That doesn't make any sense. (so it must be me who isn't making any sense).
But if a modem user can only have 200 people to be connected to, then only those 200 people can be connected to him. That means Even if I had a OC48 running and "could" handle everyone's connection, i'm still offlimits to the modem people that have already "picked" their 200 people.
If that's not the case, then maybe you're thinking that a modem person is only allowed to search 200 people's files, but can recieve searches from EVERYONE. That seems beckwards, since the network-hogging activity is the 1,000's of search requests you recieve.
No, you only keep track of this information for the peers you are currently connected to..
Oh ok. But that means I start all over again with the "adaptive" process each time I 'log on'. Probably ok, since statistically I'd be getting a different group each time. (People ever realize how people in your Napster Hotlist were never on ever again)
I dont see your point. Each 10,000 ME's would have their own ISP, and would use their own bandwidth.
How do the 10,000 others query him without getting to him? They have to get to his computer somehow. Thus...10,000 searches (at a time) going through the 1 client's bandwidth. (replace 10,000 with whatever number we're working with here).
Yes, I've seen lights on when i was on Napster. But all the searching was one directional--> To Napster's server. You're bypassing that now. So that means more bandwidth coming to me.
They cannot query everybody on the network. They can only query everyone they are connected to. So, modem users would obviously have a smaller connection pool compared to a DSL user.
Someone on a T1 connection may indeed be able to connect to just about everyone, but they would also have the bandwidth and memory to do so.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If a modem user can limit (or has to limit) the number of connections in his/her group, then how is it possible for a T1 user to have everyone in their group? Both cannot happen.
This is an idea friends and I have talked about. Allowing anyone with the resources to become more of a server, while other users connect to these various levels of servers. Reminds me a lot like IRC.
However, once you start doing this, the popular servers will get pressured from the RIAA and be forced to shut down.
So what sized machine/bandwidth are we talking about being able to handle being on the wide "backbone" you spoke of? I'm curious to see how many people out there would be able to be part of the backbone of the system. From what I've seen, the bandwidth is more important than the speed of the computer (the ratio of computaton vs. bandwidth being pretty small, so any decent computer could handle the computations). If only T1's were a requirement, then I'd see quite an inexhaustible supply of volunteers, but if it required more than a T3, then I see an easy target for the RIAA.
.... No, there is no batch. The query process is iterative, and can be halted, slowed, at any point in time.
What is an appropriate sized batch? 200 queries at once? 100? Seems like searches will take forever by stalling a query.
Sure, there are various criteria that indicate a bad or good peer. These include, among other things:
Wow, this seems like a lot of information to keep track of on the client side. Not only am I keeping track of every IP-node user out there, but I have to keeep track of it over time. In a napster-success scenario, I'd have 2 million entries to keep track of. Not only that, but it seems like a lot of wasted overhead? Even if a user doesn't have what I want, I have to compute statistics into his/her record each time.
... Any any ISP that cannot handle the bandwidth generated by a customer has much more major problems.
Um...look I'm just one user. Any searching done by me, yes, is only one person's activity. But I'm logging into a group of 10,000 active users? The ISP will have to handle 10,000 user requests of ME. And you can't reiterate the B.S. about throttling search requests. That's like saying there'll be less pee in the world if we all just pee'd slower.(yes, the only analogy I could think of. I'll brb, i gotta go P)
... No, each of these 'victims' would only receive a single 60 byte packet. This is the opposite of a DoS attack, as you are sending a large number of packets, but each peer is only receiving one of them.
Yea, each victim only gets ONE single 60 byte packet. FROM ME. But we're talking about 10,000 users doing the same, then ALL of them will be getting 10,000 packets.
There is only one thing in the back of my mind that would support where you're going with this information you're sharing...is that your research shows that 90% of the people connected are just connected to be nice, (went to bed, etc) and they're not active. Leaving a rotating 10% of active users. (active=searching)
Even at 60 bytes per packet, if you're
trying to send to 10000 nodes that's 600K. Then the replies start coming in - in clumps - further clogging that pipe.
Funny, I thought web servers acted this way...
A web server only sends out to it's 10,000 users. Those users aren't also web servers sending out 10,000 packets each. Web servers are getting away with murder compared to 10,000 searching ALIPINE users.
Because then you'd have iMesh.
A listing of what is online and offline. Mostly offline due to statistics.
How would you know what was available NOW? Not only that, but posting UP info isn't going to happen. Look at all the leeches that were on Napster. Not only that, but lets say people did try...they're still not going to reasonably post UP their changes all the time. Maybe we could automate it. But now you're never going to find Free anon web pages that can handle that.
Why don't we write a P2P program that just piggybacks on the power of IRC servers? This is a protocol that can't be shut down, and has decent scaling properties.
A front end could be written so that no one even has to know that the info is being sent through IRC on the back end.
Someone earlier mentioned that the RIAA/MPAA would close down all the P2P programs next. Well there's lots of technical arguments against that, I figure the only method left for the RIAA to take it to the next step is to start setting up sting operations.
They pose as under-cover traders (heheh) and they trade with you. Under Policy Act 5.4.11.c they log your illegal activity, turn it into a judge and then prosecute you at the $25,000 - $100,000 dollar fine for each copyright violation.
However, I think the mild trading done over the internet would be small fries compared to the assholes like me who trade 100's of albums at a time through the mail.
Makes sense to me. I'm going to write a book labeled "Whores through time" about an organization of hot babes that travel through time, and the minutes before a violent act, they pop in and seduce the perp.
No way they'd resist...Kill someone, or have hot sex...hmmm..
I don't see how. If a computer can connect to the internet (and thus other computers) there's really no stopping it.
Sure, some apps might get stopped, but that just means we move back to something less crude. (until the next version of something nice comes out again)
Yea, but what kind of advertisER would be interested in this? Probably a small market. I doubt Ford would care, Zit creams, etc. I mean how many markets out there will benefit from sending you obscure WHO info like you said?
I suppose the record companies would...but then we dont' really want to talk about helping them do we?
Good points. But as you said, "for a tinkerer" you wanted ISA. Then buy a motherboard with ISA. There are lots of different types of computer users out there, and some of them have multiple computers lying around, and some of them do wish for a non-ISA motherboard.
So I'm sure that as long as there's a market for putting an ISA slot in, some MFG's will continue to do so.
As long as there are options to buy boards with ISA slots on them, *I* want the option to buy boards with PCI only on them. Well, I guess this really isn't an argument until the MFG's take our choices away from us........see you then!:)
--If MS succeeds with its.NET vision, then thousands of programmers will have to spend a lot of time learning how to do the same things differently,
I'd have to disagree. I mean if you and the thousands of others are already programming in a Java environment in today's Microsoft-is-everywhere world, I can't imagine it would get worse 'tomorrow'.
.NET might be a creative marketing buzz word, but it's simply the next release of technology Microsoft already has out there. MTS/COM/COM+ framework, for example.
I guess I'm saying I don't see the war being fought via.NET. I see more impact coming from the O/S platform war, the server war, etc.
Plus, as companies grow & merge, they simply get bigger, needing bigger servers, hardware, etc. Microsoft wouldn't last a day in these companies. I figure that if you have plenty of jobs to choose from right now that are non-Microsoft, I can only imagine seeing the same tomorrow, or even more. Plus, this is the computer industry-- there will always be competition & new technologies to learn.
I really don't do internet trading much anymore. I have found that doing snail mail trades with Cd-r's is much faster, and allows for much huger trades than any sort of free downloading could offer. But it's not for everyone, everyone has different goals.
However, getting a single song on the spur of the moment was very easy with Napster. Since its demise (and I think it's a demise because I can hardly download anything from anyone now--and who knows why? It just fails. Plus it just hangs when I try to log in with anything over 2,000 songs shared. It used to handle 5,000+ no problem)...anyway, since its demise, I have checked a few others out. Audiogalaxy seems pretty low key. Aimster...looked promising, but after waiting months, they only got AIM buddies to work, not ICQ, and hardly anyone is on their server. Gnutella was fun for a while, but I like to also BROWSE lists...not knowing what I want till I see it. iMesh was always a joke. MojoNation was a pain in the ass.
I don't know where I'm going with this exactly, but I just want to say that Napster had key elements working for it that some people aren't mentioning here...
Power in numbers. There is always this "hump" that a new company has to get over: ever try a service...it looks good, but no one was there...so you leave? Process repeats? Napster...you show up. Everyone is there. You stick around. More people come, see you and everyone there, they stick around...etc.
People talk about Napster being easy to use. Then others say that other solutions are easy to use too. However, I state that when Napster first started out, not only was it easy to use, but it was quite reliable. In otherwords, if a person was "online" and their songs were available...there was a very high chance that you'd be able to download that song no problem. I just don't see that with services nowadays that link up ftp sites, etc.
How does one "not" try and sell out. And by that, I mean going public. Once a company goes public, they're no longer in charge...Suddenly doing good doesn't mean happy workers, benefits, world-peace. It means the stock keeps making the investor's happy.
As much as I dislike company's sacrificing life for a profit...I too would probably choose the low road if somehow I built a company from scratch, and had the opportunity to get out with millions of dollars as the result. The question is, wouldn't you too?
If you do go for a dual boot, and hard drive space is a concern (as others have mentioned might be a possibility) go with Win98Lite. Smaller, lighter, faster. You might not get all the bugs one hopes for with a full version, but such are the sacrifices one has to make.
Ok, these floppy stories reminded me of a horrible procedure I caught at a business...
I had told them that they should be keeping backup of their newspaper ads/articles on floppy in case the hard drive ever went out.
I come back half a year later, and find out that they ARE using the floppies. But as their own copy. Yep...all saves, opens, and live EDITS straight from the floppy! Nothing on the hard drive.
So after having a mild hear attack, I sat my dad down and explained the finer points of the computer...starting with the ON button.
Well, my only concern is that everything I've read so far is bypassable. (good word, huh)
You could go to BIOS and set the startup sequence to point to USB (for instance). However, the burglar could go into BIOS and change that around.
Ooh..but you say we could and admin password in BIOS. But Then the battery could be taken out and reset. No more password.
I heard from one paranoid mp3 person I know of just mounts his whole drive with some sort of encryption. And unmounts simply with a password. However, this seems like an application-level security which is the angle you'd take to hack this. Any suggestions?
Slashdot Mirror
But if a modem user can only have 200 people to be connected to, then only those 200 people can be connected to him. That means Even if I had a OC48 running and "could" handle everyone's connection, i'm still offlimits to the modem people that have already "picked" their 200 people.
If that's not the case, then maybe you're thinking that a modem person is only allowed to search 200 people's files, but can recieve searches from EVERYONE. That seems beckwards, since the network-hogging activity is the 1,000's of search requests you recieve.
Rader
Oh ok. But that means I start all over again with the "adaptive" process each time I 'log on'. Probably ok, since statistically I'd be getting a different group each time. (People ever realize how people in your Napster Hotlist were never on ever again)
I dont see your point. Each 10,000 ME's would have their own ISP, and would use their own bandwidth.
How do the 10,000 others query him without getting to him? They have to get to his computer somehow. Thus...10,000 searches (at a time) going through the 1 client's bandwidth. (replace 10,000 with whatever number we're working with here).
Yes, I've seen lights on when i was on Napster. But all the searching was one directional--> To Napster's server. You're bypassing that now. So that means more bandwidth coming to me.
Rader
Someone on a T1 connection may indeed be able to connect to just about everyone, but they would also have the bandwidth and memory to do so.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If a modem user can limit (or has to limit) the number of connections in his/her group, then how is it possible for a T1 user to have everyone in their group? Both cannot happen.
Rader
However, once you start doing this, the popular servers will get pressured from the RIAA and be forced to shut down.
So what sized machine/bandwidth are we talking about being able to handle being on the wide "backbone" you spoke of? I'm curious to see how many people out there would be able to be part of the backbone of the system. From what I've seen, the bandwidth is more important than the speed of the computer (the ratio of computaton vs. bandwidth being pretty small, so any decent computer could handle the computations). If only T1's were a requirement, then I'd see quite an inexhaustible supply of volunteers, but if it required more than a T3, then I see an easy target for the RIAA.
Rader
What is an appropriate sized batch? 200 queries at once? 100? Seems like searches will take forever by stalling a query.
Sure, there are various criteria that indicate a bad or good peer. These include, among other things:
Wow, this seems like a lot of information to keep track of on the client side. Not only am I keeping track of every IP-node user out there, but I have to keeep track of it over time. In a napster-success scenario, I'd have 2 million entries to keep track of. Not only that, but it seems like a lot of wasted overhead? Even if a user doesn't have what I want, I have to compute statistics into his/her record each time.
Um...look I'm just one user. Any searching done by me, yes, is only one person's activity. But I'm logging into a group of 10,000 active users? The ISP will have to handle 10,000 user requests of ME. And you can't reiterate the B.S. about throttling search requests. That's like saying there'll be less pee in the world if we all just pee'd slower.(yes, the only analogy I could think of. I'll brb, i gotta go P)
Rader
Yea, each victim only gets ONE single 60 byte packet. FROM ME. But we're talking about 10,000 users doing the same, then ALL of them will be getting 10,000 packets.
There is only one thing in the back of my mind that would support where you're going with this information you're sharing...is that your research shows that 90% of the people connected are just connected to be nice, (went to bed, etc) and they're not active. Leaving a rotating 10% of active users. (active=searching)
Rader
Funny, I thought web servers acted this way...
A web server only sends out to it's 10,000 users. Those users aren't also web servers sending out 10,000 packets each. Web servers are getting away with murder compared to 10,000 searching ALIPINE users.
Rader
A listing of what is online and offline. Mostly offline due to statistics.
How would you know what was available NOW? Not only that, but posting UP info isn't going to happen. Look at all the leeches that were on Napster. Not only that, but lets say people did try...they're still not going to reasonably post UP their changes all the time. Maybe we could automate it. But now you're never going to find Free anon web pages that can handle that.
Rader
A front end could be written so that no one even has to know that the info is being sent through IRC on the back end.
Rader
They pose as under-cover traders (heheh) and they trade with you. Under Policy Act 5.4.11.c they log your illegal activity, turn it into a judge and then prosecute you at the $25,000 - $100,000 dollar fine for each copyright violation.
However, I think the mild trading done over the internet would be small fries compared to the assholes like me who trade 100's of albums at a time through the mail.
Rader
No way they'd resist...Kill someone, or have hot sex...hmmm..
Problem solved. Till 10 minutes later .
Rader
Rader
Sure, some apps might get stopped, but that just means we move back to something less crude. (until the next version of something nice comes out again)
Rader
I am in awe.
THAT would be cool. I'd almost overlook the whole big brother thing if they did that :)
Rader
I suppose the record companies would...but then we dont' really want to talk about helping them do we?
Rader
So I'm sure that as long as there's a market for putting an ISA slot in, some MFG's will continue to do so.
As long as there are options to buy boards with ISA slots on them, *I* want the option to buy boards with PCI only on them. Well, I guess this really isn't an argument until the MFG's take our choices away from us........see you then! :)
Rader
--If MS succeeds with its
I'd have to disagree. I mean if you and the thousands of others are already programming in a Java environment in today's Microsoft-is-everywhere world, I can't imagine it would get worse 'tomorrow'.
I guess I'm saying I don't see the war being fought via .NET. I see more impact coming from the O/S platform war, the server war, etc.
Plus, as companies grow & merge, they simply get bigger, needing bigger servers, hardware, etc. Microsoft wouldn't last a day in these companies. I figure that if you have plenty of jobs to choose from right now that are non-Microsoft, I can only imagine seeing the same tomorrow, or even more. Plus, this is the computer industry-- there will always be competition & new technologies to learn.
Rader
However, getting a single song on the spur of the moment was very easy with Napster. Since its demise (and I think it's a demise because I can hardly download anything from anyone now--and who knows why? It just fails. Plus it just hangs when I try to log in with anything over 2,000 songs shared. It used to handle 5,000+ no problem)...anyway, since its demise, I have checked a few others out. Audiogalaxy seems pretty low key. Aimster...looked promising, but after waiting months, they only got AIM buddies to work, not ICQ, and hardly anyone is on their server. Gnutella was fun for a while, but I like to also BROWSE lists...not knowing what I want till I see it. iMesh was always a joke. MojoNation was a pain in the ass.
I don't know where I'm going with this exactly, but I just want to say that Napster had key elements working for it that some people aren't mentioning here...
Power in numbers. There is always this "hump" that a new company has to get over: ever try a service...it looks good, but no one was there...so you leave? Process repeats? Napster...you show up. Everyone is there. You stick around. More people come, see you and everyone there, they stick around...etc.
People talk about Napster being easy to use. Then others say that other solutions are easy to use too. However, I state that when Napster first started out, not only was it easy to use, but it was quite reliable. In otherwords, if a person was "online" and their songs were available...there was a very high chance that you'd be able to download that song no problem. I just don't see that with services nowadays that link up ftp sites, etc.
Rader
As much as I dislike company's sacrificing life for a profit...I too would probably choose the low road if somehow I built a company from scratch, and had the opportunity to get out with millions of dollars as the result. The question is, wouldn't you too?
Rader
Rader
I had told them that they should be keeping backup of their newspaper ads/articles on floppy in case the hard drive ever went out.
I come back half a year later, and find out that they ARE using the floppies. But as their own copy. Yep...all saves, opens, and live EDITS straight from the floppy! Nothing on the hard drive.
So after having a mild hear attack, I sat my dad down and explained the finer points of the computer...starting with the ON button.
Rader
You could go to BIOS and set the startup sequence to point to USB (for instance). However, the burglar could go into BIOS and change that around.
Ooh..but you say we could and admin password in BIOS. But Then the battery could be taken out and reset. No more password.
I heard from one paranoid mp3 person I know of just mounts his whole drive with some sort of encryption. And unmounts simply with a password. However, this seems like an application-level security which is the angle you'd take to hack this. Any suggestions?
Rader
Rader
Rader