If you check the author of the question, the clueless one would be me.:-)
I used the term meta device, because that's how Linux uses the term for it's software RAID, which is what I'm interested in using. Physical devices are combined into meta devices (/dev/md0,/dev/md1, etc.).
In RAID0 both drives are seeking, but for different data. There's no requirement that the drives be synchronized in any way. Once the first buffer arrives to satisfy the request, the the application is dispatchable. Synchronized spindles were a technology that was used at one point, but the last I heard about it was about 15 years ago. FTR (full track read) in the drive firmware and similar competing optimizations eliminated the need for synchronization and the associated RPS (rotational position sensing), and RPS-miss condition you're describing.
In RAID1, either device can satisfy a read, so read processing is slightly faster. Both devices have to acknowledge a write, which does reduce performance slightly, for the increased reliability.
I wanted to eliminate non-bootable RAID configurations: drives off a PCMCIA controller or Firewire drives, unless supported in the BIOS. I'm not sure that all the notebooks that support multiple drives can actually boot from any/all of them.
Using software RAID (in Linux, for example), you can do both RAID0 and RAID1 on the same pair of drives, for different (matching sets of) partitions.
You could setup a "work" partition set to be RAID0 for fast processing of large files (video data conversion, for example), while the rest of the partitions are RAID1 for protection from a failure.
With software RAID, it's not an either/or situation.
So if an unhappy Intel/AMD/etc. person waits a year into "DRM CPU" production, then leaks the their key, what happens? Intel isn't going to recall a years production worth of CPUs; they can't afford it. It's the same problem as the DVD issue; you can't recall all the DVDs to update the encryption. Once the cat's out of the bag, you're done. You can't disable the key; too many paying customers will be impacted. DVD Deja-Vu all over again.
Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine today, but what's to prevent someone from using software emulation for the hardware functions in Palladium? Wouldn't this allow the security and authenticity checks (and DRM) to be circumvented?
The problem is that a PC is a general purpose computing platform. It's not a DVD player, or a CD player or even an email station. It's anything the software makes it. And it has lots of free CPU cycles these days for things like emulation. If the software never invokes the CPU functions or uses a software protocol stack instead of the hardware stacks, you can do anything you want.
You can hack the firmware (like what's been done to DVD players), you can even patch the CPU with hacked microcode. If you can't, then you need to upgrade your hardware when Palladium 1.1 comes out. And 1.2, and...
Why not simply prove that the design is faulty before it gets out of the gate?
1- I agree that the term "under God" should be removed from the pledge. The pledge was valid before 1954, and it will continue to be valid after the current ruling. Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and that includes the freedom to abstain from religious belief. In order to insure that freedom, our founding fathers had the foresight to include the separation of church and state into our constitution. The reference to a deity on the pledge implies the need to believe in a god, in order to assert allegiance to our country. That was not and should not be the intent of pledge.
2- The point that many of those complaining about this judgment are missing is that this is not about religious belief vs. atheists. There are many, many religions in this world and in this country. Some do not believe in a deity, and some do not believe in a single deity. The pledge statement "under god" excludes not only atheists as some believe (still wrong), but many non-Judeo- Christian religions as well. Many people forget that their personal beliefs are not the beliefs of all, and imposing those beliefs on others is wrong. This is why we have separation of church and state.
The Toshiba 5105 uses the Synaptics cPad, a touch sensitive LCD screen as a touchpad mouse. I haven't been able to find any information needed to create an open source device driver, though Synaptics web site does document the Windows API.
I've wanted to use this device for various information displays in Linux (like Gkrellm, but so far requests to Toshiba and Syntaptics have been fruitless.:-(
It would be easier for his friends to use web based email instead. He could install SquirrelMail with SSL authentication instead, for example. His friends would be happier, and he wouldn't be causing a problem for others. He also wouldn't be running his mail server and bandwidth flat out processing spam. No infringment on his rights, and he's not being used as the tool to infinge on the rights of others. Win-win.
Have I missed something? Hasn't MS been found guilty of lying in court (things like the rigged video)? Why isn't someone at least paying a perjury fine (or spending time in jail)? Or is that only for us regular folks?
I couldn't agree more. Check this patent, and this one, and finally this one. They date back to 1989, and are all granted to Jerry Conley and assigned to the E.F. Johnson Company. Basically, you take a radioactive substance (a beta emitter, like your TV electron gun), chemically bond it to a polymer (so it can never get out) then dope it with a phosphor. You now have plastic that glows for decades, and can be smashed to bits without releasing any radiation. Slice it up, and sandwich it between photo-voltaic ("solar") cells. You now have a battery (or battery charger) that is completely safe. By the way, Popular Science had a brief blurb about this in the early 1990's, which is where I first heard about it. All things nuclear are not evil!
...on what capacity they are operating in, especially cable companies.
If they are just providing transport (IP connectivity), then I can't see the cable companies being responsible.
However, newsgroups are becoming increasingly popular for file exchange (everything from e-books to mp3 to full length movies). In this scenario:
if the cable company is providing a news server,
and they are distributing the newsgroups in question to their subscribers (a decision they have to actively make),
and they are charging (know any that don't:-)
then I think that the cable company accepts the responsibility and any liability. It's not your responsibility to insure that the movie the cable company puts on channel X is legitimate. Why would it be your responsibility to insure that the movie, e-book, mp3 in newsgroup X (provided by your cable company) is legitimate?
The deed is not the device. No amount of wishing, hoping, threatening or praying can change that. Your argument has remained unaltered, and it was never convincing.
Tell me why the device cannot be used as part of an amateur development system. I've been a commercial programmer since 1978. Programming is not that hard, after the first couple of decades.
The primary function of the device, as stated at the web site is for development. As others have pointed out, many GBA development sites point to this device for that purpose.
Your primary use of the device may be for piracy, however it is not the primary purpose of the device. There are multiple legitimate uses for the device, pointed out by many/. posters.
Then isn't the illegal portion of the situation you describe the $10 CD full of illegally duplicated copyrighted material, not the Flash Advance? From your own example, CD burners are not illegal, and no one is confiscating them. CDs full of copyright violations sold for profit are illegal, and they should be confiscated. There is a difference.
Not sophistry, stupidity. If you counterfeit $20 bills, and it costs you $100 to make each one, you are a moron.
From a quick look at Amazon, GBA games sell from $5 to $30. Copying products in this price range with this device doesn't appear to be cost effective. Why not pick up a PROM burner for about the same price:
Suitable EPROMS are under $5, which seems to make them much more economically feasible for copying for profit.
If you're talking about a couple of kids sharing games, I think they are more likely to simply exchange/trade cartridges than they are to drop $100-$200 so they can play one or two games. I'm no rocket scientist, but the economics don't make sense to me.
That is my point. While you have the right to make a backup, and there's a better reason than most to so so with this device, the primary purpose is software development.
One-off copies cost several times the price of an original using this. It's like using a CD burner to copy a $15 CD, if CD blanks cost $100. In my mind, this solidifies development as the only realistic use of this device.
Anyone interested in cheap mass produced copies (a "pirate") would just use a PROM burner instead, wouldn't they?
On the contrary. You have a right to make a backup of games. Games that you give to children are much more likely to be lost and broken. As a result, there is better reason to backup GBA games than most.
In addition, the primary purpose of this device is for software development (to load games that you've created, so they can be played on a GBA). This action is more of an anticompetitive behavior to prevent the creation of unauthorized games for the GBA, than it is about stopping piracy (consider the price of the blank flash cartridges).
I have never had a GBA, nor this device. From the actions taken by Nintendo, I have no interest in either. That doesn't make their action right.
As far as I know, that activity is legal, so long as you own the game you are copying, and are making the copy for your personal backup.
From the documentation, the device also aids in the creation of new software. Many software tools fall into the category of being able to be abused for illegal purposes, much as a screwdriver or pliers can be construed to be burglary tools under the right circumstances.
However, since they have legitimate primary purposes, you can't run into Sears and confiscate their stock on the grounds someone might abuse the tools.
Slashdot Mirror
If you check the author of the question, the clueless one would be me. :-)
/dev/md1, etc.).
I used the term meta device, because that's how Linux uses the term for it's software RAID, which is what I'm interested in using. Physical devices are combined into meta devices (/dev/md0,
In RAID0 both drives are seeking, but for different data. There's no requirement that the drives be synchronized in any way. Once the first buffer arrives to satisfy the request, the the application is dispatchable. Synchronized spindles were a technology that was used at one point, but the last I heard about it was about 15 years ago. FTR (full track read) in the drive firmware and similar competing optimizations eliminated the need for synchronization and the associated RPS (rotational position sensing), and RPS-miss condition you're describing.
In RAID1, either device can satisfy a read, so read processing is slightly faster. Both devices have to acknowledge a write, which does reduce performance slightly, for the increased reliability.
I wanted to eliminate non-bootable RAID configurations: drives off a PCMCIA controller or Firewire drives, unless supported in the BIOS. I'm not sure that all the notebooks that support multiple drives can actually boot from any/all of them.
Using software RAID (in Linux, for example), you can do both RAID0 and RAID1 on the same pair of drives, for different (matching sets of) partitions.
You could setup a "work" partition set to be RAID0 for fast processing of large files (video data conversion, for example), while the rest of the partitions are RAID1 for protection from a failure.
With software RAID, it's not an either/or situation.
No matter how fast a single drive is, striped drives are faster...
They told us it was fixed!
So if an unhappy Intel/AMD/etc. person waits a year into "DRM CPU" production, then leaks the their key, what happens? Intel isn't going to recall a years production worth of CPUs; they can't afford it. It's the same problem as the DVD issue; you can't recall all the DVDs to update the encryption. Once the cat's out of the bag, you're done. You can't disable the key; too many paying customers will be impacted. DVD Deja-Vu all over again.
If you just want a quick and not so dry set of lectures, pick up a video tape or DVD from Standard Deviants:
http://www.standarddeviants.com
I viewed a few of their tapes on subjects I was interested in, and they gave me enough to get started on my own.
Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine today, but what's to prevent someone from using software emulation for the hardware functions in Palladium? Wouldn't this allow the security and authenticity checks (and DRM) to be circumvented?
The problem is that a PC is a general purpose computing platform. It's not a DVD player, or a CD player or even an email station. It's anything the software makes it. And it has lots of free CPU cycles these days for things like emulation. If the software never invokes the CPU functions or uses a software protocol stack instead of the hardware stacks, you can do anything you want.
You can hack the firmware (like what's been done to DVD players), you can even patch the CPU with hacked microcode. If you can't, then you need to upgrade your hardware when Palladium 1.1 comes out. And 1.2, and...
Why not simply prove that the design is faulty before it gets out of the gate?
1- I agree that the term "under God" should be removed from the pledge. The pledge was valid before 1954, and it will continue to be valid after the current ruling. Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and that includes the freedom to abstain from religious belief. In order to insure that freedom, our founding fathers had the foresight to include the separation of church and state into our constitution. The reference to a deity on the pledge implies the need to believe in a god, in order to assert allegiance to our country. That was not and should not be the intent of pledge.
2- The point that many of those complaining about this judgment are missing is that this is not about religious belief vs. atheists. There are many, many religions in this world and in this country. Some do not believe in a deity, and some do not believe in a single deity. The pledge statement "under god" excludes not only atheists as some believe (still wrong), but many non-Judeo- Christian religions as well. Many people forget that their personal beliefs are not the beliefs of all, and imposing those beliefs on others is wrong. This is why we have separation of church and state.
The Toshiba 5105 uses the Synaptics cPad, a touch sensitive LCD screen as a touchpad mouse. I haven't been able to find any information needed to create an open source device driver, though Synaptics web site does document the Windows API. I've wanted to use this device for various information displays in Linux (like Gkrellm, but so far requests to Toshiba and Syntaptics have been fruitless. :-(
I always wondered why US currency wasn't different sizes, or used "feelable" edges, so the visually impaired or blind could identify the denomination.
Arent the "baby Bells" still considered regulated monopolies? How can they be sued for being in the condition that the federal government left them?
Heck, at $299 each, It might be fun to pick a few of these up to play with (or even actually do work).
It would be easier for his friends to use web based email instead. He could install SquirrelMail with SSL authentication instead, for example. His friends would be happier, and he wouldn't be causing a problem for others. He also wouldn't be running his mail server and bandwidth flat out processing spam. No infringment on his rights, and he's not being used as the tool to infinge on the rights of others. Win-win.
Have I missed something? Hasn't MS been found guilty of lying in court (things like the rigged video)? Why isn't someone at least paying a perjury fine (or spending time in jail)? Or is that only for us regular folks?
I couldn't agree more. Check this patent, and this one, and finally this one. They date back to 1989, and are all granted to Jerry Conley and assigned to the E.F. Johnson Company. Basically, you take a radioactive substance (a beta emitter, like your TV electron gun), chemically bond it to a polymer (so it can never get out) then dope it with a phosphor. You now have plastic that glows for decades, and can be smashed to bits without releasing any radiation. Slice it up, and sandwich it between photo-voltaic ("solar") cells. You now have a battery (or battery charger) that is completely safe. By the way, Popular Science had a brief blurb about this in the early 1990's, which is where I first heard about it. All things nuclear are not evil!
If they are just providing transport (IP connectivity), then I can't see the cable companies being responsible.
However, newsgroups are becoming increasingly popular for file exchange (everything from e-books to mp3 to full length movies). In this scenario:
- if the cable company is providing a news server,
- and they are distributing the newsgroups in question to their subscribers (a decision they have to actively make),
- and they are charging (know any that don't
:-)
then I think that the cable company accepts the responsibility and any liability. It's not your responsibility to insure that the movie the cable company puts on channel X is legitimate. Why would it be your responsibility to insure that the movie, e-book, mp3 in newsgroup X (provided by your cable company) is legitimate?The deed is not the device. No amount of wishing, hoping, threatening or praying can change that. Your argument has remained unaltered, and it was never convincing.
Tell me why the device cannot be used as part of an amateur development system. I've been a commercial programmer since 1978. Programming is not that hard, after the first couple of decades.
Your primary use of the device may be for piracy, however it is not the primary purpose of the device. There are multiple legitimate uses for the device, pointed out by many /. posters.
So what you are saying is that you can take something that has a legitimate use, and use it illegally? My goodness, that is amazing.
Not to mention as new and improved as renting and copying a video (better yet, get them at your local library).
Better call the cops, I hear Sears is selling crowbars.
For the same reason that VCRs, EPROM burners, CD-R/RW, DVD-RW, ad nauseam, are not illegal, this should not be illegal.
Then isn't the illegal portion of the situation you describe the $10 CD full of illegally duplicated copyrighted material, not the Flash Advance? From your own example, CD burners are not illegal, and no one is confiscating them. CDs full of copyright violations sold for profit are illegal, and they should be confiscated. There is a difference.
Not sophistry, stupidity. If you counterfeit $20 bills, and it costs you $100 to make each one, you are a moron.
u =5 2F6286
x .h tml
From a quick look at Amazon, GBA games sell from $5 to $30. Copying products in this price range with this device doesn't appear to be cost effective. Why not pick up a PROM burner for about the same price:
http://www.newark.com/search/Description.jsp?sk
or even make one yourself:
http://home.quicknet.com.au/andrewm/eprom1/inde
Suitable EPROMS are under $5, which seems to make them much more economically feasible for copying for profit.
If you're talking about a couple of kids sharing games, I think they are more likely to simply exchange/trade cartridges than they are to drop $100-$200 so they can play one or two games. I'm no rocket scientist, but the economics don't make sense to me.
That is my point. While you have the right to make a backup, and there's a better reason than most to so so with this device, the primary purpose is software development.
One-off copies cost several times the price of an original using this. It's like using a CD burner to copy a $15 CD, if CD blanks cost $100. In my mind, this solidifies development as the only realistic use of this device.
Anyone interested in cheap mass produced copies (a "pirate") would just use a PROM burner instead, wouldn't they?
On the contrary. You have a right to make a backup of games. Games that you give to children are much more likely to be lost and broken. As a result, there is better reason to backup GBA games than most.
In addition, the primary purpose of this device is for software development (to load games that you've created, so they can be played on a GBA). This action is more of an anticompetitive behavior to prevent the creation of unauthorized games for the GBA, than it is about stopping piracy (consider the price of the blank flash cartridges).
I have never had a GBA, nor this device. From the actions taken by Nintendo, I have no interest in either. That doesn't make their action right.
As far as I know, that activity is legal, so long as you own the game you are copying, and are making the copy for your personal backup.
From the documentation, the device also aids in the creation of new software. Many software tools fall into the category of being able to be abused for illegal purposes, much as a screwdriver or pliers can be construed to be burglary tools under the right circumstances.
However, since they have legitimate primary purposes, you can't run into Sears and confiscate their stock on the grounds someone might abuse the tools.