I can't figure out how they can push those cases. Why can't the farmers sue Monsanto for damages -- contaminating their crops with defective "seed" that won't breed.
In another context: I release a "toxin" into the air, that sterilizes the next generation of every plant it comes in contact with. Those in turn can fertilize the next generation to sterilize their offspring. Eventually all plant life is wiped out.
You're a rare weirdo. Much of the web won't work without scripting, or at least won't work well.
Count me as another. Not only "Noscript", but a javascript&cookie filtering firewall set to default block everything not explicitly permitted. That's behind a linux proxy server (windows boxes on unroutable, internal subnet) which is behind a hardware firewall box.
May not be perfect, but I haven't had a break-in yet... (~7+ years managing my own broadband vs. using employer's and their firewall).
Why does stupid shit like this keep getting posted to the front page?
Cuz there are different opinions about what might be best.
You have your 4-disk, Raid5 array, whereas I'd recommend buying 2x400 for a RAID0 and 1 750GB drive for daily backups (not mirror, see "xfsdump" or "dump"). You shouldn't fill your "fast" drives more than ~80%, so with 2x400 you would get approx 800GdB, raw, giving you ~600GB usable space after formatting and round-down (decimal disk GB's) to binary. When you buy a 1TB, cycle it in for the backup and use the 750GB as slower "data" storage. Maybe next the 1.2TB's will be out, so save up for another 750GB (if you really like the RAID0 idea), to RAID with the previous 750GB and use the 1.2TB for backup. By then your 400's will likely be ready to retire (~2-3 years before alt-sector mappings slow down your RAID enough to be noticeable)....and so on and so forth.
Another option -- use a separate system for the backup disks. Who backs up to tape these days? Tapes are too slow, too low capacity and low benefit/cost ratio unless you need to store long term backups and not overwrite your backup media. I usually find I can keep 3-4 months of system & data backups before I have to recycle space, but that's usually quite acceptable for a home server.
Oh, yeah -- invest in "smart" (one's that condition power, like APC SmartUPS 1000's: you can add longer runtime to the 1000's, but not the 1500's) UPS's -- _at least_ enough for slow, graceful shutdowns or better -- until you setup the Honda, "suitable for electronics" (EU2000i is reasonable, portable, and partly mirror-able with a 2nd generator) generator(s). With enough generator power you can keep your media center up and running during a multi-hour power outage and still have enough to keep the fridge cold.
The song-storage vendor ("a song bank") seems like they had a really bad lawyer or a really tech-ignorant judge. How is this different than me storing goods at any institution, from storage lockers, to bank-safety deposit boxes, to electronic representations of "wealth" (money, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, CD's, DVD's...)...
They bank or brokerage doesn't own my goods. No "transfer of ownership" has taken place. They can't just take my deposit box contents (assuming I pay my fees). Goods I transfer into a bank or brokerage are still my goods. The bank or brokerage may make money via transaction or rental fees, or in the case of a song bank, I might have to listen to a 15 second advertisement before my song downloads...I dunno. Do the Japanese not allow me to rent space or property or have my account managed by an "institution"?
I'm then able to take my "token" (bank credit/debit card, for example), and access my account remotely. In the same way, perhaps, my cell phone number could be the ID on my call-in account. Aren't some cell phone vendors making provisions for using a cellphone as a "swipe'N'pay" device? Seems like storage of id, debit or credit card numbers in a cell phone that can be transmitted to a merchant can allow for phone purchases. Of course those numbers would be "locked" on a phone -- requiring a PIN or or thumbprint to access.
Sounds like the legal case was botched. Besides, Japanese law doesn't usually set precedent in English or American courts.
Beg to differ on Elder Scrolls/Oblivion world, if that's what you were referring to. I wanted to try some games but didn't want to spend my life connected to an unending online world. I liked Oblivion as it allowed me to play the game at my level and the way I wanted to play it. The extension system is probably some of that, but more important was console access. I didn't have to spend hours and weeks killing flies and insects to build up a character. I could create a character, but give myself Xena/Lara Croft type powers -- I could explore the world at whatever risk I wanted to assume.
I look at it like what, I guess, I'd like to see more of -- an interactive "movie", with an "openish" script (Tomb Raider series is a bit too closed (at least in Legend)); there were even some chafing under script limits in Oblivion, but it was much more flexible in allow me to change order of things. Sad to say, one side benefit of having the console -- I was able to work around a few published bugs -- things I didn't know were bugs when I was playing it, they were just a few places where I seemed to be stuck. With the console, I could get around game bugs. In later reading in forums, I found that the few places I was really stuck were known "bugs". Problems like that in TR:Legend forced one to go back to the beginning of a level which usually wasn't too far as the game was about 1/8th the length of Oblivion.
The main point is that if Oblivion was an "online world", you'd have tons of "hardcore" games who would want to tell you *how* to play the game. Console access would be "cheating". I'd have to spend tons of time doing piddly stuff that someone thought I should have to do before getting to some "main battle[s]". I wouldn't enjoy it. I would be unlikely to buy something from that game company again. I don't enjoy *building* a character up as slowly as one does in most online-games. But in online games, slow buildup is almost required in order to create a hierarchy of players who have spent months of their life playing the game vs. someone who wants some casual fun. Seems like so many of these games turn into some sort of online hierarchy, which is about as much fun to me as... joining the army! Not my cup of tea.
I wouldn't like being forced to wait for someone else to go on an adventure -- what if I can't sleep and want to play for 15-20 minutes (or 30-60...) till I get tired? I have to plan to meet someone? I have to march with a stranger? Been there, done that -- had all my equipment picked off my body by surviving party members, so I definitely didn't get the T-shirt.
I sure hope games like Oblivion don't go away. I like to be "in my own movie" where my actions determine the outcome and direction of the story.
People put up with it because they have little or no choice.
Products compete on price and glitz, not reliability or security.
Reliability and security were supposed to be _givens_ -- something you didn't pay attention to because they were minimum standards. Unfortunately, because most people were focusing on "glitz", "over here", software manufacturers were quickly taking money and resources from "QA" and security and putting them where they could get the best return on their money -- in "glitz".
Despite the tons of bugs in almost all software, how often do you see a company do a "bug-fix-only" release? Most people wouldn't pay for such a release -- or wouldn't pay "much". That's the problem. People don't want to pay for a bug-fix-only release, because they assume the product wouldn't be released if it was "faulty".
Unfortunately, I tend to agree. It would be painful to go back now and rewrite all existing software to be "bug free" or "fault free". Many might argue that it would bankrupt the industry -- maybe it would. But consumers have gotten used to a certain level of merchandise quality in the market.
If a product is "faulty", it gets recalled, or replaced or repaired -- at the manufacturer's expense. At least this is true for "most" consumer products. However, for whatever reason, software companies have convinced everyone that following the same standard as virtually every other product on the market place would just be "too hard". "Cost too much".
So often people complain about "cars", citing the computer industry where computers are 1000's of times faster and cheaper than 30-40 years ago and if cars had made such progress, we'd have cars getting a 1000 mpg with 0-60 acceleration or deceleration in 2-3 seconds...etc. But people usually don't think about the reverse -- if cars develop faults, people's lives may be endangered. The manufacturer, knowing they can be held liable, issues a safety recall. With software -- software manufacturers sell products, not only without warranty, but with explicit disclaimers that the software being bought is good for _no_ purpose.
Imagine buying any consumer product that not only claims it is good for "no purpose", but where the manufacturer claims it isn't a sale, but you are "leasing" the product from them and your rights concerning the product are limited --- with all the baggage that software "licenses", supposedly, limit you to. The idea of applying software "restrictions" to every and any other purchase seems laughable. Imagine your house being good for no purpose (including as shelter)...etc. Maybe airlines should start putting shrink-wrap licenses on the seat-backs. If you don't accept the seat-back license, you are free to get up and get off the plane. Otherwise, you consent to complete abrogation of your rights. Maybe it's just a matter of time...
But but, Comcast keeps telling me how good they are, like how their 6MBit offering is 5 times faster than 1.2MB DSL. But hey, DSL's 6MB offering is 5 times faster than 1.2MB cable....but wait, what about guaranteed speed to the first 'hub'/'switch'? Or how about to the nearest DNS/news server on my Service Provider's network? "Up to 5 or 6 times faster", yeah, but 5-6x faster at 3am doesn't help me at 5-7pm when neighborhood congestion slows things down. Don't know about now, but I know they don't run a dedicated line to each subscriber and they used to oversubscribe neighborhoods giving speeds as low as 9600 baud. Doesn't happen with my DSL...I don't line share with anyone on the last leg. Comcrap doesn't get it. And yes -- their signal and service are both crappy. My cable bill is on auto-pay. One month, they were late in withdrawing payment -- so they penalized me for late payment. When I called to correct it, they issued a credit, but didn't factor in "interest", so I still have to call in again for another $1.20. credit.
It's not much, but that's why they screw things up -- hoping that customers will just let them keep the $1.20. Multiply that by enough customers... Then they keep dropping channels every year. This year, they dropped two CW channels and are instead creating their own "internal feed" -- using the CW network feed, then adding their own local content, all because they can provide more advertising. As it is, they cut shows off early before the end of an "act" (or scene), to squeeze in another 15-30 seconds of playtime.
They also, in their extreme incompetence, have the timing off in stomping on network-fed commercial spots, so you'll see network commercials start for 1-2 seconds, then they are cut off with local comcraptic generated spots. They also are super anal about cutting off feeds that duplicate local shows, even when the local shows are preempted, or have already shown (meaning you miss them), or when the local station is trying to kill the show's audience by putting it on in the 1-6am timeslot. Used to be Andromeda, Mutant X, Stargate, and Outer Limits could all be seen Saturday afternoon, but now they're blocked with the local affiliate showing them in a 1-5am timeslot Sunday morning. Get to sit through tons of "Red-Hot Dateline Girls" ads...yeah...with real live local girls!! That and 2x times the ads with storyline cut to allow the extra advertising.
Oh, yeah, an they really muck up the sound on some stations -- like down-mixing 5.1 Dolby signals from digital by dropping the center and back channels and upping the bass out the side channels. Makes voices, often unintelligible -- they do it alot on the Sci-Fi channel -- a friend who used to have the problem on Comcrap moved to a different suburb and got Cox. All the problems with volume, commercial cutting, and station blocking went away. Amazing how many vendors/merchants now gouge customers as standard business because they can.
Just mentioning their crap service gets me all wound up...
Microsoft has no legitimate reason to identify users, so assume motive to be evil. another reason to run Linux or a Mac
Your logic is flawed in multiple ways.
1) legitimate reason: MS is a SW company providing solutions to customers. Big problem online is proving you are who you say you are to a 3rd party. How does a merchant verify I am who I say I am (and that they are not taking on a fraudulent transaction which they will be held responsible for)? How does bank or stock broker verify it is you doing a money transfer or stock transaction? How can I prove my age complies with laws regarding age? Are you "thirteen"? Are you "eighteen"? Are you "twenty-one"? If the good senator from N/S. Carolina is determined to enact age-verification to adult websites, do you have to give a credit card with your age that maybe could be verified against a card-holder database? How can you verify age? How do Ebay parties verify they aren't entering into a scam?
These are all "legitimate" areas where there is a need for some type of user identification/verification. It is a legitimate problem in doing commerce on the web. A software company has every "legitimate" right to attempt to create a solution. So your first statement and its conclusion regarding motive is flawed.
Regarding your second statement about this being a reason to use a different OS. That's also logically flawed, since we are identifying people from browsing habits -- something that would be OS neutral. People still browse with Linux and Mac-based computers. In fact, using an alternate browser and OS puts you in a minority of sorts -- providing additional identification factors. If you wanted to remain "anonymous", standing out from the crowd isn't a great way to do it.
That people agreed with you and marked you insightful only shows how many others on slashdot have similarly faulty logic.
How is this, or "is this", different than "sampling"? I.e. -- in the audio industry, I had (have) the vague impression that one had to have permission to include samples of someone else's song as a component in a new song.
Perhaps the legality hinges on this being a non-commercial work, whereas if it was commercial, Disney could be all over them?
What a fine line.... and yes...it is a shame that our current congress gives special regard and protection to corporations at the expense of the "people" / society / "the public".
Our society is that much "poorer" in that corporations have managed to "steal" their content from what used to be public domain (i.e. the time after the original 14 (17?) year copyright period).
Does flicker want "safe harbor" / common carrier type protection under the DMCA? Doesn't the "safe harbor" status apply to websites who claim they don't have the time or resources to "pre-censor" people's posts?
If flickr does have time, I take it they don't care about "safe harbor" protections?
By your reasoning, one could argue all patents should be shot down. Everything is describable by formulae. Everything is energy, what we call matter is a type of bound energy particles that can be released, if by nothing else, their anti-particle. Everything else is just a formula -- we just don't know the formula yet. But if we say all formulae are unpatentable, then what is patentable.
A drug company develops a new drug -- it is just a "formula". By your logic, why should they be able to own a "formula"?
Conversely, I would agree that way too many patents are given in software for what amounts to "basic math". They simply write a formula describing a physical-world event (that itself is describable via formulae) and call it new? Pah! Things like reverse auctions, or "sell-it-now" pricing -- those shouldn't be patentable. They are not "inventions".
A new and unheard of way to calculate a square-root that reduces square-root computations by Order N^0.5 might be something I'd call patentable. It would be a new "invention" -- a new way to do something old. However, I'm not sure the patent term for software should be the same as for physical products since the software life cycle is much shorter, but if someone does research into a new way to factor numbers, and comes up with a new method, why is that not an invention?
The article has alot of interesting info, but the "supposed" patent cross-licensing-non-sue agreement was purchased by Microsoft from Novell for an initial $348 million payment with Novell agreeing to pay some royalties for Linux sales of at least $40 million (more depending on profits). So Novell got $308 million minus some extra-profit royalties. And people think Novell "licensed" patents from Microsoft? Who bought patents and protection from whom?
Novell agreed to give Microsoft a percentage of all its Linux revenue through 2011 (or a minimum of $40 million).
Microsoft agreed to pay Novell $240 million for "coupons" that it could then resell to customers . In addition, Microsoft gave Novell another $108 million as a "balancing payment" in connection with the patent part of the deal.
Seems like the problems mentioned wouldn't be problems if there were some artificial gravity. Perhaps adding spin to part or all of the air craft?
I keep wondering when they are going to build the Space Station -- the one shaped like a bicycle wheel. I keep expecting they'll make progress "someday", but they continue to hang out in the "temporary quarters".
Certainly, the space station should move toward being a more livable "habitat", which, it seems, should include gravity? Would.1G or so be difficult? Can we make the station strong enough to support some minimal spin? It would seem to make many things "easier", even though we want 0G for some tests. Have a core section that doesn't spin for the 0G tests.
The above got marked "informative"? Should be marked "duplicate".
Common sense started dying out in the 60's-70's. Now you need warning labels on portable baby seats to tell the parents not to fold the child up in the seat when closing it for storage and medical symptom alerts on sleep-aids to warn that they "may cause drowsiness".
If they want the viewership, put it on NBC at same time or separate days like Heroes. Maybe Sunday on SciFi then the following Friday on NBC.. or SciFi-Fri, then following Sunday on NBC.
It might cannibalize the numbers on SciFi a bit, but to justify the production costs of the show, it would alot more likely to get the numbers. It's being limited by SciFi being cable-only.
This "protection mechanism" will be broken, just like every other one has been. If it only need to be activated, professional criminals will have access to the tools necessary to activate the DVD player. It will be useless and only aggravate the life of the consumer, so it will come and go just like other protection systems.
I think you are missing the point. They are trying to prevent "shoplifting". It's not trying to control some "legal" activity -- it's attempting to cut down on people walking out the store with a DVD in hand. As for "professional criminals", how many CD's do you think professional criminals shoplift? I didn't know one could be a professional shoplifter.
As for "aggravating" the life of consumers, the device is like the locks in rental dvd cases -- that keep it closed so the DVD can't be removed. When the consumer "buys" the product (a rental), the lock is removed. I don't see it increasing aggravation in legal consumers. But perhaps you are referring to aggravation to the illegal consumers (shoplifters)?
The article mentions improving gasoline mileage to meet or exceed current diesel technology, but mentions in the next paragraph that the tech can also be used with diesel. With production diesels in low 70's (Audi, Volkswagen) to the 157MPG, Loremo LS, a 10-15% improvement would yield seemingly astounding figures.
It may be 1 year, more or less, but after getting rebate and switching, can't you switch back to flat usage?
A TOU-rate, should benefit a properly outfitted solar customer -- they could sell 32cent kwh during day, and only pay 10cent kwh during evening. During the day is when you should get the most use off of a solar system.
I don't know that I believe it is a bad thing for PG&E to want to measure electricity -- if they don't measure, how do they find out whether or not the rebate program is cost effective? How can they do the research in "average", "real" homes? Does converting to solar help or does it encourage higher energy usage due to a drop in overall rates?
Since CA utils are strapped for electricity (years of NIMBY protests keeping plants from being built anywhere) and their most costly time to provide energy is during the day -- how can they "encourage" customers to use less (or generate more) electricity during the day when needed, vs. evening when the system is less stressed?
The PG&E rebate on solar is only part of the refund package, no? Isn't there a state refund as well, or are those the same thing?
I've thought about converting to TOU, but I don't know if it would benefit or hurt me. I don't have air conditioning, but I am home. Probably less use during day, but I don't know if it would be enough to save.
At least by requiring an initial change to TOU, PG&E can measure the average benefit provided by solar and use that in future planning, rebates, etc. Otherwise, how can they tell? Wouldn't they be "flying blind", otherwise?
Regardless of your opinion of legality -- are you sure that the lawyers of your company would agree with your position? I.e. if the B.S.A. did an audit, could your legal come up with the relevant licenses or "legalese" to protect the company?
Remember, the law is not about the "truth" -- it is only about what the lawyers can convince a judge or jury of, as "true", that counts. Whether it represents truth or your interpretation of "legal" is not relevant.;^/. Having seen trial cases where lawyers, with the aid of paid-expert testimony, essentially claimed the sky was the color of green peas, and win -- I realized our legal system has very little to do with the common person's idea of "truth".
You could cause yourself a world of hurt to no productive end. Principles are great -- but sometimes it is better to fight battles you can win rather than being the sacrificial goat to "truth", today. Unfortunately, to work in most areas of business today, almost requires some "greying" (Orwellian euphemism) of one's morals.
Maybe it will teach students that just because they *can* do something doesn't mean they should.
Too many people seem to believe that if something isn't 100% "prevented", then it means it should be "ok" for some people to do it and not expect any repercussions. That's just plain stupid.
Whatever happened to common sense?
Does this mean I might not be, or have been tempted, at times, to do similar? No? But after the administration punishes a few people -- maybe people will think twice about doing something "stupid" just to prove they have the technical capability to do so.
Of course one first tries common sense (which is sadly lacking in way too many people), then you try rules -- and of course rules are just "red flags" to bull-headed idiots who must prove the rules can easily be broken -- unless the administration puts up "undefeatable" protection (which, of course, most everyone here will claim can't be done).
It's a catch-22. If they expect common sense -- that doesn't happen. If they setup rules, then they are a line-to-be-crossed (just because it is there). If someone is punished for crossing the line, it's "unfair" because they didn't do enough to prevent it. If they _tried_ to do enough to prevent it, the folks here would laugh at the ultimate powerlessness of the authorities to "control" hackers^wstudents with rules and complain if they institute criminal laws to backup the rules or meet out harsh punishment for breaking the rules.
Yeah, I've may have, more than once, broken rules in school (et al.), but I don't know if I would be whining about them not doing enough to "stop" me as an excuse for my having done it. That's like the burglar who sued the home-owner for falling through a sky-light and breaking his leg. The owner left a ladder leading up to the roof in their _*locked*_, back patio. The burglar blamed the owner for setting up the temptation to crawl up on the roof in an attempt to break in. He *won* -- owner was accused of creating something akin to an "attractive nuisance". *L-A-M-E*
FOSS is not for everyone. Many people are willing to invest cash for a product that "just works" and requires no investment of time to aid in development. Many people are willing to invest time for a product that requires no financial outlay to compensate for development.
This is, basically, my point. When will "Linux" or "FOSS" (the terms are both vaguely defined) be ready for the corporate or home desktop? At that point, you are mostly talking _users_ of computers that know little or nothing about computers. They won't be able to give intelligent feedback. They won't know what a "README" is, or a [core/mem]dump, or any of a 1000 other terms you and I take as "ABC's".
As long as the public face of FOSS development clamors for attention of the user's. Then the desktop will be a non-starter.
Until the FOSS-projects are at the stage of being "compilers" (When was the last time you contributed to "gcc"?), they won't be ready for "prime-time", the desktop, or most "end-users".
Maybe I'm, blind, but the GNU compiler project[s] seem to be perfect examples of stuff that, for the most part, just works. I don't have to become a compiler "contributor" just to use it. How many projects use compilers that contribute anything to the Gnu Compiler project? I bet the percentage is _near_ zero.
Do you see a difference? When was the last time a compiler person suggested that you contribute? How many people should we expect to develop the expert knowledge of how the compiler works in order to be able to contribute "intelligently" (as often required for submissions). Heck -- how many times do I see FOSS developers make disparaging remarks when people just try to submit a problem: "Oh, you have to fill in form X31-B, include coredumps in triplicate, and run our information-farming tool on your system or we won't even look at your problem".
"Uh...yeah...thanks, it was a spelling error in a menu I was reporting..."
Now days, it seems many FOSS developers feel they are owed something that was originally described as "contributing" to the community. Seems like many FOSS developers are feeling they are "owed" something -- which means their work _isn't_ contributed, it's done with strings attached. Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems holding an attitude that user's of my software "owe" me something is a problem with FOSS. What some FOSS developers seem to think is owed them has a higher cost of ownership than buying the equivalent, not-so-well-done "bigCorp" product. Yuck.
There is a disconnect, but IME it comes from people who think that being a user entitles them to sit back and wait for manna to drop from heaven. The bottom line is simply this: If you're going to "work" in FOSS, then you have to get your hands dirty.
If there is any question in people's mind about whether or not Linux or FOSS software is is ready for the average user's desktop, maybe it can be answered here. Users can't expect to just get software and have it work. Before they can do their work (or play, whatever), they first have to get their hands dirty and learn programming. Yeah -- that makes FOSS just so appealing. One needs to be a developer and willing to run beta's on every software product they want to use. They can't just "sit back" and expect it to work (these days, programs that "just work" are a bit like "manna from heaven" and about as common). It's like requiring users to be car mechanics in order to drive an FOSS car. And if a user should want to ask for an automatic transmission like they have on cars from MS or Apple? They are often told to become a transmission expert themselves and to write the code.
If a car manufacturer required all drivers of its cars to be auto mechanics and car system experts vs. simply providing a working car and allowing the driver to be an expert in something else, I suspect the car with the lower "cost of ownership" (especially in terms of "invested knowledge") will appear considerably more attractive.
I don't think it is unrealistic to want to use an auto as a tool to get other things done. Requiring every user to be a "developer" is one of the biggest problems of FOSS. It makes cost of ownership too high. It only seems suitable for those willing to have "no life" outside of maintaining their car (or computer programs). Might partially explain the fanaticism surrounding Open Source.
Next thing, you'll be expecting "managers" to have to "code" to use FOSS programs. Unfortunately, many companies look down upon managers who waste their time doing "development" instead of managing and getting others to do it. Same applies to higher level engineers. They are expected to spend most of their time doing design -- it's inefficient and poor resource usage to expect them to work with inadequate tools (or tools that need development time invested in them before they will work).
That so many in FOSS can't see the inefficiency of requiring all users, to be some level of developer, on every tool they use, makes me doubt that such FOSS developers (and their projects/software) will ever do well in a business environment or home-desktop environment.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't figure out how they can push those cases. Why can't the farmers sue Monsanto for damages -- contaminating their crops with defective "seed" that won't breed.
In another context: I release a "toxin" into the air, that sterilizes the next generation of every plant it comes in contact with. Those in turn can fertilize the next generation to sterilize their offspring. Eventually all plant life is wiped out.
How is that not eco-terrorism on a vast scale?
Count me as another. Not only "Noscript", but a javascript&cookie filtering firewall set to default block everything not explicitly permitted. That's behind a linux proxy server (windows boxes on unroutable, internal subnet) which is behind a hardware firewall box.
May not be perfect, but I haven't had a break-in yet... (~7+ years managing my own broadband vs. using employer's and their firewall).
Cuz there are different opinions about what might be best.
You have your 4-disk, Raid5 array, whereas I'd recommend buying 2x400 for a RAID0 and 1 750GB drive for daily backups (not mirror, see "xfsdump" or "dump"). You shouldn't fill your "fast" drives more than ~80%, so with 2x400 you would get approx 800GdB, raw, giving you ~600GB usable space after formatting and round-down (decimal disk GB's) to binary. When you buy a 1TB, cycle it in for the backup and use the 750GB as slower "data" storage. Maybe next the 1.2TB's will be out, so save up for another 750GB (if you really like the RAID0 idea), to RAID with the previous 750GB and use the 1.2TB for backup. By then your 400's will likely be ready to retire (~2-3 years before alt-sector mappings slow down your RAID enough to be noticeable)....and so on and so forth.
Another option -- use a separate system for the backup disks. Who backs up to tape these days? Tapes are too slow, too low capacity and low benefit/cost ratio unless you need to store long term backups and not overwrite your backup media. I usually find I can keep 3-4 months of system & data backups before I have to recycle space, but that's usually quite acceptable for a home server.
Oh, yeah -- invest in "smart" (one's that condition power, like APC SmartUPS 1000's: you can add longer runtime to the 1000's, but not the 1500's) UPS's -- _at least_ enough for slow, graceful shutdowns or better -- until you setup the Honda, "suitable for electronics" (EU2000i is reasonable, portable, and partly mirror-able with a 2nd generator) generator(s). With enough generator power you can keep your media center up and running during a multi-hour power outage and still have enough to keep the fridge cold.
It's a good thing to be prepared...
LOTR? 1 Ring? to unify them all?
I can't help but wonder if those who expressed difficulty with the parallel programming subject were in the non-CS crowd.
The song-storage vendor ("a song bank") seems like they had a really bad lawyer or a really tech-ignorant judge. How is this different than me storing goods at any institution, from storage lockers, to bank-safety deposit boxes, to electronic representations of "wealth" (money, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, CD's, DVD's...)...
They bank or brokerage doesn't own my goods. No "transfer of ownership" has taken place. They can't just take my deposit box contents (assuming I pay my fees). Goods I transfer into a bank or brokerage are still my goods. The bank or brokerage may make money via transaction or rental fees, or in the case of a song bank, I might have to listen to a 15 second advertisement before my song downloads...I dunno. Do the Japanese not allow me to rent space or property or have my account managed by an "institution"?
I'm then able to take my "token" (bank credit/debit card, for example), and access my account remotely. In the same way, perhaps, my cell phone number could be the ID on my call-in account. Aren't some cell phone vendors making provisions for using a cellphone as a "swipe'N'pay" device? Seems like storage of id, debit or credit card numbers in a cell phone that can be transmitted to a merchant can allow for phone purchases. Of course those numbers would be "locked" on a phone -- requiring a PIN or or thumbprint to access.
Sounds like the legal case was botched. Besides, Japanese law doesn't usually set precedent in English or American courts.
Beg to differ on Elder Scrolls/Oblivion world, if that's what you were referring to. I wanted to try some games but didn't want to spend my life connected to an unending online world. I liked Oblivion as it allowed me to play the game at my level and the way I wanted to play it. The extension system is probably some of that, but more important was console access. I didn't have to spend hours and weeks killing flies and insects to build up a character. I could create a character, but give myself Xena/Lara Croft type powers -- I could explore the world at whatever risk I wanted to assume.
... joining the army! Not my cup of tea.
I look at it like what, I guess, I'd like to see more of -- an interactive "movie", with an "openish" script (Tomb Raider series is a bit too closed (at least in Legend)); there were even some chafing under script limits in Oblivion, but it was much more flexible in allow me to change order of things. Sad to say, one side benefit of having the console -- I was able to work around a few published bugs -- things I didn't know were bugs when I was playing it, they were just a few places where I seemed to be stuck. With the console, I could get around game bugs. In later reading in forums, I found that the few places I was really stuck were known "bugs". Problems like that in TR:Legend forced one to go back to the beginning of a level which usually wasn't too far as the game was about 1/8th the length of Oblivion.
The main point is that if Oblivion was an "online world", you'd have tons of "hardcore" games who would want to tell you *how* to play the game. Console access would be "cheating". I'd have to spend tons of time doing piddly stuff that someone thought I should have to do before getting to some "main battle[s]". I wouldn't enjoy it. I would be unlikely to buy something from that game company again. I don't enjoy *building* a character up as slowly as one does in most online-games. But in online games, slow buildup is almost required in order to create a hierarchy of players who have spent months of their life playing the game vs. someone who wants some casual fun. Seems like so many of these games turn into some sort of online hierarchy, which is about as much fun to me as
I wouldn't like being forced to wait for someone else to go on an adventure -- what if I can't sleep and want to play for 15-20 minutes (or 30-60...) till I get tired? I have to plan to meet someone? I have to march with a stranger? Been there, done that -- had all my equipment picked off my body by surviving party members, so I definitely didn't get the T-shirt.
I sure hope games like Oblivion don't go away. I like to be "in my own movie" where my actions determine the outcome and direction of the story.
People put up with it because they have little or no choice.
Products compete on price and glitz, not reliability or security.
Reliability and security were supposed to be _givens_ -- something you didn't pay attention to because they were minimum standards. Unfortunately, because most people were focusing on "glitz", "over here", software manufacturers were quickly taking money and resources from "QA" and security and putting them where they could get the best return on their money -- in "glitz".
Despite the tons of bugs in almost all software, how often do you see a company do a "bug-fix-only" release? Most people wouldn't pay for such a release -- or wouldn't pay "much". That's the problem. People don't want to pay for a bug-fix-only release, because they assume the product wouldn't be released if it was "faulty".
Unfortunately, I tend to agree. It would be painful to go back now and rewrite all existing software to be "bug free" or "fault free". Many might argue that it would bankrupt the industry -- maybe it would. But consumers have gotten used to a certain level of merchandise quality in the market.
If a product is "faulty", it gets recalled, or replaced or repaired -- at the manufacturer's expense. At least this is true for "most" consumer products. However, for whatever reason, software companies have convinced everyone that following the same standard as virtually every other product on the market place would just be "too hard". "Cost too much".
So often people complain about "cars", citing the computer industry where computers are 1000's of times faster and cheaper than 30-40 years ago and if cars had made such progress, we'd have cars getting a 1000 mpg with 0-60 acceleration or deceleration in 2-3 seconds...etc. But people usually don't think about the reverse -- if cars develop faults, people's lives may be endangered. The manufacturer, knowing they can be held liable, issues a safety recall. With software -- software manufacturers sell products, not only without warranty, but with explicit disclaimers that the software being bought is good for _no_ purpose.
Imagine buying any consumer product that not only claims it is good for "no purpose", but where the manufacturer claims it isn't a sale, but you are "leasing" the product from them and your rights concerning the product are limited --- with all the baggage that software "licenses", supposedly, limit you to. The idea of applying software "restrictions" to every and any other purchase seems laughable. Imagine your house being good for no purpose (including as shelter)...etc. Maybe airlines should start putting shrink-wrap licenses on the seat-backs. If you don't accept the seat-back license, you are free to get up and get off the plane. Otherwise, you consent to complete abrogation of your rights. Maybe it's just a matter of time...
But but, Comcast keeps telling me how good they are, like how their 6MBit offering is 5 times faster than 1.2MB DSL. But hey, DSL's 6MB offering is 5 times faster than 1.2MB cable....but wait, what about guaranteed speed to the first 'hub'/'switch'? Or how about to the nearest DNS/news server on my Service Provider's network? "Up to 5 or 6 times faster", yeah, but 5-6x faster at 3am doesn't help me at 5-7pm when neighborhood congestion slows things down. Don't know about now, but I know they don't run a dedicated line to each subscriber and they used to oversubscribe neighborhoods giving speeds as low as 9600 baud. Doesn't happen with my DSL...I don't line share with anyone on the last leg. Comcrap doesn't get it. And yes -- their signal and service are both crappy. My cable bill is on auto-pay. One month, they were late in withdrawing payment -- so they penalized me for late payment. When I called to correct it, they issued a credit, but didn't factor in "interest", so I still have to call in again for another $1.20. credit.
It's not much, but that's why they screw things up -- hoping that customers will just let them keep the $1.20.
Multiply that by enough customers... Then they keep dropping channels every year. This year, they dropped two CW channels and are instead creating their own "internal feed" -- using the CW network feed, then adding their own local content, all because they can provide more advertising. As it is, they cut shows off early before the end of an "act" (or scene), to squeeze in another 15-30 seconds of playtime.
They also, in their extreme incompetence, have the timing off in stomping on network-fed commercial spots, so you'll see network commercials start for 1-2 seconds, then they are cut off with local comcraptic generated spots.
They also are super anal about cutting off feeds that duplicate local shows, even when the local shows are preempted, or have already shown (meaning you miss them), or when the local station is trying to kill the show's audience by putting it on in the 1-6am timeslot. Used to be Andromeda, Mutant X, Stargate, and Outer Limits could all be seen Saturday afternoon, but now they're blocked with the local affiliate showing them in a 1-5am timeslot Sunday morning. Get to sit through tons of "Red-Hot Dateline Girls" ads...yeah...with real live local girls!! That and 2x times the ads with storyline cut to allow the extra advertising.
Oh, yeah, an they really muck up the sound on some stations -- like down-mixing 5.1 Dolby signals from digital by dropping the center and back channels and upping the bass out the side channels. Makes voices, often unintelligible -- they do it alot on the Sci-Fi channel -- a friend who used to have the problem on Comcrap moved to a different suburb and got Cox. All the problems with volume, commercial cutting, and station blocking went away. Amazing how many vendors/merchants now gouge customers as standard business because they can.
Just mentioning their crap service gets me all wound up...
1) legitimate reason: MS is a SW company providing solutions to customers. Big problem online is proving you are who you say you are to a 3rd party. How does a merchant verify I am who I say I am (and that they are not taking on a fraudulent transaction which they will be held responsible for)?
How does bank or stock broker verify it is you doing a money transfer or stock transaction?
How can I prove my age complies with laws regarding age? Are you "thirteen"? Are you "eighteen"? Are you "twenty-one"?
If the good senator from N/S. Carolina is determined to enact age-verification to adult websites, do you have to give a credit card with your age that maybe could be verified against a card-holder database? How can you verify age?
How do Ebay parties verify they aren't entering into a scam?
These are all "legitimate" areas where there is a need for some type of user identification/verification. It is a legitimate problem in doing commerce on the web. A software company has every "legitimate" right to attempt to create a solution. So your first statement and its conclusion regarding motive is flawed.
Regarding your second statement about this being a reason to use a different OS. That's also logically flawed, since we are identifying people from browsing habits -- something that would be OS neutral. People still browse with Linux and Mac-based computers. In fact, using an alternate browser and OS puts you in a minority of sorts -- providing additional identification factors. If you wanted to remain "anonymous", standing out from the crowd isn't a great way to do it.
That people agreed with you and marked you insightful only shows how many others on slashdot have similarly faulty logic.
How is this, or "is this", different than "sampling"?
I.e. -- in the audio industry, I had (have) the vague impression that one had to have permission to include samples of someone else's song as a component in a new song.
Perhaps the legality hinges on this being a non-commercial work, whereas if it was commercial, Disney could be all over them?
What a fine line.... and yes...it is a shame that our current congress gives special regard and protection to corporations at the expense of the "people" / society / "the public".
Our society is that much "poorer" in that corporations have managed to "steal" their content from what used to be public domain (i.e. the time after the original 14 (17?) year copyright period).
Seems the site is a bit swamped...must be all the people signing up to be sued...
Was there a legal complaint?
Does flicker want "safe harbor" / common carrier type protection under the DMCA?
Doesn't the "safe harbor" status apply to websites who claim they don't have the
time or resources to "pre-censor" people's posts?
If flickr does have time, I take it they don't care about "safe harbor" protections?
By your reasoning, one could argue all patents should be shot down. Everything is describable by formulae. Everything is energy, what we call matter is a type of bound energy particles that can be released, if by nothing else, their anti-particle. Everything else is just a formula -- we just don't know the formula yet. But if we say all formulae are unpatentable, then what is patentable.
A drug company develops a new drug -- it is just a "formula". By your logic, why should they be able to own a "formula"?
Conversely, I would agree that way too many patents are given in software for what amounts to "basic math". They simply write a formula describing a physical-world event (that itself is describable via formulae) and call it new? Pah! Things like reverse auctions, or "sell-it-now" pricing -- those shouldn't be patentable. They are not "inventions".
A new and unheard of way to calculate a square-root that reduces square-root computations by Order N^0.5 might be something I'd call patentable. It would be a new "invention" -- a new way to do something old. However, I'm not sure the patent term for software should be the same as for physical products since the software life cycle is much shorter, but if someone does research into a new way to factor numbers, and comes up with a new method, why is that not an invention?
And people think Novell "licensed" patents from Microsoft? Who bought patents and protection from whom?
Seems like the problems mentioned wouldn't be problems if there were some artificial gravity. Perhaps adding spin to part or all of the air craft?
.1G or so be difficult? Can we make the station strong enough to support some minimal spin? It would seem to make many things "easier", even though we want 0G for some tests. Have a core section that doesn't spin for the 0G tests.
I keep wondering when they are going to build the Space Station -- the one shaped like a bicycle wheel. I keep expecting they'll make progress "someday", but they continue to hang out in the "temporary quarters".
Certainly, the space station should move toward being a more livable "habitat", which, it seems, should include gravity? Would
?
If they want the viewership, put it on NBC at same time or separate days like Heroes. Maybe Sunday on SciFi then the following Friday on NBC .. or SciFi-Fri, then following Sunday on NBC.
It might cannibalize the numbers on SciFi a bit, but to justify the production costs of the show, it would alot more likely to get the numbers. It's being limited by SciFi being cable-only.
I think you are missing the point. They are trying to prevent "shoplifting". It's not trying to control some "legal" activity -- it's attempting to cut down on people walking out the store with a DVD in hand. As for "professional criminals", how many CD's do you think professional criminals shoplift? I didn't know one could be a professional shoplifter.
As for "aggravating" the life of consumers, the device is like the locks in rental dvd cases -- that keep it closed so the DVD can't be removed. When the consumer "buys" the product (a rental), the lock is removed. I don't see it increasing aggravation in legal consumers. But perhaps you are referring to aggravation to the illegal consumers (shoplifters)?
The article mentions improving gasoline mileage to meet or exceed current diesel technology, but mentions in the next paragraph that the tech can also be used with diesel. With production diesels in low 70's (Audi, Volkswagen) to the 157MPG, Loremo LS, a 10-15% improvement would yield seemingly astounding figures.
It may be 1 year, more or less, but after getting rebate and switching, can't you switch back to flat usage?
A TOU-rate, should benefit a properly outfitted solar customer -- they could sell 32cent kwh during day, and only pay 10cent kwh during evening. During the day is when you should get the most use off of a solar system.
I don't know that I believe it is a bad thing for PG&E to want to measure electricity -- if they don't measure, how do they find out whether or not the rebate program is cost effective? How can they do the research in "average", "real" homes? Does converting to solar help or does it encourage higher energy usage due to a drop in overall rates?
Since CA utils are strapped for electricity (years of NIMBY protests keeping plants from being built anywhere) and their most costly time to provide energy is during the day -- how can they "encourage" customers to use less (or generate more) electricity during the day when needed, vs. evening when the system is less stressed?
The PG&E rebate on solar is only part of the refund package, no? Isn't there a state refund as well, or are those the same thing?
I've thought about converting to TOU, but I don't know if it would benefit or hurt me. I don't have air conditioning, but I am home. Probably less use during day, but I don't know if it would be enough to save.
At least by requiring an initial change to TOU, PG&E can measure the average benefit provided by solar and use that in future planning, rebates, etc. Otherwise, how can they tell? Wouldn't they be "flying blind", otherwise?
Regardless of your opinion of legality -- are you sure that the lawyers of your company would agree with your position? I.e. if the B.S.A. did an audit, could your legal come up with the relevant licenses or "legalese" to protect the company?
;^/. Having seen trial cases where lawyers, with the aid of paid-expert testimony, essentially claimed the sky was the color of green peas, and win -- I realized our legal system has very little to do with the common person's idea of "truth".
Remember, the law is not about the "truth" -- it is only about what the lawyers can convince a judge or jury of, as "true", that counts. Whether it represents truth or your interpretation of "legal" is not relevant.
You could cause yourself a world of hurt to no productive end. Principles are great -- but sometimes it is better to fight battles you can win rather than being the sacrificial goat to "truth", today. Unfortunately, to work in most areas of business today, almost requires some "greying" (Orwellian euphemism) of one's morals.
Maybe it will teach students that just because they *can* do something doesn't mean they should.
Too many people seem to believe that if something isn't 100% "prevented", then it means it should be "ok" for some people to do it and not expect any repercussions. That's just plain stupid.
Whatever happened to common sense?
Does this mean I might not be, or have been tempted, at times, to do similar? No? But after the administration punishes a few people -- maybe people will think twice about doing something "stupid" just to prove they have the technical capability to do so.
Of course one first tries common sense (which is sadly lacking in way too many people), then you try rules -- and of course rules are just "red flags" to bull-headed idiots who must prove the rules can easily be broken -- unless the administration puts up "undefeatable" protection (which, of course, most everyone here will claim can't be done).
It's a catch-22. If they expect common sense -- that doesn't happen. If they setup rules, then they are a line-to-be-crossed (just because it is there). If someone is punished for crossing the line, it's "unfair" because they didn't do enough to prevent it. If they _tried_ to do enough to prevent it, the folks here would laugh at the ultimate powerlessness of the authorities to "control" hackers^wstudents with rules and complain if they institute criminal laws to backup the rules or meet out harsh punishment for breaking the rules.
Yeah, I've may have, more than once, broken rules in school (et al.), but I don't know if I would be whining about them not doing enough to "stop" me as an excuse for my having done it. That's like the burglar who sued the home-owner for falling through a sky-light and breaking his leg. The owner left a ladder leading up to the roof in their _*locked*_, back patio. The burglar blamed the owner for setting up the temptation to crawl up on the roof in an attempt to break in. He *won* -- owner was accused of creating something akin to an "attractive nuisance". *L-A-M-E*
This is, basically, my point. When will "Linux" or "FOSS" (the terms are both vaguely defined) be ready for the corporate or home desktop? At that point, you are mostly talking _users_ of computers that know little or nothing about computers. They won't be able to give intelligent feedback. They won't know what a "README" is, or a [core/mem]dump, or any of a 1000 other terms you and I take as "ABC's".
As long as the public face of FOSS development clamors for attention of the user's. Then the desktop will be a non-starter.
Until the FOSS-projects are at the stage of being "compilers" (When was the last time you contributed to "gcc"?), they won't be ready for "prime-time", the desktop, or most "end-users".
Maybe I'm, blind, but the GNU compiler project[s] seem to be perfect examples of stuff that, for the most part, just works. I don't have to become a compiler "contributor" just to use it. How many projects use compilers that contribute anything to the Gnu Compiler project? I bet the percentage is _near_ zero.
Do you see a difference? When was the last time a compiler person suggested that you contribute? How many people should we expect to develop the expert knowledge of how the compiler works in order to be able to contribute "intelligently" (as often required for submissions). Heck -- how many times do I see FOSS developers make disparaging remarks when people just try to submit a problem: "Oh, you have to fill in form X31-B, include coredumps in triplicate, and run our information-farming tool on your system or we won't even look at your problem".
"Uh...yeah...thanks, it was a spelling error in a menu I was reporting..."
Now days, it seems many FOSS developers feel they are owed something that was originally described as "contributing" to the community. Seems like many FOSS developers are feeling they are "owed" something -- which means their work _isn't_ contributed, it's done with strings attached. Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems holding an attitude that user's of my software "owe" me something is a problem with FOSS. What some FOSS developers seem to think is owed them has a higher cost of ownership than buying the equivalent, not-so-well-done "bigCorp" product. Yuck.
If there is any question in people's mind about whether or not Linux or FOSS software is is ready for the average user's desktop, maybe it can be answered here. Users can't expect to just get software and have it work. Before they can do their work (or play, whatever), they first have to get their hands dirty and learn programming. Yeah -- that makes FOSS just so appealing. One needs to be a developer and willing to run beta's on every software product they want to use. They can't just "sit back" and expect it to work (these days, programs that "just work" are a bit like "manna from heaven" and about as common). It's like requiring users to be car mechanics in order to drive an FOSS car. And if a user should want to ask for an automatic transmission like they have on cars from MS or Apple? They are often told to become a transmission expert themselves and to write the code.
If a car manufacturer required all drivers of its cars to be auto mechanics and car system experts vs. simply providing a working car and allowing the driver to be an expert in something else, I suspect the car with the lower "cost of ownership" (especially in terms of "invested knowledge") will appear considerably more attractive.
I don't think it is unrealistic to want to use an auto as a tool to get other things done. Requiring every user to be a "developer" is one of the biggest problems of FOSS. It makes cost of ownership too high. It only seems suitable for those willing to have "no life" outside of maintaining their car (or computer programs). Might partially explain the fanaticism surrounding Open Source.
Next thing, you'll be expecting "managers" to have to "code" to use FOSS programs. Unfortunately, many companies look down upon managers who waste their time doing "development" instead of managing and getting others to do it. Same applies to higher level engineers. They are expected to spend most of their time doing design -- it's inefficient and poor resource usage to expect them to work with inadequate tools (or tools that need development time invested in them before they will work).
That so many in FOSS can't see the inefficiency of requiring all users, to be some level of developer, on every tool they use, makes me doubt that such FOSS developers (and their projects/software) will ever do well in a business environment or home-desktop environment.