The DMCA takedown is in essence simply a formalised process for contacting a website and saying "that is my image, can you please either stop using it or you can license it from me." The takedown system was devised as a way to reduce litigation by assisting owners in dealing directly with infringers, and also to make it possible to protect your copyright when litigation is simply too expensive. Before the DMCA introduced the takedown process, copyright protection was for the big corporations as they were the only ones with enough clout to challenge. It was only the DMCA that gave this guy the rights he had.
Wait, except that pancreases are *internal* organs and so impossible to see without imaging or surgery/autopsy, and Marshall tube amplifiers with their legendary logo is the backdrop for innumerable concerts seen by untold numbers of people the world over, and that Marshall has become part of the cultural lexicon because of numerous musical icons, Jimi Hendrix (James Marshall Hendrix) being among them.
But, yeah, other than those little things, it's a perfectly valid analogy.
You realise that tubes are, like the pancreas, internal components, right? Just because you can see the logo on the box doesn't mean you know what's inside the box. This Was The Point Of My Analogy.
I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice.
My point was that the federal government defacing overseas websites is nothing more than vigilante justice. But then I discovered that wasn't what they were doing anyway, and it was just a bunch of comments on a blog or something. All rather pathetic.
The only problem I see here is that you didn't read what I was responding to and jumped in with a completely orthogonal argument. The AC said that you have to kill to be a true muslim, not that people who kill call themselves true muslims. Can we stick to one bigoted troll argument at a time? I'm fairly intelligent and fairly patient, but trying to keep track of two concurrent threads of prejudice.dll is a little too much for my primitive task scheduler....
The difference is the target and the intent. When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.
The US and the UK between us manage to kill more civilians than enemy combatants, and we appear to kill more enemy combatants than we lose of our own guys.
It may be by accident, but it's because we're not willing to risk our own guys -- we value them over civilians, which is the wrong way round, if we're genuinely supposed to be the "good guys".
The problem is that you can only wage war against another sovereign government. Terrorists aren't soldiers, they're just criminals, and should be dealt with by the justice system, not the military.
I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice. I am firmly against it, and I believe that this is what Anonymous is all about. I am OK with the feds releasing the proverbial hounds against Anonymous.
If a Samoan police officer came round to your house and locked you up, that would be vigilante justice, because he has no right to act in your jurisdiction (I apologise if you are actually living in Samoa!)
What I can't understand is why they didn't pretend this was the work of an independent hacker. They wouldn't reveal this without thinking so there must be a reason.
I'm guessing it's down to one of the founding principles of terrorist strategy: provoke an overreaction from your enemy so that you can prove they're the bad guys. The US presumably wants people in the Middle East to be outraged so that they can paint them all as dangerous terrorists. They're gambling on their citizens seeing it as a reasonable action on their part, and judging by some of the tub-thumping going on here, it's a safe bet.
That's what "they" say about "their" guys when they're arrested by "us". During the cold war, you'd only get your guy back if you had one of theirs to trade. Pakistan don't seem to have many spies in the US, so there's no leverage here...
The US establishment has done deals with many shady organisations in the past. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party. The Taliban. Iran Contra. etc etc ad nauseum. That never turned out well in the long run. Why should supporting a global network of unidentified hackers (who aren't all the best fans of US policy, particularly with regards to computer crime) be any better an idea?
I thought Al-Qaeda was essentially a phantom organisation invented by some CIA informant, and that Osama just latched onto the name as a prefab label of fear, and that there was suggestions that others had done the same....
Raiding bank accounts is theft -- crimes against our enemies don't necessarily improve our overall position. In some cases, it is counter productive in the larger sense because such actions can generate sympathy for the enemy and contempt for us. However, posting the honest truth in place of their manipulative deceptions will undermine their propaganda, give pause to reasonable people who support our enemies due to misinformation, and not upset allies in the region and abroad. The truth is a difficult weapon to criticize, and wielding it effectively is a required element of modern war.
Erm... you do realise that website hacking is a crime too, right? And that this can generate sympathy for the enemy and contempt for the US? Like, "look, the capitalist infidels are scared of our words and replace them with their own," or "they cry democracy and free speech, but attempt to silence the voice of the people." That kind of stuff. It doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Yes, but the UK and US strategy is to start a war on foreign soil then stand back throwing rocks from a distance and then say "but the poor soldiers might die if we sent them in, you unpatriotic, insensitive clod" if anyone points out the poor accuracy of our "precision" strikes and suggests, like, you know, invading properly, up close.
You can't import a gig of photos from an SD card for the school Yearbook club on a Pi running VNC to a server. It would choke and the gimp would kill the graphics hardware on the server if it had to support 300 users running it.
But they're not kitting out an entire school exclusively with Pis, though, are they? They're using the Pi as the basis for a high school computing class based on software development, rather than desktop IT. When I was at high school, the Computer Studies department was kitted out with Archimedeses, the Business Studies department ran on bottom-end PCs (or possibly even PCWs) and the library had BBC Micro, Archimedes and even a Mac. Some of the other departments still had BBC Micros that they used occasionally for simple software demos. My Dad even wrote some question sheets in Wordwise. (In fact, me and my dad were kind of pivotal in getting PCs into the school -- when we got Windows 95 at home, Dad made some pretty nifty worksheets (with a little help from me) and within a year the headmaster had bought a PC for my dad's department.)
There's no harm in splitting the computer fleet into a "computer studies suite" and a "multimedia suite".
I believe that anyone younger than 30 now stands a damn good chance of never seeing a vacuum tube or even know of their existance.
Wrong.
If they ever attend a rock concert or watch a video of one (or if they ever take up electric guitar or bass) they'd see walls of them.
I've never seen a human pancreas, but I've looked at untold thousands of people during my life. If I hadn't done biology at school, I'd probably not even be aware that there was such a thing as a "pancreas", even after looking at all these people.
The previous posters point is that most modern geeks don't know about tubes. Most modern computer geeks aren't guitar geeks (although some of us are -- I even built my own electric guitar once!)
Not applicable to components? Perhaps we need a Beowulf cluster... no, you're right. This is silly. We need a more appropriate meme. Car analogy, anyone...?
There is more than one person on Slashdot -- so why did you assume it was the same guy that responded that modded you down? Makes you look like the jackass.
And as others have said, you can't post and mod on the same thread. Makes you look like the jackass.
Tube amps were used in TVs long after they fell out of favor in home hi-fi setups. Old TVs had a 'sound' that you can't get out of any transistor amp.
I suspect that this was more down to circuit design constraints than quality issues. The cathode ray tube was a very similar technology to the thermionic valve, both featuring an electron heater and accelerating the electrons with a high-voltage anode. As such, you'd probably be able to run the picture tube and the valves off a single high-tension transformer. Transistors, however, would need a completely different transformer to give low voltage DC. For the TV manufacturers it was a question of balancing the cheapness and reliability of silicon against the cost of that extra transformer. When the prices balanced out, they switched.
You're forgetting about the fact that these are nanoscale thermionic valves, not full-size "vacuum tubes". The traditional amplifier needs a high potential difference (voltage) to excite electrons to jump the gap. But in these, the gap's so tiny that you don't even need to create a vacuum, because no air will even fit in it! They don't specifically mention the power requirements in the Sciencemag article, but if you look at the abstract it says:
and the operation voltage can be decreased comparable to the modern semiconductor devices.
.
Of course, the academic paper calls it a "Gate insulated nanoscale vacuum channel transistor".
Desktop computing is not an all-or-nothing affair. The Raspberry Pi is definitely powerful enough to run a terminal front-end.
The last project I worked on before leaving corporate IT was to get a mixed-mode environment up and running -- some users on Wyse terminals, some on desktop PCs. The project I was on before that was maintaining a desktop suite that was backed up by specialist software on Citrix in the datacentre. The main motivation for this was so that the client didn't have to buy top-spec machines for every desk when most users would only be emailing and writing Word.docs. The same principle applies in schools.
In fact, I would argue that it's in the interests of educational software suppliers to move to a thin-client model. The current heterogenity of the PC market makes software support a real headache. If they were to start supplying their software preinstalled on a small server, and only install VNC on the desktops, then it wouldn't matter what software and hardware the PCs were running, the actual execution environment would be identical.
Slashdot Mirror
The DMCA takedown is in essence simply a formalised process for contacting a website and saying "that is my image, can you please either stop using it or you can license it from me." The takedown system was devised as a way to reduce litigation by assisting owners in dealing directly with infringers, and also to make it possible to protect your copyright when litigation is simply too expensive. Before the DMCA introduced the takedown process, copyright protection was for the big corporations as they were the only ones with enough clout to challenge. It was only the DMCA that gave this guy the rights he had.
Great analogy!
Wait, except that pancreases are *internal* organs and so impossible to see without imaging or surgery/autopsy, and Marshall tube amplifiers with their legendary logo is the backdrop for innumerable concerts seen by untold numbers of people the world over, and that Marshall has become part of the cultural lexicon because of numerous musical icons, Jimi Hendrix (James Marshall Hendrix) being among them.
But, yeah, other than those little things, it's a perfectly valid analogy.
You realise that tubes are, like the pancreas, internal components, right? Just because you can see the logo on the box doesn't mean you know what's inside the box. This Was The Point Of My Analogy.
I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice.
My point was that the federal government defacing overseas websites is nothing more than vigilante justice. But then I discovered that wasn't what they were doing anyway, and it was just a bunch of comments on a blog or something. All rather pathetic.
The only problem I see here is that you didn't read what I was responding to and jumped in with a completely orthogonal argument. The AC said that you have to kill to be a true muslim, not that people who kill call themselves true muslims. Can we stick to one bigoted troll argument at a time? I'm fairly intelligent and fairly patient, but trying to keep track of two concurrent threads of prejudice.dll is a little too much for my primitive task scheduler....
Great Scott. Is this the new US foreign policy...?
I didn't say "bad things don't happen", I was simply responding to the GP's nonsense about "true Muslims".
The difference is the target and the intent. When we kill civilians, it's truly by accident.
The US and the UK between us manage to kill more civilians than enemy combatants, and we appear to kill more enemy combatants than we lose of our own guys.
It may be by accident, but it's because we're not willing to risk our own guys -- we value them over civilians, which is the wrong way round, if we're genuinely supposed to be the "good guys".
But on the other hand, "there is no compunction in Islam", or however your preferred translation words it....
The problem is that you can only wage war against another sovereign government. Terrorists aren't soldiers, they're just criminals, and should be dealt with by the justice system, not the military.
I am still not sure how I feel about the federal government defacing websites, but I do know how I feel about vigilante justice. I am firmly against it, and I believe that this is what Anonymous is all about. I am OK with the feds releasing the proverbial hounds against Anonymous.
If a Samoan police officer came round to your house and locked you up, that would be vigilante justice, because he has no right to act in your jurisdiction (I apologise if you are actually living in Samoa!)
What I can't understand is why they didn't pretend this was the work of an independent hacker. They wouldn't reveal this without thinking so there must be a reason.
I'm guessing it's down to one of the founding principles of terrorist strategy: provoke an overreaction from your enemy so that you can prove they're the bad guys. The US presumably wants people in the Middle East to be outraged so that they can paint them all as dangerous terrorists. They're gambling on their citizens seeing it as a reasonable action on their part, and judging by some of the tub-thumping going on here, it's a safe bet.
That's what "they" say about "their" guys when they're arrested by "us". During the cold war, you'd only get your guy back if you had one of theirs to trade. Pakistan don't seem to have many spies in the US, so there's no leverage here...
The US establishment has done deals with many shady organisations in the past. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party. The Taliban. Iran Contra. etc etc ad nauseum. That never turned out well in the long run. Why should supporting a global network of unidentified hackers (who aren't all the best fans of US policy, particularly with regards to computer crime) be any better an idea?
I thought Al-Qaeda was essentially a phantom organisation invented by some CIA informant, and that Osama just latched onto the name as a prefab label of fear, and that there was suggestions that others had done the same....
Raiding bank accounts is theft -- crimes against our enemies don't necessarily improve our overall position. In some cases, it is counter productive in the larger sense because such actions can generate sympathy for the enemy and contempt for us. However, posting the honest truth in place of their manipulative deceptions will undermine their propaganda, give pause to reasonable people who support our enemies due to misinformation, and not upset allies in the region and abroad. The truth is a difficult weapon to criticize, and wielding it effectively is a required element of modern war.
Erm... you do realise that website hacking is a crime too, right? And that this can generate sympathy for the enemy and contempt for the US? Like, "look, the capitalist infidels are scared of our words and replace them with their own," or "they cry democracy and free speech, but attempt to silence the voice of the people." That kind of stuff. It doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Yes, but the UK and US strategy is to start a war on foreign soil then stand back throwing rocks from a distance and then say "but the poor soldiers might die if we sent them in, you unpatriotic, insensitive clod" if anyone points out the poor accuracy of our "precision" strikes and suggests, like, you know, invading properly, up close.
That works for specialized tasks.
You can't import a gig of photos from an SD card for the school Yearbook club on a Pi running VNC to a server. It would choke and the gimp would kill the graphics hardware on the server if it had to support 300 users running it.
But they're not kitting out an entire school exclusively with Pis, though, are they? They're using the Pi as the basis for a high school computing class based on software development, rather than desktop IT. When I was at high school, the Computer Studies department was kitted out with Archimedeses, the Business Studies department ran on bottom-end PCs (or possibly even PCWs) and the library had BBC Micro, Archimedes and even a Mac. Some of the other departments still had BBC Micros that they used occasionally for simple software demos. My Dad even wrote some question sheets in Wordwise. (In fact, me and my dad were kind of pivotal in getting PCs into the school -- when we got Windows 95 at home, Dad made some pretty nifty worksheets (with a little help from me) and within a year the headmaster had bought a PC for my dad's department.)
There's no harm in splitting the computer fleet into a "computer studies suite" and a "multimedia suite".
Indeed. After all, the devil didn't make vintage amplifiers to convince us that solid state ones "evolved" from tube ones...
Well, if you're going to be a bigot, you might as well be an uneducated one. The Nazi's didn't gain any real political power until 1930.
I believe that anyone younger than 30 now stands a damn good chance of never seeing a vacuum tube or even know of their existance.
Wrong.
If they ever attend a rock concert or watch a video of one (or if they ever take up electric guitar or bass) they'd see walls of them.
I've never seen a human pancreas, but I've looked at untold thousands of people during my life. If I hadn't done biology at school, I'd probably not even be aware that there was such a thing as a "pancreas", even after looking at all these people.
The previous posters point is that most modern geeks don't know about tubes. Most modern computer geeks aren't guitar geeks (although some of us are -- I even built my own electric guitar once!)
Not applicable to components? Perhaps we need a Beowulf cluster... no, you're right. This is silly. We need a more appropriate meme. Car analogy, anyone...?
There is more than one person on Slashdot -- so why did you assume it was the same guy that responded that modded you down? Makes you look like the jackass.
And as others have said, you can't post and mod on the same thread. Makes you look like the jackass.
Tube amps were used in TVs long after they fell out of favor in home hi-fi setups. Old TVs had a 'sound' that you can't get out of any transistor amp.
I suspect that this was more down to circuit design constraints than quality issues. The cathode ray tube was a very similar technology to the thermionic valve, both featuring an electron heater and accelerating the electrons with a high-voltage anode. As such, you'd probably be able to run the picture tube and the valves off a single high-tension transformer. Transistors, however, would need a completely different transformer to give low voltage DC. For the TV manufacturers it was a question of balancing the cheapness and reliability of silicon against the cost of that extra transformer. When the prices balanced out, they switched.
You're forgetting about the fact that these are nanoscale thermionic valves, not full-size "vacuum tubes". The traditional amplifier needs a high potential difference (voltage) to excite electrons to jump the gap. But in these, the gap's so tiny that you don't even need to create a vacuum, because no air will even fit in it! They don't specifically mention the power requirements in the Sciencemag article, but if you look at the abstract it says:
and the operation voltage can be decreased comparable to the modern semiconductor devices.
.
Of course, the academic paper calls it a "Gate insulated nanoscale vacuum channel transistor".
Desktop computing is not an all-or-nothing affair. The Raspberry Pi is definitely powerful enough to run a terminal front-end.
The last project I worked on before leaving corporate IT was to get a mixed-mode environment up and running -- some users on Wyse terminals, some on desktop PCs. The project I was on before that was maintaining a desktop suite that was backed up by specialist software on Citrix in the datacentre. The main motivation for this was so that the client didn't have to buy top-spec machines for every desk when most users would only be emailing and writing Word .docs. The same principle applies in schools.
In fact, I would argue that it's in the interests of educational software suppliers to move to a thin-client model. The current heterogenity of the PC market makes software support a real headache. If they were to start supplying their software preinstalled on a small server, and only install VNC on the desktops, then it wouldn't matter what software and hardware the PCs were running, the actual execution environment would be identical.