this will make people running distributed computing like SETI or Folding@Home drool all over the keyboard.
Seem to be rather soon to me, some weeks ago some news sites told that Intel had "some problems" with heat in multicore processors, and now there aren't? I think it's just promotional and nothing more, just a way to make Intel fans wait longer instead jumping to AMD dual core 64 bits cpus to be released in the second half of this year.
By the way, most of the software available today is single-threaded and just a few "pro" apps can take advantage of two processors on a system. Are people really thinking that buying a dual-core cpu will make their system fly or something? It won't! Buying a SSE3 enabled CPU doesn't mean a thing if the software doesn't use those instructions!
People are thinking in 64bit dual cores, but developers aren't. just that.
With all the "MS world" filled with virus, worms and spyware they want to limit access to patches and updates? Seems a bad policy to me, it will only make things worse.
Imagine people that after an infection can't enter in Microsoft Update because the virus has tampered with the OS validation or whatever. A forever insecure machine asking to be converted to a zombie pc to spam everybody. Or something like this, just use your imagination.
This makes me thing in the new tools MS is developing like an antispyware or an antivirus. All this put those things into new perspective. "Be legal or be infected! Subscribe to MS antivirus..."
Disable WinXP unwanted 'features', a firewall, an anti-virus, anti-spyware, GPG encryption, a good password policy, avoiding unsecure software (like IE, use Mozilla or firefox) some knowledge about all those things work together and, most important, common sense (don't open strange e-mails from people you don't know, good rules for your firewall, and things like that). With that I've never had a virus or spyware. I think this is secure enough except if the NSA goes after you.
Even better, it's easy to do all this using just freeware software.
Is not possible to add a new header to email, something like "X-Signature" that contains a signature of the whole email encrypted with a key like "destinyemailaddr@mydomain.com-senderaddr@hisdomai n.com"? Something like a message-digest (MD5, SHA-1... etc). I mean, someting that takes about 5-10 sec to compute in an ordinary computer. Using that we could filter email very easily (if the email has not that signature or if it's invalid, just reject it, if it's valid, pass through a bayesian spam filter). That way an owned computer will only send 6-12 emails a minute, not thousands. Or thousands of invalid-to-be-easily-rejected emails. In a case like this I will wait 5-10 seconds per email just to have a cleaner inbox, instead an inbox with 80% of spam. Maybe mr spammer can buy a very powerfull computer to generate valid signatures and send spam fast, but because most of the spam comes from zombie pcs that are not beowulfs... Should not end with spam, but probably will make a smaller problem for us.
I think our problem is just the point of view, maybe I'm being more realist. I really want your business to work, it will not made me a criminal, while in the actual situation I am. But if there is a solution, it's not yours, and I must admit that you're closer than anyone i've seen and that I will look "bitmunk" closely to see how it advances. But...
"An artist can set a price of zero." Mr "nobody_in_the_music_world" maybe can do that, Mr "Sony" and Mr "Warner" surely won't. And this is another problem to (for example) the music industry. Mr Springsteen can't set his own prices because that is not in his contract. Solution? To be independent, and leave Sony and Warner out of the equation (more profit for established artists). Will that powerfull corporations give away their portion of the pie so easily? Don't think so. They won't back your solution, and you need they to back this.
"why would we try and favor any particular one? " The same way videogames producers pay videogame stores "space" in the shelves. The store too want to sell as much as possible, but get paid to put "some" game here and not there. In your system can be to ban a competitor with the price or to be the first option in the list when a user searchs in your system for a file. Amazon works this way too. Only Google seems to be free of this kind of product promotion.
"We obviously cannot make it all open source for the reason you have just stated." Propietary protocol (closed source) then.
"Once most people start trading on Bitmunk, you won't see these kind of license restrictions because they won't be necessary." This law apply nowadays, and you will need it to change "before" and not "after" bitmunk starts.
"We do get permission from the artist before anything is allowed to be sold on the network. What is wrong with that?." That's not on you more that's on your users, they sell too, they need a license too that says that they can win money with that IP. Nowadays law doesn't allow that. We're labeled just as "consumers" (maybe your system could change that).
I agree with the rest of your post, in fact I was trying to explain why networks like eMule apply to me. The fact is that on paper, how your system manages prices it's fair, but on real world even if the system is fair to "seller" and "buyer", both must to be fair to each other. And something tells me that big sellers like Warner won't. I'm in the position of "they won't" and that's the reason your network doesn't apply to me.
One thing more, as I said earlier, I will watch bitmunk (damn! I always write chipmunk in the first place:-) closely. For me it's the first time I see a P2P effort that seems to try to solve the problem to both users and corporations. But that means you're fighting with both, that's why you have my respect.
I know that this works like Amazon+eBay+eMule (every human creation with dynamic price to share it), but what I'm trying to say it's that it's design seems flawed to me, and that I will never leave eMule network if this is all you have to offer. No offense, It just doen't appeal to me.
Don't get me wrong, like the average joe user, this is what i see:
Free: (...)just like the artist does. The total will be the actual price Except if the artist wants it to be free and set 0$ too. So it's not free.
Serverless : (...)there's a central server that set "default" or base prices. This gives the owner of the server the ability to set very high prices to items he wants to ban from the network, or to "favor" some items againt others.
Open Source : There will be a single client (...). Not if it's open source, this is a contradiction. If you release the code of the client anyone can see how the protocol works and create a free server, and you don't want it because there must be only one "central" server.
IP : There's no need to adapt IP to make this work, our model already does it. Quote from a CD: Unauthorised copying hiring lending public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited! (Tubular Bells 2003, that in fact it's copy protected against digital copy and I can't listen in my portable MP3 player) You'll need to get permission from the music industry to do this, as well as all users of your network. Your model really it's an advance over illegal P2P networks, but does not give you permission from the authors just because seems to be legal.
As I said, this doesn't appeal to me. If you were wondering, I do buy CD, DVD and a lot of other things from authors I respect, even if it's protected against digital copy. But eMule gives me another choice if I think that the price it's not fair. Industry doesn't give me a refund if I go to cinema to see a film and I don't like it. I will pay 10$ to see the extended version of "Return of the king" in a cinema, but not even 1$ to see "SW: Episode III". I do care about this, the industry don't. And my position doesn't have much to do with your system. Your system it's not fair to the users, just to the industry.
In fact i did, in depth. But again I say this was born dead. Talk to the average "Joe User" (like me) and you'll see. I don't like it.
People wants a free (as in beer, not speech:-) serverless, reliable, open source and fast file-sharing system. And the owners of the IP need to adapt themselves to this kind of system or try to compete with it.
About "selling" others IP, I'm not a lawyer, but probably the owners of those IP won't allow me or others to win money. They want to squeeze every buck. I really want to see what the music industry has to say about this.
Btw. What happens if I want to sell an album for let's say... 0$. Will the system allow me? Because if the system does not control it's users... or does it? DRM?
Look, I don't thing you're 'evil' the same way as Microsoft or SCO... maybe you have good intentions and try to search a solution. But this it's not a good idea. It won't work.
Users won't accept it, and neither will the music, film or tv industry. That's why i say this child was born dead.
Nobody will give away his/her freedom using that kind of program. The only way to stop file sharing programs will be a complete monitoring of internet (bwahahahahha.... sniff... sorry, where was I?). The other way is to monitor users with protection schemes in the OS (Windows probably, Linux I doubt it) or by hardware (i doubt it too, remember the problem Intel had years ago with it's "96-bit Processor serial number"?). There's not a way to stop file sharing now, except to enforce a global internet monitoring (ISP's blocking number of connections per second? I dunno...) There's not a easy way out of this problem to IP companies in my point of view except to impose 1984-like rules or to try to compete in price with file-sharing. This kind of file sharing program was born dead. (Sorry about my english, i bet it's better than your spanish:-).
Slashdot Mirror
this will make people running distributed computing like SETI or Folding@Home drool all over the keyboard.
Seem to be rather soon to me, some weeks ago some news sites told that Intel had "some problems" with heat in multicore processors, and now there aren't? I think it's just promotional and nothing more, just a way to make Intel fans wait longer instead jumping to AMD dual core 64 bits cpus to be released in the second half of this year.
By the way, most of the software available today is single-threaded and just a few "pro" apps can take advantage of two processors on a system. Are people really thinking that buying a dual-core cpu will make their system fly or something? It won't! Buying a SSE3 enabled CPU doesn't mean a thing if the software doesn't use those instructions!
People are thinking in 64bit dual cores, but developers aren't. just that.
"Redmond has the best cannabis in the whole world".
Man, look at those "statements"... 'passport'? Pffffff.
With all the "MS world" filled with virus, worms and spyware they want to limit access to patches and updates? Seems a bad policy to me, it will only make things worse.
Imagine people that after an infection can't enter in Microsoft Update because the virus has tampered with the OS validation or whatever. A forever insecure machine asking to be converted to a zombie pc to spam everybody. Or something like this, just use your imagination.
This makes me thing in the new tools MS is developing like an antispyware or an antivirus. All this put those things into new perspective. "Be legal or be infected! Subscribe to MS antivirus..."
Disable WinXP unwanted 'features', a firewall, an anti-virus, anti-spyware, GPG encryption, a good password policy, avoiding unsecure software (like IE, use Mozilla or firefox) some knowledge about all those things work together and, most important, common sense (don't open strange e-mails from people you don't know, good rules for your firewall, and things like that). With that I've never had a virus or spyware. I think this is secure enough except if the NSA goes after you.
Even better, it's easy to do all this using just freeware software.
if it were the complete linux 2.6 kernel source code... that's interesting!
Is not possible to add a new header to email, something like "X-Signature" that contains a signature of the whole email encrypted with a key like "destinyemailaddr@mydomain.com-senderaddr@hisdomai n.com"?
Something like a message-digest (MD5, SHA-1... etc). I mean, someting that takes about 5-10 sec to compute in an ordinary computer. Using that we could filter email very easily (if the email has not that signature or if it's invalid, just reject it, if it's valid, pass through a bayesian spam filter). That way an owned computer will only send 6-12 emails a minute, not thousands. Or thousands of invalid-to-be-easily-rejected emails.
In a case like this I will wait 5-10 seconds per email just to have a cleaner inbox, instead an inbox with 80% of spam.
Maybe mr spammer can buy a very powerfull computer to generate valid signatures and send spam fast, but because most of the spam comes from zombie pcs that are not beowulfs... Should not end with spam, but probably will make a smaller problem for us.
I think our problem is just the point of view, maybe I'm being more realist. I really want your business to work, it will not made me a criminal, while in the actual situation I am. But if there is a solution, it's not yours, and I must admit that you're closer than anyone i've seen and that I will look "bitmunk" closely to see how it advances. But...
:-) closely. For me it's the first time I see a P2P effort that seems to try to solve the problem to both users and corporations. But that means you're fighting with both, that's why you have my respect.
"An artist can set a price of zero."
Mr "nobody_in_the_music_world" maybe can do that, Mr "Sony" and Mr "Warner" surely won't. And this is another problem to (for example) the music industry. Mr Springsteen can't set his own prices because that is not in his contract. Solution? To be independent, and leave Sony and Warner out of the equation (more profit for established artists). Will that powerfull corporations give away their portion of the pie so easily? Don't think so. They won't back your solution, and you need they to back this.
"why would we try and favor any particular one? "
The same way videogames producers pay videogame stores "space" in the shelves. The store too want to sell as much as possible, but get paid to put "some" game here and not there. In your system can be to ban a competitor with the price or to be the first option in the list when a user searchs in your system for a file. Amazon works this way too.
Only Google seems to be free of this kind of product promotion.
"We obviously cannot make it all open source for the reason you have just stated."
Propietary protocol (closed source) then.
"Once most people start trading on Bitmunk, you won't see these kind of license restrictions because they won't be necessary."
This law apply nowadays, and you will need it to change "before" and not "after" bitmunk starts.
"We do get permission from the artist before anything is allowed to be sold on the network. What is wrong with that?."
That's not on you more that's on your users, they sell too, they need a license too that says that they can win money with that IP. Nowadays law doesn't allow that. We're labeled just as "consumers" (maybe your system could change that).
I agree with the rest of your post, in fact I was trying to explain why networks like eMule apply to me. The fact is that on paper, how your system manages prices it's fair, but on real world even if the system is fair to "seller" and "buyer", both must to be fair to each other. And something tells me that big sellers like Warner won't. I'm in the position of "they won't" and that's the reason your network doesn't apply to me.
One thing more, as I said earlier, I will watch bitmunk (damn! I always write chipmunk in the first place
I know that this works like Amazon+eBay+eMule (every human creation with dynamic price to share it), but what I'm trying to say it's that it's design seems flawed to me, and that I will never leave eMule network if this is all you have to offer. No offense, It just doen't appeal to me.
Don't get me wrong, like the average joe user, this is what i see:
Free: (...)just like the artist does. The total will be the actual price Except if the artist wants it to be free and set 0$ too. So it's not free.
Serverless : (...)there's a central server that set "default" or base prices. This gives the owner of the server the ability to set very high prices to items he wants to ban from the network, or to "favor" some items againt others.
Open Source : There will be a single client (...). Not if it's open source, this is a contradiction. If you release the code of the client anyone can see how the protocol works and create a free server, and you don't want it because there must be only one "central" server.
IP : There's no need to adapt IP to make this work, our model already does it. Quote from a CD: Unauthorised copying hiring lending public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited! (Tubular Bells 2003, that in fact it's copy protected against digital copy and I can't listen in my portable MP3 player) You'll need to get permission from the music industry to do this, as well as all users of your network. Your model really it's an advance over illegal P2P networks, but does not give you permission from the authors just because seems to be legal.
As I said, this doesn't appeal to me. If you were wondering, I do buy CD, DVD and a lot of other things from authors I respect, even if it's protected against digital copy. But eMule gives me another choice if I think that the price it's not fair. Industry doesn't give me a refund if I go to cinema to see a film and I don't like it. I will pay 10$ to see the extended version of "Return of the king" in a cinema, but not even 1$ to see "SW: Episode III". I do care about this, the industry don't. And my position doesn't have much to do with your system. Your system it's not fair to the users, just to the industry.
Mental note: domains to register...
c om ... mmm no, George Bush has that.
Ineedakidney.com
Ineedaheart.com
Ineedabrain.
(PD: Get well Todd, just joking).
In fact i did, in depth. But again I say this was born dead. Talk to the average "Joe User" (like me) and you'll see. I don't like it.
:-) serverless, reliable, open source and fast file-sharing system. And the owners of the IP need to adapt themselves to this kind of system or try to compete with it.
People wants a free (as in beer, not speech
About "selling" others IP, I'm not a lawyer, but probably the owners of those IP won't allow me or others to win money. They want to squeeze every buck. I really want to see what the music industry has to say about this.
Btw. What happens if I want to sell an album for let's say... 0$. Will the system allow me? Because if the system does not control it's users... or does it? DRM?
Look, I don't thing you're 'evil' the same way as Microsoft or SCO... maybe you have good intentions and try to search a solution. But this it's not a good idea. It won't work.
Users won't accept it, and neither will the music, film or tv industry. That's why i say this child was born dead.
I won't say more, I don't want to remember more about those movies.
Nobody will give away his/her freedom using that kind of program. The only way to stop file sharing programs will be a complete monitoring of internet (bwahahahahha.... sniff... sorry, where was I?). The other way is to monitor users with protection schemes in the OS (Windows probably, Linux I doubt it) or by hardware (i doubt it too, remember the problem Intel had years ago with it's "96-bit Processor serial number"?). There's not a way to stop file sharing now, except to enforce a global internet monitoring (ISP's blocking number of connections per second? I dunno...) There's not a easy way out of this problem to IP companies in my point of view except to impose 1984-like rules or to try to compete in price with file-sharing. This kind of file sharing program was born dead. :-).
(Sorry about my english, i bet it's better than your spanish