And how long is this meeting? If it's only an hour, then sure, I suppose, if I'm not doing anything else that day--but if this is a multi-hour meeting, I'm going to want more than just a nice lunch out of it.
What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be. Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on? Or can you just sit and read a book?
Right, then, he that knows: if you're so sure that P2P is truly the least optimal method for mass distribution of data, what is the most optimal method of distribution, and how would you propose popularizing said method--and convincing everyone else that it is, indeed, the best way to go about things?
Or potentially the demand could drive widespread investment in the appropriate infrastructure, and research into ways to make it still faster.
If the companies serving the customers cannot handle the demand, then that's their problem. Perhaps they should not advertise services that are beyond their capability to provide?
As-is, though, it is entirely possible to build infrastructure that can handle this traffic, and to do so relatively cheaply--optical fibre isn't -that- expensive, and the plastic type is getting cheaper these days.
Because no matter how hard you try, humans will want to have sex--and merely telling them that it's 'wrong' to do so will never deter more than a few handfuls from doing so.
Server --> Users --> Users in the 'bittorrent' model will stress the infrastructure far less. BT selects closer sources preferentially, so fewer long distance connections will be required, indicating less traffic on the backbone routes. There will be spikes in local routes, of course, but those will be transient and less likely to cause major impacts to the overall infrastructure, given that the routes will be tied up for a far shorter time than the traditional server --> client method would use.
Also, there will be less of a bottleneck on the server side, so the infrastructure will have to handle far fewer 'busy' connection attempts--lowering overhead is important.
I would note that those who are kvetching the loudest about not having enough bandwidth seem to be those who wish to offer 'traditional'-style server --> client streaming as a premium service. Everyone has a motive--so look for why the squeaky wheel is squeaking before you apply the grease.
Given that TV programs tend to be conducive to torrenting -anyway-.
Lessened distribution costs, quick distribution, and a clear case for legal P2P usage that could be potentially leveraged into something useful on this side of the pond--this is perhaps the clearest win-win situation I've seen all this week.
If they even do that....I have anecdotes of people who were raised in the 'abstinence-only' "sex ed" areas of the US (Georgia, specifically, IIRC) that even now did not know exactly what the deal was--to the point where they had no idea why a female would visit a gyno outside of pregnancy.
This was two weeks before her wedding.
She was instructed in what research to do on that count, and last I spoke to her things were going well--but given the rates of STDs in those areas, not all stories like that end happily.
The weakness in that argument is that it requires that parents take responsibility and make an effort to educate themselves.
Your typical soccer mom "doesn't know anything about computers" and has no interest in doing so--but wants to make sure the kids are safe, because anything other than total and utter safety Just Won't Do.
Now, if you decided to build yourself a cheapass firewall/filter/proxy appliance, form factor about the same as your typical cable modem and priced at about the $50 point you mentioned (with, say, $19.95/month updating service) that you could plug inline between the modem and the home LAN, you could conceivably make a profit--but if it required any activation by the parent more complicated than a typical windows "click yes" wizard and selecting a secret code, you can forget about any sort of widespread adoption.
So they'll just pull an Australia and make it governmentally mandated or something like that.
O'course, now, children will grow up unable to see the Venus de Milo or the Vitruvian Man or any of those other naughty art bits, but that's OK, right? Because it's protecting the children?
And it's not like they'll be able to learn about STDs or how to protect oneself against 'em, but that's OK--without all those nasty naked people, why would they want to have sex?
Censorship -within an individual residence- is potentially helpful in certain situations--young children and the like, when the parents want to ensure less chance of unfortunate images showing up and suchlike.
At any larger scope than a single family, though, yes, it's entirely unnecessary and should be discouraged whenever possible.
"Infotainment" is what it comes out to--part propaganda, part sensationalism and yellow journalism, part celebrity namedropping, with a smidge of actual fact in there for taste.
It's sorta like Americanized Szechuan cuisine--anyone used to the real thing wouldn't recognize it, but it's good enough for the masses.
Fox seems to be the worst offender in this category, but I can't really absolve the other major networks from blame. The eternal quest for viewers far outweighs the prospect of any actual news reporting.
Those of us who refuse to watch it are generally the demographic who are perceptive enough to realize that legal decisions can impact other than the lawyers and the parties directly involved.
Thus, we're not in the mainstream--and hence, not the folks that the mainstream 'news' is targeting.
Those that do watch it are impacted directly with watercooler gossip or somesuch, I suppose. I'm not exactly certain why it's news, to be honest--I don't watch the thing myself--but that's my best guess.
Or perhaps they're filing more suits than they can reasonably expect to fight, banking on having most of 'em settle out of court, so a few slip through the cracks from time to time?
If that's the case, and it could be proven that such a load is an unreasonable hinderance on the court system, then perhaps a class action suit on behalf of all the people being delayed by the RIAA's nonsense might be....profitable.
It's mostly due to the perception of the american public that anything that doesn't directly affect them is not terribly important--hence, the American Idol winner, the winner of the presidential election, and the price of gas are 'news' while most legal decisions are merely trivia, unless you're a lawyer or directly involved as one of the parties.
Well, it's not really 'news' to most mainstream people--because, frankly, it doesn't really affect them directly.
Were the RIAA to be dissolved in a fit of legal briefs, that might make the business pages--but it would take something fairly spectacular to get into the 'real' news.
Slashdot Mirror
And how long is this meeting? If it's only an hour, then sure, I suppose, if I'm not doing anything else that day--but if this is a multi-hour meeting, I'm going to want more than just a nice lunch out of it.
It -does- appear that way, doesn't it? I wouldn't exactly call it a conspiracy, per se, but it is possible that there may be an....understanding.
What I want to know is how much one could get per hour as a professional "warm butt"--and what sort of requirements for participation there may or may not be. Are you contractually obligated to applaud, shout, and carry on? Or can you just sit and read a book?
Right, then, he that knows: if you're so sure that P2P is truly the least optimal method for mass distribution of data, what is the most optimal method of distribution, and how would you propose popularizing said method--and convincing everyone else that it is, indeed, the best way to go about things?
The report's linked in the article, but if you didn't see it, it's here. Send it off to 'em yourself. ;-p
Or potentially the demand could drive widespread investment in the appropriate infrastructure, and research into ways to make it still faster.
If the companies serving the customers cannot handle the demand, then that's their problem. Perhaps they should not advertise services that are beyond their capability to provide?
As-is, though, it is entirely possible to build infrastructure that can handle this traffic, and to do so relatively cheaply--optical fibre isn't -that- expensive, and the plastic type is getting cheaper these days.
Because no matter how hard you try, humans will want to have sex--and merely telling them that it's 'wrong' to do so will never deter more than a few handfuls from doing so.
It's human nature.
Server --> Users --> Users in the 'bittorrent' model will stress the infrastructure far less. BT selects closer sources preferentially, so fewer long distance connections will be required, indicating less traffic on the backbone routes. There will be spikes in local routes, of course, but those will be transient and less likely to cause major impacts to the overall infrastructure, given that the routes will be tied up for a far shorter time than the traditional server --> client method would use.
Also, there will be less of a bottleneck on the server side, so the infrastructure will have to handle far fewer 'busy' connection attempts--lowering overhead is important.
I would note that those who are kvetching the loudest about not having enough bandwidth seem to be those who wish to offer 'traditional'-style server --> client streaming as a premium service. Everyone has a motive--so look for why the squeaky wheel is squeaking before you apply the grease.
Well, yes, but you're posting as an AC on /., so that's really no surprise, now, is it? ;-p
Given that TV programs tend to be conducive to torrenting -anyway-.
Lessened distribution costs, quick distribution, and a clear case for legal P2P usage that could be potentially leveraged into something useful on this side of the pond--this is perhaps the clearest win-win situation I've seen all this week.
If they even do that....I have anecdotes of people who were raised in the 'abstinence-only' "sex ed" areas of the US (Georgia, specifically, IIRC) that even now did not know exactly what the deal was--to the point where they had no idea why a female would visit a gyno outside of pregnancy.
This was two weeks before her wedding.
She was instructed in what research to do on that count, and last I spoke to her things were going well--but given the rates of STDs in those areas, not all stories like that end happily.
The weakness in that argument is that it requires that parents take responsibility and make an effort to educate themselves.
Your typical soccer mom "doesn't know anything about computers" and has no interest in doing so--but wants to make sure the kids are safe, because anything other than total and utter safety Just Won't Do.
Now, if you decided to build yourself a cheapass firewall/filter/proxy appliance, form factor about the same as your typical cable modem and priced at about the $50 point you mentioned (with, say, $19.95/month updating service) that you could plug inline between the modem and the home LAN, you could conceivably make a profit--but if it required any activation by the parent more complicated than a typical windows "click yes" wizard and selecting a secret code, you can forget about any sort of widespread adoption.
So they'll just pull an Australia and make it governmentally mandated or something like that.
O'course, now, children will grow up unable to see the Venus de Milo or the Vitruvian Man or any of those other naughty art bits, but that's OK, right? Because it's protecting the children?
And it's not like they'll be able to learn about STDs or how to protect oneself against 'em, but that's OK--without all those nasty naked people, why would they want to have sex?
I still remember my first experience with goatse. Do you?
It's not even a leap.
It's a regexp.
Or even just take the step of making it an opt-IN rather than an opt-OUT service. That alone would make it far less suspicious looking.
Censorship -within an individual residence- is potentially helpful in certain situations--young children and the like, when the parents want to ensure less chance of unfortunate images showing up and suchlike.
At any larger scope than a single family, though, yes, it's entirely unnecessary and should be discouraged whenever possible.
Government is the -last- entity that should oversee any censorship--because it has the most to gain from having such control.
"Infotainment" is what it comes out to--part propaganda, part sensationalism and yellow journalism, part celebrity namedropping, with a smidge of actual fact in there for taste.
It's sorta like Americanized Szechuan cuisine--anyone used to the real thing wouldn't recognize it, but it's good enough for the masses.
Fox seems to be the worst offender in this category, but I can't really absolve the other major networks from blame. The eternal quest for viewers far outweighs the prospect of any actual news reporting.
Those of us who refuse to watch it are generally the demographic who are perceptive enough to realize that legal decisions can impact other than the lawyers and the parties directly involved.
Thus, we're not in the mainstream--and hence, not the folks that the mainstream 'news' is targeting.
Those that do watch it are impacted directly with watercooler gossip or somesuch, I suppose. I'm not exactly certain why it's news, to be honest--I don't watch the thing myself--but that's my best guess.
Frightfully lazy of 'em.
Or perhaps they're filing more suits than they can reasonably expect to fight, banking on having most of 'em settle out of court, so a few slip through the cracks from time to time?
If that's the case, and it could be proven that such a load is an unreasonable hinderance on the court system, then perhaps a class action suit on behalf of all the people being delayed by the RIAA's nonsense might be....profitable.
D) Slightly change the wording of their argument and keep on truckin'
Thus the scare quotes.
It's mostly due to the perception of the american public that anything that doesn't directly affect them is not terribly important--hence, the American Idol winner, the winner of the presidential election, and the price of gas are 'news' while most legal decisions are merely trivia, unless you're a lawyer or directly involved as one of the parties.
Well, it's not really 'news' to most mainstream people--because, frankly, it doesn't really affect them directly.
Were the RIAA to be dissolved in a fit of legal briefs, that might make the business pages--but it would take something fairly spectacular to get into the 'real' news.
Pig droppings, looks like. ;-p