If I were you, I'd go for something with as few moving parts as possible, to reduce the number of points of failure. You could maybe set up a Linux-based thin client or diskless workstation, since it doesn't sound like you'll be using anything more demanding than a web browser.
Another big issue to consider is the monitor. Apparently many CRTs don't like being taken below freezing, and LCDs are even less tolerant.
Create a ramdisk which can be read sequentially, and use the ramdisk to boot the system. Lose the ramdisk when booting is done.
That seems to me the most straightforward way of doing it. I guess one way would be to group all the GNOME files under one directory, mount the ramdisk read-only over that directory and unmount it when finished. The only problem is, this could only be done effectively with read-only files, otherwise everything would have to be copied back to disk which leads to synchronization and atomicity problems. Anyone else have better ideas?
Fricking please, can you not understand plain english?! You need to read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
IT says without the authority of the author..It means the author of the f***ing encryption you dolts, not WHAT is being encrypted......
No it does not. Read it again... "without the authority of the copyright owner". Does it say author of the encryption? No. The technological measure is what protects access to the copyrighted work. No mention is made of that measure being copyrighted itself.
By your logic, every movie studio in the world would have free cracking rights to gain access to every cable companys boxes because they transmit movies.
No they wouldn't. Bear in mind that the cable box transmits movies copyrighted by different people, and no one of them can use something that grants them access to the others' content....dumbasses
Think about what you're saying. That idea works great if the students are mature and interested in learning. How do you sort the genuinely interested students from the ones who just want to sit and download hiphop music videos from Yahoo?
Ah, but you forget that they need encryption for their DVDs. And here's the beautiful part: once they add an encryption layer to BitTorrent, it will be impossible to sue anybody over movie sharing. Thanks to the DMCA, if they sue you, they obviously illegally broke encryption somewhere along the line and would be liable themselves (as well as nullifying their evidence).
No offense (seriously), you have a good idea, but it needs a reality check. From the DMCA itself: to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner -- 17 USC 1201 (3) (A)
People often quote the most famous section of the DMCA out of context.
First of all, the format specification is freely available. Second of all, what do you mean by "third-party viewers"? Do you think PDF support should be integrated into the OS?
Can this system skip, the un-skippable commercials that are starting to be added to DVDs?
They've had these commercials for a long time - my DVD player shows the icon indicating "operation prohibited by disk" when I try to fast-forward. The solution? Fire up Xine/MPlayer/VLC, and just open DVD title 1. That's almost always the very beginning of the opening credits.
Not redundant, since the previous post is being modded into oblivion. I got a kick out of this, and it only takes 10 seconds of anyone's time if they pay attention to it at all.
This reminds me... in case anyone didn't know how much of a scumbag Jack Valenti is:
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Jack, let me ask you. Do you consider yourself and your family infringers when you engage in [videotaping TV shows]?
Mr. VALENTI. I consider myself and my family believing what the plaintiffs in this lawsuit said and they said publicly, they have said it to the press, they have said it to the lawyers, they have said it to the courts. They do not intend to file any actions against homeowners now or in the future. I mean, that is obvious and they have said that publicly, Mr. Chairman, so I believe them. As far as I am concerned, I am going to continue taping because the plaintiffs have said they aren't going to do anything to me. I am not committing any crime. They know that.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. That wasn't my question.
Mr. VALENTI. Do I consider myself an infringer?
Mr. KASTENMEIER. When you engage in such practice.
Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir, I do. I am taking somebody else's copyrighted material without their consent and I know damn well I am infringing. But as far as court action or anything else, I am safe. First, it is not a criminal act. Again, the opposition would tell you video, police, and criminals. They show an astonishing lack of the copyright law. They know good and well that that is not a criminal infringement unless you do it for profit. But on the other hand the plaintiffs have said they are moving against anybody in the homes. There is no problem, but 1 know and everybody else knows they are infringing.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were you, I'd go for something with as few moving parts as possible, to reduce the number of points of failure. You could maybe set up a Linux-based thin client or diskless workstation, since it doesn't sound like you'll be using anything more demanding than a web browser.
Another big issue to consider is the monitor. Apparently many CRTs don't like being taken below freezing, and LCDs are even less tolerant.
I prefer to give my money to organisations that spread food, water and shelter and don't spend valuable time corrupting and destroying cultures.
Any factual basis for this opinion of the Salvation Army, or is it just a knee-jerk response?
I thought you couldn't trademark a number? That's why Intel didn't call the Pentium the 586.
Well, it may be wireless, but I bet it still has less space than a Nomad!
One of my favorite Bible verses: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." --Proverbs 16:33.
*gasp* Those poor people! They really ought to switch to Linux and find out how much simpler everything is!
I agree that this isn't a good idea for everybody. I was just thinking of setting it up on my laptop to experiment with. :)
*smacks forehead*
/me shuffles away dejectedly...
OK, I've sufficiently proven myself to be an idiot.
Don't you mean 65,536? Hand over your geek license, buddy.
Create a ramdisk which can be read sequentially, and use the ramdisk to boot the system. Lose the ramdisk when booting is done.
That seems to me the most straightforward way of doing it. I guess one way would be to group all the GNOME files under one directory, mount the ramdisk read-only over that directory and unmount it when finished. The only problem is, this could only be done effectively with read-only files, otherwise everything would have to be copied back to disk which leads to synchronization and atomicity problems. Anyone else have better ideas?
From a more realistic perspective, though, that is a lot of work (and added expense) that not a lot of people are willing to go through
"mplayer -fs dvd://1". Yeah, that took a lot of work.
Fricking please, can you not understand plain english?!
...dumbasses
;)
You need to read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.
IT says without the authority of the author..It means the author of the f***ing encryption you dolts, not WHAT is being encrypted......
No it does not. Read it again... "without the authority of the copyright owner". Does it say author of the encryption? No. The technological measure is what protects access to the copyrighted work. No mention is made of that measure being copyrighted itself.
By your logic, every movie studio in the world would have free cracking rights to gain access to every cable companys boxes because they transmit movies.
No they wouldn't. Bear in mind that the cable box transmits movies copyrighted by different people, and no one of them can use something that grants them access to the others' content.
I think that was uncalled for...
Think about what you're saying. That idea works great if the students are mature and interested in learning. How do you sort the genuinely interested students from the ones who just want to sit and download hiphop music videos from Yahoo?
Ah, but you forget that they need encryption for their DVDs. And here's the beautiful part: once they add an encryption layer to BitTorrent, it will be impossible to sue anybody over movie sharing. Thanks to the DMCA, if they sue you, they obviously illegally broke encryption somewhere along the line and would be liable themselves (as well as nullifying their evidence).
No offense (seriously), you have a good idea, but it needs a reality check. From the DMCA itself:
to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner -- 17 USC 1201 (3) (A)
People often quote the most famous section of the DMCA out of context.
If you don't distribute the copies, but they really are for backup purposes, it could be argued that they fall under fair use.
First of all, the format specification is freely available. Second of all, what do you mean by "third-party viewers"? Do you think PDF support should be integrated into the OS?
Read the article. The four burglars were arrested, two of them are already in jail.
Can this system skip, the un-skippable commercials that are starting to be added to DVDs?
They've had these commercials for a long time - my DVD player shows the icon indicating "operation prohibited by disk" when I try to fast-forward. The solution? Fire up Xine/MPlayer/VLC, and just open DVD title 1. That's almost always the very beginning of the opening credits.
Holy cow, that's really where they got the name? I should start reading the articles more often. Never mind, carry on.
Accoona Matata?
The kids love that one.
Agreed. By that logic, the Wright brothers were experts at the construction of flying bicycles.
Except that the destination part of the URL can be trivially spoofed. The base64 hash is what really determines the page you get.
: www.microsoft.com/+&hl=en This takes you to google's cache of its own home page, not to Microsoft.
Demonstration: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:zhool8dxBV4J
Not redundant, since the previous post is being modded into oblivion. I got a kick out of this, and it only takes 10 seconds of anyone's time if they pay attention to it at all.
This reminds me... in case anyone didn't know how much of a scumbag Jack Valenti is:
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Jack, let me ask you. Do you consider yourself and your family infringers when you engage in [videotaping TV shows]?
Mr. VALENTI. I consider myself and my family believing what the plaintiffs in this lawsuit said and they said publicly, they have said it to the press, they have said it to the lawyers, they have said it to the courts. They do not intend to file any actions against homeowners now or in the future. I mean, that is obvious and they have said that publicly, Mr. Chairman, so I believe them. As far as I am concerned, I am going to continue taping because the plaintiffs have said they aren't going to do anything to me. I am not committing any crime. They know that.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. That wasn't my question.
Mr. VALENTI. Do I consider myself an infringer?
Mr. KASTENMEIER. When you engage in such practice.
Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir, I do. I am taking somebody else's copyrighted material without their consent and I know damn well I am infringing. But as far as court action or anything else, I am safe. First, it is not a criminal act. Again, the opposition would tell you video, police, and criminals. They show an astonishing lack of the copyright law. They know good and well that that is not a criminal infringement unless you do it for profit. But on the other hand the plaintiffs have said they are moving against anybody in the homes. There is no problem, but 1 know and everybody else knows they are infringing.
(Valenti's testimony)