... it is Hulu's content providers that have made that decision. Hulu has to go along or lose the content providers. Hulu's difficulty is convincing the clueless executives at content providers like NBC that the provider's understand of the internet, and their desire to make the internet work just like TV broadcasting, is flawed.
About 3 weeks ago, power was lost due to a storm. On the 2nd day of no power, I ran an extension cable from the TV to the my big UPS that still had energy remaining because I shut down the computers soon after the power went out (knowing it would be a while before it came back on). Nothing was coming through via Comcast. That could be because their lines were damaged in the storm, or their equipment was without power. I could get TV over the air from 2 stations, one in analog (which isn't anymore), and one in digital (because I could power my digital tuner from the UPS). People who have cable and no fallback means to receive TV in the event of a storm or accident that takes out the cable wiring or equipment is... unprepared.
Any such stories have been overshadowed by mass outages of jobs, mass outages of lending by banks, mass outages of investment in stocks, and mass outages of sanity in Congress.
Lots of people had to hurry up and buy right before Feb 17. If the coupons had been flowing as they should have been, they would have gotten their coupons and saved $40 on the converter. They still need to get their share of the money paid for the TV spectrum some other way.
The issue isn't about whether someone can get the money to pay for it. The issue is that the government is making a lot of money selling the spectrum, and part of it was to compensate people for the costs imposed on them.
So what happens with people that ended up paying full price for a converter because the coupons stopped flowing and 1/3 of the transition (which in many places was nearly a full transition) already happened? Can they just get $40 back with the coupon and their original paid-full-price receipt? Even if they got their full price converter at Circuit City?
Notice the usage of the words "need" and "necessary". Sure you can want to encrypt your laundry list uber-secure, but why? Doing so raises justifiable suspicion.
Suspicions, maybe. Justifiable? Not at all.
Imagine a guy wearing a heavy trench coat, sunglasses and a hat with his hands under his goat and trying to hide in the corner, in Las Vegas with 100 degree weather. Its legal, but it is sure going to draw attention. Not only that, but it is going to draw suspicion. He might not be doing anything, but I wouldn't stake my life on it by ignoring him.
Attension, sure. Illegal? Not at all. Nothing suspicious here. Move along.
If you have any actual reason to believe this man is doing something illegal, then by all means raise that suspicion. But what you describe doesn't rise to that level.
Now, do you and I have a different idea of what makes someone, or their actions, suspicious? Obviously. I certainly would not want you being the person who makes the decision about that if that decision is going to result in actions that violate someone's constitutional rights. Be suspicious if you want to. But if it results in violation of constitutional rights, that there needs to be a high standard of suspicion.
... just mark a few million random blocks in a filesystem as bad blocks (Linux users, see option -l on mke2fs). Encrypt that list elsewhere (so it is usable as a reference in case there are any truly bad blocks). Write a FUSE filesystem that maps these blocks into a single big file, with the encryption done here. Then map that file to a loopback device. You can format the loopback device and mount it like a filesystem. But it has no corresponding drive, partition, or even a file that can be seen. When this partition is mounted, it has files and works. Writing new files won't overwrite the blocks marked as bad.
And with this I could read the Linux drive in Windows. So I need a way to have both drives active, but change their device order. But for just reading Windows in Linux and not the other way around, it would be as simple as switching the Linux drive on and off and making sure it is always first when it's on.
If it includes a way to read the power voltage waveform at high resolution (at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz with 16-bit would be great), I have an idea for it. And no, it's not communications over wireless (that would be great for other applications, too).
A flat panel can be pointed at the position of the midday sun, and left stationary would have a reduced aperture to the sun as a result of the angle in the morning and evening. Turning the whole assembly helps. But, if there are many panels, they would have to be spread out or else some will shadow parts of others. Basically, it comes down to capture area. If you have a 10 meter by 10 meter area, there's only so much sun that enters it. In the morning and evening, there is less sun entering that area because of the angle. If you have one giant 10m by 10m panel that in there that gets tilted, its shadow will be outside the area, and you're actually capturing sun that would go outside. If you are have lots of small 100cm x 100cm panels, tilting them doesn't help because of the shadows. Remember, there's less total sunlight to get at an angle. Tilting is only an advantage when you have less than 100% coverage, and are willing to lose sun at midday.
Tilting is also a mechanical thing which means some kind of control mechanism, more exposure to failure, and greater maintenance costs.
An optical structure that would funnel light from any angle over a reasonably wide angle range would be the ideal solution. It would handle the change from morning to midday to evening, and would handle the diffuse light of cloudy weather. That's the thing to work on.
The efficiency actually goes up relative to PV material in straight unmagnified sunlight. I'm sure there's a saturation point where that stops. This is one reason concentrating light on PV is a plus. Of course, the other is that it involves less PV material cost.
This issue can be worked around. People who get the list have to sign an agreement that they understand the implications of accessing the resources indicated on the list. No signing, no list. The law should also be adjusted such that anyone who does sign this agreement to get the list becomes immune to prosecution for a limited amount of access in order to verify the classification. It should also allow them to store any content they decide is disputable provided they post back to the IWF immediately the identity of what they are disputing (so there is a formal record of it). Persons with a criminal record of sex crimes would not be eligible.
It could be called the Open Internet Watch Foundation (OIWF) or something like that. The operating policy would involve openness and transparency to permit full review to ensure errors and controversy are properly dealt with, unlike the secretive IWF. This would ensure the higher level of quality of the blocking list. It can also may multiple categories of blocking more readily available.
I never said that by pirating the stuff they choose to not sell me should be considered legal. What I did say is they if they choose to not sell it to the market I am in, then whether I do pirate it or not, they won't be getting a sale. It's a loss of sale NOT due to a choice of piracy, if I were to choose to do that, but rather, a loss of sale due to THEIR choice of how they market it. It is wrong for them to claim that all incidents of piracy by everyone in the same market I am in is a loss of sale due to that piracy.
What I am saying is that if THEY choose to NOT pursue the market that I am in, then it is NO LOSS OF SALE to them if I end up pirating their stuff. This is clearly logical because they would not get the sale regardless of my choice. For them to count any downloads I might do as a loss of sale is simply wrong because it does not represent a loss of sale. It represents a sale THEY CHOSE to not pursue.
... is knowledge crystallized. The more of that you have, the less you have to put into procedural documentation, and the less you depend on the lower skill sets reading it correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
... it is Hulu's content providers that have made that decision. Hulu has to go along or lose the content providers. Hulu's difficulty is convincing the clueless executives at content providers like NBC that the provider's understand of the internet, and their desire to make the internet work just like TV broadcasting, is flawed.
You got it, exactly.
About 3 weeks ago, power was lost due to a storm. On the 2nd day of no power, I ran an extension cable from the TV to the my big UPS that still had energy remaining because I shut down the computers soon after the power went out (knowing it would be a while before it came back on). Nothing was coming through via Comcast. That could be because their lines were damaged in the storm, or their equipment was without power. I could get TV over the air from 2 stations, one in analog (which isn't anymore), and one in digital (because I could power my digital tuner from the UPS). People who have cable and no fallback means to receive TV in the event of a storm or accident that takes out the cable wiring or equipment is ... unprepared.
Any such stories have been overshadowed by mass outages of jobs, mass outages of lending by banks, mass outages of investment in stocks, and mass outages of sanity in Congress.
Lots of people had to hurry up and buy right before Feb 17. If the coupons had been flowing as they should have been, they would have gotten their coupons and saved $40 on the converter. They still need to get their share of the money paid for the TV spectrum some other way.
The issue isn't about whether someone can get the money to pay for it. The issue is that the government is making a lot of money selling the spectrum, and part of it was to compensate people for the costs imposed on them.
So then the government should just give them a $40 or $80 check.
So what happens with people that ended up paying full price for a converter because the coupons stopped flowing and 1/3 of the transition (which in many places was nearly a full transition) already happened? Can they just get $40 back with the coupon and their original paid-full-price receipt? Even if they got their full price converter at Circuit City?
... wh0z t3h n3w 0wn3r of d31r w36 5173? 5um 1 h3r3z?
... in the hiring decisions. It's a good thing I checked on Slashdot before we ended up hiring Anonymous Coward.
Notice the usage of the words "need" and "necessary". Sure you can want to encrypt your laundry list uber-secure, but why? Doing so raises justifiable suspicion.
Suspicions, maybe. Justifiable? Not at all.
Imagine a guy wearing a heavy trench coat, sunglasses and a hat with his hands under his goat and trying to hide in the corner, in Las Vegas with 100 degree weather. Its legal, but it is sure going to draw attention. Not only that, but it is going to draw suspicion. He might not be doing anything, but I wouldn't stake my life on it by ignoring him.
Attension, sure. Illegal? Not at all. Nothing suspicious here. Move along.
If you have any actual reason to believe this man is doing something illegal, then by all means raise that suspicion. But what you describe doesn't rise to that level.
Now, do you and I have a different idea of what makes someone, or their actions, suspicious? Obviously. I certainly would not want you being the person who makes the decision about that if that decision is going to result in actions that violate someone's constitutional rights. Be suspicious if you want to. But if it results in violation of constitutional rights, that there needs to be a high standard of suspicion.
... just mark a few million random blocks in a filesystem as bad blocks (Linux users, see option -l on mke2fs). Encrypt that list elsewhere (so it is usable as a reference in case there are any truly bad blocks). Write a FUSE filesystem that maps these blocks into a single big file, with the encryption done here. Then map that file to a loopback device. You can format the loopback device and mount it like a filesystem. But it has no corresponding drive, partition, or even a file that can be seen. When this partition is mounted, it has files and works. Writing new files won't overwrite the blocks marked as bad.
... that way you aren't waiving your constitutional rights.
And with this I could read the Linux drive in Windows. So I need a way to have both drives active, but change their device order. But for just reading Windows in Linux and not the other way around, it would be as simple as switching the Linux drive on and off and making sure it is always first when it's on.
If it includes a way to read the power voltage waveform at high resolution (at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz with 16-bit would be great), I have an idea for it. And no, it's not communications over wireless (that would be great for other applications, too).
... now all I need is an email box in Nigeria and I'll be set to make millions.
But today, the flasher has a 99% penetration rate.
A flat panel can be pointed at the position of the midday sun, and left stationary would have a reduced aperture to the sun as a result of the angle in the morning and evening. Turning the whole assembly helps. But, if there are many panels, they would have to be spread out or else some will shadow parts of others. Basically, it comes down to capture area. If you have a 10 meter by 10 meter area, there's only so much sun that enters it. In the morning and evening, there is less sun entering that area because of the angle. If you have one giant 10m by 10m panel that in there that gets tilted, its shadow will be outside the area, and you're actually capturing sun that would go outside. If you are have lots of small 100cm x 100cm panels, tilting them doesn't help because of the shadows. Remember, there's less total sunlight to get at an angle. Tilting is only an advantage when you have less than 100% coverage, and are willing to lose sun at midday.
Tilting is also a mechanical thing which means some kind of control mechanism, more exposure to failure, and greater maintenance costs.
An optical structure that would funnel light from any angle over a reasonably wide angle range would be the ideal solution. It would handle the change from morning to midday to evening, and would handle the diffuse light of cloudy weather. That's the thing to work on.
... about concentrating solar power.
The efficiency actually goes up relative to PV material in straight unmagnified sunlight. I'm sure there's a saturation point where that stops. This is one reason concentrating light on PV is a plus. Of course, the other is that it involves less PV material cost.
This issue can be worked around. People who get the list have to sign an agreement that they understand the implications of accessing the resources indicated on the list. No signing, no list. The law should also be adjusted such that anyone who does sign this agreement to get the list becomes immune to prosecution for a limited amount of access in order to verify the classification. It should also allow them to store any content they decide is disputable provided they post back to the IWF immediately the identity of what they are disputing (so there is a formal record of it). Persons with a criminal record of sex crimes would not be eligible.
It could be called the Open Internet Watch Foundation (OIWF) or something like that. The operating policy would involve openness and transparency to permit full review to ensure errors and controversy are properly dealt with, unlike the secretive IWF. This would ensure the higher level of quality of the blocking list. It can also may multiple categories of blocking more readily available.
I never said that by pirating the stuff they choose to not sell me should be considered legal. What I did say is they if they choose to not sell it to the market I am in, then whether I do pirate it or not, they won't be getting a sale. It's a loss of sale NOT due to a choice of piracy, if I were to choose to do that, but rather, a loss of sale due to THEIR choice of how they market it. It is wrong for them to claim that all incidents of piracy by everyone in the same market I am in is a loss of sale due to that piracy.
What I am saying is that if THEY choose to NOT pursue the market that I am in, then it is NO LOSS OF SALE to them if I end up pirating their stuff. This is clearly logical because they would not get the sale regardless of my choice. For them to count any downloads I might do as a loss of sale is simply wrong because it does not represent a loss of sale. It represents a sale THEY CHOSE to not pursue.
... is knowledge crystallized. The more of that you have, the less you have to put into procedural documentation, and the less you depend on the lower skill sets reading it correctly.