She was incredibly stupid to wipe the whole drive after receiving a court order to surrender it. If she had a clue, she would have wiped the relevant files, free space, and the pertinent logs.
The judge was actually doing her a favor. If the case were to remain open with her having disposed of key evidence in direct violation of a court order, there could be an obstruction/felony contempt charge waiting for her. By closing the case without the evidence, she avoids a worse fate. This way there might not be criminal charges.
I want the RIAA to lose as much as the next guy, but poo-pooing a judge for exercising good sense doesn't really help the cause.
I agree this will add a little bit of security. But as this happens on a higher layer than the wear leveling, there is no guarantee that it will actually overwrite the physical locations you are interested in overwriting. Of course if you do multiple passes, I'd expect the wear leveling to spread them evenly over all locations including the ones you needed wiped. And BTW you don't need any unfree software to do it, you can just create a file filling all free space and then use the wipe command.
If it fills ALL the free space on the drive, then pigeonhole principle says the cells you wanted to overwrite were overwritten. (That is, if the software overwrites all the free space before removing the dummy files.) IANACS/CE - am I oversimplifying this?
Re:How about a more qualified reviewer?
on
Divine Proportions
·
· Score: 1
I'm curious, how do you know about fields of characteristic 2 but not feel you are qualified to critique the book?
I'm working on a PhD in math. I "know enough" to read the math in the book, but I don't think I'm qualified to critique the pedagogical angle well. That's a political minefield in mathematics. I haven't yet chosen a perspective to call my own. (Not that I have to choose only one.)
Re:Philosophically/Ideologically driven blather
on
Divine Proportions
·
· Score: 1
That article of Wildberger's was hilarious! What's more entertaining than:
Perhaps you believe that even though you cannot write down numbers bigger than w, you can still abstractly contemplate them! This is a metaphysical claim. What does a number bigger than w mean, if there is nothing that it counts, and it can't even be written down? Believing you can `visualize' an all-seeing Leprechaun or an unstoppable mouse in your mind, by some melange of images, descriptive phrases and vague feelings, does not mean they exist.
Thank you for the entertainment. That article was better than a good BOFH episode.
How about a more qualified reviewer?
on
Divine Proportions
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
From the review:
However, you don't have to read between the lines to see on page 21 that Wildberger excludes 'characteristic two fields.' Although I am not versed in Field Theory, I opine that such an exclusion does not apply to classical geometry and/or trigonometry, otherwise he would have said so. So, he is already implicitly confessing, to a failure of Rational Geometry in the global sense.
However, you do have to have the slightest clue what you are talking about if you are going to call the author on the "characteristic two" exclusion.
Wildberger may be a little "out there" (alright, he's completely nuts), but this point is not one you can fault him for. There are a LOT of results which exclude fields of characteristic two. It's not a big deal. In fact, it's commendable that Wildberger has explored the ramifications of his framework in any fields with non-zero characteristic, as the "normal" pedestrian conceptualizations of geometry don't apply.
It would have been nice if/. could have posted a review by somebody who is actually qualified to critique the book. And no, I am not such a person, but I know a couple people who are.
Shucks, if that's true, I've got to talk in a little more detail about this mess with our Patent clerks. The one I talked to left me with the distinct impression that what I said was the case. That might have been my inattention to detail though.
In hindsight, he might have been talking about the long-term enforceability issue: that publication of a patent application doesn't invalidate the patent once it has been issued. That would be consistent with what you're saying. Either way, I've got to ask more precise questions next time we talk.
The content of a patent application isn't protected until the patent is approved. Submitting your patent application to a public site lets all your competition know details of what you're doing with absolutely no guarantee that you'll get patent protection of your idea(s).
I must be missing something, because this seems so obvious and insurmountable.
Yes, you are. First, your first statement is only partially true. An invention only has guaranteed protection once a patent has issued. However, once the application is submitted, the contents are retroactively protected if the application succeeds.
Also, any inventor who wants to seek protection outside the US has to make a public application anyways. The US is basically the only country left with a closed review process. You can opt for a closed review, but then your patent is only enforceable inside the USA (and possibly a couple other places - but not Europe, and some other large markets).
Second, the fact that the site is "public" is ot the relevant fact for patent validity. What matters is if the inventor makes one of a few categories of "disclosure". That includes most avenues of publishing, sales, etc. But if the USPTO does something that resembles disclosure (like posting it in a review wiki), they are still free to give it whatever legal definition they deem appropriate. And there's no way that they would define any part of their review process as a disclosure.
Yes - a definition of big enough to be spherical, and center of gravity outside of another object is all well and good... except for the fact that it could potentially lead to dozens, if not hundreds of "planets" in the solar system.
What's so wrong with that? OMG! teh numberz!
Better to find a way to restrict the definition to only the very largest bodies in a system - even if the cutoff point is plucked out of thin air. Otherwise the term will be completely divorced from its historical and popular meaning.
The Poincare conjecture matters to basically any area of science where topology is important. i.e relativity and quantum mechanics. Also to the new(er) directions in physics like string theory, et. al.
Even if the PC has no direct bearing on some of these fields, the techniques used in the proof will probably end up deeply influencing their research methods.
Unfortunately, 'highbrow' takes a few years to age before it becomes highbrow. You can't just make that. You can get artsy and transcendental, but you're never going to just 'make' highbrow art.
Exactly.
Just like the Marquis de Sade: you have to wait a while for beating prostitutes to be regarded as high cultural commentary. It takes generations of pretentious navel-gazers' inbred opining for an idea (or artwork) to graduate from repulsive to risque to avant-garde to high-brow.
Just wait. Soon enough GTA will be remembered wistfully as a boldly deconstructionist pastiche of post-cold-war corporate consumerism.
That was just the preamble. Of course, if that were the only place where that argument could be used, it's meaningless. However, looking at the actual license, we see parts where the same line of reasoning applies:
From s3 p1,p2:
Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological "protection" measure under section 1201 of Title 17 of the United States Code. When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures that include use of the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing the legal rights of third parties against the work's users.
First off, if the DoD uses GPLv3 code to develop TPMed apps for DoD use, then the "rights" language obviously doesn't apply, because DoD users don't have any "right" to use their work machines' software in any way other than they are told to.
Secondly, in the case of a user of a DoD machine, the DoD is not a "third party". The user is acting as an agent of the DoD. And not in the civil court sense. In military legal reasoning, when acting on behalf of DoD, you are DoD. Thus, TPM restrictions aren't "a means of enforcing the legal rights of third parties against the work's users."
The issues are thick and deep here, but the real point is that the (civil) legal constructs in GPLv3 simply don't apply to the scenario of DoD using GPLv3 code to develop apps for DoD use.
To protect your rights, we need to make requirements that forbid anyone
to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you
must show them these terms so they know their rights.
The obvious loophole for (non-civilian) DoD developers is that they don't have any of the rights that GPLv3 is refering to. Therefore the restrictions whose stated purpose is to "protect your rights" explicitly don't apply to them. After all, it is impossible for a code writer to give the right to distribute to a DoD programmer who is using that code in a classified/restricted access project. This entire paragraph is the basis for its own nullification in the case of DoD work.
Oh don't be ridiculous. The Goa'uld and "stargate" are pure fiction. If you don't stop mocking Eion for trying to bring some enlightenment to the history "establishment", Xenu will come and nuke you over a volcano.
If you really want to piss of the RIAA and the record companies, while you're downloading the album illegally, just go to that band's website and purchase a t-shirt or some other piece of merchandise that does not contain their music.
(even if their label is associated with the RIAA or not)
How would that piss off the RIAA?If it really came down to them suing you, then the fact that you were willing to spend the money would only serve to legitimize their faulty "lost sale" resoning.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't support the artists by buying stuff, just that doing that you said won't do anything to bother the RIAA.
And what if Microsoft took over Apple? Would everybody magically start using Linux?
Actually, a lot of Apple people probably would. Or maybe they'd start a new BSD distro to revive some of the OSX spirit. That is of course assuming that MS would try to "enhance" OSX's Windows interoperability. If they left it alone, then probably not much would happen.
Good to hear that V-wing is finally being torn down. I had a locker in the basement. Those steam pipes made for a rather inhospitable environment. Hot as hell, that is.
Getting a subpoena costs time, money, and political capital.
Actually, only questionable subpoenas/warrants cost political capital. If they have a reasonably solid case, there is no political capital required (under the fairly reasonable assumption that the judge isn't corrupt).
By finding the last point on the temp/speed curve, they are able to much more accurately determine the entire curve. i.e. It's a lot easier to interpolate to more realistic cooling levels. And it makes for a cool headline too.
I'm kind of confused as to how this negates the fact it should be fixed.
Nobody said it does. The only point was that almost everybody involved has some egg on their face.
Also the extraneous comment about him smiling concerns me. He is overly pleased with himself for having the observational powers of a 10 year old child.
Don't read too much into the smile. Try watching some of the committees on C-SPAN some time. After a couple hours, you'll find yourself smiling at even the slightest hint of irony or humor. Opportunities to smile are rarely wasted, as the official duties on Capitol Hill aren't all that exciting. Now the unofficial duties...
My beef with the industry is that there has been room for a numeric keypad on the 17" laptops all along. On some widescreen 15.4" ones also if they really wanted to. I really hate pushing the "special" key to use the fake crooked number pad. It's one of my pet peeves.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge was actually doing her a favor. If the case were to remain open with her having disposed of key evidence in direct violation of a court order, there could be an obstruction/felony contempt charge waiting for her. By closing the case without the evidence, she avoids a worse fate. This way there might not be criminal charges.
I want the RIAA to lose as much as the next guy, but poo-pooing a judge for exercising good sense doesn't really help the cause.
Thanks. That was very helpful.
Wildberger may be a little "out there" (alright, he's completely nuts), but this point is not one you can fault him for. There are a LOT of results which exclude fields of characteristic two. It's not a big deal. In fact, it's commendable that Wildberger has explored the ramifications of his framework in any fields with non-zero characteristic, as the "normal" pedestrian conceptualizations of geometry don't apply.
It would have been nice if /. could have posted a review by somebody who is actually qualified to critique the book. And no, I am not such a person, but I know a couple people who are.
In hindsight, he might have been talking about the long-term enforceability issue: that publication of a patent application doesn't invalidate the patent once it has been issued. That would be consistent with what you're saying. Either way, I've got to ask more precise questions next time we talk.
Thanks.
Also, any inventor who wants to seek protection outside the US has to make a public application anyways. The US is basically the only country left with a closed review process. You can opt for a closed review, but then your patent is only enforceable inside the USA (and possibly a couple other places - but not Europe, and some other large markets).
Second, the fact that the site is "public" is ot the relevant fact for patent validity. What matters is if the inventor makes one of a few categories of "disclosure". That includes most avenues of publishing, sales, etc. But if the USPTO does something that resembles disclosure (like posting it in a review wiki), they are still free to give it whatever legal definition they deem appropriate. And there's no way that they would define any part of their review process as a disclosure.
Even if the PC has no direct bearing on some of these fields, the techniques used in the proof will probably end up deeply influencing their research methods.
Just like the Marquis de Sade: you have to wait a while for beating prostitutes to be regarded as high cultural commentary. It takes generations of pretentious navel-gazers' inbred opining for an idea (or artwork) to graduate from repulsive to risque to avant-garde to high-brow.
Just wait. Soon enough GTA will be remembered wistfully as a boldly deconstructionist pastiche of post-cold-war corporate consumerism.
I agree there are some big questions about how to make something like GPLv# "work" - even in a civlian setting.
Secondly, in the case of a user of a DoD machine, the DoD is not a "third party". The user is acting as an agent of the DoD. And not in the civil court sense. In military legal reasoning, when acting on behalf of DoD, you are DoD. Thus, TPM restrictions aren't "a means of enforcing the legal rights of third parties against the work's users."
The issues are thick and deep here, but the real point is that the (civil) legal constructs in GPLv3 simply don't apply to the scenario of DoD using GPLv3 code to develop apps for DoD use.
Oh don't be ridiculous. The Goa'uld and "stargate" are pure fiction. If you don't stop mocking Eion for trying to bring some enlightenment to the history "establishment", Xenu will come and nuke you over a volcano.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't support the artists by buying stuff, just that doing that you said won't do anything to bother the RIAA.
Good to hear that V-wing is finally being torn down. I had a locker in the basement. Those steam pipes made for a rather inhospitable environment. Hot as hell, that is.
By finding the last point on the temp/speed curve, they are able to much more accurately determine the entire curve. i.e. It's a lot easier to interpolate to more realistic cooling levels. And it makes for a cool headline too.
* Intel Pentium D 805
* Tagan i-Xeye 480 W PSU
* Asus P5WD2-E Premium
* OCZ DDR2-800 (2x 512 MB)
* 2x Western Digital WD160
* GeForce 7800 GTX
* Gigabyte DVD-Rom 16x
Honestly, do you think that 7800GTX might have helped with those game benchmarks? Maybe...
Now duplicate those results with the machine in the article.
An even greater irony is that overpopulation is one of the problems that going into space will never solve.
I haven't seen an LG laptop before. Good to know.
My beef with the industry is that there has been room for a numeric keypad on the 17" laptops all along. On some widescreen 15.4" ones also if they really wanted to. I really hate pushing the "special" key to use the fake crooked number pad. It's one of my pet peeves.