PS: If I was looking for reliable and fast storage, it'd be 15K SAS drives at 4-10x the price of such things as Seagate Cheetahs. There's still nothing out there to beat a good reliable 15k SCSI drive. When they can make an SSD in that price range, then they'll have a market.
I'd like to know your source that 20 years is outside the life of any current SSD drive. I'd put the MTBF for such devices at 50+ years. Far outside the 3+ years for an OTS HD. Now once you go in WD Black drives and SAS drives, well that's a whole new category. Reliability comes at a cost. I'm not saying the $4000 SSD is a good buy. It's an intro price and as such is a premium. SSDs can make sense for a number of applications. When they come down more in price, I'll probably go that route. Also, there good and bad SSDs, just as in anything else in tech.
I don't know where you're getting your write cycle BS from, but here have some facts to go with your FUD.
Real SSDs today, will far outlast any HD you buy. Lifetimes are in decades, and will outlast the usability of every component in the computer it is initially built for.
The "guaranteed" writes of 100,000 is just meaningless. These suckers can do millions of writes.
Sure some of the no name models may not be as good. They may have bad design in write leveling. Which could impact the life of the device.
There is a bit of legal ground where one entity can strip away the veil of limited liability of a company and go after the officers. It's referred to as the Lanham Act. When officer's of a company do things that are heinous and or illegal under the veil of limited liability in the name of a corporation this act can strip away that protection and go after the people and all their possesions. Pushing them into bankruptcy and taking it almost all. It isn't over yet. you wait and see. They may be very old when it's all over. But a few of them might live to see jail time, and bankruptcy and the lose of their chalet in France.
Unless someone finds a way to remove Yarro's vocal cords we'll have not heard the last of this by any stretch of the imagination...
We're doomed to hear SCO's moanings until DNF is released.
There fixed that for ya. Darl is out. He boguht a pice at firesale prices and laffed it up. Novell may have the last laugh though. With a little bit of law referred to as the Lanham Act.
Secondly, I might would consider a pocket type hearing amplifier with a traditional earphone. It may save on expensive batteries and be easier on the ear physically.
Brilliant! FYI, I have one of those $3700 hearing aids. I also have a $2000 aid. One in ear, one over ear.
So your solution is to just stick a small powerful super amp in your ear and rapidly kill whatever hearing function is left. Rather than use an actual modern hearing aid. My father had one of those types of aids when I was growing up. Once my dad let me put to my ear. I could hear the electric meter spinning outside the house 20 feet away!
Both of my current aids use two techniques. One, they limit the max volume out, and secondly use ultralow sound to trigger the bones to vibrate. By getting the bones to vibrate in the right way, it triggers a correct response, but tuning it in can be tricky.
Furthermore to those other posters saying insurance covers it. Bull! Very few insurance policies cover hearing aids. Some do, but many do not. When they do, they only cover a percentage, of certain classes. Step outside the circle and you're on your own.
I saw that title and said Holy Crap Now I have to go search for patches pronto!
Can we add a feature to/. allowing us annoyed readers to electro-shock the submitters whenever they post such scary headlines?
I'm fairly certain that police can't come into my house and take my personal property even with a warrant unless it is something related to the search warrant. So, if they come into my house looking for stolen "statuary" they can't take my paintings or dvds or my Connect4, Five Little Monkeys, Candy Land or Scrabble games, because they in no way could be used to assist in solving a stolen statuary. why would they then be allowed to take my wife's hair from a jar? Now, for example in the above case, it might be possible to want to search the persons photos or computer for incriminating proof (ie surveillance photos of the crime scene, email communications, saved maps, etc.)
The reason for this is, say the police suspect you of a crime, so they get a warrant to search your property, if there were not limits that what they take is related to the crime, there would be nothing to stop them from taking EVERYTHING in the house, because it might lead to a clue. Now this would be a very powerful tool that the "justice" system could use to hammer people into submission. Why there might even be something hidden in the walls. they might just have to tear down the whole house to look for a clue.
I'm not mixing examples. I'm gave three examples.
1: Police without a warrant,
2: Police with a warrant, but unrelated to the object at hand,
3: Ordinary citizens, I've invited into the house.
I'm fairly certain, that inviting someone in your house doesn't give them the right to take your dvds or dvd player. That includes the police. The police can take things from a house they suspect are proof of or involved in a crime, once they have legal entry. That legal entry is by either warrant or by being invited in. If you let a cop into your house he is perfectly within his rights, and the law, to go to your PC and search for illicit child multimedia, provided it is powered on and a user already logged in. My point is hair or any body part IS and MUST be personal property, up to the point of that person discarding it.
I know plenty of barely literate Windows users using Windows ripping tools, with equal ease as geeks with their geeky ones. The Studios have already lost, because they have the same faulty perception as you do. It's not just geeks; it's 16 year old cheerleaders, and 50 year business owners, and the old lady down the street. I even know a few old ladies running Linux desktops (why because when you're retired you have limited income, and Linux is God Damn cheap). It's all over except the shouting, but the Studios are too busy shouting to hear the silence from the other side.
Or, alternatively, Apple could document these APIs which give Apple the upper hand and third party developers at Apple's mercy for creating their own app to replace them. It seems to me, and I'm surprised none of the paranoid/.ers have mentioned this, that Apple is doing this so they can see what apps are really popular so they can create their own apps using the private frameworks which give them superior performance. Has Apple recently hired MS defectees? Or maybe I'm the only paranoid one.
The reason people are using these private frameworks is they're BETTER than the ones Apple deems developers are allowed to use. No matter how you break it down it's all about power and control. I certainly agree that Apple allowing the use of undocumented APIs and private frameworks is bad for Apple, and they should prevent it. Hoewever, Apple should open these one up that are turning out to be useful. Rather than kill the messenger, they should listen and respond appropriately.
Ok, so I have no legal right to my body parts. What you're saying is, that the police can come into my house without a warrant and take hair out of my wife's hair jar (a gift from her grandmother, a device used by women long ago to collect hair to later weave hair into artforms). Because it is not property? Or in the alternative, they can take it, even if it's not something they are looking for, or that anyone who comes into my house legally can take it, because it's not property. I think, you're a little confused there. Also, Roe vs. Wade recognizes a person's right of control over their own body and "parts" (sorry if this term offends). I think you're overreaching there a bit in your argument.
I think what you meant is that discarded body parts aren't property in the sense that you can control it. In the cases cited here, they all concern discarded property. Once you give it away or throw it away, you've discarded it and no longer have any rights to it. It's no longer your property.
This is/. and there are no geeks here with girlfriends. Although an odd few do somehow manage to get wives.
So, no he probably can't make more time available by making love to his girlfriend a few less time times per week Now perhaps he could make love to his imaginary girlfriend a few less times per week.
Someone has secured the site, or deleted it. The link no longer works, and here I was going to look for a robots.txt file. Rats! Foiled again!. Not even a login prompt. It may be:[Agent86 voice] "they used the old use the/. effect to bring the server crashing down and thereby securing it from all those pesky hackers" trick.[/Agent86 voice]
Curiously, they specifically make it sound like all 3,727 page hits were from the hacks at the Herald, but clearly state the "some of them" came from the Herald. So, what is the actual number from the Herald hacks? Hmmm... I'd buy that for a dollar!
Well, flu vaccines do have a rather alarming history of actually killing the patients. No one in my family, that I know of gets these vaccines. I certainly don't get them for my daughter. She has an immune system. I see no reason to get a vaccine for something that she'll never get twice and isn't likely to really hurt her, except for a mild fever and aches for a few days.
She does get the "real" vaccines for things like meningitis and MMR and that stuff, although I demand they not use the versions with heavy metals in them (ie mercury). Not for fear of Autism, but mercury is bad stuff, sure it's a minute amount, but until the feds set a safe level for mercury, I staying away from it.
I find it telling that there is NO known safe level of exposure to mercury, in any form. So, I can understand people's fears. I just opt for version that avoids that question. Why take a version that has mercury in it, when there's another version of the same thing without it? Heavy metals are known to be bad for ya. Why would you ever take some in on purpose?
So why don't I consider the "flu vaccines" real vaccines. because you have to get one once or twice a year. I consider a vaccine a one time and forget it for a decade or life. Flu mutates too rapidly, and they aren't tested to the same level as other vaccines are, either btw. Well, except for the rare pandemic versions (once a generation?).
I didn't realize we were limiting the discussion to modern vehicles. Well if we're going to exclude all of those older carbureted cars from the list of cars then yes, there is no need to warm a car up much before traveling, although AAA still recommends warming up for at least a minute in cold conditions and then starting off easy. But carbureted cars really do need to warm up, or you could be in for some nasty surprises.
Oh yeah, and another side affect of having a cell phone start your car is posting an article about your car phone starter, which then invites nefarious/.ers to find your cell pone number and then having your car/.ed. Hope he's got a few spare starters. A good way to burn up a starter is to keep starting the car once it's already running.
According to every automotive expert I've ever read or talked to, starting you car in cold temperatures is bad for you engine, and taking off in a car that hasn't warmed up properly is even worse. Apparently you've never lived anyplace with sub-zero temperatures, and neither has Consumer reports or the Tappet Brothers.
That said, this device seems a bit overkill. Especially for a hacker. How about a simple relay switch powered by PIC or Atmel chip and a garage door opener. The PIC or Atmel chip being the brains of the circuit to test for, among other things: "is the car already running", "is this an authorized signal", "is the car in park", etc. Now of course handling those cases would require interaction with the existing onboard system. Which is why they sell kits that already implement these functions. Or you can hack your own together as I've stated, or do really stupid dangerous things like the article states. One possible consequence of the cell phone approach is, having your car started by some stranger who fat-fingered their friend's phone number, and sends 50 text messages in rapid fire order. Hoo haa.
Can't say, I wasn't in the meeting. Probably because the fees demanded were less than what a lawyer to defend would cost. But feel free to ask an IP lawyer. Also, if it were true that licenses needed to be paid, then why are the books available freely online at gutenberg.org. Why isn't the family going after them? Because they can't. By your logic, any use of the characters violates the rights in the still protected work and thus even those in the public domain aren't really in the public domain and can't be republished without paying licensing fees. You logic is circular and flawed. Yes, you're wrong. Whoever told them they needed to pay licensing fees was a fool, or had ulterior motives. Hope that clears things up for you.
NASA uncovers volcanic rock on a planet with the Solar System's largest volcano (Mons Olympus). Scientists say it must have come from deep inside the planet and could not have formed on the surface. Scientists get all giddy. Film at 11. Call me crazy, but why didn't they just state it came from a volcanic eruption? And how do they know it's not a meteor? Why all the drama. Sure it's cool to find volcanic rocks, or any new kind of rock, especially on Mars, but why all the mystery and misdirection? Why can't science be cool just for science's sake? Ugh.
And consequently (particularly for those making movies) the key characters and associated details remain protected, preventing their use by others.
How can I state this?
You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
You're completely and totally FUD spouting wrong.
You're blazingly , amazingly wrong.
Where did you ever get such an absurdly wrong notion, that characters are protectable as long as one version of the character, in a story is under copyright. Works are protected, not individual characters and elements. The characters are protected, because of the work, not the work because of the characters. This is why Disney is pushing so hard to keep people from knowing Mickey Mouse has entered the public domain, as long as you use the Steamboat Willy version of Mickey Mouse. The newer version is still protected. the older one not, due to a flaw in the registration of the copyright.
Well, except for the fact the article is wrong on several accounts and so are the heirs, interesting article.
First, it was the 1997 Sono Bono copyright act that extended the copyright for the single Sherlock Holmes book published after 1922, but the rmaining Sherlock Holmes books have long ago entered the public domain. Therefore the character is public domain, but no derivative work based on the 1927 Sherlock Holmes book can be made until 2017.
But don't take my word for it, see for yourself at gutenberg.org.
Slashdot Mirror
PS: If I was looking for reliable and fast storage, it'd be 15K SAS drives at 4-10x the price of such things as Seagate Cheetahs. There's still nothing out there to beat a good reliable 15k SCSI drive. When they can make an SSD in that price range, then they'll have a market.
I'd like to know your source that 20 years is outside the life of any current SSD drive. I'd put the MTBF for such devices at 50+ years. Far outside the 3+ years for an OTS HD. Now once you go in WD Black drives and SAS drives, well that's a whole new category. Reliability comes at a cost. I'm not saying the $4000 SSD is a good buy. It's an intro price and as such is a premium. SSDs can make sense for a number of applications. When they come down more in price, I'll probably go that route. Also, there good and bad SSDs, just as in anything else in tech.
I don't know where you're getting your write cycle BS from, but here have some facts to go with your FUD.
Real SSDs today, will far outlast any HD you buy. Lifetimes are in decades, and will outlast the usability of every component in the computer it is initially built for.
The "guaranteed" writes of 100,000 is just meaningless. These suckers can do millions of writes.
Sure some of the no name models may not be as good. They may have bad design in write leveling. Which could impact the life of the device.
There is a bit of legal ground where one entity can strip away the veil of limited liability of a company and go after the officers. It's referred to as the Lanham Act. When officer's of a company do things that are heinous and or illegal under the veil of limited liability in the name of a corporation this act can strip away that protection and go after the people and all their possesions. Pushing them into bankruptcy and taking it almost all. It isn't over yet. you wait and see. They may be very old when it's all over. But a few of them might live to see jail time, and bankruptcy and the lose of their chalet in France.
Unless someone finds a way to remove Yarro's vocal cords we'll have not heard the last of this by any stretch of the imagination...
We're doomed to hear SCO's moanings until DNF is released.
There fixed that for ya. Darl is out. He boguht a pice at firesale prices and laffed it up. Novell may have the last laugh though. With a little bit of law referred to as the Lanham Act.
Secondly, I might would consider a pocket type hearing amplifier with a traditional earphone. It may save on expensive batteries and be easier on the ear physically.
Brilliant! FYI, I have one of those $3700 hearing aids. I also have a $2000 aid. One in ear, one over ear.
So your solution is to just stick a small powerful super amp in your ear and rapidly kill whatever hearing function is left. Rather than use an actual modern hearing aid. My father had one of those types of aids when I was growing up. Once my dad let me put to my ear. I could hear the electric meter spinning outside the house 20 feet away!
Both of my current aids use two techniques. One, they limit the max volume out, and secondly use ultralow sound to trigger the bones to vibrate. By getting the bones to vibrate in the right way, it triggers a correct response, but tuning it in can be tricky.
Furthermore to those other posters saying insurance covers it. Bull! Very few insurance policies cover hearing aids. Some do, but many do not. When they do, they only cover a percentage, of certain classes. Step outside the circle and you're on your own.
He's not much of a web developer either. The site takes so long to launch, I thought it was /.ed.
Alas, it's just slow as AOhelL.
I saw that title and said Holy Crap Now I have to go search for patches pronto! /. allowing us annoyed readers to electro-shock the submitters whenever they post such scary headlines?
Can we add a feature to
I'm fairly certain that police can't come into my house and take my personal property even with a warrant unless it is something related to the search warrant. So, if they come into my house looking for stolen "statuary" they can't take my paintings or dvds or my Connect4, Five Little Monkeys, Candy Land or Scrabble games, because they in no way could be used to assist in solving a stolen statuary. why would they then be allowed to take my wife's hair from a jar? Now, for example in the above case, it might be possible to want to search the persons photos or computer for incriminating proof (ie surveillance photos of the crime scene, email communications, saved maps, etc.)
The reason for this is, say the police suspect you of a crime, so they get a warrant to search your property, if there were not limits that what they take is related to the crime, there would be nothing to stop them from taking EVERYTHING in the house, because it might lead to a clue. Now this would be a very powerful tool that the "justice" system could use to hammer people into submission. Why there might even be something hidden in the walls. they might just have to tear down the whole house to look for a clue.
I'm not mixing examples. I'm gave three examples.
1: Police without a warrant,
2: Police with a warrant, but unrelated to the object at hand,
3: Ordinary citizens, I've invited into the house.
I'm fairly certain, that inviting someone in your house doesn't give them the right to take your dvds or dvd player. That includes the police. The police can take things from a house they suspect are proof of or involved in a crime, once they have legal entry. That legal entry is by either warrant or by being invited in. If you let a cop into your house he is perfectly within his rights, and the law, to go to your PC and search for illicit child multimedia, provided it is powered on and a user already logged in. My point is hair or any body part IS and MUST be personal property, up to the point of that person discarding it.
I know plenty of barely literate Windows users using Windows ripping tools, with equal ease as geeks with their geeky ones. The Studios have already lost, because they have the same faulty perception as you do. It's not just geeks; it's 16 year old cheerleaders, and 50 year business owners, and the old lady down the street. I even know a few old ladies running Linux desktops (why because when you're retired you have limited income, and Linux is God Damn cheap). It's all over except the shouting, but the Studios are too busy shouting to hear the silence from the other side.
I almost feel sorry for them.
Or, alternatively, Apple could document these APIs which give Apple the upper hand and third party developers at Apple's mercy for creating their own app to replace them. It seems to me, and I'm surprised none of the paranoid /.ers have mentioned this, that Apple is doing this so they can see what apps are really popular so they can create their own apps using the private frameworks which give them superior performance. Has Apple recently hired MS defectees? Or maybe I'm the only paranoid one.
The reason people are using these private frameworks is they're BETTER than the ones Apple deems developers are allowed to use. No matter how you break it down it's all about power and control. I certainly agree that Apple allowing the use of undocumented APIs and private frameworks is bad for Apple, and they should prevent it. Hoewever, Apple should open these one up that are turning out to be useful. Rather than kill the messenger, they should listen and respond appropriately.
Oh wait, this is Apple. Nevermind.
Ok, so I have no legal right to my body parts. What you're saying is, that the police can come into my house without a warrant and take hair out of my wife's hair jar (a gift from her grandmother, a device used by women long ago to collect hair to later weave hair into artforms). Because it is not property? Or in the alternative, they can take it, even if it's not something they are looking for, or that anyone who comes into my house legally can take it, because it's not property. I think, you're a little confused there. Also, Roe vs. Wade recognizes a person's right of control over their own body and "parts" (sorry if this term offends). I think you're overreaching there a bit in your argument.
I think what you meant is that discarded body parts aren't property in the sense that you can control it. In the cases cited here, they all concern discarded property. Once you give it away or throw it away, you've discarded it and no longer have any rights to it. It's no longer your property.
This is /. and there are no geeks here with girlfriends. Although an odd few do somehow manage to get wives.
So, no he probably can't make more time available by making love to his girlfriend a few less time times per week
Now perhaps he could make love to his imaginary girlfriend a few less times per week.
Someone has secured the site, or deleted it. The link no longer works, and here I was going to look for a robots.txt file. Rats! Foiled again!. Not even a login prompt. It may be:[Agent86 voice] "they used the old use the /. effect to bring the server crashing down and thereby securing it from all those pesky hackers" trick.[/Agent86 voice]
Curiously, they specifically make it sound like all 3,727 page hits were from the hacks at the Herald, but clearly state the "some of them" came from the Herald. So, what is the actual number from the Herald hacks? Hmmm... I'd buy that for a dollar!
Well, flu vaccines do have a rather alarming history of actually killing the patients. No one in my family, that I know of gets these vaccines. I certainly don't get them for my daughter. She has an immune system. I see no reason to get a vaccine for something that she'll never get twice and isn't likely to really hurt her, except for a mild fever and aches for a few days.
She does get the "real" vaccines for things like meningitis and MMR and that stuff, although I demand they not use the versions with heavy metals in them (ie mercury). Not for fear of Autism, but mercury is bad stuff, sure it's a minute amount, but until the feds set a safe level for mercury, I staying away from it.
I find it telling that there is NO known safe level of exposure to mercury, in any form. So, I can understand people's fears. I just opt for version that avoids that question. Why take a version that has mercury in it, when there's another version of the same thing without it? Heavy metals are known to be bad for ya. Why would you ever take some in on purpose?
So why don't I consider the "flu vaccines" real vaccines. because you have to get one once or twice a year. I consider a vaccine a one time and forget it for a decade or life. Flu mutates too rapidly, and they aren't tested to the same level as other vaccines are, either btw. Well, except for the rare pandemic versions (once a generation?).
I didn't realize we were limiting the discussion to modern vehicles. Well if we're going to exclude all of those older carbureted cars from the list of cars then yes, there is no need to warm a car up much before traveling, although AAA still recommends warming up for at least a minute in cold conditions and then starting off easy. But carbureted cars really do need to warm up, or you could be in for some nasty surprises.
Really? What states are those?
Oh yeah, and another side affect of having a cell phone start your car is posting an article about your car phone starter, which then invites nefarious /.ers to find your cell pone number and then having your car /.ed. Hope he's got a few spare starters. A good way to burn up a starter is to keep starting the car once it's already running.
According to every automotive expert I've ever read or talked to, starting you car in cold temperatures is bad for you engine, and taking off in a car that hasn't warmed up properly is even worse. Apparently you've never lived anyplace with sub-zero temperatures, and neither has Consumer reports or the Tappet Brothers.
That said, this device seems a bit overkill. Especially for a hacker. How about a simple relay switch powered by PIC or Atmel chip and a garage door opener. The PIC or Atmel chip being the brains of the circuit to test for, among other things: "is the car already running", "is this an authorized signal", "is the car in park", etc. Now of course handling those cases would require interaction with the existing onboard system. Which is why they sell kits that already implement these functions. Or you can hack your own together as I've stated, or do really stupid dangerous things like the article states. One possible consequence of the cell phone approach is, having your car started by some stranger who fat-fingered their friend's phone number, and sends 50 text messages in rapid fire order. Hoo haa.
Can't say, I wasn't in the meeting. Probably because the fees demanded were less than what a lawyer to defend would cost. But feel free to ask an IP lawyer. Also, if it were true that licenses needed to be paid, then why are the books available freely online at gutenberg.org. Why isn't the family going after them? Because they can't. By your logic, any use of the characters violates the rights in the still protected work and thus even those in the public domain aren't really in the public domain and can't be republished without paying licensing fees. You logic is circular and flawed. Yes, you're wrong. Whoever told them they needed to pay licensing fees was a fool, or had ulterior motives. Hope that clears things up for you.
NASA uncovers volcanic rock on a planet with the Solar System's largest volcano (Mons Olympus). Scientists say it must have come from deep inside the planet and could not have formed on the surface. Scientists get all giddy. Film at 11. Call me crazy, but why didn't they just state it came from a volcanic eruption? And how do they know it's not a meteor? Why all the drama. Sure it's cool to find volcanic rocks, or any new kind of rock, especially on Mars, but why all the mystery and misdirection? Why can't science be cool just for science's sake? Ugh.
And consequently (particularly for those making movies) the key characters and associated details remain protected, preventing their use by others.
How can I state this?
You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
You're completely and totally FUD spouting wrong.
You're blazingly , amazingly wrong.
Where did you ever get such an absurdly wrong notion, that characters are protectable as long as one version of the character, in a story is under copyright. Works are protected, not individual characters and elements. The characters are protected, because of the work, not the work because of the characters. This is why Disney is pushing so hard to keep people from knowing Mickey Mouse has entered the public domain, as long as you use the Steamboat Willy version of Mickey Mouse. The newer version is still protected. the older one not, due to a flaw in the registration of the copyright.
Well, except for the fact the article is wrong on several accounts and so are the heirs, interesting article.
First, it was the 1997 Sono Bono copyright act that extended the copyright for the single Sherlock Holmes book published after 1922, but the rmaining Sherlock Holmes books have long ago entered the public domain. Therefore the character is public domain, but no derivative work based on the 1927 Sherlock Holmes book can be made until 2017.
But don't take my word for it, see for yourself at gutenberg.org.
Life, it's bad fer ya.
Might as well kill yourself now and get it over with.
Or do what I do. Live every day as if you're going to die today,
and try to die doing what you love.
This is not the only sound based non-lethal weapon used by the IAF
This is not the only sound based lethal weapon used by the IAF.
There fixed that for you.
Hmm ... sound can kill. Thank you Captain Obvious for pointing that out to us ... ... ... ...
again
and again
and again