Bootcamp is beta software with several large known bugs, and should not be used in a production environment.
Also, the regular imaging tools won't work, you need something that understands GPT partition tables (from the Department of Reudundancy Department).
Basically, from the sound of it, you don't know what you are doing, which for a large scale deployment in a production area, can only end in disaster.
Actually, I paid nothing for it, I'm one of their "official" beta testers, and gone mine for free.
But, sacrificing a couple of little-used features (for me, anyway) until a fix was made available (READ: it started working) seems fair.
Hell, I lived without sound on my linux box for nearly a year until someone patched ALSA to work properly with my sound card (SB Live! 24 bit), so I think I can allow MS a week or two:)
If there are hidden API's, then that means nobody knows about them, which means, nobody uses them (apart from MS software, but lets be honest, if you're running a free NT clone, you aren't going to be running MS office are you?), which means that it won't affect them in the slightest.
And if there are any hidden API's, the DOJ and EU will hit MS with the antitrust stick.
API changes might be an issue, but again, if the API's are in use, they can't do this without breaking other software. Hiding stuff from a competitor is one thing, but deliberately crippling a rival's software?
That would earn them the antitrust battering ram.
It also wouldn't make much business sense; who would want to develop for a platform where the goalposts are constantly moving?
But what would be the point, he wants it for a museum, not for use. Kinda defeats the object. Sure, I can sketch a penny black onto a piece of paper, but for the purposes of stamp collecting, it's useless.
That's not something that's specific to e-voting. A guy could just as easily break into your house, put a gun to your child's head and tell you to go down to the polling station and vote for $foo.
I'm as apprehensive about electronic voting systems as the next guy, but could we stick to real, valid concerns that are specific to e-voting?
Second, I'm pretty sure that if little Timmy is bought FEAR by his parents (after all, he won't be able to buy it himself), then all mom and pop have to do is either approve the game (probably enter their user name + password), or set the bar a little lower. And how hard is it going to be to have a note in with the game that details for people intalling it what to do if windows complains about running an unrated game.
Hell, the game browser system is opt in anyway, if a program does not register itself (or is detected as, the game browser can identify games), then the rating will not be checked at all, as windows wll just think it is a regular program.
Personally, I feel that this "feature" should not be needed at all. This sort of protection should be done 1) at the videogame counter and 2) by the parents not buying these games on their behalf. However, as election time in America approaches, I can see more and more of your Senators heading down the "GAMEZ ARE EVIL LOL AND MUST BE BANZORED ON THE BEHALFS OF THE PARENTS".
People, especially children (as they are much more impressionable than adults), that have been abducted, can develop what is called stockholm syndrome.
They would feel loyal to their captors, and even believe that they are acting in their best interests.
From the sound of the story, this could be what occurred.
No, that it is provided in the hope that it may be useful, and that for one who hopes that someone may find something that I provide useful, a subscription model doesn't fit.
This particular paragraph from the GPL sums up what I mean nicely:
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
(Not that I praticularly like the GPL, I usually release stuff under the BSD licence.)
I agree with your order, but not with the reasoning.
Right now, I could set up a webmail service, completely for free, that doesn't suck, with no ads. I doubt I could afford to keep it going on my own for more than a month though.
Sooner or later, I would have to find some source of funding. One choice is to charge for it. For people who value the principles of open source software and the like, this is not a disireable option. So I have to find another way to support it.
Ads are an easy way to do this.
Eventually, it's likely that the service will be bought out by some faceless/greedy corporation that will start shenanigans.
As for the sustainable business model... You could become a very rich man/woman/neuter if you can create one that requires on selling of ads, no subscriptions, and still breaks even (or even turns a profit).
And you're right about voting with your feet. If you disagree with the TOS of a service, choose another. Though I think at this time you'd be hard pressed to find one which promises what we'd all like. Free Forver.
OK, the two who modded me troll need to look up sarcasm and irony:)
I don't like ads any more than the next guy, but, if you sign up to a service like yahoo mail, and agree to view ads in exchange for recieving a service, then you should view them.
(Almost) everything these days has a cost, and the adverts are there to pay part (or all) of that cost.
To then complain that the service provider is making it difficult for you to break your side of the contract (for that's what it is, a contract), is beyond audacious.
To use a bad analogy, it's like the guy trying to break into your car knocking on your front door and asking if he can borrow the keys, cause hotwiring the car is too difficult for him. (Bad analogy, because he is asking a third party for help, but it illustrates my point).
If someone is forcing ads down your throat, then fine block them (I do). But if you agree to them, in exchange for something else, just accept them. It's not even as if the ones on yahoo mail are particularly obtrusive (and if it's the privacy side you are worried about, why the hell are you storing your email with a third party anyway?)
I signed up for a service that is paid for by displaying advertisments. I am trying to avoid my side of the bargin by blocking the ads, however, the service provider seems to have prevented me from doing this easily. Can anyone help?
It captured a directshow video source (in this case, a video camera connected to a tv capture card.). Told VLC to encode the information from the card into MPEG, then stream it across the internet, where it could be viewed with any client that could decode MPEGs.
Check the documentation, it's not an obscure use, the documentation is fairly strong.
All you'd need do is mirror the setup, so you have recording and transmitting at both ends. If you had multiple instances of the media player open, you could even have multiple streams incoming (and, I believe, VLC supports multicasting, though I didn't use this feature so YMMV).
Could have sworn I set my default posting style to plaintext, but meh. And in my defense I was battling the lameness filter to get this posted in the first place.
so lets see.
If he uses 3 shapes, and 5 colours, that's 13 possibilities per "dot". For example, Circle, Square, Triangle, Red, Blue, Green, Black, White. All he has to do, s find another 3 permutations, and he has 16 options per pixel. For those of you out there that didn't notice, white can't have a shape, as the paper is white.
If the data to be stored were to be translated into hexidecimal, you can store 1 hexidecimal digit per "dot".
1 Hex digit is equivalent to a nibble, so for every 2 dots you have encoded one byte.
256 gigabytes is 274877906944 bytes. Now, most printers can easily do 1200 dpi. This is linear DPI though, so they can actually do 1440000 dots per square inch. Now, if we assume that we would need at least 9 dots to do all three shapes:
(see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/)
As shown above, that reduces the shape density to 360000 shapes per square inch, or 180000 bits per square inch.
A4 paper which is almost foolscap has an area of 96.6763 square inches, so we can store, using my methods, 17401734 bytes, so 16 megabytes, much higher than people here so far have been claiming, and using very, very conservative colour choices and resolutions.
While this is an order of magnitude away from the stated values, this could easily be much higher.
I have assumed a very low resolution (laser printers can easily get up to 2000 DPI these days), no compression, and a very restricted subset of values. I should think it would be easily possible to use 8 bit colour, with no risk of data loss.
Add to this 8 to 14 conversion, or parity values, to ensure data integrity, and I think that what this guy is claiming is within the realms of possibility.
FYI, using 8 bit colour which yields 256 possibilities
3x256-3 = 765 765 is almost 3 bytes per dot using 2000 DPI, 2000x2000 is 4000000 divided by 9 is 444444 shapes per square inch.
444444x3 makes 1333332 bytes per square inch. so, 128901604 bytes per sheet of A4 which is 128 megabytes per sheet of A4.
So as you can see, it's not a case of "is it possible to fit that much data", it's just a case of howdetailed it has to be; add another shape, and the desity per dot goes up massively,
(see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/)
maybe?
Is it possible to fit 256 gigs of data on a sheet of A4 with ink?: Yes. Is it possible to retrieve it?: Possibly, depends how small you go.
If you want precendent, think how small the pits are on a Blu Ray disk are; if we can retrieve a single bit from something that small, can we can surely retrieve something a bit bigger and a bit more detailed.
My maths isn't too strong, so if I've made a mistake, feel free to correct me.
so lets see.
If he uses 3 shapes, and 5 colours, that's 13 possibilities per "dot". For example, Circle, Square, Triangle, Red, Blue, Green, Black, White. All he has to do, s find another 3 permutations, and he has 16 options per pixel. For those of you out there that didn't notice, white can't have a shape, as the paper is white.
If the data to be stored were to be translated into hexidecimal, you can store 1 hexidecimal digit per "dot".
1 Hex digit is equivalent to a nibble, so for every 2 dots you have encoded one byte.
256 gigabytes is 274877906944 bytes. Now, most printers can easily do 1200 dpi. This is linear DPI though, so they can actually do 1440000 dots per square inch. Now, if we assume that we would need at least 9 dots to do all three shapes:
(see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/)
As shown above, that reduces the shape density to 360000 shapes per square inch, or 180000 bits per square inch.
A4 paper which is almost foolscap has an area of 96.6763 square inches, so we can store, using my methods, 17401734 bytes, so 16 megabytes, much higher than people here so far have been claiming, and using very, very conservative colour choices and resolutions.
While this is an order of magnitude away from the stated values, this could easily be much higher.
I have assumed a very low resolution (laser printers can easily get up to 2000 DPI these days), no compression, and a very restricted subset of values. I should think it would be easily possible to use 8 bit colour, with no risk of data loss.
Add to this 8 to 14 conversion, or parity values, to ensure data integrity, and I think that what this guy is claiming is within the realms of possibility.
FYI, using 8 bit colour which yields 256 possibilities
3x256-3 = 765
765 is almost 3 bytes per dot
using 2000 DPI,
2000x2000 is 4000000 divided by 9 is 444444 shapes per square inch.
444444x3 makes 1333332 bytes per square inch.
so, 128901604 bytes per sheet of A4
which is 128 megabytes per sheet of A4.
So as you can see, it's not a case of "is it possible to fit that much data", it's just a case of howdetailed it has to be; add another shape, and the desity per dot goes up massively,
(see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/)
maybe?
Is it possible to fit 256 gigs of data on a sheet of A4 with ink?: Yes.
Is it possible to retrieve it?: Possibly, depends how small you go.
If you want precendent, think how small the pits are on a Blu Ray disk are; if we can retrieve a single bit from something that small, can we can surely retrieve something a bit bigger and a bit more detailed.
My maths isn't to strong, so if I've made a mistake, feel free to correct me.
Ah feck, lameness filter encountered. Looks like I'm going to have to type a bit more to balance it out. Sorry to ramble on, but most of the junk characters aren't junk characters. You'd think that once you get up to good karma that the lameness filter would give you a little leway, but apparently not. I wonder if this is enough yet? Apparently not, well CBA to type any more, better try and remove a few characters. Taken out most mathmatical symbols, does that do the trick?
I believe the point he is trying to make is, in space there is no up or down. Gravity is not there to move cold air down and warm air up, so flames will... actually, I have no idea what they will do. If I had to guess, I would say that they wouldn't burn very fast at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Bootcamp is beta software with several large known bugs, and should not be used in a production environment. Also, the regular imaging tools won't work, you need something that understands GPT partition tables (from the Department of Reudundancy Department). Basically, from the sound of it, you don't know what you are doing, which for a large scale deployment in a production area, can only end in disaster.
Actually, I paid nothing for it, I'm one of their "official" beta testers, and gone mine for free.
:)
But, sacrificing a couple of little-used features (for me, anyway) until a fix was made available (READ: it started working) seems fair.
Hell, I lived without sound on my linux box for nearly a year until someone patched ALSA to work properly with my sound card (SB Live! 24 bit), so I think I can allow MS a week or two
But, after a week or 2, it suddenly cleared up.
I never did track down the cause of it, but disabling volume shadow copy and indexing did mitigate the problem a little.
Once it cleared up, re-enabling them did not cause any problems.
If there are hidden API's, then that means nobody knows about them, which means, nobody uses them (apart from MS software, but lets be honest, if you're running a free NT clone, you aren't going to be running MS office are you?), which means that it won't affect them in the slightest.
And if there are any hidden API's, the DOJ and EU will hit MS with the antitrust stick.
API changes might be an issue, but again, if the API's are in use, they can't do this without breaking other software. Hiding stuff from a competitor is one thing, but deliberately crippling a rival's software?
That would earn them the antitrust battering ram.
It also wouldn't make much business sense; who would want to develop for a platform where the goalposts are constantly moving?
But what would be the point, he wants it for a museum, not for use. Kinda defeats the object.
Sure, I can sketch a penny black onto a piece of paper, but for the purposes of stamp collecting, it's useless.
Old accounts can still access hotmail using a proper client.
New accounts have to pay for the privilege.
I'm not sure if you had to have used hotmail by proper client prior to the changeover date or not.
Are you telling me you would actually risk the life of your child (no matter how small the risk) over something as trivial as a vote?
Don't value your children much do you?
That's not something that's specific to e-voting.
A guy could just as easily break into your house, put a gun to your child's head and tell you to go down to the polling station and vote for $foo.
I'm as apprehensive about electronic voting systems as the next guy, but could we stick to real, valid concerns that are specific to e-voting?
I should elaborate on my first point, you have to enable the restrictions on a per-account basis.
First, the restriction system is opt in.
Second, I'm pretty sure that if little Timmy is bought FEAR by his parents (after all, he won't be able to buy it himself), then all mom and pop have to do is either approve the game (probably enter their user name + password), or set the bar a little lower. And how hard is it going to be to have a note in with the game that details for people intalling it what to do if windows complains about running an unrated game.
Hell, the game browser system is opt in anyway, if a program does not register itself (or is detected as, the game browser can identify games), then the rating will not be checked at all, as windows wll just think it is a regular program.
Personally, I feel that this "feature" should not be needed at all. This sort of protection should be done 1) at the videogame counter and 2) by the parents not buying these games on their behalf. However, as election time in America approaches, I can see more and more of your Senators heading down the "GAMEZ ARE EVIL LOL AND MUST BE BANZORED ON THE BEHALFS OF THE PARENTS".
People, especially children (as they are much more impressionable than adults), that have been abducted, can develop what is called stockholm syndrome.
They would feel loyal to their captors, and even believe that they are acting in their best interests.
From the sound of the story, this could be what occurred.
No, that it is provided in the hope that it may be useful, and that for one who hopes that someone may find something that I provide useful, a subscription model doesn't fit.
This particular paragraph from the GPL sums up what I mean nicely:
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
(Not that I praticularly like the GPL, I usually release stuff under the BSD licence.)
I agree with your order, but not with the reasoning.
Right now, I could set up a webmail service, completely for free, that doesn't suck, with no ads.
I doubt I could afford to keep it going on my own for more than a month though.
Sooner or later, I would have to find some source of funding. One choice is to charge for it. For people who value the principles of open source software and the like, this is not a disireable option. So I have to find another way to support it.
Ads are an easy way to do this.
Eventually, it's likely that the service will be bought out by some faceless/greedy corporation that will start shenanigans.
As for the sustainable business model... You could become a very rich man/woman/neuter if you can create one that requires on selling of ads, no subscriptions, and still breaks even (or even turns a profit).
And you're right about voting with your feet. If you disagree with the TOS of a service, choose another. Though I think at this time you'd be hard pressed to find one which promises what we'd all like. Free Forver.
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173 .html
It's in section 2.
OK, the two who modded me troll need to look up sarcasm and irony :)
I don't like ads any more than the next guy, but, if you sign up to a service like yahoo mail, and agree to view ads in exchange for recieving a service, then you should view them.
(Almost) everything these days has a cost, and the adverts are there to pay part (or all) of that cost.
To then complain that the service provider is making it difficult for you to break your side of the contract (for that's what it is, a contract), is beyond audacious.
To use a bad analogy, it's like the guy trying to break into your car knocking on your front door and asking if he can borrow the keys, cause hotwiring the car is too difficult for him. (Bad analogy, because he is asking a third party for help, but it illustrates my point).
If someone is forcing ads down your throat, then fine block them (I do). But if you agree to them, in exchange for something else, just accept them. It's not even as if the ones on yahoo mail are particularly obtrusive (and if it's the privacy side you are worried about, why the hell are you storing your email with a third party anyway?)
I signed up for a service that is paid for by displaying advertisments.
I am trying to avoid my side of the bargin by blocking the ads, however, the service provider seems to have prevented me from doing this easily.
Can anyone help?
Because nobody has broken into the dog and forced it to bite somebody.
I did something similar, using VLC.
It captured a directshow video source (in this case, a video camera connected to a tv capture card.). Told VLC to encode the information from the card into MPEG, then stream it across the internet, where it could be viewed with any client that could decode MPEGs.
Check the documentation, it's not an obscure use, the documentation is fairly strong.
All you'd need do is mirror the setup, so you have recording and transmitting at both ends. If you had multiple instances of the media player open, you could even have multiple streams incoming (and, I believe, VLC supports multicasting, though I didn't use this feature so YMMV).
Could have sworn I set my default posting style to plaintext, but meh. And in my defense I was battling the lameness filter to get this posted in the first place.
so lets see.
If he uses 3 shapes, and 5 colours, that's 13 possibilities per "dot". For example, Circle, Square, Triangle, Red, Blue, Green, Black, White. All he has to do, s find another 3 permutations, and he has 16 options per pixel. For those of you out there that didn't notice, white can't have a shape, as the paper is white.
If the data to be stored were to be translated into hexidecimal, you can store 1 hexidecimal digit per "dot".
1 Hex digit is equivalent to a nibble, so for every 2 dots you have encoded one byte.
256 gigabytes is 274877906944 bytes. Now, most printers can easily do 1200 dpi. This is linear DPI though, so they can actually do 1440000 dots per square inch. Now, if we assume that we would need at least 9 dots to do all three shapes:
(see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/)
As shown above, that reduces the shape density to 360000 shapes per square inch, or 180000 bits per square inch.
A4 paper which is almost foolscap has an area of 96.6763 square inches, so we can store, using my methods, 17401734 bytes, so 16 megabytes, much higher than people here so far have been claiming, and using very, very conservative colour choices and resolutions.
While this is an order of magnitude away from the stated values, this could easily be much higher.
I have assumed a very low resolution (laser printers can easily get up to 2000 DPI these days), no compression, and a very restricted subset of values. I should think it would be easily possible to use 8 bit colour, with no risk of data loss.
Add to this 8 to 14 conversion, or parity values, to ensure data integrity, and I think that what this guy is claiming is within the realms of possibility.
FYI, using 8 bit colour which yields 256 possibilities
3x256-3 = 765
765 is almost 3 bytes per dot
using 2000 DPI,
2000x2000 is 4000000 divided by 9 is 444444 shapes per square inch.
444444x3 makes 1333332 bytes per square inch.
so, 128901604 bytes per sheet of A4
which is 128 megabytes per sheet of A4.
So as you can see, it's not a case of "is it possible to fit that much data", it's just a case of howdetailed it has to be; add another shape, and the desity per dot goes up massively,
(see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/)
maybe?
Is it possible to fit 256 gigs of data on a sheet of A4 with ink?: Yes.
Is it possible to retrieve it?: Possibly, depends how small you go.
If you want precendent, think how small the pits are on a Blu Ray disk are; if we can retrieve a single bit from something that small, can we can surely retrieve something a bit bigger and a bit more detailed.
My maths isn't too strong, so if I've made a mistake, feel free to correct me.
so lets see. If he uses 3 shapes, and 5 colours, that's 13 possibilities per "dot". For example, Circle, Square, Triangle, Red, Blue, Green, Black, White. All he has to do, s find another 3 permutations, and he has 16 options per pixel. For those of you out there that didn't notice, white can't have a shape, as the paper is white. If the data to be stored were to be translated into hexidecimal, you can store 1 hexidecimal digit per "dot". 1 Hex digit is equivalent to a nibble, so for every 2 dots you have encoded one byte. 256 gigabytes is 274877906944 bytes. Now, most printers can easily do 1200 dpi. This is linear DPI though, so they can actually do 1440000 dots per square inch. Now, if we assume that we would need at least 9 dots to do all three shapes: (see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/) As shown above, that reduces the shape density to 360000 shapes per square inch, or 180000 bits per square inch. A4 paper which is almost foolscap has an area of 96.6763 square inches, so we can store, using my methods, 17401734 bytes, so 16 megabytes, much higher than people here so far have been claiming, and using very, very conservative colour choices and resolutions. While this is an order of magnitude away from the stated values, this could easily be much higher. I have assumed a very low resolution (laser printers can easily get up to 2000 DPI these days), no compression, and a very restricted subset of values. I should think it would be easily possible to use 8 bit colour, with no risk of data loss. Add to this 8 to 14 conversion, or parity values, to ensure data integrity, and I think that what this guy is claiming is within the realms of possibility. FYI, using 8 bit colour which yields 256 possibilities 3x256-3 = 765 765 is almost 3 bytes per dot using 2000 DPI, 2000x2000 is 4000000 divided by 9 is 444444 shapes per square inch. 444444x3 makes 1333332 bytes per square inch. so, 128901604 bytes per sheet of A4 which is 128 megabytes per sheet of A4. So as you can see, it's not a case of "is it possible to fit that much data", it's just a case of howdetailed it has to be; add another shape, and the desity per dot goes up massively, (see the full comment on my blog for the shapes, I had to take them out to avoid the lameness filter, address is http://www.omega.org.uk/) maybe? Is it possible to fit 256 gigs of data on a sheet of A4 with ink?: Yes. Is it possible to retrieve it?: Possibly, depends how small you go. If you want precendent, think how small the pits are on a Blu Ray disk are; if we can retrieve a single bit from something that small, can we can surely retrieve something a bit bigger and a bit more detailed. My maths isn't to strong, so if I've made a mistake, feel free to correct me. Ah feck, lameness filter encountered. Looks like I'm going to have to type a bit more to balance it out. Sorry to ramble on, but most of the junk characters aren't junk characters. You'd think that once you get up to good karma that the lameness filter would give you a little leway, but apparently not. I wonder if this is enough yet? Apparently not, well CBA to type any more, better try and remove a few characters. Taken out most mathmatical symbols, does that do the trick?
Except that raid 0+1 can't be implemented with 2 drives, it requires a minimum of 4.
If you're going to do that, you may as well do RAID 5, which has the smae level of redundancy, but mpre available space.
I believe the point he is trying to make is, in space there is no up or down. Gravity is not there to move cold air down and warm air up, so flames will... actually, I have no idea what they will do. If I had to guess, I would say that they wouldn't burn very fast at all.