As to the assertion that "McDonalds" is public -- it isn't.
Heart of Atlanta V. United States argued that being a private establishment allowed the hotel to refuse to serve blacks. They lost, but not because of that -- the US argued that Congress had authority due to Interstate Commerce.
If that hadn't held, the 5th and 13th Amendments would have, and the US would have lost.
In fact, Downloading may be illegal, and, if it comes to court, eventually that same Interstate Commerce clause will likely be used to make it law.
Thanks for the discussion, and I am looking forward to hearing your opinions.
Thank you. Exactly correct. I am going to expand on my thesis a bit, because I am going to reference this post instead of responding to others.
In the past, I have proposed a "Copyright Illustration Machine". It consists of a photocopier, with a piece of paper containing something locked into the scanner. It is sealed, and there is no way to determine the contents of that paper. Other than press the "Copy" button.
The paper contains some material, along with a Copyright notice, specifically DISALLOWING any reproduction.
The "Copy" button is labelled "Press Me".
The button is pushed, and the "button pusher" is immediately descended up by Copyright Lawyers, acting on behalf of the original Author.
Personally, I would build this as a piece of Art -- and the paper would chide the Copier for having copied.
The Legal Question: is it legal to push the button? If Downloading is Copyright Infringement, the answer is no, regardless of the labelling of the "Copy" button.
Another factor is that the intent of the Downloader is not a part of the "crime". To make it a "crime", requires that permission to copy (or, in the case of this discussion, to download) had NOT been granted by the Copyright holder. In other words, it is up to the Downloader to determine the state of mind of the Copyright holder. This holds now that Copyright is implicit.
Notice also how the SCO case ended up revolving around whether Copyright itself had been transferred? And these determinations must be made by someone just using a Web Browser. All they see is a Web Site, that is functional. If the material was not meant to be there, and didn't have AT LEAST Copyright for allowing Download, would not the Copyright holder have pursued action against the provider?
How about the following as a "reasonable" provision -- if Google indexed it, and it is still available, it (whatever it is) is fair to Download. If the Copyright holder can't be arsed to "google" for their own property, they (arguably) have permitted Downloading.
Downloading is not Copyright Infringement. Downloading is simply downloading. There is no way to determine a priori whether any Internet file transfer has Copyright authorization.
Especially now that Copyright is automatically granted and registration is no longer required.
In order to make Downloading an offense, registration would need to be returned.
And, if (please argue the point) Downloading is indeed illegal, and everything (yes, EVERYTHING) has a Copyright, and the status of a "legal" Download cannot be a priori determined, then it would simply be insanity to use the "internet". Both from a content producer and a content consumer perspective.
There simply cannot be anonimity. Everyone would have to know that I wrote this post, before reading it, in order to determine the a priori Copyright status.
X Protocol does not use more bandwidth than VNC. If anything, the opposite is (typically) true.
However, there are more round trips when starting an application when using X Protocol as compared to VNC. Latency is the performance killer for X Protocol, not bandwidth. This means applications may/will launch faster on VNC. NX (based on dxpc) short-circuits some X protocol requests, avoiding the latency issue. Typically, NX (FreeNX) performs as well as VNC.
With the "usual" X Servers in use these days, typically the Window Manager is run locally. Also, font resources and other (eg cursor) resources are local.
This means that X Protocol is faster when the application is running. For example, text needs only send the code-point and not the bitmap. (though compression is typically used for both over a slow link -- but something like "dxpc" is aware of X11 protocol, and can compress more quickly and efficiently for that case)
Also, the "look and feel" is that of your local desktop -- using VNC means an entire desktop is being rendered over the wire, while with X11, only a single application is rendered. Using VNC means more load on the application server, because graphics are rendered and then shipped. With X11 the graphics are rendered locally. This means that the application server doesn't have to maintain a virtual display for each client. This can save 1 to 3 megabytes per client. Along with rendering time.
VNC also allows the connection to be dropped and then restarted. X11 can do this, but it requires a proxy X11 server.
VNC allows for more platforms.
Conclusion -
You are correct.
(1) VNC over SSH is a very good solution, and is preferred for many applications.
(2) If bandwidth is very limited, FreeNX may be preferred if compatible with the client and server platforms and the application.
(3) For the best "desktop experience", FreeNX or X is preferred. The application appears as if running "natively".
It affects the Opteron -- used in, for example, the SUN X series servers (Dell and HP also use it).
So, these are in a lot of "mission critical" financial and other applications. The preferred fix is a microcode update. A recall would be an alternative, but the costs of that would be enormous. And AMD would be expected to cover it.
If a suitable microcode update cannot be pushed, I would short AMD. This has the potential to kill the company, especially considering the other problems they are having now.
I don't believe that a compiler modification would be a suitable fix. That would require building and QA'ing the entire software stack (as it is a "software change"). A very expensive proposition. My recommendation would be to lean on AMD, and get a "hardware change", either as a microcode patch or a new processor. That way, the bulk of the expense gets pushed back to AMD.
for f in `find ~ -name "*.sqlite" 2>/dev/null`; do sqlite3 $f "VACUUM;REINDEX;"; done
dd if=/dev/zero of=/junk; rm/junk
dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/junk; rm/home/junk
or some such on a regular basis? Do it after you've eliminated your pr0n sites from Firefox history, and removed any sensitive material from your drive. You should be good to go (unless the forensics team is God-like, and can interpret your past thoughts)...
Oh -- expect drive full errors. It's normal. I recommend this on a regular basis (except don't do it on ZFS, especially with dedup).
An interesting idea. But not practical. Microsoft's largest innovation was to make the OS a commodity. Running on a "standard" binary compatible platform.
This was good, because it resulted in (1) mass production of hardware, making it cheaper, and (2) a common hardware base for development.
I benefit from this, because I am able to purchase my AOD257 for under $250 CDN! A good thing, all around. The only "problem" is that the same force that allowed for this platform also allowed for the development of alternate (non-Microsoft) software. It ALSO gave Microsoft a monopoly position.
The alternate software? Linux, Solaris x86, BSD x86 (of various flavours), and more. Even Linux has MANY variants RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, Scientific, Puppy, and so forth.
All good -- I enjoy the cheap hardware. But I have never been a "Windows user". When MS DOS first came out, I was using BSD Unix (on a VAX), VAX VMS, and CP/M. I did use MS DOS briefly, but then went back to Unix (my preference).
Meanwhile, Microsoft came to drive (and dominate) in the desktop area. Microsoft software, "generic" hardware.
It is desirable, but impossible, to purchase the cheap "generic" hardware I want WITHOUT the Microsoft software. Like I said, I don't really care. (and, as an observation, in some areas, the generic hardware is available with other software -- the AOD257 comes with Android as a software option in some markets)
So I choose my hardware based on
1 - is the vendor supportive of my current software choice (Acer is, the AOD150 even came with a Linux software SKU). I don't know if Acer supports BSD, or other software, but for the lifetime of this product, I don't care.
2 - will they continue to support my current software choice (the multi-reader on the Acer AOD275 is supported by kmod-staging). GPT partitioning works on the AOD275.
3 - will the hardware support my needs, both performance and aesthetic?
Support is defined (by me) as making drivers or specifications available to allow the use of the hardware on software of my choice. It means fixing the hardware under warranty if it fails. It doesn't mean I want telephone support.
A small number of people ending up buying the hardware, and receiving a useless (to them) piece of software. So what? I don't know how many driver disks I've discarded (a lot; webcams, external USB DVD, option cards of various sorts, even a USB Bluetooth adapter).
The difference is that none of these vendors had a EULA that popped up on power-up, stating that you should go back to the OEM if you didn't agree, and that possibly some discount could be offered. And, twenty bucks is twenty bucks; why wouldn't these minority users ask for it?
I purchased several Acer AOD150 netbooks back in 2008. Due for a refresh now that they are four years old.
I choose the Linux (Acer Linpus) dress because it matched our needs. Figured that a Linpus dress would be available in future.
Nope. I replaced these with AOD257 models. In my country these were only available with Windows 7 Starter. Linpus or Meego aren't available.
Two problems - 1: I would like to indicate to Acer that I want them to continue contributing drivers to Linux. 2: declining the Windows EULA tells me to contact my OEM (Acer). I may well do that, because I do want to register my desires with my chosen hardware vendor.
Now, back when I bought the AOD150's, the Linput dress was around twenty bucks cheaper. Around 10% of the netbooks cost. I wouldn't mind getting sixty bucks back on the refresh, but that isn't the main point.
Future Linux support for my desired hardware is the point. I want a "no-problem" install. Web-cam, sound, networking, wireless, SD multi-reader, keyboard controls, sleep/hibernate, etc.
As it happens, everything worked on the AOD257 with Fedora 16 (I needed to add "kmod-staging" for the multi-reader, as it's a new chip, and the main OS didn't have built-in driver support. Minor issue, and easily resolved). But we need to be able to indicate our use cases to the vendors for continued support.
No, I don't know if retail Windows has all the drivers for this hardware; I am fairly sure that all needed drivers were in the OEM installed Windows (but since I've never run it, I wouldn't know). Linux support needs the OEMs or chip vendors to supply driver source code, because most Linux users do not like to install strange binary blobs from vendors that they don't trust to code stable drivers.
Read the fine article. Using CL does substantially change the language. Specifically, note the higher order manipulation of the eventual low-level program that the author achieved using promises (delayed evaluations). Basically, "threading while assembling".
Also, notice the ease of introducing higher-level flow control constructs (IF and UNTIL) into assembler. And the elimination of a second assembler pass by use of promises for forward references. It's kind of "magic" -- the correct data will be there when it's needed!
In this use-case, CL is a notational system for NES programming. It probably shouldn't be called "assembler" anymore, as the power of CL can be brought to bear in the process of generating the desired machine code.
Right you are. Because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Because the specific "crime" that TPB was convicted of -- is facilitating copyright infringement. I now give you a link to the Swedish copyright law. I'll provide the English translation, on the presumption that you don't read Swedish (and, no, my Swedish isn't very good either)
"The appeal started on September 28, 2010 and concluded on October 15, 2010.[122] On November 26, 2010, the verdict was announced. In the verdict, the court found that âoeThe Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.â
4 months to 1 year in jail, with a total fine of 6.5 million dollars.
In conclusion, no actual crime was proven, but somehow TPB facilitated that crime.
In my post above, I "facilitated" crime worth penalties of just under 1 million with a jail time of 2 weeks to 2 months (based on the TPB trial, anyway, and scaled). No, I did MORE than TPB did, because I knowingly copy/pasted that string. Both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. I think someone should sue me next.
This is getting funny. YOU said TPB invented the Internet. Not me. Me quoting you for satiric reasons (read what YOU wrote). You can't even claim context; I ensured that I took enough to include context.
TPB didn't copy a file from A to B, didn't own A or B, and didn't use FTP or bittorrent (they do use http and magnet). And it DOES have a bearing on whether it was legal or not.
Here's why. TPB is simply a site that holds references. That's it. Go to thepiratebay.se and look. You will find
- categorized lists of torrent and magnet files. - instructions on how to use a torrent/magent client. - thepiratebay.se/legal -- a collection of legal threats
You will NOT find any videos, music, books, or other peoples cached web sites. Just torrent files. Containing facts ABOUT the content (but not the content itself).
A snippet that may or may not have to do with a work under copywrite. Definitely doesn't CONTAIN that copywritten work (and, if you think it does, show me where). Someone posted this. along with some comments.
Where is the infringement?
Oh, and, if you ARE right, and that... thing... is actually infringing, Slashdot, and ALL OTHER USER COMMENT SITES, and be easily taken down.
Just do what I did, and post a... thing... like that.
"They facilitated copyright infringement. They provided the means of copying one file from one machine to another thereby infringing copyright. The mechanism is beside the point."
(this quote is a keeper)
TPB invented the Internet. Everyone else can be forgotten, because it "is beside the point".
Where in that robots.txt is there a legal permission? Where you informed of that when you created content on/. ? Did you take any action to transfer your copyright to/. such that/. could transfer that to Google?
Remeber, in MAI v Peak, the act of copying from DISK into RAM to launch a program was found to be a copyright violation.
Building an automated list of facts is not a copyright violation. For example, this memo contains the word "example". And, providing a reference to this memo is simply stating a fact.
Copying this memo, and providing the copy to others IS a violation of my copyright (Google does this; I don't care about it, and won't prosecute). Your browser cache may well be facilitating your infringing on my copyright (I don't care about it, and won't prosecute). Both are more direct than TPB. The only thing that TPB did wrong was to pick an name that would "needle the man".
1 - The Pirate Bay didn't host any content. 2 - If there is no content, it can't be copyright infringement 3 - Why should someone in Sweden care about United States of America law? DMCA is not a Swedish law, and has no force in Sweden. 4 - The Pirate Bay certainly followed all copyright laws as they understood them (except that they, somehow, induced others to commit copyright offenses). Now, Google CACHES Web pages. Um... that would be a copyright infraction right there. I didn't give Google permission to do any such thing. Happens every day... Google even presents cached web pages with slightly altered content -- ALSO A DIRECT VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT!
Go ahead, read the bottom of the page here, and tell me what it says. No, I'll save you the trouble:
"Comments owned by the poster". Now, Google reads these pages, indexes, and searches (all arguably fair use). But to make copies of the material?
Not something The Pirate Bay ever did. No caching of content -- hey, no content at all. None.
Easements were granted to natural monopolies. In exchange for certain things.
Things like:
Universal access Community access
A social contract. Business has a single motive; the Profit Motive. Very important, it's the first thing you learn about in Business School. Neither Universal or Community access will directly improve profit. But, as a social contract, they benefit me.
If this social agenda is eliminated (by privitization), my point is that I want fair dealing. What is a social contract worth?
My final point was that you too are dependent on certain social contracts.
I have no problem with removal of government interference in broadband internet...
Wait. Yes I do. The incumbents (duopoly) providing broadband internet in my area can do so because government granted easements. Government grants radio spectrum as well (at least in my area -- not sure how these things work where you live).
IF THE PROVIDERS BECOME COMPLETELY PRIVATE, I WANT MY CUT.
Sorry, had to emphasize that. If I don't get paid out, I will resort to "backhoe politics". I'll even pay the nuisance fine (I think its around a hundred bucks now). Wait a minute -- there wouldn't be a nuisance fine, this would be private thing.
I would want to negotiate the continuing value of the use of my property. And, if we can't come to an understanding, the cable/fiber/whatever on my land becomes my salvage.
Welcome to the Private world. Somehow I don't think you would like it. Especially if you lived downstream from me.
I started with Shaw. Then Shaw and Roger re-divided, and my account was switched to Rogers. No choice.
Now, I get 50Mbps down or so (it rarely goes full-speed), but it is enough for Netflix. Bittorrent is throttled.
Still, I don't have Cable TV, so I can't buy the "top end" internet package... The highest tier I can buy is 150GB/month for $70/month ("Hi-Speed Exteme Plus")
$5 more for 20GB/month for an overage "guarantee". If I don't buy the "guarantee", I spend $1/GB overage, capped at $50/month.
- rolling resistance - wind resistance - battery weight
A 1.6kW/h of energy stored in lead acid cells takes around 50kilos. If you drive at 30k/h (20mph), you can ignore wind resistance, and you will get around 30km of range on that energy (I have driven an EV on lead, and this is what I achieved -- two wheel, light vehicle). Mostly because of the Peukert effect. If you draw at higher than C/20 from a lead pack, the amount of stored energy will be reduced. There is also a reduction at lower temperatures -- at 0C you can discount the pack by 50%. PLUS, you can't drain the pack below 80% DOD because you will shorten its life. Your vehicle WON'T be getting 30km per 1.6kW/h of lead battery, Since it is MUCH heavier, I would estimate at 1/3 that (assuming you keep total vehicle weight to 500 kilos). And, I would also estimate that you will only get 200 charge cycles (or less) from your lead pack.
Lead is really a HORRIBLE technology. if you REALLY want a tech that works like lead, but is completely "safe" try Edisons NiFe batteries. Electric cars built in the early 1900's with this tech still have viable batteries. Same weight problem, but you won't be limited by the number of charge cycles.
But, NiFe suffers from the same problem as Lead -- horrible energy storage for its weight. Lithium is currently the best option But.. LiPo may "explode", and you appear afraid of that. So, try LiFePo4 batteries. 1.6kW/h for between 500 and 800 dollars; won't explode; slightly less energy dense than LiPo; 1/4 the weight of lead; and has 1 to 2 THOUSAND recharge cycles. Available commercially now -- try pingbattery.com or google for A123 cells.
I've driven lead and lithium instead of gasoline now for two years. Take it from someone with the experience.
"Invent" FAT? Um... how about a more accurate "implemented a singly linked list allocation system".
There were three ways to do it (yes, I know this is incomplete, but only three where in use) - allocation map, linked list, contiguous files. All of these had at several implementations by the time Microsoft released FAT. Which is why FAT is not patented.
Putting extended names into multiple directory entries (VFAT) was patented. Shouldn't have been. CP/M used multiple directory entries to cover file "extents" (data, not name). But is similar enough. Unix used "inode" extension to increase data coverage as well. And, Unix put filenames INTO a file - and this is isomorphic to VFAT. The only argument that would hold is that Unix only permitted 14 character file names. But, if a directory file was large enough to break into two allocation inodes, a filename may be split into two inodes. Exactly the case that happens with VFAT.
Slashdot Mirror
Kjella
I am not trying to be a "smartass". I just want to get rid of the meme that Downloading is Copyright Infringement. It cannot reasonably be so.
Please read my continued reply at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2713117&cid=39288473
As to the assertion that "McDonalds" is public -- it isn't.
Heart of Atlanta V. United States argued that being a private establishment allowed the hotel to refuse to serve blacks. They lost, but not because of that -- the US argued that Congress had authority due to Interstate Commerce.
If that hadn't held, the 5th and 13th Amendments would have, and the US would have lost.
In fact, Downloading may be illegal, and, if it comes to court, eventually that same Interstate Commerce clause will likely be used to make it law.
Thanks for the discussion, and I am looking forward to hearing your opinions.
Thank you. Exactly correct. I am going to expand on my thesis a bit, because I am going to reference this post instead of responding to others.
In the past, I have proposed a "Copyright Illustration Machine". It consists of a photocopier, with a piece of paper containing something locked into the scanner. It is sealed, and there is no way to determine the contents of that paper. Other than press the "Copy" button.
The paper contains some material, along with a Copyright notice, specifically DISALLOWING any reproduction.
The "Copy" button is labelled "Press Me".
The button is pushed, and the "button pusher" is immediately descended up by Copyright Lawyers, acting on behalf of the original Author.
Personally, I would build this as a piece of Art -- and the paper would chide the Copier for having copied.
The Legal Question: is it legal to push the button? If Downloading is Copyright Infringement, the answer is no, regardless of the labelling of the "Copy" button.
Another factor is that the intent of the Downloader is not a part of the "crime". To make it a "crime", requires that permission to copy (or, in the case of this discussion, to download) had NOT been granted by the Copyright holder. In other words, it is up to the Downloader to determine the state of mind of the Copyright holder. This holds now that Copyright is implicit.
Notice also how the SCO case ended up revolving around whether Copyright itself had been transferred? And these determinations must be made by someone just using a Web Browser. All they see is a Web Site, that is functional. If the material was not meant to be there, and didn't have AT LEAST Copyright for allowing Download, would not the Copyright holder have pursued action against the provider?
How about the following as a "reasonable" provision -- if Google indexed it, and it is still available, it (whatever it is) is fair to Download. If the Copyright holder can't be arsed to "google" for their own property, they (arguably) have permitted Downloading.
Downloading is not Copyright Infringement. Downloading is simply downloading. There is no way to determine a priori whether any Internet file transfer has Copyright authorization.
Especially now that Copyright is automatically granted and registration is no longer required.
In order to make Downloading an offense, registration would need to be returned.
And, if (please argue the point) Downloading is indeed illegal, and everything (yes, EVERYTHING) has a Copyright, and the status of a "legal" Download cannot be a priori determined, then it would simply be insanity to use the "internet". Both from a content producer and a content consumer perspective.
There simply cannot be anonimity. Everyone would have to know that I wrote this post, before reading it, in order to determine the a priori Copyright status.
Your thoughts?
X Protocol does not use more bandwidth than VNC. If anything, the opposite is (typically) true.
However, there are more round trips when starting an application when using X Protocol as compared to VNC. Latency is the performance killer for X Protocol, not bandwidth. This means applications may/will launch faster on VNC. NX (based on dxpc) short-circuits some X protocol requests, avoiding the latency issue. Typically, NX (FreeNX) performs as well as VNC.
With the "usual" X Servers in use these days, typically the Window Manager is run locally. Also, font resources and other (eg cursor) resources are local.
This means that X Protocol is faster when the application is running. For example, text needs only send the code-point and not the bitmap. (though compression is typically used for both over a slow link -- but something like "dxpc" is aware of X11 protocol, and can compress more quickly and efficiently for that case)
Also, the "look and feel" is that of your local desktop -- using VNC means an entire desktop is being rendered over the wire, while with X11, only a single application is rendered. Using VNC means more load on the application server, because graphics are rendered and then shipped. With X11 the graphics are rendered locally. This means that the application server doesn't have to maintain a virtual display for each client. This can save 1 to 3 megabytes per client. Along with rendering time.
VNC also allows the connection to be dropped and then restarted. X11 can do this, but it requires a proxy X11 server.
VNC allows for more platforms.
Conclusion -
You are correct.
(1) VNC over SSH is a very good solution, and is preferred for many applications.
(2) If bandwidth is very limited, FreeNX may be preferred if compatible with the client and server platforms and the application.
(3) For the best "desktop experience", FreeNX or X is preferred. The application appears as if running "natively".
It affects the Opteron -- used in, for example, the SUN X series servers (Dell and HP also use it).
So, these are in a lot of "mission critical" financial and other applications. The preferred fix is a microcode update. A recall would be an alternative, but the costs of that would be enormous. And AMD would be expected to cover it.
If a suitable microcode update cannot be pushed, I would short AMD. This has the potential to kill the company, especially considering the other problems they are having now.
I don't believe that a compiler modification would be a suitable fix. That would require building and QA'ing the entire software stack (as it is a "software change"). A very expensive proposition. My recommendation would be to lean on AMD, and get a "hardware change", either as a microcode patch or a new processor. That way, the bulk of the expense gets pushed back to AMD.
She gets all the 1 bits; he gets all the 0 bits.
Yes, I said it...
How cute...
How about running something like:
for f in `find ~ -name "*.sqlite" 2>/dev/null`; do sqlite3 $f "VACUUM;REINDEX;"; done
dd if=/dev/zero of=/junk; rm /junk
dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/junk; rm /home/junk
or some such on a regular basis? Do it after you've eliminated your pr0n sites from Firefox history, and removed any sensitive material from your drive. You should be good to go (unless the forensics team is God-like, and can interpret your past thoughts)...
Oh -- expect drive full errors. It's normal. I recommend this on a regular basis (except don't do it on ZFS, especially with dedup).
A vendor who does what I like...
An interesting idea. But not practical. Microsoft's largest innovation was to make the OS a commodity. Running on a "standard" binary compatible platform.
This was good, because it resulted in (1) mass production of hardware, making it cheaper, and (2) a common hardware base for development.
I benefit from this, because I am able to purchase my AOD257 for under $250 CDN! A good thing, all around. The only "problem" is that the same force that allowed for this platform also allowed for the development of alternate (non-Microsoft) software. It ALSO gave Microsoft a monopoly position.
The alternate software? Linux, Solaris x86, BSD x86 (of various flavours), and more. Even Linux has MANY variants RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, Scientific, Puppy, and so forth.
All good -- I enjoy the cheap hardware. But I have never been a "Windows user". When MS DOS first came out, I was using BSD Unix (on a VAX), VAX VMS, and CP/M. I did use MS DOS briefly, but then went back to Unix (my preference).
Meanwhile, Microsoft came to drive (and dominate) in the desktop area. Microsoft software, "generic" hardware.
It is desirable, but impossible, to purchase the cheap "generic" hardware I want WITHOUT the Microsoft software. Like I said, I don't really care. (and, as an observation, in some areas, the generic hardware is available with other software -- the AOD257 comes with Android as a software option in some markets)
So I choose my hardware based on
1 - is the vendor supportive of my current software choice (Acer is, the AOD150 even came with a Linux software SKU). I don't know if Acer supports BSD, or other software, but for the lifetime of this product, I don't care.
2 - will they continue to support my current software choice (the multi-reader on the Acer AOD275 is supported by kmod-staging). GPT partitioning works on the AOD275.
3 - will the hardware support my needs, both performance and aesthetic?
Support is defined (by me) as making drivers or specifications available to allow the use of the hardware on software of my choice. It means fixing the hardware under warranty if it fails. It doesn't mean I want telephone support.
A small number of people ending up buying the hardware, and receiving a useless (to them) piece of software. So what? I don't know how many driver disks I've discarded (a lot; webcams, external USB DVD, option cards of various sorts, even a USB Bluetooth adapter).
The difference is that none of these vendors had a EULA that popped up on power-up, stating that you should go back to the OEM if you didn't agree, and that possibly some discount could be offered. And, twenty bucks is twenty bucks; why wouldn't these minority users ask for it?
I don't care how much a Windows License costs...
I purchased several Acer AOD150 netbooks back in 2008. Due for a refresh now that they are four years old.
I choose the Linux (Acer Linpus) dress because it matched our needs. Figured that a Linpus dress would be available in future.
Nope. I replaced these with AOD257 models. In my country these were only available with Windows 7 Starter. Linpus or Meego aren't available.
Two problems - 1: I would like to indicate to Acer that I want them to continue contributing drivers to Linux. 2: declining the Windows EULA tells me to contact my OEM (Acer). I may well do that, because I do want to register my desires with my chosen hardware vendor.
Now, back when I bought the AOD150's, the Linput dress was around twenty bucks cheaper. Around 10% of the netbooks cost. I wouldn't mind getting sixty bucks back on the refresh, but that isn't the main point.
Future Linux support for my desired hardware is the point. I want a "no-problem" install. Web-cam, sound, networking, wireless, SD multi-reader, keyboard controls, sleep/hibernate, etc.
As it happens, everything worked on the AOD257 with Fedora 16 (I needed to add "kmod-staging" for the multi-reader, as it's a new chip, and the main OS didn't have built-in driver support. Minor issue, and easily resolved). But we need to be able to indicate our use cases to the vendors for continued support.
No, I don't know if retail Windows has all the drivers for this hardware; I am fairly sure that all needed drivers were in the OEM installed Windows (but since I've never run it, I wouldn't know). Linux support needs the OEMs or chip vendors to supply driver source code, because most Linux users do not like to install strange binary blobs from vendors that they don't trust to code stable drivers.
Read the fine article. Using CL does substantially change the language. Specifically, note the higher order manipulation of the eventual low-level program that the author achieved using promises (delayed evaluations). Basically, "threading while assembling".
Also, notice the ease of introducing higher-level flow control constructs (IF and UNTIL) into assembler. And the elimination of a second assembler pass by use of promises for forward references. It's kind of "magic" -- the correct data will be there when it's needed!
In this use-case, CL is a notational system for NES programming. It probably shouldn't be called "assembler" anymore, as the power of CL can be brought to bear in the process of generating the desired machine code.
Right you are. Because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Because the specific "crime" that TPB was convicted of -- is facilitating copyright infringement. I now give you a link to the Swedish copyright law. I'll provide the English translation, on the presumption that you don't read Swedish (and, no, my Swedish isn't very good either)
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/13/02/85/96e05389.pdf
Read it, to determine what facilitating illegal file sharing would be.
I'll then point you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial
and I'll quote from there -
"The appeal started on September 28, 2010 and concluded on October 15, 2010.[122] On November 26, 2010, the verdict was announced. In the verdict, the court found that âoeThe Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.â
4 months to 1 year in jail, with a total fine of 6.5 million dollars.
In conclusion, no actual crime was proven, but somehow TPB facilitated that crime.
In my post above, I "facilitated" crime worth penalties of just under 1 million with a jail time of 2 weeks to 2 months (based on the TPB trial, anyway, and scaled). No, I did MORE than TPB did, because I knowingly copy/pasted that string. Both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. I think someone should sue me next.
This is getting funny. YOU said TPB invented the Internet. Not me. Me quoting you for satiric reasons (read what YOU wrote). You can't even claim context; I ensured that I took enough to include context.
TPB didn't copy a file from A to B, didn't own A or B, and didn't use FTP or bittorrent (they do use http and magnet). And it DOES have a bearing on whether it was legal or not.
Here's why. TPB is simply a site that holds references. That's it. Go to thepiratebay.se and look. You will find
- categorized lists of torrent and magnet files.
- instructions on how to use a torrent/magent client.
- thepiratebay.se/legal -- a collection of legal threats
You will NOT find any videos, music, books, or other peoples cached web sites. Just torrent files. Containing facts ABOUT the content (but not the content itself).
Here, let me illustrate more directly:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:4ceb4ed50ba27874746603dce3211cf1b5435dd8&dn=Hunger+2009+DVDRip+XviD+AC3+MRX+%28Kingdom-Release%29&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80
A snippet that may or may not have to do with a work under copywrite. Definitely doesn't CONTAIN that copywritten work (and, if you think it does, show me where). Someone posted this. along with some comments.
Where is the infringement?
Oh, and, if you ARE right, and that... thing... is actually infringing, Slashdot, and ALL OTHER USER COMMENT SITES, and be easily taken down.
Just do what I did, and post a... thing... like that.
"They facilitated copyright infringement. They provided the means of copying one file from one machine to another thereby infringing copyright. The mechanism is beside the point."
(this quote is a keeper)
TPB invented the Internet. Everyone else can be forgotten, because it "is beside the point".
Got it. Thanks.
Where in that robots.txt is there a legal permission? Where you informed of that when you created content on /. ? Did you take any action to transfer your copyright to /. such that /. could transfer that to Google?
Remeber, in MAI v Peak, the act of copying from DISK into RAM to launch a program was found to be a copyright violation.
Building an automated list of facts is not a copyright violation. For example, this memo contains the word "example". And, providing a reference to this memo is simply stating a fact.
Copying this memo, and providing the copy to others IS a violation of my copyright (Google does this; I don't care about it, and won't prosecute). Your browser cache may well be facilitating your infringing on my copyright (I don't care about it, and won't prosecute). Both are more direct than TPB. The only thing that TPB did wrong was to pick an name that would "needle the man".
I'll take it slow.
1 - The Pirate Bay didn't host any content.
2 - If there is no content, it can't be copyright infringement
3 - Why should someone in Sweden care about United States of America law? DMCA is not a Swedish law, and has no force in Sweden.
4 - The Pirate Bay certainly followed all copyright laws as they understood them (except that they, somehow, induced others to commit copyright offenses). Now, Google CACHES Web pages. Um... that would be a copyright infraction right there. I didn't give Google permission to do any such thing. Happens every day... Google even presents cached web pages with slightly altered content -- ALSO A DIRECT VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT!
Go ahead, read the bottom of the page here, and tell me what it says. No, I'll save you the trouble:
"Comments owned by the poster". Now, Google reads these pages, indexes, and searches (all arguably fair use). But to make copies of the material?
Not something The Pirate Bay ever did. No caching of content -- hey, no content at all. None.
Do you understand now?
Easements were granted to natural monopolies. In exchange for certain things.
Things like:
Universal access
Community access
A social contract. Business has a single motive; the Profit Motive. Very important, it's the first thing you learn about in Business School. Neither Universal or Community access will directly improve profit. But, as a social contract, they benefit me.
If this social agenda is eliminated (by privitization), my point is that I want fair dealing. What is a social contract worth?
My final point was that you too are dependent on certain social contracts.
I have no problem with removal of government interference in broadband internet...
Wait. Yes I do. The incumbents (duopoly) providing broadband internet in my area can do so because government granted easements. Government grants radio spectrum as well (at least in my area -- not sure how these things work where you live).
IF THE PROVIDERS BECOME COMPLETELY PRIVATE, I WANT MY CUT.
Sorry, had to emphasize that. If I don't get paid out, I will resort to "backhoe politics". I'll even pay the nuisance fine (I think its around a hundred bucks now). Wait a minute -- there wouldn't be a nuisance fine, this would be private thing.
I would want to negotiate the continuing value of the use of my property. And, if we can't come to an understanding, the cable/fiber/whatever on my land becomes my salvage.
Welcome to the Private world. Somehow I don't think you would like it. Especially if you lived downstream from me.
I started with Shaw. Then Shaw and Roger re-divided, and my account was switched to Rogers. No choice.
Now, I get 50Mbps down or so (it rarely goes full-speed), but it is enough for Netflix. Bittorrent is throttled.
Still, I don't have Cable TV, so I can't buy the "top end" internet package... The highest tier I can buy is 150GB/month for $70/month ("Hi-Speed Exteme Plus")
$5 more for 20GB/month for an overage "guarantee". If I don't buy the "guarantee", I spend $1/GB overage, capped at $50/month.
Of course, I can't just buy the "guarantee".
I am looking into TekSavvy.
How would you know if Windows 7 is a well-written OS? (unless you work for Microsoft) I know Linux 3 is a well-written OS.
Just saying...
Sure, seatbelts and airbags save car drivers -- which is why I am against them.
As a pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist, I think that ANYTHING that increases car driver confidence is... bad.
Get rid of seatbelts. Get rid of airbags. Put broken glass into the dashboard.
That should act to straighten out a lot of car drivers!
And, who knows? Maybe the additional care will balance out the removal of protection; hey, we may even have a reduction of fatalities.
Smear a bit of blood on the glass in the factory, just to be sure to get the point across.
Well, I'm lazy too...
So, in the same spirit, I won't bother with a reference.
The motor spindle component manufacturing for hard drives has been almost 100% wiped out.
And, when the floods are under control, it will be time for another monsoon season.
It really doesn't look good -- prices on hard drives are going up, and up, and are staying there for (my guess) two to three years.
It really is time to look at SSDs.
But, you are only planning to use the batteries for accelerating! (as an aside, the 5 hours per gallon generator run time is probably "no-load").
The batteries will sustain that load for only a few minutes. And will take hours to recharge.
Think of using capacitors instead. Less energy storage, but they shouldn't die on you.
An EV battery has a specific range, determined by
- rolling resistance
- wind resistance
- battery weight
A 1.6kW/h of energy stored in lead acid cells takes around 50kilos. If you drive at 30k/h (20mph), you can ignore wind resistance, and you will get around 30km of range on that energy (I have driven an EV on lead, and this is what I achieved -- two wheel, light vehicle). Mostly because of the Peukert effect. If you draw at higher than C/20 from a lead pack, the amount of stored energy will be reduced. There is also a reduction at lower temperatures -- at 0C you can discount the pack by 50%. PLUS, you can't drain the pack below 80% DOD because you will shorten its life. Your vehicle WON'T be getting 30km per 1.6kW/h of lead battery, Since it is MUCH heavier, I would estimate at 1/3 that (assuming you keep total vehicle weight to 500 kilos). And, I would also estimate that you will only get 200 charge cycles (or less) from your lead pack.
Lead is really a HORRIBLE technology. if you REALLY want a tech that works like lead, but is completely "safe" try Edisons NiFe batteries. Electric cars built in the early 1900's with this tech still have viable batteries. Same weight problem, but you won't be limited by the number of charge cycles.
But, NiFe suffers from the same problem as Lead -- horrible energy storage for its weight. Lithium is currently the best option But.. LiPo may "explode", and you appear afraid of that. So, try LiFePo4 batteries. 1.6kW/h for between 500 and 800 dollars; won't explode; slightly less energy dense than LiPo; 1/4 the weight of lead; and has 1 to 2 THOUSAND recharge cycles. Available commercially now -- try pingbattery.com or google for A123 cells.
I've driven lead and lithium instead of gasoline now for two years. Take it from someone with the experience.
"Invent" FAT? Um... how about a more accurate "implemented a singly linked list allocation system".
There were three ways to do it (yes, I know this is incomplete, but only three where in use) - allocation map, linked list, contiguous files. All of these had at several implementations by the time Microsoft released FAT. Which is why FAT is not patented.
Putting extended names into multiple directory entries (VFAT) was patented. Shouldn't have been. CP/M used multiple directory entries to cover file "extents" (data, not name). But is similar enough. Unix used "inode" extension to increase data coverage as well. And, Unix put filenames INTO a file - and this is isomorphic to VFAT. The only argument that would hold is that Unix only permitted 14 character file names. But, if a directory file was large enough to break into two allocation inodes, a filename may be split into two inodes. Exactly the case that happens with VFAT.
Superluminal Neutrinos, Take Two, and call me yesterday morning.
Sorry