You know, with computers that small, they might as well come up with interesting cases for them. Who wouldn't want a functional pocket-size computer in the shape of a miniature Cray X-MP? Or inside an empty 12 oz. can of Jolt Cola?
Think of the applications for toy lines, particularly action and fashion figures!
If they just make it thinner then it could plug into Kirk's command chair.
Still, if that's the power connector, it seems awfully close to the speaker out connector. There could be AC noise bleedthrough. How much isolation can it have at that size?
But...who actually wants this thing? And what are you using it for?
Seems like a natural for the wearable computing platform. This thing can be easily concealed inside a fanny pack, and still be hooked up to more traditional perhiperals when not on-the-go.
Maybe you're lucky and left handed, but my arrow keys are in the right side of the keyboard, the same side as my mouse.
That's one of my gripes about keyboards. The way they add all the additional keys on the right it is like they expect you to either use a left-handed mouse or a keyboard tray that's longer on the left than the right.
Give me a keyboard where the numeric keypad is on the left side instead. Or a three-piece keyboard that lets me place the numeric keypad, cursor key cluster section, and main keyboard where I want them.
Or they could rename themselves as "Dead Sole Rock Cod Turbot Haddock White Baith the Places Fish Bream Mackerel Salmon Poached Salmon Poached Salmon In A White Wine Sauce Salmon Meunie^H`re and Helen Shapiro."
The objection to distribution of images is that image necessarily contain their proprietary userland code, which is decidely not GPL.
As well as certain video content which is also copyrighted by TiVo, such as the menu background video loops.
It has been made clear to the people at the AVS Forum website that offering drive images for download would be infringing and that no postings there would entertain such action. In not-so-recent history this appeared to become more lax. Apparently the hammer has come down.
Another issue is people installing Series2 standalone images on their USB-enabled DirecTiVo combination boxes so that they could run 4.0 on that platform. The installation apparently works. Any discussion of this is now forbidden on the aformentioned forum. Shutting down image providers will shut down people's ability to make the installation.
This may also however make it impossible to do the kernel monte hack to regain access to the software in face of the lockdowns in the firmware. Though it should be possible to hack together a monte-able image without including TiVo-proprietary code.
I'd be more interested in a device I can stack several audio CDs into at once so I can rip them all to MP3/FLAC/whatever without manually inserting each one. Does anybody else out there with a ~1000 CD collection feel this way?
Didn't they have something like this for vinyl playback?
Yes, if one does install a DVD burner in a jukebox it could have legitimate uses like such as self-publishing one's own works or making a backup of a very large system.
For the former though, a duplication station that also incorporates label printing is a better fit than modding a consumer multi-disc changer. You'd want to automate all the time-consuming steps of process.
The submitter though isn't asking for a bulk burner. He's already burned a lot of disks and wants automated access to them. His dubiously acquired library has grown beyond his ability to handle.
benjamindees is right that such a system with a burner isn't strictly a piracy tool. He just made a bad presumption (particularly so in an Ask Slashdot discussion) that I was talking to him instead of the submitter.
anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_ works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived work.
What implications does this have for TiVo's proprietary modules for access to their proprietary MFS partitions for storing video? Do these have to have their source disclosed as well? (TiVo DVRs run Linux.)
That we're still arguing over this proves this is one of the most incorrect assumptions in computing. (We just can't agree which of us is incorrect.)
Where do you define "first"?
in-i-tial adj. 1. Of, relating to, or occurring at the beginning; first:
took the initial step toward peace.
By your definition, if the sysop of the board sets up the timed event, the BBS is uploading to the PC. But if the user sets up the timed event, the PC is downloading from the BBS.
No, the sysop is uploading to the user's PC and the user is downloading from the sysop's BBS. You're changing the subject of the action mid-sentence, from the people to the machines.
Same software and mechanisms and actions on both ends, both times. That's inconsistent.
If you take the humans out of the equation as you are wont to do, then the BBS would be uploading to the PC in both cases. But if you examine the greater context of who initiated the actions, then you use the upload/download terms relative to the actor, not the hardware.
To upload and to download are transitive verbs. They require a direct object to complete their meanings. Knowing the context of the action is essential to the correct use of them.
Remember, we're talking about computers here. Users don't actually transfer files. Computers do. Instructions have to execute for anything to happen, and that means both ends have to do something.
Then we are talking about different things. I upload a file to you(r computer); I download a file from you(r computer); you upload a file to me(/my computer), you download a file from me(/my computer). It's a quaternary state. The subject (you/I) must be defined as well as the destination. I define it at the human; you define it at the machine or process.
I'm saying that to be accurate you must widen your scope, not contract it. (And that English is for humans, not machines. It should be acceptable to define my actions upon computers with these verbs.)
Besides, computers do nothing without a causer. We have an abundance of passive senders out there that transmit data by remote command. Some also passively receive. But they still do not act unless someone else does. Whosoever does becomes the subject of these verbs. To cast the role of subject onto the machines is to disavow responsibility for the action.
Push and pull is fine. But when one end pulls, the other end has to push. Think of a rope; if two people are each holding a rope taught, one has to push the rope for the other to pull.
But you don't download people, you download files, analogous to inanimate objects. If I pull on a rope attached to an object, that object is not pushing on the rope to bring itself to me. Same if I'm pushing on the object down a rail to someone else, it is not pulling me.
If I pull a product from the shelf, the store owner isn't pushing it into my hands. If I pull you through a doorway, you aren't pushing me through it. And I haven't shoplifted if the store puts a product in my hand and shoves me out the door. If you ignore the greater context, you introduce ambiguity and ignore liability.
And, back to your analogy, if a rope is taut, then both ends are pulling and no one is pushing. If they're moving a taut rope, then one is pulling less than the other, but that doesn't make the lesser puller a pusher.
The applier of the force is the one pushing or pulling. Similarly, the one who initially causes a file transfer is the one downloading or uploading.
Any law that attempts to say "uploading" is okay but "downloading" is not is insane. But fortunately, we don't need to worry about that. You don't outlaw uploading or downloading files.
Who/what initiates the transfer would to me be implied by the word "initiate". The initial actor, the first action. The user started it, it is a download to the user's machine.
Because of the requirement of the location of the initial action, the terminology is not symmetric. Thus the BBS with a Downloads section is properly named because people download files from there, the system does not upload files from there. The users upload files to be downloaded. Its terminology is in the remote user's space.
It's who knocks over the initial domino that starts the rest falling. The overt act that, unless actively countered, results in the transfer.
"What about if the BBS has some kind of timed event to automatically send a file at a given time? What if the PC does that in a script?"
If the BBS initiates the transfer not at the behest of the user, the system is uploading to the user's system. If it is at the behest of the user, the user is downloading.
If it is a virus delivering a payload at the behest of neither party, you're back to the third actor issue as described by the FTP example. Unless you treat the virus as the actor duping the system into uploading to the user or duping the user into downloading from the system.
Your definition mixes active and passive terminology, where uploads are always active ("to send") and downloads are always passive ("to receive"). Voluntary and involuntary.
The definitions I always understood had downloading be pulling and uploading be pushing, both being active actions. Push and pull; put and get; give and take.
And since action is required for both definitions but only one action is required to cause the transfer, either an upload or download occurs, not both.
Unless active permission is needed at both ends could it be both, like two missile commanders turning their keys simultaneously to enable a launch. Both are actors, neither one passive. If instead of a launch it is to start a file transfer between them, it could be an upload or download depending on how you phrase it.
But unless you have two actors, I still feel that the initiator determines whether it is either an upload or download (or transfer/sideload). An action has to take place; someone has to cause it to happen. Push or pull; up or down.
And this becomes important legislatively regarding penalties for uploading or downloading files. If you divest the definitions of active actions, you can't assign culpability. So both must be defined actively.
downloading means going from a "greater" machine to a "lesser" on, such as from my XServe to my Powerbook.
That definition of course breaks down when the machines are equal, such as transfers between two XServes or two Powerbooks, as well as when the two machines are one in the same, such as downloading a web page hosted on the same machine that requested it.
Even when FTP'ing to 127.0.0.1, get is still downloading and put is still uploading. As it would also be if you FTP'd from a mainframe to a laptop.
I don't think that's right. If I download 10 bytes from a machine, that machine uploads 10 bytes to me. Hence the terms upload bandwidth and download bandwidth.
The popular usage of classifying bandwidth as upload and download is technically incorrect and it should be incoming and outgoing bandwidth instead. The direction the electron holes travel in the wire is insufficient information to determine whether the data they represent collectively is an upload or a download.
Upload/download also refers to who is initiating the action. If you're pulling network data to you, you are downloading; if you're pushing network data to someone else, you are uploading.
But if you're downloading data from a site, the site is not also uploading that data to you. The action exists at only one end of the operation, at the initiator of the action.
The location can be virtual (i.e. using the local machine to log into a remote machine to have the remote machine upload a file to the local machine is uploading, not downloading).
However, FTP has a (rarely implemented) feature where the controller of the transfer is neither sender nor receiver. One can trasnfer files from one host to another while controlling it from a third, and the data doesn't even pass through the third machine. Is that neither uploading nor downloading, or both? IMO, it is simply transferring.
When I moved to my new house, I had my long distance service move with me. Even though I now use a cell phone for most of my long distance, when my mother visits I let her use the land line for long distance calls.
My first month at the new house, my bill was less than $2 total. The next month, there was a $5 minimum usage charge. I called up MCI and disputed it, and the restored my original plan with no minimum or monthly fees. Next month, no bill. Next month more than $6 of usage. Last month, there was a $6 minimum usage charge!
I complained on-line this time, but I think they didn't get the complaint because they thought my session had expired. I withheld the $2.70 difference on my bill between usage and minimum usage.
Unfortunately, it appears no one else offers a better plan than what I signed up for. I either have to pay an even higher minimum service fee or pay more per minute for in-state calls. If I get another bill, I'll have my long distance service discontinued and switch to using calling cards for any landline calls (which are even cheaper).
Slashdot Mirror
You know, with computers that small, they might as well come up with interesting cases for them. Who wouldn't want a functional pocket-size computer in the shape of a miniature Cray X-MP? Or inside an empty 12 oz. can of Jolt Cola?
Think of the applications for toy lines, particularly action and fashion figures!
If they just make it thinner then it could plug into Kirk's command chair.
Still, if that's the power connector, it seems awfully close to the speaker out connector. There could be AC noise bleedthrough. How much isolation can it have at that size?
But...who actually wants this thing? And what are you using it for?
Seems like a natural for the wearable computing platform. This thing can be easily concealed inside a fanny pack, and still be hooked up to more traditional perhiperals when not on-the-go.
Maybe you're lucky and left handed, but my arrow keys are in the right side of the keyboard, the same side as my mouse.
That's one of my gripes about keyboards. The way they add all the additional keys on the right it is like they expect you to either use a left-handed mouse or a keyboard tray that's longer on the left than the right.
Give me a keyboard where the numeric keypad is on the left side instead. Or a three-piece keyboard that lets me place the numeric keypad, cursor key cluster section, and main keyboard where I want them.
Or they could rename themselves as "Dead Sole Rock Cod Turbot Haddock White Baith the Places Fish Bream Mackerel Salmon Poached Salmon Poached Salmon In A White Wine Sauce Salmon Meunie^H`re and Helen Shapiro."
The attacker must:
Be on your local network
Already have control of your DHCP server
Which calls for better terminology for vulnerabilities than simply "local" and "remote".
Though it was remote from the machine, the vulnerability required the exploiter to be local to the LAN.
I.e. the killer's calls are coming from inside the house.
Then again, maybe I should call my server room my "Internet Bunker".
I don't remember where I read it, but MIT actually has more IP's than the whole of China...
Routable or total?
"Wow, who would have thought that Han Solo was Anakin Skywalker's half-brother."
The objection to distribution of images is that image necessarily contain their proprietary userland code, which is decidely not GPL.
As well as certain video content which is also copyrighted by TiVo, such as the menu background video loops.
It has been made clear to the people at the AVS Forum website that offering drive images for download would be infringing and that no postings there would entertain such action. In not-so-recent history this appeared to become more lax. Apparently the hammer has come down.
Another issue is people installing Series2 standalone images on their USB-enabled DirecTiVo combination boxes so that they could run 4.0 on that platform. The installation apparently works. Any discussion of this is now forbidden on the aformentioned forum. Shutting down image providers will shut down people's ability to make the installation.
This may also however make it impossible to do the kernel monte hack to regain access to the software in face of the lockdowns in the firmware. Though it should be possible to hack together a monte-able image without including TiVo-proprietary code.
Perhaps I should reconsider referring to my server room as my "Internet Bunker".
I'd be more interested in a device I can stack several audio CDs into at once so I can rip them all to MP3/FLAC/whatever without manually inserting each one. Does anybody else out there with a ~1000 CD collection feel this way?
Didn't they have something like this for vinyl playback?
Yes, if one does install a DVD burner in a jukebox it could have legitimate uses like such as self-publishing one's own works or making a backup of a very large system.
For the former though, a duplication station that also incorporates label printing is a better fit than modding a consumer multi-disc changer. You'd want to automate all the time-consuming steps of process.
The submitter though isn't asking for a bulk burner. He's already burned a lot of disks and wants automated access to them. His dubiously acquired library has grown beyond his ability to handle.
benjamindees is right that such a system with a burner isn't strictly a piracy tool. He just made a bad presumption (particularly so in an Ask Slashdot discussion) that I was talking to him instead of the submitter.
Better yet, mod a coin operated CD jukebox-jukebox. The real thing they put in bars these days. Then rig it to not need money.
Or leave it coin operated and use it to tax yourself until you have enough money to buy what you've downloaded.
- anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_ works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived work.
What implications does this have for TiVo's proprietary modules for access to their proprietary MFS partitions for storing video? Do these have to have their source disclosed as well? (TiVo DVRs run Linux.)I thought the correct terms were upstream and downstream.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
My modems had Tx and Rx lights, not an UPLOAD light. What kind of modem are you using?
I'm not responsible for other people's misuses, including those of modem manufacturers and P2P software authors.
Where do you define "first"?
By your definition, if the sysop of the board sets up the timed event, the BBS is uploading to the PC. But if the user sets up the timed event, the PC is downloading from the BBS.
No, the sysop is uploading to the user's PC and the user is downloading from the sysop's BBS. You're changing the subject of the action mid-sentence, from the people to the machines.
Same software and mechanisms and actions on both ends, both times. That's inconsistent.
If you take the humans out of the equation as you are wont to do, then the BBS would be uploading to the PC in both cases. But if you examine the greater context of who initiated the actions, then you use the upload/download terms relative to the actor, not the hardware.
To upload and to download are transitive verbs. They require a direct object to complete their meanings. Knowing the context of the action is essential to the correct use of them.
Remember, we're talking about computers here. Users don't actually transfer files. Computers do. Instructions have to execute for anything to happen, and that means both ends have to do something.
Then we are talking about different things. I upload a file to you(r computer); I download a file from you(r computer); you upload a file to me(/my computer), you download a file from me(/my computer). It's a quaternary state. The subject (you/I) must be defined as well as the destination. I define it at the human; you define it at the machine or process.
I'm saying that to be accurate you must widen your scope, not contract it. (And that English is for humans, not machines. It should be acceptable to define my actions upon computers with these verbs.)
Besides, computers do nothing without a causer. We have an abundance of passive senders out there that transmit data by remote command. Some also passively receive. But they still do not act unless someone else does. Whosoever does becomes the subject of these verbs. To cast the role of subject onto the machines is to disavow responsibility for the action.
Push and pull is fine. But when one end pulls, the other end has to push. Think of a rope; if two people are each holding a rope taught, one has to push the rope for the other to pull.
But you don't download people, you download files, analogous to inanimate objects. If I pull on a rope attached to an object, that object is not pushing on the rope to bring itself to me. Same if I'm pushing on the object down a rail to someone else, it is not pulling me.
If I pull a product from the shelf, the store owner isn't pushing it into my hands. If I pull you through a doorway, you aren't pushing me through it. And I haven't shoplifted if the store puts a product in my hand and shoves me out the door. If you ignore the greater context, you introduce ambiguity and ignore liability.
And, back to your analogy, if a rope is taut, then both ends are pulling and no one is pushing. If they're moving a taut rope, then one is pulling less than the other, but that doesn't make the lesser puller a pusher.
The applier of the force is the one pushing or pulling. Similarly, the one who initially causes a file transfer is the one downloading or uploading.
Any law that attempts to say "uploading" is okay but "downloading" is not is insane. But fortunately, we don't need to worry about that. You don't outlaw uploading or downloading files.
The legislative angle I referred to is
Who/what initiates the transfer would to me be implied by the word "initiate". The initial actor, the first action. The user started it, it is a download to the user's machine.
Because of the requirement of the location of the initial action, the terminology is not symmetric. Thus the BBS with a Downloads section is properly named because people download files from there, the system does not upload files from there. The users upload files to be downloaded. Its terminology is in the remote user's space.
It's who knocks over the initial domino that starts the rest falling. The overt act that, unless actively countered, results in the transfer.
"What about if the BBS has some kind of timed event to automatically send a file at a given time? What if the PC does that in a script?"
If the BBS initiates the transfer not at the behest of the user, the system is uploading to the user's system. If it is at the behest of the user, the user is downloading.
If it is a virus delivering a payload at the behest of neither party, you're back to the third actor issue as described by the FTP example. Unless you treat the virus as the actor duping the system into uploading to the user or duping the user into downloading from the system.
Your definition mixes active and passive terminology, where uploads are always active ("to send") and downloads are always passive ("to receive"). Voluntary and involuntary.
The definitions I always understood had downloading be pulling and uploading be pushing, both being active actions. Push and pull; put and get; give and take.
And since action is required for both definitions but only one action is required to cause the transfer, either an upload or download occurs, not both.
Unless active permission is needed at both ends could it be both, like two missile commanders turning their keys simultaneously to enable a launch. Both are actors, neither one passive. If instead of a launch it is to start a file transfer between them, it could be an upload or download depending on how you phrase it.
But unless you have two actors, I still feel that the initiator determines whether it is either an upload or download (or transfer/sideload). An action has to take place; someone has to cause it to happen. Push or pull; up or down.
And this becomes important legislatively regarding penalties for uploading or downloading files. If you divest the definitions of active actions, you can't assign culpability. So both must be defined actively.
... and how are you going to cram four people around it for guantlet 2?
There are versions/plug-ins for MAME that allow multiplayer gaming over the Internet. Surely they'd port that over to work over Bluetooth.
Karma goes to the first person to cite the site on sight.
Thanks to this port of MAME, there are now many good games for N-Gage!
Since MAME is an emulator, wouldn't that make those games "already out for other systems" by definition?
Not that those games aren't great!
downloading means going from a "greater" machine to a "lesser" on, such as from my XServe to my Powerbook.
That definition of course breaks down when the machines are equal, such as transfers between two XServes or two Powerbooks, as well as when the two machines are one in the same, such as downloading a web page hosted on the same machine that requested it.
Even when FTP'ing to 127.0.0.1, get is still downloading and put is still uploading. As it would also be if you FTP'd from a mainframe to a laptop.
I don't think that's right. If I download 10 bytes from a machine, that machine uploads 10 bytes to me. Hence the terms upload bandwidth and download bandwidth.
The popular usage of classifying bandwidth as upload and download is technically incorrect and it should be incoming and outgoing bandwidth instead. The direction the electron holes travel in the wire is insufficient information to determine whether the data they represent collectively is an upload or a download.
Upload/download also refers to who is initiating the action. If you're pulling network data to you, you are downloading; if you're pushing network data to someone else, you are uploading.
But if you're downloading data from a site, the site is not also uploading that data to you. The action exists at only one end of the operation, at the initiator of the action.
The location can be virtual (i.e. using the local machine to log into a remote machine to have the remote machine upload a file to the local machine is uploading, not downloading).
However, FTP has a (rarely implemented) feature where the controller of the transfer is neither sender nor receiver. One can trasnfer files from one host to another while controlling it from a third, and the data doesn't even pass through the third machine. Is that neither uploading nor downloading, or both? IMO, it is simply transferring.
When I moved to my new house, I had my long distance service move with me. Even though I now use a cell phone for most of my long distance, when my mother visits I let her use the land line for long distance calls.
My first month at the new house, my bill was less than $2 total. The next month, there was a $5 minimum usage charge. I called up MCI and disputed it, and the restored my original plan with no minimum or monthly fees. Next month, no bill. Next month more than $6 of usage. Last month, there was a $6 minimum usage charge!
I complained on-line this time, but I think they didn't get the complaint because they thought my session had expired. I withheld the $2.70 difference on my bill between usage and minimum usage.
Unfortunately, it appears no one else offers a better plan than what I signed up for. I either have to pay an even higher minimum service fee or pay more per minute for in-state calls. If I get another bill, I'll have my long distance service discontinued and switch to using calling cards for any landline calls (which are even cheaper).