You keep saying "store the codecs" which means you're not thinking about this problem in a sane fashion. You don't compress. At all. That's the point of archival. It's not a matter of some geek boy lossfully reencoding his porn collection to fit on CD. It's a matter of keeping the original source material forever. There's no codec here. Just store the data flat with as many bits of precision as you have in your source material. End of story. The only real question is do you store this on spinning disks or stopped disks. Put it on a bunch of hard drives with some parity and error correction codes. Then shut them all down along with the entire infrastructure needed to read the data. Periodically fire it back up to verify that any bit rot that has come along can be corrected and then shut it down again. Every ten years or so, migrate the whole thing to whatever is new in storage. But don't ever compress this shit.
I presume that you haven't gone looking for wireless access points. In a particular apartment complex near where I live, my laptop sees eleven access points. Of those one is open and usable to get on the net. One is open but won't route unless you've authenticated with the router. The other nine are WEP protected. Of those nine most of them are fairly quiet which makes cracking WEP a lot harder (ie. no system is actively connected and broadcasting allowing you to collect weak IVs.)
And btw, it's dumb to try and game the legal system. They have guns and pointy sticks and mean bean counters and they're not afraid to use them.
In these days of scarce resources, having a personal library, unless they are of historical, professional, or sentimental value, is selfish.
First, when talking about scarcity, we're not facing it. Compared to any other time in history more people have access to more resources than ever before. Second, it's pretty judgmental to say his personal library is selfish. What about your sofa? Do you have a nice one? How about your house? Your clothes? Your computer?
But this is bad, its a deliberately defective product and I hope someone sues.
It's deliberately defective because they didn't design it around Linux's borderline defective power management? Or are you suggesting the drive specifically violates a standard?
To me it sounds like Linux makes assumptions rather than actually probing the device and determining it's defaults.
Yeah, sending this guy to jail does nothing to curb the damage from those 8.4M comsumer records.
Barring solid proof that this loser is going to cure cancer or stop the aging process, I see no reason for this guy to be allowed a continued existence within civilized society.
Yes, there is something wrong with it. They published it in a public medium.
Not really. They put it on their website with the understanding that the majority of people would be using a traditional web browser to access the content. It's not like they printed it on millions of flyers and carpet bombed every city and town.
If all the content you have to offer can be summed up in a 20-word blurb, your content sucks and your site deserves to die.
Search engines do one of two things 1) they print the first couple of lines of the page, or 2) they print the sentences around the search words. Google news seems to do the first. And the amazing way that it seems to be a summary of the content isn't because Google has some cool and awesome english language generator, but because the original content is written in a structure way. The whole point of the first paragraph of the story is to summarize what comes next. It's like you're not educated or something.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that these people need to have a smart, communicative geek (like, say Larry Lessig) sit down with them and explain that a fundamental aspect of digital information is that it can be replicated with virtually no effort and next to no cost.
And yet millions or billions of people worldwide seem to want the man to hunt down fraudsters who pretend to be one of the aforementioned billions.
Google needs the content producers. If Google ever pisses off the bulk of the mainstream sites to the extent that nobody will allow them to index, they'll find themselves in a bad place. They need quality content to index. Hitting hundreds of blogs and pseudo news sites won't lead to a mad rush to place ads on Google's search results pages.
A level of anonymity is one thing, but given that my nickname is also linked to my real name, I'd prefer that my prospective employers can't pull up something I said in a moment of stupidity five years ago.
Sorry. That battle is lost. It was lost at least when the scammers started archiving NNTP.
There's an awful lot of biomed research happening outside of academia. Academia is where most of the research that isn't product oriented is done, but it's far from the last bastion of new knowledge.
Firstly, it's a civil case, so 'guilty' should really be replaced with 'liable'.
Sure. If you want to be exact and pedantic and user a term of art, then I'll go with liable.
Secondly, if the recent ruling in the George Washington University case that the RIAA have to show probable cause has any merit, then it is debatable whether any real copyright infringement has actually taken place. (read the motion submitted by John Doe #3 in that case for details.)
Since you are being exact and pedantic then I must point out that there has been no ruling in the GWU case. There has been a court order which is completely different that a ruling. The motion itself is primarily about procedural issues with the RIAA attorneys filing and not about whether any copyright infringement has occurred.
Yeah, possibly people have been sharing for free what the RIAA members believe they have a right to be remunerated for, but whether such sharing is actually illegal is a moot point at this time.
First, why would you question what is undeniably illegal? Second, why would this be a moot point? The legal moves in the GWU case suggest that multiple federal laws are having unexpected interactions and not at all suggesting that copyright infringement isn't illegal.
The reason the RIAA's campaign hasn't stopped in the states is that they get what they want most of the time. People cough up the money for the "settlement offer." If everyone served with such offers stood up to fight them, I doubt even the RIAA could afford the attorney's fees.
I like the scare quotes on settlement offer. I mean, the vast majority of people are flat out guilty and the settlement is giving them an out relatively cheaply. If everybody they have served were to go out and hire an attorney to represent them, they'd just cut down on the rate of suits brought. And once they had developed some inertia from winning suit after suit (because they are right pretty much every time and the level of evidence is not reasonable doubt) the number of people fighting them would go way down.
That's interesting. In the last ten years I've worked at three companies that use apache on heavily trafficked websites. We ran linux at none of them.
I'm not one to actually know whether Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635.SR1.2 mod_ssl/2.8.28 OpenSSL/0.9.7a PHP-CGI/0.1b actually means the server is running Unix or *nix, but to criticize the assertion that they use Linux without giving any information about what it actually means is pure FUD.
All you can say is they're running Apache with some modules. That's the only thing you can say.
Questioning an assertion is one thing. Questioning an assertion that is most likely true (most apache servers run Linux) without providing contrary evidence, when the validity of the assertion is inconsequential (it's a joke) is flamebait.
No it's not flamebait. It's disagreement with the claims being made from the available evidence. What OS do you think this site is running:
Server: Apache/1.3.34 (Unix) mod_perl/1.27
Since that is from www.openbsd.org, I'd suspect it's probably not linux.
There, I took the bait. Are you happy now?
I think the fact that you didn't flame me suggests that the original post wasn't flamebait. Don't you?
I'm curious. Has there been any educator who agrees that olpc is "a great educational device"? No, I don't mean has some third world country dumped a couple of hundred thousand on them, but any actual teacher used these for education at all?
I don't think you understand how the system really works. There are only two situations where "innocent until proven guilty" applies: 1) if you are illegally downloading copyrighted content(*), 2) you are smoking pot to stick it to the man. Then, even though what you are doing is against the law, you're innocent even though they caught you with a lit bong in one hand and adjusting your stylish pirate eye patch with the other while waiting for the latest Britney Spears album to upload(**). In all other cases the masses, I mean the self righteous, uber-sleuthing, information freedom fighters have a god given natural right to be entertained and proclaim guilt ignoring the processes of the courts.
* - and then the claim that the bits on the wire spontaneously arranged themselves into a valid TCP/IP bit stream due to a quantum interaction of the large hadron collider and the heliosphereic current sheet, is considered a rock solid defense beyond both reasonable doubt and the preponderance of the evidence.
** - yes, Britney Spears, even though everybody on the entire planet realizes it's the same shit they record companies continue to put out and nobody wants to download it let alone buy it. Other than you and your hundred million best friends that is.
You are assuming that these licensed patents are to be used in the linux kernel itself instead of "certain Linux-based embedded devices." It's entirely sane that a linux-based embedded device might include software that isn't in the linux kernel. In fact it's guaranteed that there will be software that isn't in the linux kernel involved.
Assuming that guy did his math right and that this guy (me) did his math right. Then, assuming a 10 cm objective on that camera, they should be able to resolve down to about 70 cm. That should be sufficient to see the base of the lander.
If it's not common on the desktop, it's not a consumer OS. Duh. However much advocates like to tout the wonderfulness of Linux, the reality is, it's not on the desktop and your average computer user doesn't use it.
If thirty odd years ago windows had been designed responsibly we wouldn't have the mess that we have now. Amongst many other things when connected to the net they deliberately confused static data with executables and deliberately ran all programs as administrator.
A) Thirty odd years ago Microsoft was still in the business of selling BASIC interpreters. B) You can't name a single consumer OS that prevents the user from running software that connects to the internet. So why not stop with the moroniness (sort of like truthiness but especially for you) and quit dropping the idea that not having users have some kind of elevated privileges by default is going to solve all the worlds virus problems.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep saying "store the codecs" which means you're not thinking about this problem in a sane fashion. You don't compress. At all. That's the point of archival. It's not a matter of some geek boy lossfully reencoding his porn collection to fit on CD. It's a matter of keeping the original source material forever. There's no codec here. Just store the data flat with as many bits of precision as you have in your source material. End of story. The only real question is do you store this on spinning disks or stopped disks. Put it on a bunch of hard drives with some parity and error correction codes. Then shut them all down along with the entire infrastructure needed to read the data. Periodically fire it back up to verify that any bit rot that has come along can be corrected and then shut it down again. Every ten years or so, migrate the whole thing to whatever is new in storage. But don't ever compress this shit.
I presume that you haven't gone looking for wireless access points. In a particular apartment complex near where I live, my laptop sees eleven access points. Of those one is open and usable to get on the net. One is open but won't route unless you've authenticated with the router. The other nine are WEP protected. Of those nine most of them are fairly quiet which makes cracking WEP a lot harder (ie. no system is actively connected and broadcasting allowing you to collect weak IVs.)
And btw, it's dumb to try and game the legal system. They have guns and pointy sticks and mean bean counters and they're not afraid to use them.
First, when talking about scarcity, we're not facing it. Compared to any other time in history more people have access to more resources than ever before. Second, it's pretty judgmental to say his personal library is selfish. What about your sofa? Do you have a nice one? How about your house? Your clothes? Your computer?
It's deliberately defective because they didn't design it around Linux's borderline defective power management? Or are you suggesting the drive specifically violates a standard?
To me it sounds like Linux makes assumptions rather than actually probing the device and determining it's defaults.
The only thing Godwin's law says is that as the length of a usenet thread increases the probability that someone will mention the nazi's approaches 1.
Barring solid proof that this loser is going to cure cancer or stop the aging process, I see no reason for this guy to be allowed a continued existence within civilized society.
Not really. They put it on their website with the understanding that the majority of people would be using a traditional web browser to access the content. It's not like they printed it on millions of flyers and carpet bombed every city and town.
Search engines do one of two things 1) they print the first couple of lines of the page, or 2) they print the sentences around the search words. Google news seems to do the first. And the amazing way that it seems to be a summary of the content isn't because Google has some cool and awesome english language generator, but because the original content is written in a structure way. The whole point of the first paragraph of the story is to summarize what comes next. It's like you're not educated or something.
And yet millions or billions of people worldwide seem to want the man to hunt down fraudsters who pretend to be one of the aforementioned billions.
Google needs the content producers. If Google ever pisses off the bulk of the mainstream sites to the extent that nobody will allow them to index, they'll find themselves in a bad place. They need quality content to index. Hitting hundreds of blogs and pseudo news sites won't lead to a mad rush to place ads on Google's search results pages.
You must be new here. I thought the internet was designed to route around breakage.
Sorry. That battle is lost. It was lost at least when the scammers started archiving NNTP.
Or more likely you just got older and actually started to see beyond the cool stuff.
There's an awful lot of biomed research happening outside of academia. Academia is where most of the research that isn't product oriented is done, but it's far from the last bastion of new knowledge.
Sure. If you want to be exact and pedantic and user a term of art, then I'll go with liable.
Since you are being exact and pedantic then I must point out that there has been no ruling in the GWU case. There has been a court order which is completely different that a ruling. The motion itself is primarily about procedural issues with the RIAA attorneys filing and not about whether any copyright infringement has occurred.
First, why would you question what is undeniably illegal? Second, why would this be a moot point? The legal moves in the GWU case suggest that multiple federal laws are having unexpected interactions and not at all suggesting that copyright infringement isn't illegal.
I like the scare quotes on settlement offer. I mean, the vast majority of people are flat out guilty and the settlement is giving them an out relatively cheaply. If everybody they have served were to go out and hire an attorney to represent them, they'd just cut down on the rate of suits brought. And once they had developed some inertia from winning suit after suit (because they are right pretty much every time and the level of evidence is not reasonable doubt) the number of people fighting them would go way down.
All you can say is they're running Apache with some modules. That's the only thing you can say.
No it's not flamebait. It's disagreement with the claims being made from the available evidence. What OS do you think this site is running:
Server: Apache/1.3.34 (Unix) mod_perl/1.27
Since that is from www.openbsd.org, I'd suspect it's probably not linux.
I think the fact that you didn't flame me suggests that the original post wasn't flamebait. Don't you?
I'm curious. Has there been any educator who agrees that olpc is "a great educational device"? No, I don't mean has some third world country dumped a couple of hundred thousand on them, but any actual teacher used these for education at all?
Flamebait because I question a suspect assertion? The mods must be fucking stupid.
And you can tell it's Linux because Apache only compiles on Linux?
I don't think you understand how the system really works. There are only two situations where "innocent until proven guilty" applies: 1) if you are illegally downloading copyrighted content(*), 2) you are smoking pot to stick it to the man. Then, even though what you are doing is against the law, you're innocent even though they caught you with a lit bong in one hand and adjusting your stylish pirate eye patch with the other while waiting for the latest Britney Spears album to upload(**). In all other cases the masses, I mean the self righteous, uber-sleuthing, information freedom fighters have a god given natural right to be entertained and proclaim guilt ignoring the processes of the courts.
* - and then the claim that the bits on the wire spontaneously arranged themselves into a valid TCP/IP bit stream due to a quantum interaction of the large hadron collider and the heliosphereic current sheet, is considered a rock solid defense beyond both reasonable doubt and the preponderance of the evidence.
** - yes, Britney Spears, even though everybody on the entire planet realizes it's the same shit they record companies continue to put out and nobody wants to download it let alone buy it. Other than you and your hundred million best friends that is.
You are assuming that these licensed patents are to be used in the linux kernel itself instead of "certain Linux-based embedded devices." It's entirely sane that a linux-based embedded device might include software that isn't in the linux kernel. In fact it's guaranteed that there will be software that isn't in the linux kernel involved.
But you sure sounded smart there for a minute.
Assuming that guy did his math right and that this guy (me) did his math right. Then, assuming a 10 cm objective on that camera, they should be able to resolve down to about 70 cm. That should be sufficient to see the base of the lander.
If it's not common on the desktop, it's not a consumer OS. Duh. However much advocates like to tout the wonderfulness of Linux, the reality is, it's not on the desktop and your average computer user doesn't use it.
I assume, like much of slashdot, you are completely unaware of the definition of the word consumer.
A) Thirty odd years ago Microsoft was still in the business of selling BASIC interpreters. B) You can't name a single consumer OS that prevents the user from running software that connects to the internet. So why not stop with the moroniness (sort of like truthiness but especially for you) and quit dropping the idea that not having users have some kind of elevated privileges by default is going to solve all the worlds virus problems.