With all these one time, massive bandwidth incidents (In Rainbows earlier this month and now this) it seems to me it might make sense to rent out to Akamai (or maybe Google could pick up some petty cash), at least until the beginning demand slows down.
Sure, wouldn't make sense after the initial week, but this is becoming a major joke lately. These places always seem to underestimate demand by a factor of, like, hundreds.
I dunno, times like this I think back to Men In Black.
"People are smart, they can handle it." "A person is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals."
Couple that with the sensationalist media, who would rather focus on 'Why your loved ones will die on planes taking off TODAY, tonight at 7PM!' and I can see their logic behind it. (Not saying I agree, mind you, just saying I understand.)
Have someone who knows what to do with the data deal with it first (this part I think they're skipping, instead choosing to delete it...that I don't agree with).
So, you have a small plane navigating at an airport 3 miles from you. Then you have a big plane taking off 10 miles away.
So we've got Seven Miles of distance between those airports. Chances are that spot you thought they both went through had 7 miles of gap or more on the Z axis which you couldn't see from your vantage.
From what I could see on the ground, the planes passed through what appeared to be the same spot in the sky within about 4 seconds of one another. I was utterly astounded.
Also, when travelling laterally, isn't there something about not travelling in the first plane's wake?
Remember hearing something about Airbus being annoyed because the EU equivalent of the FAA required planes travel farther behind the A380 over concerns its wake would be larger. Not sure how much of that is in the 3 mile gap though.
Could it be possible that they happened to have staked the place out in advance and watched the traffic, and the four neighbours all in agreement in their stories led them to believe this isn't just some crackpot but might be legit? Maybe they had the place cased for weeks.
To wit, do you really know enough about police activity to make a claim about police activity? (I.e., were you privy to the behind the scenes work or were you just basing this all on what you saw outside your window?)
There may be consumers willing to pay these prices, but I wager there's more consumers pissed off BY these prices that are actively complaining to the team.
Add to the fact that the *team* isn't seeing any of this 10x markup, and hell yes they're going to involve themselves, regardless. 'Regulation' be damned, they want their cut of that 10x marked up ticket.
Ok, so the kbps rate wasn't known until after someone downloaded it? That's what I'm gathering and I'm too knackered to bother verifying. If that IS the case, that's somewhat unfortunate. Quality of the source should be available somewhere, (well, in retrospect. I'll admit this isn't anything I've been following with a passion. Gotta pick my battles), so people know what they're getting.
I'd wager this is still a learning process though, so I'm gonna play the naive optimist a bit longer when it comes to bands and online dispursment.
If it was lacking the 'idiot' part i'd have believed it to be just an argument...
However, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to an audiophile (yea, i know the stigmatism of the term) that he'd know how to record at a higher bitrate.
I don't really see this as a reasonable reason. First, if you got the box set, you could've made your own copy at whatever bitrate you wanted. Second, it's not like the downloaded copy was to appease the hardcore demographic, but rather the masses. 160k is a good tradeoff between size and quality, IMHO.
Furthermore, you can still pick how much you want to purchase the downloaded track for. If you feel 320k is the only bitrate, and that it'd be worth $12 (cause I'm too lazy to look up the code for the pound, just divide by 2.5, cause I'm thinking in pounds for this), then adjust the value as such to like, $4 or $5.
But saying "because it's only 160k" is just a copout, I think.
I'll be honest, I downloaded it off the site at $0, but I've never heard them before so I don't even know if I'd like it. (Still haven't gotten around to it yet...so maybe next Radiohead article I'll comment on if I liked it or not.)
Course, once power goes out and places like NYC go back to their normal temperatures inside and outside, roaches will die off because it's so freakin cold.
I'd imagine, though, there's some customer right being violated here. Sure, they've got something in their Terms of Service, but those are on shakey ground legally as it is if memory serves.
&%*%*& coworker pulled the network cable for the room while i was submitting a comment to this. apparently it got poofed. Anyway...
There's the conflict between management and IT again. IT wants secure, management wants easy and convenient, and management nearly always wins out.
I deal with a similar situation in that, as an outsourced tech, I pretty much can pitch whatever, but it's up to the customer to decide if they want to impliment policy. Usually I'm overruled. "Stuff has worked fine for now, why change it?" I've had to dole out local AND domain admin rights on Windows server domains simply because it was easier for them.
Unfortunatly, it usually takes incidents like this, where the proverbial cobra finally bites the proverbial ass after said ass has been dangling over said cobra for a while. THEN they start implimenting policies that say "Do not place ass within biting range of cobra."
It's more likely it was pitched, but either for cost or time, management probably shot it down. Never mind there've been high profile laptops missing all over, like the VA one. Being naive, I would wager that the IT department would like to lock down the systems as tight as possible (I know I would) but are being thwarted by management becaue it'd make things too hard, too different, or cost too much.
It's always after the sole data server blows up that they decide "oh, guess that backup option would've been worthwhile." (Had this happen too. Financial data, customer data, and no paper trail. But the tape drive cost 'too much'.)
If we knew back when SMTP was created the trouble it would become, it would have been a much more rigorous protocol. DNS has required lots of security implimentations as well. In fact, pretty much any early net technology wasn't built with any safeguards in mind. Everyone was pretty much trustworthy.
Then the general public and businesses started using it and suddenly stupid things and evil things started happening. (Broad brush stroke, yea, but I'm summarizing.)
Slashdot Mirror
With all these one time, massive bandwidth incidents (In Rainbows earlier this month and now this) it seems to me it might make sense to rent out to Akamai (or maybe Google could pick up some petty cash), at least until the beginning demand slows down.
Sure, wouldn't make sense after the initial week, but this is becoming a major joke lately. These places always seem to underestimate demand by a factor of, like, hundreds.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html
/. comment. Very apt though.
Found that in a previous
Sadly that doesn't take into account little details like weather.
I dunno, times like this I think back to Men In Black.
"People are smart, they can handle it."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals."
Couple that with the sensationalist media, who would rather focus on 'Why your loved ones will die on planes taking off TODAY, tonight at 7PM!' and I can see their logic behind it. (Not saying I agree, mind you, just saying I understand.)
Have someone who knows what to do with the data deal with it first (this part I think they're skipping, instead choosing to delete it...that I don't agree with).
So, you have a small plane navigating at an airport 3 miles from you. Then you have a big plane taking off 10 miles away.
So we've got Seven Miles of distance between those airports. Chances are that spot you thought they both went through had 7 miles of gap or more on the Z axis which you couldn't see from your vantage.
From what I could see on the ground, the planes passed through what appeared to be the same spot in the sky within about 4 seconds of one another. I was utterly astounded.
So am I. Look up parallax.
Also, when travelling laterally, isn't there something about not travelling in the first plane's wake?
Remember hearing something about Airbus being annoyed because the EU equivalent of the FAA required planes travel farther behind the A380 over concerns its wake would be larger. Not sure how much of that is in the 3 mile gap though.
Could it be possible that they happened to have staked the place out in advance and watched the traffic, and the four neighbours all in agreement in their stories led them to believe this isn't just some crackpot but might be legit? Maybe they had the place cased for weeks.
To wit, do you really know enough about police activity to make a claim about police activity? (I.e., were you privy to the behind the scenes work or were you just basing this all on what you saw outside your window?)
There's basic necessities to hurricane formation. If it won't form naturally there, you can't move it there.
There may be consumers willing to pay these prices, but I wager there's more consumers pissed off BY these prices that are actively complaining to the team.
Add to the fact that the *team* isn't seeing any of this 10x markup, and hell yes they're going to involve themselves, regardless. 'Regulation' be damned, they want their cut of that 10x marked up ticket.
Ok, so the kbps rate wasn't known until after someone downloaded it? That's what I'm gathering and I'm too knackered to bother verifying. If that IS the case, that's somewhat unfortunate. Quality of the source should be available somewhere, (well, in retrospect. I'll admit this isn't anything I've been following with a passion. Gotta pick my battles), so people know what they're getting.
I'd wager this is still a learning process though, so I'm gonna play the naive optimist a bit longer when it comes to bands and online dispursment.
If it was lacking the 'idiot' part i'd have believed it to be just an argument...
However, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to an audiophile (yea, i know the stigmatism of the term) that he'd know how to record at a higher bitrate.
Someone in accounting realized they could increase their profit margin if they didn't have to pay 3 teams of developers.
Rumours that this same accountant found that the sweet spot of sales was 850 copies at $77.10 each have, as yet, been unconfirmed.
I don't really see this as a reasonable reason. First, if you got the box set, you could've made your own copy at whatever bitrate you wanted. Second, it's not like the downloaded copy was to appease the hardcore demographic, but rather the masses. 160k is a good tradeoff between size and quality, IMHO.
Furthermore, you can still pick how much you want to purchase the downloaded track for. If you feel 320k is the only bitrate, and that it'd be worth $12 (cause I'm too lazy to look up the code for the pound, just divide by 2.5, cause I'm thinking in pounds for this), then adjust the value as such to like, $4 or $5.
But saying "because it's only 160k" is just a copout, I think.
I'll be honest, I downloaded it off the site at $0, but I've never heard them before so I don't even know if I'd like it. (Still haven't gotten around to it yet...so maybe next Radiohead article I'll comment on if I liked it or not.)
Yes, the label does expect a large cut.
But as the label and the band are one in the same, it doesn't matter as much.
Course, once power goes out and places like NYC go back to their normal temperatures inside and outside, roaches will die off because it's so freakin cold.
There's barely two or three competing telcos in any one place as it is, this is just going to make it worse.
Yea, but doing on eBay would fall under the mod tag "Stupid."
That money trail would be easily followable. Somewhat harder to find someone trading votes for wine bottles in a park.
I'd imagine, though, there's some customer right being violated here. Sure, they've got something in their Terms of Service, but those are on shakey ground legally as it is if memory serves.
&%*%*& coworker pulled the network cable for the room while i was submitting a comment to this. apparently it got poofed. Anyway...
There's the conflict between management and IT again. IT wants secure, management wants easy and convenient, and management nearly always wins out.
I deal with a similar situation in that, as an outsourced tech, I pretty much can pitch whatever, but it's up to the customer to decide if they want to impliment policy. Usually I'm overruled. "Stuff has worked fine for now, why change it?" I've had to dole out local AND domain admin rights on Windows server domains simply because it was easier for them.
Unfortunatly, it usually takes incidents like this, where the proverbial cobra finally bites the proverbial ass after said ass has been dangling over said cobra for a while. THEN they start implimenting policies that say "Do not place ass within biting range of cobra."
That didn't work for SCHIP.
"Reactive"
It's more likely it was pitched, but either for cost or time, management probably shot it down. Never mind there've been high profile laptops missing all over, like the VA one. Being naive, I would wager that the IT department would like to lock down the systems as tight as possible (I know I would) but are being thwarted by management becaue it'd make things too hard, too different, or cost too much.
It's always after the sole data server blows up that they decide "oh, guess that backup option would've been worthwhile." (Had this happen too. Financial data, customer data, and no paper trail. But the tape drive cost 'too much'.)
That's the problem with the tech inclined.
If we knew back when SMTP was created the trouble it would become, it would have been a much more rigorous protocol. DNS has required lots of security implimentations as well. In fact, pretty much any early net technology wasn't built with any safeguards in mind. Everyone was pretty much trustworthy.
Then the general public and businesses started using it and suddenly stupid things and evil things started happening. (Broad brush stroke, yea, but I'm summarizing.)
At one level, there's still a lot of naivety.
But that "Mario's bee suit might save Christmas" is easily one of the most dimwitted video game articles I've read in a long time.
Least it's not Jerry Seinfeld's bee suit
it is by far the largest game in the world today
World of Warcraft? Second Life?
Well, let's put it this way. If the NSA wanted to tap lines entirely within California...Qwest wouldn't be much help. Theoretically.
That's what I was going for.