From my experience, you need to pay good (very good) lip service to convince them. Most don't want to pay the monthly fees (which are usually as much or even more than what they pay for internet access) and even less, the consulting and labor needed to convert them to a "serious" IT infrastructure. And by that, I mean de-warezing, de-virusing, upgrades, securing, wring, etc. Things you need to do wether you're running your stuff in the cloud or not.
How about real-world companies? Like law firms, muffin shops, NGOs,... you know, the 99%? Because those are offered "cloud services" all the time as well.
That's the problem with cloud: there are so many cloud providers it's not economically viable anymore.
What are you going to do with that processing power? Run it off a Cable Modem / DSL Line? Might be adequate to a small number of people, but generally?
Generally you have an office and a LAN. A small company, by definition, doesn't have worldwide presence, and if they do, they still don't usually need huge amounts of bandwidth to serve thousands of users.
And if you mean a startup that sells a web service or something, they can do what we've been doing for almost 20 years: buy hosting or housing space. It doesn't need to be all "cloud". Small companies DO NOT need a world-class datacenter.
I have a TrendNET camera and an android phone. The stupid app shows a silly splash screen for 3 seconds and then shows you a list of available cameras, which you have to click, then click the MENU button, and finally, VIEW.
It's awful. The worst part is the splash screen that does absolutely nothing.
You're describing the situation in Argentina. Our government is doing many of the points you mention (8: war on grupo clarin, 1: nation-wide HDTV and fiber optics internet, 9: forcing importers to export in a 1:1 ratio)
they also closed down all private retirement funds overnight. it's all state-owned now.
it's not going so well... a lot of stuff is already missing. brazil (our main trading partner) is getting upset. you need authorization to import anything.
we're doing some other things too, like compulsive re-issue of all national documents (with biometrics like fingerprint and photo stored online). "electronic" receipts with an copy going in real-time to the tax collecting agency (AFIP), which also has access to all bank accounts...
Also, I forgot to answer your question: yes, I wouldn't bother pirating. I have a netflix account - still on the free month, and I'm analyzing wether I'll keep it or no. Probably I won't, since most of these movies I can watch on cable (which I'm already paying for).
Actually cable gives me newer movies and series (I get to see The Walking Dead 2 days after the US release. Why would I even bother downloading it?). Maybe i'm just the kind of people that likes to surf the channels and land on random programs... which is exactly what I do.
The point is that solutions are only halfway there. Netflix here in Argentina is only available for a very small fraction of people. For starters, it requires a credit card. Everyone has a credit card, right? No, you'd be surprised how uncommon credit cards (actually the Visa/Mastercard/Amex trio) are outside the "first world". Is there an option for all these people to pay? No. Do they bother searching for an option? Hell no. Prepaid cards? Payment places (where people go pay their bills)? No. Pay at a bank? No. Pay with your cell phone? No.
So it's a situation where people can't access stuff. Not that they don't want to pay for stuff -- hell, people actually pay money for ringtones! Why? Because it's as easy as sending a text. If you could watch a movie and pay for it with a text message, i'm sure a LOT of people would jump right in.
I know plenty of people here who like to pirate because they DON'T want to pay for stuff. They'd rather download a movie in parts from a file download service (disconnecting from the internet every now and then to renew their IP address and jump the time limits) and spend days doing this rather than walking even 1 block to a video rental store and pay $2 to watch the movie.
This was true when internet was 512k and downloading a movie took more than a day.
There are people who just don't want to pay for stuff - sadly, this "conveniency" piracy makes it too easy for most people to think "this is how things should be", and convince themselves that "free" is the only acceptable price. Piracy here is the norm, not the exception. We have VOD services, and Netflix and most people I showed netflix to just laugh at you for paying $8 a month to watch movies "you can gef for free".
Who doesn't benefit from copyright infringement? Think about this: how many people would pay $50 or so for high speed internet every month if they couldn't download whatever they wanted? If you were restricted to only going to public domain sites, previewing one tenth of a song only before buying it, not allowed to download a movie and see it pixellated before going to theaters or buying the DVD, or couldn't download an ebook of a book to flip through before buying it, how much would that influence whether you even decided to keep an internet connection or not?
You just described pre-broadband internet. And that didn't stop people from trying to get the fastest and greatest connection. People paid money to go from 33.6k modems to 56k (which was just 48k if you were lucky). People always want the fastestestest internet. They have wanted it before there was music, movies and books, and they will still want it even after music, movies and books.
Imagine if any of these actions which could lead to purchases resulted in an immediate arrest with no possibility of not getting caught (imagine a rigid system for this hypothetical situation). Would you still use the internet that much? What would the internet then become? A giant outlet for shopping, wikis, and social networks, and that's it?
Yes, that's what internet was. That's what the dotcom-bubble was all about. And it worked. "Lack" of piracy didn't stop the internet from existing.
You see, not everyone is in this internet thing for piracy. People are glad to PAY for stuff if it's worth it, and no one has to lose any money. Netflix and iTunes are proof that people will pay if the price is affordable. Valve proved that even if you give high discounts, you still make tons of profit.
If any, it's everyone's fault:
It's the movie studios fault, for including annoying commercials and trailers on DVDs which you CAN'T SKIP, but for which you have already paid money up front. It's the cable channel's fault, for including commercials even if you're already paying for cable. It's the movie+cable fault too, for making "deals" that prevent people from being able to watch new releases on netflix (is it really that difficult to understand that I DO NOT want to go to a public cinema, but i'd rather watch the movie at home?)
RIAA, for better or worse, has adapted somehow, but only after iTunes showed them that it is possible to sell songs online and have people pay for them.
But it all comes down to the Content Mafia wanting to maintain the status quo. The problem is not economical or technical. It's just fear. They spent a century optimizing their business and suddenly within a decade the game changes completely - so they want to stick with their methods any way they can. You see, 70 year old investors aren't easily convinced by 20-something kids. Even if 20-something kids can show them how to become billionaires in a couple of years.
But they will eventually lose. You can't keep an empire forever. Kodak went bankrupt a couple of days ago, after 130 years. It's sad news for me, a hobby film photographer, but they couldn't keep up with the times. I mean if you read their history, you know they were WAY ahead (decades ago they invented OLED. and yeah they also made the first digital camera). But poor management (read: 70 year old investors), trying to keep film as their core business, hoping that the digital fad will go away, led to the destruction of kodak. The same will happen to big movie studios if they want to keep pulling this shit.
IPv6 will undo the NAT and firewall protections by making all boxen universally addressable, and the fun will begin again
So there's no firewalling for IPv6 right? So you can't have a "middlebox" firewall like in the old days before NAT, right? So you don't really know that NAT and Stateful Firewalls are two separate things and they just happen to come preconfigured when you buy a "broadband router", right?
Please, take a look at some firewall manuals and understand all the differences and terminology and you'll see why IPv6 doesn't need to be any less secure than IPv4 just because all machines have (potentially) globally routable addresses.
There's also LUCKY brand film, chinese stuff. Extremely cheap (at least here in Argentina it costs 1/3 of ilford and kodak). SHD 100 doesn't have Anti-halation backing. So that's an interesting experiment.
Why don't you buy bulk film? 100ft cans. BTW, don't you like FP4+? I love it. Also, by the looks of it, movie film stock will be around for a while too. 1000ft of eastman 5222/7222 should last you a while:P
Slashdot Mirror
From my experience, you need to pay good (very good) lip service to convince them. Most don't want to pay the monthly fees (which are usually as much or even more than what they pay for internet access) and even less, the consulting and labor needed to convert them to a "serious" IT infrastructure. And by that, I mean de-warezing, de-virusing, upgrades, securing, wring, etc. Things you need to do wether you're running your stuff in the cloud or not.
How about real-world companies? Like law firms, muffin shops, NGOs,... you know, the 99%? Because those are offered "cloud services" all the time as well.
That's the problem with cloud: there are so many cloud providers it's not economically viable anymore.
What are you going to do with that processing power? Run it off a Cable Modem / DSL Line? Might be adequate to a small number of people, but generally?
Generally you have an office and a LAN. A small company, by definition, doesn't have worldwide presence, and if they do, they still don't usually need huge amounts of bandwidth to serve thousands of users.
And if you mean a startup that sells a web service or something, they can do what we've been doing for almost 20 years: buy hosting or housing space. It doesn't need to be all "cloud". Small companies DO NOT need a world-class datacenter.
Why would a startup or small busines need more processing power or data storage than a Core i7 or a 4TB HDD can offer?
I wonder why... bandwidth issues? CW operation? How about PSK31, since it isn't as agressive (harmonic-wise) as CW operation?
You only need a license for licensed bands. I'm sure you can do anything you want on CB.
Also, dying hobby? Didn't we have a news article on slashdot just a few months ago saying there are more hams now than ever before?
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/ham_population.bmp
OTOH, download TrendNet's own app for their network cameras and let me know how you like their splash screen.
I have a TrendNET camera and an android phone. The stupid app shows a silly splash screen for 3 seconds and then shows you a list of available cameras, which you have to click, then click the MENU button, and finally, VIEW.
It's awful. The worst part is the splash screen that does absolutely nothing.
You're describing the situation in Argentina. Our government is doing many of the points you mention (8: war on grupo clarin, 1: nation-wide HDTV and fiber optics internet, 9: forcing importers to export in a 1:1 ratio)
they also closed down all private retirement funds overnight. it's all state-owned now.
it's not going so well... a lot of stuff is already missing. brazil (our main trading partner) is getting upset. you need authorization to import anything.
we're doing some other things too, like compulsive re-issue of all national documents (with biometrics like fingerprint and photo stored online). "electronic" receipts with an copy going in real-time to the tax collecting agency (AFIP), which also has access to all bank accounts...
Since when diversifying your operations is"loing focus"? Kodak focused too much in their film division. Look at what happened to them.
And students shouldn't be warezing stuff and downloading music and movies.
Argentina and the Condor missile is another example.
You beat me to it.
But in all honesty, the UK had their missiles up Paris' ass so there wasn't much they could do about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGnTW8EhGSk
Antisocial much?
Just grab the damn phone.
Also, I forgot to answer your question: yes, I wouldn't bother pirating. I have a netflix account - still on the free month, and I'm analyzing wether I'll keep it or no. Probably I won't, since most of these movies I can watch on cable (which I'm already paying for).
Actually cable gives me newer movies and series (I get to see The Walking Dead 2 days after the US release. Why would I even bother downloading it?). Maybe i'm just the kind of people that likes to surf the channels and land on random programs... which is exactly what I do.
The point is that solutions are only halfway there. Netflix here in Argentina is only available for a very small fraction of people. For starters, it requires a credit card. Everyone has a credit card, right? No, you'd be surprised how uncommon credit cards (actually the Visa/Mastercard/Amex trio) are outside the "first world". Is there an option for all these people to pay? No. Do they bother searching for an option? Hell no. Prepaid cards? Payment places (where people go pay their bills)? No. Pay at a bank? No. Pay with your cell phone? No.
So it's a situation where people can't access stuff. Not that they don't want to pay for stuff -- hell, people actually pay money for ringtones! Why? Because it's as easy as sending a text. If you could watch a movie and pay for it with a text message, i'm sure a LOT of people would jump right in.
Well not every block, but video rental stores are still around.
Netflix only offers old movies here in Argentina (the newest i've watched there is "Superbad"), and hulu isn't available outside US.
I know plenty of people here who like to pirate because they DON'T want to pay for stuff. They'd rather download a movie in parts from a file download service (disconnecting from the internet every now and then to renew their IP address and jump the time limits) and spend days doing this rather than walking even 1 block to a video rental store and pay $2 to watch the movie.
This was true when internet was 512k and downloading a movie took more than a day.
There are people who just don't want to pay for stuff - sadly, this "conveniency" piracy makes it too easy for most people to think "this is how things should be", and convince themselves that "free" is the only acceptable price. Piracy here is the norm, not the exception. We have VOD services, and Netflix and most people I showed netflix to just laugh at you for paying $8 a month to watch movies "you can gef for free".
You just described pre-broadband internet. And that didn't stop people from trying to get the fastest and greatest connection. People paid money to go from 33.6k modems to 56k (which was just 48k if you were lucky). People always want the fastestestest internet. They have wanted it before there was music, movies and books, and they will still want it even after music, movies and books.
Yes, that's what internet was. That's what the dotcom-bubble was all about. And it worked. "Lack" of piracy didn't stop the internet from existing.
You see, not everyone is in this internet thing for piracy. People are glad to PAY for stuff if it's worth it, and no one has to lose any money. Netflix and iTunes are proof that people will pay if the price is affordable. Valve proved that even if you give high discounts, you still make tons of profit.
If any, it's everyone's fault:
It's the movie studios fault, for including annoying commercials and trailers on DVDs which you CAN'T SKIP, but for which you have already paid money up front.
It's the cable channel's fault, for including commercials even if you're already paying for cable.
It's the movie+cable fault too, for making "deals" that prevent people from being able to watch new releases on netflix (is it really that difficult to understand that I DO NOT want to go to a public cinema, but i'd rather watch the movie at home?)
RIAA, for better or worse, has adapted somehow, but only after iTunes showed them that it is possible to sell songs online and have people pay for them.
But it all comes down to the Content Mafia wanting to maintain the status quo. The problem is not economical or technical. It's just fear. They spent a century optimizing their business and suddenly within a decade the game changes completely - so they want to stick with their methods any way they can. You see, 70 year old investors aren't easily convinced by 20-something kids. Even if 20-something kids can show them how to become billionaires in a couple of years.
But they will eventually lose. You can't keep an empire forever. Kodak went bankrupt a couple of days ago, after 130 years. It's sad news for me, a hobby film photographer, but they couldn't keep up with the times. I mean if you read their history, you know they were WAY ahead (decades ago they invented OLED. and yeah they also made the first digital camera). But poor management (read: 70 year old investors), trying to keep film as their core business, hoping that the digital fad will go away, led to the destruction of kodak. The same will happen to big movie studios if they want to keep pulling this shit.
So there's no firewalling for IPv6 right?
So you can't have a "middlebox" firewall like in the old days before NAT, right?
So you don't really know that NAT and Stateful Firewalls are two separate things and they just happen to come preconfigured when you buy a "broadband router", right?
Please, take a look at some firewall manuals and understand all the differences and terminology and you'll see why IPv6 doesn't need to be any less secure than IPv4 just because all machines have (potentially) globally routable addresses.
There's also LUCKY brand film, chinese stuff. Extremely cheap (at least here in Argentina it costs 1/3 of ilford and kodak). SHD 100 doesn't have Anti-halation backing. So that's an interesting experiment.
Ilford only makes black and white films, and I don't see them going broke. Not even decades after color has been available to everyone.
Why don't you buy bulk film? 100ft cans. :P
BTW, don't you like FP4+? I love it.
Also, by the looks of it, movie film stock will be around for a while too. 1000ft of eastman 5222/7222 should last you a while
"hideously awful" movie? You don't watch a lot of movies, do you?