That is most certainly a valid defense. But defenses cost money and the big evil corporations know this. It would be better for these gripe bloggers to use a name that gives the evil corporation no opportunity in this regard. Just use a domain name that describes the bad actions and identify the bad actors in the content. Then the first C & D has to be something like "stop saying that" or whatever.
... these bloggers would just not use the name of the company in their domain name. Instead, choose a name that is descriptive of the evil actions. Then merely identify what company is being referred to. And that opens up the ability to reference more than one company, too.
... even though I fully intend to wipe Windows off (after making 3 backups of it) and replace it with Ubuntu Linux. The reason is this gives me the ability to cheaply run Windows in case I might ever need to do so (happens about every 2 or 3 years). If I were to buy a netbook with just Linux on it, most likely I've be replacing that Linux with Ubuntu Linux, anyway. But that other Linux wouldn't really be giving me something extra. With these netbooks in the $250 price range with XP or Linux, it's really like getting one Windows usage license nearly for free (for that machine).
I have a USB flash stick that has some strange sectors. They do NOT cause any I/O errors. However, different data results from reading those sectors. Even more strange is that I get different data based on what block size used to do the reading. For block sizes 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, and 8192, I get a certain data value on these sectors. If I use a block size of 16384 I get different data. And for all larger powers of 2 (I tried up to 1048576) there is another value. So I can get 3 possible data values from these sectors depending on what block size is used. As long as I use the same block size (one of 512/1024/2048/4096/8192 vs. 16384 vs. one of 32768/65536/131072/262144/524288/1048576) I get the same data. That is just so strange.
I'm guessing that internally, the flash is failing to read some sector, but goes ahead and transfers to the USB bus whatever data was left in the buffer. What was in the buffer depends on the size of the request.
What's annoying is that there is NO indication of an error. I discovered this only because 2 different programs that happen to do read() requests in different sizes got different data. These programs were bzip2 and gzip. So then I ran tests to see why.
I bought a brand new 8GB flash key last night. It did exactly the same thing. I then write over it and now it does not do this anymore. I am guessing that there is some kind of rotation of blocks (of some size maybe around 16384 bytes) that are the unit of erasure, as part of the wear leveling, that has left the bad sector currently in the unused pool. I hope it has been detected as bad and flagged unusable. I worry that it may come back sometime as more data is written in the future. Now I need to do read-back verification of any critical data I write.
This has happened with 2 different 8GB sticks and 1 16GB stick from SanDisk. I did not get to test this with smaller ones I previously had, and have given them away so I no longer have them. I'm not going to buy more smaller ones just to carry out these tests. I also use SDHC memory cards, but have not tested those, yet. I plan to get a 16GB SDHC card soon, and I will run these tests on the factory data recorded on them at that time and see if SD cards have the same issue.
I'm hoping it's just some glitch in the way the factory initializes the flash. Maybe they initialize it while its still a chip and not using the USB interface, and don't actually run the wear leveling logic during that initialization (which may even be loading the wear leveling firmware at the same time, so in that case it can't use that logic, yet). As soon as I can get hold of someone at SanDisk that is technical enough, maybe I can find out what the issue is.
So in summary, maybe this is a bad flash, and maybe not. But something is not giving an I/O error when I think it should. So there may be a risk that flash devices could fail without proper error indications.
However, the average home does not meter reactive power. The new digital meters that are coming can. And if the utilities enable the reactive metering in them and charge for it, homeowners will be quite upset with bills going up with the new meters. They'll blame the new meters as being inaccurate. The utilities know what could happen, so maybe they will choose not to do that. But you never know.
Why not try out low voltage Halogen lights for critical task areas? With a simple step-down transformer for 12VAC operation, you should have near unity power factor and good quality light somewhat more efficient than ordinary incandescent.
The higher the voltage on any incandescent bulb (including halogen), the thinner and longer the filament needs to be. That means it has to be sized to operate at a lower temperature, which is less efficient because that shifts the spectrum more into the infra-red (it's already mostly in infra-red, anyway). But at a lower voltage, the filament is shorter and thicker, allowing it to operate at a higher temperature. This shifts the spectrum to shorter wavelengths, with more of the emission in the visible wavelengths for a given power level coming in. Less is wasted as heat. Halogen bulbs also enhance this with some infra-red reflection back into the filament.
I don't actually need a lot of light. Where using ordinary incandescent, I regularly use 25 watt or even 15 watt bulbs. I can't even find CFLs for the lower light levels I use in a lot of places. But these are even worse for efficiency due to the lower operating temperature. Low voltage halogen lights in the 10 to 18 watt range give a lot more light. The efficiency improvement isn't as good as CFL or plain FL, but you still get good quality light. The efficiency is good enough to make up for the step down transformer, and still leave you with a lot of improvement. Transformers do hum, and some solid state voltage converters do exist that run quiet. But unlike fluorescent or other HID which require a ballast in the fixture, you can relocate the step-down transformer at some distance from the light (generally up to 10 or even 20 meters away).
This is not the most efficient way to go. But it is a good way to go for task lighting which requires good quality light in certain situations (for reading, in the kitchen, in the shop), while CFL and LED is fine for a lot of other uses. Maybe in the future, they will improve the light quality of CFL and LED by filling in the gaps between the peaks in the spectrum.
I'm actually planning to use an approach like this with a new forum. But there will be some differences. For example, new users are expected to contribute immediately (well, within 24 hours) to make the new username stick. And, their early contributions will be moderated (by staff and users that volunteer). The rating a user gets at signup will also be influenced by the domain name of the provider they connect from. Those from IPs without reverse DNS start at the very lowest level. If lots of spammers sign up from example.com then anyone signing up from any address with example.com starts at a lower level (e.g. more limits on posts and more moderation requirements).
Within that context, I next need to tackle the problem of existing good users who later get infected with a virus that tries to do posts in their name. One approach I am looking at for this is to use a modified form of CAPTCHA that depends on the user's knowledge of using the site. For example, I can put up the subjects of 4 recent posts, one of which this user posted, and ask them to confirm which post they posted by clicking on it. Of course, as methods like this get deployed widely on the internet, botnet operators will have to put more AI into their code to become more knowledgeable about the user they have infected.
Why even use Flash at all, when browsers can play video directly. They can already do that by launching a player. Soon, embedded video will be supported as the standards are adopted.
... completely get rid of Flash altogether. Embedded video is being standardized. Video through a launched video player already works, anyway. Eventually no plugin at all will be needed. And for Windows users, that's important, since those are the people that are so vulnerable to plugging in viruses and other exploits, spamware, spyware, etc. Then the next issue we'll have is getting MLBAM and others to encode in an unencumbered format like BBC's Dirac format.
If the stock art business sublicensed (from the guy that stole the work in the first place) the artwork to some of its own clients, then the real creator definitely has damages in either the amount collected by the stock art business, or in the amount he would have charged if they had licensed it from him or his agent.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it will probably work out.
Here's how I understand the case. If you step back a little, it will all be clear.
"A", the artist, created the work.
"B", the 3rd party thief, posed as an original artist, and submitted them to "C" for sale.
"C", the stock photo site.
"C" purchased the images from "B", probably under an exclusive license. "C" therefore has legitimate claim to the images. They found out that "A" has the same images on his site, so they filed the complaint. This is perfectly legitimate.
NO... it is NOT legitimate. The problem is "C" doesn't have the information to figure out that it is not legitimate. So (for now) it APPEARS to be legitimate to "C".
Since "B" did not ever have the legitimate rights, "B" could not have transferred them to "C". Since "B" committed fraud, it is a crime done by "B". "C" is a victim, as is "A" in a different way. That doesn't make "C"'s actions legitimate. But it does give "C" a defense against criminal charges. As to any civil damages, it depends on how prudent "C" behaved. Given the way stock art sites operate, there is probably not much, if any, liability for "C", provided they handle this appropriately. Once notified that there is a conflict of ownership, they do need to handle this very carefully. Also, one remote possibility is that both "A" and "B" created extremely similar art work. It has happened before. It can easily happen with photography of public scenery, for example. "C" needs to investigate appropriately. "A" needs to do the DMCA takedown thing to get "B"'s alleged artwork down, for now.
"A" countered the claim saying that he was the original artist.
"C" is still sitting on an invoice, a paid receipt, a signed (electronically, probably) contract saying that they own the photos.
That, if the given scenario is true, is not a legitimate invoice. Whether the scenario is true, or not, might well be up to a court to determine.
Who do you believe? The person that you've done business with, or a third party?
If I have not done business with them PERSONALLY, and only did so as an unseen party submitting things online, I would not know which to believe.
This unfortunately happens all the time. I was talking to someone who showed me their "original web site, created by a local graphics art firm." I immediately recognized several images as stock photos, and the layout looked like a template. A few days later while doing unrelated work, I found the template on templatemonster.com. Ahhh, it was a template, that the local firm populated with their specific details (we do.. our number is.. email us at..). They confronted the local firm about it. They insisted that it was all original work, even though it was easy to see otherwise. The site owner chose to believe the local firm. Why? Because they had done business with them, and I was just a new guy in the picture.
They might start believing otherwise when the sheriff or marshals come in to collect property to satisfy a default judgment ruling that resulted from them ignoring a court summons for copyright infringement damages. Of course, a DMCA takedown would get the point across long before then.
I could copy down a handful of photos from a stock image place, upload them to somewhere that I had cooperation with, that would put whatever timestamps I wished on, and then say "Oh no, I made those last year". Does that make me right? Nope.
Right. You would be committing a crime by doing that. But it doesn't make it right for others to work with you on that, either, even though you do a very good job of lying to them about the crime.
A good thief wouldn't turn around and say "oh ya, I stole it, sorry 'bout that." They would defend their story until it
Or maybe the information the FBI had was faulty in some way. There is the accusation the customer in question is no longer a customer there. If the FBI came in asking for access to the servers of that customer, and there was no record in the active files of that customer, then the FBI may have perceived that as the provider not being cooperative.
Slashdot won't even let me type (really: paste) it in. So I have to enter it via tinyurl. The preview link is here [http://preview.tinyurl.com/dapfpm]. That URL was found traversing through the proxy when accessing a Youtube video. Later I repeated the same video (which was rather lame) and didn't get anything as long. I think they dynamically insert all the ads and stuff in the URLs.
Instead of sending them to the client (waste step 1) which in turn has to send them back to the server (waste step 2), what should be done is keep them on the server. Generate an MD5 hash of the URL string. Use the MD5 hash as an index in a Berkeley DB file, storing the time last created, and the whole URL (maybe compressed). Make a replacement URL with the MD5 hash. When a request comes back with the MD5 hash, look up the URL to use for it, much like having your own tiny URL tool. A reaper process can run in the background, gradually stepping through the indexes in some order, and deleting entries considered to be too old (whatever is appropriate for the site).
This is actually a good idea for security, too. By refusing to accept the full URLs with all those variable fields that people could modify, you'll have more of a shield against hackers trying to tweak with the system.
Just leave the base color black, and cover 20% of the car in white-ish spots that look like bird droppings. Then if it ever does get bird shit on it, no one will know.
In a black car, you have to roll the windows down further to keep it cool. That means more drag on the motion, and the engine has to work harder, resulting in more pollution, and an increased consumption of fuel.
Stacking frames does not require precision tracking. You only need to track it well enough to keep it in the frame. And in some cases partially out of the frame still has limited usefulness. The software correlates the positions based on what is in the picture. If there's enough of a pattern to make the alignment (at sub-pixel resolution), then it's easy. If it's fuzzy, you might have to do the alignment manually.
Slashdot Mirror
That is most certainly a valid defense. But defenses cost money and the big evil corporations know this. It would be better for these gripe bloggers to use a name that gives the evil corporation no opportunity in this regard. Just use a domain name that describes the bad actions and identify the bad actors in the content. Then the first C & D has to be something like "stop saying that" or whatever.
... these bloggers would just not use the name of the company in their domain name. Instead, choose a name that is descriptive of the evil actions. Then merely identify what company is being referred to. And that opens up the ability to reference more than one company, too.
Nor have they read this advice.
... even though I fully intend to wipe Windows off (after making 3 backups of it) and replace it with Ubuntu Linux. The reason is this gives me the ability to cheaply run Windows in case I might ever need to do so (happens about every 2 or 3 years). If I were to buy a netbook with just Linux on it, most likely I've be replacing that Linux with Ubuntu Linux, anyway. But that other Linux wouldn't really be giving me something extra. With these netbooks in the $250 price range with XP or Linux, it's really like getting one Windows usage license nearly for free (for that machine).
I have a USB flash stick that has some strange sectors. They do NOT cause any I/O errors. However, different data results from reading those sectors. Even more strange is that I get different data based on what block size used to do the reading. For block sizes 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, and 8192, I get a certain data value on these sectors. If I use a block size of 16384 I get different data. And for all larger powers of 2 (I tried up to 1048576) there is another value. So I can get 3 possible data values from these sectors depending on what block size is used. As long as I use the same block size (one of 512/1024/2048/4096/8192 vs. 16384 vs. one of 32768/65536/131072/262144/524288/1048576) I get the same data. That is just so strange.
I'm guessing that internally, the flash is failing to read some sector, but goes ahead and transfers to the USB bus whatever data was left in the buffer. What was in the buffer depends on the size of the request.
What's annoying is that there is NO indication of an error. I discovered this only because 2 different programs that happen to do read() requests in different sizes got different data. These programs were bzip2 and gzip. So then I ran tests to see why.
I bought a brand new 8GB flash key last night. It did exactly the same thing. I then write over it and now it does not do this anymore. I am guessing that there is some kind of rotation of blocks (of some size maybe around 16384 bytes) that are the unit of erasure, as part of the wear leveling, that has left the bad sector currently in the unused pool. I hope it has been detected as bad and flagged unusable. I worry that it may come back sometime as more data is written in the future. Now I need to do read-back verification of any critical data I write.
This has happened with 2 different 8GB sticks and 1 16GB stick from SanDisk. I did not get to test this with smaller ones I previously had, and have given them away so I no longer have them. I'm not going to buy more smaller ones just to carry out these tests. I also use SDHC memory cards, but have not tested those, yet. I plan to get a 16GB SDHC card soon, and I will run these tests on the factory data recorded on them at that time and see if SD cards have the same issue.
I'm hoping it's just some glitch in the way the factory initializes the flash. Maybe they initialize it while its still a chip and not using the USB interface, and don't actually run the wear leveling logic during that initialization (which may even be loading the wear leveling firmware at the same time, so in that case it can't use that logic, yet). As soon as I can get hold of someone at SanDisk that is technical enough, maybe I can find out what the issue is.
So in summary, maybe this is a bad flash, and maybe not. But something is not giving an I/O error when I think it should. So there may be a risk that flash devices could fail without proper error indications.
... buy music that comes with clear permission to use the music you buy on places like YouTube.
Disclaimer: My only association with Magnatune is being a happy customer.
However, the average home does not meter reactive power. The new digital meters that are coming can. And if the utilities enable the reactive metering in them and charge for it, homeowners will be quite upset with bills going up with the new meters. They'll blame the new meters as being inaccurate. The utilities know what could happen, so maybe they will choose not to do that. But you never know.
Why not try out low voltage Halogen lights for critical task areas? With a simple step-down transformer for 12VAC operation, you should have near unity power factor and good quality light somewhat more efficient than ordinary incandescent.
The higher the voltage on any incandescent bulb (including halogen), the thinner and longer the filament needs to be. That means it has to be sized to operate at a lower temperature, which is less efficient because that shifts the spectrum more into the infra-red (it's already mostly in infra-red, anyway). But at a lower voltage, the filament is shorter and thicker, allowing it to operate at a higher temperature. This shifts the spectrum to shorter wavelengths, with more of the emission in the visible wavelengths for a given power level coming in. Less is wasted as heat. Halogen bulbs also enhance this with some infra-red reflection back into the filament.
I don't actually need a lot of light. Where using ordinary incandescent, I regularly use 25 watt or even 15 watt bulbs. I can't even find CFLs for the lower light levels I use in a lot of places. But these are even worse for efficiency due to the lower operating temperature. Low voltage halogen lights in the 10 to 18 watt range give a lot more light. The efficiency improvement isn't as good as CFL or plain FL, but you still get good quality light. The efficiency is good enough to make up for the step down transformer, and still leave you with a lot of improvement. Transformers do hum, and some solid state voltage converters do exist that run quiet. But unlike fluorescent or other HID which require a ballast in the fixture, you can relocate the step-down transformer at some distance from the light (generally up to 10 or even 20 meters away).
This is not the most efficient way to go. But it is a good way to go for task lighting which requires good quality light in certain situations (for reading, in the kitchen, in the shop), while CFL and LED is fine for a lot of other uses. Maybe in the future, they will improve the light quality of CFL and LED by filling in the gaps between the peaks in the spectrum.
I'm actually planning to use an approach like this with a new forum. But there will be some differences. For example, new users are expected to contribute immediately (well, within 24 hours) to make the new username stick. And, their early contributions will be moderated (by staff and users that volunteer). The rating a user gets at signup will also be influenced by the domain name of the provider they connect from. Those from IPs without reverse DNS start at the very lowest level. If lots of spammers sign up from example.com then anyone signing up from any address with example.com starts at a lower level (e.g. more limits on posts and more moderation requirements).
Within that context, I next need to tackle the problem of existing good users who later get infected with a virus that tries to do posts in their name. One approach I am looking at for this is to use a modified form of CAPTCHA that depends on the user's knowledge of using the site. For example, I can put up the subjects of 4 recent posts, one of which this user posted, and ask them to confirm which post they posted by clicking on it. Of course, as methods like this get deployed widely on the internet, botnet operators will have to put more AI into their code to become more knowledgeable about the user they have infected.
Why even use Flash at all, when browsers can play video directly. They can already do that by launching a player. Soon, embedded video will be supported as the standards are adopted.
... completely get rid of Flash altogether. Embedded video is being standardized. Video through a launched video player already works, anyway. Eventually no plugin at all will be needed. And for Windows users, that's important, since those are the people that are so vulnerable to plugging in viruses and other exploits, spamware, spyware, etc. Then the next issue we'll have is getting MLBAM and others to encode in an unencumbered format like BBC's Dirac format.
If the stock art business sublicensed (from the guy that stole the work in the first place) the artwork to some of its own clients, then the real creator definitely has damages in either the amount collected by the stock art business, or in the amount he would have charged if they had licensed it from him or his agent.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it will probably work out.
Here's how I understand the case. If you step back a little, it will all be clear.
"A", the artist, created the work.
"B", the 3rd party thief, posed as an original artist, and submitted them to "C" for sale.
"C", the stock photo site.
"C" purchased the images from "B", probably under an exclusive license. "C" therefore has legitimate claim to the images. They found out that "A" has the same images on his site, so they filed the complaint. This is perfectly legitimate.
NO ... it is NOT legitimate. The problem is "C" doesn't have the information to figure out that it is not legitimate. So (for now) it APPEARS to be legitimate to "C".
Since "B" did not ever have the legitimate rights, "B" could not have transferred them to "C". Since "B" committed fraud, it is a crime done by "B". "C" is a victim, as is "A" in a different way. That doesn't make "C"'s actions legitimate. But it does give "C" a defense against criminal charges. As to any civil damages, it depends on how prudent "C" behaved. Given the way stock art sites operate, there is probably not much, if any, liability for "C", provided they handle this appropriately. Once notified that there is a conflict of ownership, they do need to handle this very carefully. Also, one remote possibility is that both "A" and "B" created extremely similar art work. It has happened before. It can easily happen with photography of public scenery, for example. "C" needs to investigate appropriately. "A" needs to do the DMCA takedown thing to get "B"'s alleged artwork down, for now.
"A" countered the claim saying that he was the original artist.
"C" is still sitting on an invoice, a paid receipt, a signed (electronically, probably) contract saying that they own the photos.
That, if the given scenario is true, is not a legitimate invoice. Whether the scenario is true, or not, might well be up to a court to determine.
Who do you believe? The person that you've done business with, or a third party?
If I have not done business with them PERSONALLY, and only did so as an unseen party submitting things online, I would not know which to believe.
This unfortunately happens all the time. I was talking to someone who showed me their "original web site, created by a local graphics art firm." I immediately recognized several images as stock photos, and the layout looked like a template. A few days later while doing unrelated work, I found the template on templatemonster.com. Ahhh, it was a template, that the local firm populated with their specific details (we do.. our number is.. email us at..). They confronted the local firm about it. They insisted that it was all original work, even though it was easy to see otherwise. The site owner chose to believe the local firm. Why? Because they had done business with them, and I was just a new guy in the picture.
They might start believing otherwise when the sheriff or marshals come in to collect property to satisfy a default judgment ruling that resulted from them ignoring a court summons for copyright infringement damages. Of course, a DMCA takedown would get the point across long before then.
I could copy down a handful of photos from a stock image place, upload them to somewhere that I had cooperation with, that would put whatever timestamps I wished on, and then say "Oh no, I made those last year". Does that make me right? Nope.
Right. You would be committing a crime by doing that. But it doesn't make it right for others to work with you on that, either, even though you do a very good job of lying to them about the crime.
A good thief wouldn't turn around and say "oh ya, I stole it, sorry 'bout that." They would defend their story until it
Maybe.
Or maybe the information the FBI had was faulty in some way. There is the accusation the customer in question is no longer a customer there. If the FBI came in asking for access to the servers of that customer, and there was no record in the active files of that customer, then the FBI may have perceived that as the provider not being cooperative.
All your mass are belong to us!
They only have 5.5M customers. So $2363 of debt per customer. How long will it be to pay THAT off?
That works out to about $481 of debt per customer.
Loans. A lot of stupid loans.
Slashdot won't even let me type (really: paste) it in. So I have to enter it via tinyurl. The preview link is here [http://preview.tinyurl.com/dapfpm]. That URL was found traversing through the proxy when accessing a Youtube video. Later I repeated the same video (which was rather lame) and didn't get anything as long. I think they dynamically insert all the ads and stuff in the URLs.
Instead of sending them to the client (waste step 1) which in turn has to send them back to the server (waste step 2), what should be done is keep them on the server. Generate an MD5 hash of the URL string. Use the MD5 hash as an index in a Berkeley DB file, storing the time last created, and the whole URL (maybe compressed). Make a replacement URL with the MD5 hash. When a request comes back with the MD5 hash, look up the URL to use for it, much like having your own tiny URL tool. A reaper process can run in the background, gradually stepping through the indexes in some order, and deleting entries considered to be too old (whatever is appropriate for the site).
This is actually a good idea for security, too. By refusing to accept the full URLs with all those variable fields that people could modify, you'll have more of a shield against hackers trying to tweak with the system.
Just leave the base color black, and cover 20% of the car in white-ish spots that look like bird droppings. Then if it ever does get bird shit on it, no one will know.
... if I only drive at night?
In a black car, you have to roll the windows down further to keep it cool. That means more drag on the motion, and the engine has to work harder, resulting in more pollution, and an increased consumption of fuel.
Stacking frames does not require precision tracking. You only need to track it well enough to keep it in the frame. And in some cases partially out of the frame still has limited usefulness. The software correlates the positions based on what is in the picture. If there's enough of a pattern to make the alignment (at sub-pixel resolution), then it's easy. If it's fuzzy, you might have to do the alignment manually.
You can view things up in orbit this way too. Just don't do it without the proper filtering protection.