backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Jul 9 at 9:52 AM


MIT's new tech could largely eliminate the need for traffic to pass through multiple optical routers, which slow it down.  (Source: Nextgen)

The breakthrough could allow for file transfers and filesharing at 100 to 1,000 times current rates.  (Source: University of Washington)
Tech could also save power -- a virtual data center dream -- and opens the door to incredibly fast file transfers

The ever-increasing demand for data has scientists at top research centers like CERN and MIT racing to develop better technologies.  An team led by Vincent Chan, an electrical engineering and computer science professor at MIT, just made a breakthrough that could eliminate the slowest component in the current internet infrastructure, bumping speeds by as much as 100 to 1,000 fold.

The majority of high-bandwidth, high speed traffic is delivered along bundles of optical cables.  These signals can go a long way, but periodically they come to an intersection and have to be redirected.  It's hard to reroute light, so currently these require converting the signal back to an electric signal, rerouting, and finally converting back to an optical signal.  All of this requires extra power and significant slows the internet down.

What Chan figured is called "flow switching" and it sounds like common sense, but surprisingly hasn't widely been suggested or thought of before.  The idea here would be to take heavy traffic zones and establish a one-way dedicated connection.  For example major cities like Chicago, Miami, New York City, Detroit might have a straight path to California's Silicon Valley.  And Silicon Valley might have a straight path back to them.  Without the need for major rerouting, the internet would become dramatically faster and more energy efficient.

States Dan Olds, an analyst at Gabriel Consulting Group Inc., "If this can truly jack up Internet data speeds by 100 times, that would have a huge impact on the usability of the Net.  We'd see the era of 3D computing and fully immersive Internet experiences come much sooner.... If this turns out to be practical, it could be a very big step forward."

Chan comments, "With bigger applications and more bottlenecks, you could buy extra bandwidth if you pay through the nose, but that's not something every user could do.  Sure, you can increase the data rate, but it's expensive. With this new architecture, we can speed up the Internet but make high-speed access cheaper."

He is confident that the technology is ready to be rolled out commercially.  He's establishing a startup that will facilitate the creation of these direct pipes.  He states, "I think we have enough tests to know that the transport is ready and the architecture would work."

With the triumph also comes controversy.  The massive speed increase could allow for much faster BitTorrent and P2P connections, offering the opportunity to fileshare more than ever before.  Media watchdogs have long voiced concerned about the potential effects of faster internet.

In related news, Finland recently passed a law mandating the internet as a "fundamental" right.  As of now 96 percent of the Finnish population are already online, with just 4,000 homes left to be connected.  The new law would offer a free 1-Mbps internet connection to all citizens who wanted it.

Finland is adopting a less severe stance to piracy than the U.S.  It's send those who fileshare letters asking them to stop (but it's unclear whether there will be any sort of consequences).  However, it has said that it will not take down or ban sites that have a few illegal files on them or linked to them.

Finland's EU neighbor Britain is also looking to give citizens internet access.  While its measure has no force of law, it claims it will deliver 2-Mbps connections to all citizens by 2012.  However, it's also considering much harsher provisions for filesharers -- severing their internet privileges after three strikes.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Really a breakthrough?
By Devilpapaya on 7/1/2010 5:58:44 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how is laying new direct infrastructure really a breakthrough?

If they developed a router that could directly route the light, that would be a breakthrough. I'm down for faster internet, and props to the guy who thought of it, but it seems to me like its more of upgrading the system than a breakthrough in how it works.

Also /facepalm at the P2P BS. We should all just go back to dial-up to prevent piracy.




RE: Really a breakthrough?
By roadhog1974 on 7/1/2010 6:04:44 PM , Rating: 5
just about every make internet faster "breakthrough" article
i have read, has turned out to be crud.

As fara as energy efficiency goes, yes the cable will
be more efficient, if you ignore the energy required to
lay it.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By quiksilvr on 7/2/2010 9:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
Initial energy requirements always go up when upgrading the system. It's over a course of time that shows the energy savings.

A 13W CFL bulb costs $1 (4x as much as a 60W incandescent) but over time you will see the energy savings more than compensates the initial "energy" costs of getting it in the first place.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By Lerianis on 7/3/2010 6:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, that isn't true anymore. The last time I was in the store, I was absolutely shocked to see that CFL's cost LESS than incandescent.
I guess 'economies of scale' finally came into play here, with all the old incandescent assembly lines switching to CFL production.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By freeman70 on 7/4/2010 7:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Forget CFL! I just replaced 50 Watt halogen floodlights in the store with 3.5 Watt LED floodlights. They use 7% the amount of energy and produce almost no heat. I save electricity on air conditioning and on the lights. I haven't noticed any appreciable different in the lighting quality and the color of the light is almost identical to the old halogen bulbs. Interestingly enough, I did have a choice between the warmer yellow and cooler white light bulbs. The bulbs were expensive (about US$12.50 each) but I am sure they are worth it since they have a 20,000 hour service life.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By tastyratz on 7/2/2010 11:41:27 AM , Rating: 4
Thats too true. This is great, but no phenomenal breakthrough.

Perhaps the title should read "MIT continues to discover regular evolutionary basic infrastructure upgrades"

For example The core i7 doesn't revolutionize computing as we see it over a core2, but a feasible breakthrough in quantum computing would (read not overblown mild milestone)


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By tedrodai on 7/1/2010 9:35:50 PM , Rating: 5
If we got rid of computers and went back to analog recording technology, it would be even better. The money would start flowing where natural order demands, am I right?

But yes, that title is very misleading...I thought we were talking about some new gadget that did something awesome, not "you dumbos! connect point A to point B!"


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By Reflex on 7/1/2010 10:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if there is really any sort of breakthrough presented here. At least not with how this article is written. Its not news that directly routing two locations via fiber with no switching hardware between will result in faster speeds. If anything, the breakthrough would be the ability to do so across great distances. But even then, thats a fairly limited breakthrough.

This also means little to nothing for an end user. This is about the backbone. Nothing more, nothing less. And the parts about P2P and piracy are irrelevant to the article as backbone speeds have never been in contention. I don't even know what the Finland paragraph is there for, its got nothing to do with this at all.

This article is uninformative and poorly written. Plus lacking in citations.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By bfonnes on 7/3/2010 10:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
agreed... Couldn't have put it better myself, but since you took the time to write the article... might as well get a bit of a lesson. Look up WDM or wave division multiplexing. There's really no reason for an article like this unless you can say anything about what the first poster said about better light switches, (which I believe we have already, and the article even missed that), and there was nothing about that in the article.

Resource:
http://www.articlesbase.com/computers-articles/wha...


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By Riven98 on 7/1/2010 11:52:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What Chan figured is called "flow switching" and it sounds like common sense, but surprisingly hasn't widely been suggested or thought of before.


Seriously? No one ever thought about Kevin Bacon and the internet before?


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By Spivonious on 7/2/2010 10:00:00 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah this isn't any more of a breakthrough than "Hey, lots of people are driving on US 1 from Philadelphia to Baltimore. Let's make I95 so they can bypass all of those small towns."


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By callmeroy on 7/2/2010 10:33:12 AM , Rating: 1
Ugh...I have to hit US1 then go on 95 over the Walt Whitman today..

Hmm..beautiful weather on a Friday, heading into a long weekend with a beautiful forecast....

Yeah...not looking forward to it at all...


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By Talon75 on 7/2/2010 10:06:59 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, what about this?

http://www.dailytech.com/CERN+Develops+Possible+In...

Seems to me that there already was something out there that was far more of a "breakthrough" than this stuff...


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By Fracture on 7/2/2010 12:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, I was just about to quote that article too.

Nice job finding it first.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By bfonnes on 7/4/2010 12:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
I got a few laughs from reading about the grid of pipes, again. ;-) ty ty


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By bfonnes on 7/3/2010 11:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the other one says 10,000 times faster in the headline... This one is ONLY 1,000 times faster. I'm just pointing out the funny fact that when you check the byline of the linked article, you'll realize these two articles were written by the same blogger.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By bfonnes on 7/3/2010 11:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, if you're interested in science fiction, read a book co-written by Stephen Baxter, and Arthur C. Clarke (posthumously), called The Light of Other Days. Has anyone else here read it? Anyhow, these articles are badly written at best. Plagiaristic, at worst. Beware Wormwood in about 2500. ;)


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By wempa on 7/2/2010 12:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
I know that Alcatel-Lucent had something called the Lambda router that used tiny mirrors to be a completely optical switch. That was for telephone switches, though. I wonder if this same idea could be applied to the internet hardware. But, I agree that this really is no breakthrough at all. The title made it sound like the article would be very interesting. Not so much.


RE: Really a breakthrough?
By deeznuts on 7/2/10, Rating: 0
Confused?
By chris2618 on 7/1/2010 6:04:54 PM , Rating: 5
Is this just a round about way of saying we a putting in dedicated lines between cities and silicon valley because i don't see how this is ground breaking as its similar to how land lines phones work in principle.




RE: Confused?
By Digimonkey on 7/1/2010 6:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much what it sounds like. I thought someone came up with some clever signaling method or some new routing protocol. Simply building one way optical feeds from each city to another is not really a break through and probably hasn't been done because it'll cost a fortune.


RE: Confused?
By PrinceGaz on 7/1/2010 7:55:29 PM , Rating: 4
That's exactly what it seems to be. A good analogy is the railway system in most of continental Europe: most towns and cities are linked by an extensive network of lines which can get you to pretty much anywhere, but at a limited speed (100mph or so max usually, though often with various speed restrictions along the line), stops at intermediate stations, plus the lines are carrying all kinds of traffic including freight which can further delay passenger journeys. That's the internet as it stands.

What most European countries have done is build dedicated long distance high speed routes between only the largest cities which are used only by similarly dedicated high speed trains which are able to run at their top speed (in the region of 160-200mph) near enough the whole distance, reducing journey times to a fraction of what they were. Similar dedicated long distance junction-free high-speed connections linking only the busiest hubs seems to be what they're proposing.

You'll still have to use the existing routes either end of the journey, but by routing the data over the high speed route where available, it gets there that much quicker, and the greater capacity of each high speed routes takes a lot of the load off multiple existing routes, meaning everything works much faster.


RE: Confused?
By bfonnes on 7/3/2010 11:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this has anything to do with HD webcam porn? Why do we need this exactly? I don't believe the article says anything about this why we need this. :0) A good science article should say why we need a technology and what it is... I don't believe you intend to be anti-science so I agree with people that said talking about the P2P thing again has nothing to do with the blog posting.


Damn file sharers.
By Daniel8uk on 7/1/2010 6:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Damn those petty theives & pirates, also known as the 'file sharer!'

I mean, if it wasn't for them we would live in a world of utopian dreams, connected to every other person and thing on the face of the earth at speeds faster than light, and all for free, we would have the pleasure of listening to all of those manufactured bands, specially tailored for our personal enjoyment, we would have access, over a super fast connection I may add, to that latest HD film starring some beautiful* multi-millionaires live out a life of excitement and adrenaline the likes of which has never been seen before (Except in the first 6 films of that series) and all of this crammed into one and a half hours.

But no, thanks to the the 'axis of evil' Aka the pirate Aka the murdering-raping-pillaging-IP-infringing-robbing-th e-rich-label-CEO's-no-good-terrorism-funding-extrem ist's we can't allow this.

Why you may ask, well I will tell you.

These pirates only know one thing, that is how to pillage and rape and murder and cause death-kills and if we don't stop these 'evil ones' with our DRM systems and our fancy lawyers and mass stern letter writing acts then we would be a world of shit. You think a nuclear holocaust is bad? Just wait until you see a world free of IP and copyright, after they kill the rich it's the babies next, trust me, these pirates are evil and have giant lasers under their beards and have huge nuclear ICBM's hidden under their hats, It's true, we have been informed by the CIA.

Free press,
propaganda division,
room 1.

*Over paid Make up clad f*cktards.




RE: Damn file sharers.
By raumkrieger on 7/1/2010 6:27:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But no, thanks to the the 'axis of evil' Aka the pirate Aka the murdering-raping-pillaging-IP-infringing-robbing-th e-rich-label-CEO's-no-good-terrorism-funding-extrem ist's we can't allow this.

Don't forget car-stealing, handbag-snatching, and crap-in-a-policeman's-hat-then-mail-it-to-his-dead- wife-then-steal-the-hat-again.

Finland has the right idea. In today's age internet access needs to be as common and as cheap as electricity.
And to hell with the media giants. They're the modern-day equivalent of the East India Trading Company and they're trying to keep the world in their control.


RE: Damn file sharers.
By HotFoot on 7/1/2010 8:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO. I love that reference to IT Crowd. Anyone for German cooking lessons?


RE: Damn file sharers.
By Kurz on 7/4/2010 4:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Remember your congressmen give them that control.


What a crock of...
By DEVGRU on 7/1/2010 5:45:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
With the triumph also comes controversy. The massive speed increase could allow for much faster BitTorrent and P2P connections, offering the opportunity to fileshare more than ever before. Media watchdogs have long voiced concerned about the potential effects of faster internet.


Bullshit. Oh noes! A faster world will lead to faster law breaking! Pfffff. Better put a memo out to auto companies that building bigger engines will lead to more people speeding before you put your f-ing head back in the sand...




RE: What a crock of...
By mikefarinha on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a crock of...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2010 6:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it's not possible to download faster than your paid connections maximum limit, so that statement was pretty foolish.


RE: What a crock of...
By Pan Skrzetuski on 7/1/2010 10:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
That comment needs to be +6.


I thought
By shin0bi272 on 7/1/2010 10:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the entire purpose of the internet was to have multiple pathways to everywhere so that in case of a nuke attack we could still communicate. Wouldn't putting in dedicated lines between the largest cities in the country be counter productive to that entire concept?




RE: I thought
By Senju on 7/2/2010 12:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly! Can you imagine someone getting into that one dedicated line, chop it up and see a whole city go without the Internet. In the IT world, this concept is "NG". We always need multiple routes in case one route shuts down.
We call it disaster recovery prevention!


RE: I thought
By Silver2k7 on 7/2/2010 4:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
The old pahtways would still exist right.. so it would just slow down to current speeds ?


RE: I thought
By icanhascpu on 7/3/10, Rating: 0
Dear media watchdog groups,
By theslug on 7/1/2010 8:42:20 PM , Rating: 5
Shut up.

Sincerely,
Sane people




Free internet correction to the article
By TeXWiller on 7/2/2010 12:16:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The new law would offer a free 1-Mbps internet connection to all citizens who wanted it.
The proposed 1 Mbps internet connection is definitely not free. The law simply says that certain companies must provide at least 1 Mbps connections to all households while charging a "reasonable" amount. Internet access is simply considered as a utility like electricity and water.




By TeXWiller on 7/2/2010 12:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe next time I actually read all the comments before posting mine..


Nitpickery
By ipay on 7/1/2010 10:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
The article got some details wrong on the Finnish case.
First, 96 or 97% of people already have access to a broadband connection, at least 1-Mbps; the last few percent might still have slower access through wireless means.
Second, the 1-Mbps internet connection wouldn't be for free, but "for a reasonable price".

I don't know how Finnish anti-piracy stance compares to other countries', but there are consequences to at least large-scale file-sharing: a recent Supreme Court decision said that administrating a torrent hub is piracy and has sentenced the administrators to pay hundreds of thousands in compensation. The case started (with the confiscation of servers) back in 2004.
http://www.helsinkitimes.org/htimes/domestic-news/...




RE: Nitpickery
By rikulus on 7/2/2010 8:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent info. I'd like to nitpick about Finland and Britain being called "neighbors." Last I checked, my neighbors were the people next to or across the street from me... Norway, Sweden, Estonia, and Russia in Finland's case. Not all the way across town. Are France and Ukraine "neighbors," too?


Quite the sensation.
By TSS on 7/2/2010 3:53:45 AM , Rating: 2
I had to read it over twice and visit the source article. Maybe it's because i'm low on sleep, i don't know, but it took a while to sink in.

What they seem to suggest is taking the 2 connections with the heavyest traffic in one of these "choke points" and connecting them directly. As in, instead of rerouting several optical signals, 1 router will now only have 1 inbound and 1 outbound signal. This is why the signal can be routed optically, because, there is nothing to be routed. What their suggesting, is for all intents and purposes, a optical hub.

Now i'm not an MIT researcher but there's no way your going to speed up the internet 100x to 1000x times with this technology, because the signals to everywhere else still need to be routed the classic way. Also, this will not save power, as it'll require dedicated routers. Considering their not going to connect another physical cable, probably a switch that'll divide the light signal into 2 paths as well.

And the busyest traffic points on the internet already have dedicated lines towards one and another. I'm pretty sure there's a dedicated pipe going from the new york internet exchange to the amsterdam internet exchange.

Oh wasn't TCP/IP *designed* to take the shortest route anyway?

Speeding up the internet is relative too. The examples given seem to indicate i'll simply be able to move *more* data. As in from 1 MB/s to 100 MB/s. This isn't speeding up, speeding up would be dropping my ping from 120ms to 1.2ms when playing on a server in the east coast. This seems extremely unlikely.

Don't get me wrong, i think there are still plenty of ways to increase the amount of data we can get. I'm even confident 1GB/s download speeds will become available for consumers within my lifetime. What i don't think though, is that this MIT study will have contributed to that.




RE: Quite the sensation.
By bh192012 on 7/2/2010 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually decreasing your ping time is about the only thing I could see the tech doing. Since you don't have to spend ms on light/electrical conversion and routing multiple times on the way, you might see better pings. However I personally am limited by my connection to the next switch at 1500/768, so that connection isn't going to be any faster. My bottleneck isn't the backbone, I can't buy faster service easily. (Well I could switch to Comcast cable, but screw them.)


not happening
By Chiisuchianu on 7/1/2010 6:40:30 PM , Rating: 1
Nope nope. We don't need faster internet, competition, or the growth of the digital economy. We need net neutrality, executive power to shut down the net, and to run soon-to-be obsolete lines throughout the country because internet is a right!

Hail Obama! Government knows best!




RE: not happening
By Smilin on 7/8/2010 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Foxnews forums are over there....


Much better idea...
By UnauthorisedAccess on 7/1/2010 9:25:17 PM , Rating: 3
If we actually embrace P2P to the point that we're pretty much mirroring each other's data, then downloads from 127.0.0.1 would be quite fast ;)




It already exists!
By morgan12x on 7/1/2010 11:11:41 PM , Rating: 3
It's called the Huawei 6800A DWDM System. It performs all routing opically with no electrical to optical conversions. I have installed several of these and they can route up to 3.2Tb/s on a single pair of fiber.




Math??
By Emgritz on 7/3/2010 1:21:31 PM , Rating: 3
"As of now 96 percent of the Finnish population are already online, with just 4,000 homes left to be connected."

With a population of 5.4-million, apparently 4%, or 216,000 Finns, are not online. Do they all live in the 4,000 unconnected homes?? (comfortably at an average of 54 per home??) Maybe they live outdoors???

Stats are tough, indeed.




By jbwhite99 on 7/1/2010 6:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
This might be great for huge data transfers, but how do I get my data on to this superfast line? My connection to the internet is still 7168/384kb through Roadrunner - the local ISPs need to implement better technology to get to the pipe.




abc
By Yaos on 7/1/2010 7:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just a point to point connection, it allows recajigering the connection in real time.




The question is
By YashBudini on 7/1/2010 8:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
How will time Warner & Verizon manage to charge 100 to 1000 times more for this service?




And this is news because ???
By drycrust3 on 7/2/2010 3:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me for saying so, but all this tells me is this guy knows very little about telecommunications. Sure, I know nothing about telecommunications in America, but if it is anything like the telecommunications in New Zealand, then this would is sort of thing has been done for close to 100 years.




By bupkus on 7/2/2010 3:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna have a private line between uhhh... well I'll just research it and then build it. I'll offer high speed internet from point A to point B and back. Yah, that's the ticket.
I'll model it after private toll roads and charge a usage fee based, not on the number of axles your vehicle has but the rate and duration of data flow.
This is an opportunity for private entrepreneurs to rebuild our digital infrastructure and turn a buck while doing it.
I wonder what I overlooked... :P




Incorrect
By Hare on 7/2/2010 9:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new law would offer a free 1-Mbps internet connection to all citizens who wanted it.


All that the law requires is that ISP companies are forced to offer connections even to remote houses. They can't just say that it's not feasible. The connection is not and will not be free. The resident can be sure that he/she will get a minimum 1mb connection but will still pay for it.

I don't think it's even cable. It could be wimax or some other wireless tech... Which makes pretty much sense since it would be stupid to dig a cable to every remote hut.




By RaynorWolfcastle on 7/2/2010 9:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
I did my thesis on exactly this subject, so I was a bit curious to find the original source for the article (which turns out to be a PhD thesis).

There are significant caveats to this 100 to 1000x speed up, e.g. the finest granularity that you can request is one wavelength. So for this to be efficient, you need to require at *minimum* 40 Gbps (soon to be 100 Gbps). Unless you need a 40 Gbps connection between two points, this technology does nothing. While there are certainly cases where this is true, to proclaim a 100x generalized improvement in Internet performance is ludicrous.

Conclusion: a lot of hot air about a minor rework of existing ideas. There are a *lot* of researchers working very, very similar ideas.




what?
By invaderzim07 on 7/2/2010 10:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
I see what this guy is trying to do... but it goes against the idea of packet routing, if you make a dedicated path and you cant switch to another backup dedicated path quickly you are going to cause a large disruption. The idea of putting the packets through the optical routers is so they can be sent along various paths which routing protocols have chosen as the best path for good reason and it assures some level of redundancy... hopefully there are some redundancy notes in this guys plan which this posting didnt discuss




eisenhower did this before.
By moenkopi on 7/3/2010 4:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
Eisenhower did this before when he went to Germany and saw their new autobahn, then he decided to make a US autobahn, so gradually routes in the us were built with interconnects which bypassed towns in between like route 66.




Math?
By Mikalj on 7/7/2010 2:16:27 AM , Rating: 2
"As of now 96 percent of the Finnish population are already online, with just 4,000 homes left to be connected"

With a population of 5.3mil, are you suggesting, that there's 53 people in the average finnish home?




PFFT!
By Smilin on 7/7/2010 2:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
Chumps, every one of em.

Now take MY idea:
Put a dedicated piece of glass between your house and every webserver on the internet. That way NO routing takes place at all.

Now THAT is a breakthrough.




huh?
By omnicronx on 7/9/2010 9:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As of now 96 percent of the Finnish population are already online, with just 4,000 homes left to be connected
So let me get this straight, population of almost 6 million people, 96% of the population has access, but only 4k homes remain? Either there are A LOT of people living in those remaining four thousand houses, or somebody's math is terribly incorrect..




Hey Obama....
By DM0407 on 7/1/2010 6:30:02 PM , Rating: 1
While your out preventing "Too big to fail" can you also make a law for "too resistant to change to succeed" as well?




Plagarism
By ashtonmartin on 7/2/2010 2:27:46 AM , Rating: 1
This article is pretty much a word for word summary of the linked article, offering no new content whatsoever. It merely rephrases what the original writer said.




An team led by
By icanhascpu on 7/2/2010 3:33:06 PM , Rating: 1
An retard wrote by




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki