Ed, That is the http protocol, it is a client server request/response communication. Your browser asked for the contents at http://www.nytimes.com. The NY Times server(s) dumped the response stream data to your external IP address. You probably have a NAT'd cable address and NAT'ted again by your local router (if you have one). This communication is mainly one way - except for your original few bytes of http request. For a full ack-nack real-time dynamically addressed protocol there is more involved but say OpenCog could be setup to act as an http server and you could have a http client (browser or whatever) for simplicity in communications. Http is very firewall friendly since it is universally used on the internet.
A distributed web crawler is a stretch though.... the communications is more complicated. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI > research] > > John, > > Thank you for the info. > > I just did a rough count of all the "IMG SRC="http://"; in the source of > the > NYTimes home page which down loaded to my cable-modem connected computer > in > about 3 seconds. I counted roughly 50 occurrences of that string. I > assume > there a many other downloaded files such as for layout info. Lets guess > a > total of at least 100 files that have to be requested and downloaded and > displayed. That would be about 33 per second. So what could one do with > a > system that could do on average about 20 accesses a second on a > sustained > rate, if a user was leaving it one at night as part of an OpenCog-at- > Home > project. > > It seems to me that that would be enough for some interesting large > corpus > NL work in conjunction with a distributed web crawler. > > Ed Porter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI > research] > > > From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > As I have said many before, to have brain-level AGI I believe you need > > within several orders of magnitude the representational, > computational, > > and > > interconnect capability of the human mind. > > > > If you had 1 million PC bots on the web, the representational and > > computational power would be there. But what sort of interconnect > would > > you > > have? What is the average cable box connected computers upload > > bandwidth? > > > > Is it about 1MBit/sec? If so that would be a bandwidth of 1TBit/sec. > > But > > presumably only a small percent of that total 1TBit/sec could be > > effectively > > used, say 100Gbits/sec. That's way below brain level, but it is high > > enough > > to do valuable AGI research. > > > > But would even 10% of this total 1Tbit/sec bandwidth be practically > > available? > > > > How many messages a second can a PC upload a second at say 100K, 10K, > > 1K, > > and 128 bytes each? Does anybody know? > > > I've gone through all this while being in VOIP R&D. MANY different > connections at many different bandwidths, latencies, QOS, it's dirty > across > the board. Communications between different points is very non- > homogenous. > There are "deep" connections and "surface" alluding to deep web and > surface > web though network topology is somewhat independent of permissions. The > physical infrastructure of the internet allows for certain extremely > high > bandwidth, low latency connections where the edge is typically lower > bandwidth, higher latency but it does depend on the hop graph, time of > day, > etc.. > > Messages per sec depends on many factors - network topology starting > from pc > bus, to NIC, to LAN switch and router, to other routers to ISPs, between > ISPs, back in other end, etc.. A cable box usually does anywhere from > 64kbit > to 1.4mbit upload depending on things such as provider, protocol, hop > distance, it totally depends... usually a test is required. > > > > On the net, can one bot directly talk to another bot, or does the > > communication have to go through some sort of server (other than those > > provided gratis on the web, such as DNS servers)? > > > > If two bots send messages to a third bot at the same time, does the > net > > infrastructure hold the second of the conflicting messages until the > > first > > has been received, or what? > > This is called protocol and there are many - see RFCs and ITU for > standards > but better ones are custom made. There are connectionless and connection > oriented protocols, broadcast, multicast, C/S, P2P, etc.. Existing > protocol > standards can be extended, piggybacked or parasited. > > Bots can talk direct or go through a server using or not using DNS. Also > depends on topology - is one point (or both) behind a NAT? > > Message simultaneity handling is dependent on protocol. > > > > To me the big hurdle to achieving the equivalent of SETI-at-home AGI > is > > getting the bandwidth necessary to allow the interactive computing of > > large > > amounts of knowledge. If we could solve that problem, then it should > be > > pretty easy to get some great tests going, such as with something like > > OpenCog. > > Like I was saying before - better to design based on what you have to > work > with than trying to do something like fit the human brain design on the > "unbounded nondeterministic" internet grid. I'm not sure though what the > architecture of OpenCog looks like... > > John > > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=70608076-a884cf
