Doesn't really answer the question. To elaborate: most current computer systems are incapable of maxing out Gigabit ethernet. For any nontrivial application you're going to be loading data from disk, and unless you have very fast disks you're not going to hit 1Gbps.
Now I can see 10 or even 100Gbps being sensible for high performance computing applications. But terabit? Isn't that a little OTT?
How is scanning of documents different from ripping music from CDs?
The arguments will be similar to those used in photography of artworks. There is a reasonably amount of judgment used in preparation of the document, choosing what kind of light to scan it with, determining the optical resolution for best reproduction, postprocessing to remove scanning artificats, etc. Although in the US, Bridgeman v Corel probably applies to render the copyrights invalid.
make a crawler. [...] Have it send DMCA notices automatically based on Who is information.
Yes. Sending DMCA notices cannot be automated as a person must affirm that they have reasonable grounds to believe the content of them is correct, with the possibility that if they are wrong (e.g. signing the notice without taking reasonable steps to check accuracy) they can be in for jail time. You do not want to automate DMCA notice sending.
the easy way to fix it? don't put your entire story into the feeds... seems pretty simple enough, just put in a exert and force them to link back to the original site.
This breaks the purpose of the feeds, though, which is to allow your site's readers to read your content in the environment of their choice (e.g. aggregated with content from other sites they visit regularly). This may not matter much to you, but you can be sure there are people who will be really pissed off by it. Obviously, in the end, it's up to you whether to offer useful feeds or not, but don't be surprised if there are people who skip reading your site because of this.
Another option you may not have considered is to put your own adverts in the feed (this is what slashdot does, for example). That way, if one of these sites grabs your content without being careful about it, you end up earning from their hits as well as your own.
If you can escape that restriction it is not strong typed, you know?
No, I don't know. There are many different definitions of what is and is not strongly-typed. C and C++ meet some of those definitions (e.g., that an error is produced if you try to assign a pointer of one type to a pointer of another type) but don't meet others (that there are no typecast operators). Not everyone agrees with the definition you give above (which many people would call a "type safe language" rather than a "strongly typed language").
I'm not a class action law expert and ongoing changes to the law may mean this is no longer true, but at one time class actions could be brought where the defendants were a class.
Even if he did this (which I wasn't aware he could do, but it does appear to be possible), the settlement would only apply (as I understand it) to those who are members of the class at the time the settlement is finalised. Such a settlement would not be particularly useful, AFAICS.
eight 13,000ns N-Class motors and a 77,000ns P-Class motor
So that's a 90-microsecond array?
Actually, I'd say it's probably something like a 20-microsecond array. If something in rocketry is measured in seconds, it's usually a specific impulse, whose actual dimension is (force.time)/mass: for measurement the force is measured in units of "force required to balance gravity for a specific mass" causing it to cancel with the mass leaving only a time. From the fact that mass^-1 is a factor you can see that the impulses don't simply add together, but instead average out.
Of course, you're right that the actual unit being quoted was Ns, but the point is worth making that specific impulse is a more relevant unit anyway. What use is Ns if we don't know how heavy the damned thing is?
This needs to be an "open to all" arrangement, or the judge should reject the settlement.
The judge doesn't have the power to sign off on an open-to-all arrangement. He can only order a settlement between the named parties in the case, in this case the class of all book copyright and electronic distribution right holders and google (plus, if he permits the addition, internet archive).
I think the important point here is in your subject title: "If the only thing they run is..." (emph mine). It doesn't matter what follows this.
What you want to avoid is any kind of monoculture, as monocultures are vulnerable to attack. You should aim to have 33% of users on Windows, 33% on Linux and 33% on OSX, IMO. This will greatly limit your exposure to attack as any attack introduced will only be effective against a third of its potential targets.
It's an actual file that facilitates you connecting to their *own* tracker.
Yes, and what does the tracker do? It provides the IP addresses and ports (i.e., links) of people who have copies of the file to download directly from.
And without that tracker you wouldn't be able to download the file via bittorrent.
No, because you can't download what you can't find, and you can't find anything without a link to it.
I'll say it again: TPB only provided links. That's all.
They aren't just telling people about files that are available, they are colluding in the distribution of them.
They're telling people who want to download the files about other people who are willing to upload them. They're acting as introducers. And, yes, it is quite clear that the intent of the site is to help these people find each other and, in most cases, commit an illegal activity.
The question the court had to decide was whether that was illegal in itself or not; it seems from what I've read on the subject recently that it is only illegal if done for gain. TPB asserted that they did not operate the site for gain, but out of altruism (the ads were only to diffray costs). The court didn't believe them.
They are naively pretending they are ignorant of the types of files they are facilitating the downloading of yet a simple search of they own site tells you *exactly* what files are being shared. How are they supposed to know what "Wolverine-Workprint.avi" is, they only have the name.... well when thousands of people download a torrent for it under your movies category, I'd say it was clear what it was.
They never claimed not to know that copyrighted material was exchanged by users of their site. I don't believe they even claimed that they didn't intend to permit such exchanges to occur.
Here's the thing, though: file sharing of copyright content by itself is not illegal under Swedish law, as there's a personal use exemption to copyright there. So TPB could legitimately claim not to know whether any individual use of those files was a violation of the law. So, as far as they were concerned, it didn't matter how obvious what "Wolverine-Workprint.avi" is; all that mattered was that they could not possible know, or indeed even guess with any reliability, whether or not any random connection relating to that file was breaching the law. So how could they possibly police it?
hosting fast-flux phishing sites, etc. don't require elevated privilege.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that do this effectively you'd need permission to bind port 80, which is reserved to root. URLs with a port number are going to look pretty suspicious, and put off a percentage of users that would otherwise trust them, I think.
You misinterpret the statements "macs don't have viruses" as meaning "they cannot have viruses". As in, there are none currently...
As you say, any system can have malware. But we now have ONE example of malware on a mac, that you catch by pirating CS4. So how does that compare with the count of the PC?
This argument fails for the same reason that security-through-obscurity is a bad idea. It doesn't protect you from a targetted attack, and the obscurity of the situation (i.e., in this case that nobody has previously felt targetting macs is a good idea) can change.
A lot of us have said this in response to mac users who felt they were safe, a lot of us have said it in response to firefox/chrome/safari/opera users who felt they were safe browsing untrusted sites: the feeling of safety is an illusion that can disappear too quickly for you to react.
Dear God what is this person thinking? I have a fairly huge monitor and this page is still completely unviewable!
I've seen this happen before. It's a technique for table-based layout that used to work reasonably well: if you want a fixed, large as possible column, you set its size to something like 2000 pixels. Works fine until somebody translates the HTML literally into CSS, at which point that 2000 pixels (truncated to whatever fits onto the screen) becomes 2000 pixels (really).
Slashdot Mirror
"Here's how the attack works in layman's terms, and Notice the simplicity of this exploit:
1) Attacker modifies system MTR registers to change the SMM memory space from uncacheable to cacheable with type Write-back. "
Well, I understand that perfectly, and when it comes to hacking I'm a layman, so it must be layman's terms, right? :)
Say we have the following PHYSICAL machines in the server rack:
[VM-Host 1]
You rent space in a virtual machine on VM-HOST1.
This virtual machine is named [srealm.VM].
Who on earth is going to base their rack-mounted server on a micro-ATX motherboard designed for low-end workstations?
Cloud computing
Doesn't really answer the question. To elaborate: most current computer systems are incapable of maxing out Gigabit ethernet. For any nontrivial application you're going to be loading data from disk, and unless you have very fast disks you're not going to hit 1Gbps.
Now I can see 10 or even 100Gbps being sensible for high performance computing applications. But terabit? Isn't that a little OTT?
How is scanning of documents different from ripping music from CDs?
The arguments will be similar to those used in photography of artworks. There is a reasonably amount of judgment used in preparation of the document, choosing what kind of light to scan it with, determining the optical resolution for best reproduction, postprocessing to remove scanning artificats, etc. Although in the US, Bridgeman v Corel probably applies to render the copyrights invalid.
make a crawler. [...] Have it send DMCA notices automatically based on Who is information.
Yes. Sending DMCA notices cannot be automated as a person must affirm that they have reasonable grounds to believe the content of them is correct, with the possibility that if they are wrong (e.g. signing the notice without taking reasonable steps to check accuracy) they can be in for jail time. You do not want to automate DMCA notice sending.
the easy way to fix it? don't put your entire story into the feeds... seems pretty simple enough, just put in a exert and force them to link back to the original site.
This breaks the purpose of the feeds, though, which is to allow your site's readers to read your content in the environment of their choice (e.g. aggregated with content from other sites they visit regularly). This may not matter much to you, but you can be sure there are people who will be really pissed off by it. Obviously, in the end, it's up to you whether to offer useful feeds or not, but don't be surprised if there are people who skip reading your site because of this.
Another option you may not have considered is to put your own adverts in the feed (this is what slashdot does, for example). That way, if one of these sites grabs your content without being careful about it, you end up earning from their hits as well as your own.
How is this better than eye tracking?
I imagine it's substantially cheaper. You can get home EEG devices for about $100 US. The tech in this is probably not much harder.
If you can escape that restriction it is not strong typed, you know?
No, I don't know. There are many different definitions of what is and is not strongly-typed. C and C++ meet some of those definitions (e.g., that an error is produced if you try to assign a pointer of one type to a pointer of another type) but don't meet others (that there are no typecast operators). Not everyone agrees with the definition you give above (which many people would call a "type safe language" rather than a "strongly typed language").
I'm not a class action law expert and ongoing changes to the law may mean this is no longer true, but at one time class actions could be brought where the defendants were a class.
Even if he did this (which I wasn't aware he could do, but it does appear to be possible), the settlement would only apply (as I understand it) to those who are members of the class at the time the settlement is finalised. Such a settlement would not be particularly useful, AFAICS.
eight 13,000ns N-Class motors and a 77,000ns P-Class motor
So that's a 90-microsecond array?
Actually, I'd say it's probably something like a 20-microsecond array. If something in rocketry is measured in seconds, it's usually a specific impulse, whose actual dimension is (force.time)/mass: for measurement the force is measured in units of "force required to balance gravity for a specific mass" causing it to cancel with the mass leaving only a time. From the fact that mass^-1 is a factor you can see that the impulses don't simply add together, but instead average out.
Of course, you're right that the actual unit being quoted was Ns, but the point is worth making that specific impulse is a more relevant unit anyway. What use is Ns if we don't know how heavy the damned thing is?
This needs to be an "open to all" arrangement, or the judge should reject the settlement.
The judge doesn't have the power to sign off on an open-to-all arrangement. He can only order a settlement between the named parties in the case, in this case the class of all book copyright and electronic distribution right holders and google (plus, if he permits the addition, internet archive).
Does it include Enlightenment?
Enlightenment is not in the distribution; Enlightenment is in everything.
(If only I could apt-get install enlightenment in my brain...)
I think the important point here is in your subject title: "If the only thing they run is..." (emph mine). It doesn't matter what follows this.
What you want to avoid is any kind of monoculture, as monocultures are vulnerable to attack. You should aim to have 33% of users on Windows, 33% on Linux and 33% on OSX, IMO. This will greatly limit your exposure to attack as any attack introduced will only be effective against a third of its potential targets.
How can the "Open" Content Alliance link to a proprietary, display only website? Where is the text? How annoying.
Err... what's "view only" about it? Click the download button above the scribd viewer and you're presented options to download in pdf or plain text.
So you're just going to open a huge security hole in the process? You shouldn't have to sacrifice!
OK, let's here it: why is user scripting a security hole?
Please, go back to YouTube. Your peers there are missing you.
I pray he never learns the word 'sheeple'.
And this is the reason Kant would never be a Python programmer.
So C and C++ are strongly typed languages now?
Yes. Although they include mechanisms to escape that restriction.
It's an actual file that facilitates you connecting to their *own* tracker.
Yes, and what does the tracker do? It provides the IP addresses and ports (i.e., links) of people who have copies of the file to download directly from.
And without that tracker you wouldn't be able to download the file via bittorrent.
No, because you can't download what you can't find, and you can't find anything without a link to it.
I'll say it again: TPB only provided links. That's all.
They aren't just telling people about files that are available, they are colluding in the distribution of them.
They're telling people who want to download the files about other people who are willing to upload them. They're acting as introducers. And, yes, it is quite clear that the intent of the site is to help these people find each other and, in most cases, commit an illegal activity.
The question the court had to decide was whether that was illegal in itself or not; it seems from what I've read on the subject recently that it is only illegal if done for gain. TPB asserted that they did not operate the site for gain, but out of altruism (the ads were only to diffray costs). The court didn't believe them.
They are naively pretending they are ignorant of the types of files they are facilitating the downloading of yet a simple search of they own site tells you *exactly* what files are being shared. How are they supposed to know what "Wolverine-Workprint.avi" is, they only have the name.... well when thousands of people download a torrent for it under your movies category, I'd say it was clear what it was.
They never claimed not to know that copyrighted material was exchanged by users of their site. I don't believe they even claimed that they didn't intend to permit such exchanges to occur.
Here's the thing, though: file sharing of copyright content by itself is not illegal under Swedish law, as there's a personal use exemption to copyright there. So TPB could legitimately claim not to know whether any individual use of those files was a violation of the law. So, as far as they were concerned, it didn't matter how obvious what "Wolverine-Workprint.avi" is; all that mattered was that they could not possible know, or indeed even guess with any reliability, whether or not any random connection relating to that file was breaching the law. So how could they possibly police it?
"These guys weren't making a principled stand, they were out to line their own pockets."
Oh yeah, and he isn't?
That's different. He's standing for the principle that the phonographic industry should be allowed to line its own pockets.
Read the comments on most Bit Torrent web sites the users will complain that it contains a virus.
Most antivirus software detects key generator programs as a "hacking tool". Most pirated software contains such tools.
Further, most of the things mislabeled as virii are actualy worms.
And some of them are actually viruses.
hosting fast-flux phishing sites, etc. don't require elevated privilege.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that do this effectively you'd need permission to bind port 80, which is reserved to root. URLs with a port number are going to look pretty suspicious, and put off a percentage of users that would otherwise trust them, I think.
You misinterpret the statements "macs don't have viruses" as meaning "they cannot have viruses". As in, there are none currently...
As you say, any system can have malware. But we now have ONE example of malware on a mac, that you catch by pirating CS4. So how does that compare with the count of the PC?
This argument fails for the same reason that security-through-obscurity is a bad idea. It doesn't protect you from a targetted attack, and the obscurity of the situation (i.e., in this case that nobody has previously felt targetting macs is a good idea) can change.
A lot of us have said this in response to mac users who felt they were safe, a lot of us have said it in response to firefox/chrome/safari/opera users who felt they were safe browsing untrusted sites: the feeling of safety is an illusion that can disappear too quickly for you to react.
Dear God what is this person thinking? I have a fairly huge monitor and this page is still completely unviewable!
I've seen this happen before. It's a technique for table-based layout that used to work reasonably well: if you want a fixed, large as possible column, you set its size to something like 2000 pixels. Works fine until somebody translates the HTML literally into CSS, at which point that 2000 pixels (truncated to whatever fits onto the screen) becomes 2000 pixels (really).