I found the following link using Google, it doesn't go into much detail (which is a problem in itself - where is the RFC?), however, it doesn't suggest that "C" in my example is just a broker - it seems to be saying that C performs the role I described in my first post.
From an email I just sent to somebody. I could be wrong about the NAT issue, I looked into it about 3 or 4 months ago.
NAT screws up point to point protocols, in particular when both
participating end-points are behind NAT boxes. Skype gets around that by
bouncing the phone call off of a third "peer" that has a public IP address.
There are a number of drawbacks with this "solution" to NAT problems
(a) your phone call, between NATted peers A and B, relies on a third party C
with a public IP address. If C fails, the phone call fails, even though peers
A and B still have connectivity, and there may (still) be a direct network
path between peers A and B.
(b) C bears a cost of carrying this phone call, yet never receives any
benefits. Traffic goes from A to C to B and from B to C to A. C ends up paying
(in either $ terms, or reduced bandwidth availablity), yet C isn't part
of the converstation. A and B, due to being behind NAT, can never recipricate
the role they were provided with by C. In fact, it might appear that A, B and
C are peers, but A and B are not. _peer_ means an equal. A and B are not
equals when it comes to the value they contribute to the network, so they
aren't peers of C. Wind the clock forward a few years, and if NAT deployment
continues, these "peer to peer" networks will have more and more "As and Bs",
and less and less "Cs". The Cs will continue to have to bare an increased
costs without receiving any benefits. That is a disincentive for the Cs to
continue to exist. Cs will turn NAT on so they don't suffer any more.
Eventually there won't be any Cs. IOW, NAT is going to eventually destroy the
Skype "peer to peer" VoIP network... or maybe Skype is relying on that, and
eventually will provide a paid "Cs" service. Hmm, that's a nice conspiracy
theory.
(c) Even if Skype implements encryption protocols, unless adequate measures
are taken (eg, trading _independently verified_ public keys),
man-in-the-middle type attacks are possible. Of course, that is possible on
the Internet anyway, even with a true "peer to peer" or two party protocol.
However, it does require access to the "infrastructure" of the Internet, eg
routers, firewals etc, and this access is relatively rare. Bare in mind that
both public / private key protocols like RSA, and other key exchange
protocols, like Diffie-Hellman, are naturally vulnerable to MITM attacks,
which is why the parties have to be independantly verified, outside of the key
exchange protocols themselves.
The Skype "anti-NAT" solution actually architects in a "man-in-the-middle" ie.
C in the example above. If people don't independantly and properly verify
_public keys_, and they usually won't, because it is complicated, and hard to
understand what value it adds (which are typical of most security eg, most
people don't pick good passwords), all the "Cs" are in ideal positions to
listen in on phone calls. Just wait till a proof of concept is announced on
Bugtraq, and then see how many script kiddies start disabling NAT so they can
listen in on Skype phone calls.
(d) And then there is the whole "proprietory product / customer lock-in
problem". Why else would Skype create their own proprietory VoIP solution, when perfectly good ones existed that were open standards, developed via the IETF ?
The lack of WMDs might get GWB out of the WH. There wouldn't be a lack of WMDs if there weren't WMDs in the first place (something has to exist before it can't exist, WOW, have I just made a scientific breakthrough ?! Where's Stephen Hawking's phone number, I had it somewhere around here...)
I'm sure the Democrats would agree that WMDs have other, non-explosive purposes if they win the next election.
Sorry if I've gotten the Democrat / Republican thing the wrong way around, I'm an Australian.
There is nothing racist about (1) checking the bags and bodies of all non-American citizens from the USA and (2) performing a less intensive check of American citizens. The threat is from the Middle Easterner, not the average American.
Broken down into two parts:
There is nothing racist about (1) checking the bags and bodies of all non-American citizens from the USA and (2) performing a less intensive check of American citizens.
Probably a reasonable precaution, although the costs of doing it may be much higher than the security value it provides. How would you like to pay 90% tax on your salary to feel "safe" from random terrorist acts, that occur no more than once every three years in America.
Btw, as a non-American, I would qualify for this checking.
The threat is from the Middle Easterner, not the average American.
And there is your racism.
Your initial statement makes all non-Americans a potential threat. Now you choose to selectively identify a segment of non-Americans, based on race alone, and declare that only they provide a threat. So which is it, non-Americans, or non-Americans from the Middle East ?
Now you know why I'm not going to visit America in the near future, because (a) I don't want to visit a country where I'm considered suspicious, without any grounds, and (b) I choose not to associate with racists.
Please don't visit where I live (Australia), people like you aren't welcome.
Then again, if you do, I'm sure we can come up with some genetic trait we can use to prevent you coming in. Got blue eyes ? Brown hair ? Talk slow ? Loud ? Fat ? I'm sure there have been terrorists with any one of these traits in the past.
Never would have happened here in Adelaide, Australia though, shorts are permitted at school. Admittedly, they do (or used to) send you home early if the temperature goes past 38C, I'm sure that has nothing to do with shorts though:-) (last Summer we had the hottest recorded temporature for many years - 44.1 C, and this is in a major capital city. Youch, that was hot! The coldest day on record in recent years was 9 C. I like living here because summer is hot, and winter is relatively cold.)
Reading through the post, it is surprising that, after at least 10 downloads, he (she?) never suspected that the MD5 utility being used has either become corrupt, or has been cracked, causing it to not produce correct hash output.
After the third or fouth failure, you should start considering more unlikely causes - corrupt MD5 utility, OS bugs, memory errors, etc. Any one of those could have cause the problems being described.
I'm certainly an OSS advocate, that's all I run, and all I have run for the last two years.
I do agree with using the best tool for the job in Government, be it open or closed source.
However, I really think a prerequisite, in the case of close source being the best tool, is an open data format. It shouldn't be acceptable to have government, and therefore the public's data locked away inside a file that only one application can process.
Yes, I know that OO.org can handle Word documents, for example. However, it shouldn't be necessary to reverse engineer the file format each time MS release a new version. That isn't an open data format, and so I don't think government should use MS word.
Good business sense is to occasionally question the "conventional". To question where all the money is going, when no benefit is gained.
It is good business sense to question why to continue to use and recommend Microsoft software, when better, more secure and cheaper solutions may exist.
I don't blame customers for make less informed decisions about what is good or bad software to use. I would ask that more informed people, probably such as yourself, be looking out for your customers best interests. Using web standards is in your customers best interests. A person with good business sense would make that advice available to their customers, as the customer benefits, and you, as the advice giver, are likely to get more business.
And by the way, you are one of those Gnu/Linux hippie types who gives Linux users a bad name because of your rhetoric about everything Microsoft.
Before calling me names, I'd suggest you find out more about my opinions.
Once the data format is open, then the government agencies can select the best implementation that suits their needs, based on budget, functionality, hardware capabilities etc, be it closed or open source.
I wouldn't encourage using MS software for web application development. That doesn't mean I'm against using it for any particular purpose. If it is the best, most cost effective solution, and the data formats are open, preventing vendor lock in, then I'd be happy to recommend it.
Yes,and if you're rolling out a £10000 web application for a company that is one of those, then you should just tell them they have to upgrade all their boxes in defiance of corporate policy?
They'd have to be used to constant (weekly) security upgrades if they are using MSIE, and the associated MS OSes. I'd also bet those applications stop working every now and again, as the upgrade changes (breaks) the way something works.
On a non-critical site I'm all for using standards and techniques that, in theory, make for a better experience for the user, but there are times that it just isn't practical.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I can't understand who would use MSIE for a critical site these days, with all the associated security problems. Even the Department of Homeland security recommends against using it (not that that means a lot, although it is unusual for a government department to come out against any particular software product).
I'm quite aware people can't just drop one software product for another. However, regarding MSIE, people should be starting their migration plans away from it now.
It makes financial sense to move to standards based web applications. For a start, a larger (larger being >1) variety of web browsers are available. If you have trouble with one browser, you aren't locked into it. Nor are you locked into the OS it sits on.
The standard also includes a label for every form element, which currently does not exist. This is very useful for disabled people - e.g. blind people, their screen-readers can figure out which text belongs to which form element. This is currently impossible.
You also no longer define the type of formelement (radiobutton, selectboxes,...) the browsing tool chooses the most apropriate system. For graphical browsers radiobuttons may be cool, but for screen readers it may read the form like "choose one of the following", and for small display devices a dropdown-menu maybe better as 2 radio buttons plus their label takes up too much screen space.
Wow these are great features, it seems you like them, and see benefit in them for a number of people, including the disabled.
To me it makes sense, but I know that I wont use XForms anytime soon. Because there's still companies that have MSIE 5 as the only allowed browser in their IT-policy... Creating a web- application for them still includes crazy html and javascript hacks
Yes, let's all give up, MSIE is the best browser in the world, we shouldn't try to show how standards can make things better.
Thankfully there are enough people in the world who won't just accept the status quo such that improvements keep coming. Sadly, you don't seem to be one of them.
But that the "Big 4" refuse to peer with the other Tier-1 ISP's down here.
I still don't think you understand what peering is.
It is a prerequisite that both parties who are going to enter a peering agreement consider the other to be a peer (in the true sense of the word, an equal).
As much as the other ISPs think they are peers (equals, remember) with the big guys, they aren't. The big guys don't consider them peers, so they won't peer with them.
It appears to me that you haven't read that Interconnection and Peering article I posted. It covers what peering is, and the issues entailed, quite well. You'll then understand why the big ISPs are ignoring the little ones.
ISP's have been going to the ACCC about it, funny since it was a ACCC decision in 1998 which forced the 4 to peer.
I could be wrong, however, from memory, Ozemail was one of the proponents behind this ruling.
Ask yourself why the current enquiry into this is taking so long (at least a year now). Maybe there isn't really an issue, just that the smaller ISPs have a different agenda to what they are saying in the press.
So how could the smaller ISPs become peers of the large ones? Well, if they all got together and agreed to aggregate their networks, they might have a network that is equal enough to one of the large ISPs networks. Then the large ISPs might be interested in peering. Of course, that is unlikely to happen, as I'd very much doubt the small ISPs would get together like this, because, after all, they would be helping out their competitors, the other smaller ISPs.
Some of the 'in the press' articles at PIPE networks provide some insight into the state of peering in Australia.
And what business are PIPE networks in ? Wouldn't it be in their interests to portray the peering situation in Australia to be a certain way, which will increase their business ? Do you think they'll ever be a press release from PIPE saying they are happy with the peering arrangements of the large ISPs (who are their competitors after all) ? I'd doubt it, that wouldn't be in their interests.
You can't get independent news from any corporate entity. There is always a PR spin on it, which furthers the interests of the corporate entity.
In fact, this is why I care about it. I don't like the fact that the smaller ISPs are hiding their agenda for cheaper bandwidth from their upstream suppliers behind the "they won't peer with us" story. The public are being told only half the truth.
BTW, want another example of the public being tricked. ARIA (the Australian Recording Industry Association) complain all about music copyright breaches, how the artists are getting ripped of etc. All sounds good. Hang on, are they the "Australian Music Artists Association", or are they the "Australian Recording Industry Association". Oh, so they don't directly represent the artists, they actually represent the record companies ! They pretend they represent the artists, and I think a lot of artists believe it. However, their agenda is driven by what is firstly good for the record company members, not the artists.
From their web page (http://www.aria.com.au/)
Our members range from major record labels to small independents - ARIA works to protect their interests, acts as an industry advocate, compiles the weekly ARIA charts, and promotes initiatives to support local music.
If you had to attribute any of that statement to directly representing the interests of the artists, it could only be the promotes initiatives to support local music part. Even then, those initiatives would be ones that the record companies have a chance of making money off of.
The first step in determining the real truth behind a statement is to determine the possible motives and agenda of the entity making that statement.
Raid 0 can work out just fine, as long as your realize its limitations and store your data accordingly.
Sadly, it seems, since this argument has taken on religious overtones, the biggest worshipers of RAID-0 seem to be those that haven't realised or just dismiss these limitations. Still that is what zealotry is all about - blind faith.
Oh well, we can only but wait for fate to take it's course./p.
Sending traffic across the road to the "Big 4" (Telstra, Optus, MCI/Ozemail, Telco NZ/AAPT) costs a fortune, since they refuse to peer with anybody else. In fact, bringing your own link from the U.S is cheaper than transit bandwidth from the Big 4, that is, if your in Sydney with lots of money. Only 6 ISP's actually have their own international links.
I'm afraid I don't really believe this. Have you priced a transit link to the US ?
I don't think you truely understand what peering is. If you did, you would understand why the Big ISPs won't peer with the little ones - which, simplified, is that fact that they aren't approximately the same size AKA peers.
Now, if all the little ISPs could meet those terms and conditions, and offered equal benefit to MCI, I'm sure MCI would be interested in talking. Otherwise, the smaller ISPs are just customers who want cheaper bandwidth, and are using the "they won't peer with us, they must be evil" reason to further their cheaper bandwidth adgenda.
And no, I don't work for any of the organisations above.
Not permanently, however, it would cause penguin some problems if people rang up and complained about not being able to get to the web site, and Katie Jones wouldn't have to pay for bandwidth.
I find avoiding sitting at traffic lights on major roads by going via the back streets, even if the trip takes longer in both time and distance terms, feels shorter. I'm keeping moving, so I feel like I'm getting somewhere for more of the trip.
Which tends to indicate that if you can distract a human mind from making "time monitoring" the current focus, a human mind will not perceive lengths of time as accurately.
I think your progress bars are having the same effect as me taking the backstreets.
Slashdot Mirror
From memory, apparently they moved them into Kernel mode in NT 4.
I found the following link using Google, it doesn't go into much detail (which is a problem in itself - where is the RFC?), however, it doesn't suggest that "C" in my example is just a broker - it seems to be saying that C performs the role I described in my first post.
P2P Telephony Explained - For Geeks Only
From an email I just sent to somebody. I could be wrong about the NAT issue, I looked into it about 3 or 4 months ago.
NAT screws up point to point protocols, in particular when both participating end-points are behind NAT boxes. Skype gets around that by bouncing the phone call off of a third "peer" that has a public IP address.
There are a number of drawbacks with this "solution" to NAT problems
(a) your phone call, between NATted peers A and B, relies on a third party C with a public IP address. If C fails, the phone call fails, even though peers A and B still have connectivity, and there may (still) be a direct network path between peers A and B.
(b) C bears a cost of carrying this phone call, yet never receives any benefits. Traffic goes from A to C to B and from B to C to A. C ends up paying (in either $ terms, or reduced bandwidth availablity), yet C isn't part of the converstation. A and B, due to being behind NAT, can never recipricate the role they were provided with by C. In fact, it might appear that A, B and C are peers, but A and B are not. _peer_ means an equal. A and B are not equals when it comes to the value they contribute to the network, so they aren't peers of C. Wind the clock forward a few years, and if NAT deployment continues, these "peer to peer" networks will have more and more "As and Bs", and less and less "Cs". The Cs will continue to have to bare an increased costs without receiving any benefits. That is a disincentive for the Cs to continue to exist. Cs will turn NAT on so they don't suffer any more. Eventually there won't be any Cs. IOW, NAT is going to eventually destroy the Skype "peer to peer" VoIP network... or maybe Skype is relying on that, and eventually will provide a paid "Cs" service. Hmm, that's a nice conspiracy theory.
(c) Even if Skype implements encryption protocols, unless adequate measures are taken (eg, trading _independently verified_ public keys), man-in-the-middle type attacks are possible. Of course, that is possible on the Internet anyway, even with a true "peer to peer" or two party protocol. However, it does require access to the "infrastructure" of the Internet, eg routers, firewals etc, and this access is relatively rare. Bare in mind that both public / private key protocols like RSA, and other key exchange protocols, like Diffie-Hellman, are naturally vulnerable to MITM attacks, which is why the parties have to be independantly verified, outside of the key exchange protocols themselves.
The Skype "anti-NAT" solution actually architects in a "man-in-the-middle" ie. C in the example above. If people don't independantly and properly verify _public keys_, and they usually won't, because it is complicated, and hard to understand what value it adds (which are typical of most security eg, most people don't pick good passwords), all the "Cs" are in ideal positions to listen in on phone calls. Just wait till a proof of concept is announced on Bugtraq, and then see how many script kiddies start disabling NAT so they can listen in on Skype phone calls.
(d) And then there is the whole "proprietory product / customer lock-in problem". Why else would Skype create their own proprietory VoIP solution, when perfectly good ones existed that were open standards, developed via the IETF ?
The lack of WMDs might get GWB out of the WH. There wouldn't be a lack of WMDs if there weren't WMDs in the first place (something has to exist before it can't exist, WOW, have I just made a scientific breakthrough ?! Where's Stephen Hawking's phone number, I had it somewhere around here ...)
I'm sure the Democrats would agree that WMDs have other, non-explosive purposes if they win the next election.
Sorry if I've gotten the Democrat / Republican thing the wrong way around, I'm an Australian.
Plenty of American's say that when they visit, it would appear that you haven't been here yet.
Your original statement :
There is nothing racist about (1) checking the bags and bodies of all non-American citizens from the USA and (2) performing a less intensive check of American citizens. The threat is from the Middle Easterner, not the average American.
Broken down into two parts :
There is nothing racist about (1) checking the bags and bodies of all non-American citizens from the USA and (2) performing a less intensive check of American citizens.
Probably a reasonable precaution, although the costs of doing it may be much higher than the security value it provides. How would you like to pay 90% tax on your salary to feel "safe" from random terrorist acts, that occur no more than once every three years in America.
Btw, as a non-American, I would qualify for this checking.
The threat is from the Middle Easterner, not the average American.
And there is your racism.
Your initial statement makes all non-Americans a potential threat. Now you choose to selectively identify a segment of non-Americans, based on race alone, and declare that only they provide a threat. So which is it, non-Americans, or non-Americans from the Middle East ?
Now you know why I'm not going to visit America in the near future, because (a) I don't want to visit a country where I'm considered suspicious, without any grounds, and (b) I choose not to associate with racists.
Please don't visit where I live (Australia), people like you aren't welcome.
Then again, if you do, I'm sure we can come up with some genetic trait we can use to prevent you coming in. Got blue eyes ? Brown hair ? Talk slow ? Loud ? Fat ? I'm sure there have been terrorists with any one of these traits in the past.
Never would have happened here in Adelaide, Australia though, shorts are permitted at school. Admittedly, they do (or used to) send you home early if the temperature goes past 38C, I'm sure that has nothing to do with shorts though :-) (last Summer we had the hottest recorded temporature for many years - 44.1 C, and this is in a major capital city. Youch, that was hot! The coldest day on record in recent years was 9 C. I like living here because summer is hot, and winter is relatively cold.)
XCP - the XML Control Protocol
cause it is.
I'm a really nice person, and therefore I deserve it :-).
Trying the Survivor All Stars trick, it worked on TV.
Reading through the post, it is surprising that, after at least 10 downloads, he (she?) never suspected that the MD5 utility being used has either become corrupt, or has been cracked, causing it to not produce correct hash output.
After the third or fouth failure, you should start considering more unlikely causes - corrupt MD5 utility, OS bugs, memory errors, etc. Any one of those could have cause the problems being described.
The artist could then make 50% of the procedes
You've even guessed correctly the percentage that the artist gets from each sale.
As long as they cover the genre's that you like, they've got some great music. Highly recommended.
I'm certainly an OSS advocate, that's all I run, and all I have run for the last two years.
I do agree with using the best tool for the job in Government, be it open or closed source.
However, I really think a prerequisite, in the case of close source being the best tool, is an open data format. It shouldn't be acceptable to have government, and therefore the public's data locked away inside a file that only one application can process.
Yes, I know that OO.org can handle Word documents, for example. However, it shouldn't be necessary to reverse engineer the file format each time MS release a new version. That isn't an open data format, and so I don't think government should use MS word.
What great business sense you have!
Good business sense is to occasionally question the "conventional". To question where all the money is going, when no benefit is gained.
It is good business sense to question why to continue to use and recommend Microsoft software, when better, more secure and cheaper solutions may exist.
I don't blame customers for make less informed decisions about what is good or bad software to use. I would ask that more informed people, probably such as yourself, be looking out for your customers best interests. Using web standards is in your customers best interests. A person with good business sense would make that advice available to their customers, as the customer benefits, and you, as the advice giver, are likely to get more business.
And by the way, you are one of those Gnu/Linux hippie types who gives Linux users a bad name because of your rhetoric about everything Microsoft.
Before calling me names, I'd suggest you find out more about my opinions.
Here is my opinion on the mandating of Open Source software in government - Deomcrats, Open Source and parliment.
Quoting myself,
Once the data format is open, then the government agencies can select the best implementation that suits their needs, based on budget, functionality, hardware capabilities etc, be it closed or open source.
I wouldn't encourage using MS software for web application development. That doesn't mean I'm against using it for any particular purpose. If it is the best, most cost effective solution, and the data formats are open, preventing vendor lock in, then I'd be happy to recommend it.
Yes,and if you're rolling out a £10000 web application for a company that is one of those, then you should just tell them they have to upgrade all their boxes in defiance of corporate policy?
They'd have to be used to constant (weekly) security upgrades if they are using MSIE, and the associated MS OSes. I'd also bet those applications stop working every now and again, as the upgrade changes (breaks) the way something works.
On a non-critical site I'm all for using standards and techniques that, in theory, make for a better experience for the user, but there are times that it just isn't practical.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I can't understand who would use MSIE for a critical site these days, with all the associated security problems. Even the Department of Homeland security recommends against using it (not that that means a lot, although it is unusual for a government department to come out against any particular software product).
I'm quite aware people can't just drop one software product for another. However, regarding MSIE, people should be starting their migration plans away from it now.
It makes financial sense to move to standards based web applications. For a start, a larger (larger being >1) variety of web browsers are available. If you have trouble with one browser, you aren't locked into it. Nor are you locked into the OS it sits on.
The standard also includes a label for every form element, which currently does not exist. This is very useful for disabled people - e.g. blind people, their screen-readers can figure out which text belongs to which form element. This is currently impossible.
You also no longer define the type of formelement (radiobutton, selectboxes,...) the browsing tool chooses the most apropriate system. For graphical browsers radiobuttons may be cool, but for screen readers it may read the form like "choose one of the following", and for small display devices a dropdown-menu maybe better as 2 radio buttons plus their label takes up too much screen space.
Wow these are great features, it seems you like them, and see benefit in them for a number of people, including the disabled.
To me it makes sense, but I know that I wont use XForms anytime soon. Because there's still companies that have MSIE 5 as the only allowed browser in their IT-policy... Creating a web- application for them still includes crazy html and javascript hacks
Yes, let's all give up, MSIE is the best browser in the world, we shouldn't try to show how standards can make things better.
Thankfully there are enough people in the world who won't just accept the status quo such that improvements keep coming. Sadly, you don't seem to be one of them.
I own an answering machine which my wife is somewhat attached to and to be honest, so am I.
Answering machine bondage, that's a new one. How do you attach the handcuffs ?
But that the "Big 4" refuse to peer with the other Tier-1 ISP's down here.
I still don't think you understand what peering is.
It is a prerequisite that both parties who are going to enter a peering agreement consider the other to be a peer (in the true sense of the word, an equal).
As much as the other ISPs think they are peers (equals, remember) with the big guys, they aren't. The big guys don't consider them peers, so they won't peer with them.
It appears to me that you haven't read that Interconnection and Peering article I posted. It covers what peering is, and the issues entailed, quite well. You'll then understand why the big ISPs are ignoring the little ones.
ISP's have been going to the ACCC about it, funny since it was a ACCC decision in 1998 which forced the 4 to peer.
I could be wrong, however, from memory, Ozemail was one of the proponents behind this ruling.
Ask yourself why the current enquiry into this is taking so long (at least a year now). Maybe there isn't really an issue, just that the smaller ISPs have a different agenda to what they are saying in the press.
So how could the smaller ISPs become peers of the large ones? Well, if they all got together and agreed to aggregate their networks, they might have a network that is equal enough to one of the large ISPs networks. Then the large ISPs might be interested in peering. Of course, that is unlikely to happen, as I'd very much doubt the small ISPs would get together like this, because, after all, they would be helping out their competitors, the other smaller ISPs.
Some of the 'in the press' articles at PIPE networks provide some insight into the state of peering in Australia.
And what business are PIPE networks in ? Wouldn't it be in their interests to portray the peering situation in Australia to be a certain way, which will increase their business ? Do you think they'll ever be a press release from PIPE saying they are happy with the peering arrangements of the large ISPs (who are their competitors after all) ? I'd doubt it, that wouldn't be in their interests.
You can't get independent news from any corporate entity. There is always a PR spin on it, which furthers the interests of the corporate entity.
In fact, this is why I care about it. I don't like the fact that the smaller ISPs are hiding their agenda for cheaper bandwidth from their upstream suppliers behind the "they won't peer with us" story. The public are being told only half the truth.
BTW, want another example of the public being tricked. ARIA (the Australian Recording Industry Association) complain all about music copyright breaches, how the artists are getting ripped of etc. All sounds good. Hang on, are they the "Australian Music Artists Association", or are they the "Australian Recording Industry Association". Oh, so they don't directly represent the artists, they actually represent the record companies ! They pretend they represent the artists, and I think a lot of artists believe it. However, their agenda is driven by what is firstly good for the record company members, not the artists.
From their web page (http://www.aria.com.au/)
Our members range from major record labels to small independents - ARIA works to protect their interests, acts as an industry advocate, compiles the weekly ARIA charts, and promotes initiatives to support local music.
If you had to attribute any of that statement to directly representing the interests of the artists, it could only be the promotes initiatives to support local music part. Even then, those initiatives would be ones that the record companies have a chance of making money off of.
The first step in determining the real truth behind a statement is to determine the possible motives and agenda of the entity making that statement.
How many people actually use RAID-1 or RAID-5 on the desktop?
So now you know at least one person.
And a somewhat increased risk of drive failure.
I think you've mistaken the word "somewhat" for "doubly". It should have read :
And a doubly increased risk of drive failure.
and in your case,
I already have 3 separate drives on my system, so I am only going to get the speed benefits.
you've tripled it.
Raid 0 can work out just fine, as long as your realize its limitations and store your data accordingly.
Sadly, it seems, since this argument has taken on religious overtones, the biggest worshipers of RAID-0 seem to be those that haven't realised or just dismiss these limitations. Still that is what zealotry is all about - blind faith.
Oh well, we can only but wait for fate to take it's course./p.
Sending traffic across the road to the "Big 4" (Telstra, Optus, MCI/Ozemail, Telco NZ/AAPT) costs a fortune, since they refuse to peer with anybody else. In fact, bringing your own link from the U.S is cheaper than transit bandwidth from the Big 4, that is, if your in Sydney with lots of money. Only 6 ISP's actually have their own international links.
I'm afraid I don't really believe this. Have you priced a transit link to the US ?
I don't think you truely understand what peering is. If you did, you would understand why the Big ISPs won't peer with the little ones - which, simplified, is that fact that they aren't approximately the same size AKA peers.
Have a read of this article for an overview of what peering actually is - Interconnection and Peering.
Once you've done that, have a read of the MCI peering terms and conditions at WorldCom's Policy for Settlement-Free Interconnection with Internet Networks.
Now, if all the little ISPs could meet those terms and conditions, and offered equal benefit to MCI, I'm sure MCI would be interested in talking. Otherwise, the smaller ISPs are just customers who want cheaper bandwidth, and are using the "they won't peer with us, they must be evil" reason to further their cheaper bandwidth adgenda.
And no, I don't work for any of the organisations above.
Not permanently, however, it would cause penguin some problems if people rang up and complained about not being able to get to the web site, and Katie Jones wouldn't have to pay for bandwidth.
I'm from the state of South Australia, which was started by a company - The South Australia Company.
Even now, only a very small portion of SA's population are serial killers (Snowtown) or terrorists (David Hicks).
works.
I find avoiding sitting at traffic lights on major roads by going via the back streets, even if the trip takes longer in both time and distance terms, feels shorter. I'm keeping moving, so I feel like I'm getting somewhere for more of the trip.
Which tends to indicate that if you can distract a human mind from making "time monitoring" the current focus, a human mind will not perceive lengths of time as accurately.
I think your progress bars are having the same effect as me taking the backstreets.