"At 1:23:04 the experiment began. The unstable state of the reactor was not reflected in any way on the control panel, and it did not appear that anyone in the reactor crew was fully aware of any danger. Steam to the turbines was shut off and, as the momentum of the turbine generator drove the water pumps, the water flow rate decreased, decreasing the absorption of neutrons by the coolant. The turbine was disconnected from the reactor, increasing the level of steam in the reactor core. As the coolant heated, pockets of steam formed voids in the coolant lines. Due to the RBMK reactor-type's large positive void coefficient, the steam bubbles increased the power of the reactor rapidly, and the reactor operation became progressively less stable and more dangerous. As the reaction continued, the excess xenon-135 was burnt up, increasing the number of neutrons available for fission. The prior removal of manual and automatic control rods had no substitute, leading to a runaway reaction.
At 1:23:40 the operators pressed the AZ-5 ("Rapid Emergency Defense 5") button that ordered a "SCRAM" - a shutdown of the reactor, fully inserting all control rods, including the manual control rods that had been incautiously withdrawn earlier. It is unclear whether it was done as an emergency measure, or simply as a routine method of shutting down the reactor upon the completion of an experiment (the reactor was scheduled to be shut down for routine maintenance). It is usually suggested that the SCRAM was ordered as a response to the unexpected rapid power increase. On the other hand, Anatoly Dyatlov, chief engineer at the nuclear station at the time of the accident, writes in his book:
"Prior to 01:23:40, systems of centralized control... didn't register any parameter changes that could justify the SCRAM. Commission... gathered and analyzed large amount of materials and, as stated in its report, failed to determine the reason why the SCRAM was ordered. There was no need to look for the reason. The reactor was simply being shut down upon the completion of the experiment."
The slow speed of the control rod insertion mechanism (18-20 seconds to complete), and the flawed rod design which initially reduces the amount of coolant present, meant that the SCRAM actually increased the reaction rate. At this point an energy spike occurred and some of the fuel rods began to fracture, placing fragments of the fuel rods in line with the control rod columns. The rods became stuck after being inserted only one-third of the way, and were therefore unable to stop the reaction. At this point nothing could be done to stop the disaster. By 1:23:47 the reactor jumped to around 30 GW, ten times the normal operational output. The fuel rods began to melt and the steam pressure rapidly increased, causing a large steam explosion. Generated steam traveled vertically along the rod channels in the reactor, displacing and destroying the reactor lid, rupturing the coolant tubes and then blowing a hole in the roof.[7] After part of the roof blew off, the inrush of oxygen, combined with the extremely high temperature of the reactor fuel and graphite moderator, sparked a graphite fire. This fire greatly contributed to the spread of radioactive material and the contamination of outlying areas... "
"Either: She is obviously good at her job and should keep it. Or: University degrees aren't worth very much."
Or her job is so easy that even a retarded liar can do it. Seriously, how difficult can it be for a bureaucrat to pretend that it manages a bunch of other stupid bureaucrats and to go through resumes and select those with 100% test scores and GPAs?
This case goes to show how overestimated bureaucratic positions are, and how people in prestigious scientific centers should wake up and put those bureaucrats in the place they deserve. That is: a) at most 20-30% of faculty stuff salaries. Hell those stupid idiots should get even less than graduate students. b) absolutely no respect. I am seek of watching students and professors begging every retarded secretary to do the minimum of his/her job.
"He's excellent sample of generic level of education in US.
You can be a retard and still manage to be called a Dr."
Wish I could mod you down to oblivion.
It is Europeans like you that make Americans think we are snobbish stereotypers.
The Dr title is very well respected and appreciated in the US and you cannot carry
it lightly, unless of course due to your charismatic personality you have an extremely
successful show. Phil is not a Dr, he even makes fun of himself for being called so, but
he does bring the numbers. You really need to decouple show biz from science here, it seems
that you are confusing the two.
And what do you mean by generic level of education etc? Are you suggesting that Americans
are on average dumber than us Europeans, and that their Phd degrees don't count as much?
Well, they may have their traits (like a little arrogance), but I assure you
that their education system is still among the best (if not the best) in the world. Furthermore,
Americans themselves are quite intelligent people in all aspects of their lives.
Compared to who are they dumber? To the overly nationalistic blind-folded French? The too formal
, closed-minded and "i feel so guilty for the holocaust" Germans? Or perhaps to the completely
disorganized spanish, portuguese, italian, greeks, et al?
And in case you want to pull the "but they voted for Bush" argument. Let me remind you
that 20+% of French voted for Le Pen
in 2002. In all countries, voters become stupid when the media present them with fake dilemmas...
This is an obvious attack against the BoA authentication system. Anybody with basic knowledge of networking, authentication systems and phishing methods should be able to figure out almost immediately how to defeat this system.
At first, I myself was also very critical of BoA's new anti-phishing technique. However, after some more careful consideration, I realized it is very arrogant for somebody to think that BoA's security team did not think of this problem themselves. Unlike security researchers (including moi), which usually try to create bulletproof security systems so they can right interesting papers with indisputable arguments, financial organizations are constrained by the very real issue of cost-efficiency.
Their current two-step authentication does not address the obvious MITM attack discussed here, but it does address the previously seen phishing attacks. BoA's security team must have figured out that it would cost them X amounts of money to defend against classic phishing attacks and by preventing those they would save Y money. They must have also considered solutions like the ones presented in http://people.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/secu rityskins.pdf, which uses http://en.wikipoaedia.org/wiki/Secure_remote_passw ord_protocol and must have realized that this would cost them a W amount of money. Note that such a solution would require BoA to create new SSL protocols that would have to be installed on the client machines, not only their own servers. Also note, that such a solution is not stupid-user-proof either. However, we can safely say that W > X (perhaps even W >> X).
By using such a solution they could perhaps save Z > Y amounts of money because much less users would fall victims to phishing attacks. It is very likely that they did the math. Because they chose to go with the current solution, it is very likely that Y-X > Z-W
The only thing that BoA should perhaps correct is the statement: "If you recognize your SiteKey, you'll know for sure that you are at the valid Bank of America site. Confirming your SiteKey is also how you'll know that it's safe to enter your Passcode and click the Sign In button."
This is over-claiming and could have a harmful impact by making its web users dropping their defenses against phishing. I am sure however that their marketing dpt told them that they need to advertise this security feature as completely robust, otherwise users would feel that they are going through unnecessary trouble: "if BoA's system is still insecure, why did BoA bother changing it and why do I need to incur the delay to learn it and enter login information twice?"
Disclaimer: I do not work for BoA and I have no vested interest in supporting them. In fact, I hate their guts for their penalty fees policies:)
"As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud."
I did not understand anything from his "explanation" on how his views were distorted.
Anyone cares to enlighten me(us)?
Lindsen has published peer-reviewed papers the last 20 years. Even if he did not, just the fact that he is an enviromental science professor at MIT is enough to give his positions scientific credibility. And he is not alone:
The article mentions google as the prime example of good web design. How long will it take them to fix that ugly, unresponsive, buggy UI of YouTube? Don't get me wrong, its basic functionality works just fine but once you start arranging videos in playlists, favorites etc, nothing seems to work in a predictable way. Your playlist selections appear not to have been saved and then songs appear in it out of the blue in the future. There is really no synchronization between a user's settings and what eventually makes it in the downloaded page.
Even worse the links to "my favorites" etc disappears from the web page once you view a video. You need to go back to your account and select options from there.
Needless to say that google video's site is much much better, faster and not buggy at all. I especially adore their player's random access feature and that it seems to download faster and be less CPU intensive. I would not mind at all if they just incorporate the youtube user accounts, the uploaded videos the domain name and add the expensive youtube servers to their grid. Then completely get rid off all the software developed for YouTube's site and simply take example from some of their nice features such as comments on videos.
You said: "This is high school physics stuff, people - a floating object displaces exactly the same amount of liquid as it weighs - a floating ice cube that weighs a gram, displaces exactly one gram of water"
My old friend, Archimedes however actually said that the buoyant force on a submerged object is equal to the weight of the fluid that is displaced by the object.
Apparently an object displaces exactly the same volume of water, as its volume is. Because the ice is less dense than water, for boyancy to be equal to the iceberg's weight, less water than its own volume needs to be displaced. That volume of water is approximately x% (i think x=60-70%, but not sure) of the volume of the iceberg which simply means that ice is less dense than water. If the ice melts it will produce water of around x% its volume. This water will occupy exactly as much volume as the submerged x% of the iceberg. Thus, the melting of the arctic ice should not raise the sea level substantially. Now there are some complications with sea water and salt and stuff, but i choose not to go into that.
I hate it when moderators, instead of modding based on common sense they mod based on the projected confidence of the bullshiter who posted the nonsense.
but hey - if global warming is the accepted theory, i'm happy to reduce the methane levels in the atmosphere by eating more steak, heh.
I am with you on this one. I will even top you by eating less buritos .
Because BitTorrent has also partnered with CacheLogic
which provides Internet Caching solutions. You pay your subscriptions to legally access the content and you can now use BitTorrent not only to download from your peers but from strategically placed caches.
This substantially reduces the cost on a content provider that would otherwise need to provision expensive
hardware and bandwidth to deliver content via FTP/HTTP. Now they can use the resources of the downloaders
and use CacheLogic's infrastructure to provide service even better than the one current BitTorrent networks
have and perhaps even better than they could possibly afford to provide by using FTP-like central servers.
Users are motivated to pay BitTorrent and content providers, and not download for free, simply because
BitTorrent combined with in-network caching gives a better service than plain BitTorrent.
Users that don't pay cannot access Cachelogic's infrastructure. If their pricing is reasonable, I can see
this scheme taking off rapidly. I know i would pay 5-10$ to download a movie i want to see now in a
couple of hours or less, instead of waiting 2-3 days, while using all my uplink and slowing down my
browsing speeds.
From the article:
"In a joint announcement made today by CacheLogic and BitTorrent, a global network of cache servers has been organized under the name "VelociX". VelociX is the network protocol that governs the actions of a theoretical global community of cache servers. With potentially thousands of networked cache servers at the disposal of the end user, network costs are cut and download speeds are increased significantly.
For example, let's take a look at a CDP enabled client on the prowl for a specific 4.5 gig file. The CDP looks for the closest geographical area for a VelociX swarm, in addition to conventional peers. The VelociX swarm provides the bulk of the file sought after, greatly reducing the reliance on peers. This equates to greatly accelerated download speeds, and since this takes place largely on dedicated servers and not peers, the ISPs costs are reduced....
Unless you plan on downloading authorized content, the network probably isn't for you. In the CacheLogic press release, VelociX will allow "legal content (infringing content is not accelerated) to be inexpensively delivered in minutes instead of hours." Content that is authorized to function on the VelociX network must be manually published via specific hash codes to a central data base."
Percentage of Internet traffic pls, not web sites
on
Internet Only 1% Porn
·
· Score: 1
I would be much more interested in a statistic on what percentage of IP traffic carries porn-related information.
That would be a much better metric metric for finding out what the Internet really... is for.
Cause I cannot find their source code for Linux anywhere. Most likely they have created a nice (mythical)
shim layer themselves to prevent the GPL from taking away their trade secrets.
I call "dvorkism"...
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2007-05/6pong.html
Arguably the biggest shutdown-button screw-up in history ...
... didn't register any parameter changes that could justify the SCRAM. Commission ... gathered and analyzed large amount of materials and, as stated in its report, failed to determine the reason why the SCRAM was ordered. There was no need to look for the reason. The reactor was simply being shut down upon the completion of the experiment."
... "
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster :
"At 1:23:04 the experiment began. The unstable state of the reactor was not reflected in any way on the control panel, and it did not appear that anyone in the reactor crew was fully aware of any danger. Steam to the turbines was shut off and, as the momentum of the turbine generator drove the water pumps, the water flow rate decreased, decreasing the absorption of neutrons by the coolant. The turbine was disconnected from the reactor, increasing the level of steam in the reactor core. As the coolant heated, pockets of steam formed voids in the coolant lines. Due to the RBMK reactor-type's large positive void coefficient, the steam bubbles increased the power of the reactor rapidly, and the reactor operation became progressively less stable and more dangerous. As the reaction continued, the excess xenon-135 was burnt up, increasing the number of neutrons available for fission. The prior removal of manual and automatic control rods had no substitute, leading to a runaway reaction.
At 1:23:40 the operators pressed the AZ-5 ("Rapid Emergency Defense 5") button that ordered a "SCRAM" - a shutdown of the reactor, fully inserting all control rods, including the manual control rods that had been incautiously withdrawn earlier. It is unclear whether it was done as an emergency measure, or simply as a routine method of shutting down the reactor upon the completion of an experiment (the reactor was scheduled to be shut down for routine maintenance). It is usually suggested that the SCRAM was ordered as a response to the unexpected rapid power increase. On the other hand, Anatoly Dyatlov, chief engineer at the nuclear station at the time of the accident, writes in his book:
"Prior to 01:23:40, systems of centralized control
The slow speed of the control rod insertion mechanism (18-20 seconds to complete), and the flawed rod design which initially reduces the amount of coolant present, meant that the SCRAM actually increased the reaction rate. At this point an energy spike occurred and some of the fuel rods began to fracture, placing fragments of the fuel rods in line with the control rod columns. The rods became stuck after being inserted only one-third of the way, and were therefore unable to stop the reaction. At this point nothing could be done to stop the disaster. By 1:23:47 the reactor jumped to around 30 GW, ten times the normal operational output. The fuel rods began to melt and the steam pressure rapidly increased, causing a large steam explosion. Generated steam traveled vertically along the rod channels in the reactor, displacing and destroying the reactor lid, rupturing the coolant tubes and then blowing a hole in the roof.[7] After part of the roof blew off, the inrush of oxygen, combined with the extremely high temperature of the reactor fuel and graphite moderator, sparked a graphite fire. This fire greatly contributed to the spread of radioactive material and the contamination of outlying areas
Or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_manage ment
" Satellites == poor TCP performance (doesn't mean you could not use another format of course:http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/470799.html " http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/470799.html, File not Found Did you mean to cite "Congestion Control for High Bandwidth-Delay Product Networks" XCP : http://www.sigcomm.org/sigcomm2002/papers/xcp.pdf ?
"Either: She is obviously good at her job and should keep it.
Or: University degrees aren't worth very much."
Or her job is so easy that even a retarded liar can do it.
Seriously, how difficult can it be for a bureaucrat to
pretend that it manages a bunch of other stupid bureaucrats and to go through resumes
and select those with 100% test scores and GPAs?
This case goes to show how overestimated bureaucratic positions are, and how
people in prestigious scientific centers should wake up and put those bureaucrats
in the place they deserve. That is:
a) at most 20-30% of faculty stuff salaries. Hell those stupid idiots should get
even less than graduate students.
b) absolutely no respect. I am seek of watching students and professors begging every
retarded secretary to do the minimum of his/her job.
"He's excellent sample of generic level of education in US. You can be a retard and still manage to be called a Dr."
...
Wish I could mod you down to oblivion.
It is Europeans like you that make Americans think we are snobbish stereotypers. The Dr title is very well respected and appreciated in the US and you cannot carry it lightly, unless of course due to your charismatic personality you have an extremely successful show. Phil is not a Dr, he even makes fun of himself for being called so, but he does bring the numbers. You really need to decouple show biz from science here, it seems that you are confusing the two.
And what do you mean by generic level of education etc? Are you suggesting that Americans are on average dumber than us Europeans, and that their Phd degrees don't count as much? Well, they may have their traits (like a little arrogance), but I assure you that their education system is still among the best (if not the best) in the world. Furthermore, Americans themselves are quite intelligent people in all aspects of their lives. Compared to who are they dumber? To the overly nationalistic blind-folded French? The too formal , closed-minded and "i feel so guilty for the holocaust" Germans? Or perhaps to the completely disorganized spanish, portuguese, italian, greeks, et al?
And in case you want to pull the "but they voted for Bush" argument. Let me remind you that 20+% of French voted for Le Pen in 2002. In all countries, voters become stupid when the media present them with fake dilemmas
"Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you have the right to" You my friend are a troll ...
This is an obvious attack against the BoA authentication system. Anybody with basic knowledge of networking, authentication systems and phishing
u rityskins.pdf, which uses http://en.wikipoaedia.org/wiki/Secure_remote_passw ord_protocol and must have realized that this would cost them a W amount of money. Note that such a solution would require BoA to create new SSL protocols that would have to be installed on the client machines, not only their own servers. Also note, that such a solution is not stupid-user-proof either. However, we can safely say that W > X (perhaps even W >> X).
:)
methods should be able to figure out almost immediately how to defeat this system.
At first, I myself was also very critical of BoA's new anti-phishing technique. However, after some more careful consideration, I realized it is very arrogant for somebody to think that BoA's security team did not think of this problem themselves. Unlike security researchers (including moi), which usually try to create bulletproof security systems so they can right interesting papers with indisputable arguments, financial organizations are constrained by the very real issue of cost-efficiency.
Their current two-step authentication does not address the obvious MITM attack discussed here, but it does address the previously seen phishing attacks. BoA's security team must have figured out that it would cost them X amounts of money to defend against classic phishing attacks and by preventing those they would save Y money. They must have also considered solutions like the ones presented in http://people.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/sec
By using such a solution they could perhaps save Z > Y amounts of money because much less users would fall victims to phishing attacks. It is very likely that they did the math. Because they chose to go with the current solution, it is very likely that Y-X > Z-W
The only thing that BoA should perhaps correct is the statement:
"If you recognize your SiteKey, you'll know for sure that you
are at the valid Bank of America site. Confirming your SiteKey is
also how you'll know that it's safe to enter your Passcode and click the Sign In button."
This is over-claiming and could have a harmful impact by making its web users dropping their defenses against phishing. I am sure however that their marketing dpt told them that they need to advertise this security feature as completely robust, otherwise users would feel that they are going through unnecessary trouble: "if BoA's system is still insecure, why did BoA bother changing it and why do I need to incur the delay to learn it and enter login information twice?"
Disclaimer: I do not work for BoA and I have no vested interest in supporting them. In fact, I hate their guts for their penalty fees policies
"As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that. What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation. An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud." I did not understand anything from his "explanation" on how his views were distorted. Anyone cares to enlighten me(us)?
Here is a list of his publications: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Publicatio nsRSL.html
That youtube video was withdrawn (Copyright infringement). This one seems ok for the moment: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300 469846467&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle
Lindsen has published peer-reviewed papers the last 20 years. Even if he did not, just the fact that he is an enviromental science
t ed&search=
professor at MIT is enough to give his positions scientific credibility.
And he is not alone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk...rela
What did the chimp say when he saw a human in African Savannah hunting with a spear?
" You know the saying, "Human see, human do." "
What did the lost scientist say when he found the spear-making chimps deep in African Savannah?
" You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! "
In the words of the Klingon that offered Cpt Kirk the moving delicacy: "Gagh is better alive"
The article mentions google as the prime example of good web design. How long will it take them
to fix that ugly, unresponsive, buggy UI of YouTube? Don't get me wrong, its basic functionality works just fine
but once you start arranging videos in playlists, favorites etc, nothing seems to work in a predictable way.
Your playlist selections appear not to have been saved and then songs appear in it out of the blue in the future.
There is really no synchronization between a user's settings and what eventually makes it in the downloaded page.
Even worse the links to "my favorites" etc disappears from the web page once you view a video. You need to go back to
your account and select options from there.
Needless to say that google video's site is much much better, faster and not buggy at all.
I especially adore their player's random access feature and that it seems to download faster and be less
CPU intensive. I would not mind at all if they just incorporate the youtube user accounts, the uploaded videos
the domain name and add the expensive youtube servers to their grid. Then completely get rid off all
the software developed for YouTube's site and simply take example from some of their nice features such
as comments on videos.
Intel pro IPW 2000/2200 works with linux, its driver is even included in the vanilla kernel distribution
Yes,
:)
basically we say the same thing. My bad for not noticing the "floating object" sentence
How do you get modded insightfull?
You said: "This is high school physics stuff, people - a floating object displaces exactly the same amount of liquid as it weighs - a floating ice cube that weighs a gram, displaces exactly one gram of water"
My old friend, Archimedes however actually said that the buoyant force on a submerged object is equal to the weight of the fluid that is displaced by the object.
Apparently an object displaces exactly the same volume of water, as its volume is. Because the ice is less dense than water, for boyancy to be equal to the iceberg's weight, less water than its own volume needs to be displaced. That volume of water is approximately x% (i think x=60-70%, but not sure) of the volume of the iceberg which simply means that ice is less dense than water. If the ice melts it will produce water of around x% its volume. This water will occupy exactly as much volume as the submerged x% of the iceberg. Thus, the melting of the arctic ice should not raise the sea level substantially. Now there are some complications with sea water and salt and stuff, but i choose not to go into that.
I hate it when moderators, instead of modding based on common sense they mod based on the projected confidence of the bullshiter who posted the nonsense.
but hey - if global warming is the accepted theory, i'm happy to reduce the methane levels in the atmosphere by eating more steak, heh.
I am with you on this one. I will even top you by eating less buritos .
plus, this story submitter's link (DECS) points to "roughly drafted" ...
Because BitTorrent has also partnered with CacheLogic which provides Internet Caching solutions. You pay your subscriptions to legally access the content and you can now use BitTorrent not only to download from your peers but from strategically placed caches.
...
This substantially reduces the cost on a content provider that would otherwise need to provision expensive hardware and bandwidth to deliver content via FTP/HTTP. Now they can use the resources of the downloaders and use CacheLogic's infrastructure to provide service even better than the one current BitTorrent networks have and perhaps even better than they could possibly afford to provide by using FTP-like central servers.
Users are motivated to pay BitTorrent and content providers, and not download for free, simply because BitTorrent combined with in-network caching gives a better service than plain BitTorrent. Users that don't pay cannot access Cachelogic's infrastructure. If their pricing is reasonable, I can see this scheme taking off rapidly. I know i would pay 5-10$ to download a movie i want to see now in a couple of hours or less, instead of waiting 2-3 days, while using all my uplink and slowing down my browsing speeds. From the article: "In a joint announcement made today by CacheLogic and BitTorrent, a global network of cache servers has been organized under the name "VelociX". VelociX is the network protocol that governs the actions of a theoretical global community of cache servers. With potentially thousands of networked cache servers at the disposal of the end user, network costs are cut and download speeds are increased significantly.
For example, let's take a look at a CDP enabled client on the prowl for a specific 4.5 gig file. The CDP looks for the closest geographical area for a VelociX swarm, in addition to conventional peers. The VelociX swarm provides the bulk of the file sought after, greatly reducing the reliance on peers. This equates to greatly accelerated download speeds, and since this takes place largely on dedicated servers and not peers, the ISPs costs are reduced.
Unless you plan on downloading authorized content, the network probably isn't for you. In the CacheLogic press release, VelociX will allow "legal content (infringing content is not accelerated) to be inexpensively delivered in minutes instead of hours." Content that is authorized to function on the VelociX network must be manually published via specific hash codes to a central data base."
I would be much more interested in a statistic on what percentage of IP traffic carries porn-related information. That would be a much better metric metric for finding out what the Internet really ... is for.
"Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld"
Cause I cannot find their source code for Linux anywhere. Most likely they have created a nice (mythical) shim layer themselves to prevent the GPL from taking away their trade secrets. I call "dvorkism" ...
yes, "dvorak ... insights" sounds like an oxymoron to me too, something like "military intelligence" sort of thing ...