You could use it for that, but thats not the main use.
It *is* a network like your ethernet network (with switches, adaptors, etc), but usually its a FC (fibre channel) rather than ethernet. You use a SAN to put your servers disks in another box to the server.
But why would I do that? heat, consolidation, redundancy.
A typical setup is to have a few 1u or 2u (rack heights are measured in u, which iirc is about 2") servers attached to a 3u storage controller.
This is a box with lots (typically 14 in a 3u box) of drives. There will be a small computer controller in there too as well as some raid chips.
Typically in a 14 drive box you might configure it as a pair of 5+1 raid 5 arrays and a couple of hot spares (5+1 means 5 drives of data and one parity drive). Effectively your 6 drives appear as one with 5x the capacity of 1 of the component drives. You can survive the loss of one drive without losing data. If you do have a drive go offline, the controller should transparantly start rebuilding the failed disk on one of the hot spares (and presumably raise a note via email or snmp that it needs a new disk).
The controller is then configured to present these arrays (called volumes in storage speak) to specific servers (called hosts).
The host will see each array as a single drive (/dev/sdX) that it uses as per normal, oblivious to the fact that its in a different box.
Now to revisit the why we do this:
1. heat - by putting all the hot bits (drives) together we can concentrate where the cooling goes
2. reliability - any server using the above setup can have a disk fail and it simply won't notice. With the hot spare setup, you can potentially lose several drives between maintainance (as long as they don't happen at once).
3. cost - you can buy bigger drives, then partition your array into smaller volumes (just like you partition your desktop machine's drive) and give different chunks to different hosts, reducing per GB cost (which when you are potentially talking about tera and peta bytes worth of disk space is rather important).
as for what these guys are up to, I've not had a chance to look yet. I might post back.
"using the same operator in a language that freely interchanges one type for another is the height of stupidity." I agree (no, really) - lets throw away *all* implicit type changes to types which are not 100% overlapping in value ranges. That should clear out a surprisingly large number of bugs from systems. It would also make a lot of programmers moan like crazy, but/me shrugs.
fair cop, I missed the fractional bit,but weirdly:
print (2).("3");
prints "2" - now whats going on there? shouldn't that also output "23"?
I'm not sure I agree 100% with your interpretation of the PoLS. If I add two numbers together, the least surprising thing is clearly to get the sum. If I add two strings together, then the least surprising thing is to get the concatentation of those strings, so is there a necessarily a resolution to adding a string and a number together that is least surprising? Now in the example you gave, I agree for that one 5 makes the most sense, but what if one (or both) the values was in a variable? I don't think that would be as obvious, and I am unhappy with code that does different implicit type conversions based on the values rather than the types in the operation.
oh, and to the last point: NaN's should never be treatable as zero, thats plain wrong and leads to sloppy coding. If you need that then either you haven't filtered your user input properly (most likely) or you haven't taken your systems floating point accuracy into account correctly (maybe).
I don't know, but it does: String found where operator expected at test.pl line 3, near "2."3"" (Missing operator before "3"?) syntax error at test.pl line 3, near "2."3"" Execution of test.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
+ is javascripts and pythons string addition operator, presumably because they didn't want to confuse by overloading the standard record deference operator (.), like perl does (which is the better choice is an argument best left to people with time for language bashing). Now, if we look at the equivilent results when using the string addition operator (lets call it <>, to represent + in javascript/python and . in perl):
2<>"3"==type error in python and perl "2"<>3=="23" in all "2"<>"3"=="23" in all hmm, when you do a comparison taking into account the fact that the languages use different operators for concating strings, surprisingly they act the same! shocking </sarcasm>
but cheap.
There are similar devices with faster specs, gigabit, sata etc, but they will cost typically 2-4x as much.
nas-central have a page on the various linkstation/terastation models.
Personally, one of the would be overkill for my needs, but it depends what you have got...
True, although the linux port is probably a ways off yet [ especially what I really would like, which would be a linux port running on the PS3. Yes, I'm somewhat sick like that ]
Big problem with XMBC is ( as alluded to above ) it can't cope with HD, and (worse) it can only cope with h264 to a somewhat limited extent.
The PS3 is a bit quieter than the 360. If you don't hit the cpu / keep it somewhere cool it will spin the fans right down (which is nice), but neither of the boxes are really as quiet as you might want.
Every laptop I've seen with built-in wireless (admittedly mostly thinkpads, but a couple of sony + hp ones too) has a physical on/off switch to disable the wireless.
Presumably they will instruct you to turn off models that *can't* disable wireless.
The text the article is referring to is unchanged since the earlier drafts, and it certainly doesn't get novell off the hook wrt the linked article - Microsoft may still well have to lean on them to stop them shipping gplv3 code - since the use of the coupons, whilst existing as an effect of the patent agreement, will cause, when useed, a new contract between the coupon issuer [microsoft and novell] and the redeemer [joe bloggs] to be created at the date of redemption.
If the code joe bloggs recieves contains gpl3'd code, then under the current draft (and as indicated in tfa) any patent protection indemities offered by that contract will automatically be extended to everybody. Thats why there was the fuss after poeple noted there isn't an expiry date on the coupons - up till that point it was thought they would all be gone by the time gplv3 was out and suse would be fine.
Conclusion: either the summariser is misinformed or a turfer.
for further info, go have a browse through groklaw. They have had pretty good coverage of it.
North London, by Canons park station.
Also I noted that the game website claimed they were back in stock yesterday (although I think they insist on bundles).
but the distribution seems a bit uneven. i called in a one game last week that has a 6 week waiting list and another that had one on the shelf...
on a side note it seems/.'s new moderation system screws with the wii's browser
Depends on how the access works.
If going over edge / gprs / 3g then I am aware of at least one provider in the uk (which one slips my mind at the moment) that explicitly bans it in their T&C's.
On the other hand, if its going via wifi, well there isn't too much the provider can do (since its not going via them), at least in the UK (In the US, where the telcos seem to have more power to demand specific changes to phones to put in limits/restrict which phones get released, and where it is apparantly harder to get phones direct, they can fight it a bit more).
SIP clients are availiable for both the platforms used and will happily communicate with each other. (in fact, since the E-series has sip built in, I wouldn't be surprised if this is simply built on top of it).
from the article:
"It is the first service to bring Instant Messaging directly to a mobile phone."
Really? so the copy of messenger that is built into recent wm2k* based phones, and the aim and jabber clients I have don't count then?
pah.
"Who will run their consoles on something capable of 1080p?"
Presumably anyone who is using a vga out cable to connect their console to a monitor* (as I do)
*thats for consoles that actually support vga, not using a convertor box to adjust it.
eh?
And exactly which priviledges has the bank (which I presume is what you are referring to by the term 'artificial legal entity' - which is in itself a curious phrase as all legal entities are artificial been granted?
Yes its bad he has been mixed up like this. Yes the banks response is probably inappropriate. However, the bank has not broken any laws. Check the small print on your bank account - almost certainly there will be clauses to the effect that either party may close the account at any time and for any reason. Which is exactly what they have done.
Now its possible that they could argue that some European directive on discrimination has been broken (or more accurately the British implementation of said directive(s)), but thats a different kettle of fish (is it actually illegal in this country to discrimate against people suspected of crimes? I'm not actually sure that it is...)
Actually, my old university computing dept. gets given it (Academic Alliance I think they called it). Admittedly that might have something to do with being one of the top computing uni's in the country and (only?) one that is utterly anti-microsoft...
IANAL, but the condition would still apply - Person C's version would still be covered by condition 4, it just wouldn't have any effect on their version, but when B modified it that clause would kick in again.
"The DS firmware can't be updated at all."
Not actually true, although it is designed to be not doable by the user (you have to short a [marked] pin).
Theres been a little under a dozen different ds firmware versions iirc
No, since you detect it at the router level trying to leave, whereupon you log and block the traffic.
Of course, you still have the problem of deciding what is weird traffic - you can do some interesting stuff with traffic disguising...
Actually, from reading the order (google_nevada_order.pdf) It would seem the use of the robots.txt merely had relevance wrt implied licence, and that google would most likely have won even if it had deliberatly ignored the robots.txt - specifically this paragraph:
To demonstrate copyright infringement, "the plaintiff must show ownership of the
copyright and copying by the defendant." Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 817 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also 17 U.S.C. 501. A plaintiff must also show volitional conduct on the part of
the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement. See Religious Tech.
Ctr v. Netcom On-Line Commc'n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1369-70 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
(direct infringement requires a volitional act by defendant; automated copying by machines
occasioned by others not sufficient); CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 555 (4th
Cir. 2004) ("Agreeing with the analysis in Netcom, we hold that the automatic copying, storage,
and transmission of copyrighted materials, when instigated by others, does not render an ISP
strictly liable for copyright infringement under 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act.").
(emphasis mine). Note that in this they are not considering the initial caching of the file (that is covered later in the 'fair use' ruling), but the system providing copies of the cache to users of the system in an automated manner on the users request.
Of course, the most simple reason why the robots.txt quote you provided does not prove your point is faulty logic: Just because the court has ruled that an explicit allow in a robots.txt makes it ok, doesn't mean they have ruled that an explicit ban in a robots.txt makes it illegal to cache, although I grant that it raises the chances (specifically this is an example of reversing implication for you logic fans: A->B does not mean that A -> B ( it does mean that B -> A, but that is a different story:) )
Slashdot Mirror
You could use it for that, but thats not the main use.
It *is* a network like your ethernet network (with switches, adaptors, etc), but usually its a FC (fibre channel) rather than ethernet. You use a SAN to put your servers disks in another box to the server.
But why would I do that? heat, consolidation, redundancy.
A typical setup is to have a few 1u or 2u (rack heights are measured in u, which iirc is about 2") servers attached to a 3u storage controller.
This is a box with lots (typically 14 in a 3u box) of drives. There will be a small computer controller in there too as well as some raid chips.
Typically in a 14 drive box you might configure it as a pair of 5+1 raid 5 arrays and a couple of hot spares (5+1 means 5 drives of data and one parity drive). Effectively your 6 drives appear as one with 5x the capacity of 1 of the component drives. You can survive the loss of one drive without losing data. If you do have a drive go offline, the controller should transparantly start rebuilding the failed disk on one of the hot spares (and presumably raise a note via email or snmp that it needs a new disk).
The controller is then configured to present these arrays (called volumes in storage speak) to specific servers (called hosts).
The host will see each array as a single drive (/dev/sdX) that it uses as per normal, oblivious to the fact that its in a different box.
Now to revisit the why we do this:
1. heat - by putting all the hot bits (drives) together we can concentrate where the cooling goes
2. reliability - any server using the above setup can have a disk fail and it simply won't notice. With the hot spare setup, you can potentially lose several drives between maintainance (as long as they don't happen at once).
3. cost - you can buy bigger drives, then partition your array into smaller volumes (just like you partition your desktop machine's drive) and give different chunks to different hosts, reducing per GB cost (which when you are potentially talking about tera and peta bytes worth of disk space is rather important).
as for what these guys are up to, I've not had a chance to look yet. I might post back.
"using the same operator in a language that freely interchanges one type for another is the height of stupidity." /me shrugs.
I agree (no, really) - lets throw away *all* implicit type changes to types which are not 100% overlapping in value ranges. That should clear out a surprisingly large number of bugs from systems. It would also make a lot of programmers moan like crazy, but
my apologies, I meant to say record member operator, not dereferencing operator.
fair cop, I missed the fractional bit,but weirdly: print (2).("3"); prints "2" - now whats going on there? shouldn't that also output "23"? I'm not sure I agree 100% with your interpretation of the PoLS. If I add two numbers together, the least surprising thing is clearly to get the sum. If I add two strings together, then the least surprising thing is to get the concatentation of those strings, so is there a necessarily a resolution to adding a string and a number together that is least surprising? Now in the example you gave, I agree for that one 5 makes the most sense, but what if one (or both) the values was in a variable? I don't think that would be as obvious, and I am unhappy with code that does different implicit type conversions based on the values rather than the types in the operation. oh, and to the last point: NaN's should never be treatable as zero, thats plain wrong and leads to sloppy coding. If you need that then either you haven't filtered your user input properly (most likely) or you haven't taken your systems floating point accuracy into account correctly (maybe).
I don't know, but it does:
String found where operator expected at test.pl line 3, near "2."3""
(Missing operator before "3"?)
syntax error at test.pl line 3, near "2."3""
Execution of test.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
+ is javascripts and pythons string addition operator, presumably because they didn't want to confuse by overloading the standard record deference operator (.), like perl does (which is the better choice is an argument best left to people with time for language bashing).
Now, if we look at the equivilent results when using the string addition operator (lets call it <>, to represent + in javascript/python and . in perl):
2<>"3"==type error in python and perl
"2"<>3=="23" in all
"2"<>"3"=="23" in all
hmm, when you do a comparison taking into account the fact that the languages use different operators for concating strings, surprisingly they act the same! shocking </sarcasm>
but cheap. There are similar devices with faster specs, gigabit, sata etc, but they will cost typically 2-4x as much. nas-central have a page on the various linkstation/terastation models. Personally, one of the would be overkill for my needs, but it depends what you have got...
True, although the linux port is probably a ways off yet [ especially what I really would like, which would be a linux port running on the PS3. Yes, I'm somewhat sick like that ] Big problem with XMBC is ( as alluded to above ) it can't cope with HD, and (worse) it can only cope with h264 to a somewhat limited extent.
The PS3 is a bit quieter than the 360. If you don't hit the cpu / keep it somewhere cool it will spin the fans right down (which is nice), but neither of the boxes are really as quiet as you might want.
Every laptop I've seen with built-in wireless (admittedly mostly thinkpads, but a couple of sony + hp ones too) has a physical on/off switch to disable the wireless. Presumably they will instruct you to turn off models that *can't* disable wireless.
The text the article is referring to is unchanged since the earlier drafts, and it certainly doesn't get novell off the hook wrt the linked article - Microsoft may still well have to lean on them to stop them shipping gplv3 code - since the use of the coupons, whilst existing as an effect of the patent agreement, will cause, when useed, a new contract between the coupon issuer [microsoft and novell] and the redeemer [joe bloggs] to be created at the date of redemption. If the code joe bloggs recieves contains gpl3'd code, then under the current draft (and as indicated in tfa) any patent protection indemities offered by that contract will automatically be extended to everybody. Thats why there was the fuss after poeple noted there isn't an expiry date on the coupons - up till that point it was thought they would all be gone by the time gplv3 was out and suse would be fine. Conclusion: either the summariser is misinformed or a turfer. for further info, go have a browse through groklaw. They have had pretty good coverage of it.
North London, by Canons park station. Also I noted that the game website claimed they were back in stock yesterday (although I think they insist on bundles).
but the distribution seems a bit uneven. i called in a one game last week that has a 6 week waiting list and another that had one on the shelf... on a side note it seems /.'s new moderation system screws with the wii's browser
Depends on how the access works.
If going over edge / gprs / 3g then I am aware of at least one provider in the uk (which one slips my mind at the moment) that explicitly bans it in their T&C's.
On the other hand, if its going via wifi, well there isn't too much the provider can do (since its not going via them), at least in the UK (In the US, where the telcos seem to have more power to demand specific changes to phones to put in limits/restrict which phones get released, and where it is apparantly harder to get phones direct, they can fight it a bit more).
from the article:
Really? so the copy of messenger that is built into recent wm2k* based phones, and the aim and jabber clients I have don't count then? pah.
"Who will run their consoles on something capable of 1080p?"
Presumably anyone who is using a vga out cable to connect their console to a monitor* (as I do) *thats for consoles that actually support vga, not using a convertor box to adjust it.
eh?
And exactly which priviledges has the bank (which I presume is what you are referring to by the term 'artificial legal entity' - which is in itself a curious phrase as all legal entities are artificial been granted?
Yes its bad he has been mixed up like this. Yes the banks response is probably inappropriate. However, the bank has not broken any laws. Check the small print on your bank account - almost certainly there will be clauses to the effect that either party may close the account at any time and for any reason. Which is exactly what they have done.
Now its possible that they could argue that some European directive on discrimination has been broken (or more accurately the British implementation of said directive(s)), but thats a different kettle of fish (is it actually illegal in this country to discrimate against people suspected of crimes? I'm not actually sure that it is...)
They will happily sell you a copy. It just won't run on generic x86 hardware (unless you hack it, which is a breach of the EULA you bought it under).
Actually, my old university computing dept. gets given it (Academic Alliance I think they called it). Admittedly that might have something to do with being one of the top computing uni's in the country and (only?) one that is utterly anti-microsoft...
IANAL, but the condition would still apply - Person C's version would still be covered by condition 4, it just wouldn't have any effect on their version, but when B modified it that clause would kick in again.
"The DS firmware can't be updated at all." Not actually true, although it is designed to be not doable by the user (you have to short a [marked] pin). Theres been a little under a dozen different ds firmware versions iirc
given that it is a non-image based system, surely the length of time is dependant to a certain extent on how much stuff you auto-install...
No, since you detect it at the router level trying to leave, whereupon you log and block the traffic. Of course, you still have the problem of deciding what is weird traffic - you can do some interesting stuff with traffic disguising...
Actually, from reading the order (google_nevada_order.pdf) It would seem the use of the robots.txt merely had relevance wrt implied licence, and that google would most likely have won even if it had deliberatly ignored the robots.txt - specifically this paragraph:
:) )
To demonstrate copyright infringement, "the plaintiff must show ownership of the copyright and copying by the defendant." Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 17 U.S.C. 501. A plaintiff must also show volitional conduct on the part of the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement. See Religious Tech. Ctr v. Netcom On-Line Commc'n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1369-70 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (direct infringement requires a volitional act by defendant; automated copying by machines occasioned by others not sufficient); CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 555 (4th Cir. 2004) ("Agreeing with the analysis in Netcom, we hold that the automatic copying, storage, and transmission of copyrighted materials, when instigated by others, does not render an ISP strictly liable for copyright infringement under 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act."). (emphasis mine). Note that in this they are not considering the initial caching of the file (that is covered later in the 'fair use' ruling), but the system providing copies of the cache to users of the system in an automated manner on the users request.
Of course, the most simple reason why the robots.txt quote you provided does not prove your point is faulty logic: Just because the court has ruled that an explicit allow in a robots.txt makes it ok, doesn't mean they have ruled that an explicit ban in a robots.txt makes it illegal to cache, although I grant that it raises the chances (specifically this is an example of reversing implication for you logic fans: A->B does not mean that A -> B ( it does mean that B -> A, but that is a different story
At which point did they say they were limiting it to US citizens?