Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
Actually, the slashdot musings have been generally close on both the specs (~700 MHz PC, Nvidia graphics, memory, disk), and the implications (M$ "is going to lose" (ended up losing) a boatload of money on each box sold) from the x-box 1.
Backwards compatibily does seem unlikely, as you are trying to emulate a 750 MHz Intel PIII and a mid-range Nvidia chipset on a current POWER architecture and ATI chipset. Especially since Nvidia won't play nice on any IP rights.
Their whole legal strategy rests on hopping shell companies. If they stood still enough to sue somebody, the RIAA and MPAA could come down on em like a ton o bricks.
You sound like the perfect candidate for a small-form-factor arrangement, either a couple of Via Epia systems in very small boxes, or low end Shuttle cubes.
This gives a nice compromise: Much lower cost (racks are expensive), LESS volume in practice (Racks are DEEP, its hard to find a deep storage closet, but small form factor systems may be taller but aren't as deap), and easily available.
True, reliability isn't as good, but you aren't talking about ultra-reliable systems anyway, and you said you didn't need high performance.
The authors are getting better at designing control networks, but all it will take is one grayhat with an infected node to watch a command being executed and use that information to take out the entire botnet.
Too bad it would be both grossly illegal and probably disruptive, because it would be a great favor to the rest of the net, to counter these botnets and squish-them into oblivion (at least this generation, until the attackers learn how to do authentication of commands correctly).
You can quibble a little bit about details and terms, but Clive Thompson is a pretty good technical reporter, and he did a very through job on this story (as do the NYTimes magazine fact-checkers).
You know, I've never been interested much in the psychology behind malcode authors (I'd settle for just whipping them), but this paints a scary picture.
We've got ignorant little kids, hammering away on electronic nuckes. Scary little amoral idiots.
With a dialup for the outgoing packets, incoming packets still have a round-trip-time of 200 ms to get from the ground station to the geosynchronous sattelite and back.
I don't know about you, but an extra 200 ms of latency kills my typing skills.
When moving, a bicycle is inherantly stable, as there are two aligned gyroscopes keeping it going forward. It's only unstable when not moving or nearly not moving. Even when stopped, it is only ustable perpendicular to the direction of motion.
The segway, on the other hand, is ALWAYS unstable along the axis of motion, and the farther you get away from the stable point, the more force it takes to bring it back to being stable.
The Solution in Search of a Problem that is the Segway is inherantly unstable, and has to burn power just to stand still (balancing at an unstable equilibrium point).
That when the power starts to drain, the device becomes unstable (as the motors no longer have enough power to keep it upright after a mild upset) is hardly suprising, and indicitive of the fundimentally stupid design (but fantastic engineering) that is the segway.
If this is a correct screenshot here, it looks like a hell-of-a-boatload of copyright infringement, as the artwork looks to be directly taken from Warcraft 2, which is a BIG no-no.
This is a large company protecting its copyrights, not just trademarks.
Looking at the information on their web page at caltech, the FAST network project is working with alternate TCP window sizing schemes.
Namely, instead of reducing window size in the case of packet loss, window size is changed based on round trip latency. The problem being that reducing the window size in response to loss works well on most networks, but has a serious problem when dealing with very high-bandwidth links.
In such a case, the conventional TCP windowing will shrink greatly in response to even one or two lost packets, which when you are sending a LOT of data, will occur.
The real work (and it seems to be somewhat covered in their web pages) is how to use latency for congestion detection/control, but I haven't read it in enough detail to quite understand this, NOR how this scheme will interact with conventional TCP streams.
Slashdot Mirror
If the accelerator ever sticks, due to either electronic or manual means, just shove it in neutral, brake to a stop, and then turn off the engine.
Simple.
I'm involved in the center, at ICSI in Berkeley.
If people have questions, feel free to ask.
Get an older laptop, put a PCMCIA or USB ethernet to give you a second ethernet (connect that to the DSL/Cablemodem uplink).
Low power: Obviously, laptops have to be low power.
Low space: Laptops are small. Disable the "I've closed the lid" switch or get the *nix install to ignore it, fold it up, and slide it away.
Low cost: I said OLD laptop.
Built in UPS: Why do you think its called a "California Server"?
Opera doesn't like it. It tries to download rather than just render.
A nice 20 GB firewire drive for $200, very small form factor, oh, and its also an MP3 player...
Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'
/i_utils.asp, line 29
Unspecified error
You call this geekzone?
But read the FAQ entry:
Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
Actually, the slashdot musings have been generally close on both the specs (~700 MHz PC, Nvidia graphics, memory, disk), and the implications (M$ "is going to lose" (ended up losing) a boatload of money on each box sold) from the x-box 1.
Backwards compatibily does seem unlikely, as you are trying to emulate a 750 MHz Intel PIII and a mid-range Nvidia chipset on a current POWER architecture and ATI chipset. Especially since Nvidia won't play nice on any IP rights.
Their whole legal strategy rests on hopping shell companies. If they stood still enough to sue somebody, the RIAA and MPAA could come down on em like a ton o bricks.
You sound like the perfect candidate for a small-form-factor arrangement, either a couple of Via Epia systems in very small boxes, or low end Shuttle cubes.
This gives a nice compromise: Much lower cost (racks are expensive), LESS volume in practice (Racks are DEEP, its hard to find a deep storage closet, but small form factor systems may be taller but aren't as deap), and easily available.
True, reliability isn't as good, but you aren't talking about ultra-reliable systems anyway, and you said you didn't need high performance.
Triton Logging Company Engineering Page has a photo of what is presumably the Sawfish submarine.
/. needs a cancel feature)
(darn, I forgot to close a quote.
Triton Logging Company Engineering Page has a photo of what is presumably the Sawfish submarine.
Not a wise move to go after the University of California (who manage livermore and los alamos).
UC regents already won one lawsuit over this business... SCO may be violating BSD vs USL.
The authors are getting better at designing control networks, but all it will take is one grayhat with an infected node to watch a command being executed and use that information to take out the entire botnet.
Too bad it would be both grossly illegal and probably disruptive, because it would be a great favor to the rest of the net, to counter these botnets and squish-them into oblivion (at least this generation, until the attackers learn how to do authentication of commands correctly).
You can quibble a little bit about details and terms, but Clive Thompson is a pretty good technical reporter, and he did a very through job on this story (as do the NYTimes magazine fact-checkers).
You know, I've never been interested much in the psychology behind malcode authors (I'd settle for just whipping them), but this paints a scary picture.
We've got ignorant little kids, hammering away on electronic nuckes. Scary little amoral idiots.
With a dialup for the outgoing packets, incoming packets still have a round-trip-time of 200 ms to get from the ground station to the geosynchronous sattelite and back.
I don't know about you, but an extra 200 ms of latency kills my typing skills.
Quantum computing kills both equally, the same algorithms that get RSA and discrete log can get the elliptic curve discrete log.
Isn't that called Windows XP?
The Star Wars Christmas Special had the first appearance of Boba Fett in an animated short with him hunting Han Solo.
When moving, a bicycle is inherantly stable, as there are two aligned gyroscopes keeping it going forward. It's only unstable when not moving or nearly not moving. Even when stopped, it is only ustable perpendicular to the direction of motion.
The segway, on the other hand, is ALWAYS unstable along the axis of motion, and the farther you get away from the stable point, the more force it takes to bring it back to being stable.
The Solution in Search of a Problem that is the Segway is inherantly unstable, and has to burn power just to stand still (balancing at an unstable equilibrium point).
That when the power starts to drain, the device becomes unstable (as the motors no longer have enough power to keep it upright after a mild upset) is hardly suprising, and indicitive of the fundimentally stupid design (but fantastic engineering) that is the segway.
If this is a correct screenshot here, it looks like a hell-of-a-boatload of copyright infringement, as the artwork looks to be directly taken from Warcraft 2, which is a BIG no-no.
This is a large company protecting its copyrights, not just trademarks.
It's actually derived from TCP Vegas with modifications.
Looking at the information on their web page at caltech, the FAST network project is working with alternate TCP window sizing schemes.
Namely, instead of reducing window size in the case of packet loss, window size is changed based on round trip latency. The problem being that reducing the window size in response to loss works well on most networks, but has a serious problem when dealing with very high-bandwidth links.
In such a case, the conventional TCP windowing will shrink greatly in response to even one or two lost packets, which when you are sending a LOT of data, will occur.
The real work (and it seems to be somewhat covered in their web pages) is how to use latency for congestion detection/control, but I haven't read it in enough detail to quite understand this, NOR how this scheme will interact with conventional TCP streams.