Further, the data collection system is designed specifically so it is impossible for TiVo to find out what a specific person did -- the data is anonymous and aggregated.
NFS -- not gonna work too well when you've got two semi-brain-dead users and one is trying to send the other a huge excel spreadsheet. They're lucky to be able to spell NFS, let alone get it working in a windows environment...
Using windows sharing is possible, but have you ever tried to get it working on a computer that belongs to one of my previously mentioned semi-brain-dead users? Especially if you can't actually walk up to their PC and do it for them.
Never mind the case where the file I want is on a cretin's desktop, and I'm logged into a Linux desktop that has been specifically denied access to the Windows Domain for "security reasons".
IBM's uServ seems to address this nicely -- the company sets up the uServ servers, and installs a nice application on the users' desktops. I ask the user to please "Share" the file I want, and he emails me the URL -- no fuss, no teaching him how to do anything. Seems like a good product to me...
Read the article. Propagation isn't the goal here -- all the system allows for are hot backups in case you turn off your computer, and you have to explicitly set them up.
The intent of this system is for sharing anything -- pictures, sound clips, etc -- that you want *specific* people to look at.
You share something, then you tell the person how to get to it.
(And to the person who modded the previous post "Informative" -- for shame!)
The concept is that average-joe can "serve" a file to his friends, without needing to understand how to install or configure a webserver. And he doesn't need to know his IP address (or even what an IP is).
I think what the writers of the whitepaper wanted to do was to suggest possible uses for their tech. Remember, they're just paid to research this stuff -- they're not the ones who decided what to do with it. All of us on the net are the ones who find the use for new tech.
These guys have only slightly hinted at it being possible to charge a miniscule amount for the service, and Slashdot readers are up-in-arms about evil subscription costs. Chill out a bit -- let's wait to see an internet (as opposed to intranet) implementation before complaining about fees.
It really seems to me like the IBM researchers *want* the free dynDNS services to add this to their service offering, which would make it a free service.
In a standard corporate intranet, what is the preferred method to share files between end users? Far as I can tell, there isn't one. That's the point. Same goes with home users.
Sure, we can email things. But, as pointed out in the whitepaper, this uses third-party resources -- a mail server.
FTP? Ok, you teach joe computer user to ftp a file to you -- oh, where are you gonna put it? You need a server somewhere to put it on.
This thing is designed for average computer users who want to share stuff -- like pictures and log files -- but don't want to take the time to install a web server (or can't tackle the learning curve, or can't install a web server because they've got no static IP, etc, etc.)
Have a read of the whitepaper linked in the article. It's actually quite a neat idea.
Yes, your point is valid, and I hope some others reading this realize that they *need* to stay within whatever TOS they've got with their ISP. That said, however, there are still a lot of broadband connections out there that don't prevent this sort of thing -- like T1 lines and leased lines and the like. Though the article doesn't come out and say it, it looks like this guy is sharing the sort of bandwidth I'm talking about, and not a cable modem.
It's fundamentally not very different, however I believe it *will* create large problems. What this changes is the procedure for transferring TV into a PC (and subsequently anywhere else). Until now, this was a laborious process, whereas with this software, it is much easier. So, I fear that this could very well be attacked as an 'enabler' for copyright infringement and piracy. We'll just have to sit back and see what the MPAA, etc., have to say about it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they can't tell what commercials you watch. They can tell what things anonymous people do -- the stats are not tied to the accounts.
Yes, you can opt out.
Further, the data collection system is designed specifically so it is impossible for TiVo to find out what a specific person did -- the data is anonymous and aggregated.
My Sprint PCS phone here in the states allows me to log in to AIM...
Unfortunately, per-minute charges apply, which makes it much easier to just call the person I want to talk to...
Are you really an idiot?
Had you read the writeup (not even the article), you would realize that this story is about a guy LEAVING Microsoft to work for the government.
Anybody care to explain why this got modded up to 3?
NFS -- not gonna work too well when you've got two semi-brain-dead users and one is trying to send the other a huge excel spreadsheet. They're lucky to be able to spell NFS, let alone get it working in a windows environment...
Using windows sharing is possible, but have you ever tried to get it working on a computer that belongs to one of my previously mentioned semi-brain-dead users? Especially if you can't actually walk up to their PC and do it for them.
Never mind the case where the file I want is on a cretin's desktop, and I'm logged into a Linux desktop that has been specifically denied access to the Windows Domain for "security reasons".
IBM's uServ seems to address this nicely -- the company sets up the uServ servers, and installs a nice application on the users' desktops. I ask the user to please "Share" the file I want, and he emails me the URL -- no fuss, no teaching him how to do anything. Seems like a good product to me...
Read the article. Propagation isn't the goal here -- all the system allows for are hot backups in case you turn off your computer, and you have to explicitly set them up.
The intent of this system is for sharing anything -- pictures, sound clips, etc -- that you want *specific* people to look at.
You share something, then you tell the person how to get to it.
(And to the person who modded the previous post "Informative" -- for shame!)
Remember -- this isn't trying to be freenet.
The concept is that average-joe can "serve" a file to his friends, without needing to understand how to install or configure a webserver. And he doesn't need to know his IP address (or even what an IP is).
I think what the writers of the whitepaper wanted to do was to suggest possible uses for their tech. Remember, they're just paid to research this stuff -- they're not the ones who decided what to do with it. All of us on the net are the ones who find the use for new tech.
These guys have only slightly hinted at it being possible to charge a miniscule amount for the service, and Slashdot readers are up-in-arms about evil subscription costs. Chill out a bit -- let's wait to see an internet (as opposed to intranet) implementation before complaining about fees.
It really seems to me like the IBM researchers *want* the free dynDNS services to add this to their service offering, which would make it a free service.
In a standard corporate intranet, what is the preferred method to share files between end users? Far as I can tell, there isn't one. That's the point. Same goes with home users.
Sure, we can email things. But, as pointed out in the whitepaper, this uses third-party resources -- a mail server.
FTP? Ok, you teach joe computer user to ftp a file to you -- oh, where are you gonna put it? You need a server somewhere to put it on.
This thing is designed for average computer users who want to share stuff -- like pictures and log files -- but don't want to take the time to install a web server (or can't tackle the learning curve, or can't install a web server because they've got no static IP, etc, etc.)
Have a read of the whitepaper linked in the article. It's actually quite a neat idea.
Wil - do you think they purposely edited it to make you come off as a jerk?
The only non-pretentious words of yours they aired were your comments after being voted off.
BN
Did it actually ever occur to you that you could go to another school?
(Yes, I know, don't feed the trolls. Feh.)
Yes, your point is valid, and I hope some others reading this realize that they *need* to stay within whatever TOS they've got with their ISP. That said, however, there are still a lot of broadband connections out there that don't prevent this sort of thing -- like T1 lines and leased lines and the like. Though the article doesn't come out and say it, it looks like this guy is sharing the sort of bandwidth I'm talking about, and not a cable modem.
It's fundamentally not very different, however I believe it *will* create large problems. What this changes is the procedure for transferring TV into a PC (and subsequently anywhere else). Until now, this was a laborious process, whereas with this software, it is much easier. So, I fear that this could very well be attacked as an 'enabler' for copyright infringement and piracy. We'll just have to sit back and see what the MPAA, etc., have to say about it.
Gotta love google... http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:NSB-lq3OTUY:r esearch.microsoft.com/msripv6/fnord.htm+&hl=en