ABC.com has launched their free online episode streaming service earlier today. Shows available include Lost and Alias among others, and are available to watch for free, albeit with ad's and commercials.
I've always wondered about sites like this, or YouTube, or Google Video, or any of the other seriously massive media streaming sites.
How the hell do they do it?
Seems to me like you'd have to have Bandwidth Of The Gods(tm) in order to pull it off. Multicast isn't really working on the internet proper. So how the hell does a site like this manage it? If you have thousands upon thousands of people hooking up...a lot of them at cablemodem speeds, how does the pipe deliver?
I know that these sites do, in fact have massive bandwidth. But it just seems to me that hundreds of thousands of people wanting hours of video thorough mutliple unicast would be enough to choke pretty much anything that's not on Internet2.
How the hell do they manage it? Is there some sort of Voodoo that I'm missing?
Good idea. It's been a long while since I've looked there and I'm probably due for an update.
BTW, you don't need a spare box. Try the VMWare free player for OS tests. All you need is a blank machine (since the free version won't make them for you). But Google can help you find those. QEMU can also make VMware compatible blank hd images too.
It does work well enough to use. For me. For Joe User...not so much. Take a look at CrossOffice. That package works *extremely* well. Unfortunately, it's only for a subset of windows apps, but for what it does, it does it perfectly. If every app worked as well, we'd have a winner.
The next step would be to finally get a handle on Win32 DCOM and the like, so Installshield and other ole stuff works. Complete the picture, you know? Get all the major core functionality in there so you don't have to install dcom98.exe and all that. And polish the thing so you don't have to spend any time fiddling with config files. This app uses the override for X.dll, and this one doesn't. That kind of thing. I can do it - Joe User cannot. We need a Joe User friendly Wine.
All it would take is one corporate backer with deep pockets to make Wine work like a drop-in replacement for windows. Just one. Apple - I'm looking at you. Do this and you're rule the world. You've already put x86 in your machines. We all know why. Now follow through! =)
I really do. If it was me in charge, first thing I'd do - day one - would be to either hire people currently working on the Wine project, or hire a bunch of other qualified people and have them contribute to it. Get Wine working, then get it working well. Get a contract with Transgaming too - have them help. Imagine a Mac that played all the Win32/DirectX games! You wouldn't have an excuse then, right? Then, I'd dump all that work back into the FOSS community so others could benefit, and have a brilliant super-compatible easy to use Wine built into the next Mac OS.
Ahhh...how great it would be. And it's the best kind of dream. It's possible.
IE isn't the biggest blunder. Actually, it was fairly shrewd (from a MS point of view) since they were originally selling it, then released it for free to compete with (and eventually pretty much sink) Netscape. IE removed a competitor from their market - so a strict profit and loss analysis doesn't really sum it up, IMHO. It's their standard strategy. Look at MS Virtual PC versus VMware for current data if you're interested.
So no, IE is not the biggest mistake MS has ever made. Making it part of the OS is. Especially when you couple it with DirectX, which originally let pretty much anyone out there run any code they like on your box. IE has a series of fantastically poor design decisions behind it. This far outshadows the lost productivity.
They do this in much the same way that two Lego bricks might fit together - with several studs from the binding molecule slotting into, and so blocking, the sites on a toxin molecule which are needed to cause damage.
So the idea is that you inject something into the body that has prongs shaped like the sockets on the toxins you're trying to capture. The innoculant binds to the sites and afterwards the toxin cannot bind into the places in the body where they do their damage.
So my question is, how do we figure out if any other molecule in the body isn't the same shape? What if some important body protein or whatever has part of the same sequence in it, and the innoculation binds that up in lieu of Anthrax?
I'm sure that there is a methodology for discovering this, but I'm not in the field and have no idea what that would be. Anyone out there in Slashland know?
You would hope anyone building a system would have done their research and would have known that new chips were coming.
Putting aside that new chips are always coming up, why would this matter?
Only reason I can think of is that you're suggesting that you might want to put a faster cpu in later on. Is that it? If so...is that a really common thing to do? Because it seems kinda....well, dumb to me. You unplug your existing cpu and stick it in a box. Then buy another one that's only a few percent faster. Then unplug that 3 months later...and stick it in a box. Seems like a waste of money to me.
Every time I've done an upgrade, it's been a whole system upgrade. And then, I only do it every 5 years or so. Is there really a need to stay on the bleeding edge all the time that I'm missing?
If this law made it to the books and someone got busted with it, all they'd have to do is claim they were hacked. And as soon as the next patch comes out covering some hole in your web server's system, that's your reasonable doubt. "Hackers must have used the XYZ exploit just patched last week to remove the tags."
It's a good solution, seriously. Think about it. Just don't allow the thing to dial home. Unplug it from the net. Run your games or uber-business apps on it, and have a $300 Linux box for web/email. It's an optimal solution even today.
Of course i your one of the 4 million shorters who bought in above $10 a share you stand to make a lot of money. This is well documented by those watching.
I certainly hope so. But the government has always been soft on white collar crime. It's my concern that you have to be as famous as Martha Stewart or as high profile as Enron to get into any real trouble these days. I'll bet the jerk gets away with it. The government simply doesn't care about this kind of thing - unless the press makes it so high profile that they have to care.
Because if the government did care, these guys would have been nailed years ago. And here we sit. We're even having a hard time finding a judge with a clue at this point.
Primary reason is that it's a ploy by Microsoft to discredit open source (Google for "Baystar" to learn more). Even though the case has no merit, they want to plant a bug in the ear of every PHB out there. "Doesn't Linux have some kinda legal trouble?" In that light, they have been successful somewhat.
Secondary reason, it's a stockscam. The longer they keep the company going, the longer they can bilk the shareholders for more cash. It's probably one of the most blatant examples of insider trading ever, but since it's small potatoes it has somehow flown under the radar. Here's hoping that changes soon.
Slashdot Mirror
ABC.com has launched their free online episode streaming service earlier today. Shows available include Lost and Alias among others, and are available to watch for free, albeit with ad's and commercials.
I've always wondered about sites like this, or YouTube, or Google Video, or any of the other seriously massive media streaming sites.
How the hell do they do it?
Seems to me like you'd have to have Bandwidth Of The Gods(tm) in order to pull it off. Multicast isn't really working on the internet proper. So how the hell does a site like this manage it? If you have thousands upon thousands of people hooking up...a lot of them at cablemodem speeds, how does the pipe deliver?
I know that these sites do, in fact have massive bandwidth. But it just seems to me that hundreds of thousands of people wanting hours of video thorough mutliple unicast would be enough to choke pretty much anything that's not on Internet2.
How the hell do they manage it? Is there some sort of Voodoo that I'm missing?
This was modded Insightful, and not Funny.
Good idea. It's been a long while since I've looked there and I'm probably due for an update.
BTW, you don't need a spare box. Try the VMWare free player for OS tests. All you need is a blank machine (since the free version won't make them for you). But Google can help you find those. QEMU can also make VMware compatible blank hd images too.
It does work well enough to use. For me. For Joe User...not so much. Take a look at CrossOffice. That package works *extremely* well. Unfortunately, it's only for a subset of windows apps, but for what it does, it does it perfectly. If every app worked as well, we'd have a winner.
The next step would be to finally get a handle on Win32 DCOM and the like, so Installshield and other ole stuff works. Complete the picture, you know? Get all the major core functionality in there so you don't have to install dcom98.exe and all that. And polish the thing so you don't have to spend any time fiddling with config files. This app uses the override for X.dll, and this one doesn't. That kind of thing. I can do it - Joe User cannot. We need a Joe User friendly Wine.
All it would take is one corporate backer with deep pockets to make Wine work like a drop-in replacement for windows. Just one. Apple - I'm looking at you. Do this and you're rule the world. You've already put x86 in your machines. We all know why. Now follow through! =)
That's why. Currently, I'm designing software for a welder for a client. 99% of the time - all you do push a single button, and off she goes.
600MHz Pentium, Windows CE, .NET. :(
I really do. If it was me in charge, first thing I'd do - day one - would be to either hire people currently working on the Wine project, or hire a bunch of other qualified people and have them contribute to it. Get Wine working, then get it working well. Get a contract with Transgaming too - have them help. Imagine a Mac that played all the Win32/DirectX games! You wouldn't have an excuse then, right? Then, I'd dump all that work back into the FOSS community so others could benefit, and have a brilliant super-compatible easy to use Wine built into the next Mac OS.
Ahhh...how great it would be. And it's the best kind of dream. It's possible.
Yeah, ActiveX not DirectX. Brain fart. Oops.
I've got DirectX on the brain lately...been writing an application that uses it and it got stuck in my head. Ah well - you know what I meant. :)
IE isn't the biggest blunder. Actually, it was fairly shrewd (from a MS point of view) since they were originally selling it, then released it for free to compete with (and eventually pretty much sink) Netscape. IE removed a competitor from their market - so a strict profit and loss analysis doesn't really sum it up, IMHO. It's their standard strategy. Look at MS Virtual PC versus VMware for current data if you're interested.
So no, IE is not the biggest mistake MS has ever made. Making it part of the OS is. Especially when you couple it with DirectX, which originally let pretty much anyone out there run any code they like on your box. IE has a series of fantastically poor design decisions behind it. This far outshadows the lost productivity.
They do this in much the same way that two Lego bricks might fit together - with several studs from the binding molecule slotting into, and so blocking, the sites on a toxin molecule which are needed to cause damage.
So the idea is that you inject something into the body that has prongs shaped like the sockets on the toxins you're trying to capture. The innoculant binds to the sites and afterwards the toxin cannot bind into the places in the body where they do their damage.
So my question is, how do we figure out if any other molecule in the body isn't the same shape? What if some important body protein or whatever has part of the same sequence in it, and the innoculation binds that up in lieu of Anthrax?
I'm sure that there is a methodology for discovering this, but I'm not in the field and have no idea what that would be. Anyone out there in Slashland know?
Linux really is a bulletproof OS!
You would hope anyone building a system would have done their research and would have known that new chips were coming.
Putting aside that new chips are always coming up, why would this matter?
Only reason I can think of is that you're suggesting that you might want to put a faster cpu in later on. Is that it? If so...is that a really common thing to do? Because it seems kinda....well, dumb to me. You unplug your existing cpu and stick it in a box. Then buy another one that's only a few percent faster. Then unplug that 3 months later...and stick it in a box. Seems like a waste of money to me.
Every time I've done an upgrade, it's been a whole system upgrade. And then, I only do it every 5 years or so. Is there really a need to stay on the bleeding edge all the time that I'm missing?
Occasionally called a resistor and a capacitor.
The law assumes an unhackable web server.
If this law made it to the books and someone got busted with it, all they'd have to do is claim they were hacked. And as soon as the next patch comes out covering some hole in your web server's system, that's your reasonable doubt. "Hackers must have used the XYZ exploit just patched last week to remove the tags."
Why not put a switch in the antenna's path? To use the card, you have to push a contact button to turn it on? That would stop passive scanning, right?
Just so long as you remember this:
she knows its outside the FCC's authority
In other words, have any hobby you like. Just don't confuse your hobby with your job.
People should know by now, when you go MS, you don't buy the horse, you buy the farm.
See? Buy the farm.
Only Nixon could go to China.
That's what VMWare is for!
...about computers. Sony got high marks this year in customer confidence. That proves it pretty much.
You, Sir...have made my day. =)
It's a good solution, seriously. Think about it. Just don't allow the thing to dial home. Unplug it from the net. Run your games or uber-business apps on it, and have a $300 Linux box for web/email. It's an optimal solution even today.
Of course i your one of the 4 million shorters who bought in above $10 a share you stand to make a lot of money. This is well documented by those watching.
I certainly hope so. But the government has always been soft on white collar crime. It's my concern that you have to be as famous as Martha Stewart or as high profile as Enron to get into any real trouble these days. I'll bet the jerk gets away with it. The government simply doesn't care about this kind of thing - unless the press makes it so high profile that they have to care.
Because if the government did care, these guys would have been nailed years ago. And here we sit. We're even having a hard time finding a judge with a clue at this point.
Primary reason is that it's a ploy by Microsoft to discredit open source (Google for "Baystar" to learn more). Even though the case has no merit, they want to plant a bug in the ear of every PHB out there. "Doesn't Linux have some kinda legal trouble?" In that light, they have been successful somewhat.
Secondary reason, it's a stock scam. The longer they keep the company going, the longer they can bilk the shareholders for more cash. It's probably one of the most blatant examples of insider trading ever, but since it's small potatoes it has somehow flown under the radar. Here's hoping that changes soon.
+1, Beavis.
A-huhuh-huhuhuhuhuh....huhuhuh....
Our president, Dr. Blofeld, has already been working on this for a long time now.