Putting everything in a single server has its advantages - lower power consumption for one (because you do not need to heat additional CPUs, RAM etc) and less physical space used.
Do you think the OP really needs to keep his/her 8TB of disk powered up and online _all_ the time, just on the off chance they might want to watch something right now that can't wait 30 seconds for a second box to boot up?
We're still using DVD's at our house and the kids seem to watch a new movie a few times (or a few hundred times...:) in the first month or so then, with a few exceptions, not really watch it again for ages. All those older movies could go on a box that only boots up when required. In fact in our house, the primary server could probably get away with a single TB of disk and still have room to spare. Now _that_ would save power.
What puzzles me though is how you'd ever have time to watch 8TB of media. Assuming it was DVD quality (which it's probably not), we're talking about 6 months of non-stop watching, and then keeping the media just in case you might want to watch it again. How many movies have you ever seen than you'd want to watch again? And then again after that? For me it would be less than half, probably much less.
I suspect that someone with 8TB of online media storage is a bit of a hoarder;)
Back to the point: why would a vending machine need facial recognition at all if it is not selling some sort of controlled substance or product?
It's a technology test. The worst thing that could go wrong here is that someone get's their pudding without first having eaten their meat. Would you rather they tested with cigarettes or alcohol?
If the machine is going to meter pudding based on the metrics of the would-be buyer, then it should base its decision on the relative size of belly or bum to height (or some similar fat/slender axis), not on the size of the head.
Of course, it would be better if the machine did not attempt to make any such decisions, as there are probably enough cases where the decision would be wrong (small adult, etc.). Lawsuits ahoy!
I don't think that's what they had in mind. It's just a technology test for facial recognition in vending machines and the account that the face is linked to has a pudding/no-pudding flag set. There's more to facial recognition than just head size.
There's always someone who comes along and spoils an argument with facts and evidence:)
Re:Overlocking was only ever a dick waving contest
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 1
if they really wanted to play their first person shooter faster they should overclock the graphics card, not waste time on the CPU.
I always thought they did that too?
Yeah , I 'll get modded down for offending the high priest overclockers who read this, but really, if you spend 1000s on a special cooling system for your CPU just so it runs 25% faster so you can get even more unnoticable frames per second you really need to get out more.
Maybe it's been a while since you were a kid but there's something enticing about "sticking it to the man"... robbing Intel of those few $$$ by taking a cheap CPU and running it as fast an expensive CPU. Intel (and AMD probably) know exactly what's going on and how best to make money out of it though:)
A better use of psychology will be to examine the heads of anyone who wants to throw maths out of the window and engage psychologists when designing AI algorithms.
But seriously I have never returned a drive for warranty as once it fails securely erasing the data can be an issue if ti doesn't spin up
I bought a USB disk as a temporary backup while an LTO autoloader was being replaced. It ran the backup just fine but was dead by the next morning. Returning a disk with 1.5TB of customer accounting data on it just isn't an option, so we wrote off the $150 or whatever it cost then.
FWIW, Australia has recently reviewed it's warranty laws so that they are actually sensible. If you buy a product it is expected to last a reasonable amount of time, despite what the bundled warranty might offer. It probably isn't worth pursuing for a $150 harddisk, but they do specifically make allowances for phones. If you buy a phone on a 2 year contract that comes with a 1 year warranty, the phone is reasonably expected to last for the duration of the contract and so the warranty must be honoured for at least that period.
If it weren't for the glowing 'Sorny' emblem on mine, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a Vizo, Samsung, or any other brand sitting on the shelf next to each other.
Nonsense. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see one.
I'm not going to waste a lot of time typing a lot: hard work and/or money invested absolutely does not entitle you to "a lot of money." You are entitled only to the value people perceive in it.
I never said it entitles you to a lot of money. It does entitle you to demand money for the work you produced though. If people value your work they'll pay for it.
The decision should be "I think this is worth what the copyright holder is asking for it, i'll buy it", or "this isn't worth what the copyright holder is asking for it, i'll pass". What seems to happen though is "I like this but I don't want to spend money on it, so i'll make a copy of it. The artist can get their money from elsewhere.".
I could go outside and film myself stacking bricks to my cats meowing. Does that entitle me to a lot of money? But at the same time, if it was posted in the right place, it could get half a million hits on YouTube. How does that relate with the money I expected to get? Since lots of people are watching it, I'm entitled to cash, right?
I've never put a video on youtube but I always thought the deal was pretty much "you put this up on youtube and people might watch it". The terms are probably a lot more convoluted than that but if somewhere it says "if you get a million hits then we'll pay you a million dollars", and you end up getting a million hits, then yeah, you should get the money because that was the deal you signed up to.
You are directing your hostility towards the wrong thing here... surely DMCA is the real issue.
Actually I kind of wouldn't mind DMCA takedown notices except there doesn't seem to be enough punishment for malicious takedown notices so (as in your case) it's too easy to just shoot one off and see if it sticks.
If you just spent 2 million dollars of your own and investors money making a movie, the idea that you'd then let people just take it for free would seem ridiculous to you too. A movie or a song isn't just 'an idea', it represents (potentially) a lot of hard work and a lot of money.
Your desire for profits DOES NOT justify why those "ideas" should be arbitrarily declared "property" and have government-enforced, rights-infringing monopolies slapped on them.
It's not just an idea though. It's a body of work. Just because you've figured out a way to duplicate it with no cost to yourself doesn't magically take away its designation of "property".
If you can't figure out a way to make money without resorting to censorship, then you shouldn't be spending investors' money and you shouldn't even be in business! It's simply not the government's job to provide you with a business model and censorship powers, period.
Well... I think we obviously agree that censorship is never the right solution, and I doubt a good solution exists, but if a profit can't be made from making movies, then no movies will be made, and that would be sad.
Somewhere along the way people decided that because they can take something then it's right to take it, and they'll fight tooth and nail to stop anyone who dares interrupt their free ride. Yes I agree that pretty much every solution the government has come up with to stop copyright infringement is beyond stupid, but that doesn't mean that you should feel good about taking something you didn't pay for.
I don't get why it's so hard to understand that downloading a movie you didn't pay for is pretty much the same as walking out of a video store with a movie you didn't pay for.
Because it isn't really, unless you're trying to make a false equivalency to create an argument to stand in for a real one in favor of controlling information for profit.
How is that different to you creating an argument where you get to profit (by not paying for something someone else created)?
Piracy duplicates the movie. It does not remove anything from anyone along the line, other than a potential to make money. That is not the same as stealing, just as refusing to allow BMW to tattoo their logo on your forehead is not stealing from BMW. If it is right or not to pirate needs to be determined on the value of the idea of owning ideas, NOT on some made up analogy to theft. Trying to phrase the argument as such is dishonest and deceptive.
Someone else created it. What gives you the right to decide that you can just take a copy?
You can throw together all the arguments you like, but stop making the mistake of trying to get old world ideas of theft to apply to the new world. Just because it only exists as 1's and 0's doesn't make it yours to do with what you will. People say "theft" and "stealing" only because there isn't a word for "duplicating without permission something someone else worked hard to make". At some people in the future it will be possible to take something that someone else spent billions of dollars creating and clone it. In order for people to be motivated to create those things in the first place they need to be able to profit from it.
...if you believe so, it is only because you either stand to profit from said censorship, or are a fool being misled by those who do.
Well... I did state that censorship is not the solution, and is the worst possible outcome. My argument was that taking (or taking a copy of) something that someone else created without their permission is not a good thing to do. I also said there is no way to fix the problem that doesn't hurt more people that it helps. But that doesn't make it right to just take what you want.
I take issue with this point and find it frustrating that people muddy the water with this idea. If you just spent 2 million dollars of your own and investors money making a movie, the idea that you'd then let people just take it for free would seem ridiculous to you too. A movie or a song isn't just 'an idea', it represents (potentially) a lot of hard work and a lot of money. I don't get why it's so hard to understand that downloading a movie you didn't pay for is pretty much the same as walking out of a video store with a movie you didn't pay for. The physical medium is unimportant, it's the content that matters here. If you want to enjoy it, at least have the decency to pay for it. If nobody paid for the hard work of others then the world would be a much worse place.
Patents, which are these days literally just ideas, are a whole different matter so don't confuse them with copyright infringement.
The very idea of property is a problem, but physical property is a necessary evil
I don't see why. It's much better than the alternative. Denouncing property just seems like an excuse for lazy and greedy people to take whatever they want and not have to pay for it, while still appearing to be "cool" about it.
Third, that censorship is seen as a reasonable way to deal with people in other countries doing things that are illegal here
And this is the problem. Taking something that you haven't paid for when you should have paid for it is wrong, but so far nobody has come up with a reasonable way to enforce it that doesn't unnecessarily and harshly infringe on the rights of the general population. DRM just made it harder for the people who legitimately paid for the product. Any attempt at tracking down perpetrators and taking them through the court system just seems like a huge waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. I guess the recording industry is just going to have to suck it up and rely on the honesty of the public, because just about everything else is doomed to failure.
They should have known better... I don't think anyone's done any development on Rogue in years, or even decades. Maybe if he was a Nethack developer he might have gotten away with it...
That someone could fail to get 100% on the sums with a calculator is ridiculous.
I'm really good at maths, but terrible at basic arithmetic - mainly because my mind wanders and I make stupid mistakes. I can't even count to 100 most of the time without missing a few numbers or losing my place.
I got all the questions right except for the one with the wages which was the only one I actually used the calculator for - my calculator was in 'programming' mode and truncated the decimals. If I was concentrating and not watching a movie and building openwrt at the same time I probably would have picked up that it was a stupid mistake - that 288 doesn't divide evenly into any number with a 0 on the end should have been obvious, and the fact that multiplying that number by 29 wouldn't get rid of the decimal should have been just as obvious:(
It's a little bit like a bank run. People hear that something is running out so they try and get more of it, thus assuring that it does actually run out.
The comparison fails on pretty much every other level though.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting everything in a single server has its advantages - lower power consumption for one (because you do not need to heat additional CPUs, RAM etc) and less physical space used.
Do you think the OP really needs to keep his/her 8TB of disk powered up and online _all_ the time, just on the off chance they might want to watch something right now that can't wait 30 seconds for a second box to boot up?
We're still using DVD's at our house and the kids seem to watch a new movie a few times (or a few hundred times... :) in the first month or so then, with a few exceptions, not really watch it again for ages. All those older movies could go on a box that only boots up when required. In fact in our house, the primary server could probably get away with a single TB of disk and still have room to spare. Now _that_ would save power.
What puzzles me though is how you'd ever have time to watch 8TB of media. Assuming it was DVD quality (which it's probably not), we're talking about 6 months of non-stop watching, and then keeping the media just in case you might want to watch it again. How many movies have you ever seen than you'd want to watch again? And then again after that? For me it would be less than half, probably much less.
I suspect that someone with 8TB of online media storage is a bit of a hoarder ;)
They do the same with executions.
How so? Turn them into shoe soles in a wet process?
Myth is not suitable for a modern HTPC, because it doesn't support streaming from netflix. That's a fatal flaw for a huge number of people these days.
what's a netflix?
I use mythtv. It does pretty much everything. I love it.
Out of space? Just add another box. The idea that your entire media store is attached to a single server seems a bit old fashioned.
Back to the point: why would a vending machine need facial recognition at all if it is not selling some sort of controlled substance or product?
It's a technology test. The worst thing that could go wrong here is that someone get's their pudding without first having eaten their meat. Would you rather they tested with cigarettes or alcohol?
If the machine is going to meter pudding based on the metrics of the would-be buyer, then it should base its decision on the relative size of belly or bum to height (or some similar fat/slender axis), not on the size of the head.
Of course, it would be better if the machine did not attempt to make any such decisions, as there are probably enough cases where the decision would be wrong (small adult, etc.). Lawsuits ahoy!
I don't think that's what they had in mind. It's just a technology test for facial recognition in vending machines and the account that the face is linked to has a pudding/no-pudding flag set. There's more to facial recognition than just head size.
Even better would be if the machine screamed "Stand still laddie" while it was trying to do the facial recognition :)
DSE distributing pirated media? I'm sure the recording industry will be very interested to hear about this...
There's always someone who comes along and spoils an argument with facts and evidence :)
if they really wanted to play their first person shooter faster they should overclock the graphics card, not waste time on the CPU.
I always thought they did that too?
Yeah , I 'll get modded down for offending the high priest overclockers who read this, but really, if you spend 1000s on a special cooling system for your CPU just so it runs 25% faster so you can get even more unnoticable frames per second you really need to get out more.
Maybe it's been a while since you were a kid but there's something enticing about "sticking it to the man"... robbing Intel of those few $$$ by taking a cheap CPU and running it as fast an expensive CPU. Intel (and AMD probably) know exactly what's going on and how best to make money out of it though :)
I'm guessing it would be easier to simulate the pressure and temperature of this part of the core than to actually go there...
A better use of psychology will be to examine the heads of anyone who wants to throw maths out of the window and engage psychologists when designing AI algorithms.
But seriously I have never returned a drive for warranty as once it fails securely erasing the data can be an issue if ti doesn't spin up
I bought a USB disk as a temporary backup while an LTO autoloader was being replaced. It ran the backup just fine but was dead by the next morning. Returning a disk with 1.5TB of customer accounting data on it just isn't an option, so we wrote off the $150 or whatever it cost then.
FWIW, Australia has recently reviewed it's warranty laws so that they are actually sensible. If you buy a product it is expected to last a reasonable amount of time, despite what the bundled warranty might offer. It probably isn't worth pursuing for a $150 harddisk, but they do specifically make allowances for phones. If you buy a phone on a 2 year contract that comes with a 1 year warranty, the phone is reasonably expected to last for the duration of the contract and so the warranty must be honoured for at least that period.
Bye, Kim, we won't miss you at all.
Lets wait and see to who steps in to fill his shoes... you may find you miss him more than you'd think.
If it weren't for the glowing 'Sorny' emblem on mine, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a Vizo, Samsung, or any other brand sitting on the shelf next to each other.
Nonsense. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see one.
I'm not going to waste a lot of time typing a lot: hard work and/or money invested absolutely does not entitle you to "a lot of money." You are entitled only to the value people perceive in it.
I never said it entitles you to a lot of money. It does entitle you to demand money for the work you produced though. If people value your work they'll pay for it.
The decision should be "I think this is worth what the copyright holder is asking for it, i'll buy it", or "this isn't worth what the copyright holder is asking for it, i'll pass". What seems to happen though is "I like this but I don't want to spend money on it, so i'll make a copy of it. The artist can get their money from elsewhere.".
I could go outside and film myself stacking bricks to my cats meowing. Does that entitle me to a lot of money? But at the same time, if it was posted in the right place, it could get half a million hits on YouTube. How does that relate with the money I expected to get? Since lots of people are watching it, I'm entitled to cash, right?
I've never put a video on youtube but I always thought the deal was pretty much "you put this up on youtube and people might watch it". The terms are probably a lot more convoluted than that but if somewhere it says "if you get a million hits then we'll pay you a million dollars", and you end up getting a million hits, then yeah, you should get the money because that was the deal you signed up to.
You are directing your hostility towards the wrong thing here... surely DMCA is the real issue.
Actually I kind of wouldn't mind DMCA takedown notices except there doesn't seem to be enough punishment for malicious takedown notices so (as in your case) it's too easy to just shoot one off and see if it sticks.
Already lost a domain name I had for I have no idea how many years because google marked the notification as junk so I never saw it.
I'm partly to blame for not logging in every other day to make sure my account didn't expire.
I guess it was worth less than $30/year to you then ;)
If you just spent 2 million dollars of your own and investors money making a movie, the idea that you'd then let people just take it for free would seem ridiculous to you too. A movie or a song isn't just 'an idea', it represents (potentially) a lot of hard work and a lot of money.
Your desire for profits DOES NOT justify why those "ideas" should be arbitrarily declared "property" and have government-enforced, rights-infringing monopolies slapped on them.
It's not just an idea though. It's a body of work. Just because you've figured out a way to duplicate it with no cost to yourself doesn't magically take away its designation of "property".
If you can't figure out a way to make money without resorting to censorship, then you shouldn't be spending investors' money and you shouldn't even be in business! It's simply not the government's job to provide you with a business model and censorship powers, period.
Well... I think we obviously agree that censorship is never the right solution, and I doubt a good solution exists, but if a profit can't be made from making movies, then no movies will be made, and that would be sad.
Somewhere along the way people decided that because they can take something then it's right to take it, and they'll fight tooth and nail to stop anyone who dares interrupt their free ride. Yes I agree that pretty much every solution the government has come up with to stop copyright infringement is beyond stupid, but that doesn't mean that you should feel good about taking something you didn't pay for.
I don't get why it's so hard to understand that downloading a movie you didn't pay for is pretty much the same as walking out of a video store with a movie you didn't pay for.
Because it isn't really, unless you're trying to make a false equivalency to create an argument to stand in for a real one in favor of controlling information for profit.
How is that different to you creating an argument where you get to profit (by not paying for something someone else created)?
Piracy duplicates the movie. It does not remove anything from anyone along the line, other than a potential to make money. That is not the same as stealing, just as refusing to allow BMW to tattoo their logo on your forehead is not stealing from BMW. If it is right or not to pirate needs to be determined on the value of the idea of owning ideas, NOT on some made up analogy to theft. Trying to phrase the argument as such is dishonest and deceptive.
Someone else created it. What gives you the right to decide that you can just take a copy?
You can throw together all the arguments you like, but stop making the mistake of trying to get old world ideas of theft to apply to the new world. Just because it only exists as 1's and 0's doesn't make it yours to do with what you will. People say "theft" and "stealing" only because there isn't a word for "duplicating without permission something someone else worked hard to make". At some people in the future it will be possible to take something that someone else spent billions of dollars creating and clone it. In order for people to be motivated to create those things in the first place they need to be able to profit from it.
...if you believe so, it is only because you either stand to profit from said censorship, or are a fool being misled by those who do.
Well... I did state that censorship is not the solution, and is the worst possible outcome. My argument was that taking (or taking a copy of) something that someone else created without their permission is not a good thing to do. I also said there is no way to fix the problem that doesn't hurt more people that it helps. But that doesn't make it right to just take what you want.
Second, the idea that ideas can be property.
I take issue with this point and find it frustrating that people muddy the water with this idea. If you just spent 2 million dollars of your own and investors money making a movie, the idea that you'd then let people just take it for free would seem ridiculous to you too. A movie or a song isn't just 'an idea', it represents (potentially) a lot of hard work and a lot of money. I don't get why it's so hard to understand that downloading a movie you didn't pay for is pretty much the same as walking out of a video store with a movie you didn't pay for. The physical medium is unimportant, it's the content that matters here. If you want to enjoy it, at least have the decency to pay for it. If nobody paid for the hard work of others then the world would be a much worse place.
Patents, which are these days literally just ideas, are a whole different matter so don't confuse them with copyright infringement.
The very idea of property is a problem, but physical property is a necessary evil
I don't see why. It's much better than the alternative. Denouncing property just seems like an excuse for lazy and greedy people to take whatever they want and not have to pay for it, while still appearing to be "cool" about it.
Third, that censorship is seen as a reasonable way to deal with people in other countries doing things that are illegal here
And this is the problem. Taking something that you haven't paid for when you should have paid for it is wrong, but so far nobody has come up with a reasonable way to enforce it that doesn't unnecessarily and harshly infringe on the rights of the general population. DRM just made it harder for the people who legitimately paid for the product. Any attempt at tracking down perpetrators and taking them through the court system just seems like a huge waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. I guess the recording industry is just going to have to suck it up and rely on the honesty of the public, because just about everything else is doomed to failure.
When was the last time you saw a flash when you got done for speeding?
They should have known better... I don't think anyone's done any development on Rogue in years, or even decades. Maybe if he was a Nethack developer he might have gotten away with it...
That someone could fail to get 100% on the sums with a calculator is ridiculous.
I'm really good at maths, but terrible at basic arithmetic - mainly because my mind wanders and I make stupid mistakes. I can't even count to 100 most of the time without missing a few numbers or losing my place.
I got all the questions right except for the one with the wages which was the only one I actually used the calculator for - my calculator was in 'programming' mode and truncated the decimals. If I was concentrating and not watching a movie and building openwrt at the same time I probably would have picked up that it was a stupid mistake - that 288 doesn't divide evenly into any number with a 0 on the end should have been obvious, and the fact that multiplying that number by 29 wouldn't get rid of the decimal should have been just as obvious :(
It's a little bit like a bank run. People hear that something is running out so they try and get more of it, thus assuring that it does actually run out.
The comparison fails on pretty much every other level though.