1732 posts • joined 15 Jun 2007
Unlike solid-state devices, most general purpose capacitors have a MTBF measured in '000s of hours (I've just looked at Maplin, and a so-called long-life electrolytic capacitor has a MTBF of 2000 hours).
Now this may seem like a long time, but with modern devices having always-on power supplies (identified by no physical switches) that contain electrolytic capacitors, then we are actually only talking 83 days being either on or on standby before you would expect a failure from this type of device. It's amazing they last so long.
When this type of capacitor was first invented, it was expected that any device would only be on for a few hours a day. But now we expect everything to come on at the touch of a remote control, everything is different.
I have talked to a Sky box specialist repairer (when my 1st gen Thompson Sky HD box failed due to capacitors in the power supply) and he said that these boxes were not expected to last more than about two years before failing. They sell hundreds of capacitor kits to repair this very fault. This explains why the after-market Sky insurance services are so prevalent.
The simple fact is that anything using cheap electrolytic capacitors must be expected to fail after a few years unless the manufacturer has made special efforts (such as using new technology solid-state capacitors). Unsurprisingly, this costs more money, and is unpopular for all but the most expensive devices.
As a sideline, all of the devices I have repaired by replacing the capacitors in the last year or so have all, without fail, had the failed devices branded as CapXon, who appear to make a significant number of the capacitors in electronic devices coming from China! Good thing everything is so cheap that it can be replaced.
I am no longer a mainframe user
but there have been in the past compelling reasons why mainframes made good sense as UNIX/Linux systems.
If you look as a sysplex or whatever they are called now, you can effectively have uptime as good as your software resilience, provided that the hardware it has been designed properly. The different parts of a sysplex can be in different locations (not sure about the distance between them) on different power infrastructure.
I'm not sure about the IFL's, but normal z9/z10/z11 processors have multi-bit memory protection, register parity, multiple data paths, failed instruction re-execution and dead processor detection that gives almost complete protection from single component failures within a system.
And while virtualization in the x86 world has been progressing leaps and bounds, it is nowhere near the maturity of the mainframe world, except when deployed as a mainframe (like Unisys do). As far as I am aware, there is no way to aggregate multiple x86 servers to make a single large general purpose system image, even using clustering technologies.
When you build multi-processor single systems even using x86 technologies, the prices tend to climb quite rapidly.
All of this technology costs money, and whether it is worth this is a value judgment that the customer has to make, but it is certainly not the no-brainer that you appear to believe.
Best Playmobile re-enactment yet!
What, you can't put a blank comment in, even though the title says it all!
@jlocke. Such is the percieved wisdom.
But I believe that ARM has always had a protected mode. It was certainly enough to have BSD 4.3 ported onto it in the A440/R140 days. It was called RISC iX.
And I can't see that it would be impossible to add interrupt driven multi-tasking to RISC OS. It's a programmed interrupt timer that will effectively call the same context switch code in the OS as is used in the co-operative system. May have to move some of the context save function into the interrupt handler, but that should be trivial.
The main drawback was that although RISC OS was intended from the start to be multi-tasking, I don't believe that it was ever meant to be a multi-user OS. This means that some of the protections you may expect in a modern OS could be missing. As far as I can remember, RISC OS programs are relocatable, and run in a shared address space, but this should not be a barrier to making it fully protected. If the current implementations have the requisite hardware, it should be perfectly possible to set up a Virtual Address space that will allow existing applications to run, just protected from each other.
The people who designed ARM initially were clever bunnies, and would not have missed so obvious a trick.
It may be interesting to look at ROOL to see how difficult it would be to retrofit.
Quite simply. Not the article, the comments.
I cannot, simply cannot, understand the vitriol in this set of comments.
The basic problem of restricted and non-free add-ons not being installed out of the box has nothing to do with deficiencies in APT or RPM or Yum, but with software patent enforcement, and proprietary software formats.
The fact that there is a CLI way and a GUI way to rectify this is not a problem but a beneficial feature. In both cases, it is necessary to either type or cut and paste, because the same reason that the software cannot be installed by default also prevents the repositories containing this software from being in the standard list.
If there is a Linux which automagically installs MP3, WMV, Flash or Realplayer codecs, or the DVDCSS libraries, then it is exposing the users to potential lawsuits in certain regions of the world. At least Ubuntu lets users make an informed choice.
Canonical are trying to be squeaky-clean, because when you get big, you become a target. When they try to address these problems on behalf of their users, for instance by licensing H.264 so that they can include it, they get criticized. It's damned if they do, or damned if they don't.
None of this is ideal. But getting people sniping at each other about the best Linux distro is completely unproductive. It's bad enough seeing this from Windows and Mac users.
I admit that I have not installed Fedora. The last Redhat release I installed was 9.1 (pre RHEL). But I decided that Fedora was too fast moving for me. I don't have the time for 2 major upgrades a year. I opted for Ubuntu LTS releases, starting with Dapper.
I now recommend Ubuntu to anybody who wants to play with Linux, because it is just so slick. It may not suite everybody, but I want there to be a major distro which gains the critical mass for general acceptance as an alternative OS. I believe that Ubuntu is the closest we have got so far. It's not perfect, but it is going in the right direction, which I don't believe that RedHat is (certainly not in the consumer space). Once we see critical mass maybe the wireless and display chipset problems will go away, as manufacturers package instructions and drivers for Linux as they do for Windows.
OK, you may like SuSE or Fedora or Mint or Debian, but are any of these gaining traction with users? Not as much as Ubuntu, I contend.
And I agree that it is easier to describe how to add the extras for the CLI, but that only needs to deter users if they are trying to understand what it is doing, something that normally never causes Windows users problems (who really knows what a Windows installer program does!). It could have been done with screenshots and the GUI, but not as succinctly. It may be lazyness, but I suspect I and many others here would have done the same, with a comment such as "don't worry what it is doing, just do it".
I would prefer to not have to do it, but that is not likely until all of the required add-ons are no longer required, or they are freed from proprietary control. What a happy day that would be!
other types of AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicles). I don't believe we have any MBTs in Afghanistan.
When the term 'Tank' is used in the context of defence reviews, it means "Main Battle Tank" like the Challenger 2. This is what they are referring to when they talk about the Tank division.
Other tank-like (to the uninformed) vehicles ate things like the Scimitar, which is an Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle or the Saracen, which is an Armoured Personnel Carrier, or the Warrior which is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Someone has written a useful page describing them all on Wikipedia.
You may regard this as pedantic, but to the soldier in the field and the command structure, it makes a huge difference.
My wife, who has a significant sight disorder, actually says that she dislikes HD TV, because she says that it is 'grainly'. I actually worked out why this was recently.
She has variable short-sightedness across her vision due to very strong astigmatisms, that means that even with glasses, only a part of her vision is clear at any time when looking at anything over about 10 feet away. This means that in real life, large parts of what she sees is a blur, she has no usable peripheral vision, and also means that even with today's optically dense glass, has very heavy spectacles.
When watching HD TV, the screen is within her visible region, so she can see all of the distant detail on screen that she cannot see in real life. This should be a benefit to her, but because she is not used to seeing it, it upsets her.
I guess what this shows is that you can't please everybody. And means I'm stuck watching everything in SD on my HD capable TV and Sky box if I don't want her moaning!
RE: RE: 3D Without the Glasses
The problem with parallax barrier technology is that it only works if you are in the right place in relation to the screen. This makes it suitable for games consoles and computer displays, but not for the living room or the pub.
Why not? Because they are not American
and he probably does not have Chinese patents that cover this. I do not believe that there really is something as simple as a World-Wide patent, it is only applicable to those countries that have signed up to WIPO. This is not the whole world.
He may be able to get infringing devices blocked from being imported to the US, and maybe Europe, but that is all.
Technique, not apparent effect
The text indicates that what is being patented is the technique for having three components interacting in a particular way. These are the OS, a device manager and a display manager, so it is not as simple as saying "my laptop did this 15 years ago". This could very easily have been the display hardware with no involvement from the OS, and I am not even certain that earlier versions of Windows had each of these functions as separate components.
It is clear, however, that what Apple are trying to patent is the udev functionality from Linux when applied to display devices. I agree that the patent should have never been granted.
MBR is just a bootstrap
plenty of prior art there, so I doubt it is patented, at least not by Microsoft. PDP/11's used second-stage bootstraps in the 1970's, before the PC was invented, and I'm sure they weren't the first.
What is more important is the disk label which dictates the partitioning. I believe that Microsoft invented this, although there are other partitioning formats out there. Probably about time it was re-worked. 4 primary partitions, one of which can be a kludge to make it a container for extended partitions is lame.
I presume that 2/100 CAD is 2 Canadian cents. Never seen it written like this, but then I am a Brit.
If we interpret every patent issue as black and white, we run the risk of loosing sight of what Linux has to do to become accepted.
Now I don't like software patents, and I do understand the licensing constraints on H.264, but it is currently not clear that the Google WebM codec will become accepted. Canonical have just covered all of the bases, which should allow Ubuntu to play in all parts of the media world. They have done this at their own expense (if any money a commercial company spends can be regarded as their own), and probably won't see the money recouped from the people who are most likely benefit.
What the Linux community have to accept is that an ordinary user (by this I mean someone who wants to buy a system, open the box, plug it in and use it) just will not use a Linux distro if every time they go to a web page it is a lottery as to whether their system will allow them to see and hear the media there. This is such a fundamental requirement that I sometimes wonder what many of the of the commenters are thinking.
If they are expecting the Open Source movement to really be able to overcome the might of Microsoft, Apple, et. al. with sweeping changes by just being there with a small share of the market, they are deluding themselves. Lets get a successful distro out there, and then use that as a lever to change the world. The bigger we can make it, the more likely we are to have an effect.
Missing a step
In your analogy, you've missed out a step, and that is turning on your tape recorder to record it so that it could be re-played.
But in principal, I agree with what you say. If you walk around with a directional microphone recording parts of everything you can hear, is this currently illegal?
My firewall records the first couple of hundred bytes of every stateful connection that runs through it. Am I likely to be sued by my kids because I can see some of their IM sessions? If someone illegally uses my wireless network, and I capture their credit card details, are we both guilty of illegal actions?
The problem is that the law cannot keep up with the speed of technological change. The result is that the courts are asked to rule on outdated laws, ruled on effectively by technology outsiders, and are asked to make reasonable precedent judgements.
It may be that it is not illegal to not encrypt your access point, and that it may not be illegal to receive unencrypted traffic (I hope this is the case, because an unintended consequence of using your network is that it will read the headers of all packets in order to know whether to discard it) but it is illegal to record it, but it must be seen as being pretty foolhardy to not take reasonable steps to secure your access point.
There is merit on almost all of the arguments made on this forum, but it is quite clear that the whole situation has so many ambiguities that a reasonable consensus cannot be achieved.
I cannot claim anything like the amount of expertise you appear to have, but having read your comment, I am not sure I totally agree with your conclusions.
Yes, it would appear that representatives of these cultures are attempting to use the western originated international tools, but I don't think that they fully understand them..... yet.
One of the primary cultural differences is that Islam is without borders. Muslims have allegiance to their god above all other things. This leads them to think that if they consider something an absolute wrong, it must be wrong anywhere in the world.
If they totally understood the western world, they would also understand the futility of the action that they are taking. Whether this would stop them, I don't know, but it shows that they have a way to go.
What scares me, and I am not trying to in any way be biased against any person, religion or philosophy, is the slow infection of western style democracy by a creeping change. It would appear that this could extend all the way to the International bodies like the UN. Until recently, I felt that the UN was primarily a forum for discussion, but with the actions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, it has become more heavy handed, with individual countries trying to force the UN's to take specific actions. This is a mistake, and if the UN becomes heavily influenced by Islamic states, could backfire on the so called western countries.
What also worries me is that the world of Islam is fragmented, and this can often cause frictions even in Islamic states (think of the Shi'a and Sunni tensions in Iraq). Having this happen on a world scale could be disastrous.
I do not want to live under Sharia law, and I don't want it imposed on me by any external body or agency. Could I paranoid? It's possible, but I don't think so. Could this be an irrational fear? I think that this article answers that question. Am I becoming radicalised, I hope not, but I am beginning to get worried about my own state of mind!
Stop the World! I want to get off.
What worries me
is the use of desktop-and-server class processors in something that is built more like a laptop.
If the heat pipes that carry the heat from the GPU and processor becomes less efficient with time (as I believe they do), I'm sure you will see these cook themselves, as there is no direct cooling of the metal above the processors.
I've seen this happen with laptops using AMD mobile processors. They just break due to getting too hot once they get to a certain age!
If played at 45 RPM, that will probably be about 3 minutes of music (remember, singles used to be 7", and the inner 3 inches or so were the label, that some turntables won't track). At 33 RPM, you will get more (and not have to change the belt position on a Rega P1), but the quality of 33 RPM singles was always questionable.
To put it in perspective, Bohemian Rhapsody only just fitted onto a 7" single at about 6 minutes long, and some copies skipped from new because the grooves were too close together. My original 7incher sounds awful compared to the album.
You will need something to fill the hole in the middle, though. A standard autochanger hub is the wrong size.
Bring back the 12" LP! So much more space for the cover art.
The AH1542 was an ISA card, and most of the jumper settings were setting the base address and IRQ. There really wasn't a better way, because ISA was a limited architecture never intended for server class systems (too few IRQ lines and no interrupt sharing).
This was the main reason PCI, MCA EISA and Plug'n'Pray were invented. Definitely not Adaptec's fault. People just remember it more with SCSI cards than anything else, but the same issues were there with sound cards, network cards and a multitude of other adapters that weren't around when the PC was originally thrown together (I deliberately avoid saying 'designed' because I don't think it ever was!)
@AC re. numbers and AT&T
And this is a surprise? It's quite clear that Vista did not cut the mustard for corporates, and 8 months is not enough time for an organization to test, plan and implement Windows 7 (believe me, it's not).
And why should AT&T even consider it when the end-of-life for XP support is published as 2014?
I would be more worried by people still with NT4 and 2000 in their organizations.
FFS, How much do we trust Google
Cloud applications, cloud storage and now cloud printing.
Just hope "Do No Evil" never changes. I would hate for a serious commercially sensitive or security document to be snooped while it is passing through the Google print servers because someone knows no better about how their computer talks to their printer. Such information could be worth very large amounts of money.
An just think if a glitch ends up sending it to someone else's printer entirely!
From what I saw, I disagree with Connor.
and I've seen the footage so much it is now boring.
He was not directly behind the ball, he was slightly (about a ball radius) to the left (wrt. his point of view). As a result, it hit his right hand around the heel of his palm, bounced up and over that hand while acquiring forward spin, which was enough to carry it over the line while he scrabbled after it.
I am not a keeper, and am not really that interested in football, but IMHO, unless you can be certain that you can scoop the ball safely into the body, the best thing to do is to smother it to the ground.
It may be that the speed and bounce of the new ball might have made a difference, leading him to underestimate the height at which the ball reached him. I know that while my wife was watching one of the games, I heard a comment about how many of the long-shots appeared to be going wide, which the commentator said could be a result of the bounce and speed of the new ball.
I don't really know why I commented on this, given that I could take or leave the World Cup. Must just be because it's on. Why isn't there a who cares shrug icon?
@AC re. Microsoft Free
What does Microsoft have to do with either USB or WiFi. They are industry standards developed by Intel and the Wi-Fi alliance respectivly.
I do not use ndiswrapper for my wifi, the code is native Linux. Ditto the USB support. The same is true for the printer and CIFS support. No Microsoft code anywhere.
I suppose that you could mean the FAT filesystem on a USB storage device (which is not necessarily written using Microsoft code), but that presupposes that the FAT patent preventing re-implementation is beyond challenge, and in actual fact you are using FAT on your USB key at all. It is perfectly possible to format your USB key with a different partition table, and put Ext2 on it, or use it un-partitioned, again with a non-FAT derived FS on it.
As far as I am aware, the only Microsoft software running on my laptop is the Windows instance inside VirtualBox. This is my choice, and I can completely remove this when I want. I also have a system at home built from recycled bits of other systems that as far as I am aware has exactly no Microsoft code on it. It has no VM or Wine, nor does it have the WMV codec's or MS Core Fonts. If it does have some MS code, then I could be in trouble, because I do not have a Windows license for it!
I suggest that you actually read about what MS make.
These have been around on eBay for a couple of months. There are even some people who claim to ship them from the UK rather than Hong Kong or Singapore.
There are videos on YouTube of them in use, although they appear to have Android 1.6 or 1.7. Seem slick enough, and to my mind, are a much more usable size that the iPad.
@Giles Jones re. 8 or 9 yo OS?
Yes the OS is this old, but even if you consider Vista GA as being the point when vendors stopped shipping XP (which it wasn't), there are computers less than three-and-a-half years old that were shipped with XP. This is not old for a consumer device, and is less than the accounting depreciation period for some companies.
MS cannot, if they have any morals (debatable), stop supporting XP without providing a reasonably priced upgrade option. (I believe that they leagally have to provide support for 10 years after ship date for any kit shipped to the US DoD or other government agencies anyway)
Also remember that for non-gaming users, the amount of computing power required by ordinary home or office users topped out at around the 1.8GHz Pentium D. Beyond this, the extra power is just providing gloss. This means that many people with 2+GHz Pentium 4 or Athlon XP 2000 have perfectly usable systems that do not need to be replaced yet, and with the correct maintenance and care, could run for many more years.
Any other line is just buying into the *blatant* consumerism that is driving the retail electronics market at the moment, leading to increased consumption and greater waste disposal and recycling problems that we face.
I think the image is changing throughout the day
Earlier is was an aerial picture of a field of flowers.
I must admit that if they continue to do this, and force you to create a google account to fix the background, I might revert to Altivista as my default search engine!
Alarming image when I read Caffeine
I imagine thousands of Google employees rushing around shuffling paper, each quaffing copious amounts of Jolt Cola!
Check the license that the libraries you refer to are published under. There has been some very careful work to make sure that all of the foundation libraries required to compile applications are published under the Lesser Gnu Public License that explicitly allows linking non-GPL'd code without requiring you to publish the source.
I was talking about the number of typed characters, rather than the number stored in memory.
I had thought of using auto and the abbreviated commands, but thought that would just be too geeky!
If I remember it correctly, it should be:
BBC Basic if you please
20 *MOTOR ON
30 *MOTOR OFF
40 UNTIL FALSE
This is BBC Basic after all. None of this GOTO business.
(OK, I know it's one more line, and about 12 more characters, but just look how much more elegant it is)
It is now only a matter of time before the NewsMedia juggenaught gobbles up ITV.
Virgin set up their channels to make sure they were not completely dependent on Sky for popular content. How things change.
I must admit to being interested to see what happens to the joint Virgin/BBC channels. I really cant see the Murdochs putting up with working with their acursed enemies.
All hail our Murdoch Overlords!
System type and location.
So how does Flurry Analytics work? I don't know, but I can make a wild guess.
On casual inspection, the Browser User Agent string (unless changed or obscured) will give you a reasonable idea of the browser and OS being used, and the IP address of the device/NAT gateway will in give away the identity of the company for anyone who has a fixed IP range registered with IANA (Apple appear to own the class A address "17", and with a little digging, it should be possible to work out which of several probable gateways on the "17" network a device is connecting from).
This will allow you a good guess of company, location and device type. If you happen to have access to a web site that is being visited (say, Google, or one of the banner advert sites), then you can drop tracking cookies in the browser to make a stab at tracking individual systems.
OK, I admit that this is a simplistic view, but this is the result of a five minute think over a cup of tea. If someone with real forensic networking skills applied all of their knowledge, I'm sure that you could get much more information, and this is without dropping a single piece of code on the system. Allowing yourself to use a java applet (OK, not on an iPad) would almost certainly allow you to find out much more about the system running the code.
Chances Steve is just p*ssed about his developers not obscuring the User Agent string!
This from someone who drinks Diet Coke!
What do you expect
The red button channel has a lower data rate than the BBC channels (about 1/2 of the average bitrate that BBC One has for example).
This is because it was intended as a data channel, and is used to carry additional video as a convenience. That's why it is the red button, not BBC 5.
The beer and peanuts were for the matter transference beam that got them onto the Vogon Construction ship.
"... is green, yes."
...in this case postscript, PDFs younger brother
No. Older brother, or possibly even father.
In re-reading the license (link in my last update), I suddenly noticed the following in the licensing costs section.
"For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM
"For (a) (2) branded encoder and decoder products sold on an OEM basis..."
In both cases, the operative word is "sold". Does this mean that an H.264 codec *given away for free* escapes this licensing condition?
If it does, then this gives the Open Source community a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Of course, it still leaves the media providers conditions in place.
@rhoderickj. Read the license!
Your Open Standard is open provided that you can prove that your codec (specifically the encoder part) has not been distributed more than 100,000 times in a year. Once this has happened, someone has to start paying license fees to MPEGLA (see the license at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf). This is regardless of how it is distributed (direct download, torrent, viral spread). I believe that the important term here is 'branded', which will identify a particular implementation of the encoder for license purposes.
They will almost certainly come after the project owner(s) on SourceForge or whatever repository they have used, to collect.
Anybody engaged in such an "Open Source" implementation of an H.264 encoder, once it hits 100,000 copies in a year should be prepared either to disappear, or fork out large amounts of cash if their code becomes popular.
This means that although the writers may consider it open, MPEGLA almost certainly don't, and have the right to collect or prosecute in the US.
Of course, it may be possible to have an open source decoder, and make that a separate product from the encoder. This would enable the decoder to be downloaded for personal use as many times as needed, while being able to control the number of people using the encoder. The onus would still remain with the project owners to track and if necessary limit the number of uses of the encoder.
Additionally, it is possible that if you host the project in a country that is not encumbered by software patents, you may just be able to evade the US legal system, but you had better not be a US citizen, or resident in a country that has a 'special arrangement' extradition treaty with the US!
OK, the equipment may have been upgraded, but the premises which contain the exchanges, and a vast amount of the last-mile copper, all the telegraph poles, and the wayleaves agreements, and also many of the streetside connection boxes were in the original deal.
Not only has BT been able to use all of this without having to pay anyone, they have actually been able to achieve a capital gain on buildings which used to be exchanges, but have actually had the service consolidated into other nearby exchanges (think how much more compact digital exchanges are compared to the Strouger exchanges that have been shut down), and sold on. I was also told some years ago by someone in the telecommunications industry, that BT actually made money from ripping out the copper based long distance network, scrapping the copper, and replacing it with fibre.
If you were a new player, how much would it cost to put the last mile infrastructure in and buy the buildings for the local exchanges (especially in cities). We had an approximation when the cable infrastructure was put in 20 years ago (by the way, it was not Virgin, it was the small companies that merged to become NTL and Telewest that did the installation, and this is not Virgin Media by another name), and it was expensive then, and effectively bankrupted them. Think how much it would be now! (that's why they are experimenting with fibre through the sewers).
is now call ITIL, and is mandated on UK Government projects.
that too many of the readers will have difficulty working out the hymns that you so expertly para-phrase!
I do think that security audits can also be a bit of a trial. Can we include them in the hell reserved for ISO 9000 auditors!
I think that...
ID cards for non-EU nationals are still on the cards (pun intended!)
I'm *NOT* defending LimeWire. If you have read any of my other posts mentioning copyright infringement, you will spot that I say frequently that I buy my media, even downloads, and only in very exceptional circumstances (such as the material not being available on any download service or purchasable in shops or online) would I even think of downloading it. I am not a registered LimeWire or MP3 or torrent search site user, and I resent you implication that I am.
But what I am actually saying as if you take the extract quoted in the article at face value (and not qualified by the caveats in the actual ruling), then it could be used to prevent a service from being available even if it has acceptable uses, merely because it *could* be used for unacceptable purposes. The qualifications in the ruling clarify this, but the article did not.
As I said in my reply, I commented on the article, which did not have the qualifications of the actual ruling. But I was trying to make a point about overly-wide judgements that could be used to block legitimate uses of the Internet.
Many of the people who comment about so called fretards are shortsighted enough to have a protocol blacklisted or blocked merely because it *can* be used for copyright infringement. The current favorite is bittorrent. Bittorrent as a protocol is content-neutral, but can and is being used to distribute copyright material. I've heard many people state that the protocol should be banned, even when it can be easily demonstrated that one of it's original uses (Linux distribution) is still in use.
If you are able to successfully make the case that Bittorrent as a whole should be blocked, then by implication, so should any other mechanism that *could* be used to distribute copyright material against the copyright. Because Bittorrent, Kazaar, eDonkey, eMule and any number of other protocols grew up as unregistered protocols, to take this to it's ultimate conclusion requires you to block all but allowed protocols on the Internet so a new protocol cannot be developed. So, no ftp or SSH on the internet, and no new innovations with new protocols.
For an analogy. you do not prevent someone from sending photocopies of books through the post by shutting the postal service down. Content neutral protocols on the 'net should be the same.
From your tone, I take it that you approve of whatever the courts and primary legislation turn out, regardless of whether it is just or moral, or if it infringes on personal freedoms. I suggest that you look at the wider picture, and hope that we never get to the world you appear to want.
OK, I neglected to read a link from the original article. That's a fair criticism of my comment, but I stand by my dangerous precedent title, especially when used in contributory copyright infringement. I just chose a bad example. BTW, as far as I can see (I've not actually read the complete Grokster ruling, just the LimeWire one), I would say that Andrew Orlowski's comment on FTP client software (note he quotes client rather than server) is his interpretation, as I cannot see a reference to it in any quote or summary of the judgments.
Having actually now read the judgment for this case, which includes summaries of the Grokster ruling, it is clear that the article has cherry-picked very selective statements, one of which I picked up on. By this is a TINY part of the ruling, and one which actually appears to be in dispute as to whether the SONY-BETAMAX judgment is applicable to P2P services with regard to alternate legitimate uses. There appears to be a lot of 'mostly' qualifications that are woolly and open to interpretation.
The problem is that the text of the ruling is detailed and long, and it has been summarized to death, leading important associations being missed out.
So. I'm sorry I did not do due diligence, but that is a danger in using news sites and commenting when you don't have the time to read all referenced material.
The Lawyers will have to look at the wording of this judgment carefully. The way I quickly read it, any technology that facilitates location and downloading of copyrighted material could fall foul of the way it was worded.
If the critical part was the filtering, then any service that allows a partially wildcarded search including words such as mp3, avi, mpg may be covered by this.
I'm thinking search engines in particular, but even things as mundane as an FTP server could be seen to be covered by "providing direct infringers with a product that enables infringement".
You would have to ask whether ARPA and UC Berkeley are also liable for laying the groundwork for the Internet as a whole!
Generally speaking, phones do not really have backing storage (a filesystem to most people), but the objects that you drop onto the phone reside in the same memory as running programs. This makes the way that apps use memory different from, say, a PC, that has RAM for programs that are running and a disk for those that aren't.
On a PC, programs are copied into RAM from the disk, and then executed. When they stop, they are unloaded from RAM, freeing up the memory.
On a Phone, when you have a program (or app) loaded into the phone, it resides in the same memory space as it does when it is running. This means that when it runs, it runs in-situ, and does not need to be copied anywhere. The effect of this is that *EVERY* app that you load on your phone occupies memory, regardless of whether it is using CPU or not. (for evidence, see what memory is detailed in the specs of, say, an HTC Desire which lists ROM (which cannot be changed) and RAM, but does not differentiate between dynamic and flash RAM, because it's all the same).
Of course, an active app may also have a working data set for information that is it using, and this can be dropped if an app becomes inactive, but I don't think that this is the way that phones work (at least, my Palm Treo doesn't (although the memory model for this could be considered archaic), it keeps all the data even if I have not used an app for months, and even through a soft reset.
You may have a file-system like interface to the available memory, for convenience when using the phone as a storage device on a computer via USB, but in reality, this is just a presentation layer to the way that the device actually manages it's memory. The only memory that is really a filesystem is probably the SD card that is plugged into the memory card slot.
BYW. This is just me extrapolating what I know from Palm devices, and it may be that it is different on the iPhone OS and Android, but I do not believe this is the case. I'm prepared to be corrected by someone with internal knowledge of either OS, however. I look forward to hearing.
I can hear quite well...
...but I have been startled by a hybrid running on electric as I looked round while crossing a road. It's uncanny how quite they can actually be. And this was in a quiet rural town with little background noise apart from the birds!
And on the subject of noise, it is in the interests of the car manufacturer to reduce wind and tyre noise, as these are both energy drains on the vehicle.
Many vehicles are quiet below 20 MPH, which is the speed they will be traveling where most accidents of this type will happen. Hybrid/Electric vehicles at this speed can be nearly silent. Go and find a Prius in town (I'm not suggesting a G-wizz, as these are mainly found in London, and I am not capital-centric), and listen to it when it is running on electric.
Something sensible from Europe. How unusual!
Comments have missed the point
Microsoft are suggesting that they can apply cloud techniques to HPC problems, which makes it new and different.
It also illustrates that they have absolutely no idea about how large HPC shops work.
Not only is the number of processors important (which cloud can address), but I/O performance and homogeneous data access is also required for most large problems. This requires significant I/O power, and localization of the data to the processors. Cloud at this time cannot provide this, unless the dataset can be compartmentalized and shipped around the cloud. Using traditional decomposition techniques also requires processors dealing with their part of the problem to exchange data very rapidly (talking about microsecond latencies here) with the processors handling the adjacent cells, also a problem if the compute service is geographically distributed.
About the only way you can achieve this using cloud techniques is the way that SETI and the other collaborative projects work by breaking the work down into discrete chunks, which is not suited to large problems like climate, nuclear blast or materials modeling.
But in theory, there is no reason why Windows can't handle this in the future with the correct tuning, but you have to ask, why would anyone bother? Unless you're Microsoft, and can't bear there being a market that you are unable to dominate!
Hindsite is a wonderful thing
but having lived through (albeit at a young age), what the Beatles did in the 60's was ground-breaking. It may not appear unique or novel now, but it was then. It is a matter of perspective. I wonder how old the people making the Overrated comments are.
I do not like the Beatles/Stones/Beachboys who's-the-best arguments, because all of them have merit, and there are many more contemporary bands that produced worthy music, but the Beatles were THE wedge in the door that made the record companies look for other talent. This is in the same way that Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly were in their time.
Sometimes the music was pretentious, sometimes twee, sometimes just plain weird (I still can't get my head around Revolution #9 on the White Album), but it was often first of it's type to market. They had the power and influence to put on vinyl what other artists could not, getting the audiences to listen to new types of music. But it was popular then, and even now.
..because the rights include the sheet music, the right to perform and the recordings.
I *think* that it was the sheet music and the right to perform the songs published on Northern Songs that was sold (and if I remember my history, it was NOT any of the Beatles who made the decision to sell, it was Allen Klein and the board of Apple Corp. who were in control. The members of the Beatles had a 50% share in Apple Corp, but crucially the casting vote in any split decision went to the Chair of the Board.)
I believe that Sir Paul has since bought at least some of these rights back, even though they always had retained the right to perform the songs themselves.
The ownership of the recordings always remained with EMI, and was one of the cornerstones of their profitability. It is interesting to note the rash of new mastered copies and compilations that appear to be hitting the shelves in the run up to the copyright on the recordings expiring. Is this one of the things that is bringing EMI down?
And Rik. Why the obfuscation about their names. What's wrong with Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Richard Starkey?
Lawyers do not make laws - thank god.
That is left to governments (which may have non-practicing lawyers in them unfortunately), and policed by the police, and ruled on by the legislature.
The lawyers are just skilled combative debaters, with a penchant for the law.
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Analysis Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
- Leaked pics show EMBIGGENED iPhone 6 screen
- AMD demos 'Berlin' Opteron, world's first heterogeneous system architecture server chip
- OK, we get the message, Microsoft: Windows Defender splats 1000s of WinXP, Server 2k3 PCs