A few years ago, P2P was a minor network application which paled in comparison to the deluge of traffic from people downloading off the web. Web traffic grew wildly for several years, but is limited by several factors, including the ability of a person to sit there and view content they've downloaded.
Even the most ambitious web surfer who plays online games will be hard-pressed to average more than 250kb/s over a 24-hour average. A typical end user, browsing popular sites and sending emails, will be far lower. Networks are built on these assumptions.
P2P kills this. A modest, unattended workstation suddenly can burn up 2-3mb of bandwidth, around the clock. A typical school with 2,000 students will normally get an OC3, probably billed on the basis of an average of 60-70mb/s. Cost of that will be roughly $20k a month.
Now, 10% of the students discover P2P. Even with some of that traffic staying on-net, they will still be looking at spending an extra $40,000 a month to support the MP3 habits of a couple hundred students.
Yep, the RIAA is heavy-handed, and would be more than happy to see anything with more storage than a 3.5" floppy banned. They're not going to get their way.
But the people who run the networks -- colleges, businesses, and cable companies -- look at the alternatives:
1. Buy $650,000 of new networking gear plus $300,000/month in bandwidth, and implement monitoring to comply with occasional court orders.
2. Ban any computing platform capable of P2P (i.e. linux) from network connections unless the user is willing to pay for usage.
Faced with a quote from Cisco for a 300-pound router on one side of the desk, and a petition demanding continued access to pirated software, I would rather tell the kids to go buy a CD than explain my capital budget request to the board.:-)
There's another point that's often overlooked here. Many warez sites are hosted on computers and links without the owner's permission. This results in a great deal of time (rebuilding a hacked system) and a lot of money (even at OC12 levels, transit bandwidth costs about $120/month/meg, not including the hardware).
Without the motivation of sharing illegal content, the appeal of hacking into the local soccer club's server becomes a lot less appealing.
Because you might do something that would really hurt him: Turn the TV off.
There's a difference between the people who sell GTA3 and Donohue. The folks who sell GTA3 are selling an entertainment product. It's clearly labeled that it contains violence and gore that would upset small children. It contains themes of conflict that one might find in a movie for adults.
Donohue, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to position himself as an educator, enlightening the masses and pointing out evildoers. But what Donohue is selling is eyeballs, to advertisers. He's a talking head, who exists for the sole purpose of spending eight minutes getting you interested enough that you won't walk away during the CONTENT of the show: ads for linoleum cleaners, correspondence schools, and get-rich-quick schemes.
It's the same difference between Larry Flynt and a child molester: Larry Flynt makes it clear that he's selling a product for mature adults, who consent to viewing the product, which they have to go out of their way to purchase.
Now, a run-of-the-mill pedophile, on the other hand, will pose as a friend. A helpful mentor who loves children. Who cares about them and can be trusted with them. And in between "protecting" them, well, that's where the real purpose comes in.
I can respect someone I disagree with, who has reasoned opinions and behaves in a way consistent with his words. I have no respect at all for the kind of sleaze that is Donohue.
Ok. So, the pilot, who is responsible for the lives of 200 or so people, is supposed to worry about upsetting the $7-per-hour clerk seizing grandma's crochet hook?
Personally, if I'm getting on a plane, I want the pilot to be relaxed and thinking about his flight plan - not about the creepy guard who confiscated the binder clip from his approach charts.
Air travel _is_ interstate commerce, and a consistent standard of safety is required for the commerce to continue. This is exactly the kind of thing that Government should be regulating.
... but air travel already *is* one of the safest things you can do. Far safer than driving, or even taking a bus.
If a 747 crashed into an office building every day, it would make air travel almost as dangerous as motor vehicles. (have to keep in mind that a lot of the people killed in accidents are pedestrians or other uninvolved people)
If the objective is to save lives, let's impose a mandatory one-week jail sentence for any traffic violation.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/13/pilot.detained/
The pilot was going through the screening process around 7 a.m. EST when he "made an inappropriate comment relative to security," said US Airways spokesman David Castelveter, who said the airlines was "cooperating fully" with the investigation. "We find this type of behavior intolerable," he said.
The FBI has stated officially that it intends to require "similar level of security" for bus travel and train travel.
Keep in kind, there are a lot of Americans who do not own private vehicles.
(Or, live in a state so big that traveling to any other state is a trip of well over 300 miles. In the seven years I've lived in Texas, I have only *driven* out of the state once.)
If they did introduce copy protection right now, it would cause a lot of complaints. By getting you used to the idea that you should use their tools to record TV, they set up the later assumtion of ".. and of course only *our* tools will work".
It's just like the on-program ads that are starting to creep in. The only purpose of station logos was to get you used to the idea of having non-program content on the screen at all times.
Slashdot Mirror
A few years ago, P2P was a minor network application which paled in comparison to the deluge of traffic from people downloading off the web. Web traffic grew wildly for several years, but is limited by several factors, including the ability of a person to sit there and view content they've downloaded.
:-)
Even the most ambitious web surfer who plays online games will be hard-pressed to average more than 250kb/s over a 24-hour average. A typical end user, browsing popular sites and sending emails, will be far lower. Networks are built on these assumptions.
P2P kills this. A modest, unattended workstation suddenly can burn up 2-3mb of bandwidth, around the clock. A typical school with 2,000 students will normally get an OC3, probably billed on the basis of an average of 60-70mb/s. Cost of that will be roughly $20k a month.
Now, 10% of the students discover P2P. Even with some of that traffic staying on-net, they will still be looking at spending an extra $40,000 a month to support the MP3 habits of a couple hundred students.
Yep, the RIAA is heavy-handed, and would be more than happy to see anything with more storage than a 3.5" floppy banned. They're not going to get their way.
But the people who run the networks -- colleges, businesses, and cable companies -- look at the alternatives:
1. Buy $650,000 of new networking gear plus $300,000/month in bandwidth, and implement monitoring to comply with occasional court orders.
2. Ban any computing platform capable of P2P (i.e. linux) from network connections unless the user is willing to pay for usage.
Faced with a quote from Cisco for a 300-pound router on one side of the desk, and a petition demanding continued access to pirated software, I would rather tell the kids to go buy a CD than explain my capital budget request to the board.
There's another point that's often overlooked here. Many warez sites are hosted on computers and links without the owner's permission. This results in a great deal of time (rebuilding a hacked system) and a lot of money (even at OC12 levels, transit bandwidth costs about $120/month/meg, not including the hardware).
Without the motivation of sharing illegal content, the appeal of hacking into the local soccer club's server becomes a lot less appealing.
There's a difference between the people who sell GTA3 and Donohue. The folks who sell GTA3 are selling an entertainment product. It's clearly labeled that it contains violence and gore that would upset small children. It contains themes of conflict that one might find in a movie for adults.
Donohue, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to position himself as an educator, enlightening the masses and pointing out evildoers. But what Donohue is selling is eyeballs, to advertisers. He's a talking head, who exists for the sole purpose of spending eight minutes getting you interested enough that you won't walk away during the CONTENT of the show: ads for linoleum cleaners, correspondence schools, and get-rich-quick schemes. It's the same difference between Larry Flynt and a child molester: Larry Flynt makes it clear that he's selling a product for mature adults, who consent to viewing the product, which they have to go out of their way to purchase.
Now, a run-of-the-mill pedophile, on the other hand, will pose as a friend. A helpful mentor who loves children. Who cares about them and can be trusted with them. And in between "protecting" them, well, that's where the real purpose comes in.
I can respect someone I disagree with, who has reasoned opinions and behaves in a way consistent with his words. I have no respect at all for the kind of sleaze that is Donohue.
Ok. So, the pilot, who is responsible for the lives of 200 or so people, is supposed to worry about upsetting the $7-per-hour clerk seizing grandma's crochet hook?
Personally, if I'm getting on a plane, I want the pilot to be relaxed and thinking about his flight plan - not about the creepy guard who confiscated the binder clip from his approach charts.
If a 747 crashed into an office building every day, it would make air travel almost as dangerous as motor vehicles. (have to keep in mind that a lot of the people killed in accidents are pedestrians or other uninvolved people)
If the objective is to save lives, let's impose a mandatory one-week jail sentence for any traffic violation.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/13/pilot.detained/
The pilot was going through the screening process around 7 a.m. EST when he "made an inappropriate comment relative to security," said US Airways spokesman David Castelveter, who said the airlines was "cooperating fully" with the investigation. "We find this type of behavior intolerable," he said.
The FBI has stated officially that it intends to require "similar level of security" for bus travel and train travel.
Keep in kind, there are a lot of Americans who do not own private vehicles.
(Or, live in a state so big that traveling to any other state is a trip of well over 300 miles. In the seven years I've lived in Texas, I have only *driven* out of the state once.)
It does occur to me that it wasn't so long ago we criticized the Soviet Union for their inhumane policy of questioning any traveler they felt like.
Now we not only question almost every interstate traveler, we search them and arrest them if they question the legitimacy of the search.
If they did introduce copy protection right now, it would cause a lot of complaints. By getting you used to the idea that you should use their tools to record TV, they set up the later assumtion of ".. and of course only *our* tools will work".
It's just like the on-program ads that are starting to creep in. The only purpose of station logos was to get you used to the idea of having non-program content on the screen at all times.