Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

8.6 GB Internet?

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the sure-why-not dept.

Science 382

prostoalex writes "Caltech computer scientists announced the protocol, capable of delivering 8,609 Mbps over the Internet, using 10 simultaneous flows of data. The research project was conducted in partnership with CERN, DataTAG, StarLight, Cisco, and Level 3. The practical applications, according to the press release, is ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'. There is a number of papers and scientific publications available."

cancel ×

382 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576023)

I'll just stick with my 300 baud modem.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576087)

Why would you want to do that? Don't you understand that this connection would be much, much faster than your current modem? It would be at least 24 times faster, with the potential of being up to 57 times faster. Especially during off-peak hours like Thursday at 8pm.

Re:no thanks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576158)

I can't tell if you're super stupid or super smart.

watch out! (5, Funny)

rehabdoll (221029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576024)

CERN, DataTAG, StarLight & Cisco - watch out! MPAA is coming for you!

First logged in user bash! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576067)

Fuck you! Nobody likes a goody good! You think you're so much fucking special than everybody else because you have an account? You think you're better because you can spend the money? Fuck you, richer! Nigger lover.

Re:watch out! (4, Funny)

product byproduct (628318) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576125)

And the MPAA will measure piracy in "GB-equivalent" because some of these gigabytes are transferred really fast.

FP Bizatch!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576025)

w00t w00t!!!

Too fast! (1, Funny)

halftrack (454203) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576026)

Now the fp's will appear even sooner.

btw. maybe fp.

Re:Too fast! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576070)

btw. maybe fp.

Looks like you're on the old Internet.

Re:Too fast! (1)

missing000 (602285) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576192)

Now the fp's will appear even sooner.

Not if you stay on dial-up.

I WANT IT NOW~~ (-1)

LBLJeffMo (657149) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576028)

wow, i cant wait till everyone has this...will be greatness

That rocks (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576030)

dude!

This sounds like what the Pentagon needs (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576032)

They've been facing a major bandwidth crunch [theregister.co.uk] .

Argh! 8Gb (5, Funny)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576035)

I have a dream. Some day the editors will learn the difference between a bit and a byte. Or I'll byte a bit of their heads off. [grumble]

Re:Argh! 8Gb (4, Informative)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576045)

Yes, as the original poster said, it's 8.6 giga-BITS per second. Little 'b' means bits, big 'B' means bytes.

Saying 8.6GB is off by an order of magnitude.

Sigh..

Re:Argh! 8Gb (4, Funny)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576063)

Actually, its 8/10ths of an order of magnitude, but we're not being picky here now are we ? :)

Re:Argh! 8Gb (1)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576112)

Ahh, but I was rounding per this spec:

http://www.vendian.org/envelope/dir0/oom.html

Which basically says you round (decimal) orders of magnitude at 3. 256 is order 100, 365 is order 1000.

Or.. maybe I was referring to an octal order of magnitude :)

Re:Argh! 8Gb (5, Informative)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576156)

More nitpicking, yay! (a) If we assume base 10, it's actually ~0.9031 (log[10](8)) orders of magnitude off, as this is a logarithmic measure; (b) why are we assuming base 10? Base 2, which makes a lot more sense for this thing, gives us an even three orders of magnitude off; as a comment below mentioned, octal gives exactly one.

Re:Argh! 8Gb (1)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576161)

No, it's ln(8)/ln(10) = 0.903... of an order of magnitude. ;)

It's 0.903089987 fucking order of magnitude (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576164)

log10(8) you dumbass.

Re:Argh! 8Gb (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576120)

So they can only move one gigabyte per second? That would 'splain why a DVD movie takes 5 seconds (4.7G on a SSSD (single sided, single density - not that anybody remembers those) DVD.)

Hmmm. Given that I only get 100 kilobytes a second, that is ... maybe 10,000x what I get. I could live with that.

Eight gigabit per second throughput ... nobody will need more than that! (Ghost of billg past)

Oh yea, Monkelectric - it is off by exactly an order of magnitude if you are counting in octal :)

Re:Argh! 8Gb (4, Interesting)

jelle (14827) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576123)

Not only that, it's a different metric, because it's leaving out the 'per second'. My response to the title "8.6GB Internet" was 'the internet is much bigger than 2 DVDs, more like tera or exabytes'.

Otherwise, who needs Internet connections if you can carry a copy of the whole Internet on 2 discs?

Re:Argh! 8Gb (1)

kUnGf00m45t3r (628515) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576069)

Yeah, GB=giga BYTES, Gb=giga BITS, just to make it painfully clear...

CalTech (5, Funny)

Ken@WearableTech (107340) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576036)


CalTech's Motto: Enabling Faster Porn and Slashdoting Through Technology

Bless those people :-)

Re:CalTech (4, Insightful)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576162)

Geek: "I'm developing a program to download porn 1 million times faster."
Marge: "Does anyone need that much porn?"
Homer: "MMMmmm... one million times.... (gurgle noise)"

Okay, now to say something serious. Even with broadband, most files download painfully slow because no one can afford to constantly upgrade their servers to dish out large volume of data to the public. If you ask me, 8.6Gb ethernet would be a lot more useful. After all, huge file transfers on your ethernet are at least common place.

Beowulf Cluster (0, Offtopic)

wwwgregcom (313240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576037)

Finally a worthty way to connect all those beowulf clusters weve been imagining!

Re:Beowulf Cluster (0)

fussman (607784) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576074)

Finally a worthy beowulf cluster joke!

Nothing new (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576040)

Fiber optics have been capable of delivering up to 200/gb a second in demonstrations for the last 15 years.

Its just that optical routing is expensive and so would the switch at such a high speed.

Re:Nothing new (4, Interesting)

fjordboy (169716) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576083)

But not for long! A prof at my college [gcc.edu] , Dr. Shane Brower, is part of a research group that is attempting to find cheaper ways to produce easy and cheaper optical routing. Right now, he is attempting to find out why polymers have temporal problems when they're used for non-linear optics. Basically, right now, crystals are the best bet in high-speed fiber optic data transmission...this is because of their non-linear optical properties (you can shoot one color light through them and another color comes out...way faster than turning switches on and off...)...unfortunately, crystals are expensive and take a while to grow and whatnot...however, the other option, polymers are great and easy to make! But..their non-linear properties are temporal, after a little while they no longer work. Dr. Brower's research is trying to find out why that happens...and then, we can produce polymers that continue to work for years! And then...cheap fiber for everyone! Woo!

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576152)

And hydrogen cars. The future will be... different to say the least

Re:Nothing new (5, Informative)

Lothsahn (221388) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576169)

Sure, we can deliver 200 gb/sec in fiber optics.

This isn't talking about delivering raw speed over a point to point connection but delivering a large amount of data over a shared network. It's talking about a protocol rather than a transport medium, which must account for problems such as error, latency, bandwidth, and flow control.

woo! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576041)

Lightning fast goat porn?..yea!

goat porn? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576118)

Lightning fast goat porn?

There's no donkey in Donkey Kong because the name "Donkey" is used to suggest the stubbornness of the gorilla character. But why is there no goat in goatse.cx?

What's wrong with IP? (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576043)

Why do we need a new protocol?

IP can scale, can't it?

Re:What's wrong with IP? (5, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576189)

IP can scale, yes, but TCP (as originally designed) can't scale very well. It severely breaks under multipath routing, and tiny rates of packet loss can dramatically limit throughput, for a start.

One Step Closer (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576044)

To Jacking Porn Directly Into Our Brains

Uh...so that other jacking can occur.

MPAA Surrenders (2, Interesting)

Fenis-Wolf (239374) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576048)

I read this article a couple of days ago. I don't think we'll see a rollout of this anytime soon. Although it would be cool if it happaned. *sigh* and here i was looking forward to downloading DVD's as i watched them.

This just in... (-1, Troll)

greymond (539980) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576049)

Dual OC-90's for EVERY HOME :) w00t w00t

Unhandleable (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576051)

Even with techologies like QDR RAM, fibre channel and pci express most computers will not be able to handle the pipe for this connection.

Megabits per second (-1, Redundant)

Valar (167606) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576053)

I would like to note that bandwidth is measured in bits per second, not bytes per second. So the amount above is NOT over a gigabyte.

Re:Megabits per second (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576077)

um.... since when was a byte more than 8 bits? It IS more than a gigabyte (if it's Gb and not GB)

10 bits in a data transmission byte (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576157)

since when was a byte more than 8 bits?

Since TCP/IP overhead. Since error correction. The more accurate figure is 10 bits in a byte.

Re:Megabits per second (4, Funny)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576178)

>um.... since when was a byte more than 8 bits?

When you count in octal, there are 10 bits to a byte. After a few months doing coding on old big iron I accidently balanced my checkbook in octal. Took me a WEEK to get that straightened out.

Honestly though, this doesn't eliminate the bottleneck, it just moves it from the cables to the Server, or to your hard drive. Given that we can pretty much /. a server using the existing infrastructure should paint a pretty picture of where the bottleneck stands :)

I still would like to get it to my house, though.

Re:Megabits per second (-1, Troll)

cybercrap (319182) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576092)

8 bits per byte, 8.6Gb/8 = 1.075GB so your wrong. It is just over a gig a second.

Re:Megabits per second (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576103)

sorry, my above comment (first reply to parent's parent) is wrong.

the article is very conflicting. One place says 8 GB, but another says "8600 Mbps" which is just over 1 Gbps, which is just over 100 MB/sec

Re:Megabits per second (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576206)

sorry i was drunk when i said that

disregard above comment.

Re:Megabits per second (2, Informative)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576113)

On the internet, a byte is normally 10 bits--8 bits of data, one starting bit, and one ending bit. Thus, 10Mbps = 1 MBps.

Re:Megabits per second (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576134)

those are not real bits, and do not get counted as bits when talking about bps.

Overhead (5, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576179)

It is just over a gig a second.

Not all of that is data. Some is packet headers. Some is error correction. That's why you can't push 6 KB per second over a v.90 dial-up connection at 48 kbps.

Practical indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576054)

The practical applications, according to the press release, is ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'.

I'm sure the MPAA would love hearing that DVD downloading is considered a "practical application." Of course, they would consider it to be 500 DVDs since the protocol is 500x faster (or whatever it is) than the average consumer's connection.

Sigh (3, Funny)

Sabbath.sCm (542240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576055)

Now my lil bro will be able to fill up our HD with porn in a couple of minutes...

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576160)

Hold on, I'm confused. You think that's a bad thing?

Re:Sigh (3, Funny)

lastninja (237588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576175)

after you watch those films I'm sure your lil bro will be your big bro ;).

Download a full length movie (0)

Gortbusters.org (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576058)

in 5 seconds? Ruh-roh, how could anyone develop technologies that can be used by the p2p networks to trade copyright content!?!

The above comment was sarcasm, but ya never know ;)

A full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds (5, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576060)

I can't help but be amused that that was their first measurement standard for it.

Oh, they meant legit full-length DVD movies...

gosh (4, Funny)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576065)

impatient people... can't even wait 5 minutes nowadays... geesh...

That sound you hear (5, Funny)

KilljoyAZ (412438) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576068)

is Jack Valenti having an aneurysm.

Re:That sound you hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576098)

That joke is dumb. It doesnt even make any sense.

Give me units I can understand! (5, Funny)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576071)

How many Libraries of Congress per hour is that?

Oh the nos! (-1)

termos (634980) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576076)

This will be a great threat to all those weak-bandwidth porn hosts out there.

Fscked up notation (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576080)

We're supposed to see "GB" and read "Gbps"? I hope someone get hung for this.

DECAPITATION ATTACK SUCCESSFUL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576084)

An Iraqi Decapitation Attack against 101st Airborne leadership hiding in a tent in Kuwait City was succussful!

10 people wounded! 6 seriously!

WOOHOO! KEEP THE FAITH! IRAQ WILL RESIST THE ZIONIST-CRUSADER-CAPITALIST ALLIANCE!

How long will it take for hard drives to catch up? (5, Insightful)

magnum3065 (410727) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576086)

While this is pretty cool theoretically, current hard drives don't even come close to handling this kind of bandwidth, so there isn't much use for this until we can actually manage to store the data fast enough to keep up with the connection.

Re:How long will it take for hard drives to catch (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576126)

5 gigs o' ram will do nicely....

RAID (2, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576140)

Not only can a high-end storage array handle that sort of throughput, but it can do it without any bugs [bugfreeliving.com] .

Re:How long will it take for hard drives to catch (1)

MyGirlFriendsBroken (599031) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576168)

True, also how fast can a person absorb data, why is it nessesary to download a 2 hour movie in 5 minites (or seconds I can't remember now). Faster net connections are a good thing to a certain extent, but sometimes the persuit for speed goes beyond practicality. This happened in the super car industry with the Mclaren F1, it was just too fast at aprox 240mph (I think). Is this going to be the case for network speed, are we going to kill super fast networking by providing something which is just redicuoulsly fast? And equally unnessesary.

Re:How long will it take for hard drives to catch (1)

Rob.Mathers (527086) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576193)

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of being able to add a movie to my collection by paying a small fee (say $10) and downloading an .iso (well, the DVD equivalent of one) and burning it to disc with an elapsed time of under 10 minutes.
Of course, the question remains as to whether the MPAA will wake up and realise that they can use the internet to make profit rather than vainly trying to thwart file traders.

Re:How long will it take for hard drives to catch (3, Insightful)

Specialist2k (560094) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576201)

current hard drives don't even come close to handling this kind of bandwidth

Who needs hard disk capacity if you can stream a movie in realtime? *eg*

BTW, even if hard disks eventually reach the required capacity, you wouldn't be able to store it on disk anyway thanks to MPAA's DRM initiative...

honestly, what's the big deal? help please. (2, Interesting)

millia (35740) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576088)

i read this when it was on fark the other day, and i had to wonder what the big deal was. the speed worked out to be slightly lower than 10 gigabits.
bearing that in mind, isn't 10 gigabit TCP in the getting-done stages?
i don't know, maybe i missed something 'golly-gee' about this. this just seemed superfluous.

Re:honestly, what's the big deal? help please. (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576149)

> isn't 10 gigabit TCP in the getting-done stages?

You probably mean 10Gbps Ethernet which AFAIK works already, using fiber.

Implications (0, Redundant)

Ken@WearableTech (107340) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576089)

I'd like to see the MPAA or RIAA's view on this;-)

Five Seconds? (5, Funny)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576090)

"...ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'



Five seconds?? Ohhhh... but I want it NOW!

Bottleneck (5, Insightful)

dalutong (260603) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576097)

The problem is, what sort of mass storage device can write at 8.6 gigabits/sec?

Re:Bottleneck (5, Funny)

jelle (14827) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576137)


Well, /dev/null comes to mind.

Re:Bottleneck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576209)

But he/she/it stores it to that location, the contents will be erased. Which would render his/her/its download useless.

Please think about it ...

Re:Bottleneck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576235)

Hahaha. When idiots get /. accounts. News at 11.

Re:Bottleneck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576241)

But kind sir, I do not have an account. I posted anonymously.

Please think about it ...

Re:Bottleneck (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576236)

The contents will not be erased, they just can't be read anymore. /dev/null is WORN storage: Write once, read never.

Re:Bottleneck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576159)

Obviously you are not going to have one of these connections transferring files between two single computers. An OC-192 can do more than 8.6Gbps already.

Re:Bottleneck (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576174)

The practical implementation is to use this technology for infrastructure. Therefore instead of 1.5 Megabit DSL or Cable, we can say have 10 megabit or even 100 at home.

Re:Bottleneck (4, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576180)

Also a standard pc bus can not handle the load. This makes any card that can receive the signal at such a high speed useless.

Assumin its actually 8.6 bytes/sec and not bits like another poster suggested, the pci bus would become oversaturated since it can only transfer 3.2 gb/sec ( correct me if the transfer rate is wrong).

I wonder if a Sun or IBM unix box could handle this. My guess is this speed will only be used as a backbone anyway so only large unix mini's or dedicated routers will send and recieve at 8.6/gbs. Sorry Johny you can not download porn at that speed.

Re:Bottleneck (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576244)

I wonder if a Sun or IBM unix box could handle this.

It all depends on how the I/O busses are laid out. For a single channel, I believe 2GB fibre channel is the fastest they can do, but if you stripe a bunch of channels together, you can probably sink that much data.

Re:Bottleneck (4, Funny)

addaon (41825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576212)

An array of card punchers. A very wide array. Or just a piezo speaker, and store it in a mercury delay line until you have time to write it to disk. Hmm... then again, room temperature would give far too much brownian motion for coherence at that bandwidth in mercury. Metallic hydrogen delay line, then.

Great news for LUNIX hackers. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576104)

Now you guys can steal your 'GNU/LUNIX' 'distros' off the interweb and use it to rip more credit card numbers off honest hardwarking MicroSoft software using innocents.

Re:Great news for LUNIX hackers. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576185)

Hard wanking?

Ya Quake III Frag Fest..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576105)

Bring it on except imagine how much more banners they could feed you and how much more spam they could cram in your inbox...

Oh and thy'll chage by the gig... So like it'll be $600 a month...

Bloody repeats (4, Informative)

blamanj (253811) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576109)

Ahem, this was reported here [slashdot.org] a couple weeks ago.

There's nothing "Practical" about that. (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576119)

Unless they're willing to pay for the $5K in equipment to wire my house up for that, I'm not going to be downloading any movies over it.

In other news, the DCMA was appended to... (5, Funny)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576121)

limit everyone's connection to a single stream.

50178.2 goatses/sec! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576127)

Thats a lot a gaping anuses!

Now, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5576215)

Is that 50178.2 index.html's [goatse.cx] or 50178.2 hello.jpg's [goatse.cx] ?

I love recursive acronyms. (3, Interesting)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576150)

The protocol they used is called "FAST" (or "FAST TCP"): Fast Active (queue management) Scalable TCP.

Looks pretty slick... is it a replacement for TCP, or an overlay of TCP? The article says that it uses 10 simultaneous TCP connections....

I can't find on a cursory glance whether or not it can run on IP, but I assume so. Hopefully it will work with IPv6, when (if) it becomes mainstream.

The article mentions that has an average throughput effeciency of 95% (meaning that if you have a Gigabit connection, it can send/receive stuff at around 950Mbps). Does it drop TCP's congestion handling and do something similar to UDP then?

Eight giga-whats? (4, Funny)

rocjoe71 (545053) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576166)

I'm sorry, but 8,609 Mbps means nothing to me-- how much is that in spam emails per day?

HDD Speeds? (5, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576170)

Okay, todays RAM can top 8GB/s, so there is no problem generating data and sending it through this like that. However, hard drives can't even reach 1/100th of this speed, so don't expect your p2p programs to go much faster ;) This can be great for sites that require a massive pipe and have fiber hard drives's or ISPs. Also be good defence against a slashdotting ;)

We must fear such a technology (4, Interesting)

glMatrixMode (631669) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576176)

that may be silly, but in the case this technology is actually developped, there will remain a crucial battle : the RIAA/MPAA (media lobbies) are going to be so scared by such a tech that they'll do all what they can so that it comes with some kind of DRM (digital rights managements).

In other words, such a technology would give a boost to legal attempts to allow hard DRM - as is today illegal under the liberty-preserving legislation of a lot of countries, especially in Europe.

Do not answer that the media lobbies aren't asked to give their opinions here. Because it is part of Microsoft's, Intel's and AMD's (to cite only 3 members of the vast TCPA alliance) strategy to maintain good relationships with the media companies in order to enlarge the computer market.

You know what I'm talking about - Palladium. I don't think it's necessary to insist on the fact that it would be a bad thing for us.

Re:We must fear such a technology (1)

lpret (570480) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576232)

Wouldn't 120GB hard drives also scare them -- because we can store more data?

I haven't heard anything from them about that though....

Question for anyone who might know (nearly OnT) (0, Offtopic)

TheBadger (131644) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576186)

Is there a readily available technical solution for the following?

20 people connected to a Wireless LAN.
Each person commits 10-20% of their 56k dial-up connection for a server on the network to use.

A program (running on the server) requests portions of "large files" by either:

1) Connecting direct and requesting via ftp/http. ie. 20 requests for 5% using file resuming and then stopping when the amount has been pulled down.

2) Connecting to another server on the web which proxies the data and chops it up for streaming.

Does this kinda setup already exist? If so please cast me an URL ;-)

Uh.. (0, Redundant)

Tuffnut (618438) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576191)

ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds' How is that possible if your hard drive cannot write data at such a speed?

Someday even MPAA will see the commerical benfit (5, Insightful)

linux11 (449315) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576234)

I imagine that there will be a day when you can get ANY movie regardless of popularity from Blockbuster, Best Buy or Circuit City easier than filling out a prescription. You just tell them what legacy movie or TV show episodes you want and 15 minutes later your burned DVD with professional looking label printed on it is ready for pick-up for $20-$30. It may even include a difficult to replicate vendor hologram on the label side of the DVD to help distingish it from non-approved burns.

That thing is a hazard! (2, Funny)

LeoDV (653216) | more than 11 years ago | (#5576245)

I choked on my 2am coffee when I read that!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>