Would this new technology still involve sticking a disc shaped object in an ancient audio playing device and then provide only a measly 75 minutes of music?
I don't know. Perhaps there's other stuff on it. Perhaps there's not just a dozen but thousands of pictures. Seems to me it would still be incriminating. If the court is so sure it already knows what is on there, I see no reason to produce it.
Bandwidth luckily is a problem that will solve itself. If I were the music industry, I'd make sure bandwidth is restricted as much as possible... not that any of it will matter in a few years when an entire century of entertainment can be swapped on a USB stick.
I guess you donot understand how this works then. The idea here is that even though you can see me communicating with someone else, you donot know whether I'm just relaying traffic or actually delivering the traffic to its intended destination. The nodes in such networks as these become mini ISP's, that relay lots of traffic for people in their own "mini internet" (or darknet). Everything is encrypted as well, so you do not know what is being transferred, you donot know where it is going and you donot know where it came from -- not even if you ARE a node in such a network.
I saved a copy of Adobe Reader 4.x or something. It still works. When it stops working, I'll upgrade to some open source solution. Why a product like a PDF reader needs constant upgrades is beyond me, and I will not subscribe to it.
No, I think we SHOULD force users to sign such contracts before buying software, or of course you're also allowed to sell the software without a contract. Guess what most vendors will pick when they realize users cannot be bothered to sign contracts for every download they do.
I don't know, but I'm still not happy about anyone with some equipment being able to find out my name without even having to ask for it. Atleast encrypt it.
Although the cover may protect it, data encryption by itself won't protect you from malicious people keeping track of your movements. It's an easy thing to keep track of say everyone's movements at some kind of gate, and later adding a photo to whatever unique encrypted data is read from the chip. I could gather a few months worth of data at a public place, then pinpoint someone in a crowd and see exactly how often they were there, how long, and so on. All it takes is one easy unique way to distinguish a person (not necessarily identify, although coupling it with other systems may make that possible), and it opens up a lot of interesting ways to keep track of people.
Because the dates for all of the Alpha's, Beta's, RC's and the final release are already known. They're determined by marketing. It has nothing to do with Software Development. It also explains Vista.
Late comment, but you may see it. Check the amount of memory your motherboard supports. If it is just 4 GB, then you are out of luck, as it will be a hardware limit. 4 GB is a special number for quite a lot of systems, including processor, the memory system on the motherboard and the OS. If one of them is limited to 4 GB, then you are out of luck.
IMHO, slower spinning drives for mass storage are a win-win.
When all you want is mass storage, then speed is just secondary. Most of my large drives are maybe accessed a few times a day at most, and when they are accessed, it's usually at speeds far below the drives top speed.
The advantages of slower spinning drives are plentiful, and all are desirable if all you want is reliable mass storage:
1) Less heat production 2) Less noise 3) Less wear (more reliability) 4) Less power consumption (the "green" part)
I hated it when I had to go to 7200 RPM drives for my RAID arrays, just because nobody was making 5400 RPM drives anymore. I'm glad however that the manufactures now again see that designing drives for reliable mass storage is just as worthy a goal as designing drives for maximum speed. Since they'll be losing that last race really soon (if they haven't already) vs. SSD's, I expect to see more focus on the first.
The disk cache on most modern drives is probably more like a buffer. I always thought it works like this:
1) OS requests some specific sector. 2) Hard drive moves head to appropriate track. 3) As soon as head is positioned, transfer everything that passes below the head into the cache. 4) Once complete track is read (a full revolution of the spindle), look at the cache, find the "special marker" that indicates the start of the track and then from there find the sector requested.
That last part is because the data passing below the read heads will start at some random point (it won't magically start at the start of the track). It's efficient to store everything passing below the read head immediately so you can simply "shift" the data in memory once a revolution completes (instead of waiting for the start to pass below the read head, and then read everything from there, which would take upto 1.5 revolutions on average).
So, I always figured this "cache" memory is just to assist with reading full tracks. I don't know how much data a track these days contains but I assume a 32 MB cache could be used to store a couple of tracks atleast, but it could also just be one track.
It actually is a limitation in XP, as it is quite possible for a 32-bit architecture to use more than 4 GB of RAM. 32-bit systems are quite capable of for example addressing 2^32 * 4096 bytes, the 4096 number being the memory manager's block size. This depends on architecture however, and Intel's 32-bit architecture actually only allows for 2^32 * 16 bytes, as it simply does not have more than 36 address lines for accessing on board memory. See this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Windows 2003 for example (which is basically a newer version of XP) will quite happily use >4 GB of RAM running in 32-bit, and so will Linux running in 32-bit. The only limitation of the 32-bit systems is that processes are limited to a maximum of 4 GB address space. By default this is usually 2 GB for the user part of the process and 2 GB for the kernel parts, but the ratio can be changed.
Yeah, it's the most annoying thing in current TV/movies. It's like these people, who are supposed to be professionals, don't realize that without peripheral vision, the effect is just annoying and painful to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Would this new technology still involve sticking a disc shaped object in an ancient audio playing device and then provide only a measly 75 minutes of music?
...but let's try again using this backup copy we made.
I don't know. Perhaps there's other stuff on it. Perhaps there's not just a dozen but thousands of pictures. Seems to me it would still be incriminating. If the court is so sure it already knows what is on there, I see no reason to produce it.
If Adobe Reader isn't the perfect example of bloat (unnecessary bloat) then I don't know what is.
Bandwidth luckily is a problem that will solve itself. If I were the music industry, I'd make sure bandwidth is restricted as much as possible... not that any of it will matter in a few years when an entire century of entertainment can be swapped on a USB stick.
I guess you donot understand how this works then. The idea here is that even though you can see me communicating with someone else, you donot know whether I'm just relaying traffic or actually delivering the traffic to its intended destination. The nodes in such networks as these become mini ISP's, that relay lots of traffic for people in their own "mini internet" (or darknet). Everything is encrypted as well, so you do not know what is being transferred, you donot know where it is going and you donot know where it came from -- not even if you ARE a node in such a network.
Unlike the consequences of executing code provided in a format that's supposed to be non-executable...
I saved a copy of Adobe Reader 4.x or something. It still works. When it stops working, I'll upgrade to some open source solution. Why a product like a PDF reader needs constant upgrades is beyond me, and I will not subscribe to it.
No, I think we SHOULD force users to sign such contracts before buying software, or of course you're also allowed to sell the software without a contract. Guess what most vendors will pick when they realize users cannot be bothered to sign contracts for every download they do.
Or perhaps we could just use tax on fuel...
The actual effect will be... 1) www.thepiratebay.org 2) 404 not found 3) darn... 4) isohunt.com
I think there might be a relationship between those two.
Where will the bittorrent community ever find EIGHT servers... this is insurmountable.
I don't know, but I'm still not happy about anyone with some equipment being able to find out my name without even having to ask for it. Atleast encrypt it.
Although the cover may protect it, data encryption by itself won't protect you from malicious people keeping track of your movements. It's an easy thing to keep track of say everyone's movements at some kind of gate, and later adding a photo to whatever unique encrypted data is read from the chip. I could gather a few months worth of data at a public place, then pinpoint someone in a crowd and see exactly how often they were there, how long, and so on. All it takes is one easy unique way to distinguish a person (not necessarily identify, although coupling it with other systems may make that possible), and it opens up a lot of interesting ways to keep track of people.
Because the dates for all of the Alpha's, Beta's, RC's and the final release are already known. They're determined by marketing. It has nothing to do with Software Development. It also explains Vista.
So Microsoft tricked you into thinking those versions are really different...
Dunno, it looks almost exactly like the Windows version for me, although I had to download a theme for it:)
Late comment, but you may see it. Check the amount of memory your motherboard supports. If it is just 4 GB, then you are out of luck, as it will be a hardware limit. 4 GB is a special number for quite a lot of systems, including processor, the memory system on the motherboard and the OS. If one of them is limited to 4 GB, then you are out of luck.
IMHO, slower spinning drives for mass storage are a win-win.
When all you want is mass storage, then speed is just secondary. Most of my large drives are maybe accessed a few times a day at most, and when they are accessed, it's usually at speeds far below the drives top speed.
The advantages of slower spinning drives are plentiful, and all are desirable if all you want is reliable mass storage:
1) Less heat production
2) Less noise
3) Less wear (more reliability)
4) Less power consumption (the "green" part)
I hated it when I had to go to 7200 RPM drives for my RAID arrays, just because nobody was making 5400 RPM drives anymore. I'm glad however that the manufactures now again see that designing drives for reliable mass storage is just as worthy a goal as designing drives for maximum speed. Since they'll be losing that last race really soon (if they haven't already) vs. SSD's, I expect to see more focus on the first.
The disk cache on most modern drives is probably more like a buffer. I always thought it works like this:
1) OS requests some specific sector.
2) Hard drive moves head to appropriate track.
3) As soon as head is positioned, transfer everything that passes below the head into the cache.
4) Once complete track is read (a full revolution of the spindle), look at the cache, find the "special marker" that indicates the start of the track and then from there find the sector requested.
That last part is because the data passing below the read heads will start at some random point (it won't magically start at the start of the track). It's efficient to store everything passing below the read head immediately so you can simply "shift" the data in memory once a revolution completes (instead of waiting for the start to pass below the read head, and then read everything from there, which would take upto 1.5 revolutions on average).
So, I always figured this "cache" memory is just to assist with reading full tracks. I don't know how much data a track these days contains but I assume a 32 MB cache could be used to store a couple of tracks atleast, but it could also just be one track.
It actually is a limitation in XP, as it is quite possible for a 32-bit architecture to use more than 4 GB of RAM. 32-bit systems are quite capable of for example addressing 2^32 * 4096 bytes, the 4096 number being the memory manager's block size. This depends on architecture however, and Intel's 32-bit architecture actually only allows for 2^32 * 16 bytes, as it simply does not have more than 36 address lines for accessing on board memory. See this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Windows 2003 for example (which is basically a newer version of XP) will quite happily use >4 GB of RAM running in 32-bit, and so will Linux running in 32-bit. The only limitation of the 32-bit systems is that processes are limited to a maximum of 4 GB address space. By default this is usually 2 GB for the user part of the process and 2 GB for the kernel parts, but the ratio can be changed.
Yeah, Amiga was able to do that since the early 90's, I remember quite well booting from a RAM disk to use newer Kickstart versions :)
Yeah, it's the most annoying thing in current TV/movies. It's like these people, who are supposed to be professionals, don't realize that without peripheral vision, the effect is just annoying and painful to watch.