We have the technology to set up a 10gbps between the Earth and Mars. But it would still have a latency measured in minutes.
Imagine this like inner city traffic. Under normal traffic activity cars (packets) travel from intersection to intersection. At each intersection there is a little backup as cars have to wait for previous traffic to clear when they turn left, right or go straight. In a NN situation, everyone has to deal with that delay evenly. If a specific router is extremely busy, that backup will be a slight bit longer. But if the router has a QoS system, and your packet is flagged, it gets to jump to the front of the line. Even if there are hundreds of cars (packets) in front of yours, you get to jump straight to the front. All the other cars (packets) are then bumped back one place. While this is going on, the street (pipe) is still flowing at the same rate (bps), but the time it takes your car (packet) to get through will either be significantly shorter (for high tier) or significantly loner (for everyone else).
The problem then becomes, who will build new pipes? If the people own the pipes, they won't be as interested in building new pipes at tax payer expense. But your solution might not be that far off. There were rumors last year about Google spending a bunch of money on buying up dark fiber across the country. If those rumors are true, and the major back bone providers started a tiered service, Google could theoretically turn on their dark net a create alternative paths around the 2-tier system.
"I think the tiered internet service is a terrible idea, but not for free speech reasons. Instead, it's because I've purchased a connection to the internet, not just to sites that have paid my provider money."
So true. NN is not a matter of free speech. NN is a matter of anti-trust laws. If AT&T/Verizon and a few other major back bone providers who offer traditional land line or cell phone service get to set up the tiered service, how long will if be before they drop all competitor's VoIP packets to the end of the line and refuse to offer those providers the higher 'QoS' service. AT&T could pretty much kill Vontage over night, and then either refuse to improve their service, or charge them a king's ransom. It is their monopoly like power over the network and their ability to close off entire business segments and stifle the future of communications technology that frightens me.
"ISPs are not content creators, they are content carriers. It is like city traffic department saying to the paper: "Because your paper is so popular and you have lots of delivery trucks, you have to pay extra to use the roads.""
That's not quite an accurate analogy, because the tiered internet will effect everyone, be it a small blog (a Geo metro) or a huge corporate sales site(logging trucks).
More accurate would be to say that the city traffic department would make sure all of the lights you run into would be green if you pay them. Everyone else would get a red until all of the 'green lighted' traffic went through. Even the traffic that is going the same direction as the 'green lighted' traffic.
This isn't about price per volume. The NN legislation (SFAIK) does not limit a provider's ability to charge what ever they like for volume. The legislation is designed to prevent the re-ordering of packets based on a tiered service plan.
For example, I get 75gigs of transfer on my site for $15/month. For every 5gig block above that I have to cough up another $5. So if I transfer 4 gigs, it's $15. 60 gigs, still $15. 100 gigs, $40. 500 gigs, $440.
For example, the NN legislation would prevent my provider from saying that in addition to my bandwidth costs I would have to pay $25/month for a 'QoS' guarantee or face 10% more timeouts for my customers and 150% page load times.
"Sure, your blog can be seen, but if it get's too popular you'll have to pay more... Sure, you can start a small business, but if it get's too busy you'll have to pay more..."
Incorrect, that is how it works now. With tiered services it would be:
Sure, your blog can be seen, but at a slower rate. If you want it to continue to perform at it's current rate or better, you need to pay more...
Sure, you can start a small business, but your services will be slower. If you want a better QoS you need to pay more...
The problem with teiring is that it doesn't actually fix any problem. If every company in the world signed up with every teiring opperator, we would still have the same limitations we have right now with a higher price tag for content providers and consumers. The other problem is that ANY non-teired provider will kill your higher teired service. So theoretically, not only will you have to pay the extortion fee to AT&T/SBC and the other back bone providers, you'll also need to pay the fee to all the local ISPs, dial ups, cable/DSL services, WiFi providers etc...
"You know - free as in liberty, not free as in beer."
Actually, it really comes across more as a free as in "from the devil". A working DRM that does not infringe apon my civil liberties is free (as in liberty). But even if/when such a DRM is created and standardized, some people will still refute it. Not because of liberty or beer issue, but because the see it as a deamon they want to be free of.
I consider this type of free to be more akin to a former junkie being 'free' of his addiction. Or an Athiest being 'free' of religion. Or a battered wife being 'free' of her abusive spouse.
If the DRM doesn't interfere with my rights, then I gain no 'freedoms' by removing it. If I gain no freedoms by removing it, then it is not free, as in liberty, it is free as in from the devil.
Microsoft is a "Windows" company So are Anderson, Jeld Wen, Pella, and many others.
(IANAL, but IMO:) Point being, no one (so far as I know) can trademark "Windows". They can trademark "Microsoft:Windows" or "Windows by Anderson", but the object in the title is just to ambiguous. So maybe these companies should be allowed to trademark "[Company Name]'s Web 2.0" but not just "Web 2.0"
The original comment was poorly stated. XML is not fundamentally slower, it's a format, it's not doing anything. But it is generally significantly more bloated. And with the bloat comes an interpretation performance hit. True, someone could make a non-human readable document format that had more meta-data per element, but by and large, proprietary closed source solutions will be more streamlined.
For example, I have a program that works like a TV guide and remote for my PDA. It connects to a Windows:MCE box in my house. The MCE box connects to Zap-2-It labs for the TV Listings. It downloads a 5 meg XML file that contains the TV listings for the next 2 days. Processing 5 megs of XML on a 400mhz ARM processor would be slow as tar, so I take that 5 megs and strip it down to just the data in a proprietary format, filter it down to just the specific data I need, and send if over the net to my PDA at a whopping 450k text file. It's still human readable, it just doesn't have the self describing meta-data. And I can pull up 450k of text for processing significantly faster than I can pull up 5 megs of XML.
Uh, the point of that saying is that once you eat your cake, you no longer have it. You can either have the cake, or eat it. But once you eat it, it's gone.
An MMO with out the leveling is a really slow, over sized, FPS.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer a player skill based, quick leveling style MMO, but if you strip out the character development, all it is, is a first person shooter (button masher, click once, or combo based depending on the specific game).
Lets see, you charge consumer level ISPs and consumers to connect to your pipes. Then you charge the content providers another fee to be connected to your pipes. It sure sounds like you have ample opportunity to see as much of that profit as you like. You are completely entitled to raise your fees as high as the market will bear.
But allowing an ISP to determine the quality (or availability) of a service will undermine competition and innovation. How hard is it to foresee AT&T slowing VoIP calls down to a crawl, forcing consumers to use AT&T's phone service instead? Or what if AT&T decided to drop the quality of service on any of their competitor's services? She we just allow AT&T to shut SBC's web site? The impact of competition and innovation would be dramatic.
Simple, if they don't want to be a common carrier, hold them accountable for anything that is transmitted.
Either be a common carrier, or be charged with a felony every time a kiddy porn image passes through their network. Hold them accountable for criminal digital acts including hacking, DOS attacks, defacement, etc...
Either they are a common carrier, or they aren't. None of this cake having and eating.
I used the word trivial because so far as I know the line between fair use and copyright violation is still somewhat shady. In that you can have 20 people over for a party, kick back and watch a DVD and it's fine. But you can't show the DVD to 30,000 people (say on closed cicuit TV). Also, if you have 5 guests over, you can't charge them $5 to watch the movie. You can charge them a popcorn fee, an electrical usage fee, a bathroom use fee, or what ever for $5, but you can't charge them for the movie itself.
I should have clarified, most MMORPG players. And WoW is a perfect example of Maslow's hierchy. As soon as the player reaches the end game, they have acheived the most important step of self actualization. At that point, the game has deminishing returns on what it can offer players.
Many upcoming (and some existing) games are getting more and more dynamic. With these more dynamic worlds, hitting the max out level is not always the primary goal. Sure, hitting the max level is great, but who really cares? Creating a massive city and ruling over it where everyone knows your name is even more rewarding. And if someone finds it rewarding to build something, someone else will find it rewarding to tear it down.
Their is a clear difference between theft and copywrite violations. For it to be a copywrite violation there has to be non-trivial distribution.
For example:
5-finger discount from BestBuy: Theft
Watching a DVD you purchased: OK
Loaning your DVD to a friend: OK
Viewing a DVD with 5 friends: OK
Showing a DVD to 50 paying customers: Copywrite Violation
Burning a copy of a DVD and giving it to a friend: Copywrite Violation
Burning 100 copies of a DVD and selling them: Copywrite Violation
Sharing (in part or whole) the content of the DVD online: Copywrite Violation
So yes, copywrite violations should be more severe than theft. If you only download and do not upload, than the provider is guilty of a Copywrite violation. But if you are sharing a download on bit torrent, then you too are sharing and can be held accountable for a copywrite violation.
Welcome to Maslow's Hierarchy. You may say you don't want the grind and carrot on a stick, but most players subconsciously do. The joy of virtual self actualization.
No, what I'm saying is that if the guy contacted the court and said he has no relation to the case and never gave the law firm to use him as the primary plaintiff, he would be fine. It would be up to the court to decide what to do.
If he stepped up as the primary plaintiff and told the judge that he would like to drop the case, he would be liable.
His best option is to deny any and all involvement.
I would assume that if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case and would give the law firm grounds to demand payment from him.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry about that. It's doesn't flag the Google bar even when it's suposed to be its. The whole it is conjunction vs it possessive, my bust!
-Rick
There absolutely is! Bandwidth != Response time.
We have the technology to set up a 10gbps between the Earth and Mars. But it would still have a latency measured in minutes.
Imagine this like inner city traffic. Under normal traffic activity cars (packets) travel from intersection to intersection. At each intersection there is a little backup as cars have to wait for previous traffic to clear when they turn left, right or go straight. In a NN situation, everyone has to deal with that delay evenly. If a specific router is extremely busy, that backup will be a slight bit longer. But if the router has a QoS system, and your packet is flagged, it gets to jump to the front of the line. Even if there are hundreds of cars (packets) in front of yours, you get to jump straight to the front. All the other cars (packets) are then bumped back one place. While this is going on, the street (pipe) is still flowing at the same rate (bps), but the time it takes your car (packet) to get through will either be significantly shorter (for high tier) or significantly loner (for everyone else).
-Rick
The problem then becomes, who will build new pipes? If the people own the pipes, they won't be as interested in building new pipes at tax payer expense. But your solution might not be that far off. There were rumors last year about Google spending a bunch of money on buying up dark fiber across the country. If those rumors are true, and the major back bone providers started a tiered service, Google could theoretically turn on their dark net a create alternative paths around the 2-tier system.
-Rick
"I think the tiered internet service is a terrible idea, but not for free speech reasons. Instead, it's because I've purchased a connection to the internet, not just to sites that have paid my provider money."
So true. NN is not a matter of free speech. NN is a matter of anti-trust laws. If AT&T/Verizon and a few other major back bone providers who offer traditional land line or cell phone service get to set up the tiered service, how long will if be before they drop all competitor's VoIP packets to the end of the line and refuse to offer those providers the higher 'QoS' service. AT&T could pretty much kill Vontage over night, and then either refuse to improve their service, or charge them a king's ransom. It is their monopoly like power over the network and their ability to close off entire business segments and stifle the future of communications technology that frightens me.
-Rick
"ISPs are not content creators, they are content carriers. It is like city traffic department saying to the paper: "Because your paper is so popular and you have lots of delivery trucks, you have to pay extra to use the roads.""
That's not quite an accurate analogy, because the tiered internet will effect everyone, be it a small blog (a Geo metro) or a huge corporate sales site(logging trucks).
More accurate would be to say that the city traffic department would make sure all of the lights you run into would be green if you pay them. Everyone else would get a red until all of the 'green lighted' traffic went through. Even the traffic that is going the same direction as the 'green lighted' traffic.
-Rick
This isn't about price per volume. The NN legislation (SFAIK) does not limit a provider's ability to charge what ever they like for volume. The legislation is designed to prevent the re-ordering of packets based on a tiered service plan.
For example, I get 75gigs of transfer on my site for $15/month. For every 5gig block above that I have to cough up another $5. So if I transfer 4 gigs, it's $15. 60 gigs, still $15. 100 gigs, $40. 500 gigs, $440.
For example, the NN legislation would prevent my provider from saying that in addition to my bandwidth costs I would have to pay $25/month for a 'QoS' guarantee or face 10% more timeouts for my customers and 150% page load times.
-Rick
"Sure, your blog can be seen, but if it get's too popular you'll have to pay more...
Sure, you can start a small business, but if it get's too busy you'll have to pay more..."
Incorrect, that is how it works now. With tiered services it would be:
Sure, your blog can be seen, but at a slower rate. If you want it to continue to perform at it's current rate or better, you need to pay more...
Sure, you can start a small business, but your services will be slower. If you want a better QoS you need to pay more...
The problem with teiring is that it doesn't actually fix any problem. If every company in the world signed up with every teiring opperator, we would still have the same limitations we have right now with a higher price tag for content providers and consumers. The other problem is that ANY non-teired provider will kill your higher teired service. So theoretically, not only will you have to pay the extortion fee to AT&T/SBC and the other back bone providers, you'll also need to pay the fee to all the local ISPs, dial ups, cable/DSL services, WiFi providers etc...
-Rick
"You know - free as in liberty, not free as in beer."
Actually, it really comes across more as a free as in "from the devil". A working DRM that does not infringe apon my civil liberties is free (as in liberty). But even if/when such a DRM is created and standardized, some people will still refute it. Not because of liberty or beer issue, but because the see it as a deamon they want to be free of.
I consider this type of free to be more akin to a former junkie being 'free' of his addiction. Or an Athiest being 'free' of religion. Or a battered wife being 'free' of her abusive spouse.
If the DRM doesn't interfere with my rights, then I gain no 'freedoms' by removing it. If I gain no freedoms by removing it, then it is not free, as in liberty, it is free as in from the devil.
-Rick
If they open up every package to inspect the content, yes.
-Rick
A more accurate comparison would be "Windows"
Microsoft is a "Windows" company
So are Anderson, Jeld Wen, Pella, and many others.
(IANAL, but IMO:) Point being, no one (so far as I know) can trademark "Windows". They can trademark "Microsoft:Windows" or "Windows by Anderson", but the object in the title is just to ambiguous. So maybe these companies should be allowed to trademark "[Company Name]'s Web 2.0" but not just "Web 2.0"
-Rick
How long until some hacker poisons the peer system into spamming a legitimate site?
-Rick
The original comment was poorly stated. XML is not fundamentally slower, it's a format, it's not doing anything. But it is generally significantly more bloated. And with the bloat comes an interpretation performance hit. True, someone could make a non-human readable document format that had more meta-data per element, but by and large, proprietary closed source solutions will be more streamlined.
For example, I have a program that works like a TV guide and remote for my PDA. It connects to a Windows:MCE box in my house. The MCE box connects to Zap-2-It labs for the TV Listings. It downloads a 5 meg XML file that contains the TV listings for the next 2 days. Processing 5 megs of XML on a 400mhz ARM processor would be slow as tar, so I take that 5 megs and strip it down to just the data in a proprietary format, filter it down to just the specific data I need, and send if over the net to my PDA at a whopping 450k text file. It's still human readable, it just doesn't have the self describing meta-data. And I can pull up 450k of text for processing significantly faster than I can pull up 5 megs of XML.
-Rick
Uh, the point of that saying is that once you eat your cake, you no longer have it. You can either have the cake, or eat it. But once you eat it, it's gone.
-Rick
An MMO with out the leveling is a really slow, over sized, FPS.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer a player skill based, quick leveling style MMO, but if you strip out the character development, all it is, is a first person shooter (button masher, click once, or combo based depending on the specific game).
-Rick
Lets see, you charge consumer level ISPs and consumers to connect to your pipes. Then you charge the content providers another fee to be connected to your pipes. It sure sounds like you have ample opportunity to see as much of that profit as you like. You are completely entitled to raise your fees as high as the market will bear.
But allowing an ISP to determine the quality (or availability) of a service will undermine competition and innovation. How hard is it to foresee AT&T slowing VoIP calls down to a crawl, forcing consumers to use AT&T's phone service instead? Or what if AT&T decided to drop the quality of service on any of their competitor's services? She we just allow AT&T to shut SBC's web site? The impact of competition and innovation would be dramatic.
-Rick
-Rick
Simple, if they don't want to be a common carrier, hold them accountable for anything that is transmitted.
Either be a common carrier, or be charged with a felony every time a kiddy porn image passes through their network. Hold them accountable for criminal digital acts including hacking, DOS attacks, defacement, etc...
Either they are a common carrier, or they aren't. None of this cake having and eating.
-Rick
"Self actualization has nothing to do with it."
I couldn't disagree more. If you took leveling out of the game entirely, and just put everyone at level 60, the game's population would plummet.
-Rick
I used the word trivial because so far as I know the line between fair use and copyright violation is still somewhat shady. In that you can have 20 people over for a party, kick back and watch a DVD and it's fine. But you can't show the DVD to 30,000 people (say on closed cicuit TV). Also, if you have 5 guests over, you can't charge them $5 to watch the movie. You can charge them a popcorn fee, an electrical usage fee, a bathroom use fee, or what ever for $5, but you can't charge them for the movie itself.
-Rick
My bust, you are correct. I should have caught that before I posted. Thanks for the correction.
-Rick
I should have clarified, most MMORPG players. And WoW is a perfect example of Maslow's hierchy. As soon as the player reaches the end game, they have acheived the most important step of self actualization. At that point, the game has deminishing returns on what it can offer players.
Many upcoming (and some existing) games are getting more and more dynamic. With these more dynamic worlds, hitting the max out level is not always the primary goal. Sure, hitting the max level is great, but who really cares? Creating a massive city and ruling over it where everyone knows your name is even more rewarding. And if someone finds it rewarding to build something, someone else will find it rewarding to tear it down.
-Rick
Their is a clear difference between theft and copywrite violations. For it to be a copywrite violation there has to be non-trivial distribution.
For example:
5-finger discount from BestBuy: Theft
Watching a DVD you purchased: OK
Loaning your DVD to a friend: OK
Viewing a DVD with 5 friends: OK
Showing a DVD to 50 paying customers: Copywrite Violation
Burning a copy of a DVD and giving it to a friend: Copywrite Violation
Burning 100 copies of a DVD and selling them: Copywrite Violation
Sharing (in part or whole) the content of the DVD online: Copywrite Violation
So yes, copywrite violations should be more severe than theft. If you only download and do not upload, than the provider is guilty of a Copywrite violation. But if you are sharing a download on bit torrent, then you too are sharing and can be held accountable for a copywrite violation.
-Rick
Welcome to Maslow's Hierarchy. You may say you don't want the grind and carrot on a stick, but most players subconsciously do. The joy of virtual self actualization.
-Rick
No, what I'm saying is that if the guy contacted the court and said he has no relation to the case and never gave the law firm to use him as the primary plaintiff, he would be fine. It would be up to the court to decide what to do.
If he stepped up as the primary plaintiff and told the judge that he would like to drop the case, he would be liable.
His best option is to deny any and all involvement.
-Rick
I would assume that if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case and would give the law firm grounds to demand payment from him.
-Rick
Nah, mostly just feed crops.
-Rick