The BBC has 85km of shelves, which translates very roughy (digitised at 25 Mb/s) to 200 TB/km => 17 PB. This is an overestimate for us, because not all our shelves hold video, and we have spare copies and VHS 'browse' copies. But it gives a round number: 10 PB for the BBC archive, and similar sizes for other major European broadcast archives.
This is also about global redundancy. The world increasingly depends upon navigational technologies like this. It's a little dangerous that there's only _one_ point of failure (whether technical, economic, political, etc).
"Just the mere fact that you sign a document that proves you wrote part of the Linux code, makes you liable for litigation...."
Duh! This is the whole point: it makes everyone individually accountable. It makes sure that people can't "submarine" Linux as much as it makes sure that individual contributers wake up and think more clearly about how (say) their day job coding employment contract may cover Linux work they produce in the evenings. So it's to the benefit of Linux overall. I'm sure there are plenty of F/OSS contributers who've never properly looked at whether the terms of their employment contract may create issues for their contributions. In fact, I'm quite surprised there have been so few problems so far.
"But a private author is personally responsible with his own assets... Since most of the programmers probably do not have their assets split between their personal property and some form of 'company property' this might get dangerous...."
This is what it means to be individually accountable. Otherwise, who foots the bill? Either companies like red hat, etc or Linux development overall (e.g. backing out some infringing code...). As a matter of civil duty to the rest of the community, you should take some responsibility, and that includes the possibility of loss. If you aren't up to the challenge, go back to playing in the garden.
If cisco can make IOS work on Massively Distributed Multiprocessor Systems (MDMS) for CRS-1 (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index. html) [announced today], then doing the same for Windows should be a cinch.
Most companies copy their competitors to some extent: this is called competition, and this is why we have copyright, patents, designs and trademarks and unfair competition protection to allow companies to obtain some legal protection from their works being copied.
Didn't you copy all the other people that decided to login to slashdot ?
Get real. What really matters is not whether one copies from the other, it makes what the final product is, and how the final product works for them and us.
"the law doesnt protect your ideology. it protect MINE. i can use it multiple ways, the laws protect that. that laws DO NOT PROTECT the idea of having to pay multiple times for multiple uses."
Wrong. Apart from a very limited "fair use", the law gives virtually exclusive control to the copyright owner, meaning that it protects the owner of the work to do as they please - including offering restrictive licenses that require multiple payments.
Fair use for educational purposes has narrowed. In patent law, Madey v Duke 2002 found that a university wasn't allowed a non-commercial exception because "experimentation" was "furthering the business aims of the university". Yes, this was a hugely contentious case.
> I agree totally. Some people tend to look at an admin as someone who does magic. They dont understand that some things either costs money or takes time.
Garbage. This is why you take their requirements, produce an estimate of what it will take for the work to be done, get their buy-in (or not, they may cancel the project) and do it.
Like any professional, you need to negotiate with them so they understand the problems and what it takes from your side of the fence.
Then what the poster (or his faculty) should do is get the professors on a track of putting the work in typed up format, and so on.
> Because when you've already paid for a license to a work, why should you have to pay every time you manage to do something else with it?
This issue of "but I already paid for the license" is really just a ME v YOU problem.
If you don't want to pay for extra uses of works, only choose works (e.g. Creative Commons) that allow you free reuse.
If the artist wants to let you do this, they'll choose Creative Commons as well. Otherwise, the artist chooses a more restrictive approach.
At the end of the day, all of this whining is really just about two different sets of people wanting to do things a different way.
The way to change it is to stop whining about the idiot producers (RIAA and friends) and move the market momentum to the cool place (Creative Commons).
No one _forces_ you to pay for extra licenses.
When I come across a shop that sucks, I whine about it for a few minutes and then go and choose another shop. I don't spend the next 5 years continually going back to the suck shop and whining about at the same time. Life is too short.
The professional approach is to go back to them and clarify the outcome:
(a) you can scan the documents in, and they'll take X amount of space, and Y time; and this doesn't include OCR; (b) you did a few tests (using the supplied document) and these are the results for TIFF, JPG, PDF, etc; (c) OCR is probably infeasible (or not, do some tests) because of the nature of the documents;
Include in (a) the option of purchasing an automated document scanner, and the corresponding reduction in time.
Based upon all the above, get a clear go-ahead, and make the purchase if new equipment is authorised.
You said "where I work": this is your job: it's a bit poor to do as the other posters suggest and refuse to do the work: you need to make sure that the customer (professors) understand exactly what they are getting, and give them a choice to buy into it or not - i.e. "clarify the expectations".
If you assess that it's 2 weeks worth of work, and the professors don't disagree, then you're supervisor just has to put up with it.
It's easy: go to Creative Commons and choose music that allows you to have multiple uses.
If everyone did this, rather than whine about the RIAA, then the RIAA would be out of business.
The problem is, everyone continues to whine and beat around about an old and broken system, rather than getting on the bandwagon and choosing a new and better system.
Why doesn't someone here build a Creative-Commons powered "ringtone" website? Artists will choose to put music there. RIAA will get nothing. Consumers will decide to use it. RIAA goes out of business eventually.
them: 1. "announcement of new use of existing material that provides benefical results to consumers" 2. "involves a charge"
sdot: 1. "f**k off, something else we need to pay for" 2. "it's the RIAA trying to get us again" 3. "what artists? ignore them, they get nothing anyway!" 4. "more free beer" 5. "we paid for it once, not again"
In some countries you have a "private use" exception (Spain is one I know of) which makes it legal to make a copy of your music CD as a ring tone. This may be the case in Norway too.
Otherwise, I don't see why the creator of the music shouldn't get an additional reward for the new use? Of course, I speak as someone who creates works and earns money from them, not as a mere consumer.
> But really, standards tend to stifle innovation.
You're baiting. Standards seek a balance to make innovation better. You just need to look at mobile phones.
In the EU, the GSM standard allowed common platform across europe, allowing seamless roaming, large array of handsets for a massive market -- and all the innovations that result.
In the US, the fractured array of mobile standards leave a higher cost for compatibility, and a lower choice: meaning users get locked in, without much incentive to change, for which vendors can play upon. Innovation has a limited scope.
> I actually enjoy grocery shopping sometimes (ok call me a freak) but I would to pull up a recipe and have the ingredients delivered.
We enjoy this as well. Online shopping is never a replacement for excursions to the supermarket or local gourmet food store - if you really enjoy food for example.
They can compliment each other: use the online shopping to buy all of the boring essentials.
With Tesco we have never had problems with Fruit and Veg being of dubious quality, this is in over 75-100 or so orders that we've had.
My wife at first (not very technical) was not convinced, but she soon took to it like a fish to water, and in general, she's become very online shopping savvy: especially for gifts.
I think you should try again, we've had Tesco delivered for 2-3 years now, from three different parts of inner London: lateness is 5% (rough figure) and missing goods 5% as well (send them an email and they refund the money) - occasionally you get a bonus of someone elses goods:-).
We've had one occasion where the delivery did not turn up at all, for a 7-9pm slot (I think?) and in fact, the delivery then turned up at 11pm, and it turned out to be the manager who'd gone out of his way to drive the van because of some problem with drivers not showing as expected.
His effort was commendable: and if he's a good manager, would not be repeated.
Tesco delivers 9am to 10pm where we've lived (London zones 1-3) in the last couple of years; and they also deliver on weekends.
It's quite hard to understand how it could be _less_ convenient: 1hr timeslots may help, but they don't cause substantial issue.
Recently, they delivery charges have changed: they charge less for low-demand times, and also for times where they compute that the van has to be nearby anyway.
"It seemed that the idea had been killed shortly after the bust as being just another bomb."
This no different to the zillion other dot.bomb ideas that were venture funded and died in a flash. The companies that have actually succeeded (I live in the UK and we use online grocery shopping all the time) are the existing bricks and mortar supermarkets that built online shopping onto the side, and even those have only become profitable recently.
For instance, Tesco (doing well, but still only making 100million turnover - not profit - in its online activity) works by using human instore "pickers" who wheel around large crates and pick out items from a LCD touchpad: scanning each item as it is stored in the crate. The crates then slide into a truck for delivery slot.
This fantastic approach eliminates a large amount of overhead in setting up specific warehouses and infrastructure, and builds upon existing distribution chains and logistics, it copes with occasional "missing items" (by way of substitutions - for which you can provide annotations or expressly deny). Meaning that you get actual standard in-store low prices.
Tesco integrates online and instore experience: when you shop instore with your points/reward card, any purchases then appear in your online favourites list: quite easy.
Tesco is also the UK industry leader on quality, price and innovations: all other supermarkets tend to snide at Tesco when they do something, then sometime later decide to join in and compete when it turns out that Tesco had the clues up front.
Equally, they've taken the online shopping very smartly: low risk approach, building onto their existing business, and gradually integrating both the back end and front end (customer) experience between the two words.
Agreed. the problem is that addition of ".biz", ".info", etc really add nothing by way of organisational categorisation: at least ".name" or ".pro" or ".ltd" or ".kids" does.
Slashdot Mirror
The BBC has 85km of shelves, which translates very roughy (digitised at 25 Mb/s) to 200 TB/km => 17 PB. This is an overestimate for us, because not all our shelves hold video, and we have spare copies and VHS 'browse' copies. But it gives a round number: 10 PB for the BBC archive, and similar sizes for other major European broadcast archives.
(from: http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id= 15550)
[can someone calculate how many "cisco-minutes" or "internet2-minutes" that is?]
This is also about global redundancy. The world increasingly depends upon navigational technologies like this. It's a little dangerous that there's only _one_ point of failure (whether technical, economic, political, etc).
"Just the mere fact that you sign a document that proves you wrote part of the Linux code, makes you liable for litigation. ..."
... Since most of the programmers probably do not have their assets split between their personal property and some form of 'company property' this might get dangerous. ..."
...). As a matter of civil duty to the rest of the community, you should take some responsibility, and that includes the possibility of loss. If you aren't up to the challenge, go back to playing in the garden.
Duh! This is the whole point: it makes everyone individually accountable. It makes sure that people can't "submarine" Linux as much as it makes sure that individual contributers wake up and think more clearly about how (say) their day job coding employment contract may cover Linux work they produce in the evenings. So it's to the benefit of Linux overall. I'm sure there are plenty of F/OSS contributers who've never properly looked at whether the terms of their employment contract may create issues for their contributions. In fact, I'm quite surprised there have been so few problems so far.
"But a private author is personally responsible with his own assets
This is what it means to be individually accountable. Otherwise, who foots the bill? Either companies like red hat, etc or Linux development overall (e.g. backing out some infringing code
If cisco can make IOS work on Massively Distributed Multiprocessor Systems (MDMS) for CRS-1 (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index. html) [announced today], then doing the same for Windows should be a cinch.
And your point is?
Most companies copy their competitors to some extent: this is called competition, and this is why we have copyright, patents, designs and trademarks and unfair competition protection to allow companies to obtain some legal protection from their works being copied.
Didn't you copy all the other people that decided to login to slashdot ?
Get real. What really matters is not whether one copies from the other, it makes what the final product is, and how the final product works for them and us.
"the law doesnt protect your ideology.
it protect MINE.
i can use it multiple ways, the laws protect that.
that laws DO NOT PROTECT the idea of having to pay multiple times for multiple uses."
Wrong. Apart from a very limited "fair use", the law gives virtually exclusive control to the copyright owner, meaning that it protects the owner of the work to do as they please - including offering restrictive licenses that require multiple payments.
You really do have no clue?
Then I would have to pay or not recycle. The point is that slashdot offersthe accounts as free beer, I don't demand it.
Fair use for educational purposes has narrowed. In patent law, Madey v Duke 2002 found that a university wasn't allowed a non-commercial exception because "experimentation" was "furthering the business aims of the university". Yes, this was a hugely contentious case.
> I agree totally. Some people tend to look at an admin as someone who does magic. They dont understand that some things either costs money or takes time.
Garbage. This is why you take their requirements, produce an estimate of what it will take for the work to be done, get their buy-in (or not, they may cancel the project) and do it.
Like any professional, you need to negotiate with them so they understand the problems and what it takes from your side of the fence.
Then what the poster (or his faculty) should do is get the professors on a track of putting the work in typed up format, and so on.
> There is no fair use when the only purpose is your own enjoyment.
Crap. You clearly don't understand "fair use".
There is no absolute rule for "fair use", the 10%/30 rule is basically a thumb in the air.
The problem is far more complex than this, and difficult to construct an answer here.
> Because when you've already paid for a license to a work, why should you have to pay every time you manage to do something else with it?
This issue of "but I already paid for the license" is really just a ME v YOU problem.
If you don't want to pay for extra uses of works, only choose works (e.g. Creative Commons) that allow you free reuse.
If the artist wants to let you do this, they'll choose Creative Commons as well. Otherwise, the artist chooses a more restrictive approach.
At the end of the day, all of this whining is really just about two different sets of people wanting to do things a different way.
The way to change it is to stop whining about the idiot producers (RIAA and friends) and move the market momentum to the cool place (Creative Commons).
No one _forces_ you to pay for extra licenses.
When I come across a shop that sucks, I whine about it for a few minutes and then go and choose another shop. I don't spend the next 5 years continually going back to the suck shop and whining about at the same time. Life is too short.
> UID of 778K+ and you're already sick of the attitude? Whoa, that's whacked..
I recycle regularly, it's more fun that way.
The professional approach is to go back to them and clarify the outcome:
(a) you can scan the documents in, and they'll take X amount of space, and Y time; and this doesn't include OCR;
(b) you did a few tests (using the supplied document) and these are the results for TIFF, JPG, PDF, etc;
(c) OCR is probably infeasible (or not, do some tests) because of the nature of the documents;
Include in (a) the option of purchasing an automated document scanner, and the corresponding reduction in time.
Based upon all the above, get a clear go-ahead, and make the purchase if new equipment is authorised.
You said "where I work": this is your job: it's a bit poor to do as the other posters suggest and refuse to do the work: you need to make sure that the customer (professors) understand exactly what they are getting, and give them a choice to buy into it or not - i.e. "clarify the expectations".
If you assess that it's 2 weeks worth of work, and the professors don't disagree, then you're supervisor just has to put up with it.
It's easy: go to Creative Commons and choose music that allows you to have multiple uses.
If everyone did this, rather than whine about the RIAA, then the RIAA would be out of business.
The problem is, everyone continues to whine and beat around about an old and broken system, rather than getting on the bandwagon and choosing a new and better system.
Why doesn't someone here build a Creative-Commons powered "ringtone" website? Artists will choose to put music there. RIAA will get nothing. Consumers will decide to use it. RIAA goes out of business eventually.
This is becoming a standard formula:
them:
1. "announcement of new use of existing material that provides benefical results to consumers"
2. "involves a charge"
sdot:
1. "f**k off, something else we need to pay for"
2. "it's the RIAA trying to get us again"
3. "what artists? ignore them, they get nothing anyway!"
4. "more free beer"
5. "we paid for it once, not again"
rehash
rehash
rehash
> I wouldn't disparage those consumers if I were you. They are the ones you earn money from, not the works.
I only disparage consumers that don't pay up; just like you disparge producers who are trying to strong arm you.
I'm just sick and tired of this "free beer" attitude.
In some countries you have a "private use" exception (Spain is one I know of) which makes it legal to make a copy of your music CD as a ring tone. This may be the case in Norway too.
Otherwise, I don't see why the creator of the music shouldn't get an additional reward for the new use? Of course, I speak as someone who creates works and earns money from them, not as a mere consumer.
to a big city (London, New York, SF, etc) where you don't need a car.
> But really, standards tend to stifle innovation.
You're baiting. Standards seek a balance to make innovation better. You just need to look at mobile phones.
In the EU, the GSM standard allowed common platform across europe, allowing seamless roaming, large array of handsets for a massive market -- and all the innovations that result.
In the US, the fractured array of mobile standards leave a higher cost for compatibility, and a lower choice: meaning users get locked in, without much incentive to change, for which vendors can play upon. Innovation has a limited scope.
> I actually enjoy grocery shopping sometimes (ok call me a freak) but I would to pull up a recipe and have the ingredients delivered.
We enjoy this as well. Online shopping is never a replacement for excursions to the supermarket or local gourmet food store - if you really enjoy food for example.
They can compliment each other: use the online shopping to buy all of the boring essentials.
With Tesco we have never had problems with Fruit and Veg being of dubious quality, this is in over 75-100 or so orders that we've had.
My wife at first (not very technical) was not convinced, but she soon took to it like a fish to water, and in general, she's become very online shopping savvy: especially for gifts.
I think you should try again, we've had Tesco delivered for 2-3 years now, from three different parts of inner London: lateness is 5% (rough figure) and missing goods 5% as well (send them an email and they refund the money) - occasionally you get a bonus of someone elses goods
We've had one occasion where the delivery did not turn up at all, for a 7-9pm slot (I think?) and in fact, the delivery then turned up at 11pm, and it turned out to be the manager who'd gone out of his way to drive the van because of some problem with drivers not showing as expected.
His effort was commendable: and if he's a good manager, would not be repeated.
Tesco delivers 9am to 10pm where we've lived (London zones 1-3) in the last couple of years; and they also deliver on weekends.
It's quite hard to understand how it could be _less_ convenient: 1hr timeslots may help, but they don't cause substantial issue.
Recently, they delivery charges have changed: they charge less for low-demand times, and also for times where they compute that the van has to be nearby anyway.
"It seemed that the idea had been killed shortly after the bust as being just another bomb."
This no different to the zillion other dot.bomb ideas that were venture funded and died in a flash. The companies that have actually succeeded (I live in the UK and we use online grocery shopping all the time) are the existing bricks and mortar supermarkets that built online shopping onto the side, and even those have only become profitable recently.
For instance, Tesco (doing well, but still only making 100million turnover - not profit - in its online activity) works by using human instore "pickers" who wheel around large crates and pick out items from a LCD touchpad: scanning each item as it is stored in the crate. The crates then slide into a truck for delivery slot.
This fantastic approach eliminates a large amount of overhead in setting up specific warehouses and infrastructure, and builds upon existing distribution chains and logistics, it copes with occasional "missing items" (by way of substitutions - for which you can provide annotations or expressly deny). Meaning that you get actual standard in-store low prices.
Tesco integrates online and instore experience: when you shop instore with your points/reward card, any purchases then appear in your online favourites list: quite easy.
Tesco is also the UK industry leader on quality, price and innovations: all other supermarkets tend to snide at Tesco when they do something, then sometime later decide to join in and compete when it turns out that Tesco had the clues up front.
Equally, they've taken the online shopping very smartly: low risk approach, building onto their existing business, and gradually integrating both the back end and front end (customer) experience between the two words.
Agreed. the problem is that addition of ".biz", ".info", etc really add nothing by way of organisational categorisation: at least ".name" or ".pro" or ".ltd" or ".kids" does.