A trademark isn't exclusive right to use a word (or symbol, or other "mark") in every context to represent just anything. Trademarks are justified only by their purpose: to identify a distinct product or service to people in its market. The entire test of a trademark's validity is whether it creates or resolves confusion in the market.
If someone (reasonable) sees a mark, do they think it represents the thing offered in trade, or do they think it represents a competitor?
Trademark law requires that mark registrants "vigorously defend from dilution" their mark: actively find others offering under their registered mark competing products, then instruct the competitor to stop using the mark fraudulently or without authorization. If the mark registrant doesn't "vigorously defend" their mark, the market can become confused, diluting the exclusive meaning of the mark, and the registrant can lose their registration, making it available to the competitor (who's then got the same responsibility, if they reregister it themself).
Reasonable people are expected to distinguish between a computer OS and a soap. The Trademark Office registers marks in specific industries (with a fee for each industry in which it's registered). But courts sometimes have difficult questions in defining distinctions, especially in new industries like software.
Trademark is probably the most reasonable "intellectual property" law in the US. Because it's defined in service of the consumer, to ensure the clear flow of info between the mark holder and the consumer.
Gates says whatever is most likely to make himself more money in the next year, without losing money.
And since making his kind of money means we all do it his way, his "predictions" are self-fulfilling prophecies.
How's that speech recognition and DB filesystem working out? Just fine, because the convincing promises sold several $billion more Windows installs on servers and desktops.
Bill Gates is the self-fulfillingest prophet ever, measured by the age old question "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
The Bill of Rights is not the entire Constitution by any means. As I said, and as the communications of its writers and signers makes clear, the Bill of Rights merely makes explicit what is implicit in the unamended Constitution. Specific directives the signers required the new government to do to protect rights specifically abused by the British government they'd just deposed. An example of specific protections of specific rights: a "bill" (list) of rights, not all of them.
Again, as the Constitution says, the people have rights that we create governments to protect. Governments that have powers only that we give them, and explicit limits on those powers where the writers, signers and amenders have had experience are too dangerous to allow to the risks of interpretation - and possibly merely to serve constituencies with doubts the new government won't repeat them.
The Constitution specifies powers of the government to protect those rights from private infringement. But of course, as a document always contemporary by amendment, it must specify those private jurisdictions (or made more specific in laws under existing Constitutional powers) as those private powers are developed by people. Corporations, for example, did not have "rights" until a California railroad company defrauded the reporting of a critical court ruling in the late 1800s. By which time corporations had already enough power to prevent real regulation of them from being written into the Constitution. Though various antimonopoly laws (such as the Sherman Antitrust Act) have been written since, as corporations have periodically produced unsustainable abuse of the people, lobbying has prevented even reducing corporate "rights" to lesser priority than human rights. Amending the Constitution to curtail corporate abuse of people is now clearly needed, and consistent with the attitudes of a majority of Americans. But the corporate political system keeps our representatives paid to keep corporations more free than people.
So we have to keep our actual freedom in mind, while fighting to defend it from private and public abusers alike. Because corporations don't actually have rights, because their creators are merely humans - not the creator from which our inalienable rights derive. Only if we humans let corporations convince us to waive our rights in favor of corporate masters will we really lose them. Believing the Constitution describes merely an arbitrary government which can administer only itself is one of corporate America's greatest triumphs. If complete, it can arbitrarily abridge those rights, without even our belief that we create our government to protect them to help us protect ourselves.
Is PayPal a "bank"? No, it's an unregulated global internet banking monopoly, but it's not a "bank" (or it would be regulated as one). Should it get a PayPal.bank domain for people to trust?
What if it did? Should some competing Internet (or real world) payment system that's not regulated as a bank get a.bank domain? If it's not regulated as a bank, why should anyone trust it? Because it's got a.bank domain?
This whole thing is stupid. Real banks are trusted because they are insured, by the FDIC, FSLIC and/or other (eg. international) insurance that ensures your transactions won't get stolen. By outsiders or by the bank itself. What would really help would be if the global banking insurance industry certified banks, then signed their SSL security keys. Then browsers could indicate which signer has signed the HTML fragment, showing the insurer's logo.
Anything else is just more voodoo economics. Which might work - until it doesn't, when it undermines the entire basis of the banking economy, for good and bad banks alike.
The main point is that people create governments to protect the rights we have. Rights that are created by "the creator" - a meaningless tautology for those who want to read something inconsequential into the basis. We created the US government by writing the Constitution, which designates which powers the government has to protect our rights and administer our state. The Bill of Rights itself is merely an enumeration of some rights made explicit that the government must protect, and not infringe, though the government the Constitution signers had just overthrown had infringed them to its fatal peril.
The Constitution itself says that powers (including protections) not claimed in it for the Federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are available to the states, and failing that, retained without infringement by the people. So unless a state claims a power neither claimed by the Constitution (or the Federal laws deriving from its specific powers) nor prohibited by it, the people have that power.
The Constitution does not merely prohibit the Federal (or states) government from certain infringements. It specifies rights the Federal government must protect from infringement by anyone, including states and other people.
Though as I mentioned, infringements can depend on denial of any alternate venue, which is usually not the case in our generally open, large society. But real prohibition in all private venues, such as the Hollywood blacklist that covered all film, TV, radio (ie. all broadcast), is subject to intervention by the government. Though the great shame of the Cold War was finding the government working against those rights, rather than to protect them.
It's a lot like "monopoly" prohibitions. It's not a black/white issue: market and vendor alternatives can mean "no monopoly", while market control with some insignificant competition can still mean monopoly. The test is whether real actions have a chance.
And in this case, Opie and Anthony have a chance - even though the Federal government has an interest in protecting that chance.
"Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government;
No, "free speech" refers to our inalienable right to speak freely, limited only by restrictions on harm it does to others.
The Constitution does not constrain only the government. This kind of thinking comes from the basic fallacy that "the Constitution gives us certain rights". No: we have certain rights, and we people create the government to protect those rights as described in the Constitution.
For example, you cannot keep slaves on your private plantation. There are many other Constitutional controls that obviously do not stop at your property line.
There is, however, the right to control one's own private property, primarily by controlling access to it by other people. And there is the middle ground, private property to which access is granted to the public, even by degrees (eg. from a parking lot to a shopping mall to a diner to a private club to an invite-only house party).
And then there's the in-fact results of the exact circumstances of private owners prohibiting certain rightful actions. If only one club prohibits speech, and there are plenty of other venues, then that club is not suppressing the rights. But if every venue for speech is private, and prohibits speech (or every golf course prohibits Germans), then that prohibition is suppressing the rights, and the government has business removing the infringement on the rights.
Satellite radio is an exclusive (literally - it excludes nonsubscribers) club, but it's offered to the public. And, especially since the Sirius/XM merger, it's a very limited venue. There's some worthwhile debate of whether alternate media offer alternate venues, like Internet and broadcast radio. Today they do, since satellite radio is a small audience that is also reachable with audio telecasts. But they might have a majority audience, or perhaps one demographic segment of its audience is large and otherwise not reachable. A future lawsuit might have to decide on the actual situation.
Opie and Anthony have a contract, in which it surely states what speech can get them thrown off the air. Subscribers have contracts which surely state what content can be removed suddenly and without warning. Those terms are enforceable, without violating the Constitution. Not because there is free speech as unlimited as in a public park - and certainly not because the government has no jurisdiction in the encrypted satellite band.
But because of how our actual rights are protected by the actual situation, in its real details. When our rights are at stake, the Constitution is there to protect them. But not when someone's just waving the Constitution because they didn't get the entertainment they can get elsewhere.
Is there an energy difference between the two spin states, in joules (or electron-volts, whatever the unit), the way there's an energy difference between an atom with an electron in two different orbit shell states?
If so, how much is the difference? Is there a way to move an electron from the higher energy spin state to the lower one that consumes less energy than the state difference? A way to move the electron from lower energy to higher energy spin state that is less than the difference? Can those moves be done on lots of electrons? How about lots of them per second, but serially, selecting which electrons in the stream are affected, not all of them?
if the community boycotts LinuxTag, it's the open source software that will be hit the hardest, and that Schaeuble probably won't even notice
That sounds like exactly the reason Schaeuble is a bad sponsor for the event. And exactly what people of conscience do, that corporations don't - one of the crucial differences between Linux and other OS'es, like OSX and Windows.
And it sounds like it's LinuxTag which should notice their community rebelling, not their pet Minister who doesn't care at all about either of them.
Mainly I want the costs to go down because I want redundancy. Costs at least double to have 2 discs for the same replicated bit. I don't want to pay extra twice for all the speed tech, or the overhead of data access, power, rotational and enclosure HW.
In fact, I want drives that replicate each bit on both sides of each platter, and include a pair of power, motor, data access and host interface modules. That would make highly fault-tolerant drives, with much of the other costs of parts that don't fail (like the enclosure, and the labor of manufacturing/distributing/marketing the drive) spent only once. Tape backup would cover the very small percentage of failures that those hot failover redundancies don't cover. In the meantime, the drive could also occasionally use the "backup" halves for transient storage, like when reorganizing/defragmenting a RAID, with very low risk that a failure will occur then, but all transacted at max speed inside the drive.
After a few years, that kind of safety will be the default, like car seatbelts/airbags, and the prices will fall to reflect just the halved density of the redundant storage.
PCI-e is now 500MBps, so 16x is now about 8GBps. In any case, there are cards that receive HDMI, but their APIs are only high-level MS ones for actual graphics/video, for mixing under Windows.
HDMI is a really fast interconnect, 10.3Gbps, even if it's only 1-way. The PS3 HDMI output is by far its fastest "I/O" (O, really), the only one in the class with its Cell processing power (to say nothing of its RSX graphics chip). With Ubuntu on PS3, I might be able to write code that tunnels data over HDMI. But where are the HDMI input cards (probably PCI-e) that can accept the "HDMI" data (really TDMS data), decode it, and use the encapsulated data I sent across?
Gonzales, is that you, fantasizing about slapping cocks? You're supposed to be busy lying your ass off about destroying the Constitution, not trolling Slashdot.
At the nanoscale, you'll be surprised how interchangeable are electronics, magnetics, and photonics - all EM phenomena. And how everything useable is a "crystal", however aperiodic.
a 600GB disc will cost around $180 (£90), and the drive costs about $18,000
Well, 50GB Blu-Ray discs cost about $40, a 5-pack about $180 for only 250GB across multiple discs.
Blu-Ray drives cost about $8-900, but again, they're only 50GB. To get 600GB, 12 discs, you need a 200-disc changer that costs around $20K, which isn't nearly the integration/convenience of 600GB.
Sony will release a 200-BD changer for probably around $2-3K any day. But that will drive these holodisc drives down to probably about $10K, while the discs remain around $150. Until BD-R is priced as mainstream use. Since the vast majority of recordable optical is still just CD, not even DVD, that won't be for a while. BD-R drives will probably be $100 by next year (maybe in a $1K changer), with 50GB discs maybe $20. While the holodiscs will cost maybe $100 or so, a drive maybe $5K.
But at that rate, a 200-holodisc changer will cost something like $25K, containing 120TB at ($25K + (200 * 100) = $45K) $0.375:GB, competitive with HD prices. But 240TB in a two loads will bring $0.271:GB, and 0.96PB in 17 loads brings $0.17:GB at very high density, etc.
What would really make these changers affordable for really mass storage would be converting them into "changer tubs", with a robot un/loading/swapping tubs in a large multidimensional array, probably with a few drives for some parallel access. $1M should deliver a few PB loaded and 4-8 drives, with room for another $1M/4PB loadable into tubs. $2M for 7PB is $0.28:GB, competitive with today's HDs.
Though by that time HDs will be cheaper and much faster (especially if they start to include some of this holo tech), but perhaps not as flexible. The discs will be cheaper, too, so maybe it's more like $500K for that 7PB.
But I wonder whether we'll see a race in robotic arrays, or in multidimensional holographics. I'd like to test them out on my 200-CD/DVD-R changer right now, if any roboticist wants to pitch in.
I want giant HDs for my media collection. But I don't need them to be fast, because I just want to play them at the media rates (or a small multiple, if I'm sharing with some friends in realtime).
The files are stored in long stretches of sequential sectors, and don't change much. The drives don't multiplex between more than one (or maybe a few) file.
So 5400 RPM, 20ms access, little or no cache - just the cheapest TB drives. So I can fill the maximum devices my cheap, slow motherboard supports (like 4 IDE, or maybe 2-4 SATA) with the biggest cheapest drives. Give me $0.10:GB, which stores 4 (FLAC) compressed CDs, or 25-50-100% of a movie. If 250GB drives with high performance sell for $0.25:GB, they should be able to give me the fat, slow drives cheap.
Then I'll have to buy 2 of them to RAID for performance and reliability. That's Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.
"Meta" means "after" or "beyond", as in Plato's "Metaphysics", so called because it was bound in a volume subsequent to Plato's "Physics", so it was the book "after" Physics on a bookshelf.
The universe beyond the real one is "heaven" or the imagination (or nothing), depending on your faith. These virtual universes are contained within the real one, and so are "endo", as in "endodontic", "inside the teeth".
I am a writer, of Slashdot comments at least, and so I have used my own prose license to correct the word to endoverse.
Those virtual worlds aren't "metaverses". "Meta" means "beyond", not "inside", which is "endo". If anything, real life is the metaverse of these endoverses.
I always found that getting support from Dell meant spending literally hours battling their phone system, mostly on hold, and escalating beyond script readers to problem solvers, to get maybe 20 minutes of actual support. So I rarely use it. Plus, I had a couple of recalled power bricks for which that I completed their process for replacing, then never heard from them.
However, I recommend to the many people who ask me to help them buy/upgrade their PCs that they just call Dell. Because those people mostly need script readers, and the encouragement of long hold times to fix it themselves, which they usually can do.
But we're not getting what we're paying for. Dell is clearly profiting off inadequate support for which they raise their prices. If they fixed that, we'd either pay less, or get our money's worth.
Go Cuomo. My low expectations of your brainpower and competence will be defied if you prove negligence and fix Dell.
Reforming the copyright system merely to include familiar copyright control while eliminating its abuses is a big enough task. Copyright holders can voluntarily release content under "copyleft" or whatever other terms, while they've got copyright control. So just reforming the term and finance of copyright is enough to fix the system.
The basis of copyright protection is to protect content producers' investment from competing distributors who aren't burdened by the costs of creation. So we just require registration of the costs, which of course must be supported by evidence ("auditable"), and income, much like the current income tax system (with which these registrations must agree). We set expiration thresholds after investment is paid off, or some appropriately short time if the producer can't recoup despite the artificial monopoly period.
Simple, rational, manageable. Even the Bahamas couldn't be easier, though it could be more goombay;).
OLGA was just an index, no content. AFAICT, the content mirrors (and perhaps OLGA itself, it it did indeed have content) deleted their content and otherwise disappeared, after the lawyer letters arrived.
You could take your collection of tabs and get the ball rolling. Who better than you? Even if a mirror had the content, that was their effort. Making a "rolling snowball" of accumulating tab content is another task entirely. Why not you, since you've got some of it, and want the result?
The WTO/WIPO makes practically all the world's countries' copyright laws the same, at least for copying OLGA's content.
The reason tab files are distributed unstructured/unindexed/uncollected, in PDF and other fat formats, is because you haven't compiled them into a compresed, structured, updatable archive with version info (DB) and redistributed it. Sure, anyone could do it, but why would they, any more than you have?
All of those systems have resistance that consume the power you generate. Since you are not moving (much) on a treadmill, it's moving the treadmill. Most of these exercise systems include artificial, even user-variable, resistance. That resistance is turned to heat or rotating inefficient gear systems. Instead, engineering for transduction efficiency could transfer that power to a battery, possibly up to about 500-600(K)cal:h in your case.
The article mentions a USB treadmill for some lame game. I wonder how much hacking it would take to drive power into the USB port, rather than drawing from it, to power the notebook battery. And then how much hacking to move the transducers from a stationary treadmill to something like boots or skis.
100 calories (kilocalories, really, as food "calories" are really kilocalories of actual energy) an hour is 116.22222 watts. Average retail electricity price in 2/2007 was $0.0874:KWh. An hour burning 100KCal is worth about $0.01 in electric costs.
If the treadmill could power my PC, I'd be more interested. Because though the actual cost savings are small, the motivation from saving the electricity might actually overbalance the idea that I'm the first generation of humans powering the Matrix.
Slashdot Mirror
A trademark isn't exclusive right to use a word (or symbol, or other "mark") in every context to represent just anything. Trademarks are justified only by their purpose: to identify a distinct product or service to people in its market. The entire test of a trademark's validity is whether it creates or resolves confusion in the market.
If someone (reasonable) sees a mark, do they think it represents the thing offered in trade, or do they think it represents a competitor?
Trademark law requires that mark registrants "vigorously defend from dilution" their mark: actively find others offering under their registered mark competing products, then instruct the competitor to stop using the mark fraudulently or without authorization. If the mark registrant doesn't "vigorously defend" their mark, the market can become confused, diluting the exclusive meaning of the mark, and the registrant can lose their registration, making it available to the competitor (who's then got the same responsibility, if they reregister it themself).
Reasonable people are expected to distinguish between a computer OS and a soap. The Trademark Office registers marks in specific industries (with a fee for each industry in which it's registered). But courts sometimes have difficult questions in defining distinctions, especially in new industries like software.
Trademark is probably the most reasonable "intellectual property" law in the US. Because it's defined in service of the consumer, to ensure the clear flow of info between the mark holder and the consumer.
Gates says whatever is most likely to make himself more money in the next year, without losing money.
And since making his kind of money means we all do it his way, his "predictions" are self-fulfilling prophecies.
How's that speech recognition and DB filesystem working out? Just fine, because the convincing promises sold several $billion more Windows installs on servers and desktops.
Bill Gates is the self-fulfillingest prophet ever, measured by the age old question "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
The Bill of Rights is not the entire Constitution by any means. As I said, and as the communications of its writers and signers makes clear, the Bill of Rights merely makes explicit what is implicit in the unamended Constitution. Specific directives the signers required the new government to do to protect rights specifically abused by the British government they'd just deposed. An example of specific protections of specific rights: a "bill" (list) of rights, not all of them.
Again, as the Constitution says, the people have rights that we create governments to protect. Governments that have powers only that we give them, and explicit limits on those powers where the writers, signers and amenders have had experience are too dangerous to allow to the risks of interpretation - and possibly merely to serve constituencies with doubts the new government won't repeat them.
The Constitution specifies powers of the government to protect those rights from private infringement. But of course, as a document always contemporary by amendment, it must specify those private jurisdictions (or made more specific in laws under existing Constitutional powers) as those private powers are developed by people. Corporations, for example, did not have "rights" until a California railroad company defrauded the reporting of a critical court ruling in the late 1800s. By which time corporations had already enough power to prevent real regulation of them from being written into the Constitution. Though various antimonopoly laws (such as the Sherman Antitrust Act) have been written since, as corporations have periodically produced unsustainable abuse of the people, lobbying has prevented even reducing corporate "rights" to lesser priority than human rights. Amending the Constitution to curtail corporate abuse of people is now clearly needed, and consistent with the attitudes of a majority of Americans. But the corporate political system keeps our representatives paid to keep corporations more free than people.
So we have to keep our actual freedom in mind, while fighting to defend it from private and public abusers alike. Because corporations don't actually have rights, because their creators are merely humans - not the creator from which our inalienable rights derive. Only if we humans let corporations convince us to waive our rights in favor of corporate masters will we really lose them. Believing the Constitution describes merely an arbitrary government which can administer only itself is one of corporate America's greatest triumphs. If complete, it can arbitrarily abridge those rights, without even our belief that we create our government to protect them to help us protect ourselves.
Is PayPal a "bank"? No, it's an unregulated global internet banking monopoly, but it's not a "bank" (or it would be regulated as one). Should it get a PayPal.bank domain for people to trust?
.bank domain? If it's not regulated as a bank, why should anyone trust it? Because it's got a .bank domain?
What if it did? Should some competing Internet (or real world) payment system that's not regulated as a bank get a
This whole thing is stupid. Real banks are trusted because they are insured, by the FDIC, FSLIC and/or other (eg. international) insurance that ensures your transactions won't get stolen. By outsiders or by the bank itself. What would really help would be if the global banking insurance industry certified banks, then signed their SSL security keys. Then browsers could indicate which signer has signed the HTML fragment, showing the insurer's logo.
Anything else is just more voodoo economics. Which might work - until it doesn't, when it undermines the entire basis of the banking economy, for good and bad banks alike.
Which part isn't correct?
The main point is that people create governments to protect the rights we have. Rights that are created by "the creator" - a meaningless tautology for those who want to read something inconsequential into the basis. We created the US government by writing the Constitution, which designates which powers the government has to protect our rights and administer our state. The Bill of Rights itself is merely an enumeration of some rights made explicit that the government must protect, and not infringe, though the government the Constitution signers had just overthrown had infringed them to its fatal peril.
The Constitution itself says that powers (including protections) not claimed in it for the Federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are available to the states, and failing that, retained without infringement by the people. So unless a state claims a power neither claimed by the Constitution (or the Federal laws deriving from its specific powers) nor prohibited by it, the people have that power.
The Constitution does not merely prohibit the Federal (or states) government from certain infringements. It specifies rights the Federal government must protect from infringement by anyone, including states and other people.
Though as I mentioned, infringements can depend on denial of any alternate venue, which is usually not the case in our generally open, large society. But real prohibition in all private venues, such as the Hollywood blacklist that covered all film, TV, radio (ie. all broadcast), is subject to intervention by the government. Though the great shame of the Cold War was finding the government working against those rights, rather than to protect them.
It's a lot like "monopoly" prohibitions. It's not a black/white issue: market and vendor alternatives can mean "no monopoly", while market control with some insignificant competition can still mean monopoly. The test is whether real actions have a chance.
And in this case, Opie and Anthony have a chance - even though the Federal government has an interest in protecting that chance.
No, "free speech" refers to our inalienable right to speak freely, limited only by restrictions on harm it does to others.
The Constitution does not constrain only the government. This kind of thinking comes from the basic fallacy that "the Constitution gives us certain rights". No: we have certain rights, and we people create the government to protect those rights as described in the Constitution.
For example, you cannot keep slaves on your private plantation. There are many other Constitutional controls that obviously do not stop at your property line.
There is, however, the right to control one's own private property, primarily by controlling access to it by other people. And there is the middle ground, private property to which access is granted to the public, even by degrees (eg. from a parking lot to a shopping mall to a diner to a private club to an invite-only house party).
And then there's the in-fact results of the exact circumstances of private owners prohibiting certain rightful actions. If only one club prohibits speech, and there are plenty of other venues, then that club is not suppressing the rights. But if every venue for speech is private, and prohibits speech (or every golf course prohibits Germans), then that prohibition is suppressing the rights, and the government has business removing the infringement on the rights.
Satellite radio is an exclusive (literally - it excludes nonsubscribers) club, but it's offered to the public. And, especially since the Sirius/XM merger, it's a very limited venue. There's some worthwhile debate of whether alternate media offer alternate venues, like Internet and broadcast radio. Today they do, since satellite radio is a small audience that is also reachable with audio telecasts. But they might have a majority audience, or perhaps one demographic segment of its audience is large and otherwise not reachable. A future lawsuit might have to decide on the actual situation.
Opie and Anthony have a contract, in which it surely states what speech can get them thrown off the air. Subscribers have contracts which surely state what content can be removed suddenly and without warning. Those terms are enforceable, without violating the Constitution. Not because there is free speech as unlimited as in a public park - and certainly not because the government has no jurisdiction in the encrypted satellite band.
But because of how our actual rights are protected by the actual situation, in its real details. When our rights are at stake, the Constitution is there to protect them. But not when someone's just waving the Constitution because they didn't get the entertainment they can get elsewhere.
Is there an energy difference between the two spin states, in joules (or electron-volts, whatever the unit), the way there's an energy difference between an atom with an electron in two different orbit shell states?
If so, how much is the difference? Is there a way to move an electron from the higher energy spin state to the lower one that consumes less energy than the state difference? A way to move the electron from lower energy to higher energy spin state that is less than the difference? Can those moves be done on lots of electrons? How about lots of them per second, but serially, selecting which electrons in the stream are affected, not all of them?
That sounds like exactly the reason Schaeuble is a bad sponsor for the event. And exactly what people of conscience do, that corporations don't - one of the crucial differences between Linux and other OS'es, like OSX and Windows.
And it sounds like it's LinuxTag which should notice their community rebelling, not their pet Minister who doesn't care at all about either of them.
Mainly I want the costs to go down because I want redundancy. Costs at least double to have 2 discs for the same replicated bit. I don't want to pay extra twice for all the speed tech, or the overhead of data access, power, rotational and enclosure HW.
In fact, I want drives that replicate each bit on both sides of each platter, and include a pair of power, motor, data access and host interface modules. That would make highly fault-tolerant drives, with much of the other costs of parts that don't fail (like the enclosure, and the labor of manufacturing/distributing/marketing the drive) spent only once. Tape backup would cover the very small percentage of failures that those hot failover redundancies don't cover. In the meantime, the drive could also occasionally use the "backup" halves for transient storage, like when reorganizing/defragmenting a RAID, with very low risk that a failure will occur then, but all transacted at max speed inside the drive.
After a few years, that kind of safety will be the default, like car seatbelts/airbags, and the prices will fall to reflect just the halved density of the redundant storage.
PCI-e is now 500MBps, so 16x is now about 8GBps. In any case, there are cards that receive HDMI, but their APIs are only high-level MS ones for actual graphics/video, for mixing under Windows.
HDMI is a really fast interconnect, 10.3Gbps, even if it's only 1-way. The PS3 HDMI output is by far its fastest "I/O" (O, really), the only one in the class with its Cell processing power (to say nothing of its RSX graphics chip). With Ubuntu on PS3, I might be able to write code that tunnels data over HDMI. But where are the HDMI input cards (probably PCI-e) that can accept the "HDMI" data (really TDMS data), decode it, and use the encapsulated data I sent across?
If you have an argument against Toyota's clear statement that they'll be 100% hybrid, therefore 0% all-electric, by 2020, I'd like to hear it.
Otherwise, more power to me, indeed.
Gonzales, is that you, fantasizing about slapping cocks? You're supposed to be busy lying your ass off about destroying the Constitution, not trolling Slashdot.
At the nanoscale, you'll be surprised how interchangeable are electronics, magnetics, and photonics - all EM phenomena. And how everything useable is a "crystal", however aperiodic.
Well, 50GB Blu-Ray discs cost about $40, a 5-pack about $180 for only 250GB across multiple discs.
Blu-Ray drives cost about $8-900, but again, they're only 50GB. To get 600GB, 12 discs, you need a 200-disc changer that costs around $20K, which isn't nearly the integration/convenience of 600GB.
Sony will release a 200-BD changer for probably around $2-3K any day. But that will drive these holodisc drives down to probably about $10K, while the discs remain around $150. Until BD-R is priced as mainstream use. Since the vast majority of recordable optical is still just CD, not even DVD, that won't be for a while. BD-R drives will probably be $100 by next year (maybe in a $1K changer), with 50GB discs maybe $20. While the holodiscs will cost maybe $100 or so, a drive maybe $5K.
But at that rate, a 200-holodisc changer will cost something like $25K, containing 120TB at ($25K + (200 * 100) = $45K) $0.375:GB, competitive with HD prices. But 240TB in a two loads will bring $0.271:GB, and 0.96PB in 17 loads brings $0.17:GB at very high density, etc.
What would really make these changers affordable for really mass storage would be converting them into "changer tubs", with a robot un/loading/swapping tubs in a large multidimensional array, probably with a few drives for some parallel access. $1M should deliver a few PB loaded and 4-8 drives, with room for another $1M/4PB loadable into tubs. $2M for 7PB is $0.28:GB, competitive with today's HDs.
Though by that time HDs will be cheaper and much faster (especially if they start to include some of this holo tech), but perhaps not as flexible. The discs will be cheaper, too, so maybe it's more like $500K for that 7PB.
But I wonder whether we'll see a race in robotic arrays, or in multidimensional holographics. I'd like to test them out on my 200-CD/DVD-R changer right now, if any roboticist wants to pitch in.
I want giant HDs for my media collection. But I don't need them to be fast, because I just want to play them at the media rates (or a small multiple, if I'm sharing with some friends in realtime).
The files are stored in long stretches of sequential sectors, and don't change much. The drives don't multiplex between more than one (or maybe a few) file.
So 5400 RPM, 20ms access, little or no cache - just the cheapest TB drives. So I can fill the maximum devices my cheap, slow motherboard supports (like 4 IDE, or maybe 2-4 SATA) with the biggest cheapest drives. Give me $0.10:GB, which stores 4 (FLAC) compressed CDs, or 25-50-100% of a movie. If 250GB drives with high performance sell for $0.25:GB, they should be able to give me the fat, slow drives cheap.
Then I'll have to buy 2 of them to RAID for performance and reliability. That's Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.
"Meta" means "after" or "beyond", as in Plato's "Metaphysics", so called because it was bound in a volume subsequent to Plato's "Physics", so it was the book "after" Physics on a bookshelf.
The universe beyond the real one is "heaven" or the imagination (or nothing), depending on your faith. These virtual universes are contained within the real one, and so are "endo", as in "endodontic", "inside the teeth".
I am a writer, of Slashdot comments at least, and so I have used my own prose license to correct the word to endoverse.
Those virtual worlds aren't "metaverses". "Meta" means "beyond", not "inside", which is "endo". If anything, real life is the metaverse of these endoverses.
I always found that getting support from Dell meant spending literally hours battling their phone system, mostly on hold, and escalating beyond script readers to problem solvers, to get maybe 20 minutes of actual support. So I rarely use it. Plus, I had a couple of recalled power bricks for which that I completed their process for replacing, then never heard from them.
However, I recommend to the many people who ask me to help them buy/upgrade their PCs that they just call Dell. Because those people mostly need script readers, and the encouragement of long hold times to fix it themselves, which they usually can do.
But we're not getting what we're paying for. Dell is clearly profiting off inadequate support for which they raise their prices. If they fixed that, we'd either pay less, or get our money's worth.
Go Cuomo. My low expectations of your brainpower and competence will be defied if you prove negligence and fix Dell.
Right.
And BTW, what is it?
Reforming the copyright system merely to include familiar copyright control while eliminating its abuses is a big enough task. Copyright holders can voluntarily release content under "copyleft" or whatever other terms, while they've got copyright control. So just reforming the term and finance of copyright is enough to fix the system.
;).
The basis of copyright protection is to protect content producers' investment from competing distributors who aren't burdened by the costs of creation. So we just require registration of the costs, which of course must be supported by evidence ("auditable"), and income, much like the current income tax system (with which these registrations must agree). We set expiration thresholds after investment is paid off, or some appropriately short time if the producer can't recoup despite the artificial monopoly period.
Simple, rational, manageable. Even the Bahamas couldn't be easier, though it could be more goombay
OLGA was just an index, no content. AFAICT, the content mirrors (and perhaps OLGA itself, it it did indeed have content) deleted their content and otherwise disappeared, after the lawyer letters arrived.
You could take your collection of tabs and get the ball rolling. Who better than you? Even if a mirror had the content, that was their effort. Making a "rolling snowball" of accumulating tab content is another task entirely. Why not you, since you've got some of it, and want the result?
The WTO/WIPO makes practically all the world's countries' copyright laws the same, at least for copying OLGA's content.
The reason tab files are distributed unstructured/unindexed/uncollected, in PDF and other fat formats, is because you haven't compiled them into a compresed, structured, updatable archive with version info (DB) and redistributed it. Sure, anyone could do it, but why would they, any more than you have?
All of those systems have resistance that consume the power you generate. Since you are not moving (much) on a treadmill, it's moving the treadmill. Most of these exercise systems include artificial, even user-variable, resistance. That resistance is turned to heat or rotating inefficient gear systems. Instead, engineering for transduction efficiency could transfer that power to a battery, possibly up to about 500-600(K)cal:h in your case.
The article mentions a USB treadmill for some lame game. I wonder how much hacking it would take to drive power into the USB port, rather than drawing from it, to power the notebook battery. And then how much hacking to move the transducers from a stationary treadmill to something like boots or skis.
100 calories (kilocalories, really, as food "calories" are really kilocalories of actual energy) an hour is 116.22222 watts. Average retail electricity price in 2/2007 was $0.0874:KWh. An hour burning 100KCal is worth about $0.01 in electric costs.
If the treadmill could power my PC, I'd be more interested. Because though the actual cost savings are small, the motivation from saving the electricity might actually overbalance the idea that I'm the first generation of humans powering the Matrix.