Why the fuck does everyone thing that the remote capability adds overhead to X?
They are probably just confused because it uses so much bandwidth in remote usage, and sucks rocks if there is a latency problem (ie: over a phone modem).
Why couldn't the remote protocol in X be rewritten to minimize the number of data exchanges and total bandwidth?
Windows can run a terminal server over a phone line - there is no reason X cannot do this also.
SONY in Japan is like Dell in the US. They are top dog in computer sales, and ubiquitious.
Like Dell here, they are not highly regarded as high quality, just mass produced.
Conectivity in Japan has always been easy and high speed for me, as long as you have wireless and 10BT.
But specing anything more than this would require some knowledge of what the laptop would be used for. I travel a lot with mine, and like super lightweight, a nice keyboard, and a small monitor is OK as long as it at least does 800x600. If you plan to use it as a desktop, though, and aren't going to lug it through airports every few weeks, a bigger monitor/heavier model might be better.
Item 1. Player licensing for consumer devices (which presumably excludes computer playback). The examples given in the press release are embedded devices. This is part of the "linux is killing us on embedded devices, let's make sure it doesn't kill our media market too"
Item 2. Video editing. This is specifically mentioned wrt linux. You are going to be able to edit digitial videos on linux and encode with Microsoft codecs. This is part of the longer term "eradicate MPEG4" strategy.
There is no WMP for linux coming, that is part of the "desktop linux is still irrelevant" strategy.
No, the previous posts were Microsoft allowing the WMV9 encoders to be licensed for other operating systems. Previously, media tools from Microsoft could only be used on Windows (like Pinnacle Studio). With the WMV9 codec, licenses for tools can be purchased on any operating system, and much cheaper than MPEG4 licenses.
This new release is about their media PLAYER, for which licensing is a separate issue.
Here is the real deal. There is a BIG fight going on over the next generation of compressed digital video.
In this corner, backed by billions and billions of cash reserves and half the digital codec developers money can buy, is Microsoft. They hold out WMV9, the next generation. The be-all and end-all. You can license it to create digital media on all platforms. The licensing is dirt cheap. You can play it on any machine with WMP (which is, like, all desktops). It ru13z. It is not really any better than MPEG4, but it is easier to use.
In the other corner, is EVERYONE else. They created a patent pool to combat Microsoft. They are the MPEG4 consortium, led by Steve Jobs, but also including just about every other major player in the computer industry. They tell people that their standard is the best - and everyone will be licensing from them. Their licenses for creation cost more than Microsoft's (less $$ in the bank). They can't agree on whether they will charge streaming fees, or how much they will be. But they can agree that, boy, they got a lot of patents, and boy are they gonna give Microsoft a run for their money.
So, in the next few years, this is it. MPEG4 consortium against Microsoft. Who will win, and who will go the Betamax route.
Being technically better is only a small part of this game.
They're porting WMP9 to linux and MacOS. Nice try.
No, they are not.
What they are doing is allowing WMV9 creation tools to be licensed on other operating systems. So, Pinnacle, Adobe, Ulead, and others will be allowed to make software for linux that can create a WMV9 encoded video file.
They are not porting the playback codec. There will be no player licensed by Microsoft for playing WMV9 on linux. However, mplayer/xine already play WMV9 if you have a copy of the codec on your linux box.
Microsoft sees a big future in production of digital video. Therefore, they are flooding ALL markets with their creation tools (which were previously restricted to Windows).
This is not really about linux or IE, it is about Apple and MPEG4. The MPEG4 consortium has pooled patents, and consists of Apple, Intel, and a few other players. They want MPEG4 to dominate the future. They make tools for Mac and Windows and whatever other OS you like (provided you pay patent licensing fees). They charge a fair amount.
Microsoft is not licensing their WMV9 codec, which is AT LEAST comparable in compression to MPEG4, for much less. The end result will be that on all platforms, WMV9 creation tools will be cheaper than MPEG4 tools. The MPEG4 consortium probably cannot afford to give away the baby with the bath water in order to control the market.
Therefore, Microsoft will buy another market. Then, they will begin to jack up the licensing fees, and stop upgrading their codecs, and increase streaming licensing fees, etc. They already control the platform on which 99% of all digital media is played.
Kinda cool that professional media editing tools will be available to linux w/out using WINE.
I dunno that such comparisons can be drawn lightly.
I work with 2 electronics technicians. One carefully thinks things through, architects his designs first, and in general makes as good or better a solution than what I brought to him. He has a technical electronics degree - kinda like a TV repair man.
The second has a master's in engineering, but is so incompetent I usually choose to do the work myself - it will get done faster, and better. Mostly, it won't need to be re-done is 2 weeks.
So which is the engineer?
But really, professionally, engineers need to pass a test upon graduating from college. This is a general test. Then, years later, they can receive professional certification by demonstrating engineering proficiency at their craft - usually by presenting a completed project they led for evaluation by their peers. This process leads to the real deal being called professional engineers.
I see no problem with the same criteria being applied to programming. Except that few, if any, could pass the first round of tests without academic training in engineering. The certification process needs to be the real deal.
Let any code monkey say he is training for a PE degree. And, when you really need some programming done, go to someone certified. He will have 5+ years experience, and received the stamp of approval from his peers.
1). Resellers that act with very limited warranty that sell overclocked machines. The machine fails, Intel's reputation suffers. Intel wants to prevent this.
2). People who overclock and then send in the CPU for a replacement for free.
Presumably, Intel will still sell CPUs without this protection on a no-warranty basis so people can overclock if they like, and Intel loses neither money nor reputation.
The first is sound coming in the ear canal, which can be blocked by blocking sound waves.
The second is bone conduction (one reason your voice sounds really different than when you listen to it on tape). Ultrasound doesn't transmit through bone.
It is still sound, it still reflects off hard surfaces. No one can beam sound into your head.
First, bone conduction to the cochlea will only work for low frequencies. It is unlikely to be useful here.
Second, here is my take on how this works. I haven't actually read any of the technical lit, but I know a little about acoustics. And, since this is/., there is no real need to know what you are talking about:)
A laser creates light inside a resonating chamber, and then releases it.
To make the sonic analogy, create ultrasound inside a resonating chamber, and then release it. The problem is making it audible. But really high frequecies of sound have good qualities in this application, like minimal spreading.
To make it audible, you amplitude modulate the ultrasound wave in the audible range. So, if you are using a 5 MHz signal, just amplitude modulate it with a speech envelope (300-3k Hz range). That way, you can transport sound across a longer distance (minimal spreading), and still have it be audible. Use of ampltude modulation allows you to use a single resonating chamber (FM modulation may work better, but the resonating chamber needs to change in size! )
Now, it is still sound. Sound will reflect off hard surfaces. High frequency sound will not conduct through the bone. So, hard plastic headphones would attenuate the sound pretty well. The way it creates sound in the ear is that the cochlea will respond to the ultrasound "envelope", so that the modulation gets converted to sound.
The downside is that the high frequency sound doesn't bend well. If you turn your head a little, you probably get 20 dB attenuation (10 fold loss in amplitude, 3 fold loss in loudness).
Using an ultrasound source with slightly lower coherence (wavelets of ultrasound, if you will), you can branch the source to two emitters and create a zone of interference in which sound will be audible. Low coherence laser interferometry is already a technique with substantial use in biological imaging applications.
In any case, rest assured, ultrasound absolutely doesn't transmit through bone (it mostly reflects as bone has a high acoustic impedance), and there is still no way anyone can "beam" sound into your head.
If someone puts sound someplace in public, there is really no way to avoid it now. The difference is, with HSS, you can have fine spatial control over the exact position of the sound. If anything, there should be a lot more quiet in public, and perhaps more sound in very specific locations.
I kinda like the idea that you could, in principle, use a hard surface to totally reflect the sound without loss and direct it at someone else.
oh please.. If you're using Linux for video capture, you should already know what you're doing and don't need some guide to tell you the details.
Yeah, because you figured it out by pulling your molars out with kitestring.
In linux, you start with the Brooktree bt8x8 chipset on a capture card (like a PCTV card).
You use ffmpeg to capture.
Your sync sucks if you grab more than 30 seconds.
Then you buy a Windows or Mac machine. Or, you copy it to a digital camcorder, and suck it in digitally, which is probably the easiest solution for most people.
For digital, it is a little better. You can capture across FireWire using KINO/dvgrab, and save as a type II AVI file with raw dig vid. Then, you can use KINO to mix and match multiple raw dig vids, you can use img2raw to make title pages (or other images) into raw dig vid, suck them into KINO, and ultimately output a nice raw digital video using KINO, again, as type II AVI file. (You can do the same editing with KINO after an analog capture - it is just that a digital capture over FireWire works easily).
Then, you can crunch it using mencoder or ffmpeg, which read type II AVI files, and do pretty well compared to packages available under Windows/Mac.
I think, though, right now, there is a market for someone like Pinnacle to release something like its Studio for linux, and there are a fair number of people who would pay $100 for it if it could make things easy and seamless for analog and digital capture/compression. You can do almost everything in linux now, but figuring it all out is a royal pain, and anyone not into it will lose interest far before they are done.
A prototype that allows someone to read the newspaper, self-navigate, and drive in traffic can be completed in less than five years with the appropriate person working on it.
This particular part of the DMCA requires that copyright owners contact ISPs hosting unauthorized copies and give them a chance to remove the offending material. If the ISP does so the copyright owner may not sue him.
This is true. If the ISP owns the media containing the alleged copyrighted material, and they are contacted, they have to act.
But if the ISP doesn't own the system on which the material resides, but their system only serves it up from automated requests, then they have no obligation to act unless there is an injunction. The copyright holder has to get a judge to issue the injunction, and that injunction may, under the DMCA, cause the ISP to revoke that user, or prevent access to his materials.
It seems to me that were I running and ISP, I would make it part of the terms of service that users jointly owned the machines on which their material resided, if for no better reason than to cause the hawkish lawyers from the RIAA and MPAA to chase actual copyright offenders, and not easier targets like ISPs that provide a legitimate service.
Visual pathway prosthetics work either by stimulating the retinal ganglion cells in the eye, or by stimulating in primary visual cortex.
Neither way has yet proved useful enough to deploy on a large scale. It is a little tougher than a cochlear implant, because you have to seal the device inside the eye, and provide a power source that can stimulate a bunch of microelectrodes.
Just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean it cannot be replicated in the future. There was a time, about 30 years ago, when simulating the function of the human ear was unheard of. Now, patients get cochlear implants and can understand speech. Artificial hearts are in use. The brain is a matter of time, the retina will come relatively quickly, next will be implants that couple motor cortex to external devices, there are already stimulating electrodes that modulate the motor system...
You totally misrepresented what the DMCA says -- If he's been notified of the infringing material he IS potentially liable.
I guess you didn't read the link I provided, huh?
ISPs have no need to police themselves. They can tell an alleged infringer to go stuff themselves until they come back with an injunction, and that injunction can only require restriction to materials, or restriction of use from the offending user.
The entire purpose of that section of the DMCA is to prevent crazies from threatening to sue every ISP and utterly shutting off content. Users are responsible for themselves. ISPs bear no liability under a reasonable set of circumstances.
Yeah, but you still have energy conversion at the car level.
The biggest advantages are 1) use of natural gas instead of oil as primary energy source 2) better capture of greenhouse gases - local energy use would only produce water.
And to get these advantages we only need to replace a trillion dollar infrastructure.
As I read through the section, it occurs to me that for this to work for a hosting company, you need to have the users own the disks that provide their files, or else it is possible you would bear some liability. Probably well worth a small change in your user agreements to tell copyright enforcers to do their own legwork, and not use you as their stooge.
Now, they can get a court ordered injunction to get you to block access to the offending material, or from the offending user, according to this section. So, tell them to talk to the judge, and short of an injunction, you fail to see how you bear any liability for things hosted by your ISP service.
I'd recommend reading the DMCA section in question - one of the purposes of the DMCA was protecting ISPs from claims against their users. You really don't even need to research the claim.
I think in this case it will be something far more specific.
IBM solely adapted linux to >4 CPU SMP machines of their own architecture that ran AIX. The obvious implication is that whereas before you could only run AIX on these boxes, now you can run linux as well. Linux has never been well adapted to SMP machines with more than 4 CPUs (big iron), mainly b/c not enough developers have access.
So, the question is, did IBM use inside information from UNIX to do that port? Will this impact future licensing of AIX from SCO (or, rather, the UNIX license)?
AIX is dying, IBM is helping linux supplant it, and SCO is pissed.
Not necessarily. The lights are always in the same order.
This sounds good on paper.
Then you drive through Providence, Rhode Island, and run 3 stop lights because only then do you figure out the red light is on the left, not the right (and your passengers are scared stiff).
Another good one is flashing lights. Some lights start flashing red or yellow at night. I gotta look REALLY closely to tell the difference.
I have a number of traffic violations contributed directly to by red/green colorblindness. Generally traffic planners ignore this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the fuck does everyone thing that the remote capability adds overhead to X?
They are probably just confused because it uses so much bandwidth in remote usage, and sucks rocks if there is a latency problem (ie: over a phone modem).
Why couldn't the remote protocol in X be rewritten to minimize the number of data exchanges and total bandwidth?
Windows can run a terminal server over a phone line - there is no reason X cannot do this also.
Except that now, it can't.
SONY in Japan is like Dell in the US. They are top dog in computer sales, and ubiquitious.
Like Dell here, they are not highly regarded as high quality, just mass produced.
Conectivity in Japan has always been easy and high speed for me, as long as you have wireless and 10BT.
But specing anything more than this would require some knowledge of what the laptop would be used for. I travel a lot with mine, and like super lightweight, a nice keyboard, and a small monitor is OK as long as it at least does 800x600. If you plan to use it as a desktop, though, and aren't going to lug it through airports every few weeks, a bigger monitor/heavier model might be better.
Read the release
Item 1. Player licensing for consumer devices (which presumably excludes computer playback). The examples given in the press release are embedded devices. This is part of the "linux is killing us on embedded devices, let's make sure it doesn't kill our media market too"
Item 2. Video editing. This is specifically mentioned wrt linux. You are going to be able to edit digitial videos on linux and encode with Microsoft codecs. This is part of the longer term "eradicate MPEG4" strategy.
There is no WMP for linux coming, that is part of the "desktop linux is still irrelevant" strategy.
Hope this clears things up.
No, the previous posts were Microsoft allowing the WMV9 encoders to be licensed for other operating systems. Previously, media tools from Microsoft could only be used on Windows (like Pinnacle Studio). With the WMV9 codec, licenses for tools can be purchased on any operating system, and much cheaper than MPEG4 licenses.
This new release is about their media PLAYER, for which licensing is a separate issue.
Here is the real deal. There is a BIG fight going on over the next generation of compressed digital video.
In this corner, backed by billions and billions of cash reserves and half the digital codec developers money can buy, is Microsoft. They hold out WMV9, the next generation. The be-all and end-all. You can license it to create digital media on all platforms. The licensing is dirt cheap. You can play it on any machine with WMP (which is, like, all desktops). It ru13z. It is not really any better than MPEG4, but it is easier to use.
In the other corner, is EVERYONE else. They created a patent pool to combat Microsoft. They are the MPEG4 consortium, led by Steve Jobs, but also including just about every other major player in the computer industry. They tell people that their standard is the best - and everyone will be licensing from them. Their licenses for creation cost more than Microsoft's (less $$ in the bank). They can't agree on whether they will charge streaming fees, or how much they will be. But they can agree that, boy, they got a lot of patents, and boy are they gonna give Microsoft a run for their money.
So, in the next few years, this is it. MPEG4 consortium against Microsoft. Who will win, and who will go the Betamax route.
Being technically better is only a small part of this game.
They're porting WMP9 to linux and MacOS. Nice try.
No, they are not.
What they are doing is allowing WMV9 creation tools to be licensed on other operating systems. So, Pinnacle, Adobe, Ulead, and others will be allowed to make software for linux that can create a WMV9 encoded video file.
They are not porting the playback codec. There will be no player licensed by Microsoft for playing WMV9 on linux. However, mplayer/xine already play WMV9 if you have a copy of the codec on your linux box.
Presumably IE on Mac will support this.
I wouldn't get too "Dr Evil" about it.
Microsoft sees a big future in production of digital video. Therefore, they are flooding ALL markets with their creation tools (which were previously restricted to Windows).
This is not really about linux or IE, it is about Apple and MPEG4. The MPEG4 consortium has pooled patents, and consists of Apple, Intel, and a few other players. They want MPEG4 to dominate the future. They make tools for Mac and Windows and whatever other OS you like (provided you pay patent licensing fees). They charge a fair amount.
Microsoft is not licensing their WMV9 codec, which is AT LEAST comparable in compression to MPEG4, for much less. The end result will be that on all platforms, WMV9 creation tools will be cheaper than MPEG4 tools. The MPEG4 consortium probably cannot afford to give away the baby with the bath water in order to control the market.
Therefore, Microsoft will buy another market. Then, they will begin to jack up the licensing fees, and stop upgrading their codecs, and increase streaming licensing fees, etc. They already control the platform on which 99% of all digital media is played.
Kinda cool that professional media editing tools will be available to linux w/out using WINE.
I dunno that such comparisons can be drawn lightly.
I work with 2 electronics technicians. One carefully thinks things through, architects his designs first, and in general makes as good or better a solution than what I brought to him. He has a technical electronics degree - kinda like a TV repair man.
The second has a master's in engineering, but is so incompetent I usually choose to do the work myself - it will get done faster, and better. Mostly, it won't need to be re-done is 2 weeks.
So which is the engineer?
But really, professionally, engineers need to pass a test upon graduating from college. This is a general test. Then, years later, they can receive professional certification by demonstrating engineering proficiency at their craft - usually by presenting a completed project they led for evaluation by their peers. This process leads to the real deal being called professional engineers.
I see no problem with the same criteria being applied to programming. Except that few, if any, could pass the first round of tests without academic training in engineering. The certification process needs to be the real deal.
Let any code monkey say he is training for a PE degree. And, when you really need some programming done, go to someone certified. He will have 5+ years experience, and received the stamp of approval from his peers.
Well, there are a few issues.
1). Resellers that act with very limited warranty that sell overclocked machines. The machine fails, Intel's reputation suffers. Intel wants to prevent this.
2). People who overclock and then send in the CPU for a replacement for free.
Presumably, Intel will still sell CPUs without this protection on a no-warranty basis so people can overclock if they like, and Intel loses neither money nor reputation.
There are two ways to make your cochlea vibrate.
;)
The first is sound coming in the ear canal, which can be blocked by blocking sound waves.
The second is bone conduction (one reason your voice sounds really different than when you listen to it on tape). Ultrasound doesn't transmit through bone.
It is still sound, it still reflects off hard surfaces. No one can beam sound into your head.
Provided, of course, you wear a tin foil hat
Let me open a large can of speculation.
/., there is no real need to know what you are talking about :)
First, bone conduction to the cochlea will only work for low frequencies. It is unlikely to be useful here.
Second, here is my take on how this works. I haven't actually read any of the technical lit, but I know a little about acoustics. And, since this is
A laser creates light inside a resonating chamber, and then releases it.
To make the sonic analogy, create ultrasound inside a resonating chamber, and then release it. The problem is making it audible. But really high frequecies of sound have good qualities in this application, like minimal spreading.
To make it audible, you amplitude modulate the ultrasound wave in the audible range. So, if you are using a 5 MHz signal, just amplitude modulate it with a speech envelope (300-3k Hz range). That way, you can transport sound across a longer distance (minimal spreading), and still have it be audible. Use of ampltude modulation allows you to use a single resonating chamber (FM modulation may work better, but the resonating chamber needs to change in size! )
Now, it is still sound. Sound will reflect off hard surfaces. High frequency sound will not conduct through the bone. So, hard plastic headphones would attenuate the sound pretty well. The way it creates sound in the ear is that the cochlea will respond to the ultrasound "envelope", so that the modulation gets converted to sound.
The downside is that the high frequency sound doesn't bend well. If you turn your head a little, you probably get 20 dB attenuation (10 fold loss in amplitude, 3 fold loss in loudness).
Using an ultrasound source with slightly lower coherence (wavelets of ultrasound, if you will), you can branch the source to two emitters and create a zone of interference in which sound will be audible. Low coherence laser interferometry is already a technique with substantial use in biological imaging applications.
In any case, rest assured, ultrasound absolutely doesn't transmit through bone (it mostly reflects as bone has a high acoustic impedance), and there is still no way anyone can "beam" sound into your head.
Ear plugs will block it.
So will headphones with a hard external shell.
If someone puts sound someplace in public, there is really no way to avoid it now. The difference is, with HSS, you can have fine spatial control over the exact position of the sound. If anything, there should be a lot more quiet in public, and perhaps more sound in very specific locations.
I kinda like the idea that you could, in principle, use a hard surface to totally reflect the sound without loss and direct it at someone else.
A mirror, if you will.
Or, you could use a waveguide to do it.
oh please.. If you're using Linux for video capture, you should already know what you're doing and don't need some guide to tell you the details.
Yeah, because you figured it out by pulling your molars out with kitestring.
In linux, you start with the Brooktree bt8x8 chipset on a capture card (like a PCTV card).
You use ffmpeg to capture.
Your sync sucks if you grab more than 30 seconds.
Then you buy a Windows or Mac machine. Or, you copy it to a digital camcorder, and suck it in digitally, which is probably the easiest solution for most people.
For digital, it is a little better. You can capture across FireWire using KINO/dvgrab, and save as a type II AVI file with raw dig vid. Then, you can use KINO to mix and match multiple raw dig vids, you can use img2raw to make title pages (or other images) into raw dig vid, suck them into KINO, and ultimately output a nice raw digital video using KINO, again, as type II AVI file. (You can do the same editing with KINO after an analog capture - it is just that a digital capture over FireWire works easily).
Then, you can crunch it using mencoder or ffmpeg, which read type II AVI files, and do pretty well compared to packages available under Windows/Mac.
I think, though, right now, there is a market for someone like Pinnacle to release something like its Studio for linux, and there are a fair number of people who would pay $100 for it if it could make things easy and seamless for analog and digital capture/compression. You can do almost everything in linux now, but figuring it all out is a royal pain, and anyone not into it will lose interest far before they are done.
No, I think you are missing it.
The article describes a remote root exploit that affects IIS servers.
You are citing an article on a remote root exploit based on a user reading an email or visiting a web site.
Different remote root exploits. The IIS one is expected to be a pain, the email reading/website visiting one is not.
It could also be the case that the other 4% are robots.
Have you ever looked at web server logs?
Robots and scripts.
Now,if you please would define quickly...
A prototype that allows someone to read the newspaper, self-navigate, and drive in traffic can be completed in less than five years with the appropriate person working on it.
This particular part of the DMCA requires that copyright owners contact ISPs hosting unauthorized copies and give them a chance to remove the offending material. If the ISP does so the copyright owner may not sue him.
This is true. If the ISP owns the media containing the alleged copyrighted material, and they are contacted, they have to act.
But if the ISP doesn't own the system on which the material resides, but their system only serves it up from automated requests, then they have no obligation to act unless there is an injunction. The copyright holder has to get a judge to issue the injunction, and that injunction may, under the DMCA, cause the ISP to revoke that user, or prevent access to his materials.
It seems to me that were I running and ISP, I would make it part of the terms of service that users jointly owned the machines on which their material resided, if for no better reason than to cause the hawkish lawyers from the RIAA and MPAA to chase actual copyright offenders, and not easier targets like ISPs that provide a legitimate service.
Visual pathway prosthetics work either by stimulating the retinal ganglion cells in the eye, or by stimulating in primary visual cortex.
Neither way has yet proved useful enough to deploy on a large scale. It is a little tougher than a cochlear implant, because you have to seal the device inside the eye, and provide a power source that can stimulate a bunch of microelectrodes.
Just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean it cannot be replicated in the future. There was a time, about 30 years ago, when simulating the function of the human ear was unheard of. Now, patients get cochlear implants and can understand speech. Artificial hearts are in use. The brain is a matter of time, the retina will come relatively quickly, next will be implants that couple motor cortex to external devices, there are already stimulating electrodes that modulate the motor system...
where we will be in 30 more years is pretty cool.
You totally misrepresented what the DMCA says -- If he's been notified of the infringing material he IS potentially liable.
I guess you didn't read the link I provided, huh?
ISPs have no need to police themselves. They can tell an alleged infringer to go stuff themselves until they come back with an injunction, and that injunction can only require restriction to materials, or restriction of use from the offending user.
The entire purpose of that section of the DMCA is to prevent crazies from threatening to sue every ISP and utterly shutting off content. Users are responsible for themselves. ISPs bear no liability under a reasonable set of circumstances.
Go read the law - it is quite clear.
Yeah, but you still have energy conversion at the car level.
The biggest advantages are
1) use of natural gas instead of oil as primary energy source
2) better capture of greenhouse gases - local energy use would only produce water.
And to get these advantages we only need to replace a trillion dollar infrastructure.
As I read through the section, it occurs to me that for this to work for a hosting company, you need to have the users own the disks that provide their files, or else it is possible you would bear some liability. Probably well worth a small change in your user agreements to tell copyright enforcers to do their own legwork, and not use you as their stooge.
According to the DMCA you are not liable for the things hosted on your web sites by clients - they are.
Relevant section here
Now, they can get a court ordered injunction to get you to block access to the offending material, or from the offending user, according to this section. So, tell them to talk to the judge, and short of an injunction, you fail to see how you bear any liability for things hosted by your ISP service.
I'd recommend reading the DMCA section in question - one of the purposes of the DMCA was protecting ISPs from claims against their users. You really don't even need to research the claim.
I think in this case it will be something far more specific.
IBM solely adapted linux to >4 CPU SMP machines of their own architecture that ran AIX. The obvious implication is that whereas before you could only run AIX on these boxes, now you can run linux as well. Linux has never been well adapted to SMP machines with more than 4 CPUs (big iron), mainly b/c not enough developers have access.
So, the question is, did IBM use inside information from UNIX to do that port? Will this impact future licensing of AIX from SCO (or, rather, the UNIX license)?
AIX is dying, IBM is helping linux supplant it, and SCO is pissed.
Not necessarily. The lights are always in the same order.
This sounds good on paper.
Then you drive through Providence, Rhode Island, and run 3 stop lights because only then do you figure out the red light is on the left, not the right (and your passengers are scared stiff).
Another good one is flashing lights. Some lights start flashing red or yellow at night. I gotta look REALLY closely to tell the difference.
I have a number of traffic violations contributed directly to by red/green colorblindness. Generally traffic planners ignore this issue.