>>> The "store data on the Internet" part. It's either completely bogus, or
>>> very misleading.
>>
>> It's neither.
>
> I see it more as a little bit of both. The original description lead
> readers to believe that the data was disbursed, then traveled independent
> of the data owner until it was collected. That's simply not the case, so
> it's patently misleading if it actually works at all.
I stated that the packets were changed, that's not independence, and they
were tracked, that's not independence imo.
> [snippage]
>
>>> That means in the BEST case scenario you have exactly 255 seconds to
>>> get your machine back up if it ever goes down before your data is
>>> toast. In real life you're talking 255 hops max, often just 60 or less,
>>> with most hops being in the 100 milliseconds neighborhood. Do the math
>>> and you'll see that even a relative eye blink of a power outage means
>>> you loose everything. And this is the very problem you relate as the
>>> reason for "storing data on the Internet".
>>>
>>> *shrug*
>>
>> I see your argument. Let's assume that multiple copies of data set A are
>> being circulated and refreshed and all this is being tracked. We get a
>
> Nothing at all is being "tracked".
Reread the OP.
>You're sending out packets, hoping they
> return in tact, and repeating the process. Tracking implies you have some
> way to watch and recall packets without handling them. Not possible.
Possible, done.
> The only redundancy you might achieve is multiple servers sending and
> receiving the same packets, or the same data in similar packets. And
> limiting packets by region is impossible.
Possible, done, demonstrated.
> Once your packets leave your
> machine their routing is influenced by others' routers. That's why they
> call them "routers". ;-)
I understand and I would have agreed if I had not seen it myself. But
whether the data is directed or not is a matter of concern but the bigger
piece is that, in the end, it doesn't matter as long as all the data is
available where power was available. That leaves 90% of the known Internet
world.
> The more data you send and receive from your redundant servers, the more
> they're likely to "collide" in a geographical sense. Chances are if a
> power outage in the NE whacks data from one server, it will whack data
> from another because traffic is routed basically by "best route" methods
> no matter where you are. The more packets/data you send and the
> more servers you implement, the better your chances for data
> loss. Not exactly what you're looking for.
Agree but I had no loss of email or Internet traffic during that time so it
is not a crippling blow.
> Traceroute something outside your home network and you might be surprised
> to see that the email you sent to your next door neighbor who has a
> different ISP might go through a server in Taiwan or wherever if
> someserver.in.taiwan is running at peak efficiency and low load this
> millisecond.
Very aware of that.
> [snippage]
>
>>> I suppose that in
>>> some bizarre way this could be interpreted as "storage" by the unwashed
>>> masses, but to my little mind it's just what it really is... an easy
>>> way to trash can your data. The only way it might possibly work is if
>>> you owned every router the packet hits, which of course means you're
>>> either the worlds best super-cracker, or you're bouncing things around
>>> your own INTRAnet.
>>
>> Then we agree, a closed system is doable so now I ask how did they make
>> it work across the open Internet?
>
> They did not, at least not the way it's bing described. Sending and
> receiving packets with data in them is common place. Repeating the
> process indefinitely is trivial. But there's some very real reasons why it
> can not, and never will work as advertised. Anything that resembles the
> described scenario is nothing more than a creative way to exploit every
> day TCP/IP networking for the purposes of a virtual magic act. Trickery,
> slight of hand, deception... oil of snake. ;)
Then they fooled some of the best intelligence minds we have in the USA.
And I don't mean me, either.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:01:20 -0400, Galicean wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:12:54 GMT, JFB wrote:
>
>>>> The "store data on the Internet" part. It's either completely bogus,
>>>> or very misleading.
>>>
>>> It's neither.
>>
>> I see it more as a little bit of both. The original description lead
>> readers to believe that the data was disbursed, then traveled
>> independent of the data owner until it was collected. That's simply not
>> the case, so it's patently misleading if it actually works at all.
>
> I stated that the packets were changed, that's not independence, and they
> were tracked, that's not independence imo.
Baloney.
Here's the original statement...
"These packet headers have been altered so that they never land and
continuously bounce from server to server until the program calls them
home."
Your "opinion" aside, you CLEARLY stated packets left, traveled on their
own indefinitely, and were called back later. That's impossible unless you
own every router those packets hit. PERIOD.
You're either naive enough to be duped by your "colleague", or a bald
faced liar. I'd go with naive if I were you, it's more palatable.
>>> I see your argument. Let's assume that multiple copies of data set A
>>> are being circulated and refreshed and all this is being tracked. We
>>> get a
>>
>> Nothing at all is being "tracked".
>
> Reread the OP.
"He does this through the use of a program that tracks packets and/or
files."
The more I read it the more silly it becomes. More because of the
dogged way you attempt to defend it with "did tooooo" in spite of the
obvious, than anything else.
> Then they fooled some of the best intelligence minds we have in the USA.
> And I don't mean me, either.
I have this buddy at the NSA... he has this mind reading machine that
tracks galvanometric responses from every keyboard that's attached to
every machine that ever touched anything on the internet, and he tells me
you're making the whole thing up. <chuckle>
If you have proof, post it. I suspect you'll substitute "classified"
or "my friend won't tell me" for anything substantial.
>> Then they fooled some of the best intelligence minds we have in the USA.
>> And I don't mean me, either.
>
> I have this buddy at the NSA... he has this mind reading machine that
> tracks galvanometric responses from every keyboard that's attached to
> every machine that ever touched anything on the internet, and he tells me
> you're making the whole thing up. <chuckle>
Invite him to this thread, let's hear his opinions as an expert that is
unless he's clerical like 75% of the NSA.
> If you have proof, post it. I suspect you'll substitute "classified"
> or "my friend won't tell me" for anything substantial.
Take the info as it is given. What you do with it is of no concern to me.
Re: Using The Internet To Store Data 
Linear Mode
