Re: War

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 03/16/05

  • Next message: \\\\o//annabee: "To Beth" 
    Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:34:04 GMT

    NoDot wrote:
    > Beth wrote:
    > > Mind you, that said, "bittorrent" depends on how many people are
    > > downloading at the same time...so, if everyone interested on the
    newsgroup
    > > was trying it simultaneously, that should speed it all up for everyone
    (if
    > > I'm comprehending the way "bittorrent" works correctly from what I've
    read
    > > about how it works :)...just "organise" everyone to download at a "set
    > > time" or something ;)...
    >
    > Peer-to-peer still has the problem of overhead associated with the peer
    > technology. Of course, that should be negligible if a server is backing
    > it up, rather than just a bunch of peers who like aren't allowing full
    > upload speed. (I prefer it limited to 15 Kbps so it doesn't interfere
    > with download times.)

    Actually, you do realise that with most internet connections this is simply
    a "myth"?

    Obviously, it exactly depends on how you connect...but, generally,
    communication is _TWO-WAY_ that the amount you're uploading does NOT effect
    the amount you're downloading whatsoever...

    Think about it; When you talk on the phone, you don't have to do the "CB
    Radio" thing of pressing a button to talk and then say "over", release the
    button and then listen, yes? The phone can send and receive _in both
    directions at the same time_...so, when you hook up a modem to it, why are
    you now thinking it's turned into a CB radio?

    The cable modem stuff also usually works two-way too...though, there can be
    "bias"...that it's not "symmetrical" and the "upload" bandwidth isn't as
    capable as the "download" bandwidth...an "optimisation" that it's presumed,
    as an ordinary user, who's, of course, not running a server and breaking
    their "terms and conditions", you'll want more "download" than
    "upload"..._THIS_ "bias" effects peer-to-peer more than anything else...

    I'm convinced this is all just a "myth" that the record industry invented
    to try to stop people downloading so much on file sharing...make people
    "limit" each other...no, no...with "file sharing", the underlying principle
    is: "the more, the merrier"...

    Because the entire point with "peer to peer" is to place all the processing
    at the "edges" of the network (that is, the peer machines do all the actual
    "hard work")...and to distribute the required processing power across the
    "network"...so, more "peers", the better...also, it is distributing
    bandwidth so the bandwidth of the entire network becomes the _combination_
    of all possible bandwidths between all peers (well, ideally: "pure"
    peer-to-peer and such perfect distribution is actually _rare_...but that is
    the "goal" being aimed at)...so, the more bandwidth, the better (don't
    limit)...also, many P2P software exploits "multiple source"
    downloading...so, the more copies of a file on the network, the better...

    Note this very important attribute: Whenever a new "peer" joins the
    network, they may be placing greater demand on it BUT, at the same time,
    they bring their bandwidth resources to the network...hence, it inherently
    naturally "scales"...

    Don't believe the hype!

    Remember, the _INTERNET_ is peer-to-peer...now, did you ever use the
    internet prior to its big '90s "explosion"? It ran like a snail...of
    course, part of the speed up is simply because we've all got higher-speed
    connections...but this isn't the whole story: Another part of the reason is
    because more ISPs and such set up business, greatly expanding the number of
    "peers"...this brought more bandwidth, through which there was more
    possibility of "distributing" out the processing load...

    And you know what's also peer to peer? USENET that we now converse
    over...one of the oldest and first "success stories" of the architecture in
    popular use...it's a _ROBUST_ model because the internet, USENET and so
    forth were NOT designed for this level of use but they DON'T buckle under
    the weight at all (indeed, the only problem with these protocols is that
    security, anti-spamming and so forth were never "built-in" at first because
    these weren't problems on small networks...especially the very first
    internet network, what with it being a _military_ network...you know, if
    some tried "denial of service" on that network then they'd not only be
    "court marshalled" but probably put up on "treason" charges too! ;)...

    Which is the point to always remember...don't believe the "centralising"
    hype that people who want to "control" things invent...the internet was
    designed to survive a nuclear holocaust...to be the "last man standing" in
    the destruction of the entire world...calling it "a robust model" is an
    understatment...and it is improved not by sticking everything on
    Microsoft's network (creating a "bottleneck") but by distributing as far
    and as wide as is possible...

    Do NOT fear the peer to peer!

    If the network is well-designed and, though none are usually "pure" P2P,
    it's mostly P2P then "the more, the merrier" will apply..._THAT_ is the
    whole underlying principle...you know, you go into the bank at lunch time
    and they've only got one window open and the queue is gigantic...BUT when
    they open up all 12 windows, the queue "distributes" and everyone gets seen
    much quicker...if there were a 100 windows then, for up to a 100 people,
    everyone could be seen _straight away_...

    I've seen a lot of people talk about "limiting" and introducing "central
    servers" and so forth...I think they are entirely wrong and that it should
    be completely opened up...they like to invent "myths" about "limiting"
    making things better or that we can't allow complete freedom on the
    internet or terrorists would use it (what for? There is no "network" of
    terrorists - that's another "controlling myth" - and they are strapping
    explosives to themselves and blowing people up...why exactly do they need
    to download some MP3s to do that?)...

    IT'S ALL A LIE...they fear the internet's potential...because it will
    undermine their "power" to control people when people can become free
    enough to control themselves without the interference of "Big Brother" all
    the time...

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops
    of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."
    [ Mahattma Gandhi ]

    "It may be long before the law of Love will be recognised in international
    affairs. The machineries of government stand between and hide the hearts of
    one people from those of another."
    [ Mahattma Gandhi ]

    "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to
    promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace
    so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way
    and let them have it."
    [ President Dwight Eisenhower ]

    Beth :)

  • Next message: \\\\o//annabee: "To Beth"