My 2 cents: My Windows 7 PC is using the same amount of memory as it did when it was an XP PC, running the same application load. For actual numbers, that was about 45% of 3 GB usable RAM. (out of 4 installed. I just upped it to 8 GB last night because that had been my original design for the PC, and I had gotten my hands on a 64-bit Win7 installation disc; repeat, this upgrade was NOT due to performance issues.)

It's disturbing to me that this company is raising such a noise about this, when they clearly state "We don't know why we're getting these numbers." Well, since we have no idea what's doing it, let's look at a common factor:
>>Users who want to compare their computers to the current WCPI numbers can do so by registering with XPnet and then installing the DMS Clarity Tracker Agent from Devil Mountain's site.

I say we blame it on the DMS Clarity Tracker Agent; when it runs on Windows 7, it causes high memory usage. Let the fear-mongering begin... Who's with me?

I was wondering the same thing myself.

I definitely agree that TPB's arrogance and attitude preceding this trial, right up to entering the courtroom, was pretty stupid. That definitely damaged any respectability they might have had as a legitimate business.

Broken analogy: TPB was not a hand gun shop. TPB handed out maps of where to get guns, letting you know which shops were still in business and had guns you could get.

Did TPB facilitate copyright infringement? As I attempted to indicate in my original comment, probably so. I'm not saying they're completely blameless. I was largely trying to combat the unfair characterization that they were the ones responsible for the copyright infringement. The MPAA, RIAA, and their ilk want to paint TPB as THE "bad guys" - as in, "if they weren't doing what they're doing, people wouldn't be stealing our stuff", which is BS. Any rational person would readily see that dedicated pirates would simply find another method; as the saying goes, you can't stop a sufficiently motivated thief.

I simply want to see TPB held to an appropriate level of responsibility, but most people seem to want to draw "all or nothing" lines in the sand.

I would say many Slashdotters usually side with Pirate Bay because they are in most cases geeks, and geeks by nature tend to be pro-individual to the point of being anti-establishment.

However, in this case your characterization is inaccurate. The Pirate Bay was not "running a major piracy ring." They were providing a technology that enabled the masses to run their own piracy ring(s), but that is different. To rework an old analogy: It would be inaccurate to say that handgun manufacturers were robbing gas stations. It can be argued that they enable illegal activities, but if they were held legally responsible for the actions of the users of their product and forced to shut down, the 2nd Amendment would effectively be right out the window.

The xxAA groups found they had too much trouble catching and prosecuting the innumerable points of copyright infringers, so they decided to aim at a larger target and pray they could take it down. They are holding The Pirate Bay responsible for what their users did with the technology, and in the first pass they seem to be getting away with it so far.

Were they doing something wrong? I don't think so, but that's not really up to me to make the final decision. Certainly they weren't "running a piracy ring" as you claimed.

But it does say "True Crime Stories", and it was printed before there was an internet, so it must be true!

Actually, even the company isn't limiting free speech. It's just spelling out the consequences of exercising free speech in such a way as to negatively impact the company: "Employees shall not", meaning if you do, you won't be an employee anymore. I didn't see anything about the company exacting punitive measures against the employee outside of terminating their relationship.

I actually have the same kind of relationship with any of my friends, just not spelled out in legalese. If they talk bad about me to others, I have the absolute right to terminate my friendship with them. The difference is that it is unreasonable to expect an ex-friend to sue me for no longer being their friend. In today's litigious society, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to try and sue for being fired, even if they've been actively defaming the company.

Surely with today's technology it shouldn't be difficult to build an internally-recording suit that doesn't require a tethered connection. Cell phones prove that GPS technology doesn't require anything too bulky. Why not adapt the idea a bit, and make a suit covered in small sensors that record relative positional data from static transmitters.

I envision establishing a "box" of eight transmitters (that many isn't technically necessary, but might provide more accuracy and error-correction; initial thought is literally a rectangular configuration with a sensor at each point, but the formation need not be that rigid) which is only limited in size and shape by the sensitivity (reception range) of the sensors. Once the transmitters are on, the sensors begin recording relative positions and storing them to distributed flash memory hubs; more hubs = smaller individual storage capacities needed, shorter transmission distances, and possibly smaller footprints. All that needs to be stored would be transmitter ID, sensor ID, relative distance, and a timestamp. The data can be uploaded to a server later, along with inputting the relative positions of the transmitters, and the data points can be calculated and compared to build accurate locations at specific times, and plot out the total motion capture. With a little modification, radio transmission from the hubs could enable real-time uploading to processing server.

Advantages I see to this: transportable (motion capture can be done on location, instead of set stages/rooms), untethered, scalable (use as many sensors as you like). Maybe more that I can't think of right now.

Disadvantages: processing-intensive to convert data points to motion plot.

Unknowns: power consumption of the suit, and how best to provide the power capacity it needs for sustained recording.

Anyone see any major flaws in my admittedly hasty design?

Just a simple proof:
Character count is less than
One hundred forty

Copyright © 2009 detachable_halo.