Why is the parent modded troll? It's true. The interstate system was primarily for defense, to facilitate the movement of men and materiel and, especially, mobile nuclear missile launchers. They were a serious part of plans for nuclear deterrence; the Soviets couldn't pre-emptively blow up missiles that were always on the move and hard to locate.
I think you'll be better off with a complete reinstall. Especially if you have/home on a separate partition.
Nice opinion. Got any reasoning to back it up?
My home file server was originally installed in 1998. For 11 years I've been upgrading it, never a problem. At this point there's nothing left of the original hardware or the original software, but it's the same installation. My laptop was installed in 2001. That was three machines ago, but I just copy the disk image from one to the next, and keep on apt-get upgrading. Those are both Debian systems, of course, Ubuntu doesn't go back that far. My desktop machine was originally installed with Ubuntu 7.04. It's now on 9.04 and will be upgraded to 9.10 soon.
If you rewrite product A to make product B, and you have first seen the code in product A then its going to be hard to prove that B is not derived from A.
You don't have to prove that B is not derived from A. The owner of A has to prove that B is derived from A. Further, the owner of A has to prove that B actually includes code copied from B. Merely taking the ideas and reimplementing them does not violate the copyrights on A.
There are a lot of misunderstandings about this floating around. Most of it derives from the "clean room" reverse engineering dreamed up by Compaq's lawyers when Compaq set out to duplicate IBM's BIOS. Because they needed to *exactly* duplicate the functionality -- not just the general ideas, they needed bug-for-bug compatibility -- there was a substantial risk that chunks of the code might end up being identical, because the requirements were so tightly-defined, and because the BIOS was machine code. No possibility of relying on different comments, code formatting, high-level structure, etc. to prove difference.
So, they had to come up with some way to PROVE that the code wasn't copied, even if it happened to be byte-for-byte identical in places. Their solution was the now-famous "clean room reverse engineering" approach, with every step of the process carefully documented, and with signed affidavits from the reverse-engineering engineers that they never provided any code to the Compaq BIOS and from the implementation engineers that they never saw any code from the IBM BIOS.
It was overkill, but the little startup Compaq was really afraid of the IBM behemoth and wanted to make sure there was absolutely no doubt. It worked. But because it became so famous, lots of people got the idea that it was necessary, that a developer who has seen the original code is "tainted". There's no such concept in copyright law.
The way you express it, DEC would have a had a case against Microsoft for stealing their technology.
How so? Any non-disclosures DEC might have had with Cutler were long expired, no code was copied, so unless DEC had patents on specific elements of VMS which NT infringed and Microsoft didn't license, DEC could not have had any case.
Being in a remote area doesn't necessarily mean no Internet -- it just means slow Internet. The standard OLPC deployment configuration includes an Internet connection of some sort to the school machine. If no other option is available they get it via satellite. Relatively low bandwidth (256 kbps) and crazy high latency (ping times > 1.5 s), but it would work fine for downloading books.
Absolutely. But that doesn't help the kids get access to books that haven't already been delivered somehow. The most likely delivery technology is the Internet connection -- though I suppose the project could also ship thumb drive or two containing the whole collection.
tell me again HOW those books are going to get to an OLPC-using kid's hands?
The Internet.
The standard OLPC deployment model includes a school computer with an Internet connection of some sort. If necessary, via satellite. Not a fast connection, necessarily, but even at 256 kbps you can download a lot of books. Especially when downloading 24x7.
The question is which concept is more in line with the libertarian philosophy? Is the freedom to prevent others copying your work more important than your own freedom to copy things?
That's a false dichotomy.
You absolutely have the freedom to prevent others from copying your work -- don't give it to them. If you are going to give it to someone, make them sign a contract committing to keep it to themselves (or whatever other terms you want to apply). No government intervention other than a forum in which to enforce contracts is required. There's no limitation on your freedom to make copies; you have that freedom, subject to whatever limitations you voluntarily chose to accept.
However, there is an easy way to justify copyright under libertarian ideals. We just recognize that it's inconvenient and difficult for everyone to have to sign a contract in order to purchase a newspaper or a book. So, we set up a "default contract", which everyone implicitly agrees to, unless they make other specific arrangements. When an author publishes a book, he can either negotiate his preferred contract with each buyer or else he can make use of the default contract, which we call "copyright law". Buyers can either accept this default contract or they can contact the author and negotiate a different contract.
To make this work, the default contract must be fair, in the sense that it makes sense to both parties. In addition, since society as a whole is going to take responsibility for enforcing the contract, in all of its specific, implicit, executions, the default contract must serve society's interest as a whole. The main way this is achieved is by limiting its scope and duration, so that many uses of the published material are allowed and so that it eventually falls into the public domain.
All "reasonable" libertarian I've talked to aren't actually libertarians.
I think you've got that backwards. It's the wacko members of the Libertarian party who aren't actually libertarians. Most real libertarians won't associate with them -- because real libertarians are eminently reasonable people.
So, even though standards have stayed more or less the same, the capabilities of even our worst cameras have increased by orders of magnitude. At some point, even a cell-phone camera is good enough to do what needs to be done, and any more technical improvement is just for dick-waving and specialized cases.
The fundamental problem with cell phone cameras is size. You just need bigger lenses to get good image quality. Ansel Adams may have used cameras that were technically far less sophisticated, but he had cameras that were much LARGER. In optics, size matters.
I was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. Within 15 seconds of the asshole leaving, I called 911 and was immediately connected to a 911 operator. Within 90 seconds there was a police officer on the scene. Within 3 minutes the place was swarming with cops.
Robbers should know better than to do the deed at the police station.
If they have no clue how to properly handle that data you can expect it to get destroyed.
They don't have to know how to handle it, that's what the Reed-Solomon coding is for -- as long as *enough* of them handle it correctly, the data will be there. Also, my software periodically (monthly) crawls the backups to ensure that all of the shares are still present, so unless many holders of shares screw up at the same time, failures are recoverable.
Encoding parameters are chosen based on assumed reliability of individual nodes and a target file reliability. I've written a paper about how the reliability computations are done. For my purposes, I assume the probability of my data surviving on a given machine for one month is 96%. That is, I assume that once every two years hardware failure, catastrophe or user error will trash the data on a given machine, BUT, I choose encoding parameters that provide enough redundancy to ensure that, under the assumption that failures are independent, my odds of losing a given file are less than one in a billion. Those are the odds of losing it from the storage grid, I also have my own local copy, on a RAID-6 file system, so the odds of losing it completely are even smaller.
Those are theoretical probabilities, of course. Realistically, when you're down to such tiny probabilities, other rare events (aka "black swans") become more likely issues. My purpose in shooting for one-in-a-billion is just to make the loss probability small enough that other issues dominate.
My family and friends all get the same protection for their data (except the local copy), and it's completely transparent to them. Backups just happen every day, at no cost other than bandwidth, disk space and electricity (gotta keep the machines running 24x7). No human effort required.
There is no sense in rewarding people for thinking up ideas. We simply don't need to, as good ideas will be thought out even if we don't.
The problem is finding people who would implement those ideas.
Agreed.
The notion of patents was created to protect not just ideas, but inventions -- complex collections of moving parts. At the heart of a truly novel invention, there's typically one or two really good ideas, but those ideas are just the beginning of the effort needing to make something that actually works.
Take your idea, and build something from it, and then you'll have something of value to protect. The idea itself isn't worth much.
The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually. It's the weakness of the sociology! It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.
True, but I don't think there's any way around that, not for anything that will appeal to mass audiences, anyway.
The science fiction that does a good job of exploring radically altered societies is often so bizarre that most people can't enjoy it. It's just too weird. It's too hard to understand the context and can be very difficult to really relate to the people. I'm not saying the average person couldn't understand it, just that it's too much work to be perceived as entertaining.
Widely successful sci-fi, therefore, pretty much has to take the approach of setting people from a fundamentally similar culture and societal structure in bizarre settings, because that's something that viewers/readers can understand and relate to without too much effort. The world around the characters may look very different, but the characters themselves are fundamentally "normal".
"Bah. Data lines are easy to find. Hell, nearly every hotel in the country has free Wifi. I buy a laptop, I install some software, I type in my key, and I have instant access to my files."
Sure, you download 1TB over wifi - enjoy!
Do you really think you're going to need all of the data at once? Just get what you need as you need it.
"Well, if last month's version of the data is good enough... "
While you wait a whole month over that hotel wifi to get your data back...
Again, why would you do that? Get what you need when you need it. Duh.
I have an airline-grade black box - that's proof against any house fire. My data is safe.
Guess what else won't work? Your house just got burned down so your data lines are GONE.
Bah. Data lines are easy to find. Hell, nearly every hotel in the country has free Wifi. I buy a laptop, I install some software, I type in my key, and I have instant access to my files.
Better to have physical copies in a safe fire-proof place that is easy to access.
Well, if last month's version of the data is good enough...
Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a fireproof safe. Safes offer varying degrees of fire resistance, rated in terms of time at temperature. Should the temperature be higher, or last longer... you're screwed.
Much better to keep the key to your offsite backups in various places -- one copy in your safe-deposit box, one copy at your mom's house, etc. Then automate your backups so that they're never more than a few hours out of date.
In other words, your computer and thousands of others would devote some bandwidth and storage to backing up chunks of each other's data, sharing where appropriate, making available to the wolrd+dog where appropriate. Files that you want backed up would be broken up into redundant little pieces, and distributed among your peers, and in return, you'd do the same for others.
When it comes time to restore, you'd restore from the various chunks out there, and since there's lots of redundancy, and lots of bandwidth (since each box is only contributing a small chunk), restores would be as fast as your downlink.
That is what I'm trying to build. The "thousands of computers" introduces lots of challenges, perhaps the largest ones non-technical. So I'm starting by trying to build tools to make groups of friends and family able to provide these services to one another.
More precisely, the Tahoe project is trying to provide the tools for distributed file systems across small to medium-sized groups of machines. I'm just trying to provide an effective backup solution on top of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the parent modded troll? It's true. The interstate system was primarily for defense, to facilitate the movement of men and materiel and, especially, mobile nuclear missile launchers. They were a serious part of plans for nuclear deterrence; the Soviets couldn't pre-emptively blow up missiles that were always on the move and hard to locate.
I think you'll be better off with a complete reinstall. Especially if you have /home on a separate partition.
Nice opinion. Got any reasoning to back it up?
My home file server was originally installed in 1998. For 11 years I've been upgrading it, never a problem. At this point there's nothing left of the original hardware or the original software, but it's the same installation. My laptop was installed in 2001. That was three machines ago, but I just copy the disk image from one to the next, and keep on apt-get upgrading. Those are both Debian systems, of course, Ubuntu doesn't go back that far. My desktop machine was originally installed with Ubuntu 7.04. It's now on 9.04 and will be upgraded to 9.10 soon.
There's no reason whatsoever to reinstall.
If you rewrite product A to make product B, and you have first seen the code in product A then its going to be hard to prove that B is not derived from A.
You don't have to prove that B is not derived from A. The owner of A has to prove that B is derived from A. Further, the owner of A has to prove that B actually includes code copied from B. Merely taking the ideas and reimplementing them does not violate the copyrights on A.
There are a lot of misunderstandings about this floating around. Most of it derives from the "clean room" reverse engineering dreamed up by Compaq's lawyers when Compaq set out to duplicate IBM's BIOS. Because they needed to *exactly* duplicate the functionality -- not just the general ideas, they needed bug-for-bug compatibility -- there was a substantial risk that chunks of the code might end up being identical, because the requirements were so tightly-defined, and because the BIOS was machine code. No possibility of relying on different comments, code formatting, high-level structure, etc. to prove difference.
So, they had to come up with some way to PROVE that the code wasn't copied, even if it happened to be byte-for-byte identical in places. Their solution was the now-famous "clean room reverse engineering" approach, with every step of the process carefully documented, and with signed affidavits from the reverse-engineering engineers that they never provided any code to the Compaq BIOS and from the implementation engineers that they never saw any code from the IBM BIOS.
It was overkill, but the little startup Compaq was really afraid of the IBM behemoth and wanted to make sure there was absolutely no doubt. It worked. But because it became so famous, lots of people got the idea that it was necessary, that a developer who has seen the original code is "tainted". There's no such concept in copyright law.
I neither develop nor use video game software
Satisfied. I'll just assume that "I don't care about non-free software" posts come with an unwritten "I play no video games."
Too strong an assumption. There are lots of Free video games. Some of them are quite good, even.
The way you express it, DEC would have a had a case against Microsoft for stealing their technology.
How so? Any non-disclosures DEC might have had with Cutler were long expired, no code was copied, so unless DEC had patents on specific elements of VMS which NT infringed and Microsoft didn't license, DEC could not have had any case.
Being in a remote area doesn't necessarily mean no Internet -- it just means slow Internet. The standard OLPC deployment configuration includes an Internet connection of some sort to the school machine. If no other option is available they get it via satellite. Relatively low bandwidth (256 kbps) and crazy high latency (ping times > 1.5 s), but it would work fine for downloading books.
Absolutely. But that doesn't help the kids get access to books that haven't already been delivered somehow. The most likely delivery technology is the Internet connection -- though I suppose the project could also ship thumb drive or two containing the whole collection.
tell me again HOW those books are going to get to an OLPC-using kid's hands?
The Internet.
The standard OLPC deployment model includes a school computer with an Internet connection of some sort. If necessary, via satellite. Not a fast connection, necessarily, but even at 256 kbps you can download a lot of books. Especially when downloading 24x7.
The question is which concept is more in line with the libertarian philosophy? Is the freedom to prevent others copying your work more important than your own freedom to copy things?
That's a false dichotomy.
You absolutely have the freedom to prevent others from copying your work -- don't give it to them. If you are going to give it to someone, make them sign a contract committing to keep it to themselves (or whatever other terms you want to apply). No government intervention other than a forum in which to enforce contracts is required. There's no limitation on your freedom to make copies; you have that freedom, subject to whatever limitations you voluntarily chose to accept.
However, there is an easy way to justify copyright under libertarian ideals. We just recognize that it's inconvenient and difficult for everyone to have to sign a contract in order to purchase a newspaper or a book. So, we set up a "default contract", which everyone implicitly agrees to, unless they make other specific arrangements. When an author publishes a book, he can either negotiate his preferred contract with each buyer or else he can make use of the default contract, which we call "copyright law". Buyers can either accept this default contract or they can contact the author and negotiate a different contract.
To make this work, the default contract must be fair, in the sense that it makes sense to both parties. In addition, since society as a whole is going to take responsibility for enforcing the contract, in all of its specific, implicit, executions, the default contract must serve society's interest as a whole. The main way this is achieved is by limiting its scope and duration, so that many uses of the published material are allowed and so that it eventually falls into the public domain.
All "reasonable" libertarian I've talked to aren't actually libertarians.
I think you've got that backwards. It's the wacko members of the Libertarian party who aren't actually libertarians. Most real libertarians won't associate with them -- because real libertarians are eminently reasonable people.
So, even though standards have stayed more or less the same, the capabilities of even our worst cameras have increased by orders of magnitude. At some point, even a cell-phone camera is good enough to do what needs to be done, and any more technical improvement is just for dick-waving and specialized cases.
The fundamental problem with cell phone cameras is size. You just need bigger lenses to get good image quality. Ansel Adams may have used cameras that were technically far less sophisticated, but he had cameras that were much LARGER. In optics, size matters.
I was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. Within 15 seconds of the asshole leaving, I called 911 and was immediately connected to a 911 operator. Within 90 seconds there was a police officer on the scene. Within 3 minutes the place was swarming with cops.
Robbers should know better than to do the deed at the police station.
Either that, or he's someone who knows the definition of "pun".
2nd time in a row? I see 2007 and 2009 listed (or am I missing something?), that's not quite in row :p Nice anyway.
The competition is biannual.
If they have no clue how to properly handle that data you can expect it to get destroyed.
They don't have to know how to handle it, that's what the Reed-Solomon coding is for -- as long as *enough* of them handle it correctly, the data will be there. Also, my software periodically (monthly) crawls the backups to ensure that all of the shares are still present, so unless many holders of shares screw up at the same time, failures are recoverable.
Encoding parameters are chosen based on assumed reliability of individual nodes and a target file reliability. I've written a paper about how the reliability computations are done. For my purposes, I assume the probability of my data surviving on a given machine for one month is 96%. That is, I assume that once every two years hardware failure, catastrophe or user error will trash the data on a given machine, BUT, I choose encoding parameters that provide enough redundancy to ensure that, under the assumption that failures are independent, my odds of losing a given file are less than one in a billion. Those are the odds of losing it from the storage grid, I also have my own local copy, on a RAID-6 file system, so the odds of losing it completely are even smaller.
Those are theoretical probabilities, of course. Realistically, when you're down to such tiny probabilities, other rare events (aka "black swans") become more likely issues. My purpose in shooting for one-in-a-billion is just to make the loss probability small enough that other issues dominate.
My family and friends all get the same protection for their data (except the local copy), and it's completely transparent to them. Backups just happen every day, at no cost other than bandwidth, disk space and electricity (gotta keep the machines running 24x7). No human effort required.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Implement something.
There is no sense in rewarding people for thinking up ideas. We simply don't need to, as good ideas will be thought out even if we don't.
The problem is finding people who would implement those ideas.
Agreed.
The notion of patents was created to protect not just ideas, but inventions -- complex collections of moving parts. At the heart of a truly novel invention, there's typically one or two really good ideas, but those ideas are just the beginning of the effort needing to make something that actually works.
Take your idea, and build something from it, and then you'll have something of value to protect. The idea itself isn't worth much.
The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually. It's the weakness of the sociology! It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.
True, but I don't think there's any way around that, not for anything that will appeal to mass audiences, anyway.
The science fiction that does a good job of exploring radically altered societies is often so bizarre that most people can't enjoy it. It's just too weird. It's too hard to understand the context and can be very difficult to really relate to the people. I'm not saying the average person couldn't understand it, just that it's too much work to be perceived as entertaining.
Widely successful sci-fi, therefore, pretty much has to take the approach of setting people from a fundamentally similar culture and societal structure in bizarre settings, because that's something that viewers/readers can understand and relate to without too much effort. The world around the characters may look very different, but the characters themselves are fundamentally "normal".
I've gotten drawn into Battle for Wesnoth twice before, and it sounds like it's about time for me to make it three. Awesome game!
Damn you!
I just spend four hours playing, until 3 AM!
What's evil about complying with the man's publicly stated wishes?
His publicly stated wishes are evil. Was that hard?
No, they're not.
It would be evil were Google to refuse to index his content because they don't like him, or because they want to damage a competitor.
It's not evil to stop indexing his site when he asks. Even if there is another, easier, way for him to ask.
"Bah. Data lines are easy to find. Hell, nearly every hotel in the country has free Wifi. I buy a laptop, I install some software, I type in my key, and I have instant access to my files."
Sure, you download 1TB over wifi - enjoy!
Do you really think you're going to need all of the data at once? Just get what you need as you need it.
"Well, if last month's version of the data is good enough... "
While you wait a whole month over that hotel wifi to get your data back...
Again, why would you do that? Get what you need when you need it. Duh.
I have an airline-grade black box - that's proof against any house fire. My data is safe.
Until it isn't.
If you'd rather trust your data to a bunch of strangers rather than figure out how to do it yourself, you DESERVE every loss and failure you get.
Who's talking about strangers? I'm talking about friends and family.
What's evil about complying with the man's publicly stated wishes?
Guess what else won't work? Your house just got burned down so your data lines are GONE.
Bah. Data lines are easy to find. Hell, nearly every hotel in the country has free Wifi. I buy a laptop, I install some software, I type in my key, and I have instant access to my files.
Better to have physical copies in a safe fire-proof place that is easy to access.
Well, if last month's version of the data is good enough...
Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a fireproof safe. Safes offer varying degrees of fire resistance, rated in terms of time at temperature. Should the temperature be higher, or last longer... you're screwed.
Much better to keep the key to your offsite backups in various places -- one copy in your safe-deposit box, one copy at your mom's house, etc. Then automate your backups so that they're never more than a few hours out of date.
Also, in case you haven't read the full sumamry - note this big failure of offsite storage: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/10/t-mobile-sidekick-disaster-microsofts-servers-crashed-and-they-dont-have-a-backup/
Offsite is pointless. Cloud is pointless. Local is GOD.
Good link, wrong conclusion.
Offsite is important, and REDUNDANCY is critical.
In other words, your computer and thousands of others would devote some bandwidth and storage to backing up chunks of each other's data, sharing where appropriate, making available to the wolrd+dog where appropriate. Files that you want backed up would be broken up into redundant little pieces, and distributed among your peers, and in return, you'd do the same for others.
When it comes time to restore, you'd restore from the various chunks out there, and since there's lots of redundancy, and lots of bandwidth (since each box is only contributing a small chunk), restores would be as fast as your downlink.
That is what I'm trying to build. The "thousands of computers" introduces lots of challenges, perhaps the largest ones non-technical. So I'm starting by trying to build tools to make groups of friends and family able to provide these services to one another.
More precisely, the Tahoe project is trying to provide the tools for distributed file systems across small to medium-sized groups of machines. I'm just trying to provide an effective backup solution on top of it.