Nope. Go have another bong hit. Killing peer to peer kills indie distribution? Shit all the indie stuff is on paid for servers, the only things you have to slum for on peer to peer networks are major label.
while true at one point, not true anymore. Apple makes a modest profit on the majority of content they sell via itms
Re:short sellers are bribing corpwhorate media?
on
Can We Trust Google?
·
· Score: 1
while i own jan07 puts you cant really put this as short sellers dream - in fact past page two or page three its really just a bubble era puff piece. No mention of adsense competitors, no real discussion of what would have to be true to support a PE that high. I bet more casual investors read it as buy, it certainly is quite complimentary in it's explanation of the corporate environment. Even to go as far as asserting that appearing to have no set strategy is really just a ploy to confuse everyone. One comment has a 600 price target for the end of the year.
Sure there are a lot of shorts but Time Warner is long.
just so you know, one of the primary reasons that the world caught on to what is now called AJAX applications is google's use of the technology - granted not on the search homepage but in several other big apps.
I think the popularity of web based email answers that question. People will use non private web based applications for private data.
The real question is who needs it at all? The linked article mentions consumers probably not being ready for this kind of service for 1-2 years. The reality is that the market is fragmented, and while there are API's the results generally just resemble personalized home pages. I saw much better technology die on the vine at desktop.com 6 years ago - it was cool stuff looking for an audience. The same team had made what became yahoo mail - much simpler tech but in the end much more popular. The same situation probably stands today - (semi) cool tech looking for an audience. More or less we've long gotten past personalized home pages as a neat new thing - just adding AJAX doesn't change the paradigm. Desktop.com went some major steps beyond that but didn't just get killed by the bubble... they also never had an audience.
Actually I did read the article, I just seriously disagree. That was the point of my post. A new web wouldn't be legislated out of business. Certainly the printing press allowed for all sorts of things to be created that the powers that be didn't like. Did it disappear or cause there to be no more innovation? Obviously not in the least. Where are the lawsuits against Bram Cohen and Bittorrent, Inc? Lawsuits against things like trackers are similar to lawsuits against websites - they have nothing to do with Tim Berners-Lee and http. To be sure perhaps if a completely closed web like system was developed and controlled by one company it might have opened itself up to lawsuits due to the use of the network - but then again a single company solution like that would have never come close to touching what the web became. Did you know that AOL had their own html like markup language and server system? That's ok, no one else remembers it either.
I know fear mongering and the idea that the big bad multinationals and lawyers are destroying everything is popular around here - and with reason. But think for yourself. Communications innovation hasn't been stifled at all - it continues on at a much faster pace.
ahh, well, the web wasnt much more than a few more options tacked on to gopher or archie. You really need to look at the effect of the technology rather than the code itself. If you don't think napster was one of the bigger bombs dropped on the internet you must not have been around then.
56k leased lines were the t1's of the day - dedicated point to point links that ran at 56kbits, far faster than any modems at the time could. UUCP, bang path email and USENET were all rocking long before 14.4k modems hit the scene.
Tim did a good thing for sure, but it was hardly unusual for things for the internet to be written without profit in mind - it would have been crazy at the time to think there was any money to be made there outside of services. And you might want to check your timeline, tons of people were using GNU software back when USENET, UUCP and 56k leased lines ruled the day.
Agreed. Why on earth wouldn't http and html be invented today? Only because possibly the niche is already filled. Does a would be inventor have to run their protocol by the property lawyers or disney before it gets popular now? Someone should inform Bram Cohen. I'm pretty sure the printing press, telegraph, radio, television, telephones and more were all disruptive technologies for some reason or another in their day. Thinking we've hit some kind of wall isn't looking very hard at the issue.
The motivation behind this kind of extortion is (obviously) money. It definitely happens and companies definitely do pay. It doesn't usually happen to the largest and best connected firms, and not that much to US based firms as compared to the rest of the world, but it's going on all the time. It doesn't get a lot of press because victims that pay are very unlikely to publicize the event. It is mostly focused on business that do most or all of their revenue over the net.
You greatly underestimate the trouble an extremely large DDOS network can cause via sheer packet volume. It might make you reboot your server or pay more in bandwidth for the month? First off the targets of these things are using pretty substantial server farms, not your debian server you have your cat's pictures on. The servers may or may not crash but they certainly wont handle the load. And neither will your load balancers, database servers, routers, firewalls, IDS's, the list goes on and on. Not only that but your ISP won;t handle the load either, all of their stuff starts to break. And depending on how far down the food chain you are maybe your ISP's ISP. All the way up to the tier 1 who can handle it but certainly doesnt want to.
The short answer is is even if all of your technology works flawlessly and isn't crashing left and right (which it most certainly will be), you've never bought a pipe nearly big enough to handle the traffic you're getting so your real customer's traffic is taking forever or just getting dropped on the floor. After 6-24 hours of your DDOS problems impacting all their other customers, your ISP gets their providers to null route your IP space, putting you in the dead calm of the eye of the storm. Everything works again now, except your customers can't reach you. If you measure your earnings based on people connecting to your shop or services that is obviously a very big deal.
If you fight, the fight is going to be very tough. First you need a sympathetic ISP that will let you fight and help you fight - that probably isn't your existing ISP and ones that will are in short supply. Basically a tier 1 or major colos that are very undersold so they have the bandwidth to burn without taking out the rest of their customers. Next you need someone who understands what needs to be done and fast and will work around the clock to do it - realistically you're probably looking at maybe hundreds of people total in the US that have a very strong background in such things and would be available - and maybe dozens of people that have actual direct experience (on that scale). They will obviously cost money. So will building a completely brand new intelligent filtering network over night - in addition to the hardware costs of the new boxes and the connection costs for the new ISP - this isnt off the shelf software either, at least probably not.
Maybe you can start seeing why it's a bit more of a big deal than maybe rebooting your software - why people choose to pay - and that's why it's profitable.
What on earth gives you the idea they would use 802.11 for something like that? In 10 years is that how people will first think of how you should make a garage door opener?
That would be a great rant if it wasn't for the fact that the technology you are ranting against (wma drm) is nearly identical in form and function to the technology you are using as an example of what is great (aac drm via itms).
So basically you don't really have a problem with DRM as long as it's well marketed and works with a trendy player. As opposed to less marketed and works with less trendy players.
What on earth gives you the impression that a US$2600M purchase of a services company is a technology/software acquisition? I am just as confounded by this purchase as the next guy, but suggesting donating money to fund open source development of similar features satisfies the same goals is silly. If ebay announced they were buying comcast would you post that's silly, if they give me $100 bucks I can show them how to put television on a thick wire too?
It really doesn't matter what you personally do or don't do. If you are trying to justify movie piracy because "the product is crap" it's a very poor logical basis.
If you are going to astro turf, at least come up with a new line.
[...]
Hint: Your movies suck. We have gotten used to the industry lying to us. Now you are reaping what you sowed.
For someone who is claiming someone else's argument is tired and worn out you sure don't waste much time spitting out the same tired and worn out lines that make you feel better.
What you are saying is that because you don't like the product instead of paying for it, you copy it and watch it for free - because it's terrible? Or that you download a DVD from a torrent because your busy high stress life doesn't allow you enough time to go to the store like the people of the carefree 90's who mostly didn't have to work and lived off trust funds?
Just admit to yourself (and others) that you like copying things you would otherwise have to pay for. It's freeing, honest with yourself which is healthy, and best of all doesn't make you look like a moron while you rabidly try to defend yourself in public as some kind of modern day digital robin hood.
I think you underestimate the history microsoft has of using Office as their #1 bully pulpit against Apple. It was commonly reported during the browser wars that threats of Office slowdowns in new versions or a withdrawl from the platform altogether were on the table to get Internet Explorer shipping on the Mac over Netscape. Several hours of Gates' testimony to the DOJ during the states case against Microsoft. It was also reportedly used as leverage against quicktime and other technologies. Obviously in the end Apple ended up with Safari, but only long after the browser had stopped being a top priority for Redmond.
Is Microsoft willing to pull one of their top products from 3% of their market? Obviously I don't know. But it does seem to be clear that they would be as willing or more willing to threaten that type of action over a top notch OS going head to head with Windows as compared to disagreements over IE and Windows Media.
Could Apple survive without Microsoft? Possibly, though it is clear that Office on the Mac is huge across all of their market segments. It's not just file formats either, it's familiarity for users, feature sets, and homogeneity for corporate environments.
Either way you look at it, Office or no, Apple producing their OS for the whole installed base of existing and future PC's throws down the gauntlet. Is there enough advantage in selling OS X server to go head to head with the biggest boy on the block? It seems very unlikely.
While hardware being Apple's main profit center has been the main argument for why OS X wont be running on commodity hardware, there is another substantial sticking point. There have always been back room type deals between microsoft and apple over the office suite, and certainly Jobs making an x86 switch didnt happen without either an understanding or perhaps an explicit agreement over office with microsoft that surely included OS X not running on commodity hardware. It's very unlikely OS X Server could move enough volume for commodity hardware to make up for losing the biggest desktop app there is.
It seems to me the top section is reports done by the website owner as opposed to the bottom section of letters "submissions from fellow scambaiters"
I thought it was pretty interesting that this guy actually scams the scammers, according to notations in big red bold letters he's taken people who wrote to him for over $1200 and I'm sure he's hoping that number climbs as he eagerly awaits more email of marks to flood into him. I assume (since he runs an "anti-scam" website that he's never himself been scammed out of money.
That's really cool. I'm hoping maybe this guy can expand his business, maybe going out on the streets at night and robbing people at gunpoint who approach him that he might think are suspicious
You obviously have a Linux slant, which is what led you to this point. I challenge you to set up a Windows computer with 4 gigabytes of RAM (the max). Then run Performance Monitor and monitor the swap file, and run some applications. You'll find the swap file is stilll being used even though RAM + Swap File can't be greater than 4 gig.
While you are correct that windows will force swap idle processes even if there is no demand for system ram, it is also true that in this situation you can just turn off the windows swap file and everything will stay in memory and run very well.
I didn't get to read the article, but this quote sure does have some insight into the type of mind that goes ahead and builds a comprehensive home power monitioring solution. Can you imagine being quizzed by yourhusband about how many loads of laundry you did a certain day and then having him insist you come with him to see on the computers about how you were WRONG and you were OFF BY ONE? Jesus that would drive me crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Go have another bong hit. Killing peer to peer kills indie distribution? Shit all the indie stuff is on paid for servers, the only things you have to slum for on peer to peer networks are major label.
while true at one point, not true anymore. Apple makes a modest profit on the majority of content they sell via itms
while i own jan07 puts you cant really put this as short sellers dream - in fact past page two or page three its really just a bubble era puff piece. No mention of adsense competitors, no real discussion of what would have to be true to support a PE that high. I bet more casual investors read it as buy, it certainly is quite complimentary in it's explanation of the corporate environment. Even to go as far as asserting that appearing to have no set strategy is really just a ploy to confuse everyone. One comment has a 600 price target for the end of the year.
Sure there are a lot of shorts but Time Warner is long.
just so you know, one of the primary reasons that the world caught on to what is now called AJAX applications is google's use of the technology - granted not on the search homepage but in several other big apps.
I think the popularity of web based email answers that question. People will use non private web based applications for private data.
The real question is who needs it at all? The linked article mentions consumers probably not being ready for this kind of service for 1-2 years. The reality is that the market is fragmented, and while there are API's the results generally just resemble personalized home pages. I saw much better technology die on the vine at desktop.com 6 years ago - it was cool stuff looking for an audience. The same team had made what became yahoo mail - much simpler tech but in the end much more popular. The same situation probably stands today - (semi) cool tech looking for an audience. More or less we've long gotten past personalized home pages as a neat new thing - just adding AJAX doesn't change the paradigm. Desktop.com went some major steps beyond that but didn't just get killed by the bubble... they also never had an audience.
Actually I did read the article, I just seriously disagree. That was the point of my post. A new web wouldn't be legislated out of business. Certainly the printing press allowed for all sorts of things to be created that the powers that be didn't like. Did it disappear or cause there to be no more innovation? Obviously not in the least. Where are the lawsuits against Bram Cohen and Bittorrent, Inc? Lawsuits against things like trackers are similar to lawsuits against websites - they have nothing to do with Tim Berners-Lee and http. To be sure perhaps if a completely closed web like system was developed and controlled by one company it might have opened itself up to lawsuits due to the use of the network - but then again a single company solution like that would have never come close to touching what the web became. Did you know that AOL had their own html like markup language and server system? That's ok, no one else remembers it either.
I know fear mongering and the idea that the big bad multinationals and lawyers are destroying everything is popular around here - and with reason. But think for yourself. Communications innovation hasn't been stifled at all - it continues on at a much faster pace.
ahh, well, the web wasnt much more than a few more options tacked on to gopher or archie. You really need to look at the effect of the technology rather than the code itself. If you don't think napster was one of the bigger bombs dropped on the internet you must not have been around then.
While I basically agree with you, I think we could all call Napster a disruptive technology with a capital D
56k leased lines were the t1's of the day - dedicated point to point links that ran at 56kbits, far faster than any modems at the time could. UUCP, bang path email and USENET were all rocking long before 14.4k modems hit the scene.
Tim did a good thing for sure, but it was hardly unusual for things for the internet to be written without profit in mind - it would have been crazy at the time to think there was any money to be made there outside of services. And you might want to check your timeline, tons of people were using GNU software back when USENET, UUCP and 56k leased lines ruled the day.
Agreed. Why on earth wouldn't http and html be invented today? Only because possibly the niche is already filled. Does a would be inventor have to run their protocol by the property lawyers or disney before it gets popular now? Someone should inform Bram Cohen. I'm pretty sure the printing press, telegraph, radio, television, telephones and more were all disruptive technologies for some reason or another in their day. Thinking we've hit some kind of wall isn't looking very hard at the issue.
How do you combine 1644 server class ~3ghz CPUss and end up with the power of 15,000 PCs? Only in the marketing department...
The motivation behind this kind of extortion is (obviously) money. It definitely happens and companies definitely do pay. It doesn't usually happen to the largest and best connected firms, and not that much to US based firms as compared to the rest of the world, but it's going on all the time. It doesn't get a lot of press because victims that pay are very unlikely to publicize the event. It is mostly focused on business that do most or all of their revenue over the net.
You greatly underestimate the trouble an extremely large DDOS network can cause via sheer packet volume. It might make you reboot your server or pay more in bandwidth for the month? First off the targets of these things are using pretty substantial server farms, not your debian server you have your cat's pictures on. The servers may or may not crash but they certainly wont handle the load. And neither will your load balancers, database servers, routers, firewalls, IDS's, the list goes on and on. Not only that but your ISP won;t handle the load either, all of their stuff starts to break. And depending on how far down the food chain you are maybe your ISP's ISP. All the way up to the tier 1 who can handle it but certainly doesnt want to.
The short answer is is even if all of your technology works flawlessly and isn't crashing left and right (which it most certainly will be), you've never bought a pipe nearly big enough to handle the traffic you're getting so your real customer's traffic is taking forever or just getting dropped on the floor. After 6-24 hours of your DDOS problems impacting all their other customers, your ISP gets their providers to null route your IP space, putting you in the dead calm of the eye of the storm. Everything works again now, except your customers can't reach you. If you measure your earnings based on people connecting to your shop or services that is obviously a very big deal.
If you fight, the fight is going to be very tough. First you need a sympathetic ISP that will let you fight and help you fight - that probably isn't your existing ISP and ones that will are in short supply. Basically a tier 1 or major colos that are very undersold so they have the bandwidth to burn without taking out the rest of their customers. Next you need someone who understands what needs to be done and fast and will work around the clock to do it - realistically you're probably looking at maybe hundreds of people total in the US that have a very strong background in such things and would be available - and maybe dozens of people that have actual direct experience (on that scale). They will obviously cost money. So will building a completely brand new intelligent filtering network over night - in addition to the hardware costs of the new boxes and the connection costs for the new ISP - this isnt off the shelf software either, at least probably not.
Maybe you can start seeing why it's a bit more of a big deal than maybe rebooting your software - why people choose to pay - and that's why it's profitable.
What on earth gives you the idea they would use 802.11 for something like that? In 10 years is that how people will first think of how you should make a garage door opener?
That would be a great rant if it wasn't for the fact that the technology you are ranting against (wma drm) is nearly identical in form and function to the technology you are using as an example of what is great (aac drm via itms).
So basically you don't really have a problem with DRM as long as it's well marketed and works with a trendy player. As opposed to less marketed and works with less trendy players.
OK, gotcha.
What on earth gives you the impression that a US$2600M purchase of a services company is a technology/software acquisition? I am just as confounded by this purchase as the next guy, but suggesting donating money to fund open source development of similar features satisfies the same goals is silly. If ebay announced they were buying comcast would you post that's silly, if they give me $100 bucks I can show them how to put television on a thick wire too?
It really doesn't matter what you personally do or don't do. If you are trying to justify movie piracy because "the product is crap" it's a very poor logical basis.
If you are going to astro turf, at least come up with a new line.
[...]
Hint: Your movies suck. We have gotten used to the industry lying to us. Now you are reaping what you sowed.
For someone who is claiming someone else's argument is tired and worn out you sure don't waste much time spitting out the same tired and worn out lines that make you feel better.
What you are saying is that because you don't like the product instead of paying for it, you copy it and watch it for free - because it's terrible? Or that you download a DVD from a torrent because your busy high stress life doesn't allow you enough time to go to the store like the people of the carefree 90's who mostly didn't have to work and lived off trust funds?
Just admit to yourself (and others) that you like copying things you would otherwise have to pay for. It's freeing, honest with yourself which is healthy, and best of all doesn't make you look like a moron while you rabidly try to defend yourself in public as some kind of modern day digital robin hood.
I think you underestimate the history microsoft has of using Office as their #1 bully pulpit against Apple. It was commonly reported during the browser wars that threats of Office slowdowns in new versions or a withdrawl from the platform altogether were on the table to get Internet Explorer shipping on the Mac over Netscape. Several hours of Gates' testimony to the DOJ during the states case against Microsoft. It was also reportedly used as leverage against quicktime and other technologies. Obviously in the end Apple ended up with Safari, but only long after the browser had stopped being a top priority for Redmond.
Is Microsoft willing to pull one of their top products from 3% of their market? Obviously I don't know. But it does seem to be clear that they would be as willing or more willing to threaten that type of action over a top notch OS going head to head with Windows as compared to disagreements over IE and Windows Media.
Could Apple survive without Microsoft? Possibly, though it is clear that Office on the Mac is huge across all of their market segments. It's not just file formats either, it's familiarity for users, feature sets, and homogeneity for corporate environments.
Either way you look at it, Office or no, Apple producing their OS for the whole installed base of existing and future PC's throws down the gauntlet. Is there enough advantage in selling OS X server to go head to head with the biggest boy on the block? It seems very unlikely.
While hardware being Apple's main profit center has been the main argument for why OS X wont be running on commodity hardware, there is another substantial sticking point. There have always been back room type deals between microsoft and apple over the office suite, and certainly Jobs making an x86 switch didnt happen without either an understanding or perhaps an explicit agreement over office with microsoft that surely included OS X not running on commodity hardware. It's very unlikely OS X Server could move enough volume for commodity hardware to make up for losing the biggest desktop app there is.
Wow, you're so right. Thanks for setting me on the correct path. This guy who is scamming poor people out of money is doing god's work.
I went to this website and browsed around. In particular I read some of the letters/reports listed on this page: http://www.419eater.com/html/letters.htm
It seems to me the top section is reports done by the website owner as opposed to the bottom section of letters "submissions from fellow scambaiters"
I thought it was pretty interesting that this guy actually scams the scammers, according to notations in big red bold letters he's taken people who wrote to him for over $1200 and I'm sure he's hoping that number climbs as he eagerly awaits more email of marks to flood into him. I assume (since he runs an "anti-scam" website that he's never himself been scammed out of money.
That's really cool. I'm hoping maybe this guy can expand his business, maybe going out on the streets at night and robbing people at gunpoint who approach him that he might think are suspicious
chart crack cocaine use versus car jacking
then chart "grand theft auto" sales vs car jacking
Which seems closer?
While the rest of the op ed doesnt seem to stretch too much this statement wondering if it was cutting down on real life crimes was laughable.
You obviously have a Linux slant, which is what led you to this point. I challenge you to set up a Windows computer with 4 gigabytes of RAM (the max). Then run Performance Monitor and monitor the swap file, and run some applications. You'll find the swap file is stilll being used even though RAM + Swap File can't be greater than 4 gig.
While you are correct that windows will force swap idle processes even if there is no demand for system ram, it is also true that in this situation you can just turn off the windows swap file and everything will stay in memory and run very well.
I didn't get to read the article, but this quote sure does have some insight into the type of mind that goes ahead and builds a comprehensive home power monitioring solution. Can you imagine being quizzed by yourhusband about how many loads of laundry you did a certain day and then having him insist you come with him to see on the computers about how you were WRONG and you were OFF BY ONE? Jesus that would drive me crazy.