Nice attempt at reasoning, but _arbitrary_ restrictions relating to sale/use of your product are viewed as discriminatory. I say _arbitrary_ because you can discriminate on objective reasons, even if they are "my nightclub is about stylish people, so we only let in those well dressed and with good attitude".
Secondly, it's more severe when the discrimination relates to a competitive product, and even more so when you are a dominant company. When you're building a large content service on the one hand, and owning a viewing technology on the other hand, and in both cases you have a dominant market share: then arbitrary restraints on competitors are pretty serious issues that regulators will tackle.
I note also that recent Microsoft has been doing a _lot_ of out of court settlements, it seems as though they want to pay off problems. Equally, the large anti-trust rulings mean that Microsoft is skating on thin-ice and has the scrutiny of the regulators who would use such activities as future evidence in antitrust actions.
Better to reach a settlement which involves a confidentiality clause in which the supposed activities won't in the future be disclosed or used in any regulatory action.
That's a practical perspective of course, and although a sad state of society, fine if you want to compromise. I suggest that the best approach is for you to simply stay out of the technology, and go back to something older. Otherwise, you simply support and re-inforce a disfunctional society. I'm being harsh, but society isn't made a better place by cowering to the bullies or support their dysfunctions.
"Instead they probably have experts pooring over ios every day."
Unfortunately those experts are figuring out how to draw the release structure diagram and name the branches. I don't think cisco engineers have time to work on new code, there's too much old code to figure out.
> Practical issues. Hiding under cover is cheaper in terms of time, money, and annoyance factor than lawyers and courts, even if you can prove you weren't doing anything wrong. How many hours of your lawyer's services can you afford?
If I am not doing anything wrong, action groups will support me. I'm sorry you're such a wimp that you let these big organisations get to you even though you're clearly innocent - it only goes to reaffirm their power and convince them they can keep on bullying.
>You said: banning of "unauthorised" encryption for this reason,
Liar, this is what I said: "leverage its weight to justify the broadcast flag and banning of "unauthorised" encryption for this reason... effectively painting any "encryption user" as being suspicious"
>That would be changing the policy...
Sorry, that would be _attempting_ to change the policy.
>Now go troll somewhere else.
I don't need to troll when there are idiots like you around. Keep up your posting, slashdot thrives on your stupidity and misinterpretations.
> That's just ridiculous. If the whole US government couldn't manage to outlaw encryption, you think the RIAA's little bit of bribery is going to get them to change the policy?
Stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say they would change the policy, nor do I believe they will. Go and read the post again.
> The lawsuit happy RIAA is ample reason that people should protect themselves, even if they are doing nothing illegial.
Now there's a dumb idea: "don't stand up for your rights if your not doing anything wrong, go and hide under cover".
These guys just f**k up the internet for the rest of us.
What will happen is that the entertainment industry will leverage its weight to justify the broadcast flag and banning of "unauthorised" encryption for this reason, effectively painting any "encryption user" as being suspicious and illegitimate, and exerting greater control and oversight over legitimate users - leading to all sorts of privacy and data protection issues.
Isn't it about time that we all stopped stealing content from poor business models and started supporting content from newer business models?
Support the creation of a new and better world, not the plundering of an old and broken one.
> I think the best way to keep the RIAA out would be to have filesharing networks based upon social networks (like orkut). You trade with your 'trusted' friends and their 'trusted' friends. You could set how many hops you were willing to spread.
Pirate away then. I remain safe knowing that my content is legitimate. I hope they bust you.
> Where as for the academics (ie, people on the JANET network), they have to pay if the traffic goes outside the network, but not otherwise.
I didn't mean to preclude anyone setting up a mirror for internal use, i.e. available only to JANET users, where it's justified.
But to support a general UK wide mirror that also chews up incoming JANET bandwidth, I don't think that's a good spend of money and effort.
> Why should they fund it? They get paid more if people have to use their links more.
I mean the people funding the link, not the telecommunications carriers. I also mean that it's in the interest of an exchange or interconnect, because all members pay for transit changes, so they all co-operatively have an interest in co-locating such mirrors at the exchange to reduce transit costs and provide better level of service to their own customers because of high rate of access to the mirror, even if transit across the interconnect is at a lower bandwidth.
This sort of funding should come from the people that it's relevant for: i.e. the owners of intercontinential links, or it should be cooperatively funded, say to be co-located at a large interconnect -- as these people wear the costs of non-mirrors.
It's not relevant for the academic community to fund these things: doing so is a historical throwback to when the networks were largely academic, and most of the users were too. That's not how it is now, and personally I'd rather see the money used to support academic concerns, not a service increasingly used by non-academic.
I think if anyone is upset about this: direct complaints to people that should be doing something about it (i.e. exchanges/interconnects, international link providers).
Digital TV for example. The UK intends to turn off the analog spectrum in the next 10-15 years.
> There's no way in Hell I'm getting sucked into paying $30 a month for what
Internet access is always becoming cheaper.
> Television is supposed to be funded by the advertising costs
Not it's not. Television is simply meant to be broadcast of analog information. Any "business model" on top of this is decided by the market, which means that it can change.
> No matter how much you pretend, the internet isn't a complete replacement for free television.
Quite frankly, broadcast TV is a dead medium: the sooner it can be replaced the better, and several countries are working on that. I tend to wonder whether digital/HDTV is just as short lived as mini disc was, and the reality is that in the next 5-10 years, we'll be streaming media over IP.
It makes sense for FCC and regulaters to accept, and even push forward, the kinds of technologies that can superceded TV, even if it upsets the TV operators.
Seriously, broadcast TV is increasingly junk and fails to serve the original purposes it did: it's been supplanted by the Internet.
> maybe a few years ago, but not anymore. once universities learned how to get around laws about being not-for-profit, stuff like this (unis going into asshanded contracts) started to become more and more commonplace.
Which is why the courts treat them as commercial entities. Recently in Madey v Duke, it was found that experimental use of patents was not applicable to Duke because the use was commercial to "further the legitimate business" of Duke. Now they need to license.
Universities play the game, they lose out elsewhere.
will some people just design simple, interoperable and scalable standards and reduce the level of fragmentation?
ZigBee sounds great, but will it survive?
half baked version of p2p
on
Freecache
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Freecache is really just a half-baked ("precursor") version of P2P; not in any sense a long term solution, but interesting at least.
Correct use of P2P with network based caches (i.e., your ISP installs content caching throughout the network) and improved higher level protocols (i.e. web browsing actually runs across P2P protocols) would resolve slashdot effect type problems and usher in an age of transparent, ubiquities, long-lived, replicated content.
For example,
Basically, your request (and thousands of other slashdot readers requests) would fetch "closer" copies of content rather than having to reach directly to the end server (because, the content request [i.e. HTTP GET] actually splays itself out from your local node to find local and simultaneous sources, etc]. In theory, the end server would only deliver up one copy into the local ISP's content cache for transparent world-wide replication, and each end point would gradually drag replicated copies closer - meaning that subsequent co-located requests ride upon the back of prior ones. I'm just repeating the economics of P2P here:-).
In additional to all of this, you'd still have places like the Internet Archive, because they would be "tremendously sized" content caches that do their best to suck up and permanently retain everything, just like it does now.
Physically locality would still be important: if I were a researcher doing mass data analysis / etc, then I'd be better of walking into the British Library and co-locating myself on high speed wi-fi or local gigabit (or whatever high speed standards we have in a couple of years time) to the archive rather than relying upon relatively slower broadband + WAN connections to my house or work place.
For example, say I'm doing some research on a type of flying bird and want to extract, process and analyse audiovisual data - this might be a lot of data to analyse.
Equally, places like the British Library will also have large clusters, so when I want in there to do this data analysis, I can make use of large scale co-located computing to help me with the task.
Nothing here is now: if you think about it, these are logical extensions of existing concepts and facilities.
Nice reply. Certainly this is at any early stage, and it will be interesting to see later production refinements. I notice BBC archivist commenting about "selective powering": a very interesting comment.
In general, it would be interesting to build a business around the whole concept of "computing in containers": for example, some containers that are part hard drive, and part juke box (perhaps too expensive and unreliable though...).
Outlook parks spam for me in a junk mail folder, and I can't deal with each individual item.
However, I have recently started a personal mission: every "419" type scam that I receive, I specifically forward (and full SMTP headers) to (a) "abuse@" all the domains mentioned in the headers and message; (b) all recipients specifically mentioned.
It doesn't take more a minute or two a day (no more than 5 419'ers or lottery scams a day), but it makes it clear to the senders that someone is taking a proactive approach to stopping them.
I suggest other people do this as well. Obviously it's infeasible to do it to all spam mail: but do it with the scams.
If you look down in the message list, you see a reference to pdf + ppt docs. Here's another related project Planet Ten Modular Data Centers.
Yes, it's a petabyte once you fill the shipping container. Honestly, I thought of this idea last year (using stock shipping containers), and now I'm fascinated that they've made it happen.
My only suggestion is that this is prototype: the eventual production systems (say, a couple of years time) should have custom shipping containers for:
* any of the side panels can open to access a rack and hot swap failing racks, so there is no need for a middle entry aisle
* the cooling system should be built into the structure, like existing refigerant containers
* not just data storage, but also computing facilities
> Close. You have one year from the date of disclosure to file for a patent.
No, I was correct: didn't you read my "there are complexities"? The one year grace period is not applicable in all countries (US, Australia - 12 months; Japan - 6 months): if you disclose and rely upon a grace period in the US, you will defeat novelty in the EU and other countries, thus your invention will not be patentable in those latter countries.
Slashdot Mirror
> As a Christian I find the idea that humans invent knowledge to be ludicrous and offensive.
You are welcome to your opinion.
If you want to change the global state of society to concur with your opinions:
(a) have a majority elected to parliament;
(b) go off and find/form your own state;
Good luck.
By the way, under the correct system: ideas are not patentable per se, but certainly methods are.
Nice attempt at reasoning, but _arbitrary_ restrictions relating to sale/use of your product are viewed as discriminatory. I say _arbitrary_ because you can discriminate on objective reasons, even if they are "my nightclub is about stylish people, so we only let in those well dressed and with good attitude".
Secondly, it's more severe when the discrimination relates to a competitive product, and even more so when you are a dominant company. When you're building a large content service on the one hand, and owning a viewing technology on the other hand, and in both cases you have a dominant market share: then arbitrary restraints on competitors are pretty serious issues that regulators will tackle.
I note also that recent Microsoft has been doing a _lot_ of out of court settlements, it seems as though they want to pay off problems. Equally, the large anti-trust rulings mean that Microsoft is skating on thin-ice and has the scrutiny of the regulators who would use such activities as future evidence in antitrust actions.
Better to reach a settlement which involves a confidentiality clause in which the supposed activities won't in the future be disclosed or used in any regulatory action.
Wise commercial move Microsoft!
> Paypal is not a monopoly. Sack up and move on
Neither are bus companies, and so when they refuse to allow black people to ride for some non-objective reason, we should apply the same policy huh?
Weasel.
That's a practical perspective of course, and although a sad state of society, fine if you want to compromise. I suggest that the best approach is for you to simply stay out of the technology, and go back to something older. Otherwise, you simply support and re-inforce a disfunctional society. I'm being harsh, but society isn't made a better place by cowering to the bullies or support their dysfunctions.
"Instead they probably have experts pooring over ios every day."
Unfortunately those experts are figuring out how to draw the release structure diagram and name the branches. I don't think cisco engineers have time to work on new code, there's too much old code to figure out.
Like your ass? Mr zero pointer.
> Practical issues. Hiding under cover is cheaper in terms of time, money, and annoyance factor than lawyers and courts, even if you can prove you weren't doing anything wrong. How many hours of your lawyer's services can you afford?
If I am not doing anything wrong, action groups will support me. I'm sorry you're such a wimp that you let these big organisations get to you even though you're clearly innocent - it only goes to reaffirm their power and convince them they can keep on bullying.
I hope you don't live in my neighbourhood.
>You said: banning of "unauthorised" encryption for this reason,
... effectively painting any "encryption user" as being suspicious"
Liar, this is what I said: "leverage its weight to justify the broadcast flag and banning of "unauthorised" encryption for this reason
>That would be changing the policy...
Sorry, that would be _attempting_ to change the policy.
>Now go troll somewhere else.
I don't need to troll when there are idiots like you around. Keep up your posting, slashdot thrives on your stupidity and misinterpretations.
> That's just ridiculous. If the whole US government couldn't manage to outlaw encryption, you think the RIAA's little bit of bribery is going to get them to change the policy?
Stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say they would change the policy, nor do I believe they will. Go and read the post again.
> The lawsuit happy RIAA is ample reason that people should protect themselves, even if they are doing nothing illegial.
Now there's a dumb idea: "don't stand up for your rights if your not doing anything wrong, go and hide under cover".
Idiot.
These guys just f**k up the internet for the rest of us.
What will happen is that the entertainment industry will leverage its weight to justify the broadcast flag and banning of "unauthorised" encryption for this reason, effectively painting any "encryption user" as being suspicious and illegitimate, and exerting greater control and oversight over legitimate users - leading to all sorts of privacy and data protection issues.
Isn't it about time that we all stopped stealing content from poor business models and started supporting content from newer business models?
Support the creation of a new and better world, not the plundering of an old and broken one.
> I think the best way to keep the RIAA out would be to have filesharing networks based upon social networks (like orkut). You trade with your 'trusted' friends and their 'trusted' friends. You could set how many hops you were willing to spread.
Pirate away then. I remain safe knowing that my content is legitimate. I hope they bust you.
> Where as for the academics (ie, people on the JANET network), they have to pay if the traffic goes outside the network, but not otherwise.
I didn't mean to preclude anyone setting up a mirror for internal use, i.e. available only to JANET users, where it's justified.
But to support a general UK wide mirror that also chews up incoming JANET bandwidth, I don't think that's a good spend of money and effort.
> Why should they fund it? They get paid more if people have to use their links more.
I mean the people funding the link, not the telecommunications carriers. I also mean that it's in the interest of an exchange or interconnect, because all members pay for transit changes, so they all co-operatively have an interest in co-locating such mirrors at the exchange to reduce transit costs and provide better level of service to their own customers because of high rate of access to the mirror, even if transit across the interconnect is at a lower bandwidth.
This sort of funding should come from the people that it's relevant for: i.e. the owners of intercontinential links, or it should be cooperatively funded, say to be co-located at a large interconnect -- as these people wear the costs of non-mirrors.
It's not relevant for the academic community to fund these things: doing so is a historical throwback to when the networks were largely academic, and most of the users were too. That's not how it is now, and personally I'd rather see the money used to support academic concerns, not a service increasingly used by non-academic.
I think if anyone is upset about this: direct complaints to people that should be doing something about it (i.e. exchanges/interconnects, international link providers).
> What happens when "Driver On Demand" trys to get a driver for my network card, but it can't, since my network card needs a driver? :-P
Huh? Obviously you'll put in a distribution (or independent) CD that contains a large set of drivers.
> Replaced with what?
Digital TV for example. The UK intends to turn off the analog spectrum in the next 10-15 years.
> There's no way in Hell I'm getting sucked into paying $30 a month for what
Internet access is always becoming cheaper.
> Television is supposed to be funded by the advertising costs
Not it's not. Television is simply meant to be broadcast of analog information. Any "business model" on top of this is decided by the market, which means that it can change.
> No matter how much you pretend, the internet isn't a complete replacement for free television.
I didn't pretend, and I didn't say that it was.
I said that it will eventually be.
Quite frankly, broadcast TV is a dead medium: the sooner it can be replaced the better, and several countries are working on that. I tend to wonder whether digital/HDTV is just as short lived as mini disc was, and the reality is that in the next 5-10 years, we'll be streaming media over IP.
It makes sense for FCC and regulaters to accept, and even push forward, the kinds of technologies that can superceded TV, even if it upsets the TV operators.
Seriously, broadcast TV is increasingly junk and fails to serve the original purposes it did: it's been supplanted by the Internet.
Full speed ahead on the replacements.
> maybe a few years ago, but not anymore. once universities learned how to get around laws about being not-for-profit, stuff like this (unis going into asshanded contracts) started to become more and more commonplace.
Which is why the courts treat them as commercial entities. Recently in Madey v Duke, it was found that experimental use of patents was not applicable to Duke because the use was commercial to "further the legitimate business" of Duke. Now they need to license.
Universities play the game, they lose out elsewhere.
DVD+RW,-RW,-R,+R,DL,R,ROM ??!
802.11b,b+,g,a,bluetooth(+IEEE ver),firewireless(+IEEE ver),zigbee(+IEEE ver),3g(CDMA? UMTS?),
will some people just design simple, interoperable and scalable standards and reduce the level of fragmentation?
ZigBee sounds great, but will it survive?
Freecache is really just a half-baked ("precursor") version of P2P; not in any sense a long term solution, but interesting at least.
Correct use of P2P with network based caches (i.e., your ISP installs content caching throughout the network) and improved higher level protocols (i.e. web browsing actually runs across P2P protocols) would resolve slashdot effect type problems and usher in an age of transparent, ubiquities, long-lived, replicated content.
For example,
Basically, your request (and thousands of other slashdot readers requests) would fetch "closer" copies of content rather than having to reach directly to the end server (because, the content request [i.e. HTTP GET] actually splays itself out from your local node to find local and simultaneous sources, etc]. In theory, the end server would only deliver up one copy into the local ISP's content cache for transparent world-wide replication, and each end point would gradually drag replicated copies closer - meaning that subsequent co-located requests ride upon the back of prior ones. I'm just repeating the economics of P2P here
In additional to all of this, you'd still have places like the Internet Archive, because they would be "tremendously sized" content caches that do their best to suck up and permanently retain everything, just like it does now.
Physically locality would still be important: if I were a researcher doing mass data analysis / etc, then I'd be better of walking into the British Library and co-locating myself on high speed wi-fi or local gigabit (or whatever high speed standards we have in a couple of years time) to the archive rather than relying upon relatively slower broadband + WAN connections to my house or work place.
For example, say I'm doing some research on a type of flying bird and want to extract, process and analyse audiovisual data - this might be a lot of data to analyse.
Equally, places like the British Library will also have large clusters, so when I want in there to do this data analysis, I can make use of large scale co-located computing to help me with the task.
Nothing here is now: if you think about it, these are logical extensions of existing concepts and facilities.
Nice reply. Certainly this is at any early stage, and it will be interesting to see later production refinements. I notice BBC archivist commenting about "selective powering": a very interesting comment.
In general, it would be interesting to build a business around the whole concept of "computing in containers": for example, some containers that are part hard drive, and part juke box (perhaps too expensive and unreliable though
Outlook parks spam for me in a junk mail folder, and I can't deal with each individual item.
However, I have recently started a personal mission: every "419" type scam that I receive, I specifically forward (and full SMTP headers) to
(a) "abuse@" all the domains mentioned in the headers and message;
(b) all recipients specifically mentioned.
It doesn't take more a minute or two a day (no more than 5 419'ers or lottery scams a day), but it makes it clear to the senders that someone is taking a proactive approach to stopping them.
I suggest other people do this as well. Obviously it's infeasible to do it to all spam mail: but do it with the scams.
"After extensive market analysis, we have found 1 (one) organization that is interested in purchasing this device."
There's probably also only a market for about 4 computers in the world.
If you look down in the message list, you see a reference to pdf + ppt docs. Here's another related project Planet Ten Modular Data Centers.
Yes, it's a petabyte once you fill the shipping container. Honestly, I thought of this idea last year (using stock shipping containers), and now I'm fascinated that they've made it happen.
My only suggestion is that this is prototype: the eventual production systems (say, a couple of years time) should have custom shipping containers for:
* any of the side panels can open to access a rack and hot swap failing racks, so there is no need for a middle entry aisle
* the cooling system should be built into the structure, like existing refigerant containers
* not just data storage, but also computing facilities
> It has to be novel and non-obvious, not one or the other
That's what I meant, try 35 USC ss102 [particularly (a), (b)] and 103. Good luck!
> Close. You have one year from the date of disclosure to file for a patent.
No, I was correct: didn't you read my "there are complexities"? The one year grace period is not applicable in all countries (US, Australia - 12 months; Japan - 6 months): if you disclose and rely upon a grace period in the US, you will defeat novelty in the EU and other countries, thus your invention will not be patentable in those latter countries.