I'm not sure what you mean by "official Amiga". OS 4.x is strictly PPC, and specifically "AmigaOne, SAM440EP and Pegasos II" (from the "AmigaOS 4.1 Update 2" link). By my definition, there were no native PPC Amigas (i.e., from Commodore); those were all 680x0 machines like God intended.
I guess that just goes to show you the unsettled state of what's considered "Amiga".
but this really isn't news. Money has a voice. More money has a louder voice. Lots of money can shout out all other voices.
I hope the search providers enjoy their windfall. I hope the states, the Feds, and the individual victims of this disaster take careful note of how much money is being spent on non-productive spin control, rather than actually fixing the problem and cleaning up the aftermath.
Well, sure, the assclowns at RIAA consider it a lost sale every time you hear the tune in your head without forking up the royalties. But format/space shifting has marginal (in principle) support in US case law. As far as I can tell, no court has rejected copying appropriately purchased material from one medium to another, as long as the purchaser of that material is the sole user of either format; the courts seem to have heartburn with a general download provider expecting the "The downloader already purchased this earlier" argument to get them out of jail.
In other words, by Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc, if you make the copy yourself from your own purchased medium, format shifting is legit, whereas by A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc, if you download the copy from someone else, even if you have legitimate rights to it, the download provider is in the wrong.
obDisclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you. And I bet even a lawyer will tell you, if you ask, that the law is kind of unclear on this. But suffice it to say, if RIAA can't monetize it, they'll be very unhappy.
And back to the original topic: this means that "type 3" downloading isn't completely above-board, since you aren't making the Memory Stick copy of the game yourself. Is it a lost sale? I'm sure the provider believes it is.
If I'm tracking you right, you're arguing (in a vague and unfocused way) against the criminalization of "vices". Implicit in this is that "vice" means "stuff I like to do and should be allowed to do if it weren't for those stupid prude sheep criminalizing it."
Every crime represents something someone would like to do. Otherwise, you wouldn't legislate against it. So every outlawed act is depriving SOMEONE of the "right" to do something.
Perhaps you're thinking of something more nuanced, like the old argument "if it hurts no one else, it shouldn't be outlawed". Fair enough, although some "victimless crimes" have a low probability of victims nonetheless.
I don't know. It's hard to figure out exactly where you're coming from, since a 2 sentence sound bite completely ignores all the hard facts.
It's just nostalgia. The media equivalent of seeing your favorite first grade teacher in the obituaries. Some of us are just getting to the point of noticing we're old and haven't gotten used to the idea.
A full rewrite is the most obvious possibility, but I wonder if there's a more interesting technology there.
I don't wonder. The full rewrite is the most likely possibility, both for technical reasons and because the defection of the most famous Flash crapplication in the world to the anti-Flash camp would be PR gold, and well worth any inducements shoveled in the direction of Zynga.
NB: This is empty speculation ONLY. It's quite possible that Apple has made some devastating technological advance that breaks Flash's content monopoly without any concession in Adobe's direction. But it's as likely that Zynga will rewrite or translate their flagship. And if that happens, expect the spin to ramp up into an orchestrated chorus of Adobe mockery.
I think the climate angle of this story is being overplayed. Makes sense, really; that's the sexy hot topic in the big-brain set, and a great way to sell if you're selling satellites.
But these aren't just climate change "OMG Evil CO2" satellites. These are operational meteorological satellites. If you like decent weather forecasts and value the ability to track hurricanes and typhoons (and other assorted tropical storm phenomena), you care about these spacecraft. Satellite meteorology has revolutionized severe weather handling and medium-range weather forecasting for the last 40 years. Let's not quit now because Al Gore has painted the cross of Climate Change on the sides of these spacecraft.
Or does the defense department have their own weather satellite network?
That's a good question. It's wrapped up in this story.
The short answer is that yes, DoD has its own weather satellite network for the polar orbiting capability. It's called DMSP, and it's the granddaddy of polar orbiter weather satellites. Spacecraft from that program are still flying, but no new ones are being acquired. After the current and on-orbit spares are gone, that's probably it.
Why?
As part of a Clinton-administration order, all US weather satellite operations and acquisition activities were "converged" into a single agency. DoD lost its ability to independently acquire military weather sats, or begin development of new ones. The joint Earth observation satellite program now includes NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, and they have a limited budget and somewhat conflicting goals. But the practical effect is that everyone has to contribute to, and use when they become available, the next-generation EO satellites the article was talking about. To replace DMSP birds, the DoD is depending on NPOESS, since that's the next-gen polar orbiter.
Because where the satellite is has a large impact on the data.
There are really only two classes of orbit for Earth-observation satellite platforms: geostationary and low-earth polar. In the summary, GOES-R is the US follow-on geostationary, and NPOESS is the US follow-on polar orbiter.
Geostationary satellites provide continuous coverage but somewhat low resolution, and coverage of the same hemisphere of the Earth at all times. Because satellite observations at the limb of the visible hemisphere is low-quality (low incident angle with the Earth's surface, long slant path through the atmosphere, etc.), you really can't just have two geos for the entire world. You need at least four, at 90 degree offsets, and more if you can afford it. The US operates two: GOES-11 and GOES-12, out over the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean respectively. There are more, operated by other nations, and we do share data with them. We even coordinate operations: When the Japanese Meteorological Agency had its on-station geosat (GMS-5) fail and its replacement failed to reach orbit after launch, the US reactivated the retired Pacific geo GOES-9, shifted its orbit to cover GMS-5's slot, and leased it to the Japanese. (Leased, of course, because (A) you need to cover the additional costs of operating another satellite, and (B) why walk away from profit?)
So, what's the point of that little discussion? If the US loses both of current active geostationaries, someone else (another nation) would have to shift an existing spacecraft over to cover it and lease it to us. That's a bit bigger than "sharing the data", which, as I point out, we already do. And that's also only a temporary state of affairs, since no one will ever shift over their primary on-station geostationary. It'd have to be a spare, and probably not a future spare, but a deactivated retired spacecraft, and therefore very very temporary.
That's geostationary spacecraft. In summary, the US needs to have 2 spacecraft stationed at 135 degrees West and 104 degrees West, and no one else will be providing them on any terms and with any permanence we'd need in order to rely on them.
Polar-orbiters? Kind of a similar situation. A polar-orbiting earth-observing spacecraft orbits at about 100 miles up and an orbital inclination of about 80 degrees. (A 90 degree orbital inclination passes over both poles; a 0 degree inclination parallels the equator.) That orbital path allows the spacecraft to look down at Earth in a track that eventually (approximately every 30 hours) covers the entire surface of the Earth. But that's a long time between looks at a particular spot on Earth. The low orbit provides wonderful resolution: each pixel in the imagery of one of the next-generation polar orbiters can be as small as 400 meters. For meteorology and climate observation, that's fantastic. But very low frequency. So you need multiple spacecraft to provide adequate temporal resolution (each pixel is newer than 24 hours). Also, different spacecraft can look at any given point on Earth at different local times (i.e., one spacecraft sees Albuquerque at about 6 AM local time, the next sees it at around 2:30 PM.) This matters because time-of-day variation and sun zenith angle matter at the resolutions and sensitivities of the instruments in question.
No one but the US operates polar orbiters in the polar slots that the US currently occupies, so no one can provide the data for us to use.
I wouldn't mind the UI element if it wouldn't (A) interfere with network function in the first 30 or so seconds after bootup, and (B) reliably detect the wired network the machine is connected to. As in, detect the LAN as something besides "Unidentified Network". The damn network was identified once, but now it's Terra Incognita and therefore must be a public untrusted evil network.
If "tedious and impractical" == "impossible", then I must do about a million impossible things a week at work.
If "tedious and impractical" == "effectively impossible" to you, I'd have to characterize you as a quitter. Especially if the "effectively impossible" thing is the only way to accomplish something worthwhile, like malware forensics or watchmaking.
More than that: in another appeals case (Warning: PDF) in the State of Ohio (coincidence?), GPS evidence presented by the defendant was specifically and intentionally disregarded by the appellate judge. Apparently, GPS wasn't precise enough (average speed over an interval instead of instantaneous speed), and the appellant's use of supporting evidence downloaded from the Internet didn't help. (Protip: Wikipedia is not admissible in any court of law.)
"Baseline" is properly defined as the levels of mental alertness and physiological activation when mediated by an appropriately-high level of serum caffeine. People fall below baseline because they're caffeine-deprived.
Don't think of it as a drug. Think of it as a vital metabolic nutrient. "Caffeine addicts" are addicts the same exact way that "protein addicts" and "vitamin C addicts" are.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if I'm serious.
True. People complain about the Wiki editor cabal. The submitter cabal on/. is almost as bad, except that they can't get into a vicious edit war with you. Abusive moderation, perhaps.
Slashdot Mirror
Unconscionable terms are unenforceable. You're still a fool for agreeing to unread terms, though.
Here's unconscionable for you: you don't reach into my phone and delete stuff. Period.
Yeah, guess what: just because it's common doesn't make it right.
Making tons of money doesn't mean they have a future. IBM was in the same position.
Yeah, it's a real shame about IBM, especially how they evaporated into obscurity and powerlessness. I miss them.
No, wait, what?
I'm not sure what you mean by "official Amiga". OS 4.x is strictly PPC, and specifically "AmigaOne, SAM440EP and Pegasos II" (from the "AmigaOS 4.1 Update 2" link). By my definition, there were no native PPC Amigas (i.e., from Commodore); those were all 680x0 machines like God intended.
I guess that just goes to show you the unsettled state of what's considered "Amiga".
There shall be no moderation.
Ain't that the truth. I suspect that 95% of the modpoints handed out here get abused in "I disagree with you" -1 Troll mods.
It's just a shame.
Dilbert on the subject of budgeting
Damn you. Now you're making me think of complex combined-arms operations as just another raid night.
Only problem is that a wipe is much more tragic, and there are no battle rezzes.
but this really isn't news. Money has a voice. More money has a louder voice. Lots of money can shout out all other voices.
I hope the search providers enjoy their windfall. I hope the states, the Feds, and the individual victims of this disaster take careful note of how much money is being spent on non-productive spin control, rather than actually fixing the problem and cleaning up the aftermath.
Well, sure, the assclowns at RIAA consider it a lost sale every time you hear the tune in your head without forking up the royalties. But format/space shifting has marginal (in principle) support in US case law. As far as I can tell, no court has rejected copying appropriately purchased material from one medium to another, as long as the purchaser of that material is the sole user of either format; the courts seem to have heartburn with a general download provider expecting the "The downloader already purchased this earlier" argument to get them out of jail.
In other words, by Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc, if you make the copy yourself from your own purchased medium, format shifting is legit, whereas by A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc, if you download the copy from someone else, even if you have legitimate rights to it, the download provider is in the wrong.
obDisclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you. And I bet even a lawyer will tell you, if you ask, that the law is kind of unclear on this. But suffice it to say, if RIAA can't monetize it, they'll be very unhappy.
And back to the original topic: this means that "type 3" downloading isn't completely above-board, since you aren't making the Memory Stick copy of the game yourself. Is it a lost sale? I'm sure the provider believes it is.
If I'm tracking you right, you're arguing (in a vague and unfocused way) against the criminalization of "vices". Implicit in this is that "vice" means "stuff I like to do and should be allowed to do if it weren't for those stupid prude sheep criminalizing it."
Every crime represents something someone would like to do. Otherwise, you wouldn't legislate against it. So every outlawed act is depriving SOMEONE of the "right" to do something.
Perhaps you're thinking of something more nuanced, like the old argument "if it hurts no one else, it shouldn't be outlawed". Fair enough, although some "victimless crimes" have a low probability of victims nonetheless.
I don't know. It's hard to figure out exactly where you're coming from, since a 2 sentence sound bite completely ignores all the hard facts.
It's just nostalgia. The media equivalent of seeing your favorite first grade teacher in the obituaries. Some of us are just getting to the point of noticing we're old and haven't gotten used to the idea.
Multimedia spam convergence.
DO NOT WANT!
A full rewrite is the most obvious possibility, but I wonder if there's a more interesting technology there.
I don't wonder. The full rewrite is the most likely possibility, both for technical reasons and because the defection of the most famous Flash crapplication in the world to the anti-Flash camp would be PR gold, and well worth any inducements shoveled in the direction of Zynga.
NB: This is empty speculation ONLY. It's quite possible that Apple has made some devastating technological advance that breaks Flash's content monopoly without any concession in Adobe's direction. But it's as likely that Zynga will rewrite or translate their flagship. And if that happens, expect the spin to ramp up into an orchestrated chorus of Adobe mockery.
In other words, it doesn't count until Apple does it.
That does sound familiar.
I think the climate angle of this story is being overplayed. Makes sense, really; that's the sexy hot topic in the big-brain set, and a great way to sell if you're selling satellites.
But these aren't just climate change "OMG Evil CO2" satellites. These are operational meteorological satellites. If you like decent weather forecasts and value the ability to track hurricanes and typhoons (and other assorted tropical storm phenomena), you care about these spacecraft. Satellite meteorology has revolutionized severe weather handling and medium-range weather forecasting for the last 40 years. Let's not quit now because Al Gore has painted the cross of Climate Change on the sides of these spacecraft.
Or does the defense department have their own weather satellite network?
That's a good question. It's wrapped up in this story.
The short answer is that yes, DoD has its own weather satellite network for the polar orbiting capability. It's called DMSP, and it's the granddaddy of polar orbiter weather satellites. Spacecraft from that program are still flying, but no new ones are being acquired. After the current and on-orbit spares are gone, that's probably it.
Why?
As part of a Clinton-administration order, all US weather satellite operations and acquisition activities were "converged" into a single agency. DoD lost its ability to independently acquire military weather sats, or begin development of new ones. The joint Earth observation satellite program now includes NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, and they have a limited budget and somewhat conflicting goals. But the practical effect is that everyone has to contribute to, and use when they become available, the next-generation EO satellites the article was talking about. To replace DMSP birds, the DoD is depending on NPOESS, since that's the next-gen polar orbiter.
Because where the satellite is has a large impact on the data.
There are really only two classes of orbit for Earth-observation satellite platforms: geostationary and low-earth polar. In the summary, GOES-R is the US follow-on geostationary, and NPOESS is the US follow-on polar orbiter.
Geostationary satellites provide continuous coverage but somewhat low resolution, and coverage of the same hemisphere of the Earth at all times. Because satellite observations at the limb of the visible hemisphere is low-quality (low incident angle with the Earth's surface, long slant path through the atmosphere, etc.), you really can't just have two geos for the entire world. You need at least four, at 90 degree offsets, and more if you can afford it. The US operates two: GOES-11 and GOES-12, out over the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean respectively. There are more, operated by other nations, and we do share data with them. We even coordinate operations: When the Japanese Meteorological Agency had its on-station geosat (GMS-5) fail and its replacement failed to reach orbit after launch, the US reactivated the retired Pacific geo GOES-9, shifted its orbit to cover GMS-5's slot, and leased it to the Japanese. (Leased, of course, because (A) you need to cover the additional costs of operating another satellite, and (B) why walk away from profit?)
So, what's the point of that little discussion? If the US loses both of current active geostationaries, someone else (another nation) would have to shift an existing spacecraft over to cover it and lease it to us. That's a bit bigger than "sharing the data", which, as I point out, we already do. And that's also only a temporary state of affairs, since no one will ever shift over their primary on-station geostationary. It'd have to be a spare, and probably not a future spare, but a deactivated retired spacecraft, and therefore very very temporary.
That's geostationary spacecraft. In summary, the US needs to have 2 spacecraft stationed at 135 degrees West and 104 degrees West, and no one else will be providing them on any terms and with any permanence we'd need in order to rely on them.
Polar-orbiters? Kind of a similar situation. A polar-orbiting earth-observing spacecraft orbits at about 100 miles up and an orbital inclination of about 80 degrees. (A 90 degree orbital inclination passes over both poles; a 0 degree inclination parallels the equator.) That orbital path allows the spacecraft to look down at Earth in a track that eventually (approximately every 30 hours) covers the entire surface of the Earth. But that's a long time between looks at a particular spot on Earth. The low orbit provides wonderful resolution: each pixel in the imagery of one of the next-generation polar orbiters can be as small as 400 meters. For meteorology and climate observation, that's fantastic. But very low frequency. So you need multiple spacecraft to provide adequate temporal resolution (each pixel is newer than 24 hours). Also, different spacecraft can look at any given point on Earth at different local times (i.e., one spacecraft sees Albuquerque at about 6 AM local time, the next sees it at around 2:30 PM.) This matters because time-of-day variation and sun zenith angle matter at the resolutions and sensitivities of the instruments in question.
No one but the US operates polar orbiters in the polar slots that the US currently occupies, so no one can provide the data for us to use.
I wouldn't mind the UI element if it wouldn't (A) interfere with network function in the first 30 or so seconds after bootup, and (B) reliably detect the wired network the machine is connected to. As in, detect the LAN as something besides "Unidentified Network". The damn network was identified once, but now it's Terra Incognita and therefore must be a public untrusted evil network.
Why am I not shocked and surprised to see that Dominic Antonelli, Lieutenant Commander, USN, is a Naval Aviator?
Sailors will be sailors...
If "tedious and impractical" == "impossible", then I must do about a million impossible things a week at work.
If "tedious and impractical" == "effectively impossible" to you, I'd have to characterize you as a quitter. Especially if the "effectively impossible" thing is the only way to accomplish something worthwhile, like malware forensics or watchmaking.
The number one problem with Apple marketing is that some people accidentally believe it.
It's interesting that the sages of ancient wisdom understood Apple long before it was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
More than that: in another appeals case (Warning: PDF) in the State of Ohio (coincidence?), GPS evidence presented by the defendant was specifically and intentionally disregarded by the appellate judge. Apparently, GPS wasn't precise enough (average speed over an interval instead of instantaneous speed), and the appellant's use of supporting evidence downloaded from the Internet didn't help. (Protip: Wikipedia is not admissible in any court of law.)
"Baseline" is properly defined as the levels of mental alertness and physiological activation when mediated by an appropriately-high level of serum caffeine. People fall below baseline because they're caffeine-deprived.
Don't think of it as a drug. Think of it as a vital metabolic nutrient. "Caffeine addicts" are addicts the same exact way that "protein addicts" and "vitamin C addicts" are.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if I'm serious.
True. People complain about the Wiki editor cabal. The submitter cabal on /. is almost as bad, except that they can't get into a vicious edit war with you. Abusive moderation, perhaps.
It's the bees. They're absorbing your bars.
Oh, sure, they pay the price. Unproductive workers, non-laying queens, colony collapse. But YOU GET FEWER BARS.
I'm telling you, it's the bees.
Wait, what? Is this a sentencing guideline or a particularly disturbing crime game achievements system?