Slashdot Mirror

sorry, the link

"digital is different"

That would be a Chewbacca defence. **AA's point is that digital enables perfect copies, so the 100th generation copy is just as good as the 1st. Which is different from analog because you can only go so many generations before the nth gen copy is craptastic. Ain't got nothing to do with selling access to pipes one sends bits over. The old PSTN is pretty much only analog the last mile to your house anyway, most of the telco network is digital.

"because they could degrade performance for our other customers"

That would be a question of billing structure. If someone f.ex. builds a device that sends so many SMSes that the network goes bonkers, increase the cost of SMSes.

The argument they will make, and will be most difficult to counter, is that when the cell cos bought access to the spectrum in the FCC auction there was no requirement to provide open access. Changing it to open now would be a retroactive change of the terms, and that it would "lower the value" of the spectrum.

Which means that the best chance of success is to ask the FCC to attach 'Carterphone' terms when they auction off new parts of the spectrum. Which is incidentally one of the things that Google asked for - and got - in the upcoming 700MHz auction (and that verizon is going to the courts to stop).

Here's a good article about the iPhone in specific over at ArsTechnica too.

For the record, I will be surprised if Apple actively tries to re-lock already-unlocked phones, but I would not be surprised if they try to prevent unlocking in future firmware updates, considering the current unlock mechanism uses an overflow condition that will likely be, well, fixed in future updates (should Apple not fix a potentially exploitable buffer overflow on the iPhone?). Then, someone will find some other exploitable condition to unlock the iPhone, and the game continues.

Every GSM handset under the sun has been unlocked. The main difference with iPhone is that people are more likely to do regular full firmware updates with the iPhone due to the kind of product it is and the ease of doing so via iTunes, as opposed to other GSM handsets. But I can't see Apple relocking already-unlocked phones.

That said, while an explicit exemption exists that allows end customers to legally unlock GSM handsets in the US, no such requirement exists for a vendor to allow it, document it, or provide such a capability to the customer (see also "DMCA Exemption Attorney Weighs in on iPhone Unlocking".

Further, requirements in various jurisdictions that the carrier provide a means to unlock the handset after the contract term, i.e., after the subsidy is paid, MAY NOT at all apply to the iPhone, since the iPhone is technically unsubsidized. Apple appears to be negotiating backchannel subsidies and unprecedented monthly kickbacks from carriers...but the iPhone itself still isn't subsidized under the traditional subsidy model: you can buy an iPhone, walk out, and NEVER activate it, and the phone is yours to keep. However, this may also mean that no carrier is ever obligated to unlock it for you.

Also, Apple is depending on the expected profits from AT&T kickbacks for AT&T activations...that's how the iPhone price is structured. Now, if you can figure out how to unlock your phone and use it on another carrier, great. But also don't cry if Apple throws roadblocks in the way. You can argue that "it's only good for Apple" if people get to use unlocked iPhones, but that's not your decision to make, unfortunately - it's Apple's. Don't get me wrong: YOU can decide it's good for YOU. But you don't get to decide that it's good for Apple, or anyone else. And with things like seamless activation via iTunes, Visual Voicemail, and all the tight integration that requires enormous amounts of backend cooperation with the carrier partner (think about how iPhone activation works and how it must have been to pull something like that off), is it any surprise Apple wants to keep the iPhone experience with the carrier partner?

And think of all the other ways iPhone is unique: you get to walk out of the store with it sealed in a box, it can be easily bought as a gift, the customer does activation themselves in the comfort of their own homes with a pleasant interface, and so on.

So if people can figure out how to unlock the phone, great. But don't expect Apple to not fix actual bugs like buffer overflows in the phone that are coincidentally used to enable unlocking, and don't assume that ANYONE will ever be "required" to unlock iPhones, unless it is simply flat out illegal to have a SIMlocked phone in a particular jurisdiction, in which case Apple would probably elect to skip that market entirely.

This is a lot like the Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware arguments. People always say it's "better for Apple" or "free advertising for Apple". No. Pirating the OS is not good for Apple. And even if you say "but I'd buy it for $129!" that also doesn't solve it...the $129 price is predicated on the fact that there is Apple hardware that goes along with it. So then you say, "Well, I'd even pay $250 or more! Would that fix it?" No, because part of the Apple experience is the seamless integration and things "just workin

Carmack has always been open and honest about what he thinks about current technology, but he is a professional game developer and I have no doubt that he'll support many platforms. Like all software (inc viruses) developers target the biggest platform first. In this case, Windows. Since it's DirectX, I would guess XBox is around the corner. Past games have supported OpenGL and DirectX so I am sure Carmack has designed the engine with future support in mind.

Remember Carmack was part of the original (and probably 360) XBox advisory group. Here he says the XBox 360 is the best development platform even though the PS3 may be more powerful. http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/10/18/1556

I remember a few generations ago of video cards. Carmack said that ATI's new 9800 gpu is amazing but their drivers sucked so he preferred NVidia's. It doesn't mean his games weren't supported by ATI hardware.

PS- XBox was NVidia based while the XBox 360 is ATI

....their crappy strategy the last couple of years:
http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.media/sunstrategy.gif

DeWalt is likely quoting Valerie McNiven, from 2005 - who seemed to be somewhat unreliable even then...

From Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051129-5648.html

According to Valerie McNiven, a cybercrime advisor for the U.S. Treasury, the profits from global cybercrime exceeded profits from illicit drug sales last year. Modern technology certainly does provide a number of novel and unique ways for criminals to take advantage of other people, and in recent years we have seen a clear and apparent increase in instances of digitally perpetrated identity theft, data piracy, and fraud, but are the numbers really reliable? According to McNiven:

"Last year was the first year that proceeds from cybercrime were greater than proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs, and that was, I believe, over $105 billion."

McNiven's assertion is just plain wrong. According to United Nations statistics for 2003, the the global market for illicit substances is estimated at about US$322 billion, more than three times the value of McNiven's estimate, and larger than the GDP of 90 percent of the world's countries. I was unable to find the source from which McNiven got her estimate of $105 billion.

Cybercrime alarmists have been saying this for two years, but it's simply not true. The United Nations drug statistics indicate that the global market for illicit substances is approximately $322 billion. More information here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051129-5648.html

How hard is it to code something like coverflow?

1. X.org grabs XFree86 code, mangles it and throws it in their product.
2. DD-WRT grabs Linksys code, mangles it and releases it as their own.

Darwin was an open source project, that never gained traction or support from Apple. From Wikipedia: "OpenDarwin was a community-led operating system based on the Darwin platform, founded in April 2002 by the Internet Software Consortium and Apple. In July 2006, the OpenDarwin Core Team and Administrators announced that all development on OpenDarwin would cease, citing concerns over lack of interest from the community."

See also Open-source Darwin? Not yet. My favorite part: "Apple is stonewalling open-source developers despite the company's recent release of much of the Mac OS X Tiger kernel source code"

WebKit was KHTML, but modified so extensively by Apple it basically turned into a fork. Only recently have attmepts been made to merge them back together. Instead of working on KHTML, Apple chose to grab it, mangle it, and throw it in Safari

The unforking of KDE's KHTML and Webkit

Please get your facts straight, sir. I bought a G-4 in 2000 (before you could buy a G-4 with OS X preinstalled) and got an OS X t-shirt with it. I thought it was the dawn of a new day at Apple when OS X was released. I was wrong.

Arstechnica makes the same speculation, and I trust them a bit more than hot hardware. Where did you see that they're going to be specifically making 3 core chips?

Look out for devices that prominently display the "PlaysForSure" logo.

I was under the impression that Compiz was still considered relatively unstable, and that the Ubuntu developers were enabling it in the next edition as a catalyst for better driver support. Apple GUI effects are stable now.

Interesting points, especially #2. #1 seems to have some gaps though IMHO.

Okay, #2: The first two sentences are cool, but after that you are proposing illegal activities. (not that this has EVER happened! see Sony rootkit fiasco, among others)

Installing the software to do all of this can easily happen, but is mostly illegal. The ability to monitor and then bust you for ANY shady activities is also mostly illegal, especially for a 'third party' like the MPAA or RIAA.

As to the "Failing that, an inside look in a file sharer's machine could be very helpful for rights holders." part, it is (or has been) being addressed. I cannot remember whether it was on http://www.arstechnica.com/, or here on /. last night...too beat from work (got home from a 12 hr. shift about an hour ago) to do the link legwork.
From what I understood from RTFA's was this:
When a defendant's (how does that go? hereafter referred to as 'd/d's) PC is to be used as evidence (more or less only the HDD is relevant), then the plaintiff (p/p's) gets to make two identical images of the defendant's HDD under both d's and court appointed third party Computer Forensics Expert. One image is held 'in escrow' by the court as a backup/verification device, the other 'clone' is sent to the d's lawyer to get with d to tag any personal/private data that was not relevent to the media filetype case.
The edited image goes back to the prosecutor to be entered as evidence (after review by the judge and the 3rd party 'expert' to discourage foul play), then they go at it tooth and nail.

It seems a good way to handle it- the plaintiff gets to image the HDD, but under both an *hehheh* objective 3rd party Expert in forensics, but also the defendants representative's 'looking over the shoulder' during the cloning/imaging. (yes, I'm sure my suspicions are over played here- feel free to apply that filter!)

The cool part is if either side calls 'foul!', the judge can pull out his cloned image of the d's HDD and check the facts...seems to me this could work really well if implemented right.

I had trouble with parsing #1, but you were very concise and easy to understand where you were coming from with #2.

BTW, I also need convincing, but "I'm rough, tough, and hard to bluff!" ( I have no clue where this quote came from, but I've heard it for decades)

From http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070706-mediadefender-denies-entrapment-accusations-with-fake-torrent-site.html

Published July 06, 2007:

"MediaDefender's Randy Saaf told Ars Technica that while the company does own the domain to MiiVi, the story itself was completely made up. "MediaDefender was working on an internal project that involved video and didn't realize that people would be trying to go to it and so we didn't password-protect the site," Saaf said."

"We may never know MediaDefender's true motive behind MiiVi, but Saaf insists that it was nothing more than an internal site for research and development purposes only."

A couple weeks later:

"
Subject: MiiVi (currently on www.viide.com)
From: grodsky@mediadefender.com
Date: 23/07/2007 18:05
To: michael.potts@artistdirect.com

Michael,

When you get a chance, we would love you to start taking a look at www.viide.com. That is the current home of our MiiVi site.

[...]

Once you log on the site, surf over to www.viide.com/download.php to get our application. The website currently acts a GUI for the application. When we go live with the site for the general public , there will also be a java applet that also minimal/one-off type use of MiiVi (but this feature is inaccessible with the current locked-down version of the site).
"

Interesting concept - a purely internal site, intended only for research and development... that was purposed to go LIVE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, complete with a DOWNLOADABLE CLIENT APPLICATION, after having been PURPOSEFULLY RE-LOCATED under a different domain with the SOLE INTENT TO OBFUSCATE MediaDefender's DIRECT CONNECTION.

The consensus is that breastfeeding is good, and circumcision isn't beneficial.

Actually, there's no consensus on the latter. First, circumcision is actually beneficial in helping to prevent HIV by removing tissue that acts as an easy point of entry. Second, a small (40 person) study was performed that showed that strongly suggests that sensitivity is not significantly impaired in circumcised men despite commonly held beliefs to the contrary.

The follow-up question is did you get that somebody's information, and did you follow up w/ a DMCA abuse lawsuit? To place their takedown notice, they had to sign that under penalty of perjury that they own the content. Obviously they couldn't for your self-portrait. So, you could follow up like the EFF is going after Uri Geller. Folks need to do a lot more of that; a few significant judgements against DMCA abusers plus fees & court costs could go a long way.

You fail to take into account that Sony and Microsoft take a loss on each console sold, whereas Nintendo actually makes a profit on them.

...on what grounds would you even possibly try to claim grounds for a suit?

A scenario such as: You implement copy protection to prevent "theft of intellectual property". Your copy protection scheme malfunctions, and exposes private / proprietary data. Lawyers jump your hide based on various state anti-spyware statutes. Lawyers profit, you don't.

Like this, for example: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051121-5605.html.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070912-sun-to-sell-windows-server-boxes.html

Notice the so-funny-yet-true chart towards the bottom.

But you don't just pay once for OS X, the point releases are all $129 so you end up paying that each year

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-3.ars

Sort of like paying for service packs

And most studies I've read show Mac hardware is priced at a hefty premium.

Still I guess if you're a Mac user you'll rationalize all this away, much like owners of premium things always do. And whilst I don't like Macs personally I can see that they are well designed for technically unsophisticated users. Like musicians and liberal arts graduates, or damn hipster emo kids.

When the EU rules that shipping a media player with the OS is an anti-trust violation, you can throw common sense logic like that right out the window.

Some history of the problem, if you've forgotten: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060602-6973.html

Reduced functionality mode will also disable Aero, the new Windows Vista interface, and any "Premium" or "Ultimate" features of the OS will be completely locked down. Additionally, users will only be able to obtain security updates marked as "critical." Other downloads and updates will not be available.

This anti-piracy mode will also disable other installed applications such as Office, making it impossible for a user to edit documents. Users can view documents by using the web browser, but Microsoft has essentially designed the system to prevent "read/write" access.

Between this, ArsTechnica's report on Guitar Hero III Coming-to-PC and Macs via Aspyr, GameTap, and EA following through with their game announcements, It's finally looking 'not bad' for Mac gaming this year. I truly thought that Cider was a bunch of hooey, but it seems to be doing well.

This is nothing. If you want to read a story of true Epic Failure in Web Hosting, you should go read up on LeafyHost -- the world's only web host to be founded and then completely melted down over the course of a 100-page Ars Technica discussion thread.

There are so many laugh-out-loud moments in that thread I can't recommend it highly enough.

(If the idea of reading a 100 page thread is daunting to you, you can read summaries of the LeafyHost debacle here and here. But really, do yourself a favor and read the thread.

Since we're supposed to be all concerned for Sony (of recent rootkit fame) and defending them against criticism and wouldbe censorship by the Church of England how about we take a stand for another company we dislike as well? They need to be defended from criticism and censorship by Islam. Any takers?

Remember this from back in August? Capcom Removes Islamic Phrase From Wii Game

If you read the linked article you might also notice that Kakuto Chojin back in 2003 got Microsoft in some hot water.

Here's a couple of links making reference to that:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/kakutochojin/news.html?sid=6105587
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/39309975/m/8700918055

Sticking up for companies we don't generally like when people try to censor them is a good thing, but lets remember to stick up for them in cases besides those where it is Christians trying to censor them.

I would think that you if you lack sufficient skill to operate high-tech device [including understanding how to turn it off], you would restrict yourself to lower-tech devices.

As far as cellular telephone use in hospitals... this is a growing problem. I've had to take my son into "Emergency" at one of the hospitals in my city. There were no less than 10 people who answered calls in the waiting room. There are signs clearly posted - pictograms, written warnings in the 20 most widely used languages. At best, people are ambivalent about this rule. They know that they should turn off the phone, but the are worried that family members may be trying to contact them to know how someone is doing. At worst, they simply don't care.

Here's an article published Thursday - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070906-cell-phones-trigger-medical-equipment-failure.html. It's a good read, and suggests that the "rule" that we have been living by [in terms of cell phones in hospitals] is more strict than it needs to be, and that perhaps we should reevaluate these rules. Sadly, there will still be some people who's apathy will lead to major problems. We can only hope that nobody is seriously injured as a direct [or indirect] result of their selfish attitudes.

Reading the fine article:

Pressure sensitive surface allows multiple methods of information

Microsoft's Surface uses cameras to track input. The actual tabletop is nothing more than an ordinary acrylic panel used as a rear projection screen.

It should be easy to clean and difficult to break, scratch or stain.

The technology allows non-digital objects to be used as input devices. In one example, a normal paint brush was used to create a digital painting in the software. [In] using cameras for input, the system does not rely on [the] properties required of conventional touchscreen or touchpad devices such as the capacitance, electrical resistance, or temperature of the tool [being] used. Microsoft Surface

Surface can sense and interact with "domino" tagged objects, like a digital camera. What lurks below Micosoft's Surface

The Grumman maxes out at 1600x1200 for an 84" display. To my mind, that seems a little disappointing for a military-grade tactical display.

Surface at 1280x960 for a 30" display.

It's fun how everyone is twisting information, or just picking numbers out of the sky...
From the "never!" link you posted.

"It's estimated that 80 percent of the traffic on the Internet is, in fact, spam."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070903-p2p- responsible-for-as-much-as-90-percent-of-all-net-t raffic.html
There we have "P2P responsible for as much as 90 percent of all 'Net traffic"

I'm not saying that this guy did not deserve this, but i do think about how much more information that might have been twisted.

And if 90% of all network traffic where spam then a single 10Gbit link should have around 240000 spam-mails per second passing by, or 20736000000 per day...
And if the Atlantic cables between europe and USA where a total of 100Gbit that would be able to deliver 40 spam-mails per person/day in the world. And there is much more BW than that out there...

Ars Technica had an August 22 news story on the first wave of Draft 2.0 certified gear: 802.11n gets a boost with flood of Draft 2.0-certified gear .

That article also linked to a list of early Draft 2.0 certified gear. Yup, Cisco's Aironet 1250 is there.
http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_pro ducts.php?search=1&advanced=1&lang=en&filter_compa ny_id=&filter_category_id=&filter_subcategory=&fil ter_cid=&date_from=&date_to=&selected_certificatio ns%5B%5D=33&x=32&y=5

"I was saddened (though not surprised) to read that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality saying that it could "hamper development of the internet." While it may seem counter-intuitive to me, they argue that allowing ISPs to provide different levels of service/speed for different content will benefit consumers.

I don't see service/speed benefiting consumers. In fact I'm hearing more people are complaining of being terminated by a certain Internet provider. It does nobody any good and America is turning into the caveman of the Internet with super slow speeds.

Besides, if we already paid for high speed internet then why don't we have it?

According to the coverage at Ars, this provision was struck down by the same judge in the old version of the Patriot Act. The government appealed, and the appeals court bounced it back to the original judge when the Patriot Act was revised.

Fortunately, we have supercapacitors. While they're not there yet for energy density (still about 10x too little) they're rapidly improving. 10x isn't much at the rate these things have been improving, and there are plenty of labs with pieces that are much better than currently available commercial offerings, but that still need development work. If I had to guess, I'd say it's 5 years until the first supercaps appear in serious commercial use, and less than 10 until LiIon has gone the way of NiMH.

Of course, if you believe the rumors then it might be even faster than that -- we might be seeing serious applications in a year or so.

I, for one, will be glad to give LiIon a proper burial. But until then, we work with what's available.

The problem with flash and great projects like gnash is that it will never be a full freely distributable implementation as long as we have draconian patent laws. Components such as flash video are patented. Likewise the silverlight won't be complete in a free distribution.

I think people need to get informed about what is happening in the open platform space. Check out the firefox3 builds with ogg theora support. This combined with canvas, svg and the hardware accelerated rendering via cairo we can see the platform for rich open media coming into place.

A demo that everyone should check out is the SVG theora demo A Rich Open Media Platform is already on its way ;) All we have to do is build some killer apps for it and push these open pieces into IE, safari etc. Instead of the other around where propitiatory components being pushed into open platforms.

its an uphill battle given the sudo standardization around flash... but ultimately free and open system have inherit advantages that will eventually outweigh the proprietary solutions in free flowing information environments... It's only a matter of time ;)

How about the Nokia N800?

Take a look at this.

That article clearly suggests Dell make around $50 to $60 by having all those ISP trials and software demos pre-loaded. All OEMs put the same crap on their machines, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that they all make broadly similar amounts. Now, purely for the sake of argument, lets pretend that the only cost differential between a Dell with FreeDOS and a Dell with Windows is the OS licence (it isn't of course, but what the hell).

So, Dell lose $60 of revenue from having no "craplets". They then gain back whatever the Windows licence would have cost them, but I doubt they pay retail price. If they were paying less than $60 for a windows licence, a figure which is not too unlikely, then the FreeDOS machine SHOULD cost more, and that's before you factor in the cost of adapting the production line to produce machines without Windows pre-installed.

Because I read the internet! It's all over, somebody else linked http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070824-ipho ne-set-free-from-att-with-first-full-software-unlo ck.html as an example.

Also, yes, I am.

Could this post be related to this? The link to the bogus google video especially ...

Engadget has a helpful rumor roundup - just to keep the /. discussion lively with speculation. Aside from the next-gen touchscreen iPod, there's the Beatles' catalogue on iTMS, direct-to-iPhone (iPod) music store downloads, and increased capacity in the Nano. "Analysis" (i.e., educated speculation and wishful thinking) available from CNet, ArsTechnica, and AppleInsider (1, 2, 3).

A lot of news outlets have reported that the iPhone's price is not subsidized, among them reputable sources like ars technica.

But I guess your own question applies to you, too. Where's the evidence that it is subsidized?

"This really upsets me that they would do this to their paying customers"

According to Ars, the issue is that they want you to pay more. A LOT more. To quote, "Apple declined to pay more than double the wholesale price for each NBC TV episode, which would have resulted in the retail price to consumers increasing to $4.99 per episode from the current $1.99."

So how does $5 a pop sound? At that rate, a typical series would cost over $100 purchased digitally, as opposed to buying the DVDs for $30-$50.

One thing's for sure, if hulu has this kind of idiotic pricing structure, then it's just SURE to be a success...