It was early '96 if I recall correctly, and his father had gotten it through some amazingly fortuitous circumstances for a good price. I think I had an 800 Meg HD at the time.
Considering that I was still running Windows 3.11 (I was morally opposed to Windows '95) still, it was more than enough.
Yeah, I need the best of both worlds. Huge amounts of space, easily rewritable, AND removable/reliable.
Until that arrives I'll stick to the combination of HD and removable media, but I'm waiting...
Incidentally, if/when this happens it'll also require a dramatic shift if OS design. To have the installed OS act generic you would probably have to have the hardware abstraction layer stored in the hardware, instead of in the OS system data. That way I could just pop my disks into any computer I wanted and use it just like it was mine.
As removable media becomes larger and larger the need for a hard drive becomes less and less.
So you have your entire CD collection on your HD, why not have it all on one DVD? As long as the thing is rewritable what's the difference? Realistically, unless HDs improve at a drastic rate (which they probably will) I really don't see much of a reason to keep them. I'd much rather have a computer the runs off of removable drives (remember back when you had the OS on a 5.25 inch disk?) rather than a hard drive anyway. Want to dual boot? Just image another DVD with a different operating system. Want to store your entire CD collection in a lossless format? Just put it on a disk and keep on adding as you get more music.
Not to mention it would make migrating to a new PC so much easier.
Really, I've got 200 GB of HD space in my house (mostly full), but I'd trade it all for some GOOD, RELIABLE rewritable disks like I just described.
Re:I still haven't filled my 60GB HDD...
on
1.5 TB DVD by 2010
·
· Score: 2
7 years ago a friend of mine had an 11 Gig hard drive (I remember his exact quote "I can copy *ENTIRE CD's* to my drive"). Now 11 Gigs was impressive as all hell, but it's a far cry from the 200 meg drive the parent poster was claiming.
You can't get a whole lot better than Arizona for clear skies. They get precipitation in Tucson about twice a year (although it's for a month each time).
I think that you are mistaking what happens here. When you bounce an email with a 550 code, the code goes to the server which attempted to send the email to you, the server then sends the "bounce message" to the address in the sender field.
No matter what, the error message goes to the server that is relaying the email though. There is no potential for abuse here. The only server that is affected at all is the server relaying the email.
What's more, when an email is bounced with a 450 it isn't a terminal error. The server could attempt to resend the message for a number of days afterwards, making it even less likely that a spoofed sender value will adversely affect the third party.
The person rejecting the email isn't "using" the open relays' resources at all. Am I "using" the resources of UPS by rejecting a C.O.D. package that I never requested? How about by just not answering the door so they come back every day for three days?
Am I responsible for the open relays "customer" sending me email that I didn't want?
Further, if you understand SMTP error codes, this is sending the PROPER code. Most spam blockers accept the mail then delete it, or return a 550 error (mailbox does not exist), both of which are dishonest. This error code acknowledges that the mailbox exists, but rejects the email. What the server does with it after that is the server admins business.
In no way is the intended recipient using the servers resources though.
In what way is this illegal? Do you even understand what's being talked about?
Nobody is attacking the persons server, they're simply refusing to accept email from them.
Try to understand at least the basic concepts before you argue a point.
Same experience here... I've seen some pretty frightening NDAs and NCAs (non-compete), but just about every time I've asked for some time review them (read:didn't sign them right there) the entire issue has been forgotten.
Oh are they? I suppose all of those online casinos that I get spammed about daily are illegal ventures then? After all, gambling is illegal in my area. How about the sports betting establishments that take bets by phone from anywhere in the US?
Suppose a casino in Nevada set up a website that allowed people to gamble online. Are they subject to Utah law simply because citizens from Utah are capable of gambling there?
This is absolutely a case of the US trying to extend it's jurisdiction onto foreign soil.
All it takes is a letter from the RIAA threatening a DMCA suit. That is proof of knowledge of the law.
Why do you think they send out those letters, for their health? They send them out so that they'll have a strong case if it needs to go to court.
Ack, I can't even IMAGINE how many laws I break on a given day. Every day that I drive a car I'm speeding, because SOMEWHERE the speed limit must be 5 MPH (and as this case showed, jurisdiction is apparantly no longer applicable). I eat pork all the time, I hope I'm not extradited by any african or muslim tribal councils...
I wonder if I'm breaking any chinese laws by posting to slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's elected by the electoral college.
You really can't complain about fraud in the election system if you don't even know how the system works in the first place.
Did you notice that the president isn't elected by the citizens?
Are you sure about that? I thought that published privacy policies were considered legal contracts..?
Neither are a bunch of the "american Al Qaeda" that they've found.
Bottom line, you should worry. Not because you're doing anything illegal, but because they feel the need to watch you.
The second idea has some serious potential (though I'd much rather have a corporation or non-profit do it than the government).
Yes, but this only applies to the vast minority of users who use photoshop, and use it for print work.
It was early '96 if I recall correctly, and his father had gotten it through some amazingly fortuitous circumstances for a good price. I think I had an 800 Meg HD at the time.
Considering that I was still running Windows 3.11 (I was morally opposed to Windows '95) still, it was more than enough.
Yeah, I need the best of both worlds. Huge amounts of space, easily rewritable, AND removable/reliable.
Until that arrives I'll stick to the combination of HD and removable media, but I'm waiting...
Incidentally, if/when this happens it'll also require a dramatic shift if OS design. To have the installed OS act generic you would probably have to have the hardware abstraction layer stored in the hardware, instead of in the OS system data. That way I could just pop my disks into any computer I wanted and use it just like it was mine.
I remember when geeks weren't cool, no matter WHAT size their hard drive was.
As removable media becomes larger and larger the need for a hard drive becomes less and less.
So you have your entire CD collection on your HD, why not have it all on one DVD? As long as the thing is rewritable what's the difference? Realistically, unless HDs improve at a drastic rate (which they probably will) I really don't see much of a reason to keep them. I'd much rather have a computer the runs off of removable drives (remember back when you had the OS on a 5.25 inch disk?) rather than a hard drive anyway. Want to dual boot? Just image another DVD with a different operating system. Want to store your entire CD collection in a lossless format? Just put it on a disk and keep on adding as you get more music.
Not to mention it would make migrating to a new PC so much easier.
Really, I've got 200 GB of HD space in my house (mostly full), but I'd trade it all for some GOOD, RELIABLE rewritable disks like I just described.
Then why is my 200 GB of storage almost full?
I've been noticing that too...
7 years ago a friend of mine had an 11 Gig hard drive (I remember his exact quote "I can copy *ENTIRE CD's* to my drive"). Now 11 Gigs was impressive as all hell, but it's a far cry from the 200 meg drive the parent poster was claiming.
Ever hear "Step Right Up" by Tom Waits?
You can't get a whole lot better than Arizona for clear skies. They get precipitation in Tucson about twice a year (although it's for a month each time).
I think that you are mistaking what happens here. When you bounce an email with a 550 code, the code goes to the server which attempted to send the email to you, the server then sends the "bounce message" to the address in the sender field.
No matter what, the error message goes to the server that is relaying the email though. There is no potential for abuse here. The only server that is affected at all is the server relaying the email.
What's more, when an email is bounced with a 450 it isn't a terminal error. The server could attempt to resend the message for a number of days afterwards, making it even less likely that a spoofed sender value will adversely affect the third party.
The person rejecting the email isn't "using" the open relays' resources at all. Am I "using" the resources of UPS by rejecting a C.O.D. package that I never requested? How about by just not answering the door so they come back every day for three days?
Am I responsible for the open relays "customer" sending me email that I didn't want?
Further, if you understand SMTP error codes, this is sending the PROPER code. Most spam blockers accept the mail then delete it, or return a 550 error (mailbox does not exist), both of which are dishonest. This error code acknowledges that the mailbox exists, but rejects the email. What the server does with it after that is the server admins business.
In no way is the intended recipient using the servers resources though.
In what way is this illegal? Do you even understand what's being talked about?
Nobody is attacking the persons server, they're simply refusing to accept email from them.
Try to understand at least the basic concepts before you argue a point.
Same experience here... I've seen some pretty frightening NDAs and NCAs (non-compete), but just about every time I've asked for some time review them (read:didn't sign them right there) the entire issue has been forgotten.
Props to the Princess Bride reference.
Two of my favorite movies referenced in one article, everythings comin' up Millhouse!
Oh are they? I suppose all of those online casinos that I get spammed about daily are illegal ventures then? After all, gambling is illegal in my area. How about the sports betting establishments that take bets by phone from anywhere in the US?
Not analogous.
Suppose a casino in Nevada set up a website that allowed people to gamble online. Are they subject to Utah law simply because citizens from Utah are capable of gambling there?
This is absolutely a case of the US trying to extend it's jurisdiction onto foreign soil.
All it takes is a letter from the RIAA threatening a DMCA suit. That is proof of knowledge of the law.
Why do you think they send out those letters, for their health? They send them out so that they'll have a strong case if it needs to go to court.
Ack, I can't even IMAGINE how many laws I break on a given day. Every day that I drive a car I'm speeding, because SOMEWHERE the speed limit must be 5 MPH (and as this case showed, jurisdiction is apparantly no longer applicable). I eat pork all the time, I hope I'm not extradited by any african or muslim tribal councils...
I wonder if I'm breaking any chinese laws by posting to slashdot?
Ummmm, lawyers don't sue people (ok, occasionally they do, but it's not their job). Lawyers REPRESENT people who are suing or being sued.
I suppose the word "jurisdiction" means nothing to you?