Yes, of course, and that (although the gov. regulators should be worried more about letting anyone enter the market). The Greenphone has a totally separate processor like most other hybrid phones; that was my point. I couldn't actually see a separate processor listed on this one though.
I'm sure you'll find the chip that actually connects your calls will be totally separate. They won't want you accessing that as mobile phones use proprietary communication protocols so that a cartel of a few companies can maintain their control of the market. (They do say, under software, that there is some proprietary firmware on separate chips which the main processor can communicate with using open protocols.) PDA/phone hybrids usually come with separate processors for the calls and the PDA functions for this reason.
I'm wondering how this compares with Trolltech's Greenphone. (I think that is only available to developers ATM though.)
One of the resellers claims to have these 300GB drives and disks in stock, so fill in the form to ask them for a quote (I suspect they want to make sure you are sitting down before they tell you the price).
Credit card sized discs would be quite popular too. Actually, Optware have made a flash-card like version of the holographic technology, which is credit card sized and can be read without moving parts, called a Holographic Versatile Card (see the Wikipedia article, and pictures and news articles all over the Web) but it only has a 30 GB capacity—I assume because the laser has to stay in one place. They claimed in the press it would be on sale early this year, but their website is currently "under maintenance" which may not be a good sign.
That is why they set up the Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD) Alliance in 2004. It was renamed the HVD Forum and they've now agreed on a standard which has been approved by ECMA and and it is going through ISO.
They have working disk and drive implementations too, so I don't know what TFA is on about scientists just discovering holographic disks. They've been developing them since the early 1990s.
Also see the Wikipedia article. They have a potential capacity of 3.9 TB but the current standard only allows for 200GB recordable disks (in protective cartridges) and 100GByte read-only disks.
Protein-coated DVDs are the interesting thing ATM with up to 50TB capacity by..uuh..coating the optical disk with proteins...no I'm not sure how that works either. Their creators reckon they'll be for sale in 18 to 24 months, but sounds a bit optimistic to me.
Try s/George III/George (Bush) II in the U.S. Deceleration of Independence. Bear in mind this is the document that founded the United States of America, the same one that George W. Bush now claims to be president elect of.
The preamble says:
...that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to subject reduce them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security... I particularly like the list of reasons why the United States decided to revolt. Do these sound familiar?:
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good
He has forbidden [us] to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained
he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners
he has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices...
he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people
he has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies...
he has affected to render the military, independent of and superior to civil power
he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws
for protecting them [his agents], by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit...
for imposing taxes on us without our consent
for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury
for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses
for taking away our charters, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither
And this last bit:
our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. a prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered and fixed in principles of liberty. We can and try 6 years.
They also offer plus-addressing meaning that a plus sign and anything following it is ignored when addressing (e.g.: myname+acme-signup@gmail.com). However, the dot thing may be better as companies are getting wind of plus addressing (and companies don't know where the dots are in your non-spam address).
I think you've missed the point. Those are just videos downloaded via HTTP (which, sure, you could, from the users' point of view, stream, although it mightn't be very reliable and isn't what HTTP is designed for). With this video, it will be live so they will have to use a specialist streaming protocol (e.g.: RTP) as the video won't be completed when you start downloading it.
BTW, they are called the W3C. The W3 is the World Wide Web.
Also, further to my previous post, looking at it again, I admit they do explicitly say no verb phrases. However, too quote from the start of the note you link to, a link should:
provides some information when read out of context
explains what the link offers
doesn't talk about mechanics
not be a verb phrase
The first three are most important. Now I think the last one is a mistake and the rest of the document makes it clear that they haven't considered were the verb phrase is actually a description of the linked document. In this case, "announces" did explain that the link was an announcement were as a date (not even that of the announcement) doesn't explain what the link offers.
To quote TFA, "if you are in the Boston area you can also join us at the FSF offices
from 11:30am. Please let us know at if you would like to
attend.".
So they won't let you in until 11:30 and you should contact them first so they can make sure not to let in capming crazies like you (or, on second thoughts, maybe you'd fit right in). Just don't tell them you are selling it on the website of evil software patenting nazis.
The note you link to is for when the verb relates to the reader, their UA or the author. When the linked verb has the same semantics as a noun that describes the target, as in this case, that is different (and I'm sure I've seen the W3C doing that). It is the semantics not the part of speech which are important.
Anyway, that still doesn't explain why he linked to the date which has nothing to do with the link.
I'm the submitter and TFA doesn't actually say video, just live streaming. I was embellishing as I kind of assumed it would be video as audio wouldn't really be very interesting—I guess RMS would have to read the GPL or something...or maybe he could sing it (for wide values of sing).
I guess they'd use Theora over RTP (draft RFC) although I'm not sure how well implemented that is (even in clients that support Ogg Theora).
I submitted this and am intrigued by why ScuttleMonkey has made one change to the story as submitted: moving the link to the announcement from the word "announce" to the date (which isn#t even the date of the announcement). Bizarre.
Ha...ye...so much for my voluntarily modding myself down to a 1 (instead of a 2) due to the slightly off topic nature of my post. In theory that is supposed to stop the mods modding you down further.
Welcome to/. and as you've discovered the way to really annoy the mods is to criticise their modding.
I don't have a problem with modding but it would be nice if there were more and clearer categories (as you can decide in your prefs the effect of the modding categorisation). Mods usually mod any opinion they disagree with as flamebait or troll and any statement of fact that sounds clever even if they know it is utter bullshit as insightful or interesting.
Better mod categories would be, off the top of my head, something like: `untrue', `nonsense', `spam' (e.g.: advertising, meme), `hackneyed', `unverifiable', `totally off topic', `brought off topic', and even `unpopular' if you have to (but, hell, I'd set mine to mod those posts up), with clear guidelines on what is what. Notice how it is difficult to dispute what fits into those categories.
But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression. Possibly, but I can see why the RIAA/IFPI/et al think that threatening his uni might work and that anyone working for a uni doesn't have a right to speake against corporations (particularly protection rackets).
I seem to recall that universities in the US have run away scared and offered money when threatened by the RIAA and not protected their students and staff (or even helped the RIAA sue them) even the innocent ones. Also, academic research is increasingly run for the benefit of corporations in the style of a protection racket with academia rolling over to any corporate demands. Didn't universities co-operate on stopping mathematicians discussing illegal primes too?
Threatening a law suit isn't a protection racket (although I see the analogy). The reason the RIAA and IFPI qualify as protection rackets is their threats against artists and recording labels (as well as their customers) that don't employ them (or don't follow the party line).
They didn't say it was "terrorism" just that it is like it. It is you who seems unclear about the definition as you say "People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism" but then refer to terrorism as meaning "organised violence".
Clue: At least in its original sense, terrorism doesn't refer to violent behaviour or killing people (that's murder) but threatening to use violence or suggesting that others will cause violence against someone unless that someone does what you want (e.g.: relinquishes their liberty). So, the Bin Laden video tapes are terrorism (incidentally, whether or not they were really by Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda) and the "war on terror" statements of George W. Bush are mostly terrorism, but someone who kills people without issuing a statement before hand is not a terrorist. In fact, for terrorism to be effective, actual killing is best kept to a minimum (although an occasional bit probably helps).
It can also refer to other things as well as violence (so I'd say that the post you criticize wasn't far off the mark). Basically terrorism roughly means an argumentum ad baculumargumentum in terrorem (more commonly known on/. as FUD).
Uhh..no, I was replying to...uhhh the post that my post was a reply to saying that the story is libelous. And I hardly think it damages Linux's reputation in any way. (Following your logic, does the fact that Redmond has Linux machines and uses a Linux firewall on its site damage Linux's reputation too? Or maybe it suggests that their on OSs don't prtect them enough against crackers?)
It would be great if the submitter did work for the RIAA as his only comment on a story was "I use a...media streamer, providing access to your entire music collection wherever you are. This way I don't need to fill up my laptop drive and I can access my collection from anywhere...". Hmmm....clearly an "evil theiving pirate".
Since when was Sourceforge Inc. a member of the open source community?
More seriously, I don't understand how the story is detrimental to the RIAA's reputation (they moved hosting providers...so what?) so why would it be libelous.
I honestly can't believe this got posted. Everything in this description is pure speculation and the only link is to the RIAA It was clearly posted by the RIAA's marketing department in a desperate bid for a bit of publicity for their site. Protection rackets crave publicity because it helps them extort money and they just like showing off how they can get away with stuff (cf. the Mafia). Also, the poster is quite a new account with only one previous post (and he didn't link his name in the submission).
(For the humour impaired, no, I don't really think they posted it; just trying to make the boring drivel that passes for a story these days on/. more interesting.)
get a live and play WoW 365x24 straight w/o going to the toilet. As that is ungrammatical, I assume you mean get a life, in which case you are obviously using some new meaning of that expression that I haven't previously encountered.
You'd put that stuff in your car? I mean feed it to your kids, ye, even if it might destroy their DNA (see next story) but long-term exposure of your fuel tank would probably burn a whole in the bottom. Think of the cars!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, of course, and that (although the gov. regulators should be worried more about letting anyone enter the market). The Greenphone has a totally separate processor like most other hybrid phones; that was my point. I couldn't actually see a separate processor listed on this one though.
I'm sure you'll find the chip that actually connects your calls will be totally separate. They won't want you accessing that as mobile phones use proprietary communication protocols so that a cartel of a few companies can maintain their control of the market. (They do say, under software, that there is some proprietary firmware on separate chips which the main processor can communicate with using open protocols.) PDA/phone hybrids usually come with separate processors for the calls and the PDA functions for this reason.
I'm wondering how this compares with Trolltech's Greenphone. (I think that is only available to developers ATM though.)
One of the resellers claims to have these 300GB drives and disks in stock, so fill in the form to ask them for a quote (I suspect they want to make sure you are sitting down before they tell you the price).
That is why they set up the Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD) Alliance in 2004. It was renamed the HVD Forum and they've now agreed on a standard which has been approved by ECMA and and it is going through ISO.
They have working disk and drive implementations too, so I don't know what TFA is on about scientists just discovering holographic disks. They've been developing them since the early 1990s.
Also see the Wikipedia article. They have a potential capacity of 3.9 TB but the current standard only allows for 200GB recordable disks (in protective cartridges) and 100GByte read-only disks.
Protein-coated DVDs are the interesting thing ATM with up to 50TB capacity by..uuh..coating the optical disk with proteins...no I'm not sure how that works either. Their creators reckon they'll be for sale in 18 to 24 months, but sounds a bit optimistic to me.
...that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to subject reduce them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security... I particularly like the list of reasons why the United States decided to revolt. Do these sound familiar?:- He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good
- He has forbidden [us] to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained
- he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners
- he has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices...
- he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people
- he has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies...
- he has affected to render the military, independent of and superior to civil power
- he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws
- for protecting them [his agents], by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit...
- for imposing taxes on us without our consent
- for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury
- for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses
- for taking away our charters, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments
- he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither
And this last bit: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. a prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered and fixed in principles of liberty. We can and try 6 years.They also offer plus-addressing meaning that a plus sign and anything following it is ignored when addressing (e.g.: myname+acme-signup@gmail.com). However, the dot thing may be better as companies are getting wind of plus addressing (and companies don't know where the dots are in your non-spam address).
I think you've missed the point. Those are just videos downloaded via HTTP (which, sure, you could, from the users' point of view, stream, although it mightn't be very reliable and isn't what HTTP is designed for). With this video, it will be live so they will have to use a specialist streaming protocol (e.g.: RTP) as the video won't be completed when you start downloading it.
Also, further to my previous post, looking at it again, I admit they do explicitly say no verb phrases. However, too quote from the start of the note you link to, a link should:
- provides some information when read out of context
- explains what the link offers
- doesn't talk about mechanics
- not be a verb phrase
The first three are most important. Now I think the last one is a mistake and the rest of the document makes it clear that they haven't considered were the verb phrase is actually a description of the linked document. In this case, "announces" did explain that the link was an announcement were as a date (not even that of the announcement) doesn't explain what the link offers.To quote TFA, "if you are in the Boston area you can also join us at the FSF offices from 11:30am. Please let us know at if you would like to attend.".
So they won't let you in until 11:30 and you should contact them first so they can make sure not to let in capming crazies like you (or, on second thoughts, maybe you'd fit right in). Just don't tell them you are selling it on the website of evil software patenting nazis.
Anyway, that still doesn't explain why he linked to the date which has nothing to do with the link.
I guess they'd use Theora over RTP (draft RFC) although I'm not sure how well implemented that is (even in clients that support Ogg Theora).
I submitted this and am intrigued by why ScuttleMonkey has made one change to the story as submitted: moving the link to the announcement from the word "announce" to the date (which isn#t even the date of the announcement). Bizarre.
Ha...ye...so much for my voluntarily modding myself down to a 1 (instead of a 2) due to the slightly off topic nature of my post. In theory that is supposed to stop the mods modding you down further.
/. and as you've discovered the way to really annoy the mods is to criticise their modding.
Welcome to
I don't have a problem with modding but it would be nice if there were more and clearer categories (as you can decide in your prefs the effect of the modding categorisation). Mods usually mod any opinion they disagree with as flamebait or troll and any statement of fact that sounds clever even if they know it is utter bullshit as insightful or interesting.
Better mod categories would be, off the top of my head, something like: `untrue', `nonsense', `spam' (e.g.: advertising, meme), `hackneyed', `unverifiable', `totally off topic', `brought off topic', and even `unpopular' if you have to (but, hell, I'd set mine to mod those posts up), with clear guidelines on what is what. Notice how it is difficult to dispute what fits into those categories.
I seem to recall that universities in the US have run away scared and offered money when threatened by the RIAA and not protected their students and staff (or even helped the RIAA sue them) even the innocent ones. Also, academic research is increasingly run for the benefit of corporations in the style of a protection racket with academia rolling over to any corporate demands. Didn't universities co-operate on stopping mathematicians discussing illegal primes too?
You're right, but the guy who threatened to talk to his employer is a director of both IFPI and the BPI, which is I think were /. messed up.
Threatening a law suit isn't a protection racket (although I see the analogy). The reason the RIAA and IFPI qualify as protection rackets is their threats against artists and recording labels (as well as their customers) that don't employ them (or don't follow the party line).
They didn't say it was "terrorism" just that it is like it. It is you who seems unclear about the definition as you say "People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism" but then refer to terrorism as meaning "organised violence".
Clue: At least in its original sense, terrorism doesn't refer to violent behaviour or killing people (that's murder) but threatening to use violence or suggesting that others will cause violence against someone unless that someone does what you want (e.g.: relinquishes their liberty). So, the Bin Laden video tapes are terrorism (incidentally, whether or not they were really by Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda) and the "war on terror" statements of George W. Bush are mostly terrorism, but someone who kills people without issuing a statement before hand is not a terrorist. In fact, for terrorism to be effective, actual killing is best kept to a minimum (although an occasional bit probably helps).
It can also refer to other things as well as violence (so I'd say that the post you criticize wasn't far off the mark). Basically terrorism roughly means an argumentum ad baculum argumentum in terrorem (more commonly known on /. as FUD).
Uhh..no, I was replying to...uhhh the post that my post was a reply to saying that the story is libelous. And I hardly think it damages Linux's reputation in any way. (Following your logic, does the fact that Redmond has Linux machines and uses a Linux firewall on its site damage Linux's reputation too? Or maybe it suggests that their on OSs don't prtect them enough against crackers?)
It would be great if the submitter did work for the RIAA as his only comment on a story was "I use a...media streamer, providing access to your entire music collection wherever you are. This way I don't need to fill up my laptop drive and I can access my collection from anywhere...". Hmmm....clearly an "evil theiving pirate".
More seriously, I don't understand how the story is detrimental to the RIAA's reputation (they moved hosting providers...so what?) so why would it be libelous.
(For the humour impaired, no, I don't really think they posted it; just trying to make the boring drivel that passes for a story these days on /. more interesting.)
...which says my browser, Iceweasel (unbranded Firefox 2) is unsupported.
You'd put that stuff in your car? I mean feed it to your kids, ye, even if it might destroy their DNA (see next story) but long-term exposure of your fuel tank would probably burn a whole in the bottom. Think of the cars!