If the "ON" signal is a long enough pulse, then the device can stay on extremely low power standby itself, doing nothing, then wake for a millisecond to look for a pulse, then sleep again for the other 999ms (or longer, if the pulse is longer than 1s).
When Congressmembers (like Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee) tell you they're too busy "working on the people's business" to impeach guilty officials, they're talking about creating, promoting and passing laws like PIRATE II.
750GB drives, at $154, are still 17% higher per GB than 500GB drives at $88, even though there are 1TB drives.
When the 750s are within a few percent of the 500s, I'll be excited again. And screaming for 1TB for under $160, what I was paying for 250GB last year.
How the hell is that "Offtopic"? Even the replies to it, directly on the same topic as that post and this story, are rated "Insightful". TrollMods are insane.
Is there a really cheap remote power control for appliances that I can control via PC/Linux, which will shut off all power, and drain the minimum while watching for the powerup signal? Bluetooth or other wireless, or even over the electric wires in the wall.
It seems to me like some kind of RFID type passive tech could do this with only the power from a RF signal itself to flip the transistors gating the appliance power on/off.
I think the bottom line is that 10-20x is the redundancy factor needed to be reasonably sure all your chunks will be available all the time. But even then you can't be sure, and your master filesystem can't be that unreliable in the name of reliability.
So this architecture has to wait for storage to be "always on" at a much higher level of reliability, with certainty that at least one copy is always on, or possibly just storage density of much more than 20x, like 200x or more, willing to be kept locally for the distributed reliability.
Or, the system can work distributed among a bunch of trusted peers which are always on, with just a few times redundancy. Probably the best place to experiment with it, anyway.
No, you're just ignoring the evidence I took the time to spell out for you. Fugazi's business was limited when the album was released, when it could have done all that extra business with less expense, and still is. It would still be under copyright as it's less that 14 years later (AFAIK). The continued popularity is more due to the audience's effort keeping it around. When that stops, the album goes out of print, so we can see it happen in real life.
The bigger point I made is that the copyright is a compromise of free speech, from its beginnings, that cannot be justified on the extreme terms of today. Only on terms that favor the freedom much more than they do.
Your insistence on ignoring that, and looking for some kind of "gotcha" means you're either trolling, or not really capable of understanding a point in such (medium) subtlety. That doesn't make my argument doubletalk. It makes your ability to think about it limited.
So she's a bad judge. Her first problem was she had a preconceived notion of what the definition of "is" is, and the second was her preconceived notion of what "sex" is - both in contradiction of the definition in her court. She wasn't having some watercooler chat, she was facing the president on matters of very specific law and definitions. She failed to run the court properly to get what she wanted.
Webber was of course a partisan judge who'd worked to defeat Clinton in Hammerschmidt's reelection campaign, and had even challenged Clinton on a grade he gave her in law school. But even so, she dismissed the case against Clinton, and didn't put anything officially binding behind her words. Typically for a partisan Republican, she shot off her mouth so it could be quoted forever by partisan hacks like you, without it getting challenged because she gamed the system in dismissing the case, which left Clinton no traction (or sensible reason, other than to ape her partisan bias) to force her to correct that record.
Now let's see you defend Cheney from the Impeachment Articles we're discussing in this thread, since you've got such a precise legal mind.
"Trolling" means posting something designed to produce only predictable responses. You're just as illiterate as they are.
More so, because you can't even read a grammatically correct sentence of the form "[adverb] [subject] [verb] [adverb]", when the subject is "[possessive pronoun] [adjective] [noun] [preposition] [def article] [adjective] [adjective] [noun]". Like "already your stupid bullshit in that meaningless rant format was worthless".
What a stupid cunt you are. Do you need me to explain that to you, too?
I'm talking about upgrading the torrent protocol to do what I described, including encrypting the chunks. And enforcing a distributed/local storage ratio, like the up/download ratio.
Sure, the redundancy is an extra cost, but it has extra benefit, and storage is cheap and plentiful. Bandwidth capacity of the Internet is plentiful. What's expensive is bandwidth bottlenecks, which distributed chunk parallel downloads can dramatically reduce. Also expensive is losing data that isn't redundant, and lack of access to data that isn't distributed.
The overhead to support the distributed mutual filesystem is higher than local storage, or dedicated private networked storage, but the overhead is cost against plentiful resources. While the benefits compensate for some of the worst costs of storage.
People currently use Bittorrent to archive data they want, for example by uploading popular live recordings. I'm proposing a way to do that for any data, automating the process, and giving everyone the system's benefits. By some incremental upgrades to the already popular systems that are already close in function.
Albums are the perfect example. There is no work of pop music that doesn't use some previous content in its production. The copyright protecting some material, but not other, is arbitrary to the art, even if it's convenient to the business. And since the art is the product, that hurts the business.
More to the point, if that album could be shared without copyright limits after some reasonable time, its free distribution by fans would promote the other products. Like later albums still under copyright, like concert tickets, like T-shirts.
Just look at the music business overall. It's copyright obsessed, squeezing as much profits out of as limited access as possible, instead of just managing the wellspring of actual new creation. The more the business has been the business of restricting copying, including sharing among peers, the worse the product, and the less profitable.
FWIW, I just pointed out that licensing is an exception to copyright that proves the rule. That shouldn't be too confusing. BTW, who are "you guys"?
What are you talking about? Simultaneously downloading from 8 peers, in a properly operating swarm, is 8x faster than downloading from a single peer, unless you have the same dl speed that they have upload, which is rare (and will be increasingly so).
Convenient (for telcos) how they're required by law to retain personal data on people which they exploit for profit, but routinely delete evidence of telco crimes.
"These days it's all secrecy, and no privacy." - The Rolling Stones, "Fingerprint File"
Because bittorrent does exactly what you're claiming no one will let you do. I'm just adding a "mutual storage" ratio requirement to the existing "mutual bandwidth" ratio requirements.
But what was his lie? It's not the "perjury" you claimed, because that was true under the definition.
Besides, legally, the consequences, "damage", most certainly do determine liability. And even in criminal matters, breaking a law with minimal consequences has a much different legal result than breaking a law with severe consequences.
If we're talking about "sin", then you have a point. We're not: we're talking about laws, and government. Judging by sin throws everyone in hell, and we're obviously not in that business.
I didn't cite any "conspiracy". And you haven't disproven the commonality of GHB and toy material production businesses, just offered an alternate explanation. I didn't say I had proven one, just that I'd like to know more.
BTW, you're not going to get anywhere attacking all "conspiracy" theories as baseless, when there is no shortage of conspiracies, proven and otherwise. Especially attacking without proof, but with just a legitimate explanation, as are the others you attack.
Close, but I want a filesystem, not a desktop app, as my client. And I'm expecting to not share some of my files with anyone, though the usual sharing would go well, and switching on sharing would be easy, by sharing the key. Switching it off, too, by just reencrpyting and keeping the key secret.
Why can't a single torrent contain a single file, and let the author (provable by crypto) request the old file be deleted when sending the new torrent?
I don't think a "new" protocol is entirely necessary. I think the benefits of what I'm proposing would be good improvements on the current system, and supporting it in a future upgrade of an existing swarm protocol would be good for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Shorter Dvorak: "Altavista sucked, so Google will suck, I will never search again, YAHOO! FOREVER!"
If the "ON" signal is a long enough pulse, then the device can stay on extremely low power standby itself, doing nothing, then wake for a millisecond to look for a pulse, then sleep again for the other 999ms (or longer, if the pulse is longer than 1s).
I'm talking about upgrading the protocol to do this, which would include enforcing storage ratios just like it already enforces bandwidth ratios.
When Congressmembers (like Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee) tell you they're too busy "working on the people's business" to impeach guilty officials, they're talking about creating, promoting and passing laws like PIRATE II.
Priorities.
And the more extra complexity a car has, the more there is to go wrong.
That's why we all drive Model A Fords.
750GB drives, at $154, are still 17% higher per GB than 500GB drives at $88, even though there are 1TB drives.
When the 750s are within a few percent of the 500s, I'll be excited again. And screaming for 1TB for under $160, what I was paying for 250GB last year.
Moderation 0
50% Offtopic
50% Interesting
How the hell is that "Offtopic"? Even the replies to it, directly on the same topic as that post and this story, are rated "Insightful". TrollMods are insane.
Is there a really cheap remote power control for appliances that I can control via PC/Linux, which will shut off all power, and drain the minimum while watching for the powerup signal? Bluetooth or other wireless, or even over the electric wires in the wall.
It seems to me like some kind of RFID type passive tech could do this with only the power from a RF signal itself to flip the transistors gating the appliance power on/off.
I think the bottom line is that 10-20x is the redundancy factor needed to be reasonably sure all your chunks will be available all the time. But even then you can't be sure, and your master filesystem can't be that unreliable in the name of reliability.
So this architecture has to wait for storage to be "always on" at a much higher level of reliability, with certainty that at least one copy is always on, or possibly just storage density of much more than 20x, like 200x or more, willing to be kept locally for the distributed reliability.
Or, the system can work distributed among a bunch of trusted peers which are always on, with just a few times redundancy. Probably the best place to experiment with it, anyway.
No, you're just ignoring the evidence I took the time to spell out for you. Fugazi's business was limited when the album was released, when it could have done all that extra business with less expense, and still is. It would still be under copyright as it's less that 14 years later (AFAIK). The continued popularity is more due to the audience's effort keeping it around. When that stops, the album goes out of print, so we can see it happen in real life.
The bigger point I made is that the copyright is a compromise of free speech, from its beginnings, that cannot be justified on the extreme terms of today. Only on terms that favor the freedom much more than they do.
Your insistence on ignoring that, and looking for some kind of "gotcha" means you're either trolling, or not really capable of understanding a point in such (medium) subtlety. That doesn't make my argument doubletalk. It makes your ability to think about it limited.
Best of luck.
So she's a bad judge. Her first problem was she had a preconceived notion of what the definition of "is" is, and the second was her preconceived notion of what "sex" is - both in contradiction of the definition in her court. She wasn't having some watercooler chat, she was facing the president on matters of very specific law and definitions. She failed to run the court properly to get what she wanted.
Webber was of course a partisan judge who'd worked to defeat Clinton in Hammerschmidt's reelection campaign, and had even challenged Clinton on a grade he gave her in law school. But even so, she dismissed the case against Clinton, and didn't put anything officially binding behind her words. Typically for a partisan Republican, she shot off her mouth so it could be quoted forever by partisan hacks like you, without it getting challenged because she gamed the system in dismissing the case, which left Clinton no traction (or sensible reason, other than to ape her partisan bias) to force her to correct that record.
Now let's see you defend Cheney from the Impeachment Articles we're discussing in this thread, since you've got such a precise legal mind.
"Trolling" means posting something designed to produce only predictable responses. You're just as illiterate as they are.
More so, because you can't even read a grammatically correct sentence of the form "[adverb] [subject] [verb] [adverb]", when the subject is "[possessive pronoun] [adjective] [noun] [preposition] [def article] [adjective] [adjective] [noun]". Like "already your stupid bullshit in that meaningless rant format was worthless".
What a stupid cunt you are. Do you need me to explain that to you, too?
I'm talking about upgrading the torrent protocol to do what I described, including encrypting the chunks. And enforcing a distributed/local storage ratio, like the up/download ratio.
Sure, the redundancy is an extra cost, but it has extra benefit, and storage is cheap and plentiful. Bandwidth capacity of the Internet is plentiful. What's expensive is bandwidth bottlenecks, which distributed chunk parallel downloads can dramatically reduce. Also expensive is losing data that isn't redundant, and lack of access to data that isn't distributed.
The overhead to support the distributed mutual filesystem is higher than local storage, or dedicated private networked storage, but the overhead is cost against plentiful resources. While the benefits compensate for some of the worst costs of storage.
People currently use Bittorrent to archive data they want, for example by uploading popular live recordings. I'm proposing a way to do that for any data, automating the process, and giving everyone the system's benefits. By some incremental upgrades to the already popular systems that are already close in function.
Since I don't actually write filesystems (anymore), promoting the features on Slashdot is how I'm starting working on it :).
:).
Thoughtful feature requests are the highest level design exercise
Albums are the perfect example. There is no work of pop music that doesn't use some previous content in its production. The copyright protecting some material, but not other, is arbitrary to the art, even if it's convenient to the business. And since the art is the product, that hurts the business.
More to the point, if that album could be shared without copyright limits after some reasonable time, its free distribution by fans would promote the other products. Like later albums still under copyright, like concert tickets, like T-shirts.
Just look at the music business overall. It's copyright obsessed, squeezing as much profits out of as limited access as possible, instead of just managing the wellspring of actual new creation. The more the business has been the business of restricting copying, including sharing among peers, the worse the product, and the less profitable.
FWIW, I just pointed out that licensing is an exception to copyright that proves the rule. That shouldn't be too confusing. BTW, who are "you guys"?
You're using "conspiracy" to mean something else that isn't a conspiracy. And you're using "trolling" to mean something that isn't trolling.
"You people"? Now your perfect symmetry of the common denial projector is complete.
What are you talking about? Simultaneously downloading from 8 peers, in a properly operating swarm, is 8x faster than downloading from a single peer, unless you have the same dl speed that they have upload, which is rare (and will be increasingly so).
Convenient (for telcos) how they're required by law to retain personal data on people which they exploit for profit, but routinely delete evidence of telco crimes.
"These days it's all secrecy, and no privacy." - The Rolling Stones, "Fingerprint File"
It can work.
Because bittorrent does exactly what you're claiming no one will let you do. I'm just adding a "mutual storage" ratio requirement to the existing "mutual bandwidth" ratio requirements.
Give me an example of commercial content that doesn't reuse content that came before it (that isn't licensed or copywritten by the new author).
But what was his lie? It's not the "perjury" you claimed, because that was true under the definition.
Besides, legally, the consequences, "damage", most certainly do determine liability. And even in criminal matters, breaking a law with minimal consequences has a much different legal result than breaking a law with severe consequences.
If we're talking about "sin", then you have a point. We're not: we're talking about laws, and government. Judging by sin throws everyone in hell, and we're obviously not in that business.
I didn't cite any "conspiracy". And you haven't disproven the commonality of GHB and toy material production businesses, just offered an alternate explanation. I didn't say I had proven one, just that I'd like to know more.
BTW, you're not going to get anywhere attacking all "conspiracy" theories as baseless, when there is no shortage of conspiracies, proven and otherwise. Especially attacking without proof, but with just a legitimate explanation, as are the others you attack.
Close, but I want a filesystem, not a desktop app, as my client. And I'm expecting to not share some of my files with anyone, though the usual sharing would go well, and switching on sharing would be easy, by sharing the key. Switching it off, too, by just reencrpyting and keeping the key secret.
Why can't a single torrent contain a single file, and let the author (provable by crypto) request the old file be deleted when sending the new torrent?
I don't think a "new" protocol is entirely necessary. I think the benefits of what I'm proposing would be good improvements on the current system, and supporting it in a future upgrade of an existing swarm protocol would be good for everyone.