Re:Let's just switch to RJ45's.
on
eSATA Connectors
·
· Score: 1
You could drop iSCSI and just use layer-2 Ethernet to transfer blocks, but then you'd have to define a comm protocol for disks on layer-2 Ethernet. Not that it couldn't be done, but I'm not aware of one in common use today (at least not on commodity Ethernet hardware).
ATA over Ethernet gets you at least halfway there.
Even if the URL is never listed anywhere and you only give it out to a select few, there is no guarantee that spiders and other people won't find it. It may turn up in a publicly accessible log file, say of you user's proxy server, or maybe it will show up in someone's web server log as a referer. If it is only supposed to be accessible by a small number of people and not by the net at large, the prudent thing is to use a password system.
If you don't want spiders to index the site, use robots.txt.
(re)distribution is an other thing, services like Archive.org and Google Search are likely on the wrong side of the law as it is today, but they do provide a valuable service to the community at large. Besides, opting out is easy so it seems a bit strange that someone would take this to court instead of using the opt out mechanism.
Attribution actually doesn't actually have anything directly to do with copyright, though it's certainly unenforceable without it. Copyright means having the exclusive right to dictate the making and distribution of copies. That's all.
Not quite correct. Copyright also covers derivative work, making accessible to the the public, public display/performance and some related rights.
As for attribution, it is true that US (C) law doesn't cover the right to attribution but misattribution is at least partly covered by the Lanham act ("false designation of origin"). This is different in european-type copyright, which has stronger protection of the author's moral rights. Also, the international Berne Convention on copyright recognize the author's right to "attribution" and "integrity".
Archive.org performs a really useful service, but they do seem to be operating outside the law (which badly needs updating)
True. Copyright was created in a time where copying was a predominantly commercial for-profit act. Cheap computers and the Internet changed that rather dramatically.
Done smart you wouldn't need a huge dictionary. You could for example divide the keyspace as a tree and give out small sub-trees to the participants. When sub-trees have been checked, they can be merged.
(simple ex: Divide as a binary tree, when 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 are done you can mark 1.1.1 as checked. If sub-trees are given out in a smart fashion, the dictionary wouldn't have to become very large.)
Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?
I don't know why she swallowed a fly, Perhaps she'll die.
It is illegal for the consumer to access the work, if there is an access control, if the consumer lacks authorization. The studios never give consumers authorization (and the implied authorization argument has, so far, fallen flat). Rather, they authorize devices, which can be used by people who themselves lack authorization. That is, the authorization is an attribute which flows through the player, rather than the disk. (Though it's still attached to the player -- the owner doesn't have authorization, save for with regard to that player; a possessor of the player has authorization with regard to that player, even if he isn't the owner, etc.)
That's at least the tortured reasoning created by the DMCA and held by the **AAs.
However, I don't believe that any court has taken a sufficiently deep look at this issue. That is, who holds the right to authorize access? The copyright holder? If so, how does that authorization flow from the copyright holder to the device? To take DVD as an example - it is probably safe to assume that the license that device manufacturers get from DVDCCA contains this, but what about the link from the thousands of copyright holders to DVDCCA? And what about all the non-major label music sold through iTMS? Have all the artists licensed the right to authorize access to Apple?
Why can't companies release software with a script that checks to see if you have all the required dependencies and tells you exactly what you are missing?
Would you like the job as the QA engineer that has to test all possible permutations?
It is likely that the software will work fine on RHEL-clone or SLES-derivative, but look at this from IBM's perspective. If IBM says 'yes, that's supported', they will have to do regression testing on each supported platform and their support staff needs to replicate the same setup in their labs to reproduce any bugs that might show up in the wild. The more platforms officially supported, the more work/risk IBM takes.
As someone in an other thread said, the standard work-around for customers is to have at least one instance installed on a supported platform (say, RHEL) and install the rest on their distro of choice (say CentOS). If a bug shows up on both CentOS and RHEL, call it in to IBM as a RHEL error. If it only shows up on CentOS, you're on your own as far as official support goes.
But no, they have to have spiffy graphical installers (Remember: don't run X as root!), that give you such helpful messages as "Could not validate Mozilla version." before exiting with no output to standard out.
That's a valid point. For some reason there's an abundance of bad installers in *nix land.
binary-only monstrosity that only runs with kernel 2.2.14
Binary-only drivers that only work with a particular version of the kernel that is included in a particular Linux distribution, surely? Add-on SATA-cards were so much fun for a while.
lets say 5 iPods per person for the fun of it... you still are only talking on average 100 songs per iPod owner...which would mean close to 100$ sunk (or the time and quality cost by burning to CD-R and re-ripping to MP3) if you decide to get a sandisk or creative as your 6th player.
Great list. You might consider adding the following:
( ) Natalie Portman petrified ( ) Hot grits ( ) All your base are belong to ( ) Obfuscated link to goatse ( ) RTFA ( ) The link is/.'ed so I'll paste the article ( ) Microsoft/patents/DRM/RIAA/MPAA is evil
"by skewing yellow hue, which is difficult to discern by human eye but fairly easy for camera phones to decode using software written in Java."..as opposed to software written in colorblind languages.
I'm not making an argument either way, just wanted to add some numbers to the discussion.
According to Wikipedia, 88,701,000 iPods have been sold as of Dec30 2006. According to Apple, more than two billion songs have been sold as of January 9, 2007.
That should come to about 22.5 songs per iPod, assuming that all purchased songs are loaded on iPods, no songs are loaded on more than one iPod and that noone has tossed their old iPod, bought a new one and transferred the 22.5 songs from the old one to the new one.
If we assume that iPods are replaced faster than downloads are lost, it wouldn't be too far fetched to say 30 songs average. Which also happens to be Jobs' 3% of 1000.
Yes, most forms of CD 'DRM' was done by futzing with redbook or bluebook, and relying on the differences between how the CD player in your stereo rack and the CD-ROM drive in your computer read the contents. Futzing with error correction in the audio track shouldn't have an impact on the data track, by the way. A CD player will interpolate when it encounters errors in the audio data, while a CD-ROM typically will not. An other popular technique was to make multisession discs with a correct table of content in the first session, but faulty in the others. A CD player would only read the first session and the correct toc, while a CD-ROM would read the tocs in all the sessions.
But as far as I can see, my point above still stands. Philips didn't object to DRM. Philips objected to putting the cdda trademark on dics that didn't comply with redbook (or bluebook). The difference is that if you found a way to make digital audio extraction difficult on a PC CD-ROM while still complying with redbook, Philips wouldn't object.
My recollection is that DRM had nothing to do with it. Philips objected to the logos being used on discs that did not follow the standards. Which makes perfect sense, Philips didn't want the logo tarnished by people buying CDs that wouldn't play.
On the other hand, you can make 'DRM' CDs without breaking the standards. Like, oh, say a blue-book disc that just happens to autorun and install a rootkit if you put it in your Windows PC.
Slashdot Mirror
You could drop iSCSI and just use layer-2 Ethernet to transfer blocks, but then you'd have to define a comm protocol for disks on layer-2 Ethernet. Not that it couldn't be done, but I'm not aware of one in common use today (at least not on commodity Ethernet hardware).
6 110402.asp1 -6106721.html
ATA over Ethernet gets you at least halfway there.
http://www.pcquest.com/content/technology/2006/10
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8149
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10880_1
Even if the URL is never listed anywhere and you only give it out to a select few, there is no guarantee that spiders and other people won't find it. It may turn up in a publicly accessible log file, say of you user's proxy server, or maybe it will show up in someone's web server log as a referer. If it is only supposed to be accessible by a small number of people and not by the net at large, the prudent thing is to use a password system.
If you don't want spiders to index the site, use robots.txt.
(re)distribution is an other thing, services like Archive.org and Google Search are likely on the wrong side of the law as it is today, but they do provide a valuable service to the community at large. Besides, opting out is easy so it seems a bit strange that someone would take this to court instead of using the opt out mechanism.
Attribution actually doesn't actually have anything directly to do with copyright, though it's certainly unenforceable without it. Copyright means having the exclusive right to dictate the making and distribution of copies. That's all.
Not quite correct. Copyright also covers derivative work, making accessible to the the public, public display/performance and some related rights.
As for attribution, it is true that US (C) law doesn't cover the right to attribution but misattribution is at least partly covered by the Lanham act ("false designation of origin"). This is different in european-type copyright, which has stronger protection of the author's moral rights. Also, the international Berne Convention on copyright recognize the author's right to "attribution" and "integrity".
Archive.org performs a really useful service, but they do seem to be operating outside the law (which badly needs updating)
True. Copyright was created in a time where copying was a predominantly commercial for-profit act. Cheap computers and the Internet changed that rather dramatically.
That should be easy. Convince Bush that the giant space goat is coming, and he will fund NASA building the 'B' Ark.
I could go on
:-)
Please do, you were about to get to the interesting part of the list.
It's certainly not in Plain View, NC.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Not trying to be a troll here, but why is knowledge of latin often seen as a requirement for intellectualism?
Bleedingly simple. They need to provide a more compelling product than what people can get via P2P.
Done smart you wouldn't need a huge dictionary. You could for example divide the keyspace as a tree and give out small sub-trees to the participants. When sub-trees have been checked, they can be merged.
(simple ex: Divide as a binary tree, when 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 are done you can mark 1.1.1 as checked. If sub-trees are given out in a smart fashion, the dictionary wouldn't have to become very large.)
Yes, but idspispopd doesn't work.
Some MPAA members worship a deity who allegedly convinced them to elect the government which runs the university which runs the computer store which sold me the computer which allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption. Is He in violation of the DMCA?
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
It is illegal for the consumer to access the work, if there is an access control, if the consumer lacks authorization. The studios never give consumers authorization (and the implied authorization argument has, so far, fallen flat). Rather, they authorize devices, which can be used by people who themselves lack authorization. That is, the authorization is an attribute which flows through the player, rather than the disk. (Though it's still attached to the player -- the owner doesn't have authorization, save for with regard to that player; a possessor of the player has authorization with regard to that player, even if he isn't the owner, etc.)
That's at least the tortured reasoning created by the DMCA and held by the **AAs.
However, I don't believe that any court has taken a sufficiently deep look at this issue. That is, who holds the right to authorize access? The copyright holder? If so, how does that authorization flow from the copyright holder to the device? To take DVD as an example - it is probably safe to assume that the license that device manufacturers get from DVDCCA contains this, but what about the link from the thousands of copyright holders to DVDCCA? And what about all the non-major label music sold through iTMS? Have all the artists licensed the right to authorize access to Apple?
Why can't companies release software with a script that checks to see if you have all the required dependencies and tells you exactly what you are missing?
Would you like the job as the QA engineer that has to test all possible permutations?
It is likely that the software will work fine on RHEL-clone or SLES-derivative, but look at this from IBM's perspective. If IBM says 'yes, that's supported', they will have to do regression testing on each supported platform and their support staff needs to replicate the same setup in their labs to reproduce any bugs that might show up in the wild. The more platforms officially supported, the more work/risk IBM takes.
As someone in an other thread said, the standard work-around for customers is to have at least one instance installed on a supported platform (say, RHEL) and install the rest on their distro of choice (say CentOS). If a bug shows up on both CentOS and RHEL, call it in to IBM as a RHEL error. If it only shows up on CentOS, you're on your own as far as official support goes.
But no, they have to have spiffy graphical installers (Remember: don't run X as root!), that give you such helpful messages as "Could not validate Mozilla version." before exiting with no output to standard out.
That's a valid point. For some reason there's an abundance of bad installers in *nix land.
binary-only monstrosity that only runs with kernel 2.2.14
Binary-only drivers that only work with a particular version of the kernel that is included in a particular Linux distribution, surely? Add-on SATA-cards were so much fun for a while.
One of the hallmarks of a great salesman is the ability to frame the debate.
lets say 5 iPods per person for the fun of it... you still are only talking on average 100 songs per iPod owner. ..which would mean close to 100$ sunk (or the time and quality cost by burning to CD-R and re-ripping to MP3) if you decide to get a sandisk or creative as your 6th player.
The ability to make a stand-alone player is non-news? In my book (and probably in the book of every non-windows user) that's huge news.
So, who will be in charge of the galTLDs?
..and here I was thinking that they dropped "Extra-" and found intelligent life down here.
Great list. You might consider adding the following:
/.'ed so I'll paste the article
( ) Natalie Portman petrified
( ) Hot grits
( ) All your base are belong to
( ) Obfuscated link to goatse
( ) RTFA
( ) The link is
( ) Microsoft/patents/DRM/RIAA/MPAA is evil
"by skewing yellow hue, which is difficult to discern by human eye but fairly easy for camera phones to decode using software written in Java." ..as opposed to software written in colorblind languages.
You do know that XPSP2 limits the number of concurrent half-open connections to 10? A worm would have to patch tcpip.sys to go above that.
I'm not making an argument either way, just wanted to add some numbers to the discussion.
According to Wikipedia, 88,701,000 iPods have been sold as of Dec30 2006.
According to Apple, more than two billion songs have been sold as of January 9, 2007.
That should come to about 22.5 songs per iPod, assuming that all purchased songs are loaded on iPods, no songs are loaded on more than one iPod and that noone has tossed their old iPod, bought a new one and transferred the 22.5 songs from the old one to the new one.
If we assume that iPods are replaced faster than downloads are lost, it wouldn't be too far fetched to say 30 songs average. Which also happens to be Jobs' 3% of 1000.
Yes, most forms of CD 'DRM' was done by futzing with redbook or bluebook, and relying on the differences between how the CD player in your stereo rack and the CD-ROM drive in your computer read the contents. Futzing with error correction in the audio track shouldn't have an impact on the data track, by the way. A CD player will interpolate when it encounters errors in the audio data, while a CD-ROM typically will not. An other popular technique was to make multisession discs with a correct table of content in the first session, but faulty in the others. A CD player would only read the first session and the correct toc, while a CD-ROM would read the tocs in all the sessions.
But as far as I can see, my point above still stands. Philips didn't object to DRM. Philips objected to putting the cdda trademark on dics that didn't comply with redbook (or bluebook). The difference is that if you found a way to make digital audio extraction difficult on a PC CD-ROM while still complying with redbook, Philips wouldn't object.
Do you have a source for that?
My recollection is that DRM had nothing to do with it. Philips objected to the logos being used on discs that did not follow the standards. Which makes perfect sense, Philips didn't want the logo tarnished by people buying CDs that wouldn't play.
On the other hand, you can make 'DRM' CDs without breaking the standards. Like, oh, say a blue-book disc that just happens to autorun and install a rootkit if you put it in your Windows PC.