So to the idea "Netflix is swallowing America's bandwidth", I say, bullshit!, America needs and in time will have more bandwidth, so these reports are bullshit, no one needs to worry about these scare stories.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...
Who pays for the added capacity? If the ISPs aren't going to make any more, what is their incentive to invest in new capacity? Where does this additional bandwidth come from - thin air?
Netflix and Skype more or less work on a model of selling you a service that assumes you magically get the bandwidth you need. They don't need to provide it... oh, sure, they need to get their connection to the backbone and push it from their servers. But, what you pay them is isolated from what you pay your ISP. So in effect, if you can't afford the bandwidth to use their services, their services are useless -- in the case of NetFlix, I'm sure the sheer volume of data per user is quite large.
I'm a proponent of net neutrality, but I can understand that the needed bandwidth needs to come from somewhere -- and I just can't see how it's in an ISPs best interests to invest in more infrastructure, and charge the same or less as they're charging now. Do you think they should do it out some altruistic sense that the world will be a better place if we all have more bandwidth? The shareholders would replace the board in about a week.
As much as I think most of the major telcos/ISP are a bunch of greedy weasels, I can understand why they don't want to foot the bill to give everyone unlimited gigabit capacity to the curb unless they're getting paid for it. Throttling something like NetFlix basically means they're keeping bandwidth available for people like me who aren't trying to saturate their link 24x7 with downloading movies.
Now, I don't claim to have a solution to this... I'm just not sure how one goes about providing the unlimited bandwidth you seek so that bandwidth-heavy apps can run and pull down all this data. No matter what the data is, if you were an ISP and traffic to one site was using about 20% of your overall bandwidth, that would be cause for concern.
Unfortunately, until or unless bandwidth truly does become essentially infinite and free, it is a limited resource, and it's pricing and availability will be driven by market factors.
Jane heard it from Wanda who read it on Judy's Facebook page that according to Robert who spoke with Susie, you're SO getting dumped this weekend. Totally.
In that case, the TV companies are going to have a problem since the carriers will make sure it's disabled on all their phones so they can continue to sell their $50 5-cent cables with tiny, fragile connectors.
I'm pretty sure the phone carriers will also try to make sure this uses some of your data plan so they can "monetize" it.
A friend did some looking at the way our cell-phone carrier handled the in-phone web-browser a couple of years back -- they had intentionally changed Morotolla phones so they wouldn't go straight to the web like they were designed, but go through a broker the phone company carried. It effectively doubled the # of bytes your transmitted
Most are still using nothing, wep, wpa or the wrong wpa-2 options.:-(
And, just because the WiGig people signed withe the VESA people, have the MPAA/RIAA people allowed this?
Is broadcasting a movie over unsecured wireless from your phone to a TV an "infringing" use? I'm sure some lawyer will try to say that it is, and you're not allowed to do it.
They're not usually big fans of new ways for us to use the digital stuff we already have.
You may be correct for the US, but as you mentioned, the "EULA" for your property can not include everything. I sincerely doubt that you could enforce your "punch in the face rule" pretty much anywhere.
*laugh* I seriously hope not.. that was just flippantly using the GPs example.:-P Obviously, it's a contrived and absurd example of the kinds of arbitrary and stupid things people might try to put in contracts.
Given that precedent, the chances of movie theaters to find a "good enough" reason to be allowed to search your bag are pretty slim.
Again, can't speak for Germany (or most anyplace, really)... but I get the impression that they can refuse to let you into the theater if you refuse the search.
Not necessarily. I can put up a sign in my shop saying I have the right to punch you in the face, but I'd get arrested if I did it...
No, but saying that if they continue to stay on the premises after they've read the sign and had an opportunity to ponder it means that they've accepted the terms of the contract. Then you punch them in the face.;-)
According to them (and I really have no idea of what case law in most places says about this) if you choose to stay on the premises, you are subject to search. If you refuse search, they'll ask you to leave, likely with no refund.
The bigger problem we're facing with corporate practices like this is that, when the revolution comes, we won't have a wall big enough to put all these marketing departments against.
No, the biggest problem is that you will be so heavily monitored by both corporate and government interests (often using the same gear) that you could never hope to get a revolution off the ground.
You can't revolt against Bog Brother, because they watch your every move. Welcome to the dystopian future of a full-time surveillance society which doesn't have any real freedoms.
However, I figure some really good culture jamming could come into play here -- like an entire audience mooning the screen at a pre-determined point.;-) Of course, they'll have you on video and will have fingerprinted you before you come into the theater, so, they'll just send you a ticket and charge it to the credit card you used to pay for your ticket -- they'll have tracked that too.
It's not at all clear to me why everyone should compile a kernel at least once.
Because, the notion that it's a task that is (or should be) reserved only for the tech wizards is intellectually offensive.
One of my university profs (to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude) had very strong ideas about learning to do such things for yourself, and as a result, understanding more of the context and scope of it. You learn a lot more, and you remember it for longer -- it's not some random fact to be forgotten, it's something that you've internalized and that means something. As a result, when I wrote a microkernel as part of my OS theory class, I really got to understand how an OS works from the bare metal up. Have I done it since? Nope. Not at all. Am I grateful for having done it? Youbetcherass.
I'm not saying that literally everyone should compile a kernel -- my mother, for instance, not so much. But, in terms of demystifying the process, I think it's a valuable thing to learn.
I remember several years ago when my father (at the time in his late 60's, and a computer n00b) came to the conclusion he needed to install a printer driver. The chain of thought to arrive at the conclusion that there is a) such thing as a printer driver, b) you need one to make your printer work, and c) determining the steps to install a printer driver is quite impressive. It represents grasping several concepts before you can even move onto trying to find a solution -- but, in the end, he understood what drivers did (broadly), why we need them, and how to install one.
If you just threw up your hands and said "zomg, that's just way too complicated and therefore beyond me", you're going to curl up in a ball the first time things get difficult.
So, yes, if you consider yourself more than a Linux hobbyist, and just want to give yourself a little more in-depth understanding... compile a kernel. Break your machine like the rest of us have. Panic. Fix it. At the very least, it demystifies the process... and on the other hand, forces you to understand at least at a high level that there are such things as kernels and drivers, but that it's not some arcane magic.
Now, get off my damned lawn and go compile a kernel or something.;-)
a thousand times, ditto! i love linux, but never in a million years do i want to compile a kernel. trust me, there are a lot of people out there who feel exactly the same way.
Well, it's like changing a tire, writing your own interrupt handlers, or hand-optimizing memory usage.
It's something everybody should do at least once in their life so they understand the process. And, once you've done it, you will never want to do it again. Those who sidestep the process never really understand and live in fear of it.
Those who understand the process know what it's all about, and just mostly call AAA, install Ubuntu, or add more memory thereafter -- secure in the knowledge that if they really had to, they could probably muddle their way through it. But, in reality, it's a task best left for someone else and is mostly a waste of time.;-)
"Remember the days when being a Linux user was like being part of a select priesthood..."
Oh, it still is like that in some respects [wikipedia.org].
Dude, have you been celibate all this time?
They sent out a memo years ago saying geeks were allowed to get laid. Since at least Y2K as I recall we're been encouraged to go forth and get busy (I think that was the exact wording).
Man, you need to check your mail-slot more often.:-P
You mean like "The next release of the ecommerce suite runs on Oracle/Weblogic app server only".
Exactly. I can guarantee that Oracle will change that software to require Oracle. That's what companies that grow through acquisition do, is move the existing customer base to use their product.
And, then once you've made them buy an Oracle for the eCommerce app, you might as well buy one for the rest of your enterprise data. And you're gonna need equipment and a maintenance agreement -- you always need a maintenance agreement.
Before long, your enterprise runs on Oracle, you have a maintenance agreement for each machine doing it -- oh, and since it's Oracle you need 3x the hardware to do what you used to do before since there is a small fleet of machines needed to support Oracle's solutions. Especially now that they are the hardware vendor.
Me, I can see some of the users of this software being on the hook for tens of millions of dollars each year once the Oracle licensing machine is through with them. Oracle will try to bleed them dry as much as they can manage.
Sorry Oracle, your recent actions make me extremely suspicious and I don't even *try* to think it might be an innocent purchase any more. See what destroying reputations does? (and, really, I'm not sorry for Oracle at all).
But, be honest....
Do you think Oracle is in the least bit perturbed by either your suspicion or that you don't "feel sorry for them"? Even a little? Or do you figure they're just lighting cigars with $100 bills and laughing?
Oracle will make lots of money. Larry Ellison will continue to make lots of money. The world will continue to spin. The reality of the situation is, like it or not, the companies will continue to be validated by their actions -- because it makes them money. Us feeling all smug and disapproving is a fart in a windstorm.
I fear that portfolio of "crap" patents you sneer at is actually going to translate into a fair bit of additional clout for Oracle, not to mention all of the revenue from those new customers they'll push to use Oracle.
Slashdot Mirror
Playing Devil's Advocate here ...
Who pays for the added capacity? If the ISPs aren't going to make any more, what is their incentive to invest in new capacity? Where does this additional bandwidth come from - thin air?
Netflix and Skype more or less work on a model of selling you a service that assumes you magically get the bandwidth you need. They don't need to provide it ... oh, sure, they need to get their connection to the backbone and push it from their servers. But, what you pay them is isolated from what you pay your ISP. So in effect, if you can't afford the bandwidth to use their services, their services are useless -- in the case of NetFlix, I'm sure the sheer volume of data per user is quite large.
I'm a proponent of net neutrality, but I can understand that the needed bandwidth needs to come from somewhere -- and I just can't see how it's in an ISPs best interests to invest in more infrastructure, and charge the same or less as they're charging now. Do you think they should do it out some altruistic sense that the world will be a better place if we all have more bandwidth? The shareholders would replace the board in about a week.
As much as I think most of the major telcos/ISP are a bunch of greedy weasels, I can understand why they don't want to foot the bill to give everyone unlimited gigabit capacity to the curb unless they're getting paid for it. Throttling something like NetFlix basically means they're keeping bandwidth available for people like me who aren't trying to saturate their link 24x7 with downloading movies.
Now, I don't claim to have a solution to this ... I'm just not sure how one goes about providing the unlimited bandwidth you seek so that bandwidth-heavy apps can run and pull down all this data. No matter what the data is, if you were an ISP and traffic to one site was using about 20% of your overall bandwidth, that would be cause for concern.
Unfortunately, until or unless bandwidth truly does become essentially infinite and free, it is a limited resource, and it's pricing and availability will be driven by market factors.
Oh, sure they do.
Jane heard it from Wanda who read it on Judy's Facebook page that according to Robert who spoke with Susie, you're SO getting dumped this weekend. Totally.
Someone sounds bitter. ;-)
Wow, that's very meta.
Before you posted that, nobody had read it. ;-)
I'm pretty sure the phone carriers will also try to make sure this uses some of your data plan so they can "monetize" it.
A friend did some looking at the way our cell-phone carrier handled the in-phone web-browser a couple of years back -- they had intentionally changed Morotolla phones so they wouldn't go straight to the web like they were designed, but go through a broker the phone company carried. It effectively doubled the # of bytes your transmitted
Evil bastards.
And, just because the WiGig people signed withe the VESA people, have the MPAA/RIAA people allowed this?
Is broadcasting a movie over unsecured wireless from your phone to a TV an "infringing" use? I'm sure some lawyer will try to say that it is, and you're not allowed to do it.
They're not usually big fans of new ways for us to use the digital stuff we already have.
I *think* if you had a movie on your phone, you could watch it on your TV.
But, yeah. Is this maybe an excuse to try to sell us yet another TV since 3D isn't working?
*laugh* I seriously hope not .. that was just flippantly using the GPs example. :-P Obviously, it's a contrived and absurd example of the kinds of arbitrary and stupid things people might try to put in contracts.
Again, can't speak for Germany (or most anyplace, really) ... but I get the impression that they can refuse to let you into the theater if you refuse the search.
Yeah, but this one goes all the way to 11. :-P
Wow, that's a little harsh. ;-)
No, but saying that if they continue to stay on the premises after they've read the sign and had an opportunity to ponder it means that they've accepted the terms of the contract. Then you punch them in the face. ;-)
According to them (and I really have no idea of what case law in most places says about this) if you choose to stay on the premises, you are subject to search. If you refuse search, they'll ask you to leave, likely with no refund.
You can't stay and refuse to be searched.
Oh god, I can't believe I made that typo. That's freakin' hilarious.
Or, maybe it's like that Senator in the mens room at the airport? ;-)
It's private property with an absurd EULA. In all likelihood, they do.
Welcome to a world where the rights of copyright holders place them on par with law enforcement. Did you miss the memo?
No, the biggest problem is that you will be so heavily monitored by both corporate and government interests (often using the same gear) that you could never hope to get a revolution off the ground.
You can't revolt against Bog Brother, because they watch your every move. Welcome to the dystopian future of a full-time surveillance society which doesn't have any real freedoms.
However, I figure some really good culture jamming could come into play here -- like an entire audience mooning the screen at a pre-determined point. ;-) Of course, they'll have you on video and will have fingerprinted you before you come into the theater, so, they'll just send you a ticket and charge it to the credit card you used to pay for your ticket -- they'll have tracked that too.
Because, the notion that it's a task that is (or should be) reserved only for the tech wizards is intellectually offensive.
One of my university profs (to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude) had very strong ideas about learning to do such things for yourself, and as a result, understanding more of the context and scope of it. You learn a lot more, and you remember it for longer -- it's not some random fact to be forgotten, it's something that you've internalized and that means something. As a result, when I wrote a microkernel as part of my OS theory class, I really got to understand how an OS works from the bare metal up. Have I done it since? Nope. Not at all. Am I grateful for having done it? Youbetcherass.
I'm not saying that literally everyone should compile a kernel -- my mother, for instance, not so much. But, in terms of demystifying the process, I think it's a valuable thing to learn.
I remember several years ago when my father (at the time in his late 60's, and a computer n00b) came to the conclusion he needed to install a printer driver. The chain of thought to arrive at the conclusion that there is a) such thing as a printer driver, b) you need one to make your printer work, and c) determining the steps to install a printer driver is quite impressive. It represents grasping several concepts before you can even move onto trying to find a solution -- but, in the end, he understood what drivers did (broadly), why we need them, and how to install one.
If you just threw up your hands and said "zomg, that's just way too complicated and therefore beyond me", you're going to curl up in a ball the first time things get difficult.
So, yes, if you consider yourself more than a Linux hobbyist, and just want to give yourself a little more in-depth understanding ... compile a kernel. Break your machine like the rest of us have. Panic. Fix it. At the very least, it demystifies the process ... and on the other hand, forces you to understand at least at a high level that there are such things as kernels and drivers, but that it's not some arcane magic.
Now, get off my damned lawn and go compile a kernel or something. ;-)
Her name was Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, and I bet she's still giving them hell someplace. =)
There have been others, I'm sure. But none quite like her.
Well, it's like changing a tire, writing your own interrupt handlers, or hand-optimizing memory usage.
It's something everybody should do at least once in their life so they understand the process. And, once you've done it, you will never want to do it again. Those who sidestep the process never really understand and live in fear of it.
Those who understand the process know what it's all about, and just mostly call AAA, install Ubuntu, or add more memory thereafter -- secure in the knowledge that if they really had to, they could probably muddle their way through it. But, in reality, it's a task best left for someone else and is mostly a waste of time. ;-)
Check your spam folder. I think it was titled "Hot Russian Girls Await You".
I'll tell you what it means:
You've obviously never shipped code. ;-)
Speaking of unclean and sure to lead us to damnation. ;-)
Dude, have you been celibate all this time?
They sent out a memo years ago saying geeks were allowed to get laid. Since at least Y2K as I recall we're been encouraged to go forth and get busy (I think that was the exact wording).
Man, you need to check your mail-slot more often. :-P
Exactly. I can guarantee that Oracle will change that software to require Oracle. That's what companies that grow through acquisition do, is move the existing customer base to use their product.
And, then once you've made them buy an Oracle for the eCommerce app, you might as well buy one for the rest of your enterprise data. And you're gonna need equipment and a maintenance agreement -- you always need a maintenance agreement.
Before long, your enterprise runs on Oracle, you have a maintenance agreement for each machine doing it -- oh, and since it's Oracle you need 3x the hardware to do what you used to do before since there is a small fleet of machines needed to support Oracle's solutions. Especially now that they are the hardware vendor.
Me, I can see some of the users of this software being on the hook for tens of millions of dollars each year once the Oracle licensing machine is through with them. Oracle will try to bleed them dry as much as they can manage.
Sadly, I agree with everything you said.
Except I fear that they will not end up taking any significant hit -- either financially, or in their reputation.
At which point, they will continue with business as usual, and nothing will change.
Depressing, isn't it?
But, be honest ....
Do you think Oracle is in the least bit perturbed by either your suspicion or that you don't "feel sorry for them"? Even a little? Or do you figure they're just lighting cigars with $100 bills and laughing?
Oracle will make lots of money. Larry Ellison will continue to make lots of money. The world will continue to spin. The reality of the situation is, like it or not, the companies will continue to be validated by their actions -- because it makes them money. Us feeling all smug and disapproving is a fart in a windstorm.
I fear that portfolio of "crap" patents you sneer at is actually going to translate into a fair bit of additional clout for Oracle, not to mention all of the revenue from those new customers they'll push to use Oracle.
And, then once you're in the door with Oracle for the eCommerce stuff, you try to get Oracle into the rest of the company.
Then the real money starts, what with the sun hardware and support contracts and all.