"The OSI encapsulated model of networking makes this project doable". The OSI model never made anything doable. Encapsulation was invented long before OSI came along and the seven layers never had any impact on the basic Internet protocols. The idea of "frameworks" is about as close as anyone got to anything like the OSI seven-layer cake which has always been an abomination and was never responsible for the development of anything.
Exactly. Find your neighbor that puts their baby down to sleep at 8:30 pm and that go to bed themselves at 10 pm. They could be two or three blocks away. Dig out your own older unencrypted baby monitor and monitor it at 8:30 pm. If you hear them speak the baby's name, then you've found your source.
ze frank: sad, but typical
on
Ze End of The Show
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I used to watch zefrank. I liked it so much, I wanted to download the show to my computer so I could watch it when -- well, when I watch *shows*. I don't watch shows when browsing.
So I asked ze about making his show available to BitTorrents. Yeah, I know, but he said he wanted to control his thing and I respected that. He wanted everyone to come to his little carnival tent and sit down on the benches, watch his amusing show, and then sit there and watch the dog & pony show. d&p was essential, because it paid the bills. Plus the web site was where "the community" would develop, and it did.
But ze burned himself out (IMO) because not only was he making the content, he was building and running the web site, building his community and paying large bills for bandwidth.
I don't watch TV when I browse the Internet. If I can't download it and watch it when I want, I won't watch. That is why I stopped watching the show. Did that kill the show? I'm sure it didn't, but we should all really care about why ze frank stopped the show. ze frank was a perfect example of a slick little gem of a performance idea that had legs. If it died because ze frank just got tired, well, OK. But if it died because it didn't ever have a hope of turning into something that sustained ze, then we should all be concerned and try to figure out why.
YouTube isn't the answer. Not everyone can get a slot on The Daily Show or the Colbert Report. Most talented folk don't have the stamina to do it all themselves -- content, bandwidth, webmastering, selling advertising. What is the answer? Maybe ze will come up with it. I hope so.
I read the article carefully and looked at the diagram and it appears to me that the design is a bi-modal design. The engine either operates as a standard ("first gear") rocket engine using standard fuels, or it switches to an ionic engine ("fifth gear") that is driven by electricity and a supply of xenon gas.
If this is actually the design, this engine will not save fuel for a standard satellite launch platform, as the standard launch vehicle is jettisoned once the satellite reaches orbit. It might achieve advertised fuel savings if the last stage bi-modal engine is retained by the satellite for orbit maintenance, although how this is better than what is done now is unclear to me as I don't know anything about satellite orbital maintenance thrusters.
The ion engine must be placed upstream of the standard fueled rocket engine and it just blows the ion stream through the inoperative rocket engine and out the nozzle. How this works better than a current configuration is unclear to me, but perhaps it avoids any additional orbital maintenance thrusters and allows for changing orbits by retaining the standard rocket engine (and some standard fuel).
J. Noel Chiappa wrote multiprotocol router software while at MIT and licensed it to Proteon, a token ring networking company. Proteon sold the p4200 multibus multiprotocol router with token ring fiber optic backbones quite a while before cisco built their first AGS router.
Some might say that Chiappa stole the MIT code, like cisco stole the Stanford code.
But there is no doubt that a Proteon p4200 could be bought before cisco had any product for sale.
Left coast techno bias, I suppose.
The original "Internet" didn't run on the Internet Protocol. It was yet-another-proprietary network protocol. The brilliance of the core idea for the Internet Protocol is that you can build two separate internets, with coordination only on the addresses, connect them with one link between a pair of routers, one in each internet, and create one integrated Internet out of the two smaller ones. It is difficult today to understand the originality of this concept.
TCP/IP is inherently hierarchical. It has to have backbones and exchange points.
The original fat-cable Ethernet works the way you want. The only thing that is shared is the cable. All communication is peer-to-peer. Network hardware merely repeats packets (like a digital amplifier). The cable works like wireless, so you could say that most/many wireless networks work the same as Ethernet with the important exception that while all Ethernet stations can hear all other Ethernet stations (if the rules are followed), wireless stations can be out-of-range of each other, requiring complicated peer-forwarding algorithms.
The Unix-to-Unix network was also a peer-to-peer non-realtime network in its earliest incarnations. Unix sysadmins would arrange dial-up connections among themselves in a very ad-hoc manner and email would be routed from system to system using the "bang" addressing scheme. me!him!you was the style and you had to know the path to send the message. UUNET was only for email/news and file transfer. But UUNET became hierarchical in order to grow, it piggybacked on top of TCP/IP as Internet grew, and today all that is left is USENET.
So why don't we use fat-cable Ethernet and UUNET today? The simple answer is that they are not scaleable. IP provides hierarchy in routing and this allows the building of backbones and the use of default routes to make the Internet able to grow very large and remain manageable.
No one has invented a scaleable peer-to-peer network. It is probably impossible, but something like what you want would be a global-reach wireless network. You would have to build many separate static peer-to-peer networks and interconnecting them would be hierarchical, or you could build ad-hoc peer-to-peer networks on demand using some kind of beacon channel for rendezvous and peer-to-peer network initiation. You would need a very-spread-spectrum or burst-mode radio channel and of course it would have to run unlicensed and deal with interference in very creative ways. It would also have to be very-low-frequency with large antennae and expensive electronics.
Your question is a good one. Why don't we have such technology? Hierarchical organizations like hierarchical networks. Hunter-gatherers have fewer resources to build such awesome technologies. What you want is not impossible, but it would seem very difficult at this time. A revolution in radio technology combined with a protocol designer of great genius might be able to create what you seek, but it would look and act quite differently than today's Internet. There is no assurance that it wouldn't simply fall-apart one day or morph into a hierarchical structure to allow consolidation of operation and improved service reliability.
Slashdot Mirror
"The OSI encapsulated model of networking makes this project doable". The OSI model never made anything doable. Encapsulation was invented long before OSI came along and the seven layers never had any impact on the basic Internet protocols. The idea of "frameworks" is about as close as anyone got to anything like the OSI seven-layer cake which has always been an abomination and was never responsible for the development of anything.
Exactly. Find your neighbor that puts their baby down to sleep at 8:30 pm and that go to bed themselves at 10 pm. They could be two or three blocks away. Dig out your own older unencrypted baby monitor and monitor it at 8:30 pm. If you hear them speak the baby's name, then you've found your source.
I used to watch zefrank. I liked it so much, I wanted to download the show to my computer so I could watch it when -- well, when I watch *shows*. I don't watch shows when browsing.
So I asked ze about making his show available to BitTorrents. Yeah, I know, but he said he wanted to control his thing and I respected that. He wanted everyone to come to his little carnival tent and sit down on the benches, watch his amusing show, and then sit there and watch the dog & pony show. d&p was essential, because it paid the bills. Plus the web site was where "the community" would develop, and it did.
But ze burned himself out (IMO) because not only was he making the content, he was building and running the web site, building his community and paying large bills for bandwidth.
I don't watch TV when I browse the Internet. If I can't download it and watch it when I want, I won't watch. That is why I stopped watching the show. Did that kill the show? I'm sure it didn't, but we should all really care about why ze frank stopped the show. ze frank was a perfect example of a slick little gem of a performance idea that had legs. If it died because ze frank just got tired, well, OK. But if it died because it didn't ever have a hope of turning into something that sustained ze, then we should all be concerned and try to figure out why.
YouTube isn't the answer. Not everyone can get a slot on The Daily Show or the Colbert Report. Most talented folk don't have the stamina to do it all themselves -- content, bandwidth, webmastering, selling advertising. What is the answer? Maybe ze will come up with it. I hope so.
I read the article carefully and looked at the diagram and it appears to me that the design is a bi-modal design. The engine either operates as a standard ("first gear") rocket engine using standard fuels, or it switches to an ionic engine ("fifth gear") that is driven by electricity and a supply of xenon gas.
If this is actually the design, this engine will not save fuel for a standard satellite launch platform, as the standard launch vehicle is jettisoned once the satellite reaches orbit. It might achieve advertised fuel savings if the last stage bi-modal engine is retained by the satellite for orbit maintenance, although how this is better than what is done now is unclear to me as I don't know anything about satellite orbital maintenance thrusters.
The ion engine must be placed upstream of the standard fueled rocket engine and it just blows the ion stream through the inoperative rocket engine and out the nozzle. How this works better than a current configuration is unclear to me, but perhaps it avoids any additional orbital maintenance thrusters and allows for changing orbits by retaining the standard rocket engine (and some standard fuel).
J. Noel Chiappa wrote multiprotocol router software while at MIT and licensed it to Proteon, a token ring networking company. Proteon sold the p4200 multibus multiprotocol router with token ring fiber optic backbones quite a while before cisco built their first AGS router. Some might say that Chiappa stole the MIT code, like cisco stole the Stanford code. But there is no doubt that a Proteon p4200 could be bought before cisco had any product for sale. Left coast techno bias, I suppose.
The original "Internet" didn't run on the Internet Protocol. It was yet-another-proprietary network protocol. The brilliance of the core idea for the Internet Protocol is that you can build two separate internets, with coordination only on the addresses, connect them with one link between a pair of routers, one in each internet, and create one integrated Internet out of the two smaller ones. It is difficult today to understand the originality of this concept.
TCP/IP is inherently hierarchical. It has to have backbones and exchange points.
The original fat-cable Ethernet works the way you want. The only thing that is shared is the cable. All communication is peer-to-peer. Network hardware merely repeats packets (like a digital amplifier). The cable works like wireless, so you could say that most/many wireless networks work the same as Ethernet with the important exception that while all Ethernet stations can hear all other Ethernet stations (if the rules are followed), wireless stations can be out-of-range of each other, requiring complicated peer-forwarding algorithms.
The Unix-to-Unix network was also a peer-to-peer non-realtime network in its earliest incarnations. Unix sysadmins would arrange dial-up connections among themselves in a very ad-hoc manner and email would be routed from system to system using the "bang" addressing scheme. me!him!you was the style and you had to know the path to send the message. UUNET was only for email/news and file transfer. But UUNET became hierarchical in order to grow, it piggybacked on top of TCP/IP as Internet grew, and today all that is left is USENET.
So why don't we use fat-cable Ethernet and UUNET today? The simple answer is that they are not scaleable. IP provides hierarchy in routing and this allows the building of backbones and the use of default routes to make the Internet able to grow very large and remain manageable.
No one has invented a scaleable peer-to-peer network. It is probably impossible, but something like what you want would be a global-reach wireless network. You would have to build many separate static peer-to-peer networks and interconnecting them would be hierarchical, or you could build ad-hoc peer-to-peer networks on demand using some kind of beacon channel for rendezvous and peer-to-peer network initiation. You would need a very-spread-spectrum or burst-mode radio channel and of course it would have to run unlicensed and deal with interference in very creative ways. It would also have to be very-low-frequency with large antennae and expensive electronics.
Your question is a good one. Why don't we have such technology? Hierarchical organizations like hierarchical networks. Hunter-gatherers have fewer resources to build such awesome technologies. What you want is not impossible, but it would seem very difficult at this time. A revolution in radio technology combined with a protocol designer of great genius might be able to create what you seek, but it would look and act quite differently than today's Internet. There is no assurance that it wouldn't simply fall-apart one day or morph into a hierarchical structure to allow consolidation of operation and improved service reliability.