers). Hopefully this will increase the use of Multicast (I'm not holding my breath). It would be nice to see wide deployment of multicast across the Internet (Internet2 is already fully multicast enabled)
A "little" off my own topic since I submitted the story....but the result of this I would imagine would be that p2p will start using SSL to encrypt the traffic (I put this in my text blurb for the story...but slashdot editors chopped it). Anyhow...this will NOT only defeat the MPAA, but MANY universities use trafic shapers to fingerprint Bittorrent and p2p traffic to keep it from saturating their bandwidth to the Internet. SSL encrypted p2p will effectively make packet shaping these services impossible.
They funny thing is, I submitted the article with the extra sentence "How long will it be before p2p clients like Bittorrent use SSl?" and they clipped it from the text! LOL
So where does one buy this? If I wanted (gasp) to buy this so I could save a few bucks who carries it?
Probably excellent if you live in northern latitudes (like central cancada or finland)....but probably BAD if you live in Florida or Mexico :(
The reason why the IPOD sells is not price/performance. Its STYLE, and coolness and the ease of use (software and hardware).
There have been players that are MUCH cheaper on a price/performance ratio than the ipod/ipod mini. Apple knows how to appeal to people's emotions and that is why they sell. NOT a cold rational evaulation of the "features".
These are the same people who look at the Mac Mini and try to put together a Dell for the same price and exclaim the Mini is not worth it....but they don't take into account the look, feel of the hardware and the robustness of OS X vs windows.
Oh I don't disagree with you. It's just that it was PROVEN back in teh 80's that people consider $200 bucks to be not so expensive that they will not consider a purchase....$500 and more people automatically say "NO WAY"
I think you need to read up on how bittorrent works. There is NO need for mirroring. They would not need to mirror it.
Why not? Do you know how bittorrent works? The content is mirrored by "seeds" in the torrent.
The "streams" don't come from the site....it's Peer to peer...
Seriously...not to be insulting. Do you understand how bittorrent works?
$200 is a psychological sweet spot. There is something about that price that makes people belive it's not that expensive and are willing to give it a try.
Well...
The argument that they are a bunch of sleezy bastards who will not accept any loss of profit is not one I can argue against...and my be true.
How would they incur "substantial" costs for storage and transmission bandwidth using bittorrent? Currently these shows are being seeded by people with cable modems to THOUSANDS of people at the same time.
I understand your point, but my argument is that the studios already take that into account. There is NO way to know if sombody is actually watching an ad or taking a wiz or staring off into space.
:(
This is true of nielson ratings and bittorrent file downloads.
Of course if you have a PVR they'd know
Unless you had cameras IN the homes.
The future of TV is digital. I predict that very soon ALL TV's will be HD capable...and at an affordable price (not a couple grand)
I like your idea of the file that expires (I hate DRM as well).
On the ADs...they could just provide a new file every so often with different ads.
You are right on the HDTV sources comment...but I've seen HDTV XVID rips that have resolutions FAR higher than standard NTSC (but not as high as HDTV). Alias, and LOST are good examples of REAL high quality XVID rips...about 700 Meg a show.
You don't NEED to get people to give up the couch. They can continue to distribute it the normal way, but provide the show online at the same time it comes out on cable.
People that download shows do so because they don't have access to the the cable network where the show is playing or they want to watch back episodes..or possibly for their personal collection(more problamatic for DVD sales)
I have NO illusions that they'll go for it...but...just might since the show is to be cancelled anyhow.
The future of content distribution is user controll. The only way to get people to pay for shows in a NON-PUSH media (unlike TV..where they push to you what they want you to see...like ads) is to provide some sort of incentive for people to WANT to watch the ads.
I think the point of my post (even though it's mainly technical in it's solution) is that users don't mind ads if they choose to watch them and know that their decision actually makes a difference.
Oh...and the video MUST be available at the same time as the show comes on in the EARLIEST market. Example...if the first time the show comes on is in Eastern Canada (like Stargate Atlantis) before the rest of Cable gets it...they NEED to have the video up WHEN the first Airing occures.
Rabid fans want it the moment it gets released and will go for some other torrent site that has it if the "offical" version is not out.
What about the places where there is cable but no airing of the show....like Europe
I have an idea....Seriously..
If Paramount would provide a Bittorrent of the Show WITH the commercials on the site AND make sure the quality of the video is as good or better than what can be gotten off of bittorrent web sites, they might be able to get people to watch.
Here is how it would work. You make it freely available but make users go through a page that informs them that by getting the video from an offical Paramount site they (Paramount) can prove to their advertizers that people are watching the show with ads (arguably...how do you know if people are ACTUALLY watching them...but then they don't know if nielson watchers actually watch the ads either).
By publicly advertizing that if people want to support the show they can download it from the their torrent (or web link) would provide an incen tive for people to get it from them instead of off of some offshore web torrent site.
They could update the commercials evey now and then if they wanted.
The KEY though is that the video HAS to be better than what is being distributed right now! If what is on tvtorrent or tvswarm is XVID HDTV 5.1 surround then they need to match or exceed it.
Fans of the show could then DIRECTLY support the show. People who get the non-advertzing version off of some peer to peer network are people who don't give a rats ass about the show making it anyhow.....but give people a way to pay (without money) and they'll take it (My theory of course!)
If they were unsure if they were going to use it, why did they build it and attach it to the spacecraft to begin with?