Exactly. As long as a warrant is required, this is exactly comparable to phone intercepts or bugging a location or car. In the US, those have been legal for a long time, with proper warrants.
Deals with the subject of high availability from the IT side rather than programming, but anyone dealing with HA systems needs to understand these issues.
In the real world, every activity in the world is not focused around getting PR videos out on the internet in a maximally short time.
John and the rest of Armadillo do a decent job of it usually anyways, but... There are more important things, like figuring out what went wrong, and getting ready for the X-Prize Cup. If the one guy who always does the video digitalizations and has the gear set up is out of the country, then urgently finding a workaround is an unreasonable expectation.
You can call this a PR fluff reason if you want. I believe that you're paranoid to the point of being nuts, if you're serious.
John doesn't owe us anything here; I'm sure he'll deliver what he always does, which is good information, released freely in good community spirit, in reasonable time. He's already exceeded his usual standard with the text info release in this accident. The video... can wait.
Well, the fact that he's released basically everything in the past and says he will release this video once it's ready to release counts for... everything.
Boeing mostly loses a couple of $100-plus-million satellites due to a leaking valve and we have a couple of relatively small press releases from them and the DOD about the valve issue. They all time things and restrict things up down and sideways.
John gives us good images and in many cases video, within short times of the accident, and a technical description of the failure and root causes that's first-class. Within a couple of days.
It takes a special kind of petty mind to see malign intent in a one-week delay because someone's on a trip...
Rocket is something that generates gas (usually by combustion or decomposition) and expels it through a nozzle for thrust.
Gas generator is generic for a device which produces gas. A boiler is a special case (heat + water). There are gas generators in airbags (solid azide chemical reaction), other industrial uses too.
This just uses decomposing hydrogen peroxide to generate steam. Just another gas generator.
1. Die size: How big is it? 2. How many watts of power does it consume? 3. What is the heat dissipation? 4. What is the floating point performance?
1. Does it matter? It's useful for computer architects to know for comparison but doesn't matter for the end user. I'm curious, too, but that can wait. Doesn't matter for system designers even.
2. They list 170-300 mW/core, but that's not clear as to what the base power is for the peripherals and routers. Is that (900 mhz) 300 mW * 64 ( about 20 W ) for the whole thing? 20W if the cores are all running flat out plus a baseline for the peripherals? This does matter for system designers.
3. See 2 above. They're usually sort of closely identical.
4. Good question. No FP mention at all in the specs, so probably not doing it in hardware.
Looking forwards to a real data sheet, not this PR stuff. And the first laptops...
In the 90s, there was a PowerPC port of Solaris 2.x. IBM has wanted to get out of the AIX business for decades. Sun had the chance to walk in and take over the UNIX market in pretty much one fell swoop, and walked away from it for percieved strategy benefits at the time.
IBM still wants to walk away from AIX... hence the Linux support. But I think they realize that there are businesses who are queasy about high end enterprise Linux who will jump all over Solaris, and it's essentially just having to agree to a marketing project now so it's free for everyone...
Sun doesn't want out of the server market. The server market keeps Sun's employees happy and well paid.
There's a one-button (for admins) export-the-whole-wiki-as-html feature in modern MediaWiki software installs...
But hey, two days and a few hundred lines of code is cool. You geek (verb). If we always took the easy way out we'd be using Windows and have committed suicide long ago.
I've got several varieties of mouse (roller and optical, Logitech and MS large external trackball models, Logitech thumb trackball).
Thumb trackball: good, but my thumb can't do 2+ hrs of active trackballing without it getting sore. It's very portable, it's what I used to carry in my laptop case, but I don't use it much anymore.
Large external trackball (currently Logitech Marble Mouse USB): excellent for basic motion, but if I have to actively use the buttons gets my whole hand sore after a couple of hours.
Conventional mice: Make my whole hand sore after a couple of hours, all over.
What I end up doing is this: I use two pointing devices at once. I usually stick a Logitech external trackball on my left hand and a conventional mouse on my right, and use the trackball for motion and the mouse buttons for clicking on stuff. Not having each hand do both pointing and clicking lets me work all week without getting much ache. I switch devices off from side to side every now and then for variety and to keep motion types distributed around.
It takes a bit of getting used to, to use both hands at once like that, and it's a little annoyance if I need to both actively point and type for a particular set of work, but I can use just one pointer briefly if I have to.
Also, make sure you use ergo split keyboards if your hand position isn't perfect on a straight one...
Second the "ask the auditors what they are looking for"... not everyone gets audited the same.
Financial company I know passed audit fine with syslog -> a secure system which the normal sysadmins didn't have access to. The people whose actions were being logged couldn't get to the logs (well, presumably someone could break the system, but it was well secured and had non-overlapping sysadmin staff).
That was good enough. As long as it took two compromised people to hide any given event, that passed audit.
You're suggesting that questions a la "So have you stopped beating your wife yet?" are appropriate for civil discourse.
They aren't. And if you think otherwise, you're going to go through life being kicked out of places that insist on people playing at least a little nice with each other.
If you troll people like that, you're gone. And you should be.
I started an accident reconstruction as soon as pictures started to come out... I'm in the industry and I want to figure out what went wrong. As far as I can tell, a pressure vessel rupture explains all of what we see here.
It just looks like that one tank trailer fell over, but in fact it has to have rolled over 270 degrees to be where it's lying now. Also, the container just past it was both hit really hard in the side by expanding gas, and knocked over.
But there's no massive fragmentation damage or burn mark anywhere to be seen.
What is instructive however, is that there's something missing, and something else tipped over. The other thing tipped over is the test stand itself, which is a large blue steel truss structure, which is now about 10 feet away from where it started and lying on its side.
What's missing, is a large (roughly 7 foot diameter and 10 foot long) composite "flight tank" which would hold the nitrous oxide for the motor during a test or flight, and any sign of the injector or a chamber assembly. They're just out and out gone.
The missing tank, test stand knocked over, lack of fire or fragmentation damage seems to indicate that nothing burned much if at all, and nothing detonated. This has all the hallmarks of a large pressure vessel explosion.
I for one am going to try to attend the memorial service.
Engineering ethics dictate that we take reasonable precautions to preserve human life, balancing extreme cases with the economic viability of producing the product in the first place.
What reasonable is, depends on which field you look at. The same standards do not apply to structural engineering (buildings), civil engineering (bridges, dams), aerospace engineering (aircraft), electrical power engineering (building wiring, electrical distribution systems), etc etc.
The FAA standards are, they set a specific limit load condition calculation for classes of aircraft (light aircraft are different from jet transports carrying people, etc). That's based on performance, operational usage, and the number of people typically carried. There are load cases for limit loads for gust loading (suddenly hitting a headwind when you're already pulling Gs), wind shear, emergency pull-ups, etc. A speed is established, called maneuvering speed, below which nothing you can do to the aircraft is credibly likely to ever cause the aircraft to exceed the limit loads.
Then, you add a 50% safety factor on top of those loads (failure load >= 150% of design limit load), and demonstrate to the FAA's satisfaction that the aircraft meets that ultimate load. For jet transports carrying people, the demonstration requires that you take it out to the 150% load limit and see if it breaks there.
Now, that ultimate load can be expected to cause permanent damage to the wings. Pretty much any aircraft exceeding the design limit load (100%) will get grounded, and anything approaching 150% is guaranteed to have damage. Since the test to 150% damages the test structure for any aluminum aircraft, the usual assumption is that it's a good idea to just keep testing past 150% until it breaks.
But you just need to prove that it meets the 150% for the FAA to be happy.
Designers try to make the failure point slightly, but not too much, past 150% of design limit load. Because adding weight is expensive (operations costs), and as others have mentioned it doesn't do any good for the wing to be stronger if the fuselage breaks first, etc. The loads are all balanced; it's inefficient for things to fail at different points.
These standards are reasonable, for transport aircraft. We know that because large jets are not falling out of the sky due to wing failures. I can't offhand think of the last one that wasn't due to some external cause (collision, etc). There closest incident recently was the American Airlines 587 crash in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Fl ight_587), where a possible gap in the maneuvering conditions / load conditions / stress analysis the FAA requires and airplane manufacturers design to led to an A300 jetliner to lose its tail in flight.
This is not a screening. This is so they have your fingerprints on file
Incorrect. It is both a screening and to have your fingerprints on file. I went through this for an investment bank about a year ago; I was told they send them to the FBI to verify that I had no criminal record, and kept a copy on file for the SEC regulations, and was asked to sign a document acknowledging that they were doing this before they took the prints.
I don't have a problem with it. I don't want to be putting my money into banks or other financial institutions where a known felon could just lie on their paperwork and get employed anyways.
This is exactly what BGP (or OSPF feeding in to your providers' BGP) is made for.
If you're big enough, you can get your own AS number and do this without having the same provider at each end (useful if the disaster that happens is that the software on all of provider X's core routers goes insane all at once, which happens from time to time).
DNS just can't be assumed to fail fast enough for very high reliability services. You can do DNS right... low TTLs and all... and some providers just cache the results and do the wrong thing, and some client systems will never look up the changed data if the old IP stops responding, until someone reboots the browser or workstation.
Pair creation supernovae were predicted decades ago. The conditions for their formation are a bit strict and they do not appear to be very common at this point. Black hole creation is probably must more common.
If you neglect angular momentum (i.e., for only moderately rotating stars), the current predictions are that pair creation supernovae are the normal mechanism for stars with a low metalicity and immediately pre-supernova mass from about 140 to about 260 solar masses. If you look at the webpage in the summary http://astro.berkeley.edu/~soffner/imgsf8.html it shows the metalicity / mass behavior estimates. Also see http://www.ucolick.org/~alex/firststars/, particularly the diagram at the bottom. It shows the no angular momentum low metalicity stellar behavior: 8-25 Solar Masses, you get a neutron star. 25-50ish, you get a neutron star that then reabsorbs enough of the source star's mass via fallback to become a black hole. 50-100, you get a direct collapse to a black hole. From 100 to 130 solar masses, the pair production mechanism kicks in and pulses a few times, ejecting mass, and then it falls below 100 SM from the ejections and should collapse to a black hole on the next pulse. From 130 or 140 up to about 250 or 260 (depends on whose paper/numbers), pair production doesn't pulse, it goes bang, and the explosion generates enough energy to gravitationally unbind the whole star (blow it completely apart, no or little remnant). Above the 250/260 point, they predict that pair production happens but it just direct collapses essentially the whole star to a black hole, not fusions off to explosion as in the slightly smaller ones.
This is just the public returns website, a special high-volume site set up to support the expected election-day load. It's like hacking Akamai.
All the actual returns are generated starting at the city or precinct level, sent to the state main office and separately publically published. Anyone can watch the process at any level, and separately total everything up. Both parties and numerous press sources are present at each local counting center and the statewide secretary of state's office. They all run their own spreadsheets keeping track of the numbers.
If the secretary of state's statewide public-facing website fakes it, everyone in the world will know it within minutes, because the press will see the difference and start to say so.
"The System" is very resilient and hard to game. At the higher levels, almost impossible, since all the lower level info is all public. To effectively hack the election it has to happen at the bottom, before the details are made public.
I'm amazed and confused that a school district would do all that without having the decency to contact the Wikimedia Foundation first. To the original poster: please have your district's officials get in touch.
Wikipedia is not a primary reference for anything other than itself. It's entirely appropriate for teachers to tell students that it's not a primary source. This is true of encyclopedias in general. Actual primary sources should be citable/referencable.
Wikipedia, as a summary of a subject, and a pointer to related subjects, and list of primary source references, is reasonably accurate, to within a near-tie with accuracy found in commercial encyclopedias. And it includes primary source links more consistently than commercial encyclopedias...
The whole point of TFA was that the RIAA's tactics trying to "hold on" to their business killed it about as fast as optimally possible, given a retrospective view of the situation.
Even if the store model and record company models are ultimately doomed, they could have easily extended their run and lifetimes quite a bit if they'd adopted technology and social change rather than turning luddite and then turning on their customer base. They've destroyed whole industries, tens of billions of dollars in revenue and ultimately probably hundreds of billions of dollars in shareholder equity, and still sit fat and happy in their offices, surrounded by lawyers, convinced that they're doing the right thing.
The large investment funds who actually own their asses should wise up, take them out, and put them out of their misery.
The Nokia boxes are appliances (1/2U rackmount) running the Checkpoint firewall software on top of an embedded OS.
Checkpoint is the single most popular longest lasting commercial Firewall product; you don't have to like it, but it's sort of silly to say that it's not a suitable product. It's outlasted many generations of competitors and done just fine for a huge client base.
It ususally means having registered it with the government. The usual terminology is "registered copyright" rather than "formally", but other coverage makes it clear what they did.
All the energy and resources that go into manufacturing the car come out of your pocket, or aren't directly chargeable to anyone but society as a whole.
Mining companies and Toyota don't absorb a couple of hundred thousand dollars per car you buy in miscellaneous losses.
There's a fair argument to be made that certain types of environmental damage which aren't accounted for should be, but even with those in play, economics 101 says that it probably doesn't cost more than you paid for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. As long as a warrant is required, this is exactly comparable to phone intercepts or bugging a location or car. In the US, those have been legal for a long time, with proper warrants.
Blueprints for High Availability , Evan Marcus and Hal Stern, second edition. http://www.amazon.com/Blueprints-High-Availability -Evan-Marcus/dp/0471430269/ref=cm_taf_title_featur ed?ie=UTF8&tag=tellafriend-20
Deals with the subject of high availability from the IT side rather than programming, but anyone dealing with HA systems needs to understand these issues.
In the real world, every activity in the world is not focused around getting PR videos out on the internet in a maximally short time.
... There are more important things, like figuring out what went wrong, and getting ready for the X-Prize Cup. If the one guy who always does the video digitalizations and has the gear set up is out of the country, then urgently finding a workaround is an unreasonable expectation.
John and the rest of Armadillo do a decent job of it usually anyways, but
You can call this a PR fluff reason if you want. I believe that you're paranoid to the point of being nuts, if you're serious.
John doesn't owe us anything here; I'm sure he'll deliver what he always does, which is good information, released freely in good community spirit, in reasonable time. He's already exceeded his usual standard with the text info release in this accident. The video... can wait.
Well, the fact that he's released basically everything in the past and says he will release this video once it's ready to release counts for... everything.
Boeing mostly loses a couple of $100-plus-million satellites due to a leaking valve and we have a couple of relatively small press releases from them and the DOD about the valve issue. They all time things and restrict things up down and sideways.
John gives us good images and in many cases video, within short times of the accident, and a technical description of the failure and root causes that's first-class. Within a couple of days.
It takes a special kind of petty mind to see malign intent in a one-week delay because someone's on a trip...
The term you are looking for is "Gas Generator".
Rocket is something that generates gas (usually by combustion or decomposition) and expels it through a nozzle for thrust.
Gas generator is generic for a device which produces gas. A boiler is a special case (heat + water). There are gas generators in airbags (solid azide chemical reaction), other industrial uses too.
This just uses decomposing hydrogen peroxide to generate steam. Just another gas generator.
1. Does it matter? It's useful for computer architects to know for comparison but doesn't matter for the end user. I'm curious, too, but that can wait. Doesn't matter for system designers even.
2. They list 170-300 mW/core, but that's not clear as to what the base power is for the peripherals and routers. Is that (900 mhz) 300 mW * 64 ( about 20 W ) for the whole thing? 20W if the cores are all running flat out plus a baseline for the peripherals? This does matter for system designers.
3. See 2 above. They're usually sort of closely identical.
4. Good question. No FP mention at all in the specs, so probably not doing it in hardware.
Looking forwards to a real data sheet, not this PR stuff. And the first laptops...
In the 90s, there was a PowerPC port of Solaris 2.x. IBM has wanted to get out of the AIX business for decades. Sun had the chance to walk in and take over the UNIX market in pretty much one fell swoop, and walked away from it for percieved strategy benefits at the time.
IBM still wants to walk away from AIX... hence the Linux support. But I think they realize that there are businesses who are queasy about high end enterprise Linux who will jump all over Solaris, and it's essentially just having to agree to a marketing project now so it's free for everyone...
Sun doesn't want out of the server market. The server market keeps Sun's employees happy and well paid.
There's a one-button (for admins) export-the-whole-wiki-as-html feature in modern MediaWiki software installs...
But hey, two days and a few hundred lines of code is cool. You geek (verb). If we always took the easy way out we'd be using Windows and have committed suicide long ago.
I've got several varieties of mouse (roller and optical, Logitech and MS large external trackball models, Logitech thumb trackball).
Thumb trackball: good, but my thumb can't do 2+ hrs of active trackballing without it getting sore. It's very portable, it's what I used to carry in my laptop case, but I don't use it much anymore.
Large external trackball (currently Logitech Marble Mouse USB): excellent for basic motion, but if I have to actively use the buttons gets my whole hand sore after a couple of hours.
Conventional mice: Make my whole hand sore after a couple of hours, all over.
What I end up doing is this: I use two pointing devices at once. I usually stick a Logitech external trackball on my left hand and a conventional mouse on my right, and use the trackball for motion and the mouse buttons for clicking on stuff. Not having each hand do both pointing and clicking lets me work all week without getting much ache. I switch devices off from side to side every now and then for variety and to keep motion types distributed around.
It takes a bit of getting used to, to use both hands at once like that, and it's a little annoyance if I need to both actively point and type for a particular set of work, but I can use just one pointer briefly if I have to.
Also, make sure you use ergo split keyboards if your hand position isn't perfect on a straight one...
Second the "ask the auditors what they are looking for"... not everyone gets audited the same.
Financial company I know passed audit fine with syslog -> a secure system which the normal sysadmins didn't have access to. The people whose actions were being logged couldn't get to the logs (well, presumably someone could break the system, but it was well secured and had non-overlapping sysadmin staff).
That was good enough. As long as it took two compromised people to hide any given event, that passed audit.
You're suggesting that questions a la "So have you stopped beating your wife yet?" are appropriate for civil discourse.
They aren't. And if you think otherwise, you're going to go through life being kicked out of places that insist on people playing at least a little nice with each other.
If you troll people like that, you're gone. And you should be.
Jeez. All I can think reading it is that you've reached the level of paranoia in your life where you MAKE enemies.
(disclaimer: I'm a Wikipedia administrator, and I would have blocked Hex, too.)
I started an accident reconstruction as soon as pictures started to come out... I'm in the industry and I want to figure out what went wrong. As far as I can tell, a pressure vessel rupture explains all of what we see here.
It just looks like that one tank trailer fell over, but in fact it has to have rolled over 270 degrees to be where it's lying now. Also, the container just past it was both hit really hard in the side by expanding gas, and knocked over.
But there's no massive fragmentation damage or burn mark anywhere to be seen.
What is instructive however, is that there's something missing, and something else tipped over. The other thing tipped over is the test stand itself, which is a large blue steel truss structure, which is now about 10 feet away from where it started and lying on its side.
What's missing, is a large (roughly 7 foot diameter and 10 foot long) composite "flight tank" which would hold the nitrous oxide for the motor during a test or flight, and any sign of the injector or a chamber assembly. They're just out and out gone.
The missing tank, test stand knocked over, lack of fire or fragmentation damage seems to indicate that nothing burned much if at all, and nothing detonated. This has all the hallmarks of a large pressure vessel explosion.
I for one am going to try to attend the memorial service.
Engineering ethics dictate that we take reasonable precautions to preserve human life, balancing extreme cases with the economic viability of producing the product in the first place.
l ight_587), where a possible gap in the maneuvering conditions / load conditions / stress analysis the FAA requires and airplane manufacturers design to led to an A300 jetliner to lose its tail in flight.
What reasonable is, depends on which field you look at. The same standards do not apply to structural engineering (buildings), civil engineering (bridges, dams), aerospace engineering (aircraft), electrical power engineering (building wiring, electrical distribution systems), etc etc.
The FAA standards are, they set a specific limit load condition calculation for classes of aircraft (light aircraft are different from jet transports carrying people, etc). That's based on performance, operational usage, and the number of people typically carried. There are load cases for limit loads for gust loading (suddenly hitting a headwind when you're already pulling Gs), wind shear, emergency pull-ups, etc. A speed is established, called maneuvering speed, below which nothing you can do to the aircraft is credibly likely to ever cause the aircraft to exceed the limit loads.
Then, you add a 50% safety factor on top of those loads (failure load >= 150% of design limit load), and demonstrate to the FAA's satisfaction that the aircraft meets that ultimate load. For jet transports carrying people, the demonstration requires that you take it out to the 150% load limit and see if it breaks there.
Now, that ultimate load can be expected to cause permanent damage to the wings. Pretty much any aircraft exceeding the design limit load (100%) will get grounded, and anything approaching 150% is guaranteed to have damage. Since the test to 150% damages the test structure for any aluminum aircraft, the usual assumption is that it's a good idea to just keep testing past 150% until it breaks.
But you just need to prove that it meets the 150% for the FAA to be happy.
Designers try to make the failure point slightly, but not too much, past 150% of design limit load. Because adding weight is expensive (operations costs), and as others have mentioned it doesn't do any good for the wing to be stronger if the fuselage breaks first, etc. The loads are all balanced; it's inefficient for things to fail at different points.
These standards are reasonable, for transport aircraft. We know that because large jets are not falling out of the sky due to wing failures. I can't offhand think of the last one that wasn't due to some external cause (collision, etc). There closest incident recently was the American Airlines 587 crash in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_F
Incorrect. It is both a screening and to have your fingerprints on file. I went through this for an investment bank about a year ago; I was told they send them to the FBI to verify that I had no criminal record, and kept a copy on file for the SEC regulations, and was asked to sign a document acknowledging that they were doing this before they took the prints.
I don't have a problem with it. I don't want to be putting my money into banks or other financial institutions where a known felon could just lie on their paperwork and get employed anyways.
Bingo.
This is exactly what BGP (or OSPF feeding in to your providers' BGP) is made for.
If you're big enough, you can get your own AS number and do this without having the same provider at each end (useful if the disaster that happens is that the software on all of provider X's core routers goes insane all at once, which happens from time to time).
DNS just can't be assumed to fail fast enough for very high reliability services. You can do DNS right... low TTLs and all... and some providers just cache the results and do the wrong thing, and some client systems will never look up the changed data if the old IP stops responding, until someone reboots the browser or workstation.
BGP.
If you neglect angular momentum (i.e., for only moderately rotating stars), the current predictions are that pair creation supernovae are the normal mechanism for stars with a low metalicity and immediately pre-supernova mass from about 140 to about 260 solar masses. If you look at the webpage in the summary http://astro.berkeley.edu/~soffner/imgsf8.html it shows the metalicity / mass behavior estimates. Also see http://www.ucolick.org/~alex/firststars/, particularly the diagram at the bottom. It shows the no angular momentum low metalicity stellar behavior: 8-25 Solar Masses, you get a neutron star. 25-50ish, you get a neutron star that then reabsorbs enough of the source star's mass via fallback to become a black hole. 50-100, you get a direct collapse to a black hole. From 100 to 130 solar masses, the pair production mechanism kicks in and pulses a few times, ejecting mass, and then it falls below 100 SM from the ejections and should collapse to a black hole on the next pulse. From 130 or 140 up to about 250 or 260 (depends on whose paper/numbers), pair production doesn't pulse, it goes bang, and the explosion generates enough energy to gravitationally unbind the whole star (blow it completely apart, no or little remnant). Above the 250/260 point, they predict that pair production happens but it just direct collapses essentially the whole star to a black hole, not fusions off to explosion as in the slightly smaller ones.
Does anyone have map coordinates for the park?
How is this ripe for exploitation?
This is just the public returns website, a special high-volume site set up to support the expected election-day load. It's like hacking Akamai.
All the actual returns are generated starting at the city or precinct level, sent to the state main office and separately publically published. Anyone can watch the process at any level, and separately total everything up. Both parties and numerous press sources are present at each local counting center and the statewide secretary of state's office. They all run their own spreadsheets keeping track of the numbers.
If the secretary of state's statewide public-facing website fakes it, everyone in the world will know it within minutes, because the press will see the difference and start to say so.
"The System" is very resilient and hard to game. At the higher levels, almost impossible, since all the lower level info is all public. To effectively hack the election it has to happen at the bottom, before the details are made public.
I'm amazed and confused that a school district would do all that without having the decency to contact the Wikimedia Foundation first. To the original poster: please have your district's officials get in touch.
Wikipedia is not a primary reference for anything other than itself. It's entirely appropriate for teachers to tell students that it's not a primary source. This is true of encyclopedias in general. Actual primary sources should be citable/referencable.
Wikipedia, as a summary of a subject, and a pointer to related subjects, and list of primary source references, is reasonably accurate, to within a near-tie with accuracy found in commercial encyclopedias. And it includes primary source links more consistently than commercial encyclopedias...
The whole point of TFA was that the RIAA's tactics trying to "hold on" to their business killed it about as fast as optimally possible, given a retrospective view of the situation.
Even if the store model and record company models are ultimately doomed, they could have easily extended their run and lifetimes quite a bit if they'd adopted technology and social change rather than turning luddite and then turning on their customer base. They've destroyed whole industries, tens of billions of dollars in revenue and ultimately probably hundreds of billions of dollars in shareholder equity, and still sit fat and happy in their offices, surrounded by lawyers, convinced that they're doing the right thing.
The large investment funds who actually own their asses should wise up, take them out, and put them out of their misery.
The Nokia boxes are appliances (1/2U rackmount) running the Checkpoint firewall software on top of an embedded OS.
Checkpoint is the single most popular longest lasting commercial Firewall product; you don't have to like it, but it's sort of silly to say that it's not a suitable product. It's outlasted many generations of competitors and done just fine for a huge client base.
Cisco ASA 5505 (it's less than a thousand dollars), and the Nokia Checkpoint appliances (i350, etc).
Also the Juniper/Netscreen models (SSG 5, SSG 20, Netscreen 5 models)
It ususally means having registered it with the government. The usual terminology is "registered copyright" rather than "formally", but other coverage makes it clear what they did.
All the energy and resources that go into manufacturing the car come out of your pocket, or aren't directly chargeable to anyone but society as a whole.
Mining companies and Toyota don't absorb a couple of hundred thousand dollars per car you buy in miscellaneous losses.
There's a fair argument to be made that certain types of environmental damage which aren't accounted for should be, but even with those in play, economics 101 says that it probably doesn't cost more than you paid for it.