If you do some math with products currently on the market and soon to be on the market, you could get four exabytes stored pretty easily in under 1000 standard 42 unit racks. All it takes is money. The computation nodes could be really wimpy because they'd just be accessing the right piece of data from a hierarchical structure.
If you're worried about attackers who can wrangle 4 exabytes of storage at you, use a 64-bit salt.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions....
Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].
If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].
The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].
Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?
Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.
As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.
Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.
In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.
If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.
You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.
If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.
If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.
And if you die of old age, you are dead.
I almost died of old age scrolling down. You didn't have to quote the entire post.
The only one I think I could point to as having not done that (yet) is China. It's a cultural juggernaut.
And that's a particularly interesting example, because of the large number of cultures lumped together into the Chinese empire. Do people in China still think of themselves as culturally (e.g.) Han, Zhuang, Manchu, or just "Chinese"?
What also puzzles me, is why cultures that create such structures, just kinda sorta die out? Like the Egyptians who built pyramids, whoever built Stonehenge, and the like?
Answer: All cultures die out over this kind of time span. But for some reason, we just don't pay any attention to the ones that leave no evidence of ever having existed...
If you got Lara Bingle on board, I reckon she could get away with using her own name.
I can see it now... Bingle, the Australian search engine: "Where the bloody hell is it?"
Averaging the results of two experimental measurements is not Science, whereas averaging the results of many hundreds of measurements to determine global temperature anomaly is.
Averaging the results of different experiments that consistently give different answers is not correct. Averaging multiple measurements of the same experiment is.
How about an analogy?
You have two rulers, which do not agree. If you measure something with both and then average the result, you get a wrong result - unless the two rulers happen to be out by the same amount in different directions. If one ruler is correct, you've just broken your result.
If you use one ruler then you can average the measurements you take with it, because it's a fair assumption that each measurement will be out by a random amount in a random direction. Then your average is as correct as your ruler.
Yours (with the duck) works better. The one above (with the deer) introduced pointless problems by talking about the bullet hitting the ground, which doesn't make it clear that it actually missed.
Only one soldier needs an HF RDF.
Well okay, I guess two for triangulating, but my point is that the ones who are beating down your door don't need their own.
It's not exactly a print preview, but I just do my test prints to the virtual PDF printer. Quicker, uses less paper - and as you say, PDF's are fairly trustworthy with printing.
AC did not say any of those things.
They responded to the question "when is the last time Sony marketed a product that you might actually want to buy (for it's features and/or price)?"
Y'know, the question that was explicitly asked by the parent.
I'm probably not the only geek around here that is old enough to have this bring back memories of the Skylark series by E.E. "Doc" Smith, but there are probably not many.
I'm ashamed to admit that I had not thought of the connection, but I wholeheartedly agree.
Well spotted!
2) Typing the word "facebook" or "facebook.com" into the address bar. The redirect is then in the hands of your browser, usually powered by either Google or Bing (depending on browser), and you would assume this would point you straight at the "correct" address (HTTPS). Possible to put a MITM in there I suppose, but not as straight forward.
No.
Modern browsers may do a search (as you say) for "facebook", but if you give them "facebook.com" they will go to "http://facebook.com/". The traditional browser behaviour is to stick a "http://" in front of whatever you type.
Slashdot Mirror
All it takes is for one to store it weakly and your toast.
I store my own toast, thank you very much!
If you do some math with products currently on the market and soon to be on the market, you could get four exabytes stored pretty easily in under 1000 standard 42 unit racks. All it takes is money. The computation nodes could be really wimpy because they'd just be accessing the right piece of data from a hierarchical structure.
If you're worried about attackers who can wrangle 4 exabytes of storage at you, use a 64-bit salt.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. ...
Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)].
If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)].
The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].
Question: What is third-party liability, also known as "secondary liability"?
Answer: The concept of third party liability refers, as the name implies, to situations in which responsibility for harm can be placed on a party in addition to the one that actually caused the injury. The most common example comes from tort law: a customer in a grocery store drops a bottle of wine and another customer slips on the puddle and injures himself; he may bring an action for negligence against the customer who dropped the bottle and against the owner of the grocery store. Under the common law doctrine of third-party liability, a plaintiff must show not only that an injury actually occurred, but also (in most cases) that some sort of connection existed between the third party and the person who actually caused the injury.
As such the concept of third-party liability is often divided into two different types: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
Typically, contributory infringement exists when the third party either assists in the commission of the act which causes the injury, or simply induces the primary party to do so commit the act which caused the injury.
Vicarious liability often requires the third party to have exerted some form of control over the primary party's actions.
In copyright law, vicarious liability may be established if the third party had the "right and ability to control" the infringer's activities, and if the third party received some financial benefit from the acts of infringement.
Frequently Asked Questions (And Answers) about DMCA Safe Harbor
If you know you are hosting infringing content and do nothing about it you are dead.
You can't let things slide until someone rats you out.
If you are aiding the infringer in any way - or rewarding him for posting infringing content - you are dead. If you penalize the legitimate content provider you are dead.
If you are making money on the infringement you are dead.
And if you die of old age, you are dead.
I almost died of old age scrolling down. You didn't have to quote the entire post.
Neither did you.
The only one I think I could point to as having not done that (yet) is China. It's a cultural juggernaut.
And that's a particularly interesting example, because of the large number of cultures lumped together into the Chinese empire. Do people in China still think of themselves as culturally (e.g.) Han, Zhuang, Manchu, or just "Chinese"?
(Names taken from here.)
That would be yesterday, at approximately 7:08PM (local time), but it will be even closer tonight at 7:07PM.
What's your point?
NB: I didn't actually check the local sunset time. That's just a guess. Feel free to bother, and correct me.
What also puzzles me, is why cultures that create such structures, just kinda sorta die out? Like the Egyptians who built pyramids, whoever built Stonehenge, and the like?
Answer: All cultures die out over this kind of time span. But for some reason, we just don't pay any attention to the ones that leave no evidence of ever having existed...
This "Armel" flavor is used, among other things, as a base for Maemo (and I guess for MeeGo too).
Nah, Intel based their Moblin on something RedHat/Fedora-ish, and Nokia joined in with that for MeeGo. No more apt-get for future Nokia phones. :(
If you got Lara Bingle on board, I reckon she could get away with using her own name.
I can see it now... Bingle, the Australian search engine: "Where the bloody hell is it?"
With your way of writing 'bing', I actually heard the sound of a loud counter bell in my head several times while reading your post.
I heard the sound of a machine that goes "bing".
this is slashdot. a intel bug to them is pretty scary.
What do you mean them?
Everybody on slashdot except you and the GP?
What makes you different, and why nobody else?
I thought all computer chips were built on a foundation of sand.
Because *n?x sucks.
Hey! You might want to tighten up your regexp there, pal!
*waves a large trout menacingly*
- Unhygienix
Averaging the results of two experimental measurements is not Science, whereas averaging the results of many hundreds of measurements to determine global temperature anomaly is.
Averaging the results of different experiments that consistently give different answers is not correct. Averaging multiple measurements of the same experiment is.
How about an analogy?
You have two rulers, which do not agree. If you measure something with both and then average the result, you get a wrong result - unless the two rulers happen to be out by the same amount in different directions. If one ruler is correct, you've just broken your result.
If you use one ruler then you can average the measurements you take with it, because it's a fair assumption that each measurement will be out by a random amount in a random direction. Then your average is as correct as your ruler.
Yours (with the duck) works better.
The one above (with the deer) introduced pointless problems by talking about the bullet hitting the ground, which doesn't make it clear that it actually missed.
Because the a gram is defined as 1/1000 of a Kilogram. Your definition would be circular.
I think defining it as "divided by 1000 then multiplied by 1024" would actually make it spiral-ur.
Do any of the satellite providers cover Egypt?
You must not have read the GP's post properly - he already mentioned that they are expansive!
<G>
My UUCP daemon can hit him over the Internet ...
Damn, I've gotta set me up one of those! I often find myself wanting to hit people over the Internet.
Only one soldier needs an HF RDF.
Well okay, I guess two for triangulating, but my point is that the ones who are beating down your door don't need their own.
It's not exactly a print preview, but I just do my test prints to the virtual PDF printer. Quicker, uses less paper - and as you say, PDF's are fairly trustworthy with printing.
AC did not say any of those things.
They responded to the question "when is the last time Sony marketed a product that you might actually want to buy (for it's features and/or price)?"
Y'know, the question that was explicitly asked by the parent.
LOL ROTFL *cough*
Is that a ROTFL*cough*ter?
> ...has just been given more padding and legitimacy?
What do you mean? Emoticons have plenty of legitimacy already [U+1F638 GRINNING CAT FACE WITH SMILING EYES]
For anybody else who (like me) thought that this was a joke:
Unicode emoticon section (pdf for people who don't have the font support).
Don't be a 8====0
Don't be a goggle-eyed, surprised person with a very long nose? Why not?
I'm probably not the only geek around here that is old enough to have this bring back memories of the Skylark series by E.E. "Doc" Smith, but there are probably not many.
I'm ashamed to admit that I had not thought of the connection, but I wholeheartedly agree.
Well spotted!
2) Typing the word "facebook" or "facebook.com" into the address bar. The redirect is then in the hands of your browser, usually powered by either Google or Bing (depending on browser), and you would assume this would point you straight at the "correct" address (HTTPS). Possible to put a MITM in there I suppose, but not as straight forward.
No.
Modern browsers may do a search (as you say) for "facebook", but if you give them "facebook.com" they will go to "http://facebook.com/". The traditional browser behaviour is to stick a "http://" in front of whatever you type.