You all have no reason to believe me, but... I personally know someone who worked for Executive Software from a about a year who has seen source code. He is not a Scientologisst. He did site part of his reason for leaving them (Executive Software) was that he was getting pressure to "check out" Scientology.
In any case, he's seen source code. But the company clearly has Scientology as a core value.
but did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying? It makes me very happy that my DSL kit arrived yesterday
Here's the thing. $49.95 or whatever it is you pay really doesn't cover the cost of all that bandwidth if EVERYONE uses it. It's called oversubscribtion and the $19.95 dial-up ISPs are alive because of it. The ISP (in this case Comcast) can't offer that service at that price if everyone uses it. Even T1 services are oversubscribed to some extent. But with a T1 you ARE paying for the bandwidth you're getting. Your DSL service is no better, if lots of customers start using all downstream bandwidth all the time, the ISP would have to discontinue the service at that price.
It's not quite moot. It depends on what you mean by "B's local network". Imagine an national ISP with either has their own long-haul links between POPs or piggy-backs on someone else's links between POPs. A can ship B one bit that needs to be duplicate to (potentially) many POPs those long-haul lines can be a limited resource.
My point was that ISPs were confused about how multicasting and how it affected thier current price/revenue models.
I attended a conference (Stardust) several years
ago and at one of the discussion groups several
ISPs were involved. A common concern was how
to charge and be charged by their peers for
multicast traffic.
Simple Example:
ISP A and B peer with each other, the ship bits
both directions all month long. At the end of
the month, they settle up. With unicast traffic,
the number of bits comming over the peering
connection coorosponds to the number of bits
shipped inside a given ISPs network.
With multicasting, A send a single multicast
stream to B, but B has to repeat it at several
points to get it to various dial-up and broadband
POPs and the customers connected to those POPs.
A can send a single stream which cause much more
load on Bs network.
Some older motheroard/BIOS won't take more than 32MB of RAM. I've got an old HP Pavillion acting as a router. It's got a limit of 32MB. I have no need for a window manager on it though so it runs great!
probably have not seen the inside of one of their facilities, because they arn't in the colo business?:)
What businees are they in? Our company (this was in 2000), placed servers in a rack that was owned/leased by Internap. We were provided power, space, and conectivity for a monthly fee. What business is that?
At my old gig (went kaboom in the.com bust) we dealt with many of these companies:
Exodus - The McDonalds of colo's cheap everywhere but HORRIBLE service and not so good connectivity. The facilities themselves (I've been in their San Jose and Los Angeles ones) rock, but we eventually dropped them for lack of support.
Internap - They ROCK! Never been in a facility, but others I worked with liked them, they're connectivity is top-notch. They're expensive, and worth it if you need good connectivity to most of the net.
Somebody mentioned the trouble with VNC for remote administration, if the PC isn't working then VNC may not be up either. KVM's don't suffer from this. But they're distance limited. Compaq makes a product that gives the best of both worlds. It's a PCI card for the "controlled" PC. It hooks into the video, keyboard, mouse, and power. It has it's own power supply and NIC in it. It gives you a KVM-like control over TCP/IP. You control it via java and a web browser. A company I used to work for deployed these in several hundred servers that were located all over the U.S. It got us out of jams where VNC or a KVM would not.
The article didn't suggest that the AMD chips ran hot. The article said that if the heatsink fell off then your AMD chip would be toast. If your heat sink stays on the chip and your fan is running then no problem.
Well, I wouldn't quite say "no problem". The hotter the chip the more unstable it gets (random stops) etc. Not only that it can actually make the area around the box uncomfortably hot.
I read that Tom's article and it got me thinking (I use a Athlon TBird 1Ghz). It's aloways been hot. When it's on for long periods of time, the office gets hot, when I run a spare-cycle slurper it stays REALLY hot. I've never actually had a problem I could trace back specifically to heat, but it's always been an issue with this CPU. I bought an really fast fan for it, and it was WAY too noisy. The generic one should be could enough. At the very least, I'd like to know that the CPU would protect itself (Intel's either shutdown or slowdown, see the recent Tom's Hardware article about overheating Intel vs. AMD).
Could this be part of Gateway's decision? Are these chips just too hard to cool? When you really think about it, the TBirds have an enormous amount of heat disapating from a very small area. Seems like a broken design. At least from a longevity point of view.
I'm going to be build a new home soon in a rural area, in an area known for high-winds.
Would it be feasible to augment my power with a wind setup? What are the costs? Who provides this equipment to residential users?
A while back I went to a mutlicast conference. One of the small group meetings there was all about gathering a bunch of ISP guys in a room and having them hash out the problems of delivering multicasting content across peering points. Today, smaller ISPs get charged by bigger backbone providers for peering with them. Charges can be usually by the bit.
The arguments centered around things like: "If AT&T multicasts a 20Kbps stream, it'll cross the the EarthlinkAT&T peering point as a single 20Kbps data stream, but then it'll EXPLODE inside Earthlink's networks and all Earthlink's users will get to see the AT&T multicast content while Earthlink only pays AT&T for the single 20KBps. AT&T will be cheated!"
I've recently been going thru a cleanup of my >20GB collection, it's been tough. But MP3 Internet Renamer has helped. Try the Tucows page for it if the above link doesn't work.
I looked thru several of these apps, this one is the most flexible, bar none.
Thought of that, I want a real ring, I could be upstairs, outside, wherever. I take a cordless with me now and it'll ring, I don't want to jack up my PC's speaker volume or run extra speaker wire to hear a phone ring
I've been thinking about this sort of thing for some time, but the system I want is that a caller is greeted by a menu that ends up with one of three states:
Caller gets disconnected
Caller gets to leave a voice message
Caller get's rung thru to a regular phone connected to the PC
1 and 2 appear to be easy, just sending sound files to the voice modem, number 3 is proving hard. From what I've seen, voice modems won't generate their own ring signal to phones connected to them they can only pass the signal coming from the line. Does anyone know of hardware (controllable by software on the PC) that will do this? The closest I've seen is the Quicknet LineJack. But I'm having trouble getting details on it. To see what it'll actually do.
Assuming he means 2MegaBITS/sec...
It's possible (and likely) that the campus network is limiting bandwidth at the switch and aggregating ports would help. It is hoarding, but it'd be a fun excercise to get it to work.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding that they did it in quite a few markets. Even some smaller ones (I saw the NetApp screening in Albuquerque).
KB
You all have no reason to believe me, but...
I personally know someone who worked for Executive Software from a about a year who has seen source code. He is not a Scientologisst. He did site part of his reason for leaving them (Executive Software) was that he was getting pressure to "check out" Scientology.
In any case, he's seen source code. But the company clearly has Scientology as a core value.
Like this?
http://freenetproject.org
but did anyone think they'd already be harassing people that are using nothing more than the bandwidth for which they are paying? It makes me very happy that my DSL kit arrived yesterday
Here's the thing. $49.95 or whatever it is you pay really doesn't cover the cost of all that bandwidth if EVERYONE uses it. It's called oversubscribtion and the $19.95 dial-up ISPs are alive because of it. The ISP (in this case Comcast) can't offer that service at that price if everyone uses it. Even T1 services are oversubscribed to some extent. But with a T1 you ARE paying for the bandwidth you're getting. Your DSL service is no better, if lots of customers start using all downstream bandwidth all the time, the ISP would have to discontinue the service at that price.
the product was rubberhose maybe?
It's not quite moot. It depends on what you mean by "B's local network". Imagine an national ISP with either has their own long-haul links between POPs or piggy-backs on someone else's links between POPs. A can ship B one bit that needs to be duplicate to (potentially) many POPs those long-haul lines can be a limited resource.
My point was that ISPs were confused about how multicasting and how it affected thier current price/revenue models.
The hardware isn't the cost, the software is.
I attended a conference (Stardust) several years
ago and at one of the discussion groups several
ISPs were involved. A common concern was how
to charge and be charged by their peers for
multicast traffic.
Simple Example:
ISP A and B peer with each other, the ship bits
both directions all month long. At the end of
the month, they settle up. With unicast traffic,
the number of bits comming over the peering
connection coorosponds to the number of bits
shipped inside a given ISPs network.
With multicasting, A send a single multicast
stream to B, but B has to repeat it at several
points to get it to various dial-up and broadband
POPs and the customers connected to those POPs.
A can send a single stream which cause much more
load on Bs network.
Some older motheroard/BIOS won't take more than 32MB of RAM. I've got an old HP Pavillion acting as a router. It's got a limit of 32MB. I have no need for a window manager on it though so it runs great!
KB
What businees are they in? Our company (this was in 2000), placed servers in a rack that was owned/leased by Internap. We were provided power, space, and conectivity for a monthly fee. What business is that?
At my old gig (went kaboom in the .com bust) we dealt with many of these companies:
Exodus - The McDonalds of colo's cheap everywhere but HORRIBLE service and not so good connectivity. The facilities themselves (I've been in their San Jose and Los Angeles ones) rock, but we eventually dropped them for lack of support.
Internap - They ROCK! Never been in a facility, but others I worked with liked them, they're connectivity is top-notch. They're expensive, and worth it if you need good connectivity to most of the net.
Verio - Seemed ok, not stellar, not bad.
I don't remember much about the others.
Somebody mentioned the trouble with VNC for remote administration, if the PC isn't working then VNC may not be up either. KVM's don't suffer from this. But they're distance limited. Compaq makes a product that gives the best of both worlds. It's a PCI card for the "controlled" PC. It hooks into the video, keyboard, mouse, and power. It has it's own power supply and NIC in it. It gives you a KVM-like control over TCP/IP. You control it via java and a web browser. A company I used to work for deployed these in several hundred servers that were located all over the U.S. It got us out of jams where VNC or a KVM would not.
The article didn't suggest that the AMD chips ran hot. The article said that if the heatsink fell off then your AMD chip would be toast. If your heat sink stays on the chip and your fan is running then no problem.
Well, I wouldn't quite say "no problem". The hotter the chip the more unstable it gets (random stops) etc. Not only that it can actually make the area around the box uncomfortably hot.
If I read this right you get to pay $10/month AND listen to commercials (at least on some stations.) What's the draw?
Otherwise, my $400 is going into a nice car MP3 player. If you hurry, you can pick up an empeg player. But you'll need a bit more than $400.
I read that Tom's article and it got me thinking (I use a Athlon TBird 1Ghz). It's aloways been hot. When it's on for long periods of time, the office gets hot, when I run a spare-cycle slurper it stays REALLY hot. I've never actually had a problem I could trace back specifically to heat, but it's always been an issue with this CPU. I bought an really fast fan for it, and it was WAY too noisy. The generic one should be could enough. At the very least, I'd like to know that the CPU would protect itself (Intel's either shutdown or slowdown, see the recent Tom's Hardware article about overheating Intel vs. AMD). Could this be part of Gateway's decision? Are these chips just too hard to cool? When you really think about it, the TBirds have an enormous amount of heat disapating from a very small area. Seems like a broken design. At least from a longevity point of view.
Both DirectTV and EchoStar (Dish network) offer 2-way sattelite now.
I'm going to be build a new home soon in a rural area, in an area known for high-winds.
Would it be feasible to augment my power with a wind setup? What are the costs? Who provides this equipment to residential users?
A while back I went to a mutlicast conference. One of the small group meetings there was all about gathering a bunch of ISP guys in a room and having them hash out the problems of delivering multicasting content across peering points. Today, smaller ISPs get charged by bigger backbone providers for peering with them. Charges can be usually by the bit. The arguments centered around things like: "If AT&T multicasts a 20Kbps stream, it'll cross the the EarthlinkAT&T peering point as a single 20Kbps data stream, but then it'll EXPLODE inside Earthlink's networks and all Earthlink's users will get to see the AT&T multicast content while Earthlink only pays AT&T for the single 20KBps. AT&T will be cheated!"
I've recently been going thru a cleanup of my >20GB collection, it's been tough. But MP3 Internet Renamer has helped. Try the Tucows page for it if the above link doesn't work. I looked thru several of these apps, this one is the most flexible, bar none.
Thought of that, I want a real ring, I could be upstairs, outside, wherever. I take a cordless with me now and it'll ring, I don't want to jack up my PC's speaker volume or run extra speaker wire to hear a phone ring
- Caller gets disconnected
- Caller gets to leave a voice message
- Caller get's rung thru to a regular phone connected to the PC
1 and 2 appear to be easy, just sending sound files to the voice modem, number 3 is proving hard. From what I've seen, voice modems won't generate their own ring signal to phones connected to them they can only pass the signal coming from the line. Does anyone know of hardware (controllable by software on the PC) that will do this? The closest I've seen is the Quicknet LineJack. But I'm having trouble getting details on it. To see what it'll actually do."Firstly, use WinAMP for playing CD's" or XMMS
For something a bit different, try Sonique. It's pretty but a processor hog.
For Palm and Handspring, The PalmVII isn't the only way to go. OmniSky offers hardware and an ISP.
Assuming he means 2MegaBITS/sec... It's possible (and likely) that the campus network is limiting bandwidth at the switch and aggregating ports would help. It is hoarding, but it'd be a fun excercise to get it to work.