Here's a great solution. Basically, take two sheets of 3/8" aluminum and make a hard drive sandwich. Pack some stuffing around the side and you have an ultra-low noise HD. The aluminum also acts as a heat sink, so you get the added benefit of better heat dissapation.
(full disclosure: I run this site with a colleague of mine)
It seems as though there should be an open-source software package that would allow you to take an old computer case, throw some disks, a NIC or three and a RAID card in there and have your own, poor-man's NAS device. All you'd need would be some sort of slimmed-down linux distro optimized to serve files and with some sort of web front end for configuring NIS/Samba shares.
With 160GB IDE drives running for about $225 and IDE RAID cards similarly cheap, this seems like a natural nitche for linux to be in. Sure, it's not enterprise-ready and won't be as scalable as a SCSI-based system, but it would be perfect for a massive PVR or small-business file server.
Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't apt only handle required dependencies whereas dselect will also pick up recommended and suggested?
I thought that was one of the main reasons to use dselect over apt.
Note that I've used apt almost exclusively and have never used dselect except during the original install, so obviously using apt alone works just fine.
Right -- but generally, to laugh at something, one has to find it humorous. Most of today's 4/1 stories are fairly bland, predictable or just plain boring.
I admit tagging Hemos' email address for a bunch of hate mail was creative -- I got a kick out of that.
At the bottom of the page, you can click on the "no" button to go to a contact form where you can tell Yahoo exactly why their behaviour isn't acceptable.
I wasn't so upset over them resetting my email preferences, but I was *pissed* that they also reset my phone preferences. That's going one step too far in my opinion.
Net Bios Extended User Interface = Dave stops working and win XP cannot log on to Samba server except by installing NetBios which is now unsupported.
I don't know how else to explain this to you. NetBEUI is unsupported in XP. NetBIOS is fully supported in XP. NetBEUI != NetBIOS.
NetBEUI is a transport protocol and operates at layer 2 of the OSI. NetBIOS is more like an API, that allows things like name-to-address resolution and sending/receiving data.
NetBIOS can be bound to things like TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, etc. It is NOT unsupported in XP.
NetBEUI is a shitty protocol for anything other than a tiny SOHO LAN. It should rightfully be put out of its misery. Thank goodness Microsoft has chosen to do so in XP.
You cannot convince me that Windows plays nice with Apples exept the servers and old NT 4.
I don't care if I convince you. Just stop spreading the F.U.D. nonsense about NetBIOS not being supported on XP. You are wrong.
Did you even bother to read the MS document you linked to? If not, go back and read it. If so, go back and read it again. Then, go look up NetBEUI and see how it differs from NetBIOS.
Thanks for validating my earlier concerns about your post.
No, it didn't. You can still buy the old-style iMac for $800. The flat-panel one costs $1300, true, but that isn't the only iMac choice.
As far as Apple is concerned, PCI slots cost you an extra $1000, because that is the difference in price between a machine that has them compared to a machine that doesn't. Utter bullshit.
That's a gross oversimplification. Their *consumer* Mac is the iMac. It's geared towards the home user who doesn't need PCI slots and doesn't care about the latest and greatest AGP video card. It's geared towards the majority of people who use their computer for word processing, quicken and web surfing.
Their *professional* mac is the Power Mac G4. It's geared towards the graphic designer and power user. It has things like advanced AGP graphics and PCI slots and yes, it costs more. You get what you pay for. (and comparing intel hardware to Mac hardware is an apples to oranges comparison. I know you don't want it to be, but it is. Deal.)
By the way, NetBios is unsupperted under XP now. meaning microsoft has broken compatibility with Samba, meaning they are assholes and OS X cannot work in a *modern* NT enviroment.
This is absolutely, positively false. NetBIOS *is* supported in XP and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Here is an article that talks about using WINS and NetBIOS on XP. If it wasn't supported, this article wouldn't exist. Furthermore, I can connect to my XP box from my linux machine using smbclient just fine, thank you very much. I can also transfer files the other way around using smbd, so Microsoft has *not* broken compatibility with Samba.
Your facts are so obviously incorrect that it certainly calls into question your entire post.
For one, it offers limitless storage capacity since you can now copy files to your hard drive. (and burn them to cd/dvd/etc.) A lot of Tivos, especially earlier ones, had smaller hard drives and weren't useful for long-term storage. Now, that problem is solved.
Two, it allows you to access data stored on your tivo from other PCs in your house.
This is not true at all. They DO control the network precisely because they control the authentication. The only clients that are allowed to log on the network are the clients that license FastTrack's code, and they have full control over that code (see big fat agreement to license FastTrack's code).
Actually, it is true. Kazaa controls *access* to the network. They do not control the network itself. They may be able to code their software to not allow any MP3s higher than 128kbps, but they cannot say, "Allow freemusic.mp3, but don't allow metallica_sucks.mp3" (I'm not saying this couldn't be added -- of course that's technically possible. However, it's not possible with the way the Fast Track network currently operates)
Fast Track is like a giant road system and Kazaa is the toll booth. They can charge you to get on and they may even be able to impose a speed limit, but they can't control which roads you travel over and what turns you make.
Look -- I don't want this to turn into a pissing match. My original point was that Fair Use is not black and white, and I think you've proven that with your own post. As the case law you cited says:
The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the
public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It
emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial
character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home.
So there *is* a fair use clause for home use, despite your original claims. That same argument could be extended to copying songs off of the radio, etc. A thinner, but still real argument could be made that since Song A is broadcast on the radio, it's OK to make a copy of the same Song A off the CD you purchased of it.
I'm not claiming that anyone can copy anything for personal use and have it be considered "fair use" but I am claiming that it is a grey area. It's not as cut and dried as you'd have people believe.
And no, I don't have case law to back it up -- if you have case law that shows copying a single song for personal use from a CD that you rightfully own is *illegal*, please post it and I will gladly accept your arguments. (and the same 1-5 instances of fair use that you've already posted won't cut it -- the Supreme Court Betamax decision doesn't fit neatly into one of those 5 categories, so obviously they're not all-inclusive)
you are disproving your own claim that a user wont pay a fine for infringing
No, actually you're manipulating what I originally said. I said a user may not have to remunerate the copyright holder. I never said they will not. If you read the section you cited again, you'll notice that statuatory damages are a choice that the copyright owner may select, but he may also choose actual damages and profits, which are then left up to the court to decide. (and they could decide it was $0)
Again, the overriding point of my original post is that this whole thing is a grey area. This just serves to reaffirm that fact.
And when it comes down to it, there's no reason other habit.
Huh? Habit? There are several technological reasons why Kazaa cannot monitor the network. Number one is the software isn't programmed to do that.
OK, so you can change that, but then there's the issues of servers -- Kazaa doesn't have enough of them to implement monitoring on a global scale. That's one of the beauties of P2P networks is that the load is distributed across thousands of servers. (and yes, it's one of the drawbacks, too)
Then finally, there's the issue of bandwidth, which isn't free. Currently, Kazaa, et al only have to maintain enough bandwidth to do a one-time authentication of their users. If they suddenly have to monitor each and every file that gets shared, you're talking about a massive amount of additional bandwidth that they'll have to procure (and pay for!!)
Napster was ordered to filter files because they could, based on their current technology base. Sony was let off the hook because they couldn't. (gross oversimplification, but it's still applicable)
Napster was certainly boned because they were a wholly-centralized network. Kazaa may be boned, because part of their network is centralized (though I don't think they will be). Gnutella is boned because they run into scalability problems with traffic spikes, but their network is *entirely* decentralized. It's only a matter of time before some innovative entrepenuer comes up with the right balance that will keep the courts off their back and still allow a scalable, free P2P file sharing network.
No it damn well isn't. If I hear one more Slashdotter claim that personal/friends/family copies are "fair use", I will quite seriously bust a gut.
It may not be fair use, but it may also not be copyright infringement. In fact, it's a grey area. According to ChillingEffect.org, deciding whether something is fair use or not involves (among other things):
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
So it could be argued that limited copying for personal use provides negligible impact on the overall market, and is therefore fair use. It could also be argued the other way, but it's certainly not as black and white as you make it seem.
And if it is copyright infringement, the owner of the copyright may not be entitled to any remuneration:
Because as long as Kazaa, et al can show that the Fast Track network has legitimate uses, they're not likely to get shut down. That's the major premise behind the Betamax case -- Sony could control whether or not you could buy a VCR, but once you owned the VCR, they had no control whatsoever over what you did/didn't record. They couldn't prevent you from taping the latest episodes of "The Simpsons" and mass duplicating them for sale on the street.(IANAL -- standard disclaimers apply.)
Kazaa, et al DOES NOT have control over the network. The only thing they control is the authentication mechanism. Once you're authenticated, you have complete, unfettered access to the network and Kazaa has no control over what you do/don't share.
With Napster, it was different since Napster *did* control what files were/weren't shared. With fast track, however, all they can control is whether or not you get on the network. So (and IANAL) as long as they can show that there are legitimate uses for the fast track network, I will be surprised if they get shut down.
To liken it to the Betamax court case that everyone likes to toss around, Sony had control over whether or not you could buy a VCR, but once you owned that VCR, Sony had no control over what you could or couldn't record.
If an ISP were to put a blanket ban on certain websites because a few of them throw up annoying adverts there would be outcry.
ISPs do this all the time. Earthlink and AOL both block all outbound access to port 25 for their users. You can access your own ISPs SMTP servers, but no others. Why? Because of spammers who sign up for throw-away dial-up accounts. Is it inconvenient? Yes. Do I, as an Earthlink user, complain about it? No, because I understand why it's necessary.
Also, let's not forget the Usenet Penalty of Death. It was used when moron sysadmins refused to clean up their acts as well. (It doesn't carry quite the weight it once did since Usenet has been on the decline the last few years)
Freedom of communication is considered important enough that people just have to deal with the annoying side effects themselves.
I don't think you understand the full ramifications of spam. If everyone were to run unfettered open relays, email systems across the world would come to a screeching halt and NOBODY would be able to communicate. People don't do this just because they find spam annoying -- they do it because spam costs real cash money and puts a tremendous burden on mail servers.
You are *offered* an *option* to pay money as an alternative to seeing banner ads. You can still pay absolutely nothing and read all the stories and/or comments. Nothing is changing about that.
Let me first say that there's a lot of belly-aching that has always occured on/. That's a fact of any popular web site.
However, there are also some very good issues and questions that get raised regarding/. that the editors never bother to respond to. There's the whole moderation suppression conspiracy, questions about mysterious stability problems and other honest issues that people have questions on. However, when people raise them via the only method they can; in a story, they get modded off-topic (and, if you believe what quite a few folks have been saying, occasionally banned from being moderators)
The only problem is there is no place to post these questions and comments and, even if there was, the editors have shown little to no interest in participating or interacting with the user community at all. Sure, Taco created some obscure discussion thread that few people know about, but I haven't seen any editors participating there.
So, what's our avenue for interactive discussion with the editors? Or are we not worthy of their attention? Sure, they're busy -- we're all busy. That's not an excuse. You could argue that most of the crap that gets posted is nothing more than FUD. OK, fine, but how about some editors telling us, at least once in a while, that it is, in fact, FUD. INTERACT with us, for christ sake. Isn't that what the web is all about?
So, you want me to pony up my $5 per month, start showing more of an interest in the user community. Start some sort of active, weekly "About/." post where folks can post questions/comments/concerns and editors will ACTIVELY participate. I know there's a/. topic for this already, but it's been so long since anyone has used it that I plum forgot what it's called.
Otherwise, I really don't care whether/. survives or not. As several other folks have pointed out, they've ceased being unique and innovative -- I can get the same information from any number of other web sites who *do* actively interact with their user community.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a great solution. Basically, take two sheets of 3/8" aluminum and make a hard drive sandwich. Pack some stuffing around the side and you have an ultra-low noise HD. The aluminum also acts as a heat sink, so you get the added benefit of better heat dissapation.
(full disclosure: I run this site with a colleague of mine)
--kurt
You're right -- GigE would be a natural option for this device.
That's probably why they included it.
http://www.iomega.com/nas/p410_sys.html
It seems as though there should be an open-source software package that would allow you to take an old computer case, throw some disks, a NIC or three and a RAID card in there and have your own, poor-man's NAS device. All you'd need would be some sort of slimmed-down linux distro optimized to serve files and with some sort of web front end for configuring NIS/Samba shares.
With 160GB IDE drives running for about $225 and IDE RAID cards similarly cheap, this seems like a natural nitche for linux to be in. Sure, it's not enterprise-ready and won't be as scalable as a SCSI-based system, but it would be perfect for a massive PVR or small-business file server.
Anyone know of such a project?
Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't apt only handle required dependencies whereas dselect will also pick up recommended and suggested?
I thought that was one of the main reasons to use dselect over apt.
Note that I've used apt almost exclusively and have never used dselect except during the original install, so obviously using apt alone works just fine.
--kurt
Right -- but generally, to laugh at something, one has to find it humorous. Most of today's 4/1 stories are fairly bland, predictable or just plain boring.
I admit tagging Hemos' email address for a bunch of hate mail was creative -- I got a kick out of that.
The rest of the stuff has been fairly ho-hum.
As one might infer from the original post, Open Office is a beta product.
Beta products have been known to have bugs now and again.
The best thing to do when you note a bug is to check and see if it's already been reported. If it hasn't, then you should go ahead and report it.
Complaining does little to make the product better. Reporting (and helping to fix) bugs does much.
Here is a page that explains why yahoo has made these changes:
3 .h tml
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/privacy/privacy-2
At the bottom of the page, you can click on the "no" button to go to a contact form where you can tell Yahoo exactly why their behaviour isn't acceptable.
I wasn't so upset over them resetting my email preferences, but I was *pissed* that they also reset my phone preferences. That's going one step too far in my opinion.
The list focused on the top 101 business mistakes of last year.
people never moderate anymore.
Yeah, and they never read the articles, either.
Net Bios Extended User Interface = Dave stops working and win XP cannot log on to Samba server except by installing NetBios which is now unsupported.
I don't know how else to explain this to you. NetBEUI is unsupported in XP. NetBIOS is fully supported in XP. NetBEUI != NetBIOS.
NetBEUI is a transport protocol and operates at layer 2 of the OSI. NetBIOS is more like an API, that allows things like name-to-address resolution and sending/receiving data.
NetBIOS can be bound to things like TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, etc. It is NOT unsupported in XP.
NetBEUI is a shitty protocol for anything other than a tiny SOHO LAN. It should rightfully be put out of its misery. Thank goodness Microsoft has chosen to do so in XP.
You cannot convince me that Windows plays nice with Apples exept the servers and old NT 4.
I don't care if I convince you. Just stop spreading the F.U.D. nonsense about NetBIOS not being supported on XP. You are wrong.
Did you even bother to read the MS document you linked to? If not, go back and read it. If so, go back and read it again. Then, go look up NetBEUI and see how it differs from NetBIOS.
Thanks for validating my earlier concerns about your post.
No, it didn't. You can still buy the old-style iMac for $800. The flat-panel one costs $1300, true, but that isn't the only iMac choice.
As far as Apple is concerned, PCI slots cost you an extra $1000, because that is the difference in price between a machine that has them compared to a machine that doesn't. Utter bullshit.
That's a gross oversimplification. Their *consumer* Mac is the iMac. It's geared towards the home user who doesn't need PCI slots and doesn't care about the latest and greatest AGP video card. It's geared towards the majority of people who use their computer for word processing, quicken and web surfing.
Their *professional* mac is the Power Mac G4. It's geared towards the graphic designer and power user. It has things like advanced AGP graphics and PCI slots and yes, it costs more. You get what you pay for. (and comparing intel hardware to Mac hardware is an apples to oranges comparison. I know you don't want it to be, but it is. Deal.)
By the way, NetBios is unsupperted under XP now. meaning microsoft has broken compatibility with Samba, meaning they are assholes and OS X cannot work in a *modern* NT enviroment.
This is absolutely, positively false. NetBIOS *is* supported in XP and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Here is an article that talks about using WINS and NetBIOS on XP. If it wasn't supported, this article wouldn't exist. Furthermore, I can connect to my XP box from my linux machine using smbclient just fine, thank you very much. I can also transfer files the other way around using smbd, so Microsoft has *not* broken compatibility with Samba.
Your facts are so obviously incorrect that it certainly calls into question your entire post.
http://lists.kde.org/?t=101566017800001&r=1&w=2
And specifically, Dirk Mueller's response:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=101567612 207504&w=2
I'm not saying one side is more right than the other -- merely that there are certainly two sides to this issue.
For one, it offers limitless storage capacity since you can now copy files to your hard drive. (and burn them to cd/dvd/etc.) A lot of Tivos, especially earlier ones, had smaller hard drives and weren't useful for long-term storage. Now, that problem is solved.
:)
Two, it allows you to access data stored on your tivo from other PCs in your house.
Three, it's just plain cool.
Does anyone else get nervous when a company that purports to offer mission critical systems has their own web site succumb to the /. effect?
No wonder they're laying of 90%...
This is not true at all. They DO control the network precisely because they control the authentication. The only clients that are allowed to log on the network are the clients that license FastTrack's code, and they have full control over that code (see big fat agreement to license FastTrack's code).
Actually, it is true. Kazaa controls *access* to the network. They do not control the network itself. They may be able to code their software to not allow any MP3s higher than 128kbps, but they cannot say, "Allow freemusic.mp3, but don't allow metallica_sucks.mp3" (I'm not saying this couldn't be added -- of course that's technically possible. However, it's not possible with the way the Fast Track network currently operates)
Fast Track is like a giant road system and Kazaa is the toll booth. They can charge you to get on and they may even be able to impose a speed limit, but they can't control which roads you travel over and what turns you make.
I'm not claiming that anyone can copy anything for personal use and have it be considered "fair use" but I am claiming that it is a grey area. It's not as cut and dried as you'd have people believe.
And no, I don't have case law to back it up -- if you have case law that shows copying a single song for personal use from a CD that you rightfully own is *illegal*, please post it and I will gladly accept your arguments. (and the same 1-5 instances of fair use that you've already posted won't cut it -- the Supreme Court Betamax decision doesn't fit neatly into one of those 5 categories, so obviously they're not all-inclusive)
you are disproving your own claim that a user wont pay a fine for infringing
No, actually you're manipulating what I originally said. I said a user may not have to remunerate the copyright holder. I never said they will not. If you read the section you cited again, you'll notice that statuatory damages are a choice that the copyright owner may select, but he may also choose actual damages and profits, which are then left up to the court to decide. (and they could decide it was $0)
Again, the overriding point of my original post is that this whole thing is a grey area. This just serves to reaffirm that fact.
And when it comes down to it, there's no reason other habit.
Huh? Habit? There are several technological reasons why Kazaa cannot monitor the network. Number one is the software isn't programmed to do that.
OK, so you can change that, but then there's the issues of servers -- Kazaa doesn't have enough of them to implement monitoring on a global scale. That's one of the beauties of P2P networks is that the load is distributed across thousands of servers. (and yes, it's one of the drawbacks, too)
Then finally, there's the issue of bandwidth, which isn't free. Currently, Kazaa, et al only have to maintain enough bandwidth to do a one-time authentication of their users. If they suddenly have to monitor each and every file that gets shared, you're talking about a massive amount of additional bandwidth that they'll have to procure (and pay for!!)
Napster was ordered to filter files because they could, based on their current technology base. Sony was let off the hook because they couldn't. (gross oversimplification, but it's still applicable)
Napster was certainly boned because they were a wholly-centralized network. Kazaa may be boned, because part of their network is centralized (though I don't think they will be). Gnutella is boned because they run into scalability problems with traffic spikes, but their network is *entirely* decentralized. It's only a matter of time before some innovative entrepenuer comes up with the right balance that will keep the courts off their back and still allow a scalable, free P2P file sharing network.
It may not be fair use, but it may also not be copyright infringement. In fact, it's a grey area. According to ChillingEffect.org, deciding whether something is fair use or not involves (among other things):
So it could be argued that limited copying for personal use provides negligible impact on the overall market, and is therefore fair use. It could also be argued the other way, but it's certainly not as black and white as you make it seem.And if it is copyright infringement, the owner of the copyright may not be entitled to any remuneration:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html
A reasonable discussion of Fair Use, with considerably more thought and insight than the parent post is available here:
http://www.arl.org/scomm/copyright/uses.html
Because as long as Kazaa, et al can show that the Fast Track network has legitimate uses, they're not likely to get shut down. That's the major premise behind the Betamax case -- Sony could control whether or not you could buy a VCR, but once you owned the VCR, they had no control whatsoever over what you did/didn't record. They couldn't prevent you from taping the latest episodes of "The Simpsons" and mass duplicating them for sale on the street.(IANAL -- standard disclaimers apply.)
Kazaa, et al DOES NOT have control over the network. The only thing they control is the authentication mechanism. Once you're authenticated, you have complete, unfettered access to the network and Kazaa has no control over what you do/don't share.
With Napster, it was different since Napster *did* control what files were/weren't shared. With fast track, however, all they can control is whether or not you get on the network. So (and IANAL) as long as they can show that there are legitimate uses for the fast track network, I will be surprised if they get shut down.
To liken it to the Betamax court case that everyone likes to toss around, Sony had control over whether or not you could buy a VCR, but once you owned that VCR, Sony had no control over what you could or couldn't record.
ISPs do this all the time. Earthlink and AOL both block all outbound access to port 25 for their users. You can access your own ISPs SMTP servers, but no others. Why? Because of spammers who sign up for throw-away dial-up accounts. Is it inconvenient? Yes. Do I, as an Earthlink user, complain about it? No, because I understand why it's necessary. Also, let's not forget the Usenet Penalty of Death. It was used when moron sysadmins refused to clean up their acts as well. (It doesn't carry quite the weight it once did since Usenet has been on the decline the last few years)
Freedom of communication is considered important enough that people just have to deal with the annoying side effects themselves.
I don't think you understand the full ramifications of spam. If everyone were to run unfettered open relays, email systems across the world would come to a screeching halt and NOBODY would be able to communicate. People don't do this just because they find spam annoying -- they do it because spam costs real cash money and puts a tremendous burden on mail servers.
You are not being forced to pay to read /.
You are *offered* an *option* to pay money as an alternative to seeing banner ads. You can still pay absolutely nothing and read all the stories and/or comments. Nothing is changing about that.
The choice is entirely yours.
Let me first say that there's a lot of belly-aching that has always occured on /. That's a fact of any popular web site.
/. that the editors never bother to respond to. There's the whole moderation suppression conspiracy, questions about mysterious stability problems and other honest issues that people have questions on. However, when people raise them via the only method they can; in a story, they get modded off-topic (and, if you believe what quite a few folks have been saying, occasionally banned from being moderators)
/." post where folks can post questions/comments/concerns and editors will ACTIVELY participate. I know there's a /. topic for this already, but it's been so long since anyone has used it that I plum forgot what it's called.
/. survives or not. As several other folks have pointed out, they've ceased being unique and innovative -- I can get the same information from any number of other web sites who *do* actively interact with their user community.
However, there are also some very good issues and questions that get raised regarding
The only problem is there is no place to post these questions and comments and, even if there was, the editors have shown little to no interest in participating or interacting with the user community at all. Sure, Taco created some obscure discussion thread that few people know about, but I haven't seen any editors participating there.
So, what's our avenue for interactive discussion with the editors? Or are we not worthy of their attention? Sure, they're busy -- we're all busy. That's not an excuse. You could argue that most of the crap that gets posted is nothing more than FUD. OK, fine, but how about some editors telling us, at least once in a while, that it is, in fact, FUD. INTERACT with us, for christ sake. Isn't that what the web is all about?
So, you want me to pony up my $5 per month, start showing more of an interest in the user community. Start some sort of active, weekly "About
Otherwise, I really don't care whether