Just because you have what you think are sins, doesn't mean Google is going to judge you, that's not profitable after all.
For some purposes there's nothing more evil than someone who intends to 'do good', by shaming people who sin according to their definition.
Now if you were contemplating something illegal, yeah, there might be some reasons to worry.... in theory Google could be ordered by the courts to report all information to law enforcement, then you would be at a disadvantage, since they have every keystroke.
Combining them is a brilliant design decision.
Microsoft has to provide people a 'reason' that their clunky two-box design is better.
And to joe average this 'seems' like it could be true.
If MS combined them right away, it would look like they were trying to copy Google.
They'll have to wait until IE9 or 10, or when Firefox does it to do that.
The cloud is not inherently secure in and of itself. A cloud deployment can have more security issues than a non-cloud deployment, very easily.
"Security Is Not a Product; It's a Process"
...
"No security product acts as magical security dust; they all require time and expertise to make work properly. You have to baby-sit them, every day. "
...
"If you think technology can solve your security problems, then you don't understand the problems and you don't understand the technology."
--Bruce Schneier
There's a difference between posting information in public where everyone can freely access and share it whenever they want, and revealing the information to a service provider in the context of a private transaction, which the SP is not supposed to reveal to third parties.
By this logic, your ISP is the biggest privacy invader there is -- every bit of data you send passes through their routers.
Also, they can aggregate scan it, and apply all sorts of alerts (or traffic rate control) rules based on whatever it contains.
Posting private info on Facebook and having access wide open to the public or even lots of friends, is still a bigger compromise of personal info.
Even if your searches actually contain more sensitive info about you.
The difference is Google isn't publishing your details for arbitrary members of the public to see.
The possibility exists for robot cars to be manufactured by humans.
But I'm not sure they have crossed all the hurdles yet to be trusted on the road.
It is a big political and social hurdle, and really not just a technological one.
There are still technological milestones to be crossed, however, before robotic vehicles could be safely released in an uncontrolled environment such as the open road.
For now, it's just things like trains that robots run.
Wha, you don't know about 9600 BAUD modem-based gateways used to submit comments to slashdot?
If he gets disconnected in the middle of typing, it disconnects, to avoid loss of the message, the other side of the gateway dutifully posts it, including the last bit of noise, and the 'NO CARRIER' error reported by the modem.
Another fun thing to do with those gateways is to post the following on every slashdot comment,
So make it considered just the same as 1st degree aggravated murder when that happens, in any case where it can be proven that a pedestrian was hit, and the driver was texting, dialing a phone, or holding a handset.
And any witness covering up, or failing to come forward and report what happened, is an accessory (meaning any other vehicle or passerby on the road in the vicinity who failed to report), and also, having some minor charge related to the crime.
The person who was talking on the cell phone when they ran over a pedestrian, will have their choice of being drawn and quartered, strapped into the chair, and electrocuted, put before a firing squad...
Or: tied to a pole while a robot-driven car runs them over.
I'll admit it's not 100% a self-correcting problem, and in the cases where it's not, the criminal justice system has a duty to protect society, by applying just and equitable punishment.
Although I guess, technically allowing more methods of execution such as electric chair, which are more humane than the original crime (compared to being run over by a vehicle and probably left to die as the vehicle goes on [with driver not noticing or pretending to be ignorant]), the punishment actually falls short of fitting the crime, but that is just a matter of civility -- and the outcome is still basically the same.
Sex.com is worth billions A bid for $100 million would be sort of a joke, an insult.
When you consider the number of visitors who will go there just due to the name, now, and the exponentially growing number of people who will visit the domain at times in the future (due to the increasing internet population)...
Not to mention the branding opportunities.
Although, I suppose at the end of the day, it can only be sold for as much as someone is actually willing to pay for it, regardless of its actual intrinsic value.
Its owner must've done something pretty bad if they went bankrupt while holding such a prized jewel though....
I don't know what they taught you in school sex ed, but NiMH rechargeable batteries are decidedly not a cure for Gonorrhea, or any known disease, no matter where you try to insert them.
Good plain abstinence goes along way. A lot farther than sticking batteries or energizer bunnies up your partner's *****.
If you want an exciting life, go skydiving with your prospective girlfriend instead of s3x0r. You will live a lot longer and have a lot more fun.
No problem then, ISPs can accept the 0/0, but discard any other route from them, then. Also, apply a where-the-sun-doesnt-shine or ignore-this-crap community to the route, and as-prepend the hell out of it before exporting the route to anyone else (internal or external).
In a real routing table, every prefix is going to be longer than 0/0, so every real route would overrule 0/0, anyways. DFZ routers don't use default routing, in some cases they may even be using equipment that is incapable of accepting 0/0 or prefixes outside the range from/8 to/24 due to their software not expecting or allowing it.
Also, the "from my dead cold hands" rule applies.
This is the internet routing system we are talking about.
The US government doesn't have any jurisdiction of which of my neighbors I send X IP address' packets to, and doesn't have jurisdiction of which of their neighbors they send packets to.
Or even who I connect with, particularly if they are in the same room.
The ISPs also have legal, binding contracts, that the US gov't cannot interfere with. Since the contracts are legal and already in place, and the legislature cannot pass laws negating or nullifying any legal contract, they cannot require peers to turn you off or you to turn off peers, or handle their traffic in a way other than they have specified, either.
Any more than they have jurisdiction of how grocery stores arrange their items.
Just in the same manner they can't demand toilet paper always be placed at the north end of Aisle #15, and that grocery stores always be built with capacity for exactly 30 aisles 20 feet long, running north to south, by the builder (even though they were contracted to build stores to accomodate 60 aisles 40 feet long),
The government has no jurisdiction over an IP packet, which is a private message between two people transmitted through private connections, protected from government intervention by the 1st amendment to the US constitution.
Rather than repeat myself, i'll link to my comment on this matter.
Things in your environment such as radiation, and the behavior of your hardware under varying conditions, are just as significant and can cause issues just as readily as a defect in the code you write.
They could use ECC memory, perhaps, they do, but even that is not infallible.
You will need to reboot your car's computer every few days, to make sure it loads fresh code, eliminating any undetected multi-bit errors:)
Sorry, but no. It's still piracy. You paid for a DRM-laden file, and a DRM-laden file is all you're entitled to.
Uhuh.... that sounds like exactly the legal theory the **AA would want to be true, since it would provide them the most opportunities to resell you more copies of something you already purchased.
That doesn't mean it's true though.
1st of all in terms of the question is it piracy?
Clearly not, they have purchased the copy of the very same content, and the downloader is not the person distributing the file illicitly.
Wrapping a work in DRM or removing DRM from it does not make the item a different work.
Enciphering a work does not cause it to be something different, it is the user perceivable data that matters.
Is it legal? Maybe... maybe not...
that's a separate question from 'is it piracy?'
It might be copyright infringement, but only if certain legal theories are true. But more likely, it is just a fair use situation, and protected.
Downloading the file might violate other laws even if it's not copyright infringement.
But that doesn't make it piracy.
Piracy is not synonymous with the legal definition of copyright infringement.
Music piracy refers to obtaining someone else's content through illicit channels.
If you already owned the content, then you didn't actually get it that way, the additional instance is in effect, just a 2nd or backup copy.
Which results in a loss of audio quality you may find unacceptable or unusuable for listening to the music. The label on the thing you bought said it was high quality 128kbit MP3 or what have you.
You have a fair use right to play the thing you purchased at its full fidelity, not just some analog effectively downsampled conversion of it.
If you buy a song on iTunes, delete it/lose it, and then want to redownload it from iTunes, are you able to? No.
That depends. In some circumstances, you can get apple to reset it and let you re-download the file without paying anything more.
There's a reason for this.
It costs something to pay for the bandwidth to download a file.
And $0.99 per song gives them only a slim profit margin -- most of the money goes to music company, so if you downloaded several times, there would be no profit for Apple (due to the pro-rata bandwidth cost of your repeat transfers).
Also, Apple would [probably] rather you re-buy and spend more money = more profit.
It also costs something to keep records of what files you are allowed to re-download. They probably do this anyways, because there is other value in keeping those records, but not necessarily in a form suitable to allow re-downloads.
If they allowed free re-download, people would abuse it -- by installing iTunes on multiple of their computers, and using iTunes to download to additional computers at Apple's expense instead of syncing themselves.
Use an algorithm something like Advogoto's certification system, and also provide a mechanism for people to say "I don't trust them, or I know this person is bad".
Pure WoT alone has some difficulties... you need ultimately need some seeds that people know are trusted.
And the sheer number of certifications alone should not establish trust...
I would imagine you have 50 or so seeds, and you need to be certified at some level or higher by people trusted ultimately from some percentage of those seeds to achieve that certification level.
Also, a ~N negative certification by certified at N+1 if repeated by ppl certified by enough seeds, should result in ineligibility to certify at level N or higher, or something like that.
The design should be more complex than that, but there are some ways WoTs should be able to be made resilient against certain attacks on trust
Ok.. so what happens if you buy an MP3 from Walmart or Napster's store, and you now own the song
But you find you need an unencrypted MP3 file to be able to play it on your new MP3 player, and the DRM-laden file is useless.
Are you a non-paying customer if you go to rapidshare and download that file?
I say you are neither pirate, nor non-paying customer.
You already bought a copy of that data, you paid for those bits, and the publisher already got their cut.
Now your only option to exercise your fair use right of playing the media is to actually go find someone who has altered the datafile to make it unencrypted.
That's because, it's illegal to exchange or sell 'copy protection circumvention' technologies that decrypt music.
The only way you can legally remove DRM for a file is to download a file with the encryption removed from someone else who also legally owns a copy.
The bits are still the same, and the content is still the same (unmodified), you have just acquired an unencrypted version of a file you already own, through the assistance of a third party providing you the decrypted version of the bits.
And what if they already purchased the exact item in another form, but they are too lazy to want to rip it themselves, and like the convenience of someone else having already converted the medium to their favorite file format?
Then they are neither paying nor pirating, really.. they could rip and make the exact same file themselves, if they weren't lazy, or if they had the knowhow.... downloading from someone else then is just outsourcing:)
Another possibility may be that the file they have is encrypted, and they don't know how to decrypt it, so downloading an unencrypted version from someone else is their only way at getting to the actual bits in order to exercise their fair use rights (such as using a clip from the file for permitted purposes being things like classroom use, criticism, parody, quotations of small portions, etc).
If you have 30 full Redhat EL 5 installs in virtual machines on a host, the OS install will use about 10gb out of the box. That's approximately 10gb of duplicate data, 10 x 30 = 300gb.
The same is true of Windows based OSes, for example a minimal install of Windows 2008 R2 or Windows 7 will use approximately 8gb after install is done.
Again this only applies to very specific environments. The 40GB MySQL db of customer A and the 60GB db of customer B don't really share any data at all and the data-to-OS-files ratio is probably in the ballpark of 100:1 so I see very little gain.
Actually... it applies to most environments.
It only fails to be useful in very specific environments.
The mysql database server or Oracle DB server with the 40gb database is ONE server in the enterprise, a vast majority of servers are not the database servers. In fact, if you have 40gb customer databases on your DB server, that server is not (right now) a good candidate for compute or storage virtualization in the first place, anyways, due to the I/O penalty.
Virtualization software is currently not suitable for heavy IO workloads, such as large DB servers performing thousands of transactions per second, unless you have one of those fancy new ultra-expensive setups with Nehalem and I/O virtualization, such as Cisco UCS, databases with significant workload suffer under virtualization tremendously.
Plus, you wouldn't want to dedup the huge mysql database servers, using something like the dedup mentioned in the article, since there is probably already a performance bottleneck, with such a large database, and multiple users, there are sure to be times when DB server performance limits the speed of their application.
Unless the mysql DB is extremely full of large duplicate records, dedup won't help much for the database
First of all.... one of the most commonly duplicated blocks is the NUL block, that is a block of data where all bits are 0, corresponding with unused space, or space that was used and then zero'd.
If you have a virtual machine on a fresh 30GB disk with 10GB actually in use, you have at least 25GB that could be freed up by dedup.
Second, if you have multiple VMs on a dedup store, many of the OS files will be duplicates.
Even on a single system, many system binaries and libraries, will contain duplicate blocks.
Of course multiple binaries statically linked against the same libraries will have dups.
But also, there is a common structure to certain files in the OS, similarities between files so great, that they will contain duplicate blocks.
Then if the system actually contains user data, there is probably duplication within the data.
For example, mail stores... will commonly have many duplicates.
One user sent an e-mail message to 300 people in your organization -- guess what, that message is going to be in 300 mailboxes.
If users store files on the system, they will commonly make multiple copies of their own files..
Can MS Word files be large enough to matter? Yes.. if you get enough of them.
Besides they have common structure that is the same for almost all MS Word files.
Even documents' whose text is not at all similar are likely to have some duplicate blocks, which you have just accepted in the past -- it's supposed to be a very small amount of space per file, but in reality: a small amount of waste multiplied by thousands of files, adds up.
Just because data seems to be all different doesn't mean dedup won't help with storage usage.
Are you getting a $1 for each of your posts suggesting colorblind people should be forced to stay that way to suffer, just to achieve someone's idealogical goal of "diversity" and de-normalization of the human experience, because the disability of colorblindness might have been useful at one time for someone in one situation?
Would you deny glasses to the severely nearsighted? Deny hearing aids to the near-deaf?
Not being able to see, might give them a heightened sense of sound.
The deaf might have an advantage at certain jobs due to their acquired ability to read lips.
Is either of these really justification that medical procedures to fix problems causing the affliction should not be offered?
By the way, I happen to believe in this concept called free will, which is both a natural and sacred right that all humans have.
An implication of free will, is that it is immoral to try to deny or take choices away from other people, in regards to what they do to themselves, for the sole reason that you think it is a bad choice to make, particularly when a rational person is likely to choose it, given the option.
Saying we shouldn't develop and offer the procedure to people with color blindness is an immoral attempt to deny people a choice that is rational to make from their own free will.
If treatment to correct color blindness is immoral, then so is Lasik surgery to correct nearsightedness / astigmatism.
Bring that further... making glasses for people with nearsightedness would be immoral on that same basis 'normalizing' the experience indeed.
And prosthetics for people born with just one leg would also be immoral.
Surgery to separate conjoined twins would also be immoral (even if they both wanted it).
Why are they coming up with bullshit reasons to call a procedure immoral such as "trying to normalize humans to a threshold of experience"
Of course we're trying to normalize the experience of those people who were in the unfortunate position of having a genetic disadvantage that causes physical disability compared to most of the population.
It's only natural for people to want to better themselves.
I do believe that attempting to impose your morals on others is immoral, particularly when you inconsistently are okay with other things that violate the same principals
Much of the population has some sort of modification, even if it's just that they wear contact lenses all day every day to "correct" their vision.
But that's not really the point. Being color-sighted isn't better in every scenario, thus there will always be a beneficial situation for colorblind folk.
Being color-sighted is better in approximately every scenario.
Just because you have 1 scenario where a color blind person had better job performance, does not mean there is a class of scenarios where it's better to be color blind.
It's definitely a leap in logic to suggest there will always be a beneficial situation for colorblind folk.
Inadequate justification that not everyone needs to be color-sighted.
You can also have separate instances controlling left eye and right eye, and run the test code for only one eye at first.
Also, if it's just a HUD, it crashing won't make you unable to see, it'll just make you unable to see the HUD displays... you could still plug an old-fashioned PC in with serial port (assuming you can still find an old one at that point), I guess
Just make sure your install includes the external connectivity options
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to taint my shiny computer with that invasive Microsoft crap.
Seeing as Silverlight is noted for its unsafe privacy-compromising characteristics.
Just because you have what you think are sins, doesn't mean Google is going to judge you, that's not profitable after all.
For some purposes there's nothing more evil than someone who intends to 'do good', by shaming people who sin according to their definition.
Now if you were contemplating something illegal, yeah, there might be some reasons to worry.... in theory Google could be ordered by the courts to report all information to law enforcement, then you would be at a disadvantage, since they have every keystroke.
Combining them is a brilliant design decision. Microsoft has to provide people a 'reason' that their clunky two-box design is better.
And to joe average this 'seems' like it could be true.
If MS combined them right away, it would look like they were trying to copy Google. They'll have to wait until IE9 or 10, or when Firefox does it to do that.
The cloud is not inherently secure in and of itself. A cloud deployment can have more security issues than a non-cloud deployment, very easily.
There's a difference between posting information in public where everyone can freely access and share it whenever they want, and revealing the information to a service provider in the context of a private transaction, which the SP is not supposed to reveal to third parties.
By this logic, your ISP is the biggest privacy invader there is -- every bit of data you send passes through their routers.
Also, they can aggregate scan it, and apply all sorts of alerts (or traffic rate control) rules based on whatever it contains.
Posting private info on Facebook and having access wide open to the public or even lots of friends, is still a bigger compromise of personal info.
Even if your searches actually contain more sensitive info about you. The difference is Google isn't publishing your details for arbitrary members of the public to see.
The possibility exists for robot cars to be manufactured by humans. But I'm not sure they have crossed all the hurdles yet to be trusted on the road.
It is a big political and social hurdle, and really not just a technological one. There are still technological milestones to be crossed, however, before robotic vehicles could be safely released in an uncontrolled environment such as the open road.
For now, it's just things like trains that robots run.
Ever hear of the DARPA Urban challenge that was conducted in 2007?
And that was 4 years ago...
Wha, you don't know about 9600 BAUD modem-based gateways used to submit comments to slashdot?
If he gets disconnected in the middle of typing, it disconnects, to avoid loss of the message, the other side of the gateway dutifully posts it, including the last bit of noise, and the 'NO CARRIER' error reported by the modem.
Another fun thing to do with those gateways is to post the following on every slashdot comment,
+++ATH0
+++ATH0
FB GUR SRYYBJF HFVAT PURNC XABPX-BSS ZBQRZF GUNG PNA'G VZCYRZRAG CNGRAGRQ +++ QRYNL GRPUABYBTL, JVYY OR QVFPBAARPGRQ ORSBER GURL PNA SVAVFU ERNQVAT LBHE TYBEVBHF PBZZRAG.
CYNPR GUNG FGEVAT ORSBER NAL FRPERG GRKG GBB, CERSRENOYL FGEBATYL RAPELCGRQ.
SFV LZWF JWSDDQ UGFXMKW LZWE, TQ FWYSLANW 8-KZAXLAFY LZW EGKL AEHGJLSFL LWPL
So make it considered just the same as 1st degree aggravated murder when that happens, in any case where it can be proven that a pedestrian was hit, and the driver was texting, dialing a phone, or holding a handset. And any witness covering up, or failing to come forward and report what happened, is an accessory (meaning any other vehicle or passerby on the road in the vicinity who failed to report), and also, having some minor charge related to the crime.
The person who was talking on the cell phone when they ran over a pedestrian, will have their choice of being drawn and quartered, strapped into the chair, and electrocuted, put before a firing squad...
Or: tied to a pole while a robot-driven car runs them over.
I'll admit it's not 100% a self-correcting problem, and in the cases where it's not, the criminal justice system has a duty to protect society, by applying just and equitable punishment.
Although I guess, technically allowing more methods of execution such as electric chair, which are more humane than the original crime (compared to being run over by a vehicle and probably left to die as the vehicle goes on [with driver not noticing or pretending to be ignorant]), the punishment actually falls short of fitting the crime, but that is just a matter of civility -- and the outcome is still basically the same.
Are they insane?
Sex.com is worth billions A bid for $100 million would be sort of a joke, an insult.
When you consider the number of visitors who will go there just due to the name, now, and the exponentially growing number of people who will visit the domain at times in the future (due to the increasing internet population)...
Not to mention the branding opportunities.
Although, I suppose at the end of the day, it can only be sold for as much as someone is actually willing to pay for it, regardless of its actual intrinsic value.
Its owner must've done something pretty bad if they went bankrupt while holding such a prized jewel though....
I don't know what they taught you in school sex ed, but NiMH rechargeable batteries are decidedly not a cure for Gonorrhea, or any known disease, no matter where you try to insert them.
Good plain abstinence goes along way. A lot farther than sticking batteries or energizer bunnies up your partner's *****.
If you want an exciting life, go skydiving with your prospective girlfriend instead of s3x0r. You will live a lot longer and have a lot more fun.
No problem then, ISPs can accept the 0/0, but discard any other route from them, then. Also, apply a where-the-sun-doesnt-shine or ignore-this-crap community to the route, and as-prepend the hell out of it before exporting the route to anyone else (internal or external).
In a real routing table, every prefix is going to be longer than 0/0, so every real route would overrule 0/0, anyways. DFZ routers don't use default routing, in some cases they may even be using equipment that is incapable of accepting 0/0 or prefixes outside the range from /8 to /24 due to their software not expecting or allowing it.
Also, the "from my dead cold hands" rule applies. This is the internet routing system we are talking about.
The US government doesn't have any jurisdiction of which of my neighbors I send X IP address' packets to, and doesn't have jurisdiction of which of their neighbors they send packets to.
Or even who I connect with, particularly if they are in the same room.
The ISPs also have legal, binding contracts, that the US gov't cannot interfere with. Since the contracts are legal and already in place, and the legislature cannot pass laws negating or nullifying any legal contract, they cannot require peers to turn you off or you to turn off peers, or handle their traffic in a way other than they have specified, either.
Any more than they have jurisdiction of how grocery stores arrange their items.
Just in the same manner they can't demand toilet paper always be placed at the north end of Aisle #15, and that grocery stores always be built with capacity for exactly 30 aisles 20 feet long, running north to south, by the builder (even though they were contracted to build stores to accomodate 60 aisles 40 feet long),
The government has no jurisdiction over an IP packet, which is a private message between two people transmitted through private connections, protected from government intervention by the 1st amendment to the US constitution.
Rather than repeat myself, i'll link to my comment on this matter.
Things in your environment such as radiation, and the behavior of your hardware under varying conditions, are just as significant and can cause issues just as readily as a defect in the code you write.
They could use ECC memory, perhaps, they do, but even that is not infallible.
You will need to reboot your car's computer every few days, to make sure it loads fresh code, eliminating any undetected multi-bit errors :)
Oh wow... well that blows that theory out of the water.
Maybe they are concerned about some users that had purchased 10000 songs losing their hard drive, and they hadn't bothered to back anything up.
And logging onto iTunes to quickly re-download their entire collection (bringing iTunes servers to a near standstill)
Think about that... turn an opportunity for server degradation to a chance for profit, by making them re-buy all 10000 songs at $1.25 each.
Sorry, but no. It's still piracy. You paid for a DRM-laden file, and a DRM-laden file is all you're entitled to.
Uhuh.... that sounds like exactly the legal theory the **AA would want to be true, since it would provide them the most opportunities to resell you more copies of something you already purchased.
That doesn't mean it's true though.
1st of all in terms of the question is it piracy? Clearly not, they have purchased the copy of the very same content, and the downloader is not the person distributing the file illicitly.
Wrapping a work in DRM or removing DRM from it does not make the item a different work. Enciphering a work does not cause it to be something different, it is the user perceivable data that matters.
Is it legal? Maybe... maybe not... that's a separate question from 'is it piracy?'
It might be copyright infringement, but only if certain legal theories are true. But more likely, it is just a fair use situation, and protected.
Downloading the file might violate other laws even if it's not copyright infringement.
But that doesn't make it piracy.
Piracy is not synonymous with the legal definition of copyright infringement.
Music piracy refers to obtaining someone else's content through illicit channels.
If you already owned the content, then you didn't actually get it that way, the additional instance is in effect, just a 2nd or backup copy.
Which results in a loss of audio quality you may find unacceptable or unusuable for listening to the music. The label on the thing you bought said it was high quality 128kbit MP3 or what have you.
You have a fair use right to play the thing you purchased at its full fidelity, not just some analog effectively downsampled conversion of it.
If you buy a song on iTunes, delete it/lose it, and then want to redownload it from iTunes, are you able to? No.
That depends. In some circumstances, you can get apple to reset it and let you re-download the file without paying anything more.
There's a reason for this. It costs something to pay for the bandwidth to download a file. And $0.99 per song gives them only a slim profit margin -- most of the money goes to music company, so if you downloaded several times, there would be no profit for Apple (due to the pro-rata bandwidth cost of your repeat transfers).
Also, Apple would [probably] rather you re-buy and spend more money = more profit.
It also costs something to keep records of what files you are allowed to re-download. They probably do this anyways, because there is other value in keeping those records, but not necessarily in a form suitable to allow re-downloads.
If they allowed free re-download, people would abuse it -- by installing iTunes on multiple of their computers, and using iTunes to download to additional computers at Apple's expense instead of syncing themselves.
Use an algorithm something like Advogoto's certification system, and also provide a mechanism for people to say "I don't trust them, or I know this person is bad".
Pure WoT alone has some difficulties... you need ultimately need some seeds that people know are trusted.
And the sheer number of certifications alone should not establish trust...
I would imagine you have 50 or so seeds, and you need to be certified at some level or higher by people trusted ultimately from some percentage of those seeds to achieve that certification level.
Also, a ~N negative certification by certified at N+1 if repeated by ppl certified by enough seeds, should result in ineligibility to certify at level N or higher, or something like that.
The design should be more complex than that, but there are some ways WoTs should be able to be made resilient against certain attacks on trust
Ok.. so what happens if you buy an MP3 from Walmart or Napster's store, and you now own the song
But you find you need an unencrypted MP3 file to be able to play it on your new MP3 player, and the DRM-laden file is useless.
Are you a non-paying customer if you go to rapidshare and download that file?
I say you are neither pirate, nor non-paying customer. You already bought a copy of that data, you paid for those bits, and the publisher already got their cut.
Now your only option to exercise your fair use right of playing the media is to actually go find someone who has altered the datafile to make it unencrypted.
That's because, it's illegal to exchange or sell 'copy protection circumvention' technologies that decrypt music. The only way you can legally remove DRM for a file is to download a file with the encryption removed from someone else who also legally owns a copy.
The bits are still the same, and the content is still the same (unmodified), you have just acquired an unencrypted version of a file you already own, through the assistance of a third party providing you the decrypted version of the bits.
And what if they already purchased the exact item in another form, but they are too lazy to want to rip it themselves, and like the convenience of someone else having already converted the medium to their favorite file format?
Then they are neither paying nor pirating, really.. they could rip and make the exact same file themselves, if they weren't lazy, or if they had the knowhow.... downloading from someone else then is just outsourcing :)
Another possibility may be that the file they have is encrypted, and they don't know how to decrypt it, so downloading an unencrypted version from someone else is their only way at getting to the actual bits in order to exercise their fair use rights (such as using a clip from the file for permitted purposes being things like classroom use, criticism, parody, quotations of small portions, etc).
It's a bit hard to classify the activity, also.
If you have 30 full Redhat EL 5 installs in virtual machines on a host, the OS install will use about 10gb out of the box. That's approximately 10gb of duplicate data, 10 x 30 = 300gb.
The same is true of Windows based OSes, for example a minimal install of Windows 2008 R2 or Windows 7 will use approximately 8gb after install is done.
Again this only applies to very specific environments. The 40GB MySQL db of customer A and the 60GB db of customer B don't really share any data at all and the data-to-OS-files ratio is probably in the ballpark of 100:1 so I see very little gain.
Actually... it applies to most environments. It only fails to be useful in very specific environments.
The mysql database server or Oracle DB server with the 40gb database is ONE server in the enterprise, a vast majority of servers are not the database servers. In fact, if you have 40gb customer databases on your DB server, that server is not (right now) a good candidate for compute or storage virtualization in the first place, anyways, due to the I/O penalty.
Virtualization software is currently not suitable for heavy IO workloads, such as large DB servers performing thousands of transactions per second, unless you have one of those fancy new ultra-expensive setups with Nehalem and I/O virtualization, such as Cisco UCS, databases with significant workload suffer under virtualization tremendously.
Plus, you wouldn't want to dedup the huge mysql database servers, using something like the dedup mentioned in the article, since there is probably already a performance bottleneck, with such a large database, and multiple users, there are sure to be times when DB server performance limits the speed of their application.
Unless the mysql DB is extremely full of large duplicate records, dedup won't help much for the database
First of all.... one of the most commonly duplicated blocks is the NUL block, that is a block of data where all bits are 0, corresponding with unused space, or space that was used and then zero'd.
If you have a virtual machine on a fresh 30GB disk with 10GB actually in use, you have at least 25GB that could be freed up by dedup.
Second, if you have multiple VMs on a dedup store, many of the OS files will be duplicates.
Even on a single system, many system binaries and libraries, will contain duplicate blocks.
Of course multiple binaries statically linked against the same libraries will have dups.
But also, there is a common structure to certain files in the OS, similarities between files so great, that they will contain duplicate blocks.
Then if the system actually contains user data, there is probably duplication within the data.
For example, mail stores... will commonly have many duplicates.
One user sent an e-mail message to 300 people in your organization -- guess what, that message is going to be in 300 mailboxes.
If users store files on the system, they will commonly make multiple copies of their own files..
Ex... mydocument-draft1.doc, mydocument-draft2.doc, mydocument-draft3.doc
Can MS Word files be large enough to matter? Yes.. if you get enough of them.
Besides they have common structure that is the same for almost all MS Word files. Even documents' whose text is not at all similar are likely to have some duplicate blocks, which you have just accepted in the past -- it's supposed to be a very small amount of space per file, but in reality: a small amount of waste multiplied by thousands of files, adds up.
Just because data seems to be all different doesn't mean dedup won't help with storage usage.
Are you getting a $1 for each of your posts suggesting colorblind people should be forced to stay that way to suffer, just to achieve someone's idealogical goal of "diversity" and de-normalization of the human experience, because the disability of colorblindness might have been useful at one time for someone in one situation?
Would you deny glasses to the severely nearsighted? Deny hearing aids to the near-deaf? Not being able to see, might give them a heightened sense of sound. The deaf might have an advantage at certain jobs due to their acquired ability to read lips. Is either of these really justification that medical procedures to fix problems causing the affliction should not be offered?
By the way, I happen to believe in this concept called free will, which is both a natural and sacred right that all humans have.
An implication of free will, is that it is immoral to try to deny or take choices away from other people, in regards to what they do to themselves, for the sole reason that you think it is a bad choice to make, particularly when a rational person is likely to choose it, given the option.
Saying we shouldn't develop and offer the procedure to people with color blindness is an immoral attempt to deny people a choice that is rational to make from their own free will.
If treatment to correct color blindness is immoral, then so is Lasik surgery to correct nearsightedness / astigmatism. Bring that further... making glasses for people with nearsightedness would be immoral on that same basis 'normalizing' the experience indeed.
And prosthetics for people born with just one leg would also be immoral.
Surgery to separate conjoined twins would also be immoral (even if they both wanted it).
Why are they coming up with bullshit reasons to call a procedure immoral such as "trying to normalize humans to a threshold of experience"
Of course we're trying to normalize the experience of those people who were in the unfortunate position of having a genetic disadvantage that causes physical disability compared to most of the population.
It's only natural for people to want to better themselves.
I do believe that attempting to impose your morals on others is immoral, particularly when you inconsistently are okay with other things that violate the same principals
Much of the population has some sort of modification, even if it's just that they wear contact lenses all day every day to "correct" their vision.
But that's not really the point. Being color-sighted isn't better in every scenario, thus there will always be a beneficial situation for colorblind folk.
Being color-sighted is better in approximately every scenario.
Just because you have 1 scenario where a color blind person had better job performance, does not mean there is a class of scenarios where it's better to be color blind.
It's definitely a leap in logic to suggest there will always be a beneficial situation for colorblind folk.
Inadequate justification that not everyone needs to be color-sighted.
Switch to backup firmware.
You can also have separate instances controlling left eye and right eye, and run the test code for only one eye at first.
Also, if it's just a HUD, it crashing won't make you unable to see, it'll just make you unable to see the HUD displays... you could still plug an old-fashioned PC in with serial port (assuming you can still find an old one at that point), I guess
Just make sure your install includes the external connectivity options