Actually outer space is really hot, temperature wise.
Temperature is a measure of how fast particles are moving. In the near vacumn of space the few particles there are, tend to be moving very fast.
Of course there isn't much heat which is a measure of the quantity of those particles. No matter how fast the particles move there just aren't that many of them.
There is another downside. If you use the so called private IP ranges then by definition they are not routable. All properly configured routers on the internet ( there's got to be at least one;-) will not forward packets to or from a private range. This means that if your firewall/router is improperly leaking packets they won't go anywhere. If you use public IPs then the leaked packets will go somewhere. One of the first things your are supposed to do with a firewall is configure it so it doesn't forward any of the private address ranges.
Essentialy you can use public IPs but its not the way the IP system was designed. Public IPS are for the internet, private are for inside the private LAN.
Couple of points to consider with rockets taking off from earth.
Air friction;
Limits due to occupants.
One of the things that limits how efficient a rocket can be is whether or not you have living things on board. If you do then you have to limit the acceleration so part of the payload isn't smeared against the back of the cabin and is still breathing when you get to where you want to go. That means that you have to spread the acceleration over a longer period of time than absolutely necessary. That in turn means you are spending fuel to lift fuel to the point where you actually throw it out the back end. It also means you are lifting everything else necessary to do the throwing. If you had a big cannon then most of your launch machinery is on the ground and stays there, the only thing winging its way upwards is what is needed to be up there. Thats one reason why unmanned missions can be more fuel efficient, higher takeoff accelerations equals less fuel used to lift more fuel higher in the air. It also means you can throw away your lift machinery faster, thats why we have multistage rockets.
The other side of the connundrum is that air resistance isn't linear. If you double your speed you get more than double the resistance. Aerodynamics can improve this somewhat but an unmanned capsule travelling from our theoretical cannon would start losing efficiency if it started off too fast. Its a min max problem to find the optimal point but I have a hunch you still get smooshed astronaut at the optimal acceleration to achieve minimum fuel costs.
The article is typical for a reporter who doesn't understand what they are writing about and is more interested in sensationalism than accuracy but the points almost gets out. Since the efficiency of the orbital maneuvering thrusters is better you can either use a smaller launch vehicle for the same mission lifetime, thereby saving fuel etc or you can use the same launch configuration and get a longer mission lifetime. The efficiencies aren't due to the launch system as implied, its due to a better payload. The same effect can happen if you have lighter, more fuel efficient electronics. Think of an original IBM 360 model 20 as compared to today's basic i386 desktop machine and the same thing happens.
You'd almost think that the thing was an integrated whole where one change somewhere effects everything else, boy thats a revelation:-)
Sounds like that last kernal tweak was just a bit too "hot".
Interestingly enough my business partner was getting frequent BSODs on his Dell laptop. He called the service department and they recommended blowing out the fan ports to clear any accumulated dust. He did and hasn't had a BSOD since.
I know Linux tends to run cooler than Windows but I wouldn't be surprised if Alan Cox is running his hotter than most.
Most of the posts here make the statement that it is the bank's responsibility to verify that the request is coming from a legitimate source.
Here's the basic problem: There are procedural and legal requirements for that process. If the bank meets all of these requirements then it can be reasonably argued that they are now off the hook. What most of the discussion seems to be about is what is a reasonable procedure. We should also discuss what should be done when the process although followed, didn't work.
I.E. Several posts state that 2 factor identification is the "solution". Lets assume that the bank uses this and its still not the right person. Who should be on the hook, the customer or the bank who did everythng "right"?
As far as I can see the problem is that we don't have a foolproof method of uniquely identifying everyone. The privacy issues that get raised when we do have that method then become an issue.
I can see a couple of ways to improve things:
Your bank card has a one time pad in it and each time you do a transaction part of the pad gets used up.
The card has a digitally signed picture of you that is current
You can easily get card numbers for single usage, I.E. $500 to be used in the next 2 days at shops in this particular mall
Improved "reasonablness" scanning of transactions
Multi factor (customer choice) identification possibly based on the size of the transaction
Personally I think that if the individual did unreasonable stuff that compromised an otherwise secure system then they are on the hook. If the bank has an unreasonably insecure system then they are. When both parties are "at fault" then you have to allocate percentages of responsibility
Which looks fairly inclusive. The only "special" things that I can see is that you must have any one of several Java virtual machines installed and support 128 bit encryption. It all seems reasonable.
Software for botnets is getting so big groups of programmers are working together on them.
To work together they have to share the source code (duh!)
They are using methods developed by open source projects to share code ( double duh!!)
These methods are efficient ( n x duh! where n is 1 greater than the minimum number needed to boggle your mind)
So what we get from this is that the freely available tools used by open source advocates are good for working on projects with many source files that are shared among many people. This is news?
They're alluding to the time dilation effect in general and/or special relativity.
Basically if you are travelling close to the speed of light relative to some other point ( say earth), then time slows down for you relative to the time flow at the other point. The effect is:
sqrt( 1- ((v**2) / (c**2)))
Where v is your velocity and c is the speed of light. So if you get really close to the speed of light time slows down for you a lot.
I'm assuming that when they say comes back in two hours they mean from Superman's time frame and not the earth's.
Its also sometimes called the twin paradox. Take a pair of twins, put one in a space ship and fly it close to the speed of light in a round trip that ends up back on earth. Their ages are now different even though they both travelled close to the speed of light relative to each other. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox for a better expalanation.
When high speed modems were coming in they had a builtin fallback function whereby if the line was noisy they would slow down and keep the channel open. Sounds good right? Only problem was we had modems that were supposed to be on for days or weeks at a time. Since any line sometimes has problems the modems would get slower and slower over time and never get back to being fast, even after the temporary problem MWA'd ("magically went away"). The only solution was to shut down the connection and start it up again.
OK fast forward to the future where everyone is wearing this type of digital "asisstant". It only lets you see and hear what you have previously shown an interest in. Since you only see and hear what you previously were interested in, any new stuff ( The blonde with the hot red skirt, or the hunk in the blue muscle shirt) that you have never seen before but might have wanted to see doesn't come through. Since familiarity breeds boredom you have less and less stuff that you are interested in, so less and less stuff gets through. Sooner or later you have to turn the sucker off and either start the retraining cycle or see how far you can throw it.
"Robotic Telesurgery done by remote surgeons" seems a bit redundant. If the surgeons weren't remote it wouldn't be "tele". I.E. Telecommunications is communications between people who are remote from each other.
Sounds like your father needs to have his ego adjusted.
I would simply reply that first of all he accepted the responsibility of raising you properly when he had you and that you don't owe him anything. ( See Sydney Poitier in "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner"). If he did a basically good job I'd point it out and thank him. I'd then point out that you don't reply to people who are rude and obnoxious nor do you deal with people who haven't followed your previous suggestions. Then you hang up. If he wants to discuss the matter in anything but a respectful adult manner then he gets hung up on. If this continues for more than a month or two then you have to make a long term decision about whether or not you put up with the behaviour.
Just because he is your father doesn't mean he can treat you with anything but the same respect that you hopefully treat him. Respect goes both ways.
Its not so much the shell of the egg as what is inside. Seeing as the egg is composed of a mostly non-compressable fluid ( much like water) I would guess that there would be no problem with cooking it at a higher pressure. Thats how pressure cookers work.
It looks like you misread the article. I think that the original quote was talking about boiling the egg as apposed to cooking it. It is true that the egg will be cooked after a certain period of time at 100C without boiling. It is also true that it will be cooked faster in boiling water at 350C. The point here is that boiling means that the heated liquid is turning to vapour and escaping, not that it is cooking anything. If you lower the ambient pressure the temperature at which the liquid will vapourize is lower as well. If you up the pressure then the boiling point also elevates.
There are charts for cooking things at altitude that show you how to adjust the cooking times due to lower atmospheric pressure. They are used by high altitude hikers and mountain climbers.
What I found the most interesting in this Wall Street Journal piece.
"With their orders to Microsoft, the regulators are aiming to level the global playing field and make it easier for rivals' inexpensive, easily modified "open source" software to interact seamlessly with Microsoft's more-expensive, less-flexible products."
Part of the problem is caused by people expecting one thing and not understanding what they actually got.
I have an unlimited account with a DSL provider. OK what is unlimited? How long I can be signed on for.
There are limits on:
1. How fast I can upload;
2. How fast I can download;
3. How much I can download per month.
It was all stated in their advertising but the "Unlimited" was highlighted. It wasn't misleading it just accentuated what was "best" about the service, that is what advertising does.
Besides - Welcome to the real world, TANSTAAFL - ( There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).
Anything that is "free" or "unlimited" has at least one catch that you should be aware of. If you are not aware of it then you bear part or all of the responsibility depending on how well the vendor communicated the actual terms of the agreement. If you don't understand what the catch is then you should keep investigating.
You can also provide feedback that using certain ways of making the product look good actually detract from it. "Peak HP" on power tools is my hot button. So is "0% financing or $2,000 rebate".
I wasn't saying that everyone has to have a hard wire, I was saying that wireless as it currently stands isn't the solution due to the limited bandwidth. Yes there are solutions but your average home user has trouble figuring out how to plug the components together. Focusing a set of parabolic antenna's is probably not something they will be interested in.
Actually I think its the exact opposite. You will run out of bandwidth in areas that have a concentrated number of users. I.E. The cities first and then out in the country. The thing with wireless is that everyone in the broadcast range shares the same "pipe" ( the RF spectrum allocated). That means there is a maximum number of bits that can be in transit at any one time. To make more pipes with a fibre or wire setup all you need to do is lay or light up more wire or fibre. With wireless you either start focusing the radio waves so that only part of the geography is in use or you allocate more RF spectrum. The more you focus the beam the more you are emulating a wire and the more you get away from the actual advantages of wireless. Take a look at cell phone availability. Places like Washington DC are known to have cell phone connection problems because so many people are using cell phones at any one time. If you get into a rural area that has coverage then you generally don't have a capacity problem because there are fewer people using the fixed resource at any one time.
I classify satelite links along with long haul microwave, cable and fibre as something the "big boys" do.
The wireless routers that everyone uses can link to hundreds of others but take a look at the available bandwidth and compare it to the average and peak usage of those people. The average may be OK but the peak is woefully low. If we expect 100KB per node then even a 1000 people means you need about 100M of bandwidth. You can argue that the number is lower since the peaks won't all occur at the same time. The problem is that the more people per sqaure mile the more likely you will get a "perfect storm". That why certain areas of the continent have cell problems, too many people want to talk at the same time and the area is over subscribed.
A mesh does not increase the RF bandwidth available, it allows you to extend the distance you can "transmit" by essentially putting repeaters into the system. If anything it will lower the available RF bandwidth because not only will there be local traffic but traffic from outside the local broadcast area. Where a mesh can also help is when it isn't pure RF. Some of the traffic which would have had to go via multiple RF links is rerouted to a land line. that isn't increasing available RF bandwidth, its offloading to a different transmission medium.
I agree that the OP wanted to discuss ways of stopping the control of the internet that is inherent in having backbone providers. My part of the discussion is to point out that wireless as it currently stands has some serious limitations that will probably stop it from being the panacea that some posters were trying to make it sound.
The main problem is a matter of bandwidth. The backbone providers have it, how do you create something that is cheaper which can route around it? I think that that is the main question.
I'm surprised at the number of people who think wireless is a viable solution for a world wide high speed, high bandwidth internet. As I understand it the main problem is bandwidth. Esentially you only have a fixed number of frequencies that can be used. That means there is a maximum bit rate available. The only way to increase this is to either allocate a wider range of frequencies, make each transmitter weaker so that its footprint is smaller or start using focused beams. The smaller the footprint the more reuse of the same spectrum of frequencies that is possible. You run into the same problem with cell phones, there is a maximum number of conversations that can be active within any one cell site. Once you hit that limit any other cell phone is out of luck until a slot opens up.
Wire and fibre have the advantage of being able to have multiple high bandwidth channels all bundled together in a relatively small space. If you want more bandwidth, light up more fibre.
As far as te OP's question, its not a matter of peer to peer as opposed to anything else, thats just a way of looking at the hierarchy of how the two or more machines talk to each other. It doesn't deal with the actual communications channels. You can have peer to peer communications going over a single, monitored wire just as easily as master/slave messages.
What the OP was really talking about was every node having at least 2 channels that are separate and independant. Personally I think that most people won't care and will only have a single channel.
So according to Verizon's logic if I make a deal while talking on the telephone that makes me some money I should pay them something extra? I thought taxation was the pervue of the government(s).
How about if I lose money, will they give me a refund?
Depends on how and where. If I remember correctly, during WW2, the US suffered more military casualties from vehicule accidents behind the lines than they did in the battlefield. Anything that allows you to move your logistics more efficiently and flexibily is a good thing. It doesn't have to be at the pointy end.
If anything, allowing this type of trade would improve the chances of whale survival in that you need whales around to keep producing the fresh stuff so that ten years latter you have the "good" stuff. I wonder if there is a way to quickly age it properly?
I heard a story about aligators in Florida being an endangered species. Then someone realized that people paid big bucks for aligator leather goods and started farming them. There are now a lot of aligators in Florida.
It sounds much like mankind's history. First we "harvested" from the wilds, then we invented agriculture and really harvested. Being good to eat is just a plant's method of increasing the chance's of making more plants.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually outer space is really hot, temperature wise.
Temperature is a measure of how fast particles are moving. In the near vacumn of space the few particles there are, tend to be moving very fast.
Of course there isn't much heat which is a measure of the quantity of those particles. No matter how fast the particles move there just aren't that many of them.
There is another downside. If you use the so called private IP ranges then by definition they are not routable. All properly configured routers on the internet ( there's got to be at least one ;-) will not forward packets to or from a private range. This means that if your firewall/router is improperly leaking packets they won't go anywhere. If you use public IPs then the leaked packets will go somewhere. One of the first things your are supposed to do with a firewall is configure it so it doesn't forward any of the private address ranges.
Essentialy you can use public IPs but its not the way the IP system was designed. Public IPS are for the internet, private are for inside the private LAN.
Why would anyone want to scare the S**t out of anything?
One of the things that limits how efficient a rocket can be is whether or not you have living things on board. If you do then you have to limit the acceleration so part of the payload isn't smeared against the back of the cabin and is still breathing when you get to where you want to go. That means that you have to spread the acceleration over a longer period of time than absolutely necessary. That in turn means you are spending fuel to lift fuel to the point where you actually throw it out the back end. It also means you are lifting everything else necessary to do the throwing. If you had a big cannon then most of your launch machinery is on the ground and stays there, the only thing winging its way upwards is what is needed to be up there. Thats one reason why unmanned missions can be more fuel efficient, higher takeoff accelerations equals less fuel used to lift more fuel higher in the air. It also means you can throw away your lift machinery faster, thats why we have multistage rockets.
The other side of the connundrum is that air resistance isn't linear. If you double your speed you get more than double the resistance. Aerodynamics can improve this somewhat but an unmanned capsule travelling from our theoretical cannon would start losing efficiency if it started off too fast. Its a min max problem to find the optimal point but I have a hunch you still get smooshed astronaut at the optimal acceleration to achieve minimum fuel costs.
The article is typical for a reporter who doesn't understand what they are writing about and is more interested in sensationalism than accuracy but the points almost gets out. Since the efficiency of the orbital maneuvering thrusters is better you can either use a smaller launch vehicle for the same mission lifetime, thereby saving fuel etc or you can use the same launch configuration and get a longer mission lifetime. The efficiencies aren't due to the launch system as implied, its due to a better payload. The same effect can happen if you have lighter, more fuel efficient electronics. Think of an original IBM 360 model 20 as compared to today's basic i386 desktop machine and the same thing happens.
You'd almost think that the thing was an integrated whole where one change somewhere effects everything else, boy thats a revelation :-)
Sounds like that last kernal tweak was just a bit too "hot".
Interestingly enough my business partner was getting frequent BSODs on his Dell laptop. He called the service department and they recommended blowing out the fan ports to clear any accumulated dust. He did and hasn't had a BSOD since.
I know Linux tends to run cooler than Windows but I wouldn't be surprised if Alan Cox is running his hotter than most.
Most of the posts here make the statement that it is the bank's responsibility to verify that the request is coming from a legitimate source.
Here's the basic problem: There are procedural and legal requirements for that process. If the bank meets all of these requirements then it can be reasonably argued that they are now off the hook. What most of the discussion seems to be about is what is a reasonable procedure. We should also discuss what should be done when the process although followed, didn't work.
I.E. Several posts state that 2 factor identification is the "solution". Lets assume that the bank uses this and its still not the right person. Who should be on the hook, the customer or the bank who did everythng "right"?
As far as I can see the problem is that we don't have a foolproof method of uniquely identifying everyone. The privacy issues that get raised when we do have that method then become an issue.
I can see a couple of ways to improve things:
Personally I think that if the individual did unreasonable stuff that compromised an otherwise secure system then they are on the hook. If the bank has an unreasonably insecure system then they are. When both parties are "at fault" then you have to allocate percentages of responsibility
OK I give up why is SCCP called "Skinny" instead of "Skippy"?
Here are the software requirements
http://www50.statcan.ca/census2006/settings_1-0_e. htm/
Which looks fairly inclusive. The only "special" things that I can see is that you must have any one of several Java virtual machines installed and support 128 bit encryption. It all seems reasonable.
All they are saying is:
So what we get from this is that the freely available tools used by open source advocates are good for working on projects with many source files that are shared among many people. This is news?
If its an impossible schedule then by definition it can't be done.
They're alluding to the time dilation effect in general and/or special relativity.
Basically if you are travelling close to the speed of light relative to some other point ( say earth), then time slows down for you relative to the time flow at the other point. The effect is:
sqrt( 1- ((v**2) / (c**2)))
Where v is your velocity and c is the speed of light. So if you get really close to the speed of light time slows down for you a lot.
I'm assuming that when they say comes back in two hours they mean from Superman's time frame and not the earth's.
Its also sometimes called the twin paradox. Take a pair of twins, put one in a space ship and fly it close to the speed of light in a round trip that ends up back on earth. Their ages are now different even though they both travelled close to the speed of light relative to each other. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox for a better expalanation.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, here's why.
When high speed modems were coming in they had a builtin fallback function whereby if the line was noisy they would slow down and keep the channel open. Sounds good right? Only problem was we had modems that were supposed to be on for days or weeks at a time. Since any line sometimes has problems the modems would get slower and slower over time and never get back to being fast, even after the temporary problem MWA'd ("magically went away"). The only solution was to shut down the connection and start it up again.
OK fast forward to the future where everyone is wearing this type of digital "asisstant". It only lets you see and hear what you have previously shown an interest in. Since you only see and hear what you previously were interested in, any new stuff ( The blonde with the hot red skirt, or the hunk in the blue muscle shirt) that you have never seen before but might have wanted to see doesn't come through. Since familiarity breeds boredom you have less and less stuff that you are interested in, so less and less stuff gets through. Sooner or later you have to turn the sucker off and either start the retraining cycle or see how far you can throw it.
For some reason, when I first read this, I thought the RIAA would try to sue someone.
Don't use SSH to poke a hole in the firewall separating your DMZ from the intranet.
If I remember correctly there are three "infinities" each "larger" than the previous.
Aleph 1 - Integers
Aleph 2 - Reals
Aleph 3 - Shapes
Each is infinite but they can be compared and shown to be "smaller" then the next one up.
"Robotic Telesurgery done by remote surgeons" seems a bit redundant. If the surgeons weren't remote it wouldn't be "tele". I.E. Telecommunications is communications between people who are remote from each other.
Sounds like your father needs to have his ego adjusted.
I would simply reply that first of all he accepted the responsibility of raising you properly when he had you and that you don't owe him anything. ( See Sydney Poitier in "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner"). If he did a basically good job I'd point it out and thank him. I'd then point out that you don't reply to people who are rude and obnoxious nor do you deal with people who haven't followed your previous suggestions. Then you hang up. If he wants to discuss the matter in anything but a respectful adult manner then he gets hung up on. If this continues for more than a month or two then you have to make a long term decision about whether or not you put up with the behaviour.
Just because he is your father doesn't mean he can treat you with anything but the same respect that you hopefully treat him. Respect goes both ways.
Its not so much the shell of the egg as what is inside. Seeing as the egg is composed of a mostly non-compressable fluid ( much like water) I would guess that there would be no problem with cooking it at a higher pressure. Thats how pressure cookers work.
It looks like you misread the article. I think that the original quote was talking about boiling the egg as apposed to cooking it. It is true that the egg will be cooked after a certain period of time at 100C without boiling. It is also true that it will be cooked faster in boiling water at 350C. The point here is that boiling means that the heated liquid is turning to vapour and escaping, not that it is cooking anything. If you lower the ambient pressure the temperature at which the liquid will vapourize is lower as well. If you up the pressure then the boiling point also elevates.
There are charts for cooking things at altitude that show you how to adjust the cooking times due to lower atmospheric pressure. They are used by high altitude hikers and mountain climbers.
What I found the most interesting in this Wall Street Journal piece.
"With their orders to Microsoft, the regulators are aiming to level the global playing field and make it easier for rivals' inexpensive, easily modified "open source" software to interact seamlessly with Microsoft's more-expensive, less-flexible products."
OSS - inexpensive, easily modified
MS - more-expensive, less flexible
Part of the problem is caused by people expecting one thing and not understanding what they actually got.
I have an unlimited account with a DSL provider. OK what is unlimited? How long I can be signed on for.
There are limits on:
1. How fast I can upload;
2. How fast I can download;
3. How much I can download per month.
It was all stated in their advertising but the "Unlimited" was highlighted. It wasn't misleading it just accentuated what was "best" about the service, that is what advertising does.
Besides - Welcome to the real world, TANSTAAFL - ( There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).
Anything that is "free" or "unlimited" has at least one catch that you should be aware of. If you are not aware of it then you bear part or all of the responsibility depending on how well the vendor communicated the actual terms of the agreement. If you don't understand what the catch is then you should keep investigating.
You can also provide feedback that using certain ways of making the product look good actually detract from it. "Peak HP" on power tools is my hot button. So is "0% financing or $2,000 rebate".
I wasn't saying that everyone has to have a hard wire, I was saying that wireless as it currently stands isn't the solution due to the limited bandwidth. Yes there are solutions but your average home user has trouble figuring out how to plug the components together. Focusing a set of parabolic antenna's is probably not something they will be interested in.
Actually I think its the exact opposite. You will run out of bandwidth in areas that have a concentrated number of users. I.E. The cities first and then out in the country. The thing with wireless is that everyone in the broadcast range shares the same "pipe" ( the RF spectrum allocated). That means there is a maximum number of bits that can be in transit at any one time. To make more pipes with a fibre or wire setup all you need to do is lay or light up more wire or fibre. With wireless you either start focusing the radio waves so that only part of the geography is in use or you allocate more RF spectrum. The more you focus the beam the more you are emulating a wire and the more you get away from the actual advantages of wireless. Take a look at cell phone availability. Places like Washington DC are known to have cell phone connection problems because so many people are using cell phones at any one time. If you get into a rural area that has coverage then you generally don't have a capacity problem because there are fewer people using the fixed resource at any one time.
I classify satelite links along with long haul microwave, cable and fibre as something the "big boys" do.
The wireless routers that everyone uses can link to hundreds of others but take a look at the available bandwidth and compare it to the average and peak usage of those people. The average may be OK but the peak is woefully low. If we expect 100KB per node then even a 1000 people means you need about 100M of bandwidth. You can argue that the number is lower since the peaks won't all occur at the same time. The problem is that the more people per sqaure mile the more likely you will get a "perfect storm". That why certain areas of the continent have cell problems, too many people want to talk at the same time and the area is over subscribed.
A mesh does not increase the RF bandwidth available, it allows you to extend the distance you can "transmit" by essentially putting repeaters into the system. If anything it will lower the available RF bandwidth because not only will there be local traffic but traffic from outside the local broadcast area. Where a mesh can also help is when it isn't pure RF. Some of the traffic which would have had to go via multiple RF links is rerouted to a land line. that isn't increasing available RF bandwidth, its offloading to a different transmission medium.
I agree that the OP wanted to discuss ways of stopping the control of the internet that is inherent in having backbone providers. My part of the discussion is to point out that wireless as it currently stands has some serious limitations that will probably stop it from being the panacea that some posters were trying to make it sound.
The main problem is a matter of bandwidth. The backbone providers have it, how do you create something that is cheaper which can route around it? I think that that is the main question.
I'm surprised at the number of people who think wireless is a viable solution for a world wide high speed, high bandwidth internet. As I understand it the main problem is bandwidth. Esentially you only have a fixed number of frequencies that can be used. That means there is a maximum bit rate available. The only way to increase this is to either allocate a wider range of frequencies, make each transmitter weaker so that its footprint is smaller or start using focused beams. The smaller the footprint the more reuse of the same spectrum of frequencies that is possible. You run into the same problem with cell phones, there is a maximum number of conversations that can be active within any one cell site. Once you hit that limit any other cell phone is out of luck until a slot opens up.
Wire and fibre have the advantage of being able to have multiple high bandwidth channels all bundled together in a relatively small space. If you want more bandwidth, light up more fibre.
As far as te OP's question, its not a matter of peer to peer as opposed to anything else, thats just a way of looking at the hierarchy of how the two or more machines talk to each other. It doesn't deal with the actual communications channels. You can have peer to peer communications going over a single, monitored wire just as easily as master/slave messages.
What the OP was really talking about was every node having at least 2 channels that are separate and independant. Personally I think that most people won't care and will only have a single channel.
So according to Verizon's logic if I make a deal while talking on the telephone that makes me some money I should pay them something extra? I thought taxation was the pervue of the government(s).
How about if I lose money, will they give me a refund?
Depends on how and where. If I remember correctly, during WW2, the US suffered more military casualties from vehicule accidents behind the lines than they did in the battlefield. Anything that allows you to move your logistics more efficiently and flexibily is a good thing. It doesn't have to be at the pointy end.
I heard a story about aligators in Florida being an endangered species. Then someone realized that people paid big bucks for aligator leather goods and started farming them. There are now a lot of aligators in Florida.
It sounds much like mankind's history. First we "harvested" from the wilds, then we invented agriculture and really harvested. Being good to eat is just a plant's method of increasing the chance's of making more plants.