I'm able to use Evernote through the website without having to do any configuration. Other web clients, such as Spotify's, have choked on my work network's proxy settings, but Evernote does just fine.
(Okay, it looks like/. believes I'm logged in this time....)
I was already into D&D and CRPGs when Star Saga came out and I've played a lot since, but the games have held up as a couple of the most epic and engaging games I've ever played. And they had multiplayer! Okay, multiple people on the same computer, but still.
If only the 3rd game had been published so I could have found out how the story ended! Sigh....
I submit that these robots are a good thing. I've seen a great many comments bemoaning the loss/lessening of human contact, or saying that seniors should adopt real animals. In the first case, people are suggesting that we're just "throwing away our old people" or the like, that the real problem is that family isn't visiting family any more. I say: so what? Really, how many people actually *like* spending time with their family members? I'm sure you're out there, but from what I've seen, read, experienced, etc., I get the sense that most of the time, people spend time with family members when they'd really rather be with their friends. Why? Because "they're family", which seems to give them a right to a not insignificant chunk of one's time, i.e. one's life. If you were in a nursing home, do you really want people coming to see you when you know they don't want to be doing it? Or would you rather have everyone be (gasp!) honest with each other? Really, that's the first requirement to actually wanting to see one another in the first place....
As far as animals go, think of the situation here. I'm sure most folks have heard how nursing homes often have staffing problems, either in terms of numbers or quality (or both). Is adding more creatures to take care of going to help? Probably not. The staff probably doesn't have the time to deal with cats, dogs, or whatever. And the residents? Sure, some of them might be fine, and I hope they're in a home where they can have an animal if they want it, but remember: they're in a nursing home because, presumably, they can't take care of themselves. How do you expect them to take care of an animal when they can't remember to take their medicine? I realize that not all residents are this badly off, but I think the overall issue's still valid.
I'm all for improving the quality of life in nursing homes. Looking at the entire context, robots look like a much better way of doing this than real animals or reluctant relatives.
* Harder on small businesses, which probably don't have the resources to do all the extra work required for compliance. Aside from the extremely important issues of innovation, this can easily cut down on employment opportunities, as businesses fold, or fail to start.
* More stress on the legal system (courts, jails, police) to monitor the major and minor infractions of this. Would we rather have our cops trying to catch violent criminals, or going after independent coders? Of course, there's the monetary outlays that would accompany this as well. Where are you going to get the cash? Cut other programs? Raise taxes? Neither of these is going to be popular with voters, especially not for something like this issue.
* Unenforcability in general. It's easy to show that encryption's easily crackable (relatively speaking), and that people will find their ways around so-called copyright protection schemes. How are you going to be sure that your particular protection schemes work? Are you going to require updates as soon as someone cracks the existing ones?
* Issues with tech companies: how are you going to inspect their hardware or software, the inner workings of which are supposed to be secret? None of them are going to be very happy about that, and their money and support are going to go to politicians who oppose the bill. Sure, they don't want their stuff pirated, but they probably don't want people poking around the insides of it even more.
For the record, I don't copy CDs, movies, software, etc. (except for fair use, e.g. making a tape of a CD I own for my own personal use), and I'm opposed to piracy. (More reasons I support OSS.) However, I don't think this bill, or measures like it, are the right ways to go about trying to proctect the rights of copyright holders. It'll do more to hurt than help.
1) Built-in breathalyzer, configurable by the bars. That way, there's less guessing about whether you should cut someone off, and less likelihood that it'll be too late. 2) Little blinking lights, or some kind of visual ID system. Easier to spot which ones need filling. (Hmm...this might even work better than the Mitsubishi invention, at least outside of Japan.) 3) Combine the signal with relays(?) around the bar/restaurant, or in the tables, so that waitstaff can precisely locate the glasses. 4) Re-do this so that the signal's activated by the customer.
Another thing this would be good for is finding empties, just for periodic cleaning.
On a related note, why aren't there "vending" machines for mixed drinks at bars? Something where you could walk up to the machine and punch in your order, and have the machine mix it would be mighty handy--it'd get around noise, waiting for the overworked bartenders, and communication problems. ("You want a *what*??") Liquor would be dispensed similarly to how slushie machines work. Could be mighty handy....
You could always take the Reebok route and pull from the Nine Hells: Incubus. Needless to say, this one got stopped at the door. Would've been damn funny, though....
(For those who're scratching their heads, an incubus is a demon that impregnates women in their sleep.)
Think "desktop telnet": you can view (and manipulate) another computer's desktop remotely. Yes, you do need a password and the computer's IP, but how many of us here are spies? (You can all put your hands down now.)
You can view a Windows machine from *NIX, a Mac, and vice versa. No need to install expensive, proprietary software to see those X apps run. (Unless you really need a lot of speed.)
Okay, I'm starting to sound like a marketroid. But seriously--this rocks. We're using it at my school, and we love it.
A common OSS phrase applies here: if you want to make things better, why not help out? Offer to teach some after-school computer use or programming classes somewhere in your area. Find some of these bored kids on the 'net and offer them lessons. Teach them what it means to be a hacker. They'll acquire some useful, fun skills, and you'll benefit by having more intelligent, educated people around.
One of my friends started working on this recently. He cruised chat rooms and other places, contacting kids and offering them accounts on his Linux server, so long as they learned to use the machine and observed common courtesy and proper capitalization. He got several to accept his generousity, and he's given some lessons on, e.g. C. Unfortunately, he hasn't a whole lot of time to spend recruiting and teaching. He's got the machine--if you could help, you'd be doing everyone a favor (including yourself). There's a basic page up at qapcom.twistedmatrix.com.
The 'net allows us to share information not only in the form of code, but lessons as well. More of the latter will mean more of the former.
If such a migration happens because Linux has hit the mainstream, and not because something better comes along, it'll be pretty ironic. To do something against/outside the mainstream just because it's not the mainstream is just another way of letting other people control one's actions.
If people really want to be original and independent, they should take some time to think about what option is best for their computing needs, and then act on their own best judgement. Those that won't take the time to do this aren't worth mourning--we're better off without them. Based on what I've seen, though, the really cool and useful folks are cut of better stuff than that.
The author's analysis of capitalism made a few major errors that are unfortunately all too common.
First and foremost, capitalism is not founded on "the greatest good for the greatest number". Who is "the greatest number"? What is its "good"? Various political/economic systems have answered with "the People", "the Nation", "the followers of God", or "the Race". In practice, this approach to anything always results in the rights of individuals being trampled by whatever gang happens to be in power at the time. A "group", as such, does not exit--the concept is just an easy way to think about a collection of individuals.
Capitalism is the social system based on the recognition of individual rights, specifically the rights to life, liberty, and property, where all property is privately owned. (Pursuing happiness is, in practice, impossible without these.) Practially speaking, this means that the government acts only to protect its citizens from physical force and its derivatives (e.g. fraud), staying out of the realm of economics. In personal interactions, this means that men must act on the principle of trading the best they can offer with the best that others can offer, which is exactly what the hacker culture does. It is not a "gift culture". People do not get respect simply for giving their work away, but by providing something that other hackers find useful or interesting. (Really, how much "props" do we give to the five thousand authors of open source text editors? I thought so.)
Rather than being antithetical to capitalism, hacker culture is more an exponent of it than most businesses, who clamor for more government intervention to destroy their competitors or make entry into markets virtually impossible. Hacker culture rewards the best--those with intelligence and skill. Dismissing political pull of any sort, hackers insist on trading value for value, which may take the form of respect, money, or a better piece of software. Despite the noise, good hackers are not altruists--they gain a very selfish value from their work: joy. Those who don't, don't remain hackers for very long, or don't get very good at it.
It's time we got past the FUD surrounding capitalism and recognize what it really is--the best system under which to write great software. For references, see capitalism.net, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.
Despite the length and convoluted nature of this article, it's easy to figure out that what the writer suggests is a bad idea.
The system he proposes cannot be implemented. How would one determine what constituted a "use for value" and what the degree of one's gain is? I gain something even if I just run a piece of software once and decide it's not worth using--the knowledge that whatever I'm using is better than everything else I've seen for what I want to do. Another example: what if I examine the source code for something and learn a skill that I use a year later to make a million dollars? How much do I pay, and when? Or this: I run a company and use a "COSS" product. I make money in the short run, but it's eventally found that using that software introduced fundamental flaws into my product; I lose money, and eventually go out of business. Do I pay? I'm sure people can think of myriad other examples on their own.
Then there's the monitoring. This is already infeasable because of the problems determining the value of using software. Add to this the problem of tracking users at all: what if someone doesn't have a 'net connection? How do you keep tabs on this person's use? (Not to mention the fact that this scheme could probably be cracked by a "m4|) pH4t h4X0R" in no time flat.)
A theory is only good if one can apply it, to one's benefit. These ideas would only make a laughingstock of whoever tried putting them into practice. Open source deserves better.
It's unfortunate that NS didn't learn all it could from CatB. ESR is rather frank about the fact that to successfully go open source, you have to have some working, usable, useful source to open first. I've seen a lot of new projects and single-person projects that I've heard one announcement from and then disappear. Granted, many of these are near-clones of other applications, but NS wasn't. But from what I've seen, people contribute most to something when they're using an app, see a feature missing or a bug, and do something about it b/c it will *add* to the pleasure/utility of using the program. (E.g. adding session logging to GAIM.) Asking people, "Hey, won't you write our program for us?" just isn't going to work very well.
I hope NS realizes this, and soon. It looks as though they're taking the "Mozilla is not Netscape" bromide in their own way: that they don't need to take it as seriously as a "real" product--the "magic pixie dust of open source" that JWZ mentioned. As it stands, Gecko is pretty much all they've shown to the public, and though it does the tests nicely, it's actually slower at web surfing (at least in my experience). Meanwhile, IE5 is getting good reviews, and all the press is noting the lack of significant progress with Mozilla.
Before anyone flames me, I want to thank everyone who has been hacking the browser. It sounds like you've gotten the short end of the stick in many ways. If NS goes down in flames (or quietly dies), then at least we'll have *something* to use.
It sounds like JWZ made the right decision. I hope Netscape listens to him and releases the Communicator code. It may be their only chance.
While reading Slashdot every day might make one think otherwise, I'd be surprised if even 1% of those who order from companies like Dell, Gateway, and Compaq request Linux, never mind the more obscure Be. Consequently, it's not in vendors' best interests to expend the money on training and hiring that preinstallation, configuration, and support of these OSs would necessitate.
While I'd love to be able to buy the latest dream machine from Dell w/Linux and Be installed and set up on it, I think a more feasable request would be to ask vendors to ship computers without any OS preinstalled and without charging the customer for the non-existent Windows software. That not only would make some of the alternative OS crowd happier, but would actually be a more direct demonstration of the relationship between OEMs and MS: if it's all good, what problem should they have selling "naked" systems? (Though I wish it weren't under the cloud of an antitrust trial.:P)
The note that the Windows contract is between OEMs and the end user doesn't bode well for this protest. If this is in fact the case, MS can, and probably will, just tell those involved to go deal with the company from which they purchased the computer.
This is a great idea, but I think it should be directed at OEMs, the ones who are actually bound by the contract. I'd recommend using the LFD site and its resources as a way to put extra muscle on OEMs for customers, perhaps organizing concerted efforts against specific suppliers. They're the ones who're ultimately responsible for this mess for agreeing to MS's licensing terms, and they're the ones who're going to have to protest to Redmond directly.
Another way of protesting, which could do more to get OEMs' attention is to take advantage of our semi-free market and vote with our dollars by buying preinstalled Linux machines. Two of my friends have computers from the wonderful folks at VA Research; the machines are great, and I'm planning on buying my next desktop computer from them.
For those for whom VA's prices are a little high (i.e. buying those bargain Compaqs and the like), I'd encourage them to, even if the response is negative, ask that all MS software be removed/not installed and try to get the refund right away. If they won't get rid of Windows, perhaps you can save some cash on Works, Office, McAffee, or whatever they're pushing on you.
That said, I wish everyone luck. May you get your refunds.
From what I've read and been told on the Beowulf mailing list, the distribution doesn't operate in the way the PR implies. A Beowulf system runs as one big machine *only* insofar as processors go and *only* for explicitly multithreaded applications. E.g. 20x80MB HD != 1600MB--you have to deal w/each drive individually. (One might try setting up a RAID first, but I haven't heard anything about this being attempted.)
Finally, I agree that the document needs to be pared *way* down before it's sent out. A PR needs to be short and succint; they can provide info for where people can go for more details.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm able to use Evernote through the website without having to do any configuration. Other web clients, such as Spotify's, have choked on my work network's proxy settings, but Evernote does just fine.
(Okay, it looks like /. believes I'm logged in this time....)
I was already into D&D and CRPGs when Star Saga came out and I've played a lot since, but the games have held up as a couple of the most epic and engaging games I've ever played. And they had multiplayer! Okay, multiple people on the same computer, but still.
If only the 3rd game had been published so I could have found out how the story ended! Sigh....
Why on Earth would the Boy Scouts of America care about this?
;-)
(/me watches his karma plummet)
I submit that these robots are a good thing. I've seen a great many comments bemoaning the loss/lessening of human contact, or saying that seniors should adopt real animals. In the first case, people are suggesting that we're just "throwing away our old people" or the like, that the real problem is that family isn't visiting family any more. I say: so what? Really, how many people actually *like* spending time with their family members? I'm sure you're out there, but from what I've seen, read, experienced, etc., I get the sense that most of the time, people spend time with family members when they'd really rather be with their friends. Why? Because "they're family", which seems to give them a right to a not insignificant chunk of one's time, i.e. one's life. If you were in a nursing home, do you really want people coming to see you when you know they don't want to be doing it? Or would you rather have everyone be (gasp!) honest with each other? Really, that's the first requirement to actually wanting to see one another in the first place....
As far as animals go, think of the situation here. I'm sure most folks have heard how nursing homes often have staffing problems, either in terms of numbers or quality (or both). Is adding more creatures to take care of going to help? Probably not. The staff probably doesn't have the time to deal with cats, dogs, or whatever. And the residents? Sure, some of them might be fine, and I hope they're in a home where they can have an animal if they want it, but remember: they're in a nursing home because, presumably, they can't take care of themselves. How do you expect them to take care of an animal when they can't remember to take their medicine? I realize that not all residents are this badly off, but I think the overall issue's still valid.
I'm all for improving the quality of life in nursing homes. Looking at the entire context, robots look like a much better way of doing this than real animals or reluctant relatives.
--Mike
* Harder on small businesses, which probably don't have the resources to do all the extra work required for compliance. Aside from the extremely important issues of innovation, this can easily cut down on employment opportunities, as businesses fold, or fail to start.
* More stress on the legal system (courts, jails, police) to monitor the major and minor infractions of this. Would we rather have our cops trying to catch violent criminals, or going after independent coders? Of course, there's the monetary outlays that would accompany this as well. Where are you going to get the cash? Cut other programs? Raise taxes? Neither of these is going to be popular with voters, especially not for something like this issue.
* Unenforcability in general. It's easy to show that encryption's easily crackable (relatively speaking), and that people will find their ways around so-called copyright protection schemes. How are you going to be sure that your particular protection schemes work? Are you going to require updates as soon as someone cracks the existing ones?
* Issues with tech companies: how are you going to inspect their hardware or software, the inner workings of which are supposed to be secret? None of them are going to be very happy about that, and their money and support are going to go to politicians who oppose the bill. Sure, they don't want their stuff pirated, but they probably don't want people poking around the insides of it even more.
For the record, I don't copy CDs, movies, software, etc. (except for fair use, e.g. making a tape of a CD I own for my own personal use), and I'm opposed to piracy. (More reasons I support OSS.) However, I don't think this bill, or measures like it, are the right ways to go about trying to proctect the rights of copyright holders. It'll do more to hurt than help.
1) Built-in breathalyzer, configurable by the bars. That way, there's less guessing about whether you should cut someone off, and less likelihood that it'll be too late.
2) Little blinking lights, or some kind of visual ID system. Easier to spot which ones need filling. (Hmm...this might even work better than the Mitsubishi invention, at least outside of Japan.)
3) Combine the signal with relays(?) around the bar/restaurant, or in the tables, so that waitstaff can precisely locate the glasses.
4) Re-do this so that the signal's activated by the customer.
Another thing this would be good for is finding empties, just for periodic cleaning.
On a related note, why aren't there "vending" machines for mixed drinks at bars? Something where you could walk up to the machine and punch in your order, and have the machine mix it would be mighty handy--it'd get around noise, waiting for the overworked bartenders, and communication problems. ("You want a *what*??") Liquor would be dispensed similarly to how slushie machines work. Could be mighty handy....
You could always take the Reebok route and pull from the Nine Hells: Incubus. Needless to say, this one got stopped at the door. Would've been damn funny, though....
(For those who're scratching their heads, an incubus is a demon that impregnates women in their sleep.)
VNC
:-)
Think "desktop telnet": you can view (and manipulate) another computer's desktop remotely. Yes, you do need a password and the computer's IP, but how many of us here are spies? (You can all put your hands down now.)
You can view a Windows machine from *NIX, a Mac, and vice versa. No need to install expensive, proprietary software to see those X apps run. (Unless you really need a lot of speed.)
Okay, I'm starting to sound like a marketroid. But seriously--this rocks. We're using it at my school, and we love it.
Oh, did I mention it's GPL'd?
A common OSS phrase applies here: if you want to make things better, why not help out? Offer to teach some after-school computer use or programming classes somewhere in your area. Find some of these bored kids on the 'net and offer them lessons. Teach them what it means to be a hacker. They'll acquire some useful, fun skills, and you'll benefit by having more intelligent, educated people around.
One of my friends started working on this recently. He cruised chat rooms and other places, contacting kids and offering them accounts on his Linux server, so long as they learned to use the machine and observed common courtesy and proper capitalization. He got several to accept his generousity, and he's given some lessons on, e.g. C. Unfortunately, he hasn't a whole lot of time to spend recruiting and teaching. He's got the machine--if you could help, you'd be doing everyone a favor (including yourself). There's a basic page up at qapcom.twistedmatrix.com.
The 'net allows us to share information not only in the form of code, but lessons as well. More of the latter will mean more of the former.
If such a migration happens because Linux has hit the mainstream, and not because something better comes along, it'll be pretty ironic. To do something against/outside the mainstream just because it's not the mainstream is just another way of letting other people control one's actions.
If people really want to be original and independent, they should take some time to think about what option is best for their computing needs, and then act on their own best judgement. Those that won't take the time to do this aren't worth mourning--we're better off without them. Based on what I've seen, though, the really cool and useful folks are cut of better stuff than that.
The author's analysis of capitalism made a few major errors that are unfortunately all too common.
First and foremost, capitalism is not founded on "the greatest good for the greatest number". Who is "the greatest number"? What is its "good"? Various political/economic systems have answered with "the People", "the Nation", "the followers of God", or "the Race". In practice, this approach to anything always results in the rights of individuals being trampled by whatever gang happens to be in power at the time. A "group", as such, does not exit--the concept is just an easy way to think about a collection of individuals.
Capitalism is the social system based on the recognition of individual rights, specifically the rights to life, liberty, and property, where all property is privately owned. (Pursuing happiness is, in practice, impossible without these.) Practially speaking, this means that the government acts only to protect its citizens from physical force and its derivatives (e.g. fraud), staying out of the realm of economics. In personal interactions, this means that men must act on the principle of trading the best they can offer with the best that others can offer, which is exactly what the hacker culture does. It is not a "gift culture". People do not get respect simply for giving their work away, but by providing something that other hackers find useful or interesting. (Really, how much "props" do we give to the five thousand authors of open source text editors? I thought so.)
Rather than being antithetical to capitalism, hacker culture is more an exponent of it than most businesses, who clamor for more government intervention to destroy their competitors or make entry into markets virtually impossible. Hacker culture rewards the best--those with intelligence and skill. Dismissing political pull of any sort, hackers insist on trading value for value, which may take the form of respect, money, or a better piece of software. Despite the noise, good hackers are not altruists--they gain a very selfish value from their work: joy. Those who don't, don't remain hackers for very long, or don't get very good at it.
It's time we got past the FUD surrounding capitalism and recognize what it really is--the best system under which to write great software. For references, see capitalism.net, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.
Despite the length and convoluted nature of this article, it's easy to figure out that what the writer suggests is a bad idea.
The system he proposes cannot be implemented. How would one determine what constituted a "use for value" and what the degree of one's gain is? I gain something even if I just run a piece of software once and decide it's not worth using--the knowledge that whatever I'm using is better than everything else I've seen for what I want to do. Another example: what if I examine the source code for something and learn a skill that I use a year later to make a million dollars? How much do I pay, and when? Or this: I run a company and use a "COSS" product. I make money in the short run, but it's eventally found that using that software introduced fundamental flaws into my product; I lose money, and eventually go out of business. Do I pay? I'm sure people can think of myriad other examples on their own.
Then there's the monitoring. This is already infeasable because of the problems determining the value of using software. Add to this the problem of tracking users at all: what if someone doesn't have a 'net connection? How do you keep tabs on this person's use? (Not to mention the fact that this scheme could probably be cracked by a "m4|) pH4t h4X0R" in no time flat.)
A theory is only good if one can apply it, to one's benefit. These ideas would only make a laughingstock of whoever tried putting them into practice. Open source deserves better.
It's unfortunate that NS didn't learn all it could from CatB. ESR is rather frank about the fact that to successfully go open source, you have to have some working, usable, useful source to open first. I've seen a lot of new projects and single-person projects that I've heard one announcement from and then disappear. Granted, many of these are near-clones of other applications, but NS wasn't. But from what I've seen, people contribute most to something when they're using an app, see a feature missing or a bug, and do something about it b/c it will *add* to the pleasure/utility of using the program. (E.g. adding session logging to GAIM.) Asking people, "Hey, won't you write our program for us?" just isn't going to work very well.
I hope NS realizes this, and soon. It looks as though they're taking the "Mozilla is not Netscape" bromide in their own way: that they don't need to take it as seriously as a "real" product--the "magic pixie dust of open source" that JWZ mentioned. As it stands, Gecko is pretty much all they've shown to the public, and though it does the tests nicely, it's actually slower at web surfing (at least in my experience). Meanwhile, IE5 is getting good reviews, and all the press is noting the lack of significant progress with Mozilla.
Before anyone flames me, I want to thank everyone who has been hacking the browser. It sounds like you've gotten the short end of the stick in many ways. If NS goes down in flames (or quietly dies), then at least we'll have *something* to use.
It sounds like JWZ made the right decision. I hope Netscape listens to him and releases the Communicator code. It may be their only chance.
While reading Slashdot every day might make one think otherwise, I'd be surprised if even 1% of those who order from companies like Dell, Gateway, and Compaq request Linux, never mind the more obscure Be. Consequently, it's not in vendors' best interests to expend the money on training and hiring that preinstallation, configuration, and support of these OSs would necessitate.
:P)
While I'd love to be able to buy the latest dream machine from Dell w/Linux and Be installed and set up on it, I think a more feasable request would be to ask vendors to ship computers without any OS preinstalled and without charging the customer for the non-existent Windows software. That not only would make some of the alternative OS crowd happier, but would actually be a more direct demonstration of the relationship between OEMs and MS: if it's all good, what problem should they have selling "naked" systems? (Though I wish it weren't under the cloud of an antitrust trial.
The note that the Windows contract is between OEMs and the end user doesn't bode well for this protest. If this is in fact the case, MS can, and probably will, just tell those involved to go deal with the company from which they purchased the computer.
This is a great idea, but I think it should be directed at OEMs, the ones who are actually bound by the contract. I'd recommend using the LFD site and its resources as a way to put extra muscle on OEMs for customers, perhaps organizing concerted efforts against specific suppliers. They're the ones who're ultimately responsible for this mess for agreeing to MS's licensing terms, and they're the ones who're going to have to protest to Redmond directly.
Another way of protesting, which could do more to get OEMs' attention is to take advantage of our semi-free market and vote with our dollars by buying preinstalled Linux machines. Two of my friends have computers from the wonderful folks at VA Research; the machines are great, and I'm planning on buying my next desktop computer from them.
For those for whom VA's prices are a little high (i.e. buying those bargain Compaqs and the like), I'd encourage them to, even if the response is negative, ask that all MS software be removed/not installed and try to get the refund right away. If they won't get rid of Windows, perhaps you can save some cash on Works, Office, McAffee, or whatever they're pushing on you.
That said, I wish everyone luck. May you get your refunds.
From what I've read and been told on the Beowulf mailing list, the distribution doesn't operate in the way the PR implies. A Beowulf system runs as one big machine *only* insofar as processors go and *only* for explicitly multithreaded applications. E.g. 20x80MB HD != 1600MB--you have to deal w/each drive individually. (One might try setting up a RAID first, but I haven't heard anything about this being attempted.)
Finally, I agree that the document needs to be pared *way* down before it's sent out. A PR needs to be short and succint; they can provide info for where people can go for more details.