On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:58:44 -0600, Char Jackson wrote in :
He's childishly rude, and since he's unwilling to listen and learn, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to communicate with him. And his determination to remain ignorant is dangerous -- if I were his employer, I wouldn't even put him in charge of making coffee.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:07:30 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy wrote in :
You're also unlikely to get any more constructive comments. As far as I can tell you're beyond help.
I did. ISPs are not respinsible for what their custommers do.
Is it fun to appeal to authority, Dumb F*ck, thinking it's a good substiture for valid reasoning?
Something is not nonsense just because you say so, Dumb F*ck. Learn to produce valid arguments.
And this, John Dumb F*ck Navas thinks is wise to write right after I made a valid argument that show Char Jackson was wrong.
How stupid can John Dumb F*ck Navas get, before his body tries to get rid of the head as a useless limb?
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:07:41 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy wrote in :
Congratulations on destroying whatever credibility you had.
Sure, I do it all the time. One of my friends is responsible for planning future requirements and budgeting for a university LAN. The problem is that it typically takes 5 or more years to get funding. It's not unusual to buy 5 year old obsolete hardware or technology. The State does not write a blank cheque for equipment purchases. There's some wiggling room, but basically he has to guess what is going to be needed at least 5 years in advance. I few years ago, I saw the request for bids on a 10G fiber LAN for one of the labs. Today, that's science fiction. By the time it's budgetted and approved, it may be commodity hardware.
I've used the Wi-Fi hindsight example sufficiently that I've thought about what wireless would be like in 2018. Visualize the DHS (Dept of Homeland Security) running all communications and where you are required to positively identify yourself before being allowed to use the public airwaves. Meanwhile, spread spectrum bandwidth will be auctioned by the megabyte in real time by the FCC, where user fees have replaced spectrum auctions. SDR (software defined radio) will have taken over, and every user can have their own protocol, optimized for their specific application. More horror stories when I have time.
The only constructive comment I got to my root posting, I did get from Jeff, telling me RADIUS would allow me to protect guests against sniffing from other guests. An hour later I had a RADIUS server up and running to see how it would look from a client point of view. I checked it out with three different wireless brands, and what I found is that it's too complicated for average Joe which is my guests. This means RADIUS is completely useless. After this, it was not posted a single comment I could use for anything useful. I did get alots of useless comments though, which basically was tributes to the excellence of 802.11.
And this, John Dumb F*ck Navas thinks is wise to write right after I pointed out that he failed to reflect over the essense of my objetion to Char Jackson.
How stupid can John Dumb F*ck Navas get, before his body tries to get rid of his head as a useless limb?
I think 75% is a more accurate figure. That's the figure my ISP delivered at a recent meeting.
However, what percentage of *WIRELESS* internet traffic would you think is P2P? I have some coffee shop customers that offer free wireless. I keep and track the log files and have a fairly good idea of what is moving on their networks. I haven't done a summary for about 6 months, but can do so tomorrow. Wanna guess the percentage?
You would if you've ever been ripped off. I have and it completely changed my attitude toward copyright protection and enforcement.
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:59:18 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :
Maybe not -- seems to be reflective of his basic attitude.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:15:16 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy wrote in :
Nope. You didn't know what you were doing and how to make it work, which is why you got unsatisfactory results. That you think you didn't get useful comments is a matter of your offensive personal style and determined blindness.
You cannot be ripped off of someting you do not own. It's a contradiction. Didn't you understand anything of what I wrote?
I doubt its even that nowadays, not if you mean "illegal p2p". Over here in the UK all the main free-to-air TV broadcasters now have totally legal p2p watch-again services which I suspect eat a heck of a lot of bandwidth.
Why does that not surprise me?
Kinda depends on how, to what extent, and to what commercial or reputational loss.
Good point. Here's Cisco's numbers:
"Traffic from all applications grew in volume in 2007, but the traffic mix shifted considerably. Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks are now carrying 600 petabytes per month more than they did this time last year, which means there is the equivalent of an additional 150 million DVDs crossing the network each month, for a total monthly volume of over 500 million DVD equivalents, or two exabytes. Despite this growth, P2P as a percentage of consumer Internet traffic dropped to 51 percent at the end of 2007, down from 60 percent the year before. The decline in traffic-share is due primarily to the increasing share of video traffic. A secondary factor in the decline is the uptake of web-based file in some regions."
Scroll down to Table 5 for peer-to-peer numbers.
Looks like you're right about online video file sharing and viewing.
"Video is now approximately one-quarter of all consumer Internet traffic, not including the amount of video exchanged through P2P file sharing. Internet video grew from 12 percent in 2006 to 22 percent in 2007, and will reach 31 percent by the end of this year."
I haven't done the numbers for my wireless coffee shop customers yet, but will try to do so Sunday, after I recover from the traditional Christmas dinner over eating.
It's a complex mess that I don't want to openly discuss. Sorry.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required