I wish I could remember. I do use some OSX-specific things that require that resource fork. Color labels for files is one. But also, I don't think some files got proper icons when on an NFS share. And some Mac software needs the resource fork for important file data (FCP is a likely one), but I don't know for sure that I store any files there that need it.
I also like being able to reconnect within the GUI when the server is rebooted.
I would imagine that Windows 7 and 8 will not get patched at all (and certainly not XP or Vista)
XP won't get a patch because it's not supported (unless this affects interoperability between patched and unpatched - then they might be motivated).
But this is a security update. Vista is supported until next April. They're going to have a very hard time convincing the public that they shouldn't patch that. And Windows 7 is far more under the umbrella than Vista.
Heartbleed got a patch for XP despite it being out of support entirely.
There are a lot of embedded implementations of Samba, meaning a lot of firmware patches going out right after this. That includes hundreds of models of routers and NAS units.
Marketing aside, the main goal appears to have mass-patching occur all at once. The company's name is only mentioned in the background info and in tiny print at the bottom. Something tells me that it is a deep enough bug that unpatched systems will no longer be fully compatible with patched systems.
It's the only decent option for WindowsLinux file sharing. My home server runs Samba as well as Netatalk, because NFS doesn't work as well as it should with OS X either.
I support the safe harbor provision - I never said anything against it. What I don't support is how the DMCA is being used to crush fair use or even properly licensed content.
Smaller bands having their own music videos (with their own original songs) taken down. The original film short "Pixels" being ordered taken down by the company that produced the feature-length film. The little guy has no recourse, and the big boys get no punishment.
The safe harbor provision helps sites like YouTube to even exist at all, but it does little for the content producers on either side of the dispute.
All it takes is doing a few other logged activities at the same time you're carrying the powered-on burner phone and it's linked to you. That could be using any non-cash form of payment, driving home every day, or going to work/school.
Yeah...I'm not going to respect made-up punctuation, especially when the one bit of documentation you provide of its existence merely says that one single sports blog has adopted it.
Either way, it's not Youtube being inconsistent. They only respond to takedown notices and copyright owners who have applied to their content ID program. It's entirely in the hands of the copyright-owners.
Everything except for the two words "by law" looks like a tip for Youtube to do better. And no, I didn't read every word of your post.
"Found to be invalid" is something that can only truly be done in court. If the complainant wants to drop it before then (and admit it's invalid), then they could lose that fine, sure.
Going back to your original post:
3) If you attempt to game the system (by using multiple logins or other methods), you must pay double that fee.
Few content owners do it themselves. It's going to be multiple companies springing up and dying constantly. As soon as you get to the bottom of that list, they'll simply dissolve and take their profits with them. Or they'll all plan to start over as a new company each year.
Youtube (and similar sites), must rank all censor requestors that make more than 10 requests a year, by how many requests are found to be invalid.
How many Youtube users even file a DMCA counter-notice?
Those that rank in the bottom 5%, i.e. more of your requests are found to be invalid than 95% of the rest of the requestors), then next year, you must pay a refundable fee of $120 per request. If it is found to be invalid, the person you tried to censor gets $100, Youtube keeps the $20.
Under the DMCA, if Youtube doesn't take down the video, they are liable for all the copyright infringement across their entire web site. Youtube won't take that risk because some complainant isn't paying them $120. Blame congress for passing DMCA, not Youtube.
That's probably a bit off topic, considering it is actual copyright violation. "But other people break the law worse" isn't really a valid complaint there. Make your own thing.
True, but it's getting harder to distinguish which TV's have a good panel in them. Sure, you can tick a box for UHD, but if the picture quality doesn't improve from it it doesn't matter (like having an 8-bit or 12-bit panel anyway).
I'm lazy. I want to copy my Wii U games to a hard drive, and I want to unhide my games partition without having the U side prompt me to format it every time.
I see that it's getting there on Wii U, but the only launcher works from SD cards and not the HD. That's actually fairly workable since I only own four games, but I am not ready yet. On that subject, I should really start blocking updates now that I don't need any more updates.
Not because of the content that was created, but because it was their first time away from cartridges. I still have cartridges going back several generations that I can still play via emulation. A locked down system is just not working out for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Homsar, is that you?
This is why I use Netatalk too. AFP is fairly smooth compared to SMB.
I wish I could remember. I do use some OSX-specific things that require that resource fork. Color labels for files is one. But also, I don't think some files got proper icons when on an NFS share. And some Mac software needs the resource fork for important file data (FCP is a likely one), but I don't know for sure that I store any files there that need it.
I also like being able to reconnect within the GUI when the server is rebooted.
Of all the devices to gain root on I'm fairly certain a DVR is one of the lamest.
I take you haven't been watching Person of Interest. What the NSA could do with this and facial recognition is scary without AI.
They're both part of the kernel source, either way (unless I know less than I think I do - which is very possible).
I would imagine that Windows 7 and 8 will not get patched at all (and certainly not XP or Vista)
XP won't get a patch because it's not supported (unless this affects interoperability between patched and unpatched - then they might be motivated).
But this is a security update. Vista is supported until next April. They're going to have a very hard time convincing the public that they shouldn't patch that. And Windows 7 is far more under the umbrella than Vista.
Heartbleed got a patch for XP despite it being out of support entirely.
There are a lot of embedded implementations of Samba, meaning a lot of firmware patches going out right after this. That includes hundreds of models of routers and NAS units.
Marketing aside, the main goal appears to have mass-patching occur all at once. The company's name is only mentioned in the background info and in tiny print at the bottom. Something tells me that it is a deep enough bug that unpatched systems will no longer be fully compatible with patched systems.
SMB==CIFS
It's the only decent option for WindowsLinux file sharing. My home server runs Samba as well as Netatalk, because NFS doesn't work as well as it should with OS X either.
You're a little late in helping decide the driver model for Linux. Open source drivers go in the kernel, wanted or not.
I support the safe harbor provision - I never said anything against it. What I don't support is how the DMCA is being used to crush fair use or even properly licensed content.
Smaller bands having their own music videos (with their own original songs) taken down. The original film short "Pixels" being ordered taken down by the company that produced the feature-length film. The little guy has no recourse, and the big boys get no punishment.
The safe harbor provision helps sites like YouTube to even exist at all, but it does little for the content producers on either side of the dispute.
All it takes is doing a few other logged activities at the same time you're carrying the powered-on burner phone and it's linked to you. That could be using any non-cash form of payment, driving home every day, or going to work/school.
Youtube also does fingerprinting
See above post where I mentioned their Content ID program. That's fingerprinting.
I wish I had mod points for this.
Yeah...I'm not going to respect made-up punctuation, especially when the one bit of documentation you provide of its existence merely says that one single sports blog has adopted it.
You're right - telecommunications companies know far less about telecommuni...wait, what?
No - nothing of value was lost - see AC comment before mine. Theirs was far less elegant and even used iterative code when completely unnecessary.
Either way, it's not Youtube being inconsistent. They only respond to takedown notices and copyright owners who have applied to their content ID program. It's entirely in the hands of the copyright-owners.
Everything except for the two words "by law" looks like a tip for Youtube to do better. And no, I didn't read every word of your post.
"Found to be invalid" is something that can only truly be done in court. If the complainant wants to drop it before then (and admit it's invalid), then they could lose that fine, sure.
Going back to your original post:
3) If you attempt to game the system (by using multiple logins or other methods), you must pay double that fee.
Few content owners do it themselves. It's going to be multiple companies springing up and dying constantly. As soon as you get to the bottom of that list, they'll simply dissolve and take their profits with them. Or they'll all plan to start over as a new company each year.
Youtube (and similar sites), must rank all censor requestors that make more than 10 requests a year, by how many requests are found to be invalid.
How many Youtube users even file a DMCA counter-notice?
Those that rank in the bottom 5%, i.e. more of your requests are found to be invalid than 95% of the rest of the requestors), then next year, you must pay a refundable fee of $120 per request. If it is found to be invalid, the person you tried to censor gets $100, Youtube keeps the $20.
Under the DMCA, if Youtube doesn't take down the video, they are liable for all the copyright infringement across their entire web site. Youtube won't take that risk because some complainant isn't paying them $120. Blame congress for passing DMCA, not Youtube.
That's probably a bit off topic, considering it is actual copyright violation. "But other people break the law worse" isn't really a valid complaint there. Make your own thing.
True, but it's getting harder to distinguish which TV's have a good panel in them. Sure, you can tick a box for UHD, but if the picture quality doesn't improve from it it doesn't matter (like having an 8-bit or 12-bit panel anyway).
I'm lazy. I want to copy my Wii U games to a hard drive, and I want to unhide my games partition without having the U side prompt me to format it every time.
I see that it's getting there on Wii U, but the only launcher works from SD cards and not the HD. That's actually fairly workable since I only own four games, but I am not ready yet. On that subject, I should really start blocking updates now that I don't need any more updates.
Not because of the content that was created, but because it was their first time away from cartridges. I still have cartridges going back several generations that I can still play via emulation. A locked down system is just not working out for them.
I think the ONLY good way to cancel cable service is to take your modem to the local office and drop it off. If they have one.