1.
1.1011=(2^3)+(2^1)+(2^0)=8+2+1=11
2.101010=(2^5)+(2^3)+(2^1)=32+8+2=42
3.11111=(2^4)+(2^3)+(2^2)+(2^1)+(2^0)=16+8+4+2+1=31
4. 10010=(2^1)+(2^4)=2+16=18
2.
1. 31=(2^4)+(2^3)+(2^2)+(2^1)+(2^0)=0011111
2.51=(2^5)+(2^4)+(2^2)+(2^1)=110011
3.7=(2^2)+(2^1)+(2^0)=111
4.103=(2^6)+(2^5)+(2^2)+(2^1)+(2^0)=1100111
3.
1. (56 kb/s)/(8)=(7 KB/s)=(.007MB/s)
(1s/.oo7MB)=(142s/MB)*(100MB)=14,200s=236min=apprx. 4hrs
2.(5mb/s)/(8)=(.625MB/s)
(1s/.625MB)=(1.6s/MB)*(100MB)=160s=2min 40s
3.(10mb/s)/(8)=(1.25MB/s)
(1s/1.25MB)=(.8s/MB)*(100)=1min 20s
4.
(3mb/s)=(.375MB/s)
(1s/.375MB)=(2.66s/MB)*(60)=(160s)=(3min 40s/MP3)
(40/60)=(.67)---->(60min/3.67min)=16 MP3/hour
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
"Net Neutrality" Good or Bad?
1. Net Neutrality is the principle to keep the internet open to all users without any discrimination. It protects rights to connect with any other computer in the world without limitation. It means that internet providers can't speed up or slow down sites depending on their source or how much they pay for keeping their web page online. Networks job is to keep a steady flow of data and not decide which sites should get faster or better service.
2. The backers of net neutrality are as fallows: Amazon, Google, Ebay, Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, Facebook, all democratic candidates, and more. The argument for net neutrality is that is keeps free and open internet for all people. It does not allow any discrimination whether its Google or my blog. They still get equal access and space on the internet. It does not allow the discrimination of speed, therefore no site can pay more for better access or speed. It protects small business, non-profit orginizations, and bloggers. It maintains free-speech and consumers rights for all internet users, no matter what the content is.
3. The backers against net net neutrality are as fallows: Comcast, verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, and more. There are federal laws already in place to keep internet access rates fair. Sherman anti-trust act of 1890 protects from any market power to use their network unreasonably to maintain, or gain a monoply. Therefore no strict rates for users, different pricing and tiered access neogotiates for how much you will pay depenging on how you use the internet. It provides the networks to be able to invest in the internet and be sure that they can gain back their investment. Their investment would mean more jobs to create these new technologies. It would stop spam, piracy of multi-media, and bottlenecks caused by overflow of use by specific sites. It allows networks to stop online violence such as sites posing death threats or hate messages. Allows the United States to keep up with Internet technology and use network that is over flowed with spam on streaming online television, and games.
4. Although, I do agree that spam on the internet is a rising and annoying problem. A problem that seriously does need to be delt with, I still am all for net-neutrality. The Internet was based on the idea that people can network with anyone in the entire world. Opposing net-neutrality would cause and unfair superiority in sites that can pay more for access. Meaning that Yahoo will maintain its fast speeds but emerging creative and intovative sites such as Ebay or YouTube could never have got a start. Which will diminish creative and inventive ideas by people just like you and me. Leaving the only new internet creations to large corporations that only work for what they know will gain them income. Google, YouTube, and Yahoo and started with small people just like everyone else and thats how the internet should remain. It is our right of free-speech and our right to have every bit as much access as individuals as do the large corporations. I am all for the intovation of new products to make streaming video, and games faster, adminish spam, etc but not at the cost of free-speech and the loss of the individual in the internet.
2. The backers of net neutrality are as fallows: Amazon, Google, Ebay, Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, Facebook, all democratic candidates, and more. The argument for net neutrality is that is keeps free and open internet for all people. It does not allow any discrimination whether its Google or my blog. They still get equal access and space on the internet. It does not allow the discrimination of speed, therefore no site can pay more for better access or speed. It protects small business, non-profit orginizations, and bloggers. It maintains free-speech and consumers rights for all internet users, no matter what the content is.
3. The backers against net net neutrality are as fallows: Comcast, verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, and more. There are federal laws already in place to keep internet access rates fair. Sherman anti-trust act of 1890 protects from any market power to use their network unreasonably to maintain, or gain a monoply. Therefore no strict rates for users, different pricing and tiered access neogotiates for how much you will pay depenging on how you use the internet. It provides the networks to be able to invest in the internet and be sure that they can gain back their investment. Their investment would mean more jobs to create these new technologies. It would stop spam, piracy of multi-media, and bottlenecks caused by overflow of use by specific sites. It allows networks to stop online violence such as sites posing death threats or hate messages. Allows the United States to keep up with Internet technology and use network that is over flowed with spam on streaming online television, and games.
4. Although, I do agree that spam on the internet is a rising and annoying problem. A problem that seriously does need to be delt with, I still am all for net-neutrality. The Internet was based on the idea that people can network with anyone in the entire world. Opposing net-neutrality would cause and unfair superiority in sites that can pay more for access. Meaning that Yahoo will maintain its fast speeds but emerging creative and intovative sites such as Ebay or YouTube could never have got a start. Which will diminish creative and inventive ideas by people just like you and me. Leaving the only new internet creations to large corporations that only work for what they know will gain them income. Google, YouTube, and Yahoo and started with small people just like everyone else and thats how the internet should remain. It is our right of free-speech and our right to have every bit as much access as individuals as do the large corporations. I am all for the intovation of new products to make streaming video, and games faster, adminish spam, etc but not at the cost of free-speech and the loss of the individual in the internet.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Cyberquatting,free speech or problem
Is cybersquatting a malicious way to get peoples money or just a matter of free speech? In my opinion, it all comes down to is that situation. Certainly, I don't believe that it could be made illegal because it's often hard to prove in these situations whether it was merely coincidental or used to sell. If for instance my name was Steve and I decided to make a website for employment. By registering the domain name Steve Jobs, am I trying to make money off the CEO of Apple or merely running a employment site. Making it illegal could violate our right to freedom of speech assuming that one person is entitled to a certain domain name.
As far as the morality of the situation of cybersquatting goes, it all seems to come down to the situation. In the context of someone using a similar domain name as political protest I think it not only is it moral but also clearly a beneficial act of freedom of speech. Personally I find the social protest sites both interesting and entertaining. Two things which cause much more pleasure than pain. As far as buying a domain name in the hopes of making a profit later, I believe it immoral. Although a wise part on the part of the entrepreneur, purposefully buying a domain name for the sole purpose of selling it for a lot of money is wrong. It provides no benefit, and is clearly not within the lines of what the internet was created for. However, I do believe that in some cases two people will desire the same domain name. In this case it is not wrong to be a smaller person or organization and have rights to a certain domain. The person who was there first has full claims to the site.
So my guidelines to determine and stop cybersquatting is the fallowing. Social and political acts that do not harm should remain legal. As far as selling domain names for a profit, there should be a price limit that everyone has to abide by. I think it would be difficult to make it illegal therefore it should be limited and managed by the government. Finally, I believe there should remain laws that deal with violating someone's copyright laws. However, if someone got their first and is using their website for their own business or organization they should not be bothered.
As far as the morality of the situation of cybersquatting goes, it all seems to come down to the situation. In the context of someone using a similar domain name as political protest I think it not only is it moral but also clearly a beneficial act of freedom of speech. Personally I find the social protest sites both interesting and entertaining. Two things which cause much more pleasure than pain. As far as buying a domain name in the hopes of making a profit later, I believe it immoral. Although a wise part on the part of the entrepreneur, purposefully buying a domain name for the sole purpose of selling it for a lot of money is wrong. It provides no benefit, and is clearly not within the lines of what the internet was created for. However, I do believe that in some cases two people will desire the same domain name. In this case it is not wrong to be a smaller person or organization and have rights to a certain domain. The person who was there first has full claims to the site.
So my guidelines to determine and stop cybersquatting is the fallowing. Social and political acts that do not harm should remain legal. As far as selling domain names for a profit, there should be a price limit that everyone has to abide by. I think it would be difficult to make it illegal therefore it should be limited and managed by the government. Finally, I believe there should remain laws that deal with violating someone's copyright laws. However, if someone got their first and is using their website for their own business or organization they should not be bothered.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Internet: The Revolutionary Tool
Oh back in the good old days when it took 10 minutes to load the internet and once you signed on it took another 5 minutes to open the home page. Internet has certainly changed dramatically within the last 10 years. Now obviously with the increase in speed you can get much more work done in a timely matter. However, the change within the internet that sticks out most abruptly in my mind is the change from dial up to wireless. I remember a particular time in middle school when I was going on to the internet for something important like Neopets or AIM and wound up weeks later with a $300 bill. When dialing up my internet provider started with the connection nearest to you but if there were to many people using that connection they would switch to the next one. I lived in Santa Cruz and it continued to dial in to different connections in till it reached San Jose. This meaning that we got a $300 long distance internet bill.Needless to say my mother was quite upset with the bill or with the fact that it continued to dial up till it got to a city miles away. But not with the increased amount of technology I can have free wireless internet access for hours with the cost of a cup of coffee.
However, the internet has also had some negative effects on me. With the increased access to internet almost everywhere you go it is very easy to get distracted from work. Where as in high school I would have to my computer at home to access any sort of internet. Now I can access the internet almost everywhere I go. It can distract me in class, its available on cell phones and in the library. Certainly, it's convenient and making life a lot easier for traveling, research, and communication but it also proves to be very distracting towards good students trying to work while checking their Facebooks.
However, the internet has also had some negative effects on me. With the increased access to internet almost everywhere you go it is very easy to get distracted from work. Where as in high school I would have to my computer at home to access any sort of internet. Now I can access the internet almost everywhere I go. It can distract me in class, its available on cell phones and in the library. Certainly, it's convenient and making life a lot easier for traveling, research, and communication but it also proves to be very distracting towards good students trying to work while checking their Facebooks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)