The first companies that cave usually get really easy licensing terms, because the patent-holders know it sets a precedent for other future pursuits.
So, yeah, Nokia and RIM probably both had a good reason to cough up a few bucks, in the hopes that their competition would try to fight the good fight and end up losing a LOT more.
Depends on which trees are intelligent. If all of them are, then they'd just start slaughtering each other for wood. Probably form various religions around leaf shapes or bark color it to make it cool with everyone first, though.
Otherwise, if there were various levels of intelligence, then the smart trees would simply start farming the dumb ones, like we do with cows and chickens.
True as far as it goes, but you're refuting something I never said.
We're not talking about NetApp devices here (which you have, as far as I know, accurately described), we're talking about the target of their lawsuit, Coraid, and the product they are making that is the cause of the suit.
Coraid is selling a NAS called the EtherDrive Z-Series which uses ZFS as its underlying filesystem. That filesystem is not exposed to anything but the EtherDrive, because the EtherDrive is a NAS solution.
I know you've already replied that you misunderstood, but just in case anyone else is confused by this...
This is a NAS, which is itself a server. Support for the filesystem is built into the NAS box. The NAS box then exposes the data it stores on that filesystem to the network using network-appropriate protocols.
Anyone wanting to access it would use a networking standard like Samba, Windows File Sharing, FTP, or whatever services the NAS box allows.
Of course, they'd also access the management tools (nowadays generally a small web server also built into the NAS box).
None of the clients would need to support the underlying filesystem that the NAS box uses. In fact, they wouldn't even be allowed to know what that filesystem is.
Back when I had Windows boxes at home, they had absolutely no problems reading shares I made on my Linux box. The Linux box could be formatted ext, Reiser, or anything I wanted that Linux supported.
As long as I never tried to take a hard drive out of the Linux box and put it in the Windows box, of course. Then it becomes local storage, and Windows would have to support the filesystem in order to read it.
You're still sending the tools to create the filesystem on the unit.
Real solution would be to pick a filesystem that is supported by your hardware AND is unencumbered by asshattery. There are plenty of those lying about. But ZFS probably gives them some extra storage management capabilities.
What you say is true for LOCAL storage, but EtherDrives are NAS (Network Attached Storage) as mentioned in the summary.
This means they come preformatted, but the machines that access the storage are using Samba or Windows File Sharing or whatever to access it, so the client PCs do not see the filesystem on the NAS box.
Are you proposing that piracy penalties be based on a percentage of the same "gross" that Hollywierd publishes for the purposes of paying their sponsors, actors, and other support personnel?
While I agree that I'd prefer to see movies that are about stories, I don't think that's what movies are about.
A movie is the result of a venture that is focused on selling asses in seats and residuals like DVD and TV releases. If adding whiz-bang shiny will sell more money's worth of seat space than the effects cost, then the effects worked.
Pardon my possible ignorance, but I had read somewhere that TurnItIn gives the score and also shows the top matches to the professor.
Which means, of course, that "reusing" your own work would be obvious, since your name is on the original AND the newly-submitted copy. Then it would be a discussion between you and your Prof to determine if it was OK to reuse your work from a previous class.
Unfortunately, most Profs probably wouldn't be very happy with it anyway. They generally want you to write a paper FOR THEM, not reuse something you did previously.
I think the point is that, without measures like the above, cheating may in fact be easier than learning the material.
I just barely passed Calc 1 the first time through because I purchased the answer key to our textbook (which was not against the rules, nor was it technically "cheating" since the homework was not graded, just reviewed for feedback). But then I got lazy and started copying the answer key a lot.
That cost me the opportunity to get feedback from the TA on the material. Near the end of the semester, one of the TAs noticed it and sent a note "stop copying the textbook answer, you aren't learning the material", but it was caught too late and I squeaked by the final.
I voluntarily retook the class (which cost me dearly since I was paying my own way) and focused on the material the second time around, and did very well.
I cheated, but fortunately I only cheated myself out of a good opportunity to learn. Fortunately, it happened very early in my college career and it only cost me some time and money.
For any class that means anything, the only way to succeed in the long term is to learn the material well enough to pass. Had I managed to cheat my way through Calc 1, I would have been totally and utterly screwed in Calc 2 - 4.
A lot of kids don't learn that until they start struggling because they cheated themselves out of the foundation they COULD have built in earlier classes.
Do we need a "Godwin" variant for Gattaca references every time genetics are mentioned? "Dude! You just Gatted the thread!"
I can imagine your scenario true, if this were mandatory. If the US didn't have strict privacy laws surrounding such information. And if the student, once informed of this, couldn't sue the everlovin' shit out of the University for doing something so utterly stupid.
Plus, what in the hell does a University care whether their students are successful, or even alive? As long as the student pays their bills, an ass ends up in a seat and the school makes their tuition money. You could stitch together rotted bits of badger and get it admitted if you offer enough money and promise to keep it from getting too stinky.
It's written in an obscure script on the inside of a golden ring?
Well, duh. Isn't it obvious?
"Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."
Quick! We need some midgets and an active volcano!
Why doesn't the Linux community make a nice slim and secure distribution that will run on a 486/586 with only 256M of memory - or less?
Some of the lightweight distros, like Peppermint, Puppy Linux, and several XFCE-based distros, would run quite nicely on a 486 with 64MB memory. If you insist on a heavyweight distro like Fedora, you've already made your feature/performance decision, and you haven't chosen performance.
We looked seriously at the 5230, but my wife wanted to consolidate her phone and her iPod Touch into a single device that could do both, so the 5800 (at $100 more) was the least expensive unlocked unit I could find with WiFi.
The GPS was actually a happy bonus, but man oh man what a bonus it was! We don't use my Blackberry for street navigation any more because turn-by-turn voice would cost an extra $10 a month and I don't think my company would spring for it.
Actually, it goes deeper than that -- as far as I know, you can't even buy a phone running Symbian, period, that's capable of 3G data on any network in the United States (with the *possible* exception of an imported Japanese phone that by some miracle of God might work on Nextel). For whatever reason, Symbian is almost a synonym for "Expensive GSM phone that nevertheless can't do EDGE, and is capable of 3G UMTS only at 1900/2100MHz". Thus, no sane American likely to be remotely interested in a phone running Symbian is going to go out and spend $500 or more to buy an unlocked phone that's basically a GPRS paperweight capable of making voice calls in a pinch.
Wow. Just. Wow.
I'm sorry, I honestly don't mean offense, but I'd like to point out that in less than half the time it took to type all that you could have gone to Amazon and typed "Nokia unlocked 3G" and extended "as far as I know" into actual accurate territory. Nokia's had 3G capable phones in the US for some time now. They work great. I own one.
There's a whole page of them, most under $500, many under $200, and many of them support US 3G. You have to shop carefully if you want T-Mobile, AT&T, and/or European (some of them support only one, some support two, only a few support all three).
I have the $270 Nokia 5800 and I can assure you it works just fine on 3G in the United States on the AT&T network. I don't have a data plan and forgot to delete the carrier connection, and it clearly showed a "3G" indicator (and burned through a decent bit of data in the few seconds before I realized it was using Carrier Internet and not my WiFi connection, thereby incurring a data charge).
I'll grant that Nokia doesn't appear to make any Verizon-compatible phones any more, and that none of the carriers seem to carry Symbian phones in their stores based on a brief web search.
Offline capability is HUGE. Not only because you can lose signal, but because waiting for maps to load is just horribly inconvenient and slow over a cell connection compared to reading it off a local chip (not to mention limits or overage charges your data plan may have).
Having that, plus voice guidance, all included in the 5800 (a $270 unlocked handset) is very nice indeed.
Add in a 5 megapixel camera and WiFi (no need for a carrier data plan!) and as far as we're concerned Nokia has made a serious winner of a phone for our purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
The first companies that cave usually get really easy licensing terms, because the patent-holders know it sets a precedent for other future pursuits.
So, yeah, Nokia and RIM probably both had a good reason to cough up a few bucks, in the hopes that their competition would try to fight the good fight and end up losing a LOT more.
Personally, I spread my peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat. So you can't sue me, but the RIAA might...
Oh, yeah. I should have been more specific...
...pick a filesystem that is supported by your hardware AND is unencumbered by patent-troll asshattery
FTFM (Fixed That For Me).
Depends on which trees are intelligent. If all of them are, then they'd just start slaughtering each other for wood. Probably form various religions around leaf shapes or bark color it to make it cool with everyone first, though.
Otherwise, if there were various levels of intelligence, then the smart trees would simply start farming the dumb ones, like we do with cows and chickens.
True as far as it goes, but you're refuting something I never said.
We're not talking about NetApp devices here (which you have, as far as I know, accurately described), we're talking about the target of their lawsuit, Coraid, and the product they are making that is the cause of the suit.
Coraid is selling a NAS called the EtherDrive Z-Series which uses ZFS as its underlying filesystem. That filesystem is not exposed to anything but the EtherDrive, because the EtherDrive is a NAS solution.
Now we just need to develop the technology to bake a sufficiently large bun, and we finally have a burger large enough for even the American market.
No, a Tauntaun would be a TENT. We're talking about HOUSES here.
I know you've already replied that you misunderstood, but just in case anyone else is confused by this...
This is a NAS, which is itself a server. Support for the filesystem is built into the NAS box. The NAS box then exposes the data it stores on that filesystem to the network using network-appropriate protocols.
Anyone wanting to access it would use a networking standard like Samba, Windows File Sharing, FTP, or whatever services the NAS box allows.
Of course, they'd also access the management tools (nowadays generally a small web server also built into the NAS box).
None of the clients would need to support the underlying filesystem that the NAS box uses. In fact, they wouldn't even be allowed to know what that filesystem is.
Back when I had Windows boxes at home, they had absolutely no problems reading shares I made on my Linux box. The Linux box could be formatted ext, Reiser, or anything I wanted that Linux supported.
As long as I never tried to take a hard drive out of the Linux box and put it in the Windows box, of course. Then it becomes local storage, and Windows would have to support the filesystem in order to read it.
You're still sending the tools to create the filesystem on the unit.
Real solution would be to pick a filesystem that is supported by your hardware AND is unencumbered by asshattery. There are plenty of those lying about. But ZFS probably gives them some extra storage management capabilities.
What you say is true for LOCAL storage, but EtherDrives are NAS (Network Attached Storage) as mentioned in the summary.
This means they come preformatted, but the machines that access the storage are using Samba or Windows File Sharing or whatever to access it, so the client PCs do not see the filesystem on the NAS box.
Are you proposing that piracy penalties be based on a percentage of the same "gross" that Hollywierd publishes for the purposes of paying their sponsors, actors, and other support personnel?
Got my vote. I love a good petard-hoisting.
While I agree that I'd prefer to see movies that are about stories, I don't think that's what movies are about.
A movie is the result of a venture that is focused on selling asses in seats and residuals like DVD and TV releases. If adding whiz-bang shiny will sell more money's worth of seat space than the effects cost, then the effects worked.
Yes on both.
That's why a really good class will require that you do homework and have it reviewed and marked, but not included in your final grade.
The only penalty for getting homework wrong is having a TA hunt you down so they can help you master the material.
The only reward for copying homework is that you cost yourself that opportunity, and find yourself unprepared when the exams hit.
Pardon my possible ignorance, but I had read somewhere that TurnItIn gives the score and also shows the top matches to the professor.
Which means, of course, that "reusing" your own work would be obvious, since your name is on the original AND the newly-submitted copy. Then it would be a discussion between you and your Prof to determine if it was OK to reuse your work from a previous class.
Unfortunately, most Profs probably wouldn't be very happy with it anyway. They generally want you to write a paper FOR THEM, not reuse something you did previously.
I think the point is that, without measures like the above, cheating may in fact be easier than learning the material.
I just barely passed Calc 1 the first time through because I purchased the answer key to our textbook (which was not against the rules, nor was it technically "cheating" since the homework was not graded, just reviewed for feedback). But then I got lazy and started copying the answer key a lot.
That cost me the opportunity to get feedback from the TA on the material. Near the end of the semester, one of the TAs noticed it and sent a note "stop copying the textbook answer, you aren't learning the material", but it was caught too late and I squeaked by the final.
I voluntarily retook the class (which cost me dearly since I was paying my own way) and focused on the material the second time around, and did very well.
I cheated, but fortunately I only cheated myself out of a good opportunity to learn. Fortunately, it happened very early in my college career and it only cost me some time and money.
For any class that means anything, the only way to succeed in the long term is to learn the material well enough to pass. Had I managed to cheat my way through Calc 1, I would have been totally and utterly screwed in Calc 2 - 4.
A lot of kids don't learn that until they start struggling because they cheated themselves out of the foundation they COULD have built in earlier classes.
Which eventually will be rolled into a new Google service called "G-nome". :)
were victims of a data breech
They were victims of data coming out of a system backward? Or did you mean they were victims of a pair of short pants made out of data?
Either way, sounds nasty.
Do we need a "Godwin" variant for Gattaca references every time genetics are mentioned? "Dude! You just Gatted the thread!"
I can imagine your scenario true, if this were mandatory. If the US didn't have strict privacy laws surrounding such information. And if the student, once informed of this, couldn't sue the everlovin' shit out of the University for doing something so utterly stupid.
Plus, what in the hell does a University care whether their students are successful, or even alive? As long as the student pays their bills, an ass ends up in a seat and the school makes their tuition money. You could stitch together rotted bits of badger and get it admitted if you offer enough money and promise to keep it from getting too stinky.
Laser beams? Silly boy! This is an eye implant! No room for the sharks.
I love that site.
It's written in an obscure script on the inside of a golden ring?
Well, duh. Isn't it obvious?
"Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."
Quick! We need some midgets and an active volcano!
Why doesn't the Linux community make a nice slim and secure distribution that will run on a 486/586 with only 256M of memory - or less?
Some of the lightweight distros, like Peppermint, Puppy Linux, and several XFCE-based distros, would run quite nicely on a 486 with 64MB memory. If you insist on a heavyweight distro like Fedora, you've already made your feature/performance decision, and you haven't chosen performance.
We looked seriously at the 5230, but my wife wanted to consolidate her phone and her iPod Touch into a single device that could do both, so the 5800 (at $100 more) was the least expensive unlocked unit I could find with WiFi.
The GPS was actually a happy bonus, but man oh man what a bonus it was! We don't use my Blackberry for street navigation any more because turn-by-turn voice would cost an extra $10 a month and I don't think my company would spring for it.
Actually, it goes deeper than that -- as far as I know, you can't even buy a phone running Symbian, period, that's capable of 3G data on any network in the United States (with the *possible* exception of an imported Japanese phone that by some miracle of God might work on Nextel). For whatever reason, Symbian is almost a synonym for "Expensive GSM phone that nevertheless can't do EDGE, and is capable of 3G UMTS only at 1900/2100MHz". Thus, no sane American likely to be remotely interested in a phone running Symbian is going to go out and spend $500 or more to buy an unlocked phone that's basically a GPRS paperweight capable of making voice calls in a pinch.
Wow. Just. Wow.
I'm sorry, I honestly don't mean offense, but I'd like to point out that in less than half the time it took to type all that you could have gone to Amazon and typed "Nokia unlocked 3G" and extended "as far as I know" into actual accurate territory. Nokia's had 3G capable phones in the US for some time now. They work great. I own one.
Cheapest result:
Nokia 5230, $183 UNLOCKED: http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Unlocked-Touchscreen-Camera-microSD/dp/B003DZERC6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=wireless&qid=1278529745&sr=1-1
There's a whole page of them, most under $500, many under $200, and many of them support US 3G. You have to shop carefully if you want T-Mobile, AT&T, and/or European (some of them support only one, some support two, only a few support all three).
I have the $270 Nokia 5800 and I can assure you it works just fine on 3G in the United States on the AT&T network. I don't have a data plan and forgot to delete the carrier connection, and it clearly showed a "3G" indicator (and burned through a decent bit of data in the few seconds before I realized it was using Carrier Internet and not my WiFi connection, thereby incurring a data charge).
I'll grant that Nokia doesn't appear to make any Verizon-compatible phones any more, and that none of the carriers seem to carry Symbian phones in their stores based on a brief web search.
Offline capability is HUGE. Not only because you can lose signal, but because waiting for maps to load is just horribly inconvenient and slow over a cell connection compared to reading it off a local chip (not to mention limits or overage charges your data plan may have).
Having that, plus voice guidance, all included in the 5800 (a $270 unlocked handset) is very nice indeed.
Add in a 5 megapixel camera and WiFi (no need for a carrier data plan!) and as far as we're concerned Nokia has made a serious winner of a phone for our purposes.