Offering a default to turn OFF password masking for bank accounts?
As many banks use one time passwords, that might actually be one of the few places where unmasked passwords are acceptable.
Otherwise, no way. For those with very bad keyboard skills there are workarounds like using keyboard patterns and with cellphones you can use longer passwords but without multiple-click use of buttons.
Slightly easier input simply isn't worth it; not only don't I want to reveal my passwords to any furtive glance, I don't want to be exposed to everyone elses passwords either.
So, does this firmware protect against defective Panasonic brand batteries? You don't need to go further than a google for Panasonic battery recall to note that they ship defective batteries without short circuit and overheating protection with the best of them.
See, otherwise the 'consumer safety' angle sounds like a really lame excuse for exactly the monopolist positioning the GP suggests.
You could take a look at VPN providers; I've noticed that some VPN providers provide solutions for exactly the problem you're having: static ip, configurable reverse, etc. At around $10-$15 per month it's certainly more affordable than a 'business DSL', and about on par with the cheapest virtual hosts you can get.
And as an added plus, that would also allow you to switch providers at will without having to change any configurations for your servers.
Well, they want to blame someone, and the ISP's are probably as much 'internet' as you get.
why not fund it out of tax revenue generally
Because then it becomes part of the general budget and people start asking why we're spending that much on subsidies. Common strategy in the IP industries; if politicians actually had to justify the costs they'd be downsized in a heartbeat. Of course, calling it 'media production fee' and slapping it on the broadband, or calling it 'copyright' and letting private interests decide the rate doesn't really change the essence or the cost to the economy.
Still, when it comes to the news business, few seem to be willing to face the actual problem; news is vastly overproduced. There is simply so much material to read every day that nobody can read anywhere near even a fraction of very narrow fields of interest. The fact that it costs money to produce news simply isn't the problem; todays more concentrated world has made the readers time the scarce product, a problem that no subsidies will solve.
Since always. The government is just very selective about what international laws it cares about, and very picky about who it applies them to.
ACTA is a typical example of forum shopping tho; when the interested parties cannot ram their desires through WIPO or even the WTO any more, they start up yet another forum. So of course the US is going to care; it's made to order legislation created outside the democratic process and perfectly usable against its citizens, without having to take much of the blame.
It's the legislative process gone global, and moved out of reach of democracy.
As to the matter at hand: would it be possible to make a torrent-like point to point system
There are already a bunch of such systems; I2P, freenet and tor can be used for various facets of such infrastructure.
but is there enough "internet" left working that something like this might work?
Frankly, I'm not sure it's even government interference. Considering how susceptible the internet usually is to slashdotting at major events, the likelyhood that Iran's infrastructure would simply collapse from the load during exactly such a situation that they have now is fairly high. And the same applies to SMS, which anyone who's been to a major convention or festival run by inexperienced people has surely noticed (or, heck, tried to send an SMS on new years eve in many places). Trying to black those out might simply be a waste of effort; they'll DOS themselves on demand.
Scrambling satellite networks on the other hand... eh, any new MPAA agreement with Iran come into effect recently...? No, seriously, that one might actually be ascribable to the regime.
The most trivial way to abolish copyright and switch over to a less unmaintainable model would be to simply change over to the radio model. Mandatory licensing, regardless of any, by now irrelevant, artificial distinction between 'copying' or 'broadcasting'. Preferably with a levy as percentage of revenue per duplication. And preferably not handled by private industry.
Let anyone duplicate and sell, but hand a percentage to the creator and/or artist in the work.
There'd still be unpaid copying going on, but as any actual value-added service would require revenue (heck, even torrent trackers, as horribly bad as they are, need revenue) you'd probably reach a reasonable equilibrium with a majority of the used services would be legitimate simply because they'd be better.
The burden of proof is really on the pro-IP side, if your perspective is that the natural state is non-interference in markets. But the quick and easy ones would be; all of history proves that intellectual development happens without IP and most protection never generates any kind of financial return. We could go into the more complex counterproductive issues like transaction costs, merging development, etc, but that's a bit beyond this comment.
trademarks seem to be relatively uncontroversial
Trademarks are certainly much less damaging than patents and copyright, but there's certainly room for improvement.
I've never seen anyone argue that allowing one organisation to pass itself off as another and trade on their positive reputation is a good thing
That sortof depends on what you mean by passing itself off as another. The main complaint I'd make about trademarks is that these days they're often used for exactly that: dumping marketing money into a label and then slapping a trademark on someone elses product. I'd like to see them completed with, say, an originator reference, so if you're simply buying generics and slapping trademarks on them, the consumer would be free to buy the exact same product from someone else.
I'm still waiting for any evidence that it is counterproductive
Ok, I'll run a few easy ones for that too.
The economic incentive of copyright is derived from the ability to enforce monopoly pricing. The pricing curve for monopoly pricing always means that maximum revenue is generated when market demand is unfulfilled; therefore copyright inherently and provably leads to less people enjoying the work than without it.
Out of the money people spend on copyrighted works only a fraction reaches the actual creators. If you posit that the financial incentive is what drives creation, the fact that most of the money disappears to middlemen indicates that the specific construct of copyright that lets middlemen retain the revenue stream intended as an incentive is deeply counterproductive.
Then we have the loss of the ability of works to significantly build upon eachother (well, apart from Disney building on everyone else, of course) and the loss of freedom to translate. We have the examples of works being permanently lost due to rights issues (Doctor Who, as an example). Both provable counterproductive effects.
Etc. There are many provable flaws and much proof that creation of works happens with or without copyright, yet almost none that creation of works would stop or even slow down without it. Some very expensive ones (movies) might need to change, but then again, the main reason they're so expensive in the first place might very well be the existence of monopoly rights.
Shh. Don't mention lack of ECC RAM, Sun products and crap hardware in the same comment.
It makes some of us oldtimers recall various versions of the Sparc 'cosmic rays are crashing your server' ULTRA II, and the joy of having every piece of software and hardware in your Sun servers replaced and having them crash anyway.
Personally I don't find it that trivial; never before has the best choice been so extremely dependent on what you need the performance for.
Say you've got some eminently parallel task, like ray tracing. With the huge price/performance difference between low end and high end you might beat the high end in performance by buying two cheap systems rather than one expensive. Look at the i7-940; it's just barely twice as fast as the cheapest CPU, yet it costs six times as much. That price would easily accommodate a cheap motherboard and memory and you'd still be shelling out less.
On the other hand, say you have very few parallel tasks, then you may still be as well off with a cheap CPU. Without several tasks you're not going so see much difference between a dual core CPU with good per-core performance and a quad core. Not an entirely rare situation when talking about desktop systems.
Or you might be in the sweet spot of latency sensitive parallel tasks, possibly applicable to some games, in which case a more expensive quad core CPU might definitely be what you're looking for.
And add to that the need for actual application specific benchmarks to determine actual performance as opposed to generic benchmarks... well, I wouldn't call the choice trivial.
But getting people to pay for CDs was a way of recouping studio costs
It's always easy to accumulate costs; that's basically the main disadvantage of monopolies versus free market competition.
With today's technology advances the actual costs needed to produce an album are approaching zero as well; the rest of the supported costs, release parties, free samples, payola, other marketing, free blow to the execs, etc, are not necessary for producing the product and would not occur in a competitive market.
some other means has to be found to keep artists alive while they create, or just accept that the era of the professional musician is over.
If it's necessary, yes. For many, producing music is a privilege, not a day job, so I have no doubt that music would continue to get produced even without any extra incentive.
But if we really need one, the method I'd favour would be to just slap a levy on the material on a per-reproduction basis, with the levy going directly to the creators. Somewhat like what we have for radio plays, but as a percentage, and for every kind of reproduction where money changes hands. Such a solution would basically cut through the entire problem.
* Provide strategic, independent and evidence-based advice to Government on intellectual property policy, covering all types of intellectual property rights
It could start by procuring some actual scientific evidence around the economic effects of intellectual 'property'. Research, comparisons, even simulations of various forms of models of systems would be nice. There is plenty of evidence that intellectual 'property' is, in fact, not needed as an incentive, and even counterproductive. If they want to argue they're going to make evidence-based advice, they should turn up some evidence indicating otherwise.
Of course, with this report they've thoroughly proven, as could be expected, that they're just a lobby group posing as a government agency. Big surprise.
Of course, by making up unlikely numbers they divert attention from the even more insidious propaganda buried in the claim.
It's not money _lost_, it's money _saved_.
Downloading _saves_ the economy £120 Billion.
The money that doesn't get spent on media doesn't magically disappear. It's spent on other things instead. Jobs aren't lost, in fact, I'd wager the money saved creates more jobs in the local economy than money to the media industry which to a large extent doesn't go towards labour intensive activity, and in many cases simply goes out of the country.
Sorry for taking such time to reply, I was away for a bit.
I thought DRBD was only active/active if you ran different services
Nope, you can configure DRBD volumes to be active/active on both nodes at the same time, from version 8. From version 9 it looks like they're implementing more than 2 mirrors too. The usual caveats of shared disk semantics apply, of course; you need GFS or OCFS or something on top, be sure you're not writing in two places at once, or something else to ensure consistency.
So iSCSI sharing from two simultaneously active nodes sharing the same mirrored image is certainly possible, you'd just have to switch to the other iSCSI target. How does LeftHand manage consistency? For example, if power gets lost on a node and writes get redirected, how does it ensure there were no in-transit io's going through the dead node? Or does it take the latency hit and not return IO complete until the write is committed on the other nodes?
Still, while it's certainly possible to do, for simplicitys sake I'd personally probably just share separate volumes and mirror on the mounting hosts.
iSCSI initiators that support miltple connections per session don't even have to deal with sending everything to a "virtual IP"; they can send direct to the node that contains the interesting blocks.
Hmm, that's an interesting feature. I'll have to look over if the iSCSI initiators I'm using can do multiple connections:).
I need like 3 separate HP website acocunts just to download patches.
Actually, drbd is active-active these days, so it would suffice on a HA basis.
LH sounds pretty neat, just a bit on the pricey side. Then again it's not like NetApp and the various SAN vendors offer particularly competitive pricing either.
I used to use ESX, but the built in virtualization in RHEL does it better these days. ESX performance is nice enough, but paravirt xen tech outperforms it by 3x on some things (scripts, exec, syscall intensive stuff).
It's also much, much cheaper.
Then again, I don't run any virtualized Windows, so your mileage may vary.
whether under anticipation or obviousness depends on whether you consider a MythTV box with MythGame to be a game console
Of course, you've been able to run mythfrontend on an Xbox for many years, and I'd say the Xbox might qualify as a game console. Maybe that's what they're trying to get around by explicitly stating something about the dashboards 'nativeness' to the console.
I cant see anything that doesn't have at least one, if not two decades of prior art, and/or isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't been living in a cave since before the internet.
Do they actually pay people to write these things, or have they written a script that does it?
Funny how the old saying 'there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers' actually applies to this.
To avoid the potential trouble, simply don't make a habit of specifying the correct answer; there's usually nothing preventing you from saying your mothers maiden name was Thevirginmary, or claiming that your father was born on Krypton.
Of course, it may get a bit more difficult to remember, but it'd prevent anyone from simply researching the answer to your hints.
Well, the bias review hadn't really gotten anywhere before the court itself requested the case to be transferred to another section of the court to avoid the possible appearance of bias on part of the reviewing judge. The review board was also expanded to three judges.
Of course, as it's now turned out, at least one of the three judges on the board, Anders Eka, has worked with several of the industry lawyers under the leadership of one of the more rabid intellectual property advocates, Jan Rosén, at Stockholm University, at a group translatable as "The Research Department for Media Rights". He claims, at least, to not have been involved in intellectual property matters, but with free speech issues, which, perhaps, isn't impossible.
But frankly, with the cancerous spread of the IP lobbyists throughout the judicial system it's starting to look like running out of unbiased judges might not be impossible.
What I don't know is what "Xwindows 2X" is supposed to be.
I think he means that X has forked twice. Which is sort of correct if one considers 'X' to have been XFree86 and the original fork of X386 to be the evolutionary path of the X server in question, ie, X386->XFree86->X.org.
Of course, a more complete view of X as the entire X code base would indicate many more forks, as pretty much every proprietary vendor-specific fork would be one too. With partial re-basings and some flow both ways, but still forks. Well, unless one considers them just very independent branches. So it's debatable I guess, but at least the XFree86 chain seems to be widely considered to be forks.
You can handle it most of the time, and to a certain extent.
I spent a year working in a lab where one of my duties was preparing fluid extracts from drilled core samples of landfills for analysis. Most of the time it was just a nasty smell, and work was done under a fume hood, so it wasn't that bad.
But one or two times the core drilling had really hit jackpot; the slightest whiff out of the fume hood and breakfast was coming up. None of the usual 'eww, ick, blech, that really stinks', just the sensation of something hitting the olfactory sense followed by immediate backwards rerun of the last meal, then wondering what the hell just happened. And then continuing further work without breathing through the nose (or, preferably, breathing elsewhere in the room and holding my breath while working with the samples).
Of course, as I knew pretty much what I was working with and knew there was no significant exposure anyway there was no need to seek medical attention. But if they managed to strike similar gold in the realm of olfactory adventures, I can certainly understand that they may be a bit shaken. In combination with an uncertainty about the cleaning chemicals a visit to the doctor might not be entirely uncalled for.
With some nauseating fumes toughing it out simply isn't an option, they trigger some form of autonomous immediate purge signal. Considering the number of vomiting agents that have been developed as non-lethal weapons, it's not that surprising if random decomposition biochemistry happens to brew us one of its own every now and then.
One would have to have a very fragile sense of self esteem if one would consider a reasonable and/or polite request for a chat to be in any way a walking over. There's a difference between smoothing human interaction, putting some high-strung security guard at ease, and having actual rights violated or getting trampled on.
Ah, no, that was the old way. Then it used to prevent Chinese companies to manufacture cheap copies of Western goods complete with trademark name.
Now it's the new way. Now all the goods are cheaply manufactured by Chinese companies, and trademarks prevent Western consumers from getting exactly the same goods for cheap.
that this is indeed X by company Y
Except it's not any more. It's X by company Z, labelled and marketed as A, B, C and D trademarks by companies Y, E, F, and G and available for a tenth of the price in China. The days when trademarks were used to prevent deception are gone with in house production, now they're often used to deceive instead.
I don't see any reason that one should want CentOS to call themselves "Red Hat Enterprise Linux".
That I can agree with. I would, however, like to see a requirement for a clear origination labelling, like CentOS (derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux), Blu Wear Jeans 1023 (derived from XianPing model Ping134), Coca-Cola Dasani (derived from bromate contaminated tap water).
If someone else made it, consumers should be able to tell who did and what the product originally was.
Basically, the purpose would be enforcing the supposed consumer protection of trademarks both ways; you shouldn't claim your product is someone elses, but neither should be be able to claim that someone elses product is fully and exclusively yours.
Even if trademarks did hurt
They're nowhere near as damaging to the economy as copyright and patents, but I think they certainly have room for improvement. Particularly as applies to their function as consumer protection.
Slashdot Mirror
Offering a default to turn OFF password masking for bank accounts?
As many banks use one time passwords, that might actually be one of the few places where unmasked passwords are acceptable.
Otherwise, no way. For those with very bad keyboard skills there are workarounds like using keyboard patterns and with cellphones you can use longer passwords but without multiple-click use of buttons.
Slightly easier input simply isn't worth it; not only don't I want to reveal my passwords to any furtive glance, I don't want to be exposed to everyone elses passwords either.
So, does this firmware protect against defective Panasonic brand batteries? You don't need to go further than a google for Panasonic battery recall to note that they ship defective batteries without short circuit and overheating protection with the best of them.
See, otherwise the 'consumer safety' angle sounds like a really lame excuse for exactly the monopolist positioning the GP suggests.
You could take a look at VPN providers; I've noticed that some VPN providers provide solutions for exactly the problem you're having: static ip, configurable reverse, etc. At around $10-$15 per month it's certainly more affordable than a 'business DSL', and about on par with the cheapest virtual hosts you can get.
And as an added plus, that would also allow you to switch providers at will without having to change any configurations for your servers.
Taxing ISPs specifically, seems ass-backwards.
Well, they want to blame someone, and the ISP's are probably as much 'internet' as you get.
why not fund it out of tax revenue generally
Because then it becomes part of the general budget and people start asking why we're spending that much on subsidies. Common strategy in the IP industries; if politicians actually had to justify the costs they'd be downsized in a heartbeat. Of course, calling it 'media production fee' and slapping it on the broadband, or calling it 'copyright' and letting private interests decide the rate doesn't really change the essence or the cost to the economy.
Still, when it comes to the news business, few seem to be willing to face the actual problem; news is vastly overproduced. There is simply so much material to read every day that nobody can read anywhere near even a fraction of very narrow fields of interest. The fact that it costs money to produce news simply isn't the problem; todays more concentrated world has made the readers time the scarce product, a problem that no subsidies will solve.
Since always. The government is just very selective about what international laws it cares about, and very picky about who it applies them to.
ACTA is a typical example of forum shopping tho; when the interested parties cannot ram their desires through WIPO or even the WTO any more, they start up yet another forum. So of course the US is going to care; it's made to order legislation created outside the democratic process and perfectly usable against its citizens, without having to take much of the blame.
It's the legislative process gone global, and moved out of reach of democracy.
As to the matter at hand: would it be possible to make a torrent-like point to point system
There are already a bunch of such systems; I2P, freenet and tor can be used for various facets of such infrastructure.
but is there enough "internet" left working that something like this might work?
Frankly, I'm not sure it's even government interference. Considering how susceptible the internet usually is to slashdotting at major events, the likelyhood that Iran's infrastructure would simply collapse from the load during exactly such a situation that they have now is fairly high. And the same applies to SMS, which anyone who's been to a major convention or festival run by inexperienced people has surely noticed (or, heck, tried to send an SMS on new years eve in many places). Trying to black those out might simply be a waste of effort; they'll DOS themselves on demand.
Scrambling satellite networks on the other hand... eh, any new MPAA agreement with Iran come into effect recently...? No, seriously, that one might actually be ascribable to the regime.
The most trivial way to abolish copyright and switch over to a less unmaintainable model would be to simply change over to the radio model. Mandatory licensing, regardless of any, by now irrelevant, artificial distinction between 'copying' or 'broadcasting'. Preferably with a levy as percentage of revenue per duplication. And preferably not handled by private industry.
Let anyone duplicate and sell, but hand a percentage to the creator and/or artist in the work.
There'd still be unpaid copying going on, but as any actual value-added service would require revenue (heck, even torrent trackers, as horribly bad as they are, need revenue) you'd probably reach a reasonable equilibrium with a majority of the used services would be legitimate simply because they'd be better.
Yet curiously, you haven't cited anything either
The burden of proof is really on the pro-IP side, if your perspective is that the natural state is non-interference in markets. But the quick and easy ones would be; all of history proves that intellectual development happens without IP and most protection never generates any kind of financial return. We could go into the more complex counterproductive issues like transaction costs, merging development, etc, but that's a bit beyond this comment.
trademarks seem to be relatively uncontroversial
Trademarks are certainly much less damaging than patents and copyright, but there's certainly room for improvement.
I've never seen anyone argue that allowing one organisation to pass itself off as another and trade on their positive reputation is a good thing
That sortof depends on what you mean by passing itself off as another. The main complaint I'd make about trademarks is that these days they're often used for exactly that: dumping marketing money into a label and then slapping a trademark on someone elses product. I'd like to see them completed with, say, an originator reference, so if you're simply buying generics and slapping trademarks on them, the consumer would be free to buy the exact same product from someone else.
I'm still waiting for any evidence that it is counterproductive
Ok, I'll run a few easy ones for that too.
The economic incentive of copyright is derived from the ability to enforce monopoly pricing. The pricing curve for monopoly pricing always means that maximum revenue is generated when market demand is unfulfilled; therefore copyright inherently and provably leads to less people enjoying the work than without it.
Out of the money people spend on copyrighted works only a fraction reaches the actual creators. If you posit that the financial incentive is what drives creation, the fact that most of the money disappears to middlemen indicates that the specific construct of copyright that lets middlemen retain the revenue stream intended as an incentive is deeply counterproductive.
Then we have the loss of the ability of works to significantly build upon eachother (well, apart from Disney building on everyone else, of course) and the loss of freedom to translate. We have the examples of works being permanently lost due to rights issues (Doctor Who, as an example). Both provable counterproductive effects.
Etc. There are many provable flaws and much proof that creation of works happens with or without copyright, yet almost none that creation of works would stop or even slow down without it. Some very expensive ones (movies) might need to change, but then again, the main reason they're so expensive in the first place might very well be the existence of monopoly rights.
Shh. Don't mention lack of ECC RAM, Sun products and crap hardware in the same comment.
It makes some of us oldtimers recall various versions of the Sparc 'cosmic rays are crashing your server' ULTRA II, and the joy of having every piece of software and hardware in your Sun servers replaced and having them crash anyway.
Personally I don't find it that trivial; never before has the best choice been so extremely dependent on what you need the performance for.
Say you've got some eminently parallel task, like ray tracing. With the huge price/performance difference between low end and high end you might beat the high end in performance by buying two cheap systems rather than one expensive. Look at the i7-940; it's just barely twice as fast as the cheapest CPU, yet it costs six times as much. That price would easily accommodate a cheap motherboard and memory and you'd still be shelling out less.
On the other hand, say you have very few parallel tasks, then you may still be as well off with a cheap CPU. Without several tasks you're not going so see much difference between a dual core CPU with good per-core performance and a quad core. Not an entirely rare situation when talking about desktop systems.
Or you might be in the sweet spot of latency sensitive parallel tasks, possibly applicable to some games, in which case a more expensive quad core CPU might definitely be what you're looking for.
And add to that the need for actual application specific benchmarks to determine actual performance as opposed to generic benchmarks... well, I wouldn't call the choice trivial.
But getting people to pay for CDs was a way of recouping studio costs
It's always easy to accumulate costs; that's basically the main disadvantage of monopolies versus free market competition.
With today's technology advances the actual costs needed to produce an album are approaching zero as well; the rest of the supported costs, release parties, free samples, payola, other marketing, free blow to the execs, etc, are not necessary for producing the product and would not occur in a competitive market.
some other means has to be found to keep artists alive while they create, or just accept that the era of the professional musician is over.
If it's necessary, yes. For many, producing music is a privilege, not a day job, so I have no doubt that music would continue to get produced even without any extra incentive.
But if we really need one, the method I'd favour would be to just slap a levy on the material on a per-reproduction basis, with the levy going directly to the creators. Somewhat like what we have for radio plays, but as a percentage, and for every kind of reproduction where money changes hands. Such a solution would basically cut through the entire problem.
Well, it's got an interesting mission:
Our mission is to
* Provide strategic, independent and evidence-based advice to Government on intellectual property policy, covering all types of intellectual property rights
It could start by procuring some actual scientific evidence around the economic effects of intellectual 'property'. Research, comparisons, even simulations of various forms of models of systems would be nice. There is plenty of evidence that intellectual 'property' is, in fact, not needed as an incentive, and even counterproductive. If they want to argue they're going to make evidence-based advice, they should turn up some evidence indicating otherwise.
Of course, with this report they've thoroughly proven, as could be expected, that they're just a lobby group posing as a government agency. Big surprise.
Of course, by making up unlikely numbers they divert attention from the even more insidious propaganda buried in the claim.
It's not money _lost_, it's money _saved_.
Downloading _saves_ the economy £120 Billion.
The money that doesn't get spent on media doesn't magically disappear. It's spent on other things instead. Jobs aren't lost, in fact, I'd wager the money saved creates more jobs in the local economy than money to the media industry which to a large extent doesn't go towards labour intensive activity, and in many cases simply goes out of the country.
Sorry for taking such time to reply, I was away for a bit.
I thought DRBD was only active/active if you ran different services
Nope, you can configure DRBD volumes to be active/active on both nodes at the same time, from version 8. From version 9 it looks like they're implementing more than 2 mirrors too. The usual caveats of shared disk semantics apply, of course; you need GFS or OCFS or something on top, be sure you're not writing in two places at once, or something else to ensure consistency.
So iSCSI sharing from two simultaneously active nodes sharing the same mirrored image is certainly possible, you'd just have to switch to the other iSCSI target. How does LeftHand manage consistency? For example, if power gets lost on a node and writes get redirected, how does it ensure there were no in-transit io's going through the dead node? Or does it take the latency hit and not return IO complete until the write is committed on the other nodes?
Still, while it's certainly possible to do, for simplicitys sake I'd personally probably just share separate volumes and mirror on the mounting hosts.
iSCSI initiators that support miltple connections per session don't even have to deal with sending everything to a "virtual IP"; they can send direct to the node that contains the interesting blocks.
Hmm, that's an interesting feature. I'll have to look over if the iSCSI initiators I'm using can do multiple connections :).
I need like 3 separate HP website acocunts just to download patches.
Agh, yah, been there done that.
Actually, drbd is active-active these days, so it would suffice on a HA basis.
LH sounds pretty neat, just a bit on the pricey side. Then again it's not like NetApp and the various SAN vendors offer particularly competitive pricing either.
I used to use ESX, but the built in virtualization in RHEL does it better these days. ESX performance is nice enough, but paravirt xen tech outperforms it by 3x on some things (scripts, exec, syscall intensive stuff).
It's also much, much cheaper.
Then again, I don't run any virtualized Windows, so your mileage may vary.
Interesting product, hadn't seen it before.
I think you can accomplish pretty much the same thing with DRBD synced volumes shared over iSCSI, if you want it for cheap tho.
Fear isn't perfectly rational like that.
Irrational fears can be cured.
19 guys were able to do significant damage to the US.
Hardly. They didn't even kill as many as die in traffic every month. Barely a tenth of the number of Americans who die of the of the flu every year.
Isn't that frightening on some level?
Not in the least. If that's the worst some pissant terrorists can do, they're a nuisance, not a threat.
It's an emotion (and a justifiable one).
It's an understandable one, even more so in light of sensationalist media and fearmongering politicians with their own agenda.
But it's not a justifiable one.
whether under anticipation or obviousness depends on whether you consider a MythTV box with MythGame to be a game console
Of course, you've been able to run mythfrontend on an Xbox for many years, and I'd say the Xbox might qualify as a game console. Maybe that's what they're trying to get around by explicitly stating something about the dashboards 'nativeness' to the console.
I cant see anything that doesn't have at least one, if not two decades of prior art, and/or isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't been living in a cave since before the internet.
Do they actually pay people to write these things, or have they written a script that does it?
The trouble with such stupid questions
Funny how the old saying 'there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers' actually applies to this.
To avoid the potential trouble, simply don't make a habit of specifying the correct answer; there's usually nothing preventing you from saying your mothers maiden name was Thevirginmary, or claiming that your father was born on Krypton.
Of course, it may get a bit more difficult to remember, but it'd prevent anyone from simply researching the answer to your hints.
Well, the bias review hadn't really gotten anywhere before the court itself requested the case to be transferred to another section of the court to avoid the possible appearance of bias on part of the reviewing judge. The review board was also expanded to three judges.
Of course, as it's now turned out, at least one of the three judges on the board, Anders Eka, has worked with several of the industry lawyers under the leadership of one of the more rabid intellectual property advocates, Jan Rosén, at Stockholm University, at a group translatable as "The Research Department for Media Rights". He claims, at least, to not have been involved in intellectual property matters, but with free speech issues, which, perhaps, isn't impossible.
But frankly, with the cancerous spread of the IP lobbyists throughout the judicial system it's starting to look like running out of unbiased judges might not be impossible.
What I don't know is what "Xwindows 2X" is supposed to be.
I think he means that X has forked twice. Which is sort of correct if one considers 'X' to have been XFree86 and the original fork of X386 to be the evolutionary path of the X server in question, ie, X386->XFree86->X.org.
Of course, a more complete view of X as the entire X code base would indicate many more forks, as pretty much every proprietary vendor-specific fork would be one too. With partial re-basings and some flow both ways, but still forks. Well, unless one considers them just very independent branches. So it's debatable I guess, but at least the XFree86 chain seems to be widely considered to be forks.
You can handle it most of the time, and to a certain extent.
I spent a year working in a lab where one of my duties was preparing fluid extracts from drilled core samples of landfills for analysis. Most of the time it was just a nasty smell, and work was done under a fume hood, so it wasn't that bad.
But one or two times the core drilling had really hit jackpot; the slightest whiff out of the fume hood and breakfast was coming up. None of the usual 'eww, ick, blech, that really stinks', just the sensation of something hitting the olfactory sense followed by immediate backwards rerun of the last meal, then wondering what the hell just happened. And then continuing further work without breathing through the nose (or, preferably, breathing elsewhere in the room and holding my breath while working with the samples).
Of course, as I knew pretty much what I was working with and knew there was no significant exposure anyway there was no need to seek medical attention. But if they managed to strike similar gold in the realm of olfactory adventures, I can certainly understand that they may be a bit shaken. In combination with an uncertainty about the cleaning chemicals a visit to the doctor might not be entirely uncalled for.
With some nauseating fumes toughing it out simply isn't an option, they trigger some form of autonomous immediate purge signal. Considering the number of vomiting agents that have been developed as non-lethal weapons, it's not that surprising if random decomposition biochemistry happens to brew us one of its own every now and then.
One would have to have a very fragile sense of self esteem if one would consider a reasonable and/or polite request for a chat to be in any way a walking over. There's a difference between smoothing human interaction, putting some high-strung security guard at ease, and having actual rights violated or getting trampled on.
And to help the customers from being deceived.
Ah, no, that was the old way. Then it used to prevent Chinese companies to manufacture cheap copies of Western goods complete with trademark name.
Now it's the new way. Now all the goods are cheaply manufactured by Chinese companies, and trademarks prevent Western consumers from getting exactly the same goods for cheap.
that this is indeed X by company Y
Except it's not any more. It's X by company Z, labelled and marketed as A, B, C and D trademarks by companies Y, E, F, and G and available for a tenth of the price in China. The days when trademarks were used to prevent deception are gone with in house production, now they're often used to deceive instead.
I don't see any reason that one should want CentOS to call themselves "Red Hat Enterprise Linux".
That I can agree with. I would, however, like to see a requirement for a clear origination labelling, like CentOS (derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux), Blu Wear Jeans 1023 (derived from XianPing model Ping134), Coca-Cola Dasani (derived from bromate contaminated tap water).
If someone else made it, consumers should be able to tell who did and what the product originally was.
Basically, the purpose would be enforcing the supposed consumer protection of trademarks both ways; you shouldn't claim your product is someone elses, but neither should be be able to claim that someone elses product is fully and exclusively yours.
Even if trademarks did hurt
They're nowhere near as damaging to the economy as copyright and patents, but I think they certainly have room for improvement. Particularly as applies to their function as consumer protection.