Since when is Google an
organization whose business model is the harvesting and sale of personal information ?
I could accept the argument that "processing your private emails to better qualify my search engine results" could be considered "harvesting" but I wasn't aware that Google in any but the weirdest and most remote sense "sold" the information they collected.
Yes, they effectively "sell" the results of the analysis of what they collect, but that is not the same thing at all.
Otherwise I've got this "analysis" of 100tons of Pure Gold I'd like to sell you, bargain prices;-)
And before you all whine that there's other hosted-app-services other than those supplied by Al-Qaeda the fact remains that the US considers all foreign services to be potentially hosted-by/supporting "the terrorists" - and therefore are worthy of "spying upon".
Yet another clueless wannabe pontificating about something they clearly do not understand.
Somedays I wish they'd firewall the RFC list and prevent retards like this commenting on stuff.
many P2P protocols use UDP (skype, anyone?)
proposes a client/application side change in behaviour, while they're whining about a failure of the protocol
- (think my car needs a grease-and-oilchange, so I'll go walk the dog - proposed solution bears no relationship to the problem)
enforcement proposal ignores how the interweb works, there's NO difference (at the IP level) between a user multi-streaming a TCP download of a single file, and a user opening multiple tcp connections to a webserver to simultaneously download *all* the crappy bits-n-shits that make up a web page (ie parallel non-pipelined http requests) rather than one-at-a-time
- yet the first would be argued as an "unfair use* while the second is perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour
I could go on for hours.
If 'the protocol' is broken, then 'the protocol' needs to change, recommending an app-level change only opens up further opportunity for abuse - after all, if the app developers were genuinely interested in playing nicely in the sandbox, they would already
recommending an *external* enforcement will never work, that costs time and money and who is gonna pay me to implement it?
- TCP congestion control "works" (ie as engineered) because it's inherent in the protocol implementation, does not require "enforcement" by the ISP
P2P users are initiating "sessions" (assuming they're still using TCP) to different endpoints, so you don't have a beautiful and neat bundle of parallel-tubes as described in the metaphor - ie most of your assumptions about "how this works" are wrong.
Of course, the entire article starts out from a baseless assumption (that users should get 'fair' access to the interweb).
Anyone read their ISP Ts&Cs ? Ever?
IP is a *best effort* protocol.... we will punt your packet upstream and hope it gets there - have a nice day.
There is *no* guarantee of *anything*.
Now, as far as anything approaching a "solution" to the supposed "problem". ..... As long as we're talking about *application level* tweaks....
What about all the P2P developers marking their "data transmission" packets (whatever the protocol) with the lowest-of-the-low QoS markings.
--> "if you need to manage congestion, I am exceedingly eligible for shaping"
That would work nicely.
In fact, if YouTube (and friends) did the same, it would actually *encourage* ISPs to enable proper QoS processing throughout their entire networks.
If applications (and protocols) inherently played nicely in the sandbox, your ISP would bend-over-backwards to guarantee a near-perfect service. (mainly because it'd thusly be near-trivial to do)
And yes I realise this raises the spectre of "Net Neutrality" - but seriously folks how is that argument any different than "because of the terorists" or "think of the children"?
ISPs Applying QoS to traffic in order to guarantee the quality is not inherently bad. The *bad* ness comes about because they will (yes, I said WILL, not MIGHT or COULD) use said QoS practices to push their own services/enforce their own policies (we hate P2P/ignore client-QoS-markings, etc , etc, etc).
All those people who're frothing-at-the-mouth because QoS is BAD need a RABIES shot.
In an ideal world, we'd never need QoS. QoS is a congestion management mechanism. If you have no congestion, then you don't need to apply QoS techniques.
But until the day when we all have quantum-entangled communications processors with near-infinite effective bandwidth we're going to need QoS, somewhere.
All of you think "suicide mission" - so you automagically failed the first test.
You're all narrow-minded and desperately earthbound.
I read the article and my first thought was
where do I sign up!
Dewspite being a reasonably well-educated geek, I don't have an "advanced degree" in anything
I'm not a US citizen
I'm over 30
So you see, given my age, this would realistically be my only chance to personally set foot on "The Red Planet". And we need this - Humanity on other planets, and space exploration in general.
If the last (and coolest) thing I do with my life commits "us Terrans" to serious levels of ongoing space and interplanetary exploration, it would be worth the effort (er, sacrifice).
Let me correct that for you:
The internet could end up fragmented with reasonable VOIP, etc. only working (if ever) between two people using the same provider.
A better solution for information safety (preservation) is a combination of the following attributes:
-Widely Distributed
-Massively Redundant
-Strongly Encrypted
-Rewrappable by newer encryption
-Fragmented with self-seeking assembly
-Self-healing (checks that enough copies of self exist and makes more if not)
-Autonomously Mobile - Self-seeks newer and more reliable storage using a map of internet hosts with stats So what you're saying is that the human race will one day be destroyed by an AI "accidentally" developed by a radical group researching "information preservation"?
Despite the right to armed bears, "you americans" always say "yeah but do you really think that if (somethingsomething) that we'd sit idly by?"
It's easy to claim "if something REALLY bad were to occur, we'd ALL rise up in arms", and claim the things going on around you every day aren't REALLY bad.
Just like all-y'all are doing right now.
Just in case you're still confused - my point is: ALL "you americans" do is say "we would, if it was REALLY bad" , and then provide billions and billions of arguments why it is NOT "really bad" right now.
Your Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at this very moment, absolutely HORRIFIED at what the government is doing , AND YOU DO NOTHING.
At least , nowhere near enough. The definition of "enough" being "enough to change things".
The American Revolution would never have happened if the populace was not armed to the teeth. I hate to say it, but if our government ever collapses into.... All-y'All keep repeating that until yer blue in the face, BUT YOU'SE NEVER DO IT.
The right to armed bears was originally so that The Populace could physically overthrow an ludicrously irrelevant and generally unsuitable government. But these days they people are happy with ludicrous in their government, and happy with extremely poor decisions from "the top".
Armed Bears in the US today is all about a bunch of blokes who have a severe lack of self-esteem and general insecurity about their manliness. and nothing else
Yes there *are* (some, rare) genuine exceptions to the above generalization, but as I said, they're rare.
I've never heard any physicist call the Higgs 'God Particle' when talking to other physicists. Yes, exactly, but *everyone else* (ie us plebs/non-physicists) does (hence my comment about common-usage). Which is entirely different to references to "the force" and "star wars" which is nothing more than crappy journalism integrated with "magic-catch-phrase-isms".
you can clearly distinguish lanthanum from titanium, manganese, and manganese-lanthanum All well and good, but unfortunately these false colors need a bit more care in the selection process.
Apparently you cannot "see" the difference between Krypton and Chlorine using this process.
without the silly-assed references to God particles, The Force and Star Wars. I can understand your petulant whining about the Force and Star Wars, but seriously folks - do you not know that "The God Particle" is the common-usage informal name for The Higgs Boson? There is basically nothing wrong with saying "The God Particle" in the same sentence with The Higgs Boson (especially when TGP is mentioned in quotes).
Although considering the previous reference to hyperlinked porn web pages, I for one am looking forward to a time when CERN will get its act together and begin a project to find The OhGod! Particle. (closely folowed by The OMFG!PONIES! Particle)
Welcome to a universe full of ludicrous laws written specifically for the benefit of some business profit margins.
Rather than being happy with a law which specifically states it's illegal to violate copyright (which already exists). *some random business lobbygroup* insists we need another law specifically to address violation of copyright via the internet and specifically using Peer-to-Peer technology
So is that because:
violation of copyright being already illegal is not "illegal enough"
violation of copyright via the internet using "normal " protocols like HTTP is somehow "less" illegal
Or perhaps it is simply because
This law is irrelevant and unnecessary, and only exists as a specific instance because it will allow a certain business to more successfully prosecute the lawsuits which have recently become its primary source of income
If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your home before too much longer. You, sir, have missed the point (albeit slightly).
{and I quote, paraphrased} If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your head , to track your every thought, before too much longer.
And before you all start laughing, let me just say they would if they could.
At issue is the so-called "mechanical royalty" -- payments made for copies of sound recordings, including those made by digital means, to songwriters and publishers. Basically, the problem is, when you're speaking DIGITALLY, there is no difference between "copying a recording" (ie download for the purposes of saving a file) and "performing a recording" (download eg streaming, for the purposes of audio playback in the physical world).
For This Reason, New Media Players (Apple, Yahoo, Napster, etc) argue that the "mechanical royalty for copyright" should be lowered significantly on digital downloads (specifically, to 4%).
RIAA etc argue the fee should be dropped only slightly (specifically, only to 8%).
RIAA are arguing to maintain profits for their (arguably, exceedingly dinosaur-like) "distribution model".
"While record companies have been forced to drastically cut costs and employees, music publisher catalogs have increased in value due to...... alternative revenue streams made possible, but not enjoyed, by record companies." ie "we see you've worked out new ways to make profits, so pay us (even more) money even though we have not contributed anything new to the equation".
The New Media crew are arguing the way of sanity and intelligence. (ie trying to push the 'downloads are effectively performances, because there's no way to differentiate' argument)
New-media companies want the rate to go even lower, contending that it should disappear when music is digitally streamed. Every time you hear something new from the RIAA it boils down to "someone needs to shovel more money into our bank accounts, without any additional effort or contribution on our part. Our business model dictates an infinitely increasing profit margin, for infinitely decreasing effort, ad-infinitum."
And the same can be said of those ISPs who intend to violate the concept of "net-neutrality". ("someone's making money , and the bits cross our network. Ignore the fact we already billed someone for those bits, I want to directly bill BOTH the producer AND the consumer of those bits, even though they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with me").
(somewhere along the line, get full Microsoft Direct-Something endorsement/support of dedicated physics processing)
possibly by licensing to AMD "PPU included on Graphics Card" rights, thusly invoking the power of Least Common Denominator
Integrate PPU circuitry/logics into GPU (making it faster/more efficient/cheaper than equivalent solution licensed to AMD)
?? Profit ??
In the end, for this to *really* succeed, it needs to be a "Least Common Denominator" factor. So it *requires* full support by Microsoft and Direct-X (them being The Big Factors in the games industry). And in order to get full support from The Windows Monopolist, you'll probably (not absolutely necessary, mut it'd make it much easier to convince Microsoft) need to enable AMD/ATI to leverage this technology, to some degree.
Remember folks, Nvidia don't need to *kill* AMD/ATI, they only need to stay one or two generations ahead of them in technology. So they *could* license them "last years tech" for use on their cards, to make "Least Common Denominator" not a factor which excludes their latest-get tech implementations.
From where I stand, AIDS could eventually be a species killer like in 'I am Legend'. Considering no one who contracts this virus survives. Not going to happen anymore, we are "managing" this disease now. Checking the Global Trends graph, the number of people "living with aids" seems to be levelling off.
I'd venture to guess that not having sex if you are infected with AIDS is a pretty universal principle, much in the same way that murder is universally frowned upon. Most people equate "having sex" with "breathing"... At least as far as "even if I could stop, I really don't think I'd want to".
Slashdot Mirror
I could accept the argument that "processing your private emails to better qualify my search engine results" could be considered "harvesting" but I wasn't aware that Google in any but the weirdest and most remote sense "sold" the information they collected.
Yes, they effectively "sell" the results of the analysis of what they collect, but that is not the same thing at all.
Otherwise I've got this "analysis" of 100tons of Pure Gold I'd like to sell you, bargain prices
And before you all whine that there's other hosted-app-services other than those supplied by Al-Qaeda the fact remains that the US considers all foreign services to be potentially hosted-by/supporting "the terrorists" - and therefore are worthy of "spying upon".
- use Hosted-App-Services from US Based Company ==> Get Spied Upon via Patriot Act
- use Hosted-App-Services from Al-Qaeda ==> Get Spied Upon via Patriot Act
Where is SeaLand when you need them?- many P2P protocols use UDP (skype, anyone?)
- proposes a client/application side change in behaviour, while they're whining about a failure of the protocol
- enforcement proposal ignores how the interweb works, there's NO difference (at the IP level) between a user multi-streaming a TCP download of a single file, and a user opening multiple tcp connections to a webserver to simultaneously download *all* the crappy bits-n-shits that make up a web page (ie parallel non-pipelined http requests) rather than one-at-a-time
I could go on for hours.- (think my car needs a grease-and-oilchange, so I'll go walk the dog - proposed solution bears no relationship to the problem)
- yet the first would be argued as an "unfair use* while the second is perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour
- If 'the protocol' is broken, then 'the protocol' needs to change, recommending an app-level change only opens up further opportunity for abuse
- recommending an *external* enforcement will never work, that costs time and money and who is gonna pay me to implement it?
- P2P users are initiating "sessions" (assuming they're still using TCP) to different endpoints, so you don't have a beautiful and neat bundle of parallel-tubes as described in the metaphor
Of course, the entire article starts out from a baseless assumption (that users should get 'fair' access to the interweb).- after all, if the app developers were genuinely interested in playing nicely in the sandbox, they would already
- TCP congestion control "works" (ie as engineered) because it's inherent in the protocol implementation, does not require "enforcement" by the ISP
- ie most of your assumptions about "how this works" are wrong.
Anyone read their ISP Ts&Cs ? Ever?
IP is a *best effort* protocol.... we will punt your packet upstream and hope it gets there - have a nice day.
There is *no* guarantee of *anything*.
Now, as far as anything approaching a "solution" to the supposed "problem".
What about all the P2P developers marking their "data transmission" packets (whatever the protocol) with the lowest-of-the-low QoS markings.
--> "if you need to manage congestion, I am exceedingly eligible for shaping"
That would work nicely.
In fact, if YouTube (and friends) did the same, it would actually *encourage* ISPs to enable proper QoS processing throughout their entire networks.
If applications (and protocols) inherently played nicely in the sandbox, your ISP would bend-over-backwards to guarantee a near-perfect service. (mainly because it'd thusly be near-trivial to do)
And yes I realise this raises the spectre of "Net Neutrality" - but seriously folks how is that argument any different than "because of the terorists" or "think of the children"?
ISPs Applying QoS to traffic in order to guarantee the quality is not inherently bad. The *bad* ness comes about because they will (yes, I said WILL, not MIGHT or COULD) use said QoS practices to push their own services/enforce their own policies (we hate P2P/ignore client-QoS-markings, etc , etc, etc).
All those people who're frothing-at-the-mouth because QoS is BAD need a RABIES shot.
In an ideal world, we'd never need QoS. QoS is a congestion management mechanism. If you have no congestion, then you don't need to apply QoS techniques.
But until the day when we all have quantum-entangled communications processors with near-infinite effective bandwidth we're going to need QoS, somewhere.
You're all narrow-minded and desperately earthbound.
I read the article and my first thought was where do I sign up!
- Dewspite being a reasonably well-educated geek, I don't have an "advanced degree" in anything
- I'm not a US citizen
- I'm over 30
So you see, given my age, this would realistically be my only chance to personally set foot on "The Red Planet". And we need this - Humanity on other planets, and space exploration in general.If the last (and coolest) thing I do with my life commits "us Terrans" to serious levels of ongoing space and interplanetary exploration, it would be worth the effort (er, sacrifice).
-Widely Distributed
-Massively Redundant
-Strongly Encrypted
-Rewrappable by newer encryption
-Fragmented with self-seeking assembly
-Self-healing (checks that enough copies of self exist and makes more if not)
-Autonomously Mobile - Self-seeks newer and more reliable storage using a map of internet hosts with stats So what you're saying is that the human race will one day be destroyed by an AI "accidentally" developed by a radical group researching "information preservation"?
And you, sir, entirely missed My Point.
Despite the right to armed bears, "you americans" always say "yeah but do you really think that if (somethingsomething) that we'd sit idly by?"
It's easy to claim "if something REALLY bad were to occur, we'd ALL rise up in arms", and claim the things going on around you every day aren't REALLY bad.
Just like all-y'all are doing right now.
Just in case you're still confused - my point is: ALL "you americans" do is say "we would, if it was REALLY bad" , and then provide billions and billions of arguments why it is NOT "really bad" right now.
Your Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at this very moment, absolutely HORRIFIED at what the government is doing , AND YOU DO NOTHING.
At least , nowhere near enough. The definition of "enough" being "enough to change things".
The right to armed bears was originally so that The Populace could physically overthrow an ludicrously irrelevant and generally unsuitable government. But these days they people are happy with ludicrous in their government, and happy with extremely poor decisions from "the top".
Armed Bears in the US today is all about a bunch of blokes who have a severe lack of self-esteem and general insecurity about their manliness. and nothing else
Yes there *are* (some, rare) genuine exceptions to the above generalization, but as I said, they're rare.
Apparently you cannot "see" the difference between Krypton and Chlorine using this process.
Which, quite frankly, can be quite fatal for some.
Although considering the previous reference to hyperlinked porn web pages, I for one am looking forward to a time when CERN will get its act together and begin a project to find The OhGod! Particle. (closely folowed by The OMFG!PONIES! Particle)
Rather than being happy with a law which specifically states it's illegal to violate copyright (which already exists). *some random business lobbygroup* insists we need another law specifically to address violation of copyright via the internet and specifically using Peer-to-Peer technology
So is that because:
Or perhaps it is simply because
Expect that to be severly curtailed real soon, too.
{and I quote, paraphrased} If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your head , to track your every thought, before too much longer.
And before you all start laughing, let me just say they would if they could.
Parents think they can sit their kids down in front of "the box" and let it do their parenting for them.
Then they want to "blame society" when their kids turn out to be basically "white trash" or whatever.
Here's a clue folks, if you don't actively "parent your kids", your kids will end up being hopeless lowlife clueless losers.
For This Reason, New Media Players (Apple, Yahoo, Napster, etc) argue that the "mechanical royalty for copyright" should be lowered significantly on digital downloads (specifically, to 4%).
RIAA etc argue the fee should be dropped only slightly (specifically, only to 8%).
RIAA are arguing to maintain profits for their (arguably, exceedingly dinosaur-like) "distribution model".
"While record companies have been forced to drastically cut costs and employees, music publisher catalogs have increased in value due to
The New Media crew are arguing the way of sanity and intelligence. (ie trying to push the 'downloads are effectively performances, because there's no way to differentiate' argument)
New-media companies want the rate to go even lower, contending that it should disappear when music is digitally streamed.
Every time you hear something new from the RIAA it boils down to "someone needs to shovel more money into our bank accounts, without any additional effort or contribution on our part. Our business model dictates an infinitely increasing profit margin, for infinitely decreasing effort, ad-infinitum."
And the same can be said of those ISPs who intend to violate the concept of "net-neutrality". ("someone's making money , and the bits cross our network. Ignore the fact we already billed someone for those bits, I want to directly bill BOTH the producer AND the consumer of those bits, even though they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with me").
That's not a business-model, that's a fantasy.
Amazing, Microsoft bends the facts to suit their own need to screw the customer even harder than before..... More News At 11.
- Purchase Aegia
- Continue selling dedicated Physics addon-cards
- Integrate PPU onto Graphics Cards
- (somewhere along the line, get full Microsoft Direct-Something endorsement/support of dedicated physics processing)
- possibly by licensing to AMD "PPU included on Graphics Card" rights, thusly invoking the power of Least Common Denominator
- Integrate PPU circuitry/logics into GPU (making it faster/more efficient/cheaper than equivalent solution licensed to AMD)
- ?? Profit ??
In the end, for this to *really* succeed, it needs to be a "Least Common Denominator" factor. So it *requires* full support by Microsoft and Direct-X (them being The Big Factors in the games industry). And in order to get full support from The Windows Monopolist, you'll probably (not absolutely necessary, mut it'd make it much easier to convince Microsoft) need to enable AMD/ATI to leverage this technology, to some degree.Remember folks, Nvidia don't need to *kill* AMD/ATI, they only need to stay one or two generations ahead of them in technology. So they *could* license them "last years tech" for use on their cards, to make "Least Common Denominator" not a factor which excludes their latest-get tech implementations.