There's no reason one cannot provide for excessive users. However, it needs to be upfront and clearly seen what that means.
That said, bit torrent is not the bandwidth hog of today. It is everyday, common, and reasonable usage of services such as streaming video from the likes of Netflix, Hulu, etc.. If the network cannot support the everyday, common, and reasonable usage of the majority of its customers then they are not fulfilling their obligations.
Users will not always consume what is available. Users will consume what users would like to use. If you increase capacity and it gets used up then you didn't increase it enough. The developing world, not just the rest of the first world has passed the US by with cost and capacity by an order of magnitude or more. Everyone else get's substantially more, for substantially less per month. US customers are getting ripped off by all the communication markets. To make matters worse we're being forced to pay for a cable television market that's obsolete and could easily be replaced by Internet TV but for slimy pigs in Washington enjoying their hookers and blow supplied courtesy of businesses like Comcast.
They also shot those things out at a rather slow--relatively speaking--pace of just 16.8 km/s and 12.9 km/s for V1 and V2 respectively. Our present, flight proven electric drive technologies are a order of magnitude faster. Get to the nearest star fast, no, but we could certainly play out in the Kupiter belt and only have to wait a few years rather than a few decades like with did with these. Make no mistake I'm glad we got them out there. They've sent back some really awesome stuff but I also think it's time to start sending their successors, and preferably a bit more mass produced.
Unfortunately people have been doing this ceaselessly for the last decade+. The only thing that has accomplished is cause the USPTO to get significantly sloppier in their work. The result of which is simply an ever growing body of patents with overly broad terms, little regard for prior art, etc. In short, it has only made the trolls stronger and more abundant.
With respect to goods/service producing companies, patents are no longer about protecting R&D investments. Rather it's about ensuring a defense using the M.A.D. doctrine is in place to safeguard their future ability to conduct business. Unfortunately, M.A.D. cannot be established against a patent holding corporation such as I.V. since no one has yet figured out how to patent aspects of the patenting process. These trolls, and I would assert patents in general, are one of the biggest hindrances to the U.S. economy. This is putting us at a significant competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world and it's only going to get worse.
Yeh, but since you're not part of the 1st world your service must suck! I mean come on, you probably only get 98 of those 100Mbit/s. Us 1st worlders pay far more so surely we get every one of those Mbits promised in the advertisement.
You'd like to think it, but you'd be wrong. Let's look at it from another perspective. The urban centers of the U.S. have a population density about 1/3 that of Japan or South Korea. We're now comparing apples with their cousin the pear. Same area to cover but the US has 1/3 fewer customers trying to push data through the pipes. For $40/month in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area you can get 1.5Mbit/384Kbit service. Would you please explain to me what justification one could have for charging twice as much for nearly three orders of magnitude (682 times) slower service.
If we're talking about geographically dispersed rural America we aren't even considering speed. We're talking about whether or not they have service available in the first place. We're looking at satellite based service as the only option in many cases. Cheapest you'll find is $50/month for 512Kbit/128Kbit complete with 750-1500ms latency and 7GB cap--weather permitting of course.
Unfortunately you are talking about a country wherein there exists an already defined legal frameworks from which one must operate. In this realm of reality, it is necessary to find a path through the already established law to enact or modify policy. It's a rather bit like trying to write software to work with legacy APIs designed by short-sighted and probably insane engineers. To make matters worse, sometimes there's one node on which you must act, other times there's more than 50. Sometimes the APIs are similar, though they're never completely the same. Sometimes within each node of this set of 50+ nodes are sub-nodes with their own special APIs that resemble one another but are not quite the same. Sometimes even these are subdivided. The solutions are seldom straight forward, seldom founded in common sense, and seldom what you really wanted in the first place.
Environmental impact tariffs come to mind as a nice knee jerk response. I would very much like to understand the complete impact of this however. I'm not certain it would really solve the problem as much as it would cause collateral damage.
There however is an obvious, yet probably overlooked solution however. These vessels have to get fuel somewhere. Where do they fill up? Can we control the fuel going into them for at least part of the journey? While it might not be able to control the fuel going into them in China perhaps we can ensure that the fuel going in to them from the U.S. is a higher quality/lower pollution blend. Perhaps we could even use bio-diesel.
ICBMs are also significantly smaller. I am not familiar with the technology you speak of, however, I do know that certain engineering systems are very difficult to scale. I have to wonder why such technology wasn't considered for the ARES launch vehicle given challenge associated with getting the crew safely away while under power by the first stage. If they could have simply shut down, or reduced the thrust of the first stage then the escape vehicle would have been a much simpler proposition.
It's really quite simple. The argument always goes something along the lines of it all being "voluntary." You are not required to fly, you are volunteering to fly and by doing so you are submitting to what ever rules and regulations follow along with that. You haven't set aside nor lost your 4th amendment rights, you volunteered for the process unlike a police action wherein they are doing it against your will.
Hmm, why not combine the two. Not only will you get cleared through security at the airport but you'll also receive a free health screening. Just think of it... free colonoscopies, hysteroscopies, and breast exams. It'd be an incredible time saver to not have to schedule a separate examination. Heck it'd even help curb the worry about that at risk segment of the male population needing but not getting an annual mammo...
So the left hand is not talking to the right and vice-versa. This is nothing new for companies, and especially not for ones the size of Google. Is the preference towards self-promotion appropriate? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Given that most nearly any company you make a purchase from will suggest you try their own related products instead of their competitors it certainly isn't out the realm of consumer expectations.
Sure the market prevailed (sort of) but not until after people got screwed. Free market is like democracy. Nothing ever gets done until after the consequences of a problem have been felt.
The same reason this guy is. The same reason we have placebo buttons--which I'd argue includes those on voting machines. Most people aren't very bright. This is especially true when it comes to anything outside of the specialized training of their chosen career.
That's not really true. GM does care. They care because electric vehicles have fewer moving parts that wear out and require replacing. GM has been accused of sabotaging the EV1 for that very reason. US auto manufacturers didn't get a reputation for building pieces of crap for no reason. The dealer service as well as the parts industry were where the US car companies made their money. It hasn't been until more recent times--after Japan started becoming a very serious threat to the US market in spite significant import tariffs due to their well recognized reliability compared to American brands--that quality and reliability were made a priority. Despite this new priority however, much of the legacy business remained (what do you think much of the bankruptcy B.S. was about).
I would personally like to know just what kind of a problem these "supposed" rogue repeaters are. How many people are presently being adversely affected by them. On the face of it their argument makes a certain sense, they could be a problem but are they really? Moreover since radio equipment is already regulated by the FCC would it not be appropriate to simply use the existing framework for ensuring that said equipment does not interfere. A thing I'm fairly certain it's already doing and thus this isn't a real problem except for carrier business models.
I can certainly understand the "two minds" position. I'm in a likewise position. I'm not certain what would be the best solution but history does seem to make it clear that nothing will get done unless someone or something puts a fire under industry's a**. There needs to be a business case for them to do it. Unfortunately market pressure is unlikely to exist unless there's an actual incident and a very high chance it will happen to others on a regular basis. This is obviously something best avoided. So we're left with coming up with preemptive strategies. I am unfamiliar with any other reliably effective means of providing a business case for doing something than to prevent them from having a business in the first place absent from compliance to a certain measure.
We know that government legislators have a tradition of poorly prescribing technological specifications. However, we also know that the NSA has a rather strong skill in the area of security. Perhaps we can find a means of leveraging our tax payer investment in the NSA to produce a solution. An unfortunate challenge to providing a solution however, will be the lack of authority at the federal level for any business not subject to the Commerce Clause. This encompasses a rather large segment of which includes critical infrastructure such as power, water, etc.. Most states, and some in particular are a rather bit difficult to get to voluntarily comply with anything the federal government requests.
Rabbit holes aside... There used to be a very good end-user tool called Thunderbyte AV that leveraged not just the--basically worthless against first strike attack--signatures method but also used heuristics to detect unknown malicious software. Unfortunately I think this method has largely gone by the wayside for the sake of ignorant users and supporting business models.
Now, this technique only exists in enterprise class protection hardware/software used by big business. It unfortunately isn't being used by the not so IT savvy industrial sector nor end-user and is one of the primary reasons we continue to read new anecdotes and reports on our soft industrial underbelly.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason one cannot provide for excessive users. However, it needs to be upfront and clearly seen what that means.
That said, bit torrent is not the bandwidth hog of today. It is everyday, common, and reasonable usage of services such as streaming video from the likes of Netflix, Hulu, etc.. If the network cannot support the everyday, common, and reasonable usage of the majority of its customers then they are not fulfilling their obligations.
Users will not always consume what is available. Users will consume what users would like to use. If you increase capacity and it gets used up then you didn't increase it enough. The developing world, not just the rest of the first world has passed the US by with cost and capacity by an order of magnitude or more. Everyone else get's substantially more, for substantially less per month. US customers are getting ripped off by all the communication markets. To make matters worse we're being forced to pay for a cable television market that's obsolete and could easily be replaced by Internet TV but for slimy pigs in Washington enjoying their hookers and blow supplied courtesy of businesses like Comcast.
Agree with or not, it does help him stay in business...
They also shot those things out at a rather slow--relatively speaking--pace of just 16.8 km/s and 12.9 km/s for V1 and V2 respectively. Our present, flight proven electric drive technologies are a order of magnitude faster. Get to the nearest star fast, no, but we could certainly play out in the Kupiter belt and only have to wait a few years rather than a few decades like with did with these. Make no mistake I'm glad we got them out there. They've sent back some really awesome stuff but I also think it's time to start sending their successors, and preferably a bit more mass produced.
This isn't really "new" stores have had this for a while now. It was even featured on Modern Marvels
Unfortunately people have been doing this ceaselessly for the last decade+. The only thing that has accomplished is cause the USPTO to get significantly sloppier in their work. The result of which is simply an ever growing body of patents with overly broad terms, little regard for prior art, etc. In short, it has only made the trolls stronger and more abundant.
With respect to goods/service producing companies, patents are no longer about protecting R&D investments. Rather it's about ensuring a defense using the M.A.D. doctrine is in place to safeguard their future ability to conduct business. Unfortunately, M.A.D. cannot be established against a patent holding corporation such as I.V. since no one has yet figured out how to patent aspects of the patenting process. These trolls, and I would assert patents in general, are one of the biggest hindrances to the U.S. economy. This is putting us at a significant competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world and it's only going to get worse.
Greed, popular ignorance, free hookers and blow for all involved politicians, we're a free market democracy, they're a oh wait...
Yeh, but since you're not part of the 1st world your service must suck! I mean come on, you probably only get 98 of those 100Mbit/s. Us 1st worlders pay far more so surely we get every one of those Mbits promised in the advertisement.
You'd like to think it, but you'd be wrong. Let's look at it from another perspective. The urban centers of the U.S. have a population density about 1/3 that of Japan or South Korea. We're now comparing apples with their cousin the pear. Same area to cover but the US has 1/3 fewer customers trying to push data through the pipes. For $40/month in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area you can get 1.5Mbit/384Kbit service. Would you please explain to me what justification one could have for charging twice as much for nearly three orders of magnitude (682 times) slower service.
If we're talking about geographically dispersed rural America we aren't even considering speed. We're talking about whether or not they have service available in the first place. We're looking at satellite based service as the only option in many cases. Cheapest you'll find is $50/month for 512Kbit/128Kbit complete with 750-1500ms latency and 7GB cap--weather permitting of course.
Unfortunately you are talking about a country wherein there exists an already defined legal frameworks from which one must operate. In this realm of reality, it is necessary to find a path through the already established law to enact or modify policy. It's a rather bit like trying to write software to work with legacy APIs designed by short-sighted and probably insane engineers. To make matters worse, sometimes there's one node on which you must act, other times there's more than 50. Sometimes the APIs are similar, though they're never completely the same. Sometimes within each node of this set of 50+ nodes are sub-nodes with their own special APIs that resemble one another but are not quite the same. Sometimes even these are subdivided. The solutions are seldom straight forward, seldom founded in common sense, and seldom what you really wanted in the first place.
Environmental impact tariffs come to mind as a nice knee jerk response. I would very much like to understand the complete impact of this however. I'm not certain it would really solve the problem as much as it would cause collateral damage.
There however is an obvious, yet probably overlooked solution however. These vessels have to get fuel somewhere. Where do they fill up? Can we control the fuel going into them for at least part of the journey? While it might not be able to control the fuel going into them in China perhaps we can ensure that the fuel going in to them from the U.S. is a higher quality/lower pollution blend. Perhaps we could even use bio-diesel.
ICBMs are also significantly smaller. I am not familiar with the technology you speak of, however, I do know that certain engineering systems are very difficult to scale. I have to wonder why such technology wasn't considered for the ARES launch vehicle given challenge associated with getting the crew safely away while under power by the first stage. If they could have simply shut down, or reduced the thrust of the first stage then the escape vehicle would have been a much simpler proposition.
It's really quite simple. The argument always goes something along the lines of it all being "voluntary." You are not required to fly, you are volunteering to fly and by doing so you are submitting to what ever rules and regulations follow along with that. You haven't set aside nor lost your 4th amendment rights, you volunteered for the process unlike a police action wherein they are doing it against your will.
Hmm, why not combine the two. Not only will you get cleared through security at the airport but you'll also receive a free health screening. Just think of it... free colonoscopies, hysteroscopies, and breast exams. It'd be an incredible time saver to not have to schedule a separate examination. Heck it'd even help curb the worry about that at risk segment of the male population needing but not getting an annual mammo...
So the left hand is not talking to the right and vice-versa. This is nothing new for companies, and especially not for ones the size of Google. Is the preference towards self-promotion appropriate? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Given that most nearly any company you make a purchase from will suggest you try their own related products instead of their competitors it certainly isn't out the realm of consumer expectations.
nothing will happen until after it's too late.
Sure the market prevailed (sort of) but not until after people got screwed. Free market is like democracy. Nothing ever gets done until after the consequences of a problem have been felt.
How about this one And here's a community site devoted to such ideas.
The same reason this guy is. The same reason we have placebo buttons--which I'd argue includes those on voting machines. Most people aren't very bright. This is especially true when it comes to anything outside of the specialized training of their chosen career.
That's not really true. GM does care. They care because electric vehicles have fewer moving parts that wear out and require replacing. GM has been accused of sabotaging the EV1 for that very reason. US auto manufacturers didn't get a reputation for building pieces of crap for no reason. The dealer service as well as the parts industry were where the US car companies made their money. It hasn't been until more recent times--after Japan started becoming a very serious threat to the US market in spite significant import tariffs due to their well recognized reliability compared to American brands--that quality and reliability were made a priority. Despite this new priority however, much of the legacy business remained (what do you think much of the bankruptcy B.S. was about).
BTW: for those bored and feel like reading... here are the basic rules and such for unlicensed transmitters.
I would personally like to know just what kind of a problem these "supposed" rogue repeaters are. How many people are presently being adversely affected by them. On the face of it their argument makes a certain sense, they could be a problem but are they really? Moreover since radio equipment is already regulated by the FCC would it not be appropriate to simply use the existing framework for ensuring that said equipment does not interfere. A thing I'm fairly certain it's already doing and thus this isn't a real problem except for carrier business models.
I can certainly understand the "two minds" position. I'm in a likewise position. I'm not certain what would be the best solution but history does seem to make it clear that nothing will get done unless someone or something puts a fire under industry's a**. There needs to be a business case for them to do it. Unfortunately market pressure is unlikely to exist unless there's an actual incident and a very high chance it will happen to others on a regular basis. This is obviously something best avoided. So we're left with coming up with preemptive strategies. I am unfamiliar with any other reliably effective means of providing a business case for doing something than to prevent them from having a business in the first place absent from compliance to a certain measure.
We know that government legislators have a tradition of poorly prescribing technological specifications. However, we also know that the NSA has a rather strong skill in the area of security. Perhaps we can find a means of leveraging our tax payer investment in the NSA to produce a solution. An unfortunate challenge to providing a solution however, will be the lack of authority at the federal level for any business not subject to the Commerce Clause. This encompasses a rather large segment of which includes critical infrastructure such as power, water, etc.. Most states, and some in particular are a rather bit difficult to get to voluntarily comply with anything the federal government requests.
Rabbit holes aside... There used to be a very good end-user tool called Thunderbyte AV that leveraged not just the--basically worthless against first strike attack--signatures method but also used heuristics to detect unknown malicious software. Unfortunately I think this method has largely gone by the wayside for the sake of ignorant users and supporting business models.
Now, this technique only exists in enterprise class protection hardware/software used by big business. It unfortunately isn't being used by the not so IT savvy industrial sector nor end-user and is one of the primary reasons we continue to read new anecdotes and reports on our soft industrial underbelly.
This is true. But tell me, how do you propose to get said worm onto a Linux system?