"Listen to netradio, download music and mp3s..." [from a Bell HSE commercial].
If streaming 16 Kbyte/sec is "excessive" what's the point?
My whole point is this.
You have X bandwidth and L users. You determine that > X/L bandwidth is excessive. If you keep increasing L without increasing X, eventually even 1kb/sec will be "excessive". The problem is that you're greedy plain in simple. You want thousands of users and don't want to support them.
I agree there is some level of "excessive" but really anything under 150 kbit/sec is not excessive.
There are other ways to abuse an account. For example, opening 30 streams to the same file [like people to for 300kb files from my website]. That's a waste of bandwidth and annoying. Or how about random port scans?
If you want to help the "little bandwidth" issue try some of the following
1. When people try to open multiple ports at the same IP issue a delay. So if I try to open 10 ports at some IP it will take a while. Make the delay small [say under 100 ms] that way browsing is not slow but things like port scans are.
2. When multiple connections are made to the same IP quarter the bandwidth you allow. So if the user is allowed 1000kbit/sec and he opens 4 streams you give him (250/4)kbit/sec bandwidth. That will make normal "bigfile" downloads fast [i.e 1000kbit] and leaching slow.
3. If you must have a daily cap just do this.
For the first 150MB you get 100% of your bandwidth. For the next 150MB you get 50%, for the next 150MB you get 25% and anything else you get 15%.
That way the connection won't die but it will prevent long term big downloads. Of course make sure that 15% is big enough for things like netradio [128kbit/sec].
Things not todo
1. Daily caps that just cut them off
2. Disallow out/in ports.
For example. If I share a 500mb file on my website on my cable modem. And you download it. is that abuse?
If you ping my server 10000 times a second, is that abuse?
There is a big difference! If I intentionally take bandwidth for legitimate uses [like sharing my programming work on my website] then what should you care?
If I go out and start ping flooding people, yeah sure that's abuse and you should have every right to cut me off.
Again it gets downto the sole fact that ISPs want to be known to give out "100 Mbps connection!" but completely deny you from using that speed.
I'd much rather my ISP told me... you're getting 1Mbps or 1.5Mbps [etc] and just keep it at that.
Personally 128kbyte/sec download is plenty fast for me...[recalls days of running mail servers for renegade over a 9600baud...]
People just have to get realistic about the bandwidth they want. 512kbyte/sec is not better if you can only download between the hours of 3am and 4am on every third wednesdays [etc] in the name of "being affordable" and "economical"
Question. What is wrong with acting like a server? I mean I'm paying for the up/down bandwidth. That means I can use it for whatever I want. That includes serving HTTP/FTP data.
What really makes my HTTP server different then say running ICQ which essentially acts like a server receiving incomming packets from users etc..
Or are we getting to a point where the only purpose of having a net connection is to download stuff and not share anything?
Which gets back to the original point. Quantum computing is just a way to sieve multiple solutions in parallel. Much akin to the idea of DNA Computing.
Think of a beowolf cluster of 1,000,000 athlons at 1.4ghz compared to a single 486 60mhz. The time per solution is hugely different even if the exact same binary program is used to solve the problem.
Also QC does not break any barriers related to NP != P. If a QC computer works this does not change. It just means some NP problems become faster to solve.
That's a better solution if you are some sort of mean loser.
Sure lets rob 15 yr old kids out of their HMV jobs to protest! That's smart!
True solution is just not to buy them. That way stores will lose less money when they write off their stock of Universal cds and move on. Instead of forcing them to pay more.
Again this is a totally lame position. For starters, bugs appear in Netscape/mozilla just as frequently as in IE. It just happens that IE is used more so its bigger news.
Second the idea of using MSHTML is actually smart. Why would I re-invent the wheel each time I write an app that loads HTML pages to the screen? I say lets abolish the entire concept of loadable libraries and just statically link everything! No reason ICQ should be under 50MB anyways...
If I was a concerned developer I would start my own HTML.DLL project then re-use that.
The trick is to keep updating your windows install. And don't tell me you don't have todo that in Linux because I read on slashdot about the "kernel of the week", etc...
My point is that MSVC is designed to not only compile code well [admitedly only for x86] but also makes it easy to use.
Try to explain how to install and use DJGPP to a teen. It took me [when I was 15] about a week or two of work to figure out how GCC works.
Don't get me wrong, I love GCC. I use MingW32 all the time since its generally more uptodate. But if I want to use a more organized system I don't choose to use a GCC suite [like cygwin or mingw] I will use LCC-Win32 or something.
Now, yes, I know GCC is not a complete suite of tools. I'm saying the tools bundled with GCC [like the cygwin or mingw packages] don't include useful guis or anything.
As for emacs, well I have never used it. Personally I am a fan of simple edit boxes. I like the color highlighting and the API popups. Anything else [macros for example] are just not features I would use to enter text into a box...
Getting back to my original point. Programs like MSVC and LCC-Win32 are "closed source" and are more geared towards actually *using* the systems. Both packages [lccwin32 is free btw] include clean and simple gui editors that make project management simple.
Packages like mingw or cygwin [which are the types of OSS packages most zealots here support] are complete from a compiler point of view but they lack editors and other useful integrated tools [resource editors for example].
Basically GNU-like OS software is not always geared towards actually being used, often just working is sufficient.
Again new programs can choose not to use mshtml.dll and can use your own "myownhtml.dll" if you will.
The fact that IE is already there is not a monopoly. MS is not stopping you from using other browsers [I'm typing this into mozilla on w2k].
Think about it. I spend 150$ on a full copy of w2k or w98 or something. I think I would rather have programs like MS IE and WMP packed with it thank you very much.
Programs like Word Perfect/Lotus 1-2-3 had their times. They didn't keep up with the user friendlyness curve. For example, at school we have both MS Word and Wordperfect 8. MS Word has a much more natural user interface than WordPerfect does.
As for Lotus 1-2-3, AMi Pro, etc... most of my desktop work [in that area] involves word processing only.
If you want to compare my side of things lets look at compilers. MSVC is fairly solid and optimizes well. GCC is the next in line competitor [I feel]. Cygwin for example is a rather complete [minus an IDE] distribution that is gaining popularity.
The only closest competitor that I know of is LCC-Win32 which has a very friendly IDE and is a small download [3MB]. Next in line is Dev-C++ which is a bad hack of MingW32 and lacks a simple interface.
See the problem is that MS is making their programs easier to use and more friendly. Most MS development tools for example have color highlighted syntax, and popups for API syntax, etc...
I'm sorry but a shell prompt with "vi" doesn't compare!
Wow that's very patriotic. How about this idea. Why not form a consumer advocacy group that will publicly make available all of Verizons short commings. Sure they will make money off basic phone lines but off the exotic stuff like cell phones, text messenging, call forwarding, etc.. People will decided "they can live without them" if the service sucks.
Like another poster said, things like gas/telephone/water/power should not be in a open market. They should all be "grade-A" services regardless of who provides it. As such it should matter little the name of the company.
I think if for example Verizon becomes a monopoly and they screw up big time then the Government can step in and ensure it maintains a level of service.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok now for the slam dunk.
"Listen to netradio, download music and mp3s..." [from a Bell HSE commercial].
If streaming 16 Kbyte/sec is "excessive" what's the point?
My whole point is this.
You have X bandwidth and L users. You determine that > X/L bandwidth is excessive. If you keep increasing L without increasing X, eventually even 1kb/sec will be "excessive". The problem is that you're greedy plain in simple. You want thousands of users and don't want to support them.
I agree there is some level of "excessive" but really anything under 150 kbit/sec is not excessive.
There are other ways to abuse an account. For example, opening 30 streams to the same file [like people to for 300kb files from my website]. That's a waste of bandwidth and annoying. Or how about random port scans?
If you want to help the "little bandwidth" issue try some of the following
1. When people try to open multiple ports at the same IP issue a delay. So if I try to open 10 ports at some IP it will take a while. Make the delay small [say under 100 ms] that way browsing is not slow but things like port scans are.
2. When multiple connections are made to the same IP quarter the bandwidth you allow. So if the user is allowed 1000kbit/sec and he opens 4 streams you give him (250/4)kbit/sec bandwidth. That will make normal "bigfile" downloads fast [i.e 1000kbit] and leaching slow.
3. If you must have a daily cap just do this.
For the first 150MB you get 100% of your bandwidth. For the next 150MB you get 50%, for the next 150MB you get 25% and anything else you get 15%.
That way the connection won't die but it will prevent long term big downloads. Of course make sure that 15% is big enough for things like netradio [128kbit/sec].
Things not todo
1. Daily caps that just cut them off
2. Disallow out/in ports.
Tom
"Constant" versus "sporadic" is very subjective.
What do you deem sporadic? Is a 128kbit audio stream excessive?
Is it excessive when you have twice as many users? Four times as many?
Tom
What one calls "abuse" others call "use".
For example. If I share a 500mb file on my website on my cable modem. And you download it. is that abuse?
If you ping my server 10000 times a second, is that abuse?
There is a big difference! If I intentionally take bandwidth for legitimate uses [like sharing my programming work on my website] then what should you care?
If I go out and start ping flooding people, yeah sure that's abuse and you should have every right to cut me off.
Again it gets downto the sole fact that ISPs want to be known to give out "100 Mbps connection!" but completely deny you from using that speed.
I'd much rather my ISP told me... you're getting 1Mbps or 1.5Mbps [etc] and just keep it at that.
Personally 128kbyte/sec download is plenty fast for me...[recalls days of running mail servers for renegade over a 9600baud...]
People just have to get realistic about the bandwidth they want. 512kbyte/sec is not better if you can only download between the hours of 3am and 4am on every third wednesdays [etc] in the name of "being affordable" and "economical"
Tom
Or perhaps they should not offer bandwidth they don't have.
The only reason to throttle anything is because you're trying to host too many users. If ISPs were not greedy this would work out.
I'd much rather be limited to 1.5mbps/512kbps then have random ports disconnected and also have incomming packets blocked.
Of course that's because I live in a free society... [well not really but you get the point]
Question. What is wrong with acting like a server? I mean I'm paying for the up/down bandwidth. That means I can use it for whatever I want. That includes serving HTTP/FTP data.
What really makes my HTTP server different then say running ICQ which essentially acts like a server receiving incomming packets from users etc..
Or are we getting to a point where the only purpose of having a net connection is to download stuff and not share anything?
The point is [which you obviously missed] is that you can download certain things quickly and others long and drawn out.
Seems somewhat reasonable. I'd put the cap at around 300MB or so though since listening to a shoutcast stream could kill 150mb in about 3 hours...
The point is that you're suppose to share your connection with others. Possibly a concept foreign to most dorks around here.
Ideally the users would be responsible and such caps would not be required...
IE supports other esoteric filters...
for example
if TO: doesn't not contain _____
if the size is ____
if it has an attachment _____
That means I can setup IE to delete all emails with attachments from people I don't know. [for instance].
And for USENET you're right there are no filters in Mozilla. That's a pain in the buttocks!
Other than that Mozilla is nice.
What mozilla seriously lacks is good filters for usenet/email.
I think IE wins that battle hands down since it catches virtually all usenet trolls and email spam with the filters I set up.
Wierd solitaire *does* crash when you do that on my w2k box too...
Whoa learn something every day...
Me good speak english. Touche.
Am the only one to notice that it should be "than" instead of "that"
Closer Than you think
not "closer that you think"
Which gets back to the original point. Quantum computing is just a way to sieve multiple solutions in parallel. Much akin to the idea of DNA Computing.
Think of a beowolf cluster of 1,000,000 athlons at 1.4ghz compared to a single 486 60mhz. The time per solution is hugely different even if the exact same binary program is used to solve the problem.
Also QC does not break any barriers related to NP != P. If a QC computer works this does not change. It just means some NP problems become faster to solve.
Tom
Well for starters the time will not be the same. Also the complexity of factoring a 256 bit number is amazingly higher than factoring a 4-bit number.
Tom
That's a better solution if you are some sort of mean loser.
Sure lets rob 15 yr old kids out of their HMV jobs to protest! That's smart!
True solution is just not to buy them. That way stores will lose less money when they write off their stock of Universal cds and move on. Instead of forcing them to pay more.
Tom
Again this is a totally lame position. For starters, bugs appear in Netscape/mozilla just as frequently as in IE. It just happens that IE is used more so its bigger news.
Second the idea of using MSHTML is actually smart. Why would I re-invent the wheel each time I write an app that loads HTML pages to the screen? I say lets abolish the entire concept of loadable libraries and just statically link everything! No reason ICQ should be under 50MB anyways...
If I was a concerned developer I would start my own HTML.DLL project then re-use that.
The trick is to keep updating your windows install. And don't tell me you don't have todo that in Linux because I read on slashdot about the "kernel of the week", etc...
My point is that MSVC is designed to not only compile code well [admitedly only for x86] but also makes it easy to use.
Try to explain how to install and use DJGPP to a teen. It took me [when I was 15] about a week or two of work to figure out how GCC works.
Don't get me wrong, I love GCC. I use MingW32 all the time since its generally more uptodate. But if I want to use a more organized system I don't choose to use a GCC suite [like cygwin or mingw] I will use LCC-Win32 or something.
Now, yes, I know GCC is not a complete suite of tools. I'm saying the tools bundled with GCC [like the cygwin or mingw packages] don't include useful guis or anything.
As for emacs, well I have never used it. Personally I am a fan of simple edit boxes. I like the color highlighting and the API popups. Anything else [macros for example] are just not features I would use to enter text into a box...
Getting back to my original point. Programs like MSVC and LCC-Win32 are "closed source" and are more geared towards actually *using* the systems. Both packages [lccwin32 is free btw] include clean and simple gui editors that make project management simple.
Packages like mingw or cygwin [which are the types of OSS packages most zealots here support] are complete from a compiler point of view but they lack editors and other useful integrated tools [resource editors for example].
Basically GNU-like OS software is not always geared towards actually being used, often just working is sufficient.
Tom
Again new programs can choose not to use mshtml.dll and can use your own "myownhtml.dll" if you will.
The fact that IE is already there is not a monopoly. MS is not stopping you from using other browsers [I'm typing this into mozilla on w2k].
Think about it. I spend 150$ on a full copy of w2k or w98 or something. I think I would rather have programs like MS IE and WMP packed with it thank you very much.
Tom
What are you suggesting here.
That OS/2, Lotus 1-2-3, etc...
are all competitors for MS?
Programs like Word Perfect/Lotus 1-2-3 had their times. They didn't keep up with the user friendlyness curve. For example, at school we have both MS Word and Wordperfect 8. MS Word has a much more natural user interface than WordPerfect does.
As for Lotus 1-2-3, AMi Pro, etc... most of my desktop work [in that area] involves word processing only.
If you want to compare my side of things lets look at compilers. MSVC is fairly solid and optimizes well. GCC is the next in line competitor [I feel]. Cygwin for example is a rather complete [minus an IDE] distribution that is gaining popularity.
The only closest competitor that I know of is LCC-Win32 which has a very friendly IDE and is a small download [3MB]. Next in line is Dev-C++ which is a bad hack of MingW32 and lacks a simple interface.
See the problem is that MS is making their programs easier to use and more friendly. Most MS development tools for example have color highlighted syntax, and popups for API syntax, etc...
I'm sorry but a shell prompt with "vi" doesn't compare!
Not really. If you're browser has a reputation as being more secure and bug free than you could sell that.
The problem is that Netscape/Mozilla is really no better [and its free].
There is nothing stopping you from making a new browser, make it bug free, secure, and sell it for say 15$ or something.
Tom
6123.... I know you are but what am I? 6123
1234...I know you are but what am I?...1234
I know you are but what am I?
You still haven't answered the question.
If MS is a monopoly what is its closest competitor?
You can call me names all you want. But your inability to answer this question proves my point.
Have a nice and happy holiday and please don't dwell on this thread.
Wow that's very patriotic. How about this idea. Why not form a consumer advocacy group that will publicly make available all of Verizons short commings. Sure they will make money off basic phone lines but off the exotic stuff like cell phones, text messenging, call forwarding, etc.. People will decided "they can live without them" if the service sucks.
Like another poster said, things like gas/telephone/water/power should not be in a open market. They should all be "grade-A" services regardless of who provides it. As such it should matter little the name of the company.
I think if for example Verizon becomes a monopoly and they screw up big time then the Government can step in and ensure it maintains a level of service.
Tom
See, thats the type of very sensible argument I was expecting.
Of course Linux is better because i'm a "fucking idiot" [sic]. Of course when you put it that way I see that my points are all invalid.
I will now shut down my Apache served Perl processed website off my Windows2K box and install linux. [regardless of how many drivers don't work!]
Tom