Searching \ for '[OT]:: Bit Torrent to offer DRM's video content' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/displays.htm?key=video
Search entire site for: ': Bit Torrent to offer DRM's video content'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:: Bit Torrent to offer DRM's video content'
2007\02\27@172147 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Bit Torrent to provide paid movie and TV show service with DRM and
expiry dates

       http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/BE02C3FF889C3060CC25728F001453A0?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews

It would not be hard to be cynical about a service where you use YOUR
bandwidth to provide pay per view DRM'd high bandwidth content for
other people at premium rates. About par for the course these days.



       Russell

2007\02\27@173825 by Martin Klingensmith

picon face
I'm sure it costs the same as any other pay-for-tv service too. Companies
see new technology as a way to raise profits for themselves, not make things
cheaper for consumers.
--
Martin

On 2/27/07, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -


'[OT]:: Bit Torrent to offer DRM's video content'
2007\03\01@150505 by Peter P.
picon face
Martin Klingensmith <martin.klingensmith <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I'm sure it costs the same as any other pay-for-tv service too. Companies
> see new technology as a way to raise profits for themselves, not make things
> cheaper for consumers.

That is self-defeating logic. Due to a property known as market elasticity, the
returns on investment are the lower, the higher the end price is set.

Peter P.


2007\03\02@021222 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I'm sure it costs the same as any other pay-for-tv service too.
>> Companies
>> see new technology as a way to raise profits for themselves, not
>> make things
>> cheaper for consumers.

> That is self-defeating logic. Due to a property known as market
> elasticity, the
> returns on investment are the lower, the higher the end price is
> set.

Not at all:

1.    He did not say that the end price was higher than existing
services, which is a key factor. He effectively said that people have
new technology and use it to save themselves money and thereby raise
profit levels thereby unreasoning profits. As presented this works
perfectly well in a 'fair market' as users see an equal product in
each case so both sell squally well but the new tech product has
greater profits. For a constant market size the new tech / lower cost
system company will make more money.

2.    Carried to its logical conclusion the above argument re market
elasticity says that infinite profit occurs at zero price (or negative
price). Obviously pricing affects market volumes, variably so
depending on the product type, but its not linear or necessarily
consistent in application case to case.

If I sell a product at 50% markup, if I double the price I
simplistically triple my profit per item. If the sales i make decrease
I also reduce my inventory costs, sales costs and more. So, I MAY be
able to sustain a loss of MORE than 2/3 of my market and still make
more profit. If I double my price and lose half my sales volume then I
simplistically make 50% more profit in absolute terms. Obviously the
equation is much affected by many factors, not the least being
original markup, but this demonstrates that elasticity and profit are
not necessarily profitably correlated.

ROI is more complex as it depends on whether eg your investment is
prior to the pricing change or made from the start using a higher
priced model or ... .

3.    Using the example I posted about as an example, just because bit
torrent allows a seller to achieve lower personal costs at the expense
of a potentially higher consumer cost, it may not be clear to the
consumer that they are in fact paying more by indirect costs. Actual
cost to the consumer may be chargeable bandwidth but, even if
bandwidth is charged flat rate, a torrent system will encourage data
proliferation and spread the "noising up" of the network more widely.
Users may not be aware of this 'cost"..


FWIW I do my best not to run things like Skype, Bit Torrent or other
cooperative systems which use my resources in an undefined and quite
probably inequitable manner.



       Russell









2007\03\02@075338 by Peter P.

picon face
Russell McMahon <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:

> >> I'm sure it costs the same as any other pay-for-tv service too.
> >> Companies
> >> see new technology as a way to raise profits for themselves, not
> >> make things
> >> cheaper for consumers.
>
> > That is self-defeating logic. Due to a property known as market
> > elasticity, the
> > returns on investment are the lower, the higher the end price is
> > set.
>
> Not at all:

Yes at all. In 95% of the cases, new technology is marketed at a premium for a
considerable part of the product lifetime's curve. Some firms go so far as to
maintain scarcity to prolong this high value period as much as possible, and
discontinue or dilute the product line when this is no longer true. Also very
often new products are marketed below market value to 'break into' a market with
the hope that the demise of (or abandon by) competitors will open the way for a
price hike and cost recovery. In general, it can be said that new products
introduced by market leaders will almost never be introduced at market value
(for branches governed by 'novelty' waves, like cars and consumer electronics
for sure). This counts with a vengeance in IT 'futures' (see under
FUD/vaporware/vaporfeatures for details, as championed by a certain large
software firm).

Peter P.


2007\03\02@091406 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> FWIW I do my best not to run things like Skype, Bit Torrent or other
> cooperative systems which use my resources in an undefined and quite
> probably inequitable manner.

Funny you should mention Skype here. I use Skype, and I've never seen it
use significant amounts of bandwidth that were not initiated by me (either
by making a voice call or accepting one). Do you have any evidence that the
Skype client is using bandwidth without me using it?

Gerhard

2007\03\02@092011 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Peter P. wrote:

> In general, it can be said that new products introduced by market leaders
> will almost never be introduced at market value

What do you define as "market value" -- if not the money the market is
willing to pay for it?

Gerhard

2007\03\02@115006 by Peter P.

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes:

> > In general, it can be said that new products introduced by market leaders
> > will almost never be introduced at market value
>
> What do you define as "market value" -- if not the money the market is
> willing to pay for it?

How much it would be worth to an uninitiated buyer who can compare with similar
products when the brand name is taped over and he is not told the sale price
beforehead.

Peter P.


2007\03\02@115025 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu On Behalf Of Gerhard Fiedler
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:14 AM
>
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > FWIW I do my best not to run things like Skype, Bit Torrent
> or other cooperative systems which use my resources in an undefined
> and quite probably inequitable manner.
>
> Funny you should mention Skype here. I use Skype, and I've never seen it
> use significant amounts of bandwidth that were not initiated by me (either
> by making a voice call or accepting one). Do you have any evidence that
the
> Skype client is using bandwidth without me using it?

The Skype EULA mentions that by using Skype you give them permission to use
your bandwidth for others on the service. In their technical descriptions
somewhere it mentions the Super Node concept that keeps them viable as a
company by reducing their bandwidth/server costs. However, Skype only
becomes a super node to use your bandwidth for other users if your PC is not
firewalled from the internet or, if you set a custom port in Skype and then
configure your firewall to forward the custom port.

I use a custom forwarded port to improve my Skype video conferencing with my
relatives. So whenever I have Skype running I like to fire up TCPView and
watch as people from around the globe communicate through my network for
their Skype calls.

Paul

>
> Gerhard
>

2007\03\02@170019 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> i use Skype, and I've never seen it use significant amounts of
> bandwidth that were not initiated by me


Clever aren't they :-)

Seriously, the fact that it does is well documented. If it doesn't in
your case, and this may well be true, you may be on a node on some way
that is not advantageous for rerouting traffic to other users.

Gargoyle will have information on Skypes phone (other people's) home
activities. Once installed it does this regardless of whether you are
using it or even, as I understand, actively even starting it
consciously yourself.



           Russell


2007\03\02@170020 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> >> I'm sure it costs the same as any other pay-for-tv service too.
>> >> Companies
>> >> see new technology as a way to raise profits for themselves, not
>> >> make things
>> >> cheaper for consumers.
>>
>> > That is self-defeating logic. Due to a property known as market
>> > elasticity, the
>> > returns on investment are the lower, the higher the end price is
>> > set.

>> Not at all:

> Yes at all. In 95% of the cases, new technology is marketed at a
> premium for a
> considerable part of the product lifetime's curve.

Your examples are good enough in the general case . I'd perhaps
question the 95% though.
The original example given was a subset which represents a realistic
and significant enough part of the market where a company introduces a
new technology that has a clearly lower cost of implementation.

In the case in point the suggested situation was one where a new
technology makes the ability to provide the service cheaper for the
introducer and the statement was that companies tend to take the extra
profit for themselves rather than pass it on to the consumer. Either
are valid business models :-).

Here's a well enough related current example of one company passing on
the gains (or some of them) and of another company keeping it entirely
for themselves and still getting customers.

___________

           http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/908824714AE3CFFBCC257291001541C5?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews

Two leading hardware vendors, Dell and Lenovo, are quietly selling
laptops without preloaded Microsoft Windows to Linux customers who
know where to look, says Lincoln Durey, CEO of EmperorLinux, an
Atlanta reseller that customises, installs and supports Linux on the
major-brand laptops it sells.
[[1]] Dell:       ...  Customers aren't saving money by passing up the
OS license, though. "The Dell price is identical. Windows or nothing,
it is exactly the same to the penny," Durey says. "I've actually seen
one-time discounts on the Windows side that are not reflected on the
Linux side for a week, so you could end up getting the Windows ones
cheaper," he adds.

...

[[2]] Lenovo:       ... Lenovo, however, passes on a savings of about
US$40 to customers who order ThinkPads without the Microsoft license,
Durey says. Currently EmperorLinux sells some T Series ThinkPad models
without the Microsoft license, but Durey says he has not yet been able
to order an X series ThinkPad except with the license.

"The nice thing about not having the OS license is that it will lower
the total cost of the solution," says Randy Hickel, Lenovo's Americas'
sector leader.

_________________

Personally, if I had to buy a Dell in those circumstances, I'd buy one
with the Window's OS and then put the COA to one side as a (possible)
asset.

For some reason people do seem to keep on buying Dell, non standard
components and interesting pricing (and not just as above*)
notwithstanding. One of my machines here is a Dell, but I think it may
have been one that I found :-). Pricing I can handle on a comparison
basis and I'm happy to buy what seems most cost effective, all things
considered, as long as there are no hidden costs. But non-standard
internal interfaces to eg disk drives are hidden costs which will be
invisible to many buyers. That one will be forced to buy 'original'
parts for old models at yesteryear + rates due to a manufacturer
locking you into their system is something a buyer may like to know
about at time of purchase. [[Sorry sir/ma'am, you can only use brand J
petrol as the petrol filler only accepts their nozzles]].





           Russell



* eg, and this is only one example

Sticker / advertised cost = $xxx.

Small print:    Only available by standard delivery (from Malaysia)

Standard delivery costs $NZ100.















2007\03\02@173715 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 3/3/07, Russell McMahon <apptechspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
> [[1]] Dell:       ...  Customers aren't saving money by passing up the
> OS license, though. "The Dell price is identical. Windows or nothing,
> it is exactly the same to the penny," Durey says. "I've actually seen
> one-time discounts on the Windows side that are not reflected on the
> Linux side for a week, so you could end up getting the Windows ones
> cheaper," he adds.


I was looking on the dell site 2 or 3 weeks ago and they had a notebook
(I think it was latitude) in 4 different standard configurations.

The first two were identical except that one had XP and one had DOS
(not sure which variant). The one with DOS was almost AU$200 less I
think. Can't find it now though of course....

John La Rooy

2007\03\02@174822 by peter green

flavicon
face


{Quote hidden}

all the dells i've seen inside had standard IDE (presumablly they have sata now but I haven't looked at any dells new enough to have that)

i belive some dell motherboards have non standard power connectors but thats nothing that can't be got arround with a soldering iron or a box of crimps ;) and there may be motherboard size/shape issues in the small form factor ones but thats hardly an issue that is unique to dell.



2007\03\02@182344 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

We that can can.
But for many a non standard psu connector is a terminally impassable
(pun almost intended) barrier.

Their drives may all have the same connectors. I thought I'd heard
that some didn't BIMBW (as always :-) ).

As far as I know, on some models at least, they have different:

- Laptop power supply plug

- Internal psu connector

These links may be useful for some dell owners:



http://pinouts.ru/PDA/dell_axim_pinout.shtml
pinouts.ru/Power/dell_dimension_psu_pinout.shtml
http://pinouts.ru/Video/dell_vidout_pinout.shtml



       Russell




http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/908824714AE3CFFBCC257291001541C5?opendocument&utm_source=topnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=topnews

2007\03\02@184516 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 2, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> But for many a non standard psu connector is a terminally impassable
> (pun almost intended) barrier.

I submit that the intersection of people who need to change their
power supplies, and the people who can't deal with the non-standard
connector really OUGHT to be pretty close to zero.

BillW (2 macs, 3 Dells)

2007\03\02@185420 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Peter,

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:46:54 -0000, peter green wrote:

>...
> all the dells i've seen inside had standard IDE (presumablly they have sata now but I haven't looked at any dells new enough to have that)

A friend has a recent Dell tower machine which has a single SATA drive, and space for a second one.  The bad news is that the placement of the
parts means you need a right-angled plug at one end of the cable, and a straight one at the other.  I've never seen one like that for sale!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\03\02@192628 by John La Rooy

flavicon
face
On 3/3/07, Howard Winter <HDRWspamspam_OUTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> A friend has a recent Dell tower machine which has a single SATA drive,
> and space for a second one.  The bad news is that the placement of the
> parts means you need a right-angled plug at one end of the cable, and a
> straight one at the other.  I've never seen one like that for sale!


Try searching for "sata right angle" on ebay :)
You'd need to make sure it was the correct "handedness" of course

John La Rooy

2007\03\05@061746 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> i use Skype, and I've never seen it use significant amounts of
>> bandwidth that were not initiated by me
>
> Clever aren't they :-)
>
> Seriously, the fact that it does is well documented.

> Gargoyle will have information on Skypes phone (other people's) home
> activities.

Thanks for pointing me to the supernodes issue, but I fail to find anything
relevant with Gargoyle, and Google doesn't bring up anything that I'd call
"well" documented.

I'm not sure about the documents you read, but what I found was quite
inconclusive. I found evidence that supernodes exist. I didn't find any
hard data about what they actually do or how much bandwidth they consume or
how many connections they create. Furthermore, it seems that only systems
that are not behind NAT routers or firewalls can become supernodes.

If the latter is true, this takes the edge out of this (and may explain why
I never had a problem with this), as I'd say that anybody who puts a system
directly on the internet without going through a NAT router or firewall
needs to /really/ know what he's doing -- for any number of reasons that
don't have anything to do with Skype.

I didn't find any clear information, though, whether this is true or not.
Do you have any?

Gerhard

2007\03\05@091441 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I didn't find any clear information, though, whether this is true or
> not.
> Do you have any?

I had this ref to hand

       http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/A5276B531C8250CDCC25708E00381F98?OpenDocument

More hearsay than hard info, but the P2P phrase may ring a few alarm
bells. But maybe not :-).





However, Gargoyling

       skype "peer to peer"

produced the interesting pages referred to below, amongst many others:

These may be somewhat surprising to many people. Even if not all 100%
correct they do rather point to things being  abit different than most
people may realise. Even ignoring bandwidth usage considerations,
software that is designed to penetrate firewalls invisibly as of right
is both a 'bad corporate citizen' and a virus writers wildest dream.


                   Russell


______________

Skype explains its peer to peer arrangement

       http://www.skype.com/products/explained.html

Which includes this

Firewall and NAT (Network Address Translation) traversal.
Non-firewalled clients and clients on publicly routable IP addresses
are able to help NAT'ed nodes to communicate by routing calls. This
allows two clients who otherwise would not be able to communicate to
speak with each other. Because the calls are encrypted end-to-end,
proxies limit the security or privacy risk.
Likewise, only proxies with available spare resources are chosen so
that the performance for these users is not affected.
Several new techniques were also developed in order to avoid end-user
configuration of gateways and firewalls, whose non-intuitive
configuration settings typically prohibit the majority of users from
communicating successfully. In short, Skype works behind the majority
of firewalls and gateways with no special configuration.

_________________
An Experimental Study of the Skype Peer-to-Peer VoIP System

       http://iptps06.cs.ucsb.edu/papers/Guha-skype06.pdf

Including:        ...
This paper presents the rst measurement study of the
Skype VoIP system. From the empirical data we have gath­
ered, it is clear that Skype differs signicantly from other
peer­to­peer le­sharing networks in several respects. Ac­
tive clients show diurnal and work­week behavior analogous
to web­browsing rather than le­sharing. Stability of the su­
pernode population tends to mitigate churn in the network.
Supernodes typically use little bandwidth even though they
relay VoIP and le­transfer trafc in certain cases....

_________________
Using Webwasher to block Skype peer-to-peer IP-based telephony

       http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?skey=1602


... Skype does not use standard VoIP protocols, which makes it easy
for the software, along with any vulnerabilities or malware that may
be attached to it, to pass through the corporate firewall. Other VoIP
solutions that are used successfully and safely by corporations use
open protocols such as SIP, IAX, or H.323. Because its protocol is
proprietary, there is no way to verify Skype's own security claims.
And because Skype calls are undetectable and do not leave an audit
trail, there are significant compliance problems that several
corporations may face if they allow its use ...
...
The bandwidth used during file transfers or during internet telephony
can be tremendous, depending on the amount of usage--and Skype can
turn your network into a "Supernode" without your consent, using it as
a relay station for calls that do not originate or terminate on your
site. The impact on productivity is severe. The reason Skype calls
work so well is that it uses "intelligent routing," which sounds like
a good idea until you realize what that means: Skype routes calls over
the most effective path possible, leveraging available bandwidth from
users on the Skype network. Skype calls itself as a "true P2P system,"
which it describes as "one where all nodes in a network join together
dynamically to participate in traffic routing-, processing- and
bandwidth-intensive tasks that would otherwise be handled by central
servers." This means that if one person in your company is using
Skype, your bandwidth may get pressed into service by Skype to handle
the tasks that another VoIP provider would be handling on its own
servers. If your connection is used by Skype in this way, bandwidth
consumption can notably affect your network's performance. Skype
provides no option for disabling use of your resources in this way
...
_________________
Most interesting pdf "slide show".

       http://mnet.cs.nthu.edu.tw/paper/Chance/041125.pdf


Any node with a public
IP address having
sufficient CPU, memory
and network bandwidth
is a candidate to
become a super node
???? An ordinary host must
connect to a super node
and must register itself
with the Skype login
server
(SN)
ordinary host
_________________
Almost an ad, but interesting.

Skype bugging your network? Here's how to squash it

      http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7464/127/

... The Skype peer-to-peer protocol is designed to penetrate
firewalls: experts emphasise the potential security risks of the Skype
peer-to-peer protocol and say the use of Skype in a corporate network
significantly increases traffic volumes. One company claims to have
some tools to stop it.  ...

2007\03\05@202805 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:45:14 -0800, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>
> On Mar 2, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > But for many a non standard psu connector is a terminally impassable
> > (pun almost intended) barrier.
>
> I submit that the intersection of people who need to change their
> power supplies, and the people who can't deal with the non-standard
> connector really OUGHT to be pretty close to zero.

I don't think so!  I know dozens of people who would fit this, including myself.  Changing a power supply involves two tools: to unmount/mount it (a
screwdriver) and to unplug and replug the connectors (finger & thumb Mk.1 !)  To change the pins around in the connector to match a nonstandard
layout needs a lot of (double-checked) information on which pins need to be swapped, and tools to remove and insert the pins from the housing,
which even I haven't got (and I have a *lot* of tools!).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\03\05@205335 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I submit that the intersection of people who need to change their
>> power supplies, and the people who can't deal with the non-standard
>> connector really OUGHT to be pretty close to zero.

> I don't think so!  I know dozens of people who would fit this,
> including myself.  Changing a power supply involves two tools: to
> unmount/mount it (a
> screwdriver) and to unplug and replug the connectors (finger & thumb
> Mk.1 !)  To change the pins around in the connector to match a
> nonstandard
> layout needs a lot of (double-checked) information on which pins
> need to be swapped, and tools to remove and insert the pins from the
> housing,
> which even I haven't got (and I have a *lot* of tools!).

And the smoke that comes out if you get one connection (two minimum
for a fully populated connector?) wrong can be the very very very
expensive sort.


       R

2007\03\05@210143 by peter green

flavicon
face

> And the smoke that comes out if you get one connection (two minimum
> for a fully populated connector?) wrong can be the very very very
> expensive sort.
mind you in the AT days you could do that without rewiring connectors.



2007\03\05@215037 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> I didn't find any clear information, though, whether this is true or
>> not. Do you have any?

> More hearsay than hard info, but the P2P phrase may ring a few alarm
> bells. But maybe not :-).
>
> However, Gargoyling
>
>         skype "peer to peer"
>
> produced the interesting pages referred to below, amongst many others:

I think you're right in that there is a risk, but I also think it is at
about the same level as with any application that is connected to the
internet and is not open source, especially most of the other IM clients.

> Any node with a public IP address having sufficient CPU, memory and
> network bandwidth is a candidate to become a super node

This is what I read several times. To me, this almost means that it is
wrong to say that your PC may become a supernode without your consent -- it
kind of expresses your consent if you put a PC directly on the internet
with Skype installed on it and not properly firewalled :)

Gerhard

2007\03\05@223408 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 5, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Howard Winter wrote:

>> I submit that the intersection of people who need to change their
>> power supplies, and the people who can't deal with the non-standard
>> connector really OUGHT to be pretty close to zero.
>
> I don't think so!  I know dozens of people who would fit this,
> including myself.

But how often do you (need to) change power supplies in a computer?

I mean, I've owned about a dozen bought computers by now, and the
only supply I've changed was the noisy one in the Mac when Apple
offered a free "fix."  Note that "deal with the non-standard
connector" includes being careful enough to buy a Dell-specific
supply or adaptor; it need not mean building your own custom
connector.

BillW

2007\03\06@025512 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I think you're right in that there is a risk, but I also think it is
> at
> about the same level as with any application that is connected to
> the
> internet and is not open source, especially most of the other IM
> clients.

Not according to the articles I cited. It sounds like Sype is an order
of magnitude or maybe 2 better at bypassing firewalls than any normal
well behaved software, P2P or other.

{Quote hidden}

If you skimmed through those references you'll have seen that:

   - In using Skype you give them permission to do it if they can.

   - They are extremely good at burrowing through firewalls AND not
showing that it is being done using any of the standard tools.

And may be tempted to conclude that

       - If  they can they do.

       - They often can.

When you read an article whose major gist is "ONE vendor CLAIMS that
they have found a method to stop Skype getting out/in when you use it
..." then one has to wonder.



           Russell


2007\03\06@074052 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> I think you're right in that there is a risk, but I also think it is at
>> about the same level as with any application that is connected to the
>> internet and is not open source, especially most of the other IM
>> clients.
>
> Not according to the articles I cited. It sounds like Sype is an order
> of magnitude or maybe 2 better at bypassing firewalls than any normal
> well behaved software, P2P or other.

This is only about VoIP. Yahoo or MSN Messenger for example don't seem to
have a problem communicating /data/ through firewalls. From a security
point of view, the specific difficulties of firewall and NAT router
traversal of VoIP connections don't really matter.


>>> Any node with a public IP address having sufficient CPU, memory and
>>> network bandwidth is a candidate to become a super node
>>
>> This is what I read several times. To me, this almost means that it is
>> wrong to say that your PC may become a supernode without your consent
>> -- it kind of expresses your consent if you put a PC directly on the
>> internet with Skype installed on it and not properly firewalled :)
>
> If you skimmed through those references you'll have seen that:

... there is little hard data. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem,
but I've read more references than you cited, and didn't find much "well
documented" stuff. Besides, the problems of company and university networks
are interesting but not necessarily relevant for a home user. In such an
environment, the admin sometimes has to work against the user. In a home
environment, you usually can assume that the users collaborate with the
admin. Client side configuration, for example, can be used to solve a
problem in a home network, but not necessarily in a corporate network.

Gerhard

2007\03\07@112009 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:34:06 -0800, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

On average, about once every other month!  This includes my own machines and those of friends, family and clients.  Not long ago my
next-door-neighbour had a strange set of faults showing up which I traced to the +12V line being about +10.3V - replacing the PSU fixed it.  I think he
may have been overloading the old one for some time, as he had a lot of hardware in the box.  My girlfriend had a good quality Zalman PSU literally
go bang!  She was still shaking when she called me to tell me about it - Zalman sent a replacement without question - also without feeding back
what the problem had been, but at least it didn't do any damage when it failed.  I build and re-build machines for myself and others quite a lot, so
swapping PSUs around happens fairly often, especially when I need to add a lot of drives to a previously un-loaded machine.  I treat PSUs as a
commodity, just use the one that's powerful enough for the job.  I'd never entertain re-pinning the motherboard connector to fit a hybrid (the polite
word!) machine - I just avoid machines that need it.

> I mean, I've owned about a dozen bought computers by now, and the
> only supply I've changed was the noisy one in the Mac when Apple
> offered a free "fix."  Note that "deal with the non-standard
> connector" includes being careful enough to buy a Dell-specific
> supply or adaptor; it need not mean building your own custom
> connector.

I've never bought a factory-built machine other than laptops - I always build my own either from scratch or from a 2nd-hand base of varying
completeness (most recently a really nice Antec case & PSU with everything in it except a hard drive - paid less than the case would have cost
empty!  :-)  My next PC job is to dismantle one of my ThinkPad T23s and resolder the inductor that's come loose (known problem, symptom is that the
fan "hunts" when you turn the power on, and it doesn't even attempt to start the POST).  Ah well!  :-)

Different people have different ways of going about things, so have different experiences.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...