At BGI they have 180 machines... each run from a machine is approximately 3 TB of raw data. A single run takes one week. That is 77 TB per day of data being produced. And that is only BGI.. there are at least 180 machines outside of BGI scattered across the world. So imagine 140TB per day.
CERN is nothing compared to Genomic data.
When LHC is running at full luminosity, it produces roughly a megabyte per event per detector (for CMS and ATLAS at least). Of course, the events are happening at ~40MHz, so 288 TB of raw data per hour. That's why they have to trigger, and hence throw out 99% of the data.
Genomic data is nothing compared to elementary particles.
Yeah, these guys aren't so much as pirates as privateers.
Not true... privateers are essentially government sponsored pirates, but not all pirates are privateers. In this case, there is no government to sanction them, so they're pirates.
You've basically just described the written portions of the AP history, language, and literature tests given in the US. It should also be noted that AP scores are often used as "extra fluff" to distinguish between similar SAT scores/GPAs.
I'm fairly certain the SSID can be sniffed from captured network traffic.
MAC filtering and DHCP limits only prevent an attacker from associating with your network (and the former can be circumvented fairly easily); they don't prevent an attacker from eavesdropping. However, if your password is >50 random characters, that will make a dictionary attack extraordinarily difficult.
Just a note: But you did realize that the natural background radiation in that part of the world is in some places several times over the safe legal limit in all contries that have such a law. If fact one of the hotest places is in nothrern Iraq/ Iran.
Isn't it obvious that's where they hid their nuclear WMD facilities?;)
Furthermore, the output beam is infrared, which your average mirror or shiny metal isn't going to reflect.
The other problem with shiny surfaces: how do you keep them shiny for long periods of time?
... numbers distort the RIAA!
But seriously, I doubt any of us are surprised that the RIAA's lying through its teeth. It's been suspected since, oh, just about forever. It's nice to have some supporting documentation, though.
In my opinion, they're simply trying to score easy political points. They can point to their letter and say, "See? We care about good ol' American family values! Vote for us!" even if the entire affair only manages to waste time and accomplishes nothing. It's a lot easier to make a symbolic gesture (e.g. berating the ESRB) than it is to actually try to solve the various problems our country faces (e.g. Social Security, the war in Iraq, the enormous deficit, etc.), and you're less likely to alienate large portions of the population.
Of course, the optimist in me is always hoping that the cynic is wrong...
Kyocera Mita appears to be a "small" company - revenues for the parent corporation (Mita is their printer division, it appears) were a little shy of $3 billion in 2006, while Epson had revenues of $12.7 billion last year. Granted, I'm not sure how valid this comparison is, but if this disparity is typical, it could very well be that Kyocera decided it would be safer to play Microsoft's game than to potentially face a court battle they would have trouble fighting.
Eh, give him some time. It took him 5 years between "inadvertently" starting this "war against consumers" and admitting it was a bad decision. At that "glacial pace", I'd be pleasantly impressed if he called off the whole affair before 2012!
Regarding giving away music and making money off touring/merchandise:
Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free. The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on. His use of gold as an argument for why music shouldn't be given away is disingenuous. He's arguing that gold, not having any intrinsic value, derives its value from the fact that people "agree" on a certain price. But that's not the case (if it were, DOJ would be quite busy with price-fixing investigations). As any first-year economics student knows, in a (free) market, prices are determined by supply and demand. Gold is in high demand (because it's pretty, as well as having some industrial uses), but has an extremely limited supply (297 tonnes mined in 2005, costing an average of $237/troy ounce to extract). Therefore, $237/troy ounce is the minimum price of gold given a free market and assuming mining corporations are profit-seeking enterprises. It seems clear that the price of gold is in fact a very poor analogy to the price of music, because music is a) NOT in limited supply (one could argue the supply is infinite, depending on the medium and one's definition of "music"), and b) the marginal cost (how much it costs to produce another unit) is orders of magnitude lower than that of gold.
As an intellectual exercise, let's stick to Gene's flawed analogy. Gold has a price because there's this idea that people "agree" that it should have a certain price. Now let's examine Radiohead's experiment. They're saying "you name a price, and we'll charge you that much". And so on an individual basis, each fan is agreeing with Radiohead that the price of the new album should be X dollars. Seems to me that Radiohead's model is exactly what he's arguing for. So tell me, what's wrong with giving away music?
Regardless, somebody needs to let Mr. Simmons know that he's living in a brave new world, and unless he has a burning desire to move in with the dodos, he needs to realize that the old models might not work anymore. That, or maybe he's trying really hard for the arrogant, self-righteous bastard image.
But wouldn't the real solution be to train government employees in the arcane art of not installing P2P applications on government computers in the first place? Or does that just make too much sense to be effective?
If you read the prior art sections, it's clear that they are describing an improvement on an existing technology/method used in manufacturing electronics (hard drives, referred to as "magnetic recording devices", are listed as a specific example).
Yet Intel touts its Threading Building Blocks library as just such a fix to many parallel programming problems. Now, TBB is a very nice product, and in many ways it is superior to a lot of existing libraries, APIs, and languages, but one gets the sense that maybe the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at Intel. Do note that this is from the blog of a single developer at Intel. It's really just his own opinion of the situation, and nothing more. There's a big difference between what one guy thinks and says, and what the marketing department decides to do.
Actually, I think ultimate credit goes to the Chinese. After all, they invented gunpowder and were the first to design primitive rockets (i.e. fireworks, artillery), thus paving the way for later rocketeers (the ones that immediately come to mind are Goddard -> von Braun -> US/Soviet military rockets, etc.).
If you're trying to extort money, it makes no sense to go after the ones that can fight back. The settlement amounts are roughly identical, so going after those who can fight back isn't the best decision. And think about it this way - isn't it more likely that a student at UPenn, knowing that he's going to be left hanging, will settle rather than a student at Harvard, who knows he's got the school's support?
The original studies performed extensive studies on this problem. They solved it with a double shock absorber system; by tuning the absorbers and the frequency at which bombs were ejected, they could achieve a constant acceleration of 1-2 g.
It was a "tricky" hash in that they salted the DB with some additional data (in this case the serial number) before encrypting it. Had it been solely about data integrity, the DB would be transferable between different iPods. Instead, a DB that works perfectly fine on on iPod doesn't work at all on another. That's not data integrity checking. So that leaves the only other explanation - Apple was having a preliminary pass at locking out 3rd party applications (I say preliminary because it appears to me that Apple could've tried a lot harder).
I bet that the only reason the hash is created is for some database integrity verification the ipod does.....just making sure everything is ok before writing data (play counts) to the database. If it really were just about data integrity, they wouldn't need to include the iPod's serial number hash; furthermore, a perfectly good database would work on every iPod, not just the one it came from. Since that is clearly not the case, the logical conclusion is that the hash was added for the sole purpose of locking out 3rd party software.
It's nice to see Apple's "hard work" broken in such a short period of time, though.
they added a simple SHA1 hash to better avoid corruption if a sync is interrupted. No, the hash was designed to lock out 3rd party apps, plain and simple. If it was merely for "data integrity", why design it so that a perfectly good iTunes DB from one iPod won't work on a different iPod? Data integrity does not imply locking data to a single device. Furthermore, SHA1 hashes that incorporate some hidden salt are not "simple". In fact, nothing about SHA1 is "simple" - that's why it's called a cryptographic hash! Granted, the salt was found rather quickly, but my gut feeling is that it was due to brute force testing of all possible salts, rather than the hash being "simple".
Putting in cryptographic hashes isn't just "breaking the interface". It's called locking down the entire bloody thing and making life miserable for anybody trying to reverse engineer it.
Granted, Apple is well within its rights to do such a thing, but it's bad PR. People are starting to warm up to the idea that once you buy something, you should be able to use it however you like (since you BOUGHT it). Apple has no obligation to support 3rd party software, but neither are they obligated to break 3rd party software. Without any other explanation, it looks like it was a deliberate attempt to lock out non-Apple software. And that's why people are upset - it's the same reason DRM riles so many people.
Slashdot Mirror
At BGI they have 180 machines... each run from a machine is approximately 3 TB of raw data. A single run takes one week. That is 77 TB per day of data being produced. And that is only BGI.. there are at least 180 machines outside of BGI scattered across the world. So imagine 140TB per day.
CERN is nothing compared to Genomic data.
When LHC is running at full luminosity, it produces roughly a megabyte per event per detector (for CMS and ATLAS at least). Of course, the events are happening at ~40MHz, so 288 TB of raw data per hour. That's why they have to trigger, and hence throw out 99% of the data.
Genomic data is nothing compared to elementary particles.
Yeah, these guys aren't so much as pirates as privateers.
Not true ... privateers are essentially government sponsored pirates, but not all pirates are privateers. In this case, there is no government to sanction them, so they're pirates.
You've basically just described the written portions of the AP history, language, and literature tests given in the US. It should also be noted that AP scores are often used as "extra fluff" to distinguish between similar SAT scores/GPAs.
I'm fairly certain the SSID can be sniffed from captured network traffic. MAC filtering and DHCP limits only prevent an attacker from associating with your network (and the former can be circumvented fairly easily); they don't prevent an attacker from eavesdropping. However, if your password is >50 random characters, that will make a dictionary attack extraordinarily difficult.
Isn't it obvious that's where they hid their nuclear WMD facilities?
Furthermore, the output beam is infrared, which your average mirror or shiny metal isn't going to reflect. The other problem with shiny surfaces: how do you keep them shiny for long periods of time?
Carter issued a Presidential directive suspending nuclear reprocessing the US in 1977, out of fear of nuclear weapons proliferation.
... numbers distort the RIAA! But seriously, I doubt any of us are surprised that the RIAA's lying through its teeth. It's been suspected since, oh, just about forever. It's nice to have some supporting documentation, though.
In my opinion, they're simply trying to score easy political points. They can point to their letter and say, "See? We care about good ol' American family values! Vote for us!" even if the entire affair only manages to waste time and accomplishes nothing. It's a lot easier to make a symbolic gesture (e.g. berating the ESRB) than it is to actually try to solve the various problems our country faces (e.g. Social Security, the war in Iraq, the enormous deficit, etc.), and you're less likely to alienate large portions of the population. Of course, the optimist in me is always hoping that the cynic is wrong ...
Kyocera Mita appears to be a "small" company - revenues for the parent corporation (Mita is their printer division, it appears) were a little shy of $3 billion in 2006, while Epson had revenues of $12.7 billion last year. Granted, I'm not sure how valid this comparison is, but if this disparity is typical, it could very well be that Kyocera decided it would be safer to play Microsoft's game than to potentially face a court battle they would have trouble fighting.
Eh, give him some time. It took him 5 years between "inadvertently" starting this "war against consumers" and admitting it was a bad decision. At that "glacial pace", I'd be pleasantly impressed if he called off the whole affair before 2012!
As an intellectual exercise, let's stick to Gene's flawed analogy. Gold has a price because there's this idea that people "agree" that it should have a certain price. Now let's examine Radiohead's experiment. They're saying "you name a price, and we'll charge you that much". And so on an individual basis, each fan is agreeing with Radiohead that the price of the new album should be X dollars. Seems to me that Radiohead's model is exactly what he's arguing for. So tell me, what's wrong with giving away music?
Regardless, somebody needs to let Mr. Simmons know that he's living in a brave new world, and unless he has a burning desire to move in with the dodos, he needs to realize that the old models might not work anymore. That, or maybe he's trying really hard for the arrogant, self-righteous bastard image.
But wouldn't the real solution be to train government employees in the arcane art of not installing P2P applications on government computers in the first place? Or does that just make too much sense to be effective?
I think God demonstrated prior art on that one.
If you read the prior art sections, it's clear that they are describing an improvement on an existing technology/method used in manufacturing electronics (hard drives, referred to as "magnetic recording devices", are listed as a specific example).
Actually, I think ultimate credit goes to the Chinese. After all, they invented gunpowder and were the first to design primitive rockets (i.e. fireworks, artillery), thus paving the way for later rocketeers (the ones that immediately come to mind are Goddard -> von Braun -> US/Soviet military rockets, etc.).
There's always the command line
If you're trying to extort money, it makes no sense to go after the ones that can fight back. The settlement amounts are roughly identical, so going after those who can fight back isn't the best decision. And think about it this way - isn't it more likely that a student at UPenn, knowing that he's going to be left hanging, will settle rather than a student at Harvard, who knows he's got the school's support?
The original studies performed extensive studies on this problem. They solved it with a double shock absorber system; by tuning the absorbers and the frequency at which bombs were ejected, they could achieve a constant acceleration of 1-2 g.
Nope.
a) This new version of PCC is nowhere near production quality.
b) NetBSD != Linux
It was a "tricky" hash in that they salted the DB with some additional data (in this case the serial number) before encrypting it. Had it been solely about data integrity, the DB would be transferable between different iPods. Instead, a DB that works perfectly fine on on iPod doesn't work at all on another. That's not data integrity checking. So that leaves the only other explanation - Apple was having a preliminary pass at locking out 3rd party applications (I say preliminary because it appears to me that Apple could've tried a lot harder).
It's nice to see Apple's "hard work" broken in such a short period of time, though.
Putting in cryptographic hashes isn't just "breaking the interface". It's called locking down the entire bloody thing and making life miserable for anybody trying to reverse engineer it.
Granted, Apple is well within its rights to do such a thing, but it's bad PR. People are starting to warm up to the idea that once you buy something, you should be able to use it however you like (since you BOUGHT it). Apple has no obligation to support 3rd party software, but neither are they obligated to break 3rd party software. Without any other explanation, it looks like it was a deliberate attempt to lock out non-Apple software. And that's why people are upset - it's the same reason DRM riles so many people.