Is bandwidth really that expensive? I am administrating a connection for 300 college student, which is run without any limitations whatsoever. The connection is 100Mbit/100Mbit, which is seldom fully used.
The bandwidth costs are $4/person. Maybe $8/person if you include establishment costs for laying the fiber.
So when you hear about ISPs adding limitations, I think it is often a question of them trying to squeeze the last dime out.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_To_You , the copyright registration was essentially fraudulent, as the song was written by others long before 1935. So the "in the public domain for over 100 years" is correct in a sense.
But for whatever reason nobody has taken the time to get a judge to revoke the copyright. Because it is cheaper for the individual to pay than to prosecute, I guess.
But even if the law firm gets 90% of the cache, the money still comes from the defendant. So a class-action still have the effect of discouraging future sleaze. So in that way, a lawsuit such as this is better than nothing (as long as you think the defendant's behavior should be discouraged).
IE, assume version 1 of a packages had a bug, which was fixed in version 2. But then an attacker manually downloads version 1 and installs it. SInce version 1 was also signed by Red Hat it will install, and you have a local root hole...
I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.
In his defense, the summary did say that the copyrights were expiring. So this is a case of horribly wrong summary.
Saying that NVIDIA think the unstable kernel API being "very little trouble" is a little understated. What they actually say in the article:
1) The lack of a stable API in the Linux kernel. This is not a large obstacle for us, though: the kernel interface layer of the NVIDIA kernel module is distributed as source code, and compiled at install time for the version and configuration of the kernel in use. This requires occasional maintenance to update for new kernel interface changes, but generally is not too much work.
That said, the kernel API churn sometimes seems unfortunate: in some cases, working interfaces are broken or replaced with broken ones for no seemingly good reason. In some other cases, APIs that were previously available to us are rendered unusable.
It definitively does not cost $17 to server 3 gluon-bits (gb) to a customer. Neither does it cost much to serve 3 GiB to a customer.
And if bandwidth is that much of a problem then serve it over a password-protected bittorrent. Or non-protected bittorrent, relying on the windows key for security.
Correctly implemented, the buffer could be stored across a power loss.
Not if the motherboard dies. Or if you remove the hard disk without thinking about using whatever obscure sync mechanism there is to write out the cached writes.
You have a bit of a point with flash being cheaper than DRAM for caching optical media. However, the few times I use optical media I don't mind the temporary use of my DRAM for caching; it is simply not worth the trouble to install a flash cache on the motherboard just for that.
The buffer should obviously be on the hard disk. That way the data on the disk will always be in sync, even if there are writes buffered in the flash cache when the computer loses power. I can't see a good reason to put it on the motherboard instead. Especially as most consumer systems have exactly one HDD.
The article says that the flash buffer could work for "all system io". I can only think of optical disks and flash drives possibilities other than hard disks. But optical disks are interchangeable, so they have to be reread on each use anyway, and could just as well be cached in RAM. And it makes no sense to cache flash drives in flash cache...
How do you guarantee that there isn't some important data lying around in the swapped out sector? It is not accessible via the hard drives external interface, but could be accessed by a raw reading of the disk.
This isn't like on the ground, where if you were told to go push on a 303t truck, friction would mean that you wouldn't move it at all. Any force applied to a mass floating in space, no matter how tiny the force, will go uncut to move the mass.
In any case, if one ion engine firing continually isn't enough to move the space station, you can obviously use 2, as another poster pointed out before he was modded (+5, funny) for mentioning a Beowulf cluster of ion engines!
So as I understand it from the article, the problem is this:
Photographers are hired by celebrities, who gets a photo for a symbolic sum, in return for the photographer retaining copyright and the rights to resell the images.
But if a free photo was uploaded to Wikipedia then everybody would be happy to just use this, and the photographer would loose most of his income.
So it seems to me that
If most people would be happy to just use one shot, then that is the will of the free market, and it is only through cartel-like monopoly of the photographers that the current status quo works. The current system benefits the photographers, but detracts from society at large. Everybody but the photographers would benefit from free photos being available, including magazines, etc.
If the celebrities were willing to use a little money to get a one-time shot taken then they could get a lot of free publicity. The celebrities don't seem to make money from their photos, so the celebrities have little to loose. Since it would in principle only take one freelance photographer to break the photography cartel then it shouldn't be a problem in theory. The only thing needed for this to happen is the celebrities realizing that they have this option.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you could try requesting an exception by saying that you need Firefox to read Slashdot?
Is bandwidth really that expensive? I am administrating a connection for 300 college student, which is run without any limitations whatsoever. The connection is 100Mbit/100Mbit, which is seldom fully used.
The bandwidth costs are $4/person. Maybe $8/person if you include establishment costs for laying the fiber.
So when you hear about ISPs adding limitations, I think it is often a question of them trying to squeeze the last dime out.
The creation of the Bosporus Strait is probably a better candidate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_To_You , the copyright registration was essentially fraudulent, as the song was written by others long before 1935. So the "in the public domain for over 100 years" is correct in a sense.
But for whatever reason nobody has taken the time to get a judge to revoke the copyright. Because it is cheaper for the individual to pay than to prosecute, I guess.
The slow random write will also be a problem for some very common server workloads, such as databases.
But even if the law firm gets 90% of the cache, the money still comes from the defendant. So a class-action still have the effect of discouraging future sleaze. So in that way, a lawsuit such as this is better than nothing (as long as you think the defendant's behavior should be discouraged).
I wonder if they handle replay attacks?
IE, assume version 1 of a packages had a bug, which was fixed in version 2. But then an attacker manually downloads version 1 and installs it. SInce version 1 was also signed by Red Hat it will install, and you have a local root hole...
I'd explain, but you could just RTFA [wired.com], which would explain it all. I know this is slashdot, but nobody is here to copy and paste the article for you. Don't be such a lazy ass.
In his defense, the summary did say that the copyrights were expiring. So this is a case of horribly wrong summary.
The "Why can't I own a Canadian" question comes from this joke: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
Or... Don't label it on the fruit at all!
If you need to label it "Florida citrus", do it on the outside the box in the supermarket.
Actually that labelling on the fruit must be a US thing. They don't do it here in Denmark.
Erm - how is this not also a problem on Windows? A 2-minute Google search
Hard disk not recognized:
- http://en.kioskea.net/forum/affich-73640-windows-setup-cannot-detect-my-hard-disk
Flickering screen:
- http://forums.cnet.com/5208-12546_102-0.html?threadID=240410
Blank screen
- http://maximumpcguides.com/windows-vista/windows-vista-hangs-at-a-black-screen-when-booting-up/
So in short: nothing to see here, move along.
(Macs may or may not be a special case,because their hardware is relatively limited)
Microsoft has the money to buy the best techs. So it becomes a failure of management if they fail to do so.
So in the case of Microsoft I would say that blaming the management for failure is reasonable.
The interface on my eee pc using ubuntu 9.04 was very slow, probably some issue with the graphic card driver. 9.10 works much better for me.
Saying that NVIDIA think the unstable kernel API being "very little trouble" is a little understated. What they actually say in the article:
1) The lack of a stable API in the Linux kernel. This is not a large obstacle for us, though: the kernel interface layer of the NVIDIA kernel module is distributed as source code, and compiled at install time for the version and configuration of the kernel in use. This requires occasional maintenance to update for new kernel interface changes, but generally is not too much work.
That said, the kernel API churn sometimes seems unfortunate: in some cases, working interfaces are broken or replaced with broken ones for no seemingly good reason. In some other cases, APIs that were previously available to us are rendered unusable.
For the youngsters who don't get the reference, read the Slashdot blurb from the ipod's release: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257&tid=107 . And then get off my lawn.
It definitively does not cost $17 to server 3 gluon-bits (gb) to a customer. Neither does it cost much to serve 3 GiB to a customer.
And if bandwidth is that much of a problem then serve it over a password-protected bittorrent. Or non-protected bittorrent, relying on the windows key for security.
As far as I am aware, no consumer SSDs currently satuate SATA 6 Gbit/s. So SATA should be fast enough, ie no need to put it on the motherboard.
Correctly implemented, the buffer could be stored across a power loss.
Not if the motherboard dies. Or if you remove the hard disk without thinking about using whatever obscure sync mechanism there is to write out the cached writes.
You have a bit of a point with flash being cheaper than DRAM for caching optical media. However, the few times I use optical media I don't mind the temporary use of my DRAM for caching; it is simply not worth the trouble to install a flash cache on the motherboard just for that.
The buffer should obviously be on the hard disk. That way the data on the disk will always be in sync, even if there are writes buffered in the flash cache when the computer loses power. I can't see a good reason to put it on the motherboard instead. Especially as most consumer systems have exactly one HDD.
The article says that the flash buffer could work for "all system io". I can only think of optical disks and flash drives possibilities other than hard disks. But optical disks are interchangeable, so they have to be reread on each use anyway, and could just as well be cached in RAM. And it makes no sense to cache flash drives in flash cache...
But 110 != 10^3. So you obviously shouldn't use the same name for the unit. kilo has meant 10^3 for hundreds of years.
But it would be ok if you called it something else, say, ki.
> And for the time taken to vet the laptop for such things, you might as well throw it out.
Except that if I were the CIA, I would pay a lot more than the price of 5 laptops to know who was spying on me, and how.
A hard disk has inaccessible spare sectors, which will be logically swapped in if a sector fails. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk#Error_handling
How do you guarantee that there isn't some important data lying around in the swapped out sector? It is not accessible via the hard drives external interface, but could be accessed by a raw reading of the disk.
Any ion engine can lift 303t.
This isn't like on the ground, where if you were told to go push on a 303t truck, friction would mean that you wouldn't move it at all. Any force applied to a mass floating in space, no matter how tiny the force, will go uncut to move the mass.
In any case, if one ion engine firing continually isn't enough to move the space station, you can obviously use 2, as another poster pointed out before he was modded (+5, funny) for mentioning a Beowulf cluster of ion engines!
At one point, the photo on Larry Ellison's page showed him taking a bite of a hotdog at a football match. That one matched your criteria perfectly :).
this one, possible (I don't remember well enough), though it isn't at Wikipedia any more.
So as I understand it from the article, the problem is this:
So it seems to me that