There are a couple reports of smoke, one pinpointing the electric meter. And a neighbor reported electric power flickering. Both of these suggest to me there was an arcing fault in the electric service feed between the meter and the first main breaker/fuse in the electrical panel for the house.
These points along the electrical service wiring are critical because there is no overcurrent protection suitable to shut them off. The amount of current such an arc cause draw will be substantial, but it won't always be more than all the homes sharing the same transformer could draw combined at peak loads. So that fuse leading into the transformer isn't likely to stop it. It is intended to stop a short on the high voltage windings inside the transformer. These fuses are intentionally set high to avoid false outages.
Today's electrical codes require substantial physical protection of the wiring between the meter and main panel, such as enclosure in conduit for short distances, and more significant protection for longer distances. But lots of older wiring doesn't have this protection.
Telephone and cable service also needs to come in next to the power for proper grounding purposes.
My biggest concern is the technician doing the installation not having the proper training to work around the power connections.
Anyone want to post a front-page story about the plastic Dasani water bottle I found in my front lawn this morning? I feel it was tossed there from a passing car. My girlfriend thinks it was blown there from across the street. I told her people litter all the time on the street in front of our house, so they probably just tossed it on the front lawn.
It's probably the airport security people having fun with all the loot they take at the security check points.
It's the marketing people that have it wrong. We've been using the 1024 base for measurement in binary "power of 2" systems long before all this. Computer RAM and ROM chips are still measured this way. Along comes the marketing people who tried to apply the 1000 base to what had been the 1024 base. And that was just so they could puff and inflate their marketing and their egos. Then someone comes along with a name change scheme? Unfortunately, also along comes a world of dumb consumers who either need to use 1000 because their feeble minds cannot grok 1024, or can't handle different base systems.
If hard drives and other storage devices like flash keys become marketed with the new terms for base 1024, then I might go along with it. Until then, I'm really using a 3.822 GB SanDisk Cruzer that falsely claims to be 4.0 GB.
... like keeping me from controlling the computer I own, bought, and paid for (and built with my very own hands and tools from a few boards and parts).
Reading the title on this I had to check my calendar since I got the impression this might be the first day of the first full month of spring. But no, it is still the hot dog days of summer.
"We've known that we weren't going to be able to satisfy everyone in the open-source and free software worlds. There are incompatible licenses and philosophies and approaches," Sands said. "We're trying very hard to figure out some way to bridge this, but we've not been able to do that."
[...]
The compatibility kit itself, though, is not an open-source project. "We wouldn't want people being creative about what compatibility means, because then you end up breaking compatibility," said Jean Elliott, senior director of Java software product marketing.
I'm not expecting Sun to necessarily release its own implementations in source code. However, any test kits for compatibility need to at least be made available to any and all open source developers. For Java compilers, clearly that much of it must have source code available. For run time engines, the test kit can be class files (compiled on Sun's official Java compiler, perhaps). Sun could perform the official certifications test runs themselves to validate the tests pass with official unmodified tests, or grant that to an outside entity with whom they have an agreement to do such tests.
BPL will, and should, be quashed because it is a flawed technology from the outset. It inherintly leaks to the air, making it both subject to RF interference and a source of RF interference. BPL is also very bandwidth limited with no growth potential (because the faster it has to go, the higher the frequencies it needs to use, and the more it will interfere because higher frequencies will leak even more from power lines).
Power companies should, instead, install fiber over their poles, or in the ground along the way.
In this case, however, the FCC is making a wise decision.
It is unclear if this new technology will actually properly protect TV reception. A device in one home might not detect any TV station at all on a given channel even though the next home over is actually receiving one or even two stations on that very channel.
It is also unclear just how much open space will remain in the TV spectrum. There is a huge backlog of new TV station applications the FCC will begin to process sometime after the analog cutoff. Digital does allow packing the spectrum much tighter and as a result of that, much of the TV spectrum has already been removed for other uses (to be fully effective on the analog cutoff day). So the amount of spare spectrum may end up being very minimal.
Watch what the bidders on the converted 700 MHz spectrum do.
But aren't TV broadcasters mostly on cable now?? Oh, and sattelites, of course!
Sure, they are being relayed over cable and satellite. But the quality over the air is actually better with the switch to digital. Many cable and satellite providers are either still carrying many stations only in analog, or are overcompressing the picture data. For stations that have gone to their full digital power, over the air reception is actually better than it was for analog.
Also, the FCC has been holding off processing new TV station applications for a few years due to the transition, and the fact that most stations are using 2 channels in parallel. Once the analog channels get shutdown by midnight February 17, 2009 (it's now a stable hard deadline), and after remaining interference issues are settled, the FCC can begin processing the new TV station applications.
One thing digital technology also does with the spectrum is allow channels to be spaced tighter in the spectrum as well as geographically. You could be located half way between two TV stations on the same channel and, depending on which way you point your antenna, receive either or both. TV stations can now be packed tighter. One result of this is the removal of more TV spectrum (channels 52 and up) which is going to be used for other services such as data providers and emergency two-way radio (with digital technology). That and the new applications could very well fill up the TV spectrum, especially on the available UHF channels (14 to 36 and 38 to 51).
As long as some content provider makes sure that their content can only be viewed (or listened) via a Microsoft OS, then I, a use of only BSD/Linux software (well, OK, I have a couple Solaris machines, too), see this as a case where the content provider has no expectation of any revenues from me. Since they have no basis for expecting any money from me, then how does it matter if I view (listen to) the content and don't pay them? I didn't deprive them of anything... not even an expectation of revenue. If they marketed the content to BSD and/or Linux users, then it would be different. But they don't. So I don't see this as anything having been stolen (I know others do, but I assert that it is they who are wrong).
So tell me why it is that Netflix wants to force people to only watch a movie at the same time they are streaming it? Why is Netflix wanting to subject their viewers to the blips and burps of the net? Why is Netflix limiting their customer base to only those with high enough bandwidth for live streaming? Why not use the DRM to let people download and save the movie and watch it only within 3 days? If I hack it so that all that I change is to give me 3 days to watch it, sure, maybe I'm stealing a little more time than others have, but why not? What is the loss to Netflix if I have a 3 day window for each of the limited set of downloads I can get for one monthly payment?
Why do you have trouble with the idea of downloading something that will only be playable for a limited time frame via DRM tools? The concept of the internet does not imply one must watch it at the time it is downloading (and be subject to network burps and such), The only thing that implies that are the dumb people at the sites like netflix that can't grasp the concept of download now, watch later, and DRM prevents it from being watched beyond some date or number of plays. So I hereby accuse you of not understanding the picture that DRM is not just about forcing people to watch while streaming.
Recording a stream may well mean I can just watch it at a different time than when it gets streamed... which is important for people who have low bandwidth and queue 8 hours of downloading overnight to grab a 2 hour movie to watch the next day.
... even though you are "renting" the ability to play the music...
Where does it say that I am merely renting the music (or video or whatever)? If they had 2 separate prices, one for renting and one for buying, I might believe you.
And in other news, the government has announced a program that is able to predict murders before they occur, and identifies the culprit who can be arrested before committing the crime.
Slashdot Mirror
They can report on all the cases involving the RIAA.
There are a couple reports of smoke, one pinpointing the electric meter. And a neighbor reported electric power flickering. Both of these suggest to me there was an arcing fault in the electric service feed between the meter and the first main breaker/fuse in the electrical panel for the house.
These points along the electrical service wiring are critical because there is no overcurrent protection suitable to shut them off. The amount of current such an arc cause draw will be substantial, but it won't always be more than all the homes sharing the same transformer could draw combined at peak loads. So that fuse leading into the transformer isn't likely to stop it. It is intended to stop a short on the high voltage windings inside the transformer. These fuses are intentionally set high to avoid false outages.
Today's electrical codes require substantial physical protection of the wiring between the meter and main panel, such as enclosure in conduit for short distances, and more significant protection for longer distances. But lots of older wiring doesn't have this protection.
Telephone and cable service also needs to come in next to the power for proper grounding purposes.
My biggest concern is the technician doing the installation not having the proper training to work around the power connections.
It's probably the airport security people having fun with all the loot they take at the security check points.
An injured animal might bite back even though it is doomed. Time to put it out of its misery.
It's the marketing people that have it wrong. We've been using the 1024 base for measurement in binary "power of 2" systems long before all this. Computer RAM and ROM chips are still measured this way. Along comes the marketing people who tried to apply the 1000 base to what had been the 1024 base. And that was just so they could puff and inflate their marketing and their egos. Then someone comes along with a name change scheme? Unfortunately, also along comes a world of dumb consumers who either need to use 1000 because their feeble minds cannot grok 1024, or can't handle different base systems.
If hard drives and other storage devices like flash keys become marketed with the new terms for base 1024, then I might go along with it. Until then, I'm really using a 3.822 GB SanDisk Cruzer that falsely claims to be 4.0 GB.
... like keeping me from controlling the computer I own, bought, and paid for (and built with my very own hands and tools from a few boards and parts).
Reading the title on this I had to check my calendar since I got the impression this might be the first day of the first full month of spring. But no, it is still the hot dog days of summer.
You're out of TP, again?
What about the people that never download it, but got it as part of their distribution? Do we have to go download it to make it legal?
I use it on 2 computers without having downloaded it at all (it comes with Slackware) ... nyah nyah nyah!
Will they get to compile their own copy?
I'll take a copy of the NetBSD version, please ... source code only.
Sun can still do better ... and easily.
[...]
I'm not expecting Sun to necessarily release its own implementations in source code. However, any test kits for compatibility need to at least be made available to any and all open source developers. For Java compilers, clearly that much of it must have source code available. For run time engines, the test kit can be class files (compiled on Sun's official Java compiler, perhaps). Sun could perform the official certifications test runs themselves to validate the tests pass with official unmodified tests, or grant that to an outside entity with whom they have an agreement to do such tests.
You are proving his point.
BPL will, and should, be quashed because it is a flawed technology from the outset. It inherintly leaks to the air, making it both subject to RF interference and a source of RF interference. BPL is also very bandwidth limited with no growth potential (because the faster it has to go, the higher the frequencies it needs to use, and the more it will interfere because higher frequencies will leak even more from power lines).
Power companies should, instead, install fiber over their poles, or in the ground along the way.
In this case, however, the FCC is making a wise decision.
It is unclear if this new technology will actually properly protect TV reception. A device in one home might not detect any TV station at all on a given channel even though the next home over is actually receiving one or even two stations on that very channel.
It is also unclear just how much open space will remain in the TV spectrum. There is a huge backlog of new TV station applications the FCC will begin to process sometime after the analog cutoff. Digital does allow packing the spectrum much tighter and as a result of that, much of the TV spectrum has already been removed for other uses (to be fully effective on the analog cutoff day). So the amount of spare spectrum may end up being very minimal.
Watch what the bidders on the converted 700 MHz spectrum do.
Sure, they are being relayed over cable and satellite. But the quality over the air is actually better with the switch to digital. Many cable and satellite providers are either still carrying many stations only in analog, or are overcompressing the picture data. For stations that have gone to their full digital power, over the air reception is actually better than it was for analog.
Also, the FCC has been holding off processing new TV station applications for a few years due to the transition, and the fact that most stations are using 2 channels in parallel. Once the analog channels get shutdown by midnight February 17, 2009 (it's now a stable hard deadline), and after remaining interference issues are settled, the FCC can begin processing the new TV station applications.
One thing digital technology also does with the spectrum is allow channels to be spaced tighter in the spectrum as well as geographically. You could be located half way between two TV stations on the same channel and, depending on which way you point your antenna, receive either or both. TV stations can now be packed tighter. One result of this is the removal of more TV spectrum (channels 52 and up) which is going to be used for other services such as data providers and emergency two-way radio (with digital technology). That and the new applications could very well fill up the TV spectrum, especially on the available UHF channels (14 to 36 and 38 to 51).
As long as some content provider makes sure that their content can only be viewed (or listened) via a Microsoft OS, then I, a use of only BSD/Linux software (well, OK, I have a couple Solaris machines, too), see this as a case where the content provider has no expectation of any revenues from me. Since they have no basis for expecting any money from me, then how does it matter if I view (listen to) the content and don't pay them? I didn't deprive them of anything ... not even an expectation of revenue. If they marketed the content to BSD and/or Linux users, then it would be different. But they don't. So I don't see this as anything having been stolen (I know others do, but I assert that it is they who are wrong).
So tell me why it is that Netflix wants to force people to only watch a movie at the same time they are streaming it? Why is Netflix wanting to subject their viewers to the blips and burps of the net? Why is Netflix limiting their customer base to only those with high enough bandwidth for live streaming? Why not use the DRM to let people download and save the movie and watch it only within 3 days? If I hack it so that all that I change is to give me 3 days to watch it, sure, maybe I'm stealing a little more time than others have, but why not? What is the loss to Netflix if I have a 3 day window for each of the limited set of downloads I can get for one monthly payment?
Why do you have trouble with the idea of downloading something that will only be playable for a limited time frame via DRM tools? The concept of the internet does not imply one must watch it at the time it is downloading (and be subject to network burps and such), The only thing that implies that are the dumb people at the sites like netflix that can't grasp the concept of download now, watch later, and DRM prevents it from being watched beyond some date or number of plays. So I hereby accuse you of not understanding the picture that DRM is not just about forcing people to watch while streaming.
Recording a stream may well mean I can just watch it at a different time than when it gets streamed ... which is important for people who have low bandwidth and queue 8 hours of downloading overnight to grab a 2 hour movie to watch the next day.
So they aren't losing a penny if us BSD/Linux users watch their content without paying.
Where does it say that I am merely renting the music (or video or whatever)? If they had 2 separate prices, one for renting and one for buying, I might believe you.
Didn't you mean to say:
Very depressing that people are forced to hack content they paid for :(
And in other news, the government has announced a program that is able to predict murders before they occur, and identifies the culprit who can be arrested before committing the crime.