The court also ruled that eBay was responsible for the "illicit sale" of perfumes from the LVMH empire, which can be sold only through the brands' "selective distribution networks."
From TFA:
An inanimate object could also get the blame. The researchers rigged the software agents to implicate three laserjet printers, which were then accused in takedown letters by the M.P.A.A. of downloading copies of âoeIron Manâ and the latest Indiana Jones film. HTF is a printer less animate than a desktop computer?
I think the idea is to use special purpose instructions within the processor to make operations that used to require multiple operations only require one.
Simple example, lets say you had a data structure that was 128 bits long and every member depended on the other members being correct. Typically, an update to that structure would require you to lock the entire structure, then update it piecemeal in 32 bit blocks. What they are trying to do is get an sse-like instruction to update it atomically, thus making a lock unnecessary.
Disclaimer: I haven't read the source code and am going completely on the article and slashdot comments.
Blacklists on-the-fly: Just as we expect enforcement
agencies to shift from indirect to direct methods of en-
forcement, we also expect P2P developers to evolve IP
blacklisting techniques. Currently, blacklists are cen-
trally maintained and updated without systematic feed-
back from P2P users, ignoring a rich source of data: the
observations of users. Many P2P networks include ex-
plicit mechanisms to identify and reward "good users";
e.g., tit-for-tat mechanisms reward contributions in Bit-
Torrent and eDonkey. Future P2P networks may employ
similar mechanisms to identify monitoring agents, gos-
siping this information among peers. Our traces show
that the properties of monitoring agents today make this
a straightforward task: they appear to share no data what-
soever, occur frequently in swarms, and are drawn from
a small number of prefixes. Alternatively, sophisticated
users may also try to generate honeypots (much like our
own) that do not infringe or aid in copyright infringe-
ment, but that will be better able to detect (and hence
dissuade) spurious DMCA takedown notices and coordi-
nated monitoring. It would be interesting to see all of the trackers on something like Pirate Bay to get together and create an international blacklist of IP's. Once one tracker observes an IP connecting, scraping a list of users, and disconnecting, they can publish that info to a list somewhere. Then all of the other trackers can set a filter not to allow connections from that IP.
Untrue. If the RIAA is able to download copyrighted material from an IP in the network (what the authors termed Direct Detection), then they can confirm that the peer was indeed hosting that material. We are just lucky to have this defense because they leave this step out when dealing with bit-torrent.
Well, thankfully (for now) FIOS is unmetered and most certainly will be hyped by Verizon. The cable companies may rake in money for a year or two, but their greed will get the best of them and they won't know when to stop. By that time, Verizon's FIOS infrastructure will be pretty much complete in most markets and everyone will be switching. Then after the cable companies go out of business, we'll be stuck with FIOS. Verizon will be in the perfect position to start metering internet use until some other disruptive tech comes out...
If all of the threads need to be able to update one huge data structure, then eventually you reach a point of no return. The fact that the threads need to lock the data structure every time they do an update causes a bottle neck. Conventionally, 700 threads are no better than 50-100 because the additional ~600 threads would be waiting for the chance to update the data structure. In this case it doesn't matter that they are on separate processors, since those 600 threads aren't using cpu time anyway. Each additional thread added after 100 will go straight to the wait queue, doing effectively nothing.
What this technology allows is atomic updates of data structures, which means that it will not be necessary for a thread to acquire a lock before updating the data structure. Thus, 700+ threads perform better than 50-100.
One thing to remember when looking at the map is that the information takes place over time. In that sense it's like time-lapse photography, a composite of 24 snapshots a day for 60 days. That means the more lines and points you see, the more activity you're looking at. The two connected stars to the left spent more time moving around than the single star below during the two months Vorel collected data.
The report exposes CCS technologyâ(TM)s woeful inadequacy on numerous points. CCS wastes energy, for one thing, as it uses between 10 and 40% of the plant's power output just to function. It is also expensive, and could possibly double the cost of constructing a coal-fired power plant, which in turn could lead to the raising of electricity costs for consumers.
It's pretty clear to me that they would prefer coal plants without the new technology.
After the initial GPL violation, a flier with the URL for the source was added to the package. The GPL wasn't provided and the court found this insufficient for fulfilling the requirements of the GPL.
So what they are saying is that they allow you to freely download the source, but they won't put a flier with a few legal terms in it on the box? Why would they possibly want to fight that?
I don't know about you, but I rarely every have to type -f. Usually I only do that after I can't do it with a regular rm, in which case I'm considering not deleting/hugedir in the first place.
I have to agree with AC on this one. The whole time I was thinking "it isn't windows, it doesn't work like windows, and that's a good thing." Especially after reading this gem from the article:
I don't understand why GIMP doesn't just layout its windows like photoshop does. It wouldn't lose usability, surely, and it would help the transition of first-time-users immensely.
The reason GIMP doesn't layout its windows like photoshop does is because it isn't photoshop! The GIMP developers lay out their windows in the way that they think is the most appealing and usable, not in a way that most resembles competing program. This is a good thing. Lost of UI changes in open source programs are better than their equivalent windows "clones" (the pidgin interface comes to mind). People shouldn't be forced to use bad UI just because it's what is already out there.
Besides, if you want it to work like photoshop, you should be using gimpshop
The windows look alike thing has been tried and has failed so many times in linux before. Thankfully the Gnome devs have learned from that and are focusing on creating the best UI they can. This will speed linux adoption, since we can say we'll get people off that awful windows UI they had to deal with for so many years. Following your logic mac adoption would increase if they were more like windows. I tend to think just the opposite would happen.
It's in Gates' best interest to confuse people even more about the term free software. When I first read the statement I thought he was going to make it clear that the M$ open source license was open source, not free, but it turns out he was talking about the "free" (as in beer), non OSS software he gives away to Africa.
Way to show that you don't know what you're talking about, Bill.
Though I haven't read the book, I think it is safe to say that you should familiarize yourself with C a little better before reading this. You should pick up K&R, or at the very least familiarize yourself with the way common data structures look in C.
Having said that, if you have no problems understanding man pages for system calls, you should be good to go.
Because "blue red blue, red red blue, blue blue blue, red red blue, red red blue, red blue blue, blue red blue, blue blue red, red red red" is a whole hell of a lot easier than "Head south on I-38 and make a left at the Sonoco gas station. My house is the one with the red shutters."
Lets hope this really happens, let hope that ISP's in Japan really are this stupid and the Japanese citizens do the only thing that is logical. Cancel their service since it is no longer of any use to them so that ISP after ISP goes tits up.
Wouldn't that be great? A world with no ISP's! It'll be like 1990 all over again!
Now imagine if that version of the bill was passed with retroactive immunity. Not only would it be easier for the feds to spy on us within the letter of the law, but when the telcos get caught breaking the law, there is no way for the public to fight back. The law is useless if there is no way to enforce it. You might as well make it illegal for them to get wiretaps; there would still be no way of punishing them for breaking getting them.
The telecom immunity was the story regarding this bill. The president said he wouldn't sign a bill without retroactive immunity, and the EFF's case against ATT wouldn't exist if the Senate's version of the bill passed.
...are the guys that produced this video. TFA is got the wrong ETLA, because it isn't the RIAA.
This has a number of interesting consequences, not the least of which is that the RIAA probably doesn't have copyright of the video, and the NDAA might not issue a takedown notice to say... YouTube. Also, this indicates that at the NDAA had some interest in what the RIAA has to say, though I'd be surprised if it wasn't the RIAA that made the first phone call.
Slashdot Mirror
Any word on when they're going to fix the even older "Too many arguments" bug?
Use linux instead.
CHANGELOG
git commit
Every time you use the phrase "fixed that for you," you look like a tool.
fixed that for you
So this isn't just about counterfeiting.
I think the idea is to use special purpose instructions within the processor to make operations that used to require multiple operations only require one.
Simple example, lets say you had a data structure that was 128 bits long and every member depended on the other members being correct. Typically, an update to that structure would require you to lock the entire structure, then update it piecemeal in 32 bit blocks. What they are trying to do is get an sse-like instruction to update it atomically, thus making a lock unnecessary.
Disclaimer: I haven't read the source code and am going completely on the article and slashdot comments.
Untrue. If the RIAA is able to download copyrighted material from an IP in the network (what the authors termed Direct Detection), then they can confirm that the peer was indeed hosting that material. We are just lucky to have this defense because they leave this step out when dealing with bit-torrent.
If all of the threads need to be able to update one huge data structure, then eventually you reach a point of no return. The fact that the threads need to lock the data structure every time they do an update causes a bottle neck. Conventionally, 700 threads are no better than 50-100 because the additional ~600 threads would be waiting for the chance to update the data structure. In this case it doesn't matter that they are on separate processors, since those 600 threads aren't using cpu time anyway. Each additional thread added after 100 will go straight to the wait queue, doing effectively nothing.
What this technology allows is atomic updates of data structures, which means that it will not be necessary for a thread to acquire a lock before updating the data structure. Thus, 700+ threads perform better than 50-100.
I don't know about you, but I rarely every have to type -f. Usually I only do that after I can't do it with a regular rm, in which case I'm considering not deleting /hugedir in the first place.
The windows look alike thing has been tried and has failed so many times in linux before. Thankfully the Gnome devs have learned from that and are focusing on creating the best UI they can. This will speed linux adoption, since we can say we'll get people off that awful windows UI they had to deal with for so many years. Following your logic mac adoption would increase if they were more like windows. I tend to think just the opposite would happen.
It's in Gates' best interest to confuse people even more about the term free software. When I first read the statement I thought he was going to make it clear that the M$ open source license was open source, not free, but it turns out he was talking about the "free" (as in beer), non OSS software he gives away to Africa.
Way to show that you don't know what you're talking about, Bill.
Though I haven't read the book, I think it is safe to say that you should familiarize yourself with C a little better before reading this. You should pick up K&R, or at the very least familiarize yourself with the way common data structures look in C.
Having said that, if you have no problems understanding man pages for system calls, you should be good to go.
Consider that the same paper can't be reused every ten years, and the same devices can.
The "but Mac OS X is BSD" crowd would like to have a word with you.
You can't stop until you followed all paths listed in the instructions
Because "blue red blue, red red blue, blue blue blue, red red blue, red red blue, red blue blue, blue red blue, blue blue red, red red red" is a whole hell of a lot easier than "Head south on I-38 and make a left at the Sonoco gas station. My house is the one with the red shutters."
Now imagine if that version of the bill was passed with retroactive immunity. Not only would it be easier for the feds to spy on us within the letter of the law, but when the telcos get caught breaking the law, there is no way for the public to fight back. The law is useless if there is no way to enforce it. You might as well make it illegal for them to get wiretaps; there would still be no way of punishing them for breaking getting them.
The telecom immunity was the story regarding this bill. The president said he wouldn't sign a bill without retroactive immunity, and the EFF's case against ATT wouldn't exist if the Senate's version of the bill passed.
...are the guys that produced this video. TFA is got the wrong ETLA, because it isn't the RIAA.
This has a number of interesting consequences, not the least of which is that the RIAA probably doesn't have copyright of the video, and the NDAA might not issue a takedown notice to say... YouTube. Also, this indicates that at the NDAA had some interest in what the RIAA has to say, though I'd be surprised if it wasn't the RIAA that made the first phone call.