Would you need to worry about block size or anything? Does it not matter, or does the default work? Well, it would be dog slow by default because it'd be writing 512 bytes at a time. But block size is only really important when dealing with tape drives.
I've attempted to read 10-year-old 3.5" floppies and had pretty bad luck. The magnetic media became unreadable, at least on my standard equipment (which I tested and works just fine with fresh media). Perhaps a sophisticated lab could get the data off, but I sure couldn't. You may find that your disks are unreadable by now, even if you had equipment capable of reading them. QA on 3.5" disks went rapidly down the toilet some time around 1996. Double (as opposed to high) density disks seemed much better, and I think I recall seeing one corrupted 5.25" disk which would have been made on a BBC - not sure about the density but I think it was around 360K.
These 3" disks were obsolete by the mid 1990's. Chances of recovery are probably rather better than you think.
Tethered shooting? Is that some really strande way of saying that you use a cable release? Tethered to a PC. Most earlier Canon point & shoots could be told to take a shot by a PC connected to the USB port, but somewhere along the line Canon decided this feature should be reserved for the absolute top of the range model. I can't believe maintaining the feature in the cheaper models would have cost them any money - I think it's far more likely that they wanted to make sure that anyone who was that bothered about what Canon perceived as being a relatively advanced feature went out and bought the expensive camera, even if there was little or no photographic benefit over a cheaper model.
Shame, really. Software-controlled shooting via a USB port allows all sorts of fun timelapse things without messing around with (usually extremely expensive) specialist hardware.
It would be ironic if those advocating "ethnic cleansing" were themselves a more recent immigrant population than those they wanted to get rid of. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler came from a different country to the one he was trying to cleanse and wouldn't have been able to produce a certificate of origin for himself (despite requiring it of his citizens) because his father was illegitimate.
And, according to Microsoft, the customer as well. Not sure how well that stands up in case law... Which has always struck me as a rather mob-handed way to do business.
will there be further ethnic cleansing Excuse me, but that is a particularly offensive phrase. It is a euphemism which causes the casual observer to completely overlook that what you mean is genocide. Nobody ever attempted to clear a country of a race they didn't like by writing to them all and saying "Excuse me, terribly sorry but your skin's the wrong colour. Would you mind very much getting on the next plane and going back to wherever you came from? Thanks. Sorry to be such a trouble."
I'm not going to get into "who's got a right to say what". You're perfectly entitled to use that term, but I'm perfectly entitled to tell you that I don't like it. The phrase "Ethnic cleansing" is political correctness applied to an issue which should never be skirted around.
There are people who enjoy getting their nuts stepped on too. To each his own I guess. Really? Show me one. People who love Microsoft products, use Visual Studio to develop C# code, run Vista and swear up and down that they've never had any problems with it, and have purchased a Zune.
That's 4 right there. OK.... but none of them appear to have had their nuts visibly stamped on AFAICT. They may be blinded to issues (or fantastically lucky), but evidence of enjoying having testicles stamped upon remains rather thin on the ground.
Please cite at least 1 example of a company being sued for creating a device that allows people to play MP3s. You might want to let Justin Frankel know that he should have been "sued to fuck" (whatever that meansd) for creating winamp instead of chilling in his multi-million dollar home studio. Wasn't the Rio the subject of various lawsuits?
As has been noted elsewhere, the majority of cameras are privately owned and the Police need a warrant to be able to get any footage whatsoever out of them. They need a warrant to be guaranteed to get footage out of them.
That doesn't mean that they can't ask on the offchance and go get a warrant if they think it's really necessary. Besides which, a warrant is only a legal piece of paper. All you need to do is ensure the framework's in place to make getting that piece of paper a formality - which, let us not forget, it usually is.
I don't really benefit from newspapers to be honest. I exercise my free speech here on/. a lot more than I ever read any news articles *cough* You get more benefit than you imagine. A (relatively) free press acts as a balance preventing the government of the day just doing whatever it likes by ensuring that the most scandalous of things get told to everyone.
Firearms are not routinely used for law enforcement in the UK. However some new cameras are fitted with a PA system to give criminals a damn good telling-off. "New ones" - I like that.
Shopping centres (to be fair, private land) have had a PA system which the security guards could talk over for many years. I saw someone get a telling-off from a security team which could only have been watching them over CCTV back in about 1996-1997.
The only "new" idea is "Let's attach the PA system to the camera itself".
Yeah, but you scroll up a bit and find 4 incidents in 1990, 5 in 1992 and 1996, with at least two in most of the intervening years.
Then only about 7 between 1999 and Sep. 11 2001. Most of which were in 2001. Nothing in 1997-1998. We had a change of government in 1997, and one of their main aims was "Solve the IRA problem". Frankly, it's about the only thing that they've come within a country mile of achieving.
Though I'm sure I don't remember anything in their manifesto which said "Solve the IRA problem by replacing it with a problem in the middle east".
As for CCTV, it's ineffective in the UK for several reasons. The images are generally too poor (blurred, dark and grainy) to be useful, and secondly, the police can't be bothered to look at the footage. It's "hard work." Now, I see this and the first thing I notice is "It's hard work".
In these days of companies claiming to flog facial recognition systems, the complaint of "This is hard work" isn't going to result in less CCTV. It's going to result in enormous quantities of money being thrown at companies flogging facial recognition systems.
I did install it to see if it would do anything funky like give me faster shutter speeds. It didn't, but I've got an A610 which is probably just about high enough in the range that the default Canon firmware is pushing the hardware about as far as it will sensibly go anyway.
I would like tethered shooting re-enabled, though. I used to have a Canon A80 which did support that, but Canon (in their infinite wisdom) later decided to disable that for any model that wasn't absolute top of the line.
When it's a place with a population of 1,300, it's probably rather less of an issue.
(You know, English has had different words to describe settlements of different sizes since at least the 1300's. I'm surprised that none of the settlers took these words with them. In descending order of size: city, town, village, hamlet).
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits "frivolous" conduct by attorneys. This was about as "frivolous" as it gets. Until such time as action is taken, it's just a law that happens to exist in theory. IOW, I'll believe it when I see it.
(Is there any alternative firmware for the 350D onwards, or have the hackers simply not bothered?) Not that I'm aware of, and I've got a 400D so I'd be interested to know as well.
The main reason there were hardware hacks for the 350D is because it was basically a higher-end camera (can't remember exactly which model - 30D?) in a cheap plastic shell with a crippled firmware. I suspect the differences between the product lines are a touch more pronounced these days - either that or they're checking the firmware at boot to ensure it is correct for the model.
So his hosting company was the side-project of a prepaid cellphone company? He got what he deserved. They're a pretty major mobile phone company in the UK, and remarkably adept at forming subsidiaries and acquiring companies.
They're not particularly adept at customer service when things go wrong, but I don't know any organisation that sells mobile phones that is.
For the amount of money that is invested in server equipment, I'm amazed that they don't have a server cam for security (sending high-res images of the room to a remote server via wireless or cable). 90% of CCTV systems out there produce such appallingly poor images that all you'll know is "the intruder was an amorphous grey blob" - and that just helps you find the intruder at a later date, not necessarily recover your equipment. They certainly don't deter criminals, if that's what you were expecting.
It'd be cheaper and more effective to keep offsite backups of important data.
What, because Google complied with a legally worded (albeit faulty) DMCA takedown notice, as they are legally obliged to do?
IIRC, it's down to the project owner to then turn around and say "There's nothing the matter with it, you shouldn't have been served the takedown notice". Google is only a middleman here.
Unfortunately, you've basically got two options with anti-spam solutions:
1. DIY using tools like MailScanner (which, to be fair, is a framework rather than a spam filter), SpamAssassin
Pros: You control everything and can react pretty quickly to changes in the type of spam you're seeing. Cons: You cannot hope to administer it reliably without spending a long time learning it properly.
2. Appliances - either in the form of "Insert CD, click next next next and bingo! you've got an anti-spam filter" or in the form of "we'll ship you a 1U device which does everything", cf. Barracuda.
Pros: Quicker and less expertise required to get up and running.... Cons:.... so you wind up with it being administered by someone who doesn't really understand it and so can't deal with cockups.
Though even as a competent admin, the supposedly leading mail servers still have a few "issues" which make preventing backscatter very difficult - eg. you can set up a relay with postfix and have it contact the final destination mailserver to authenticate the address for every incoming email. Which is great - it means you can reject email with no valid recipient at an SMTP level rather than generating a bounce.
Except if your internal mail server crashes - then Postfix will reject any email addressed to an address it hasn't already cached. AFAICT, the official Postfix recommendation is "Well, you'd better hope nothing ever goes wrong with your internal mail server then".
Slashdot Mirror
These 3" disks were obsolete by the mid 1990's. Chances of recovery are probably rather better than you think.
That's actually quote from Oracle sales. Seriously.
Really? Sounds more like something SCO would say to me, and I wrote it.Shame, really. Software-controlled shooting via a USB port allows all sorts of fun timelapse things without messing around with (usually extremely expensive) specialist hardware.
"Buy our product or we'll sue you!".
I'm not going to get into "who's got a right to say what". You're perfectly entitled to use that term, but I'm perfectly entitled to tell you that I don't like it. The phrase "Ethnic cleansing" is political correctness applied to an issue which should never be skirted around.
That's 4 right there. OK.... but none of them appear to have had their nuts visibly stamped on AFAICT. They may be blinded to issues (or fantastically lucky), but evidence of enjoying having testicles stamped upon remains rather thin on the ground.
That doesn't mean that they can't ask on the offchance and go get a warrant if they think it's really necessary. Besides which, a warrant is only a legal piece of paper. All you need to do is ensure the framework's in place to make getting that piece of paper a formality - which, let us not forget, it usually is.
Shopping centres (to be fair, private land) have had a PA system which the security guards could talk over for many years. I saw someone get a telling-off from a security team which could only have been watching them over CCTV back in about 1996-1997.
The only "new" idea is "Let's attach the PA system to the camera itself".
Yeah, but you scroll up a bit and find 4 incidents in 1990, 5 in 1992 and 1996, with at least two in most of the intervening years.
Then only about 7 between 1999 and Sep. 11 2001. Most of which were in 2001. Nothing in 1997-1998. We had a change of government in 1997, and one of their main aims was "Solve the IRA problem". Frankly, it's about the only thing that they've come within a country mile of achieving.
Though I'm sure I don't remember anything in their manifesto which said "Solve the IRA problem by replacing it with a problem in the middle east".
In these days of companies claiming to flog facial recognition systems, the complaint of "This is hard work" isn't going to result in less CCTV. It's going to result in enormous quantities of money being thrown at companies flogging facial recognition systems.
I did install it to see if it would do anything funky like give me faster shutter speeds. It didn't, but I've got an A610 which is probably just about high enough in the range that the default Canon firmware is pushing the hardware about as far as it will sensibly go anyway.
I would like tethered shooting re-enabled, though. I used to have a Canon A80 which did support that, but Canon (in their infinite wisdom) later decided to disable that for any model that wasn't absolute top of the line.
When it's a place with a population of 1,300, it's probably rather less of an issue.
(You know, English has had different words to describe settlements of different sizes since at least the 1300's. I'm surprised that none of the settlers took these words with them. In descending order of size: city, town, village, hamlet).
The main reason there were hardware hacks for the 350D is because it was basically a higher-end camera (can't remember exactly which model - 30D?) in a cheap plastic shell with a crippled firmware. I suspect the differences between the product lines are a touch more pronounced these days - either that or they're checking the firmware at boot to ensure it is correct for the model.
Take a look at the list. There's a lot of cameras it supports past and present; I'd suggest you look around ebay.
Do the security guards themselves have access to the datacenter floor? How do they feel about dealing with a gang of three heavily armed intruders?
They're not particularly adept at customer service when things go wrong, but I don't know any organisation that sells mobile phones that is.
It'd be cheaper and more effective to keep offsite backups of important data.
What, because Google complied with a legally worded (albeit faulty) DMCA takedown notice, as they are legally obliged to do?
IIRC, it's down to the project owner to then turn around and say "There's nothing the matter with it, you shouldn't have been served the takedown notice". Google is only a middleman here.
Unfortunately, you've basically got two options with anti-spam solutions:
.... so you wind up with it being administered by someone who doesn't really understand it and so can't deal with cockups.
1. DIY using tools like MailScanner (which, to be fair, is a framework rather than a spam filter), SpamAssassin
Pros: You control everything and can react pretty quickly to changes in the type of spam you're seeing.
Cons: You cannot hope to administer it reliably without spending a long time learning it properly.
2. Appliances - either in the form of "Insert CD, click next next next and bingo! you've got an anti-spam filter" or in the form of "we'll ship you a 1U device which does everything", cf. Barracuda.
Pros: Quicker and less expertise required to get up and running....
Cons:
Though even as a competent admin, the supposedly leading mail servers still have a few "issues" which make preventing backscatter very difficult - eg. you can set up a relay with postfix and have it contact the final destination mailserver to authenticate the address for every incoming email. Which is great - it means you can reject email with no valid recipient at an SMTP level rather than generating a bounce.
Except if your internal mail server crashes - then Postfix will reject any email addressed to an address it hasn't already cached. AFAICT, the official Postfix recommendation is "Well, you'd better hope nothing ever goes wrong with your internal mail server then".