>> As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me >> as clearly violating this patent.
Where does Buzz or Twitter automatically generate news items based on the activities of other users and include a link so that you can also participate in those activities?
This basically patents the part I hate the most about Facebook. Stupid updates about people feeding the Aquarium Fish or playing Mafia Wars and a link so you can play, too. If this stops other social media sites/apps from adding these stupid games and just sticking to status updates, links, pictures, etc., I'm all for it. I'll switch to one of them, eventually.
I can see research like this being useful for autonomous individual-family cars that take the place of trains for cross country trips. You don't have to go that fast if you can continuously move and control traffic... Although faster than 30 mph would be good. Who knows if things like this will ever be built, though.
>> Car manufactorer's are instead very interested in >> people changing thir car every few years
And there's the real problem. Every other market realizes that when people sell something they bought new, they're likely buying something new again. So you try hard to establish brand loyalty by having quality products so they buy new from you again.
The people buying used are not in the same market. If you make used cost as much as new (especially easy with software, as you say, since it doesn't depreciate fast), they you just removed those items from their market. The people that are in the position to buy used can't be forced to buy new!
>> You really don't want that. Realistically, a long FTP download >> should be lower-priority than voice (or even HTTP) packets.
Sure, most people would agree. But when the proposed rule says "a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner" you can't prefer FTP traffic over any other.
It does rely on how "discriminatory" is defined, though. Is any preference discriminatory? Is it only harmful discrimination? What's harmful?
You didn't explain how bandwidth caps are "not really" outside the purview of network neutrality.
Yes, the ISP must treat your packet to site A and site B equally, but once you reach X Gb of transfer for the month, they can block any and all of your traffic under the poorly defined category of "reasonable network management".
According to the FCCs proposal, the definition for reasonable network management includes the clause of "(b) other reasonable network management practices"... uh...
The only proposed rule that would cover bandwidth caps would be the transparency proposal. It'd require the ISP to at least be upfront about their caps so you can make an educated decision. Transparency: "Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part."
So do you instead prefer fully-locked-down, all apps from our App Store PC's? Do you prefer a fully-locked-down environment and living in a police nation to save you from those who abuse the freedom?
Wow... exaggerate much? App store to police state?
I can see where a locked down, "trusted" source for apps can be useful in certain situations. I think my parents would have a much easier time with an iPad versus a laptop. I, however, have no use for such a thing as I require the flexibility a laptop gives me.
How about using this on a hybrid laptop/tablet? Instead of having an mechanical swivel for the screen that can break, just have a transparent screen like this. Open it up and it's a laptop. Shut the laptop and the screen mirrors so it's a tablet now. This is assuming you could get the outside (or back of) the screen to have touch capabilities.
Once you hit Kuwait or Germany (leaving Iraq), you're hooked into terrestrial connectivity as a primary. So it's only a single satellite hop and then 300ms or so to travel to the states via fiber. If you're on a smaller FOB in Iraq that needs to hop to it's parent unit, then Kuwait or Germany, then you'll have two satellite hops.
The Sat-to-Sat link could be used instead of the fiber connectivity. While it may not save much latency, it could be a much larger and less congested pipe depending on the frequencies and usage. Probably save a lot of money, too. Win-win.:)
Look at the larger picture. Moving the "hub" and routing logic to the satellite could reduce the total number of satellite hops between nodes without having to rely on a TDMA network. Instead of two hops for two spokes to talk to each other, this could perform the routing logic at the satellite and route directly between the two spokes. "reduced latency" is from reducing the number of satellite hops. This will not reduce any latency for a single hop, obviously.
You obviously haven't worked with Cisco VoIP over satellite links. It works perfectly fine over single satellite hops and up to three hops, in my experience. I've had VoIP calls with 2-3 second delays because of the number of hops and radio links that were completely functional. Of course there's delay. DoD users are far more tolerant of the delay than normal users, though. Usually it's as simple as using the word "over"...:)
This could allow for two spokes on an FDMA system to route directly to each other without having to go through the central hub and two satellite hops. FDMA links are fixed frequencies back to to a hub, so normally for two spokes to talk to each other, you have to take two satellite hops and go through the hub. This should eliminate that.
Of course you could go TDMA, but the number of nodes you can have directly linked to each other via virtual circuits is limited. Again, moving the routing logic to the satellite could allow for these meshes to be larger as you're only competing to get to the satellite instead of all the way up and down. I don't know how this affects TDMA to be honest, though.
So the "reduced latency" from my perspective, is being able to have a single satellite hop (versus multiple hops) between an increased number of nodes without reducing throughput on the entire network. Many DoD network rely on multiple satellite hops to get from A to B, so if you can reduce the hops, you've reduced latency.
For commercial networks, you're probably right. On a private network where your users are used to delay on phone networks, it makes more sense to route your voice traffic over the satellite links, though. Within the specific networks I've worked on, the satellite links are often more reliable. A 5 minute phone call isn't going to be finished any faster because you put it over a low-latency, high-bandwidth terrestrial link. That email attachment or map download will be significantly faster over the terrestrial link, though. It all depends on your customers and their needs.:)
I didn't RTFA, but a plan like this doesn't have to mean that every website can verify who you are automatically or that you can be tracked across multiple websites.
Imagine a system where each "passport" is given one billion private keys to use. Each site or maybe even each visit is identified by one of the private keys. The website has no idea who you are and the keys don't match keys used at other sites. So the site can only say that anything submitted with the same key is from the same user, but it has no way to really identify you.
But, you post a death threat or something and now law enforcement can query whether the private key used is a part of your set. You're anonymous until there's a legal reason to break that anonymity. You can still use different usernames and post anonymously on slashdot.
Now, in all honesty, there's are protocol, logistical, equipment, issue, revocation, etc. issues that will never, ever make this feasible.
If you read the requirements, this is going to take considerable changes at the OS level. The good news is that Windows and Linux are required to be supported according to the requirements. They're essentially re-writing TCP/UDP to support decisions down the the individual and unit level along with user/server authentication across the network. Makes sense to have MS involved, if you ask me.
I can interact with my OS just fine with my keyboard and mouse.
Then you're not the intended customer, so don't buy one! I don't want a semi-truck but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be built because other people can surely put them to good use.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of the XP style start menu. I've got my 6 or 7 "pinned" programs that are always there when I need them and then 6 most commonly used programs below that. I very rarely have to actually go into the "All Programs" menu and hunt something down. I understand your frustration, though, and don't understand why they'd take an _option_ away. I can't imagine it being that hard to keep around, but then again, I'm not a windows programmer.:)
Everything in that statement is in reference to the "forge.mil" server. Communications to and from that server can (will) be monitored. You should accept that possibility with any system on the Internet, if you're smart. "device attached" refers to anything attached to the server, like a USB HD or other media. You can be paranoid and think your computer is "attached" to the server when you make an HTTP(S) connection, but you know that's not what they mean.
This is a standard warning that says you're connecting to a box controlled entirely by someone else and they are free to do whatever they want with what goes in and out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
>> As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me
>> as clearly violating this patent.
Where does Buzz or Twitter automatically generate news items based on the activities of other users and include a link so that you can also participate in those activities?
This basically patents the part I hate the most about Facebook. Stupid updates about people feeding the Aquarium Fish or playing Mafia Wars and a link so you can play, too. If this stops other social media sites/apps from adding these stupid games and just sticking to status updates, links, pictures, etc., I'm all for it. I'll switch to one of them, eventually.
-John
I can see research like this being useful for autonomous individual-family cars that take the place of trains for cross country trips. You don't have to go that fast if you can continuously move and control traffic... Although faster than 30 mph would be good. Who knows if things like this will ever be built, though.
>> Car manufactorer's are instead very interested in
>> people changing thir car every few years
And there's the real problem. Every other market realizes that when people sell something they bought new, they're likely buying something new again. So you try hard to establish brand loyalty by having quality products so they buy new from you again.
The people buying used are not in the same market. If you make used cost as much as new (especially easy with software, as you say, since it doesn't depreciate fast), they you just removed those items from their market. The people that are in the position to buy used can't be forced to buy new!
-John
>> You really don't want that. Realistically, a long FTP download
>> should be lower-priority than voice (or even HTTP) packets.
Sure, most people would agree. But when the proposed rule says "a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner" you can't prefer FTP traffic over any other.
It does rely on how "discriminatory" is defined, though. Is any preference discriminatory? Is it only harmful discrimination? What's harmful?
-John
Where did "the government" say it's unfair to have tiered pricing?
You didn't explain how bandwidth caps are "not really" outside the purview of network neutrality.
Yes, the ISP must treat your packet to site A and site B equally, but once you reach X Gb of transfer for the month, they can block any and all of your traffic under the poorly defined category of "reasonable network management".
According to the FCCs proposal, the definition for reasonable network management includes the clause of "(b) other reasonable network management practices"... uh...
The only proposed rule that would cover bandwidth caps would be the transparency proposal. It'd require the ISP to at least be upfront about their caps so you can make an educated decision. Transparency: "Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part."
-John
Exactly the reason I'll be getting my parents one.
I just bought my mother-in-law a Dell laptop. If it had been six months later, I'd have gotten her one of these, too.
For me, though, the iPad fills no need. I already have an iPhone and a Netbook, so what's the point?
-John
So do you instead prefer fully-locked-down, all apps from our App Store PC's? Do you prefer a fully-locked-down environment and living in a police nation to save you from those who abuse the freedom?
Wow... exaggerate much? App store to police state?
I can see where a locked down, "trusted" source for apps can be useful in certain situations. I think my parents would have a much easier time with an iPad versus a laptop. I, however, have no use for such a thing as I require the flexibility a laptop gives me.
How about using this on a hybrid laptop/tablet? Instead of having an mechanical swivel for the screen that can break, just have a transparent screen like this. Open it up and it's a laptop. Shut the laptop and the screen mirrors so it's a tablet now. This is assuming you could get the outside (or back of) the screen to have touch capabilities.
-John
Once you hit Kuwait or Germany (leaving Iraq), you're hooked into terrestrial connectivity as a primary. So it's only a single satellite hop and then 300ms or so to travel to the states via fiber. If you're on a smaller FOB in Iraq that needs to hop to it's parent unit, then Kuwait or Germany, then you'll have two satellite hops.
The Sat-to-Sat link could be used instead of the fiber connectivity. While it may not save much latency, it could be a much larger and less congested pipe depending on the frequencies and usage. Probably save a lot of money, too. Win-win. :)
-John
Look at the larger picture. Moving the "hub" and routing logic to the satellite could reduce the total number of satellite hops between nodes without having to rely on a TDMA network. Instead of two hops for two spokes to talk to each other, this could perform the routing logic at the satellite and route directly between the two spokes. "reduced latency" is from reducing the number of satellite hops. This will not reduce any latency for a single hop, obviously.
-John
You obviously haven't worked with Cisco VoIP over satellite links. It works perfectly fine over single satellite hops and up to three hops, in my experience. I've had VoIP calls with 2-3 second delays because of the number of hops and radio links that were completely functional. Of course there's delay. DoD users are far more tolerant of the delay than normal users, though. Usually it's as simple as using the word "over"... :)
-John
This could allow for two spokes on an FDMA system to route directly to each other without having to go through the central hub and two satellite hops. FDMA links are fixed frequencies back to to a hub, so normally for two spokes to talk to each other, you have to take two satellite hops and go through the hub. This should eliminate that.
Of course you could go TDMA, but the number of nodes you can have directly linked to each other via virtual circuits is limited. Again, moving the routing logic to the satellite could allow for these meshes to be larger as you're only competing to get to the satellite instead of all the way up and down. I don't know how this affects TDMA to be honest, though.
So the "reduced latency" from my perspective, is being able to have a single satellite hop (versus multiple hops) between an increased number of nodes without reducing throughput on the entire network. Many DoD network rely on multiple satellite hops to get from A to B, so if you can reduce the hops, you've reduced latency.
Where's the Ubuntu option, though? Only options I saw were Vista or 7...
For commercial networks, you're probably right. On a private network where your users are used to delay on phone networks, it makes more sense to route your voice traffic over the satellite links, though. Within the specific networks I've worked on, the satellite links are often more reliable. A 5 minute phone call isn't going to be finished any faster because you put it over a low-latency, high-bandwidth terrestrial link. That email attachment or map download will be significantly faster over the terrestrial link, though. It all depends on your customers and their needs. :)
-John
Thanks for the explanation. I did some more research and understand now. Here's a good writeup by the EFF: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
I didn't RTFA, but a plan like this doesn't have to mean that every website can verify who you are automatically or that you can be tracked across multiple websites.
Imagine a system where each "passport" is given one billion private keys to use. Each site or maybe even each visit is identified by one of the private keys. The website has no idea who you are and the keys don't match keys used at other sites. So the site can only say that anything submitted with the same key is from the same user, but it has no way to really identify you.
But, you post a death threat or something and now law enforcement can query whether the private key used is a part of your set. You're anonymous until there's a legal reason to break that anonymity. You can still use different usernames and post anonymously on slashdot.
Now, in all honesty, there's are protocol, logistical, equipment, issue, revocation, etc. issues that will never, ever make this feasible.
-John
"The US Consitutional right to free assembly also embues a right to anonymity."
How do you figure that? I don't see anything in the explanations of freedom to assemble, petition or protest that would imply anonymity.
-John
I think zero works!
If you read the requirements, this is going to take considerable changes at the OS level. The good news is that Windows and Linux are required to be supported according to the requirements. They're essentially re-writing TCP/UDP to support decisions down the the individual and unit level along with user/server authentication across the network. Makes sense to have MS involved, if you ask me.
I'm sorry, but what basic right was denied to Saddam by making him watch South Park?
I agree with your statement in general, but this event isn't torture.
I can interact with my OS just fine with my keyboard and mouse.
Then you're not the intended customer, so don't buy one! I don't want a semi-truck but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be built because other people can surely put them to good use.
-John
Personally, I'm a huge fan of the XP style start menu. I've got my 6 or 7 "pinned" programs that are always there when I need them and then 6 most commonly used programs below that. I very rarely have to actually go into the "All Programs" menu and hunt something down. I understand your frustration, though, and don't understand why they'd take an _option_ away. I can't imagine it being that hard to keep around, but then again, I'm not a windows programmer. :)
-John
Everything in that statement is in reference to the "forge.mil" server. Communications to and from that server can (will) be monitored. You should accept that possibility with any system on the Internet, if you're smart. "device attached" refers to anything attached to the server, like a USB HD or other media. You can be paranoid and think your computer is "attached" to the server when you make an HTTP(S) connection, but you know that's not what they mean.
This is a standard warning that says you're connecting to a box controlled entirely by someone else and they are free to do whatever they want with what goes in and out of the box.
the audience this is designed for then. Seriously, go get a laptop.