According to the Ars article, no it wasn't necessarily "off line", it could have been accessed at any point in time due to it also still being available via a failover system.
And if its still available in a cache, or an alternative failover system, then its still available - no bullshitting around, if you can get to it, its available. I also haven't seen an apology from the hosting company, just a "lets get together to see how we can move foward in our relationship" comment on Edublogs blog.
Uhm, I read the article. I read both articles - and no, it was not "only visible internally", lets see what ServerBeach said on that topic shall we?
ServerBeach said the additional notice on October 8 came "because the same alleged infringing content was once again made available on their system despite the fact that it had already been removed due to the prior notice."
Farmer acknowledges that "the blog was taken down when we got the message but the file stayed in varnish cache" until it too was taken down after the second notice.
ServerBeach further said that Edublogs uses "a failover system that allowed Web traffic to still reach the allegedly infringing material."
Lets highlight the specific bit which backs me up:
"a failover system that allowed Web traffic to still reach the allegedly infringing material."
If its still available its still available, regardless of whether is "just in a cache" or not - its available, its under your control and it must be made not available to comply with the notices.
So how about we all try and actually read the full story here, shall we?
So what if it was "in a cache that no one knew about" - Edublogs FAILED TO RESPOND TWICE to requests to remove said content, thus THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AT THAT POINT.
But nice of you to try and link this to bullshit American politics...
No, its not "completely ridiculous" because Edublogs is a blog hosting site, just like Blogger - to take down one Edublog blog, the hosting company would have had to access and alter Edublogs databases and individual site settings without the permission of Edublogs, which would have had severe legal consequences. Better to have Edublogs lose their entire hosting ability in that case...
Sue them for what, exactly? The site almost certainly breached its hosting agreement when they neglected to respond to the copyright infringement notice, and the hosting company tried to contact them several times over the issue - then they pulled the plug and things got sorted. Funny that, eh?
The key line missing from the summery is "ServerBeach said it had had to act because two requests to remove the content had been ignored."
Bingo - and in a class action, the class never have to pay the lawyer fees because those are either absorbed by the other side, or absorbed by the lawyers themselves.
Hence why the bitching about the lawyers getting large amounts of money is pathetically ridiculous.
But they aren't raised by the "class" - which is my point. People routinely bitch on here about the lawyers getting huge payouts while the class participants get next to nothing, when its pretty clear which one of those two is bearing all the risks. If you don't like the class action method, you are welcome to take the risk on yourself and take the matter to court privately...
Also, its unlikely that major overarching judgements that come out of class actions (such as this one - the death of a particular business model) would happen in a small claims court, you would have to bring a proper court case against the other side for that to happen.
I'm afraid its a lot more complicated than that in the UK - public soliciting (on both sides, customer and prostitute) is illegal. A customer paying for sex, or promising to pay for sex when the prostitute is under the threat of force is illegal on the buying side and the pimp side. Paying for sex from someone under the age of 18 is illegal.
Buying and selling sex in a private setting is not illegal.
Fine, cap it - hopefully that will result in the number of class action lawsuits going down (a win-win!).
Remember, the "class" don't hire the lawyers, the lawyers are committing to the risk all on their own, no ones going to cover their costs if the lawsuit fails. So why should it be capped? If you want a higher rate of return, you can always opt out of the class action and bring your own lawsuit, but you are going to have to cover the risk yourself as well...
I'm not "exactly wrong", I've been watching this entire shitfest since 1998 when I first used Linux - for the past 14 years the Linux community have consistently demanded more from Nvidia than Nvidia have frOm the Linux community, and you are still doing it.
And it's people like you that are trying to twist it into Nvidia doing something wrong - you want their product, but you want it on your specific terms as well.
Nvidia wouldn't be bothering at all if people weren't asking them to support their product on Linux, so it's definitely not them trying to push their wares uninvited like you are trying to suggest.
Nvidia doesn't have to "force" the Linux community to do anything - the Linux community give more of a fuck about having Nvidia support on Linux than Nvidia does about the small Linux market for its goods. All Nvidia are doing is saying "use it or don't use it, but don't pretend you are all that important to our bottom line".
What the Linux community is doing is demanding that the popular guy from high school comes to their party, but at the same time demanding that they can dictate what the popular guy wears, drinks and who he talks to if he does come.
Your argument is a bit off - this isn't about Nvidia wanting to use "Free software" in their "closed source programmes", it's about Nvidia wanting to use an advertised feature of the Linux kernel platform to enhance performance *on Linux*. Nvidia already have access to similar functionality on Windows and OSX (or will soon) - they won't be taking anything from Linux to Windows or OSX if they used the feature Linux advertises.
All this is doing is hurting ongoing performance on Linux, and people are trying to blame Nvidia because of it.
I don't think it's the fact that there was a failure, or the fact that the system proved resilient, it's the manner in which the failure manifested itself - an engine cutout, a fuel pump failure, or a vibration issue would be cause for a post launch investigation and a pat on the back, while a wholesale engine disintegration will trigger quite a significant inquiry and a heck of a lot of furrowed brows.
It's the difference in magnitude of failure which is the thing to note here.
Have AMD solved their capacity issues, because that was why Apple went with Intel originally - AMD couldn't supply the quantities Apple wanted guaranteed, while Intel could.
If he isn't just trolling about Windows, and instead does want to make a point about the "value of being able to install your own software", why is there an official Minecraft client for iOS?
Did he suddenly grow a pair because it's Microsoft?
Or is he just more likely to take a stand using a platform which isn't likely to lose him any money if he stays away from it because of his views?
Slashdot Mirror
That's something I suggest you should do - everything I have said is correct, as per the articles. So take your own advice.
According to the Ars article, no it wasn't necessarily "off line", it could have been accessed at any point in time due to it also still being available via a failover system.
And if its still available in a cache, or an alternative failover system, then its still available - no bullshitting around, if you can get to it, its available. I also haven't seen an apology from the hosting company, just a "lets get together to see how we can move foward in our relationship" comment on Edublogs blog.
It was available, as per ServerBeach:
ServerBeach further said that Edublogs uses "a failover system that allowed Web traffic to still reach the allegedly infringing material."
That would still make it available, and infringing.
Uhm, I read the article. I read both articles - and no, it was not "only visible internally", lets see what ServerBeach said on that topic shall we?
ServerBeach said the additional notice on October 8 came "because the same alleged infringing content was once again made available on their system despite the fact that it had already been removed due to the prior notice."
Farmer acknowledges that "the blog was taken down when we got the message but the file stayed in varnish cache" until it too was taken down after the second notice.
ServerBeach further said that Edublogs uses "a failover system that allowed Web traffic to still reach the allegedly infringing material."
Lets highlight the specific bit which backs me up:
"a failover system that allowed Web traffic to still reach the allegedly infringing material."
If its still available its still available, regardless of whether is "just in a cache" or not - its available, its under your control and it must be made not available to comply with the notices.
So how about we all try and actually read the full story here, shall we?
So what if it was "in a cache that no one knew about" - Edublogs FAILED TO RESPOND TWICE to requests to remove said content, thus THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AT THAT POINT .
But nice of you to try and link this to bullshit American politics...
You can't stick non-Google ads on their services...
You can't swap out Google search for Bing in Gmail...
Two very obvious examples of "forced other products to be tied to their search engine".
No, its not "completely ridiculous" because Edublogs is a blog hosting site, just like Blogger - to take down one Edublog blog, the hosting company would have had to access and alter Edublogs databases and individual site settings without the permission of Edublogs, which would have had severe legal consequences. Better to have Edublogs lose their entire hosting ability in that case...
Sue them for what, exactly? The site almost certainly breached its hosting agreement when they neglected to respond to the copyright infringement notice, and the hosting company tried to contact them several times over the issue - then they pulled the plug and things got sorted. Funny that, eh?
The key line missing from the summery is "ServerBeach said it had had to act because two requests to remove the content had been ignored."
So, fuck Edublogs, they had their chance.
Its that sort of manoeuvre that regulatory bodies love to slap down, as its an obvious attempt at an end run around regulations.
Bingo - and in a class action, the class never have to pay the lawyer fees because those are either absorbed by the other side, or absorbed by the lawyers themselves.
Hence why the bitching about the lawyers getting large amounts of money is pathetically ridiculous.
But they aren't raised by the "class" - which is my point. People routinely bitch on here about the lawyers getting huge payouts while the class participants get next to nothing, when its pretty clear which one of those two is bearing all the risks. If you don't like the class action method, you are welcome to take the risk on yourself and take the matter to court privately...
Also, its unlikely that major overarching judgements that come out of class actions (such as this one - the death of a particular business model) would happen in a small claims court, you would have to bring a proper court case against the other side for that to happen.
I'm afraid its a lot more complicated than that in the UK - public soliciting (on both sides, customer and prostitute) is illegal. A customer paying for sex, or promising to pay for sex when the prostitute is under the threat of force is illegal on the buying side and the pimp side. Paying for sex from someone under the age of 18 is illegal.
Buying and selling sex in a private setting is not illegal.
Fine, cap it - hopefully that will result in the number of class action lawsuits going down (a win-win!).
Remember, the "class" don't hire the lawyers, the lawyers are committing to the risk all on their own, no ones going to cover their costs if the lawsuit fails. So why should it be capped? If you want a higher rate of return, you can always opt out of the class action and bring your own lawsuit, but you are going to have to cover the risk yourself as well...
No, they don't have to provide it themselves, it's provided by the OS as it allows functionality between disparate GPUs.
I'm not "exactly wrong", I've been watching this entire shitfest since 1998 when I first used Linux - for the past 14 years the Linux community have consistently demanded more from Nvidia than Nvidia have frOm the Linux community, and you are still doing it.
And it's people like you that are trying to twist it into Nvidia doing something wrong - you want their product, but you want it on your specific terms as well.
Nvidia wouldn't be bothering at all if people weren't asking them to support their product on Linux, so it's definitely not them trying to push their wares uninvited like you are trying to suggest.
Nvidia doesn't have to "force" the Linux community to do anything - the Linux community give more of a fuck about having Nvidia support on Linux than Nvidia does about the small Linux market for its goods. All Nvidia are doing is saying "use it or don't use it, but don't pretend you are all that important to our bottom line".
What the Linux community is doing is demanding that the popular guy from high school comes to their party, but at the same time demanding that they can dictate what the popular guy wears, drinks and who he talks to if he does come.
Your argument is a bit off - this isn't about Nvidia wanting to use "Free software" in their "closed source programmes", it's about Nvidia wanting to use an advertised feature of the Linux kernel platform to enhance performance *on Linux*. Nvidia already have access to similar functionality on Windows and OSX (or will soon) - they won't be taking anything from Linux to Windows or OSX if they used the feature Linux advertises.
All this is doing is hurting ongoing performance on Linux, and people are trying to blame Nvidia because of it.
I don't think it's the fact that there was a failure, or the fact that the system proved resilient, it's the manner in which the failure manifested itself - an engine cutout, a fuel pump failure, or a vibration issue would be cause for a post launch investigation and a pat on the back, while a wholesale engine disintegration will trigger quite a significant inquiry and a heck of a lot of furrowed brows.
It's the difference in magnitude of failure which is the thing to note here.
Bullshit.
Have AMD solved their capacity issues, because that was why Apple went with Intel originally - AMD couldn't supply the quantities Apple wanted guaranteed, while Intel could.
Do you shave your scrotum?
Inertial effects on the pilot, if it has one - G forces and airframe stresses still exist in space, and so do the best methods for limiting them.
If he isn't just trolling about Windows, and instead does want to make a point about the "value of being able to install your own software", why is there an official Minecraft client for iOS?
Did he suddenly grow a pair because it's Microsoft?
Or is he just more likely to take a stand using a platform which isn't likely to lose him any money if he stays away from it because of his views?
I'm going to go with the last one...
The US regularly fines foreign airlines for price fixing and other market manipulation, despite them being foreign companies - so yes.
Who gives a fuck about morals, it's the local law - follow it or don't be all that upset if you end up doing some jail time.