Slashdot Mirror

here's the link
eBay cracks down on members' offline deals

CNET's News.com had a story on this as well:
Minor bug lingers in Pentium 4 chipset

Interestingly enough, they originally had it under a very misleading title (it said "Minor bug lingers in Pentium 4 processor" IIRC). They apparently got enough feedback that they retitled it by this morning.

It's sad that "silly patents" has become a weekly topic on Slashdot. Just today I came across these two silly patents:

Patent on interactive TV: How long have these sorts of ideas been around?

Patent on prepaid cellular plans: Paying for something in advance -- what a novel concept!

It's sad that "silly patents" has become a weekly topic on Slashdot. Just today I came across these two silly patents:

Patent on interactive TV: How long have these sorts of ideas been around?

Patent on prepaid cellular plans: Paying for something in advance -- what a novel concept!

According to this times of india story and Cnet story, June sued Netzeo in summer over the advertisments that are displayed when the customer is offline.

• PSone: 42%
• Dreamcast: 27%
• N64: 26%
• PS2: 6%

• PSone: 42%
• Dreamcast: 27%
• N64: 26%
• PS2: 6%

I think this CNET news story should answer the question. ;)

The problem with .DOC is the typical Microsoft problem: Microsoft beats other people to market by "just getting the job done". They hack up what needs to be done, if it works 90% it's OK, and maybe they document it later. They are even proud of that and seem to think it's the right way to go because they actually beat everybody else to market; let's hope the customers will wake up to this and stop buying.

The latest .DOC format is supposedly XML (with embedded binary). That will help somewhat, in that it will at least make the text and other important information accessible without a complex OLE infrastructure. But to take full advantage of the information found in .DOC will still not be possible. The .DOC format often contains scripting and all sorts of other extensions, and the actual semantics of those can depend heavily on the environment or a buried deep inside some MS Word module.

Note that inside Microsoft, there now seems to be another approach, NetDocs. If it delivers what it claims to, a fully XML-based standards-compliant, end-user document and information management system, I have my doubts that that will catch on--it is way out of character for Microsoft.

I also find it ammusing that Compaq had completed porting Tru64 over in April of 1999 but decided to drop the port. It took them only 4 months to do the port.

Note the CNET in the URL. It means the the NY Times just reprinted CNET's Original Article...at least you don't have to sign up for regristration!

MP4 has been around for a while as far as I know with a standard already set.

I was actually interested in posting a similar article today, but I knew it wasn't much of a post...I'm x-mas geek shopping and a cell phone with pda features is at the top of my list. Unfortunately it looks I'm going to be out of luck for x-mas. I've ruled out the handspring phone as being too expensive and too bulky. Plus as mentioned before it's not going to be available across the country. I think CDMA is a better option in the US at least for now.

Here's what I'm interested in: the Kyocera Smartphone Series - QCP 6035 that is supposed to be available early next year. It's CDMA with palm 3.5 with 8 mb.

Here are some articles about it:

News article about it here and here (with some pics) and here.

Here's what they filed with the FCC here. The FCC has some nice pics of the guts of the pda phone. (Side note: I figured all you hardware geeks would like this)

Ok, here's what I want: a cell phone with PDA, pager features, 8 mb of ram for under 600 bucks and is small.

I'm not going to get that with the handspring phone. It's going to cost me 800 plus after taxes to get that and Kyocera says they are going to be selling theirs for under 800 and it's going to be smaller.

If you don't know about Kyocera, they bought Qualcomm CDMA phone business which included the out of date PDQ phone. Here's a link to their site

Ok...that's all I know....does anyone on /. know of a palm OS cell phone deal that is or is going to be better?

I couldn't load the site to see if it was on the list (slashdotted maybe), but this linux/mac game looked pretty cool: Parsec

First, a plug for my own graphic/text adventure, written about a year ago. It's called "Lunatix: The Insanity Circle" and can be downloaded here (the ZIP file is here). Several screen shots are shown here. It can also be downloaded from www.download.com with info and download here. It's freeware, and I get constant feedback (still) about it (kudos, questions, hint/walkthrough requests, etc).
There is an active usenet community for Interactive Fiction at rec.games.int-fiction, and a HUGE (and very complete) archive of games at the ftp.gmd.de archive. These kinds of games are alive and well!
:::: Mike Snyder

They're actually leased by the DoE, not owned, according to this CNet story.

ASCI = Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative

Their site is here. More on ASCI White, including a picture, is here.

"The motion picture industry's effort to ban computer code that subverts its DVD encryption scheme"

subvert (sb-vûrt)
v. tr. subverted, subverting, subverts.

- To destroy completely; ruin:
- To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
- To overthrow completely: "Economic assistance . . . must subvert the existing . . . feudal or tribal order" (Henry A. Kissinger).

So, in context:

The motion picture industry's effort to ban computer code that undermines the morals of its DVD encryption scheme.

Playing a movie on Linux hardly destroys it, or subverts its morals. When will this press bias end? DeCSS is is part of the development of an open project to play DVDs. The fact that playing DVD's may expose them to copying is an artifact of the DVD-CCA's decision to blend play protection and copy protection.

We should all politely remind Mr. Hansen to read openDVD's fact sheet before press time.

sigh!

First off, it starts by quoting the news.com article that claims the RBL only blocks about 2% of spam. This article is completely inaccurate, and if Jamie had bothered to research it at all he would have realized this. The article describes a series of tests of e-mail filtering services and lumps the RBL in with these filters. The RBL is NOT a filter. It is simply a list of IP's associated (for whatever reason) with spammers that server admins can use to block service from. Comparing the RBL to filters is like comparing Caller ID blocking (not even answering a call if the number belongs with a telemarketer) with call screening (answering the call, determining it's a telemarketer, then hanging up). If the people that ran the news.com test actually performed their test from a server listed in the RBL then 100% of the spam would have been blocked.

Claiming that the RBL is a "censorware tool" also shows that Jamie doesn't understand the purpose and use of the RBL. The RBL is nothing more than an electronic equivalent of a Consumer Reports article. The RBL is a list of IP's that MAPS determines is affiliated with spammers and shares that list publicly with anybody that wants to use it. I, as a user of the RBL, have made my own personal decision to trust MAPS and have included them in my mail servers configuration. If I have a problem with a site being added to the RBL (such as peacefire.org) I can simply tell my mail server to ignore the RBL listing for them. MAPS is simply providing a service and I am making use of that service. This does NOT Make it censorware. The RBL is as much censorware as the CallerID on my telephone - they both provide similar services.

Jamies view of the RBL as censoring Media3 is very nearsighted. The purpose of the RBL is not to censor sites like Media3 and their customers. It is a tool that attempts to encourage the owners of all the private systems that make up the internet to cooperate with each other. The vast majority of the owners of the systems that make up the internet abhor spam. By making use of the RBL, I and many of these other admins are speaking with a collective voice to the admins of providers like Media3 who either explicitly condone or implicitly allow spamming.

Jamie would do well to look up the defintion of censor. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, censor is defined as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". The RBL does not examine anything - it's just a list that any system administrator on the internet can utilize.

Iphtashu

---

I don't buy it.

First of all, MAPS does not block content based on political grounds, as the article seems to suggest. It blocks groups of IP addresses that contribute to SPAM. According to Gartner analsyt Joyce Graff, "Living in an email account with lots of spam is like living in a community with trash in the streets." MAPS is more comparable to a trash collector than a censor. (Unless you think Get Rich Quick!!!!! is a political manifesto.)

Second of all, all any legitimate site blocked by MAPS has to do is to change ISPs to be seen again by RBL subscribers. MAPS is a tool for exerting pressure on ISPs. I remember a few posts here a while back, all of which basically said something like "too bad there's no way to make ISPs care about ___ (insert issue here.) Well there is! And the RBL is it.

I had to chuckle at points throughout the article. I spoke with Joe Hayes at Media3, and he told me that the company does not tolerate websites which promote themselves through spam. Of course not! But software to spam the customers of other ISPs, well that's just fine!

The whole goal of MAPS is to make ISPs accountable for spreading SPAM. And none of their actions have deviated from this throughoughly non-political goal.

If you really think you're being oppressed by MAPS, switch to an ISP that doesn't use the RBL. However, most people probably would rather not live in the garbage.

The truth is, spamming will probably be around forever in one form or another as long as the internet is around. But people can take some steps to block the worst offenders.

CNet-News: Deja.com reported a loss of $1.25 million on revenue of $922,000 in the first quarter of 1998.

Original good ideas = spend money on a service that's given away for free?
--

Along with the 4.0 announcement was a demo of Samsung's upcoming Palm-based smartphone. It's supposed to be a bit smaller than the already announced Kyocera QCP-6035 (aka pdQ2) and contains a color display and dial buttons on the LCD screen. Should be available Q2 2001 for around $500. This should give the MS Stinger phone a serious run for its money.

is the name of the process being used to create the chips. From a May 2000 C/Net article on the process:

"Reducing circuit size is the cornerstone of Moore's Law, which states that the number of transistors capable of being put on a processor should double every 18 months. Shrinking circuits allows manufacturers to put more transistors onto a wafer, which in turn increases power. Unfortunately, the current technique, called DUV lithography, will likely hit its limit around 2003.

Controlling small wavelength light, however, is not easy. Current lithography machines depend on lenses to focus light. Because EUV light would be absorbed by glass, the new system will use a series of four specially coated convex mirrors to capture the mask
image and reduce it. The mirrors each contain 80 separate metallic layers just 12 atoms thick.

The technology stems from work at Stanford University. The laser-light technique, meanwhile, derived from work on missile defense systems, said Dave Attwood, a professor at the University of California and a researcher on the project.

EUV machines will be able to process about 80 wafers an hour, approximately the same as current lithography machines, making the process economically feasible."

I wonder what will it cost for chipmakers to transition over to the EUV technology? Intel is huge and would obviously be more able to make a capital investment like this than competitors.

CNet hardware has the Raite Player listed with user feedback comments as well. They don't mention some of the more interesting features like region bypassing, of course.

CNet's help.com has a list for user Q&A that mentions the Apex drive.

This appeared on Bruce's site Technocrat.net yesterday. It also links to a Cnet article on the topic.

Bruce sez: "There are two parts to the job. I get to be an activist in the Linux community, on company time, and speak for myself when necessary. And I get to advise top management. There are three people between Carly (the chairman) and I. So, I'll be a pretty effective bridge between the Open Source community and HP management." Here's the link.

1) Disable Macrovision
2) Be set to any region (to circumvent the new RCE technology
3) Play MP3s and VCDs (not an essential feature, but would be great
3) Ignore User Prohibitions

What is a user prohibition? It's what keeps you from skipping the FBI Warning or the four minutes of commercials at the beginning of your DVD. Call me retentive, but I like immediate access to my DVDs and some DVDs (like my anime DVDs) have tons of companies involved in the production that need you to watch their really flashy logo on the screen. technology.

So far, I've only been able to find one merchant that sells players that ignore User Prohibitions, and they're in the UK.

Does anyone know of any US merchants who sell them?

CNET is reporting NEC is recalling the chips. No news on what Sony will do yet.

...at the moment I haven't been able to find a definitive or comprehensive list on the 'net.
You can find charts for specific products by doing a 'Webferret' search - but then you're only talking about street prices, which are beaten daily on the internet, and are really only 'guide prices' for most products on the high street.
If you're buying, your best bet is to cross reference a list of available components with sites like:
Streetprices.com - perhaps one of the best sites
cnet - does some price comparisons

If you're still doing research then why not go to some of the component-specific sites on the web, such as http://www.motherboards.org/ and the like. They often have articles that deal with price fluctuations. Your fav computer mag.'s web site no doubt also has a littany of articles on the subject with decent research in them.
But methinks the resource you're after would be valuable to marketing students more than anyone else - if that's your thrust then I suggest you go to the manufacturer's web pages ( should you be trying to get geeks to do your marketing project for you? :). Seriously, I think the reason such a site isn't about at the moment is that such information can be used to do exactly what you want to do - the large firms probably wouldn't want geeks and non-geeks to suss out how the whole 'product life-cycle' and 'price-cycle' works and disrupt the whole thing. For the moment your just going to have to use that power that lies somewhere between 'the force' and 'the knack' and kinda guesstimate when prices are about to fall.
8)

The ordinary user just doesn't seem to care, they click and forget. I would hazard to guess that 85% - 90% or people haven't even heard of carnivore.

I wonder if he'll write his autobiography by accident, like he did his favorite OS.

It's too bad that Adobe couldn't make FrameMaker for Linux by accident, like Linus made Linux by accident. Oh well...

Microsoft recently tried to show the public a new version of Internet Explorer which implemented "new" functions to let users easily determine which cookies they want and which they don't want as if none existed before. This only compounds the problem by giving the impression that we have no security at all unless we get the newest software.

In light of all of this, why does the media not report the other side? They are all caught up in the mode of earning money- scaring the public, getting ratings by users who want to know what is happening, keep them focused on updates to see if their privacy will be protected after all. After all, wtf is up with all this "constitutional crisis" crap? People talk about how the electoral system is messed up, and we need to get rid of it to save the world. I'm relieved to see that Time Magazine is willing to point out that "what would happen in a popular vote system where the margin is as narrow as the Gore-Bush margin...demands for recounts, not in two or three states but in 50". Even Hilary Clinton says she would support such a measure in Congress. Nobody is willing to truly speak for the electoral system and cite parallels when baseball series such as the one in 1997 ended up with one team scoring more runs and still losing overall, or even mention that things like this have happened before.

Back on the issue of online privacy, the media fails to mention the fact that most websites at least give a privacy policy- people are too lazy to read the legal information thrown in their face and then complain about how they never knew this or that. If the website never mentioned such a policy, it's the fault of the website, not the ad company which told the website to follow certain guidelines. If anybody is wondering what "web bugs" are, they are only another cause of massive violations of privacy. (see the link/reference to them on the original article mentioned ). They are simply the one pixel gifs that many people use in invisible counters and such. Cookies are often only used in them to ensure that a person is not counted twice, not to monitor tracking- yet cnet portrays them to maliciously violate our privacy all the time.

These "web bugs" are described early on with the following excerpt from that article:
Savvy Web surfers know they are being tracked when they see a banner ad. But people can't see Web bugs, and anti-cookie filters won't catch them. So the Web bugs wind up tracking surfers in areas online where banner ads are not present or on sites where people may not expect to be trailed.

Firstly, it is a sad thing when people assume that a banner ad = cookie when websites like Yahoo sell their own ads and place cookies even without banner ads. Secondly, it is even worse when the article seems to assume that anti-cookie filters look just for banner ads. The best filter is the options menu of course, and it is impossible to miss a cookie with that. And finally, the last part of the excerpt mentions that people expect to be trailed when there are banner ads around, when the article along with other cnet articles say that most people do not even know they are being tracked in the first place. The true savvy users like us know that cookies are everywhere, and are not synonymic with one another.

Do not blame the masses for making ridiculous lawsuits, but the law firms who go for money, not ethics, and the media for making stories sound good while only distorting the truth. And on a final note, it is interesting to see how 60 minutes aired a story on Echelon (sorry if I got the show wrong, but the segment was shown on a major network), the most powerful version of Big Brother that I can think of, and most people just shrug and accept it. Why can't people sue the government after all?

-------------------------------------------------- --
Faies
"[This ISP] is completely secure if you are using a standard operating system like Windows 98"

You really don't get how this works. Getting a judges signature for searches is easy. It is only the time that it takes to do that search which is a limiting factor. So, the FBI realizing this, has set about to place a piece of FBI hardware in place on-site at *EVERY* isp in America. This piece of hardware does not require a judge's signature to be used because it is controlled directly from the FBI's office. Yes, the FBI is suppose to get a judge's approval, but they don't have to with this setup. That is different from phone taps which intrinsically needs a judges signature (not just suppose to). The FBI cannot get a phone tap to go through without the judge's signature since the phone company won't allow it. The phone company controls it. Now, normally the ISP is suppose to control it. But the FBI has devised this horrific carnivore system. It means the isp does not control it, which means that there is not check in place to insure a judge's signature is received.

Well, sorry about that, I shifted my argument. What I really mean to say (in additon to what I've said) is that there's no slow down, no limiting step with carnivore. The FBI decides it wants info, it gets a judges signature (though I explained above how easy it is for them not to), and then it just pushes a couple of buttons from FBI headquarters and voila the search has taken place and the information has been seized. No limiting step. It's so easy that if you are not scared by this misplacement of power, you are very naive.

I hope someone has brought up that the FBI has already lied about the surveillance powers of Carnivore. The story broke about a week ago.

Carnivore can get a lot more info than the email headers (and content) which the FBI had claimed is the limits of its powers. No, in fact, carnivore can take everything the FBI wants it too. Read about it here:

Carnivore captures and archives 'unfiltered traffic'

New documents shed more light on FBI's "Carnivore"

Carnivore can monitor all internet traffic -- something the FBI had previously denied



the Slashdot article on recent carnivore devleopments

How about c|net's story off of the ap: Qwest ordered to pay AT&T $350M for repeatedly cutting a fiber-optic phone line.

From CNet: Office 10 will offer five new document recovery tools that will strive to correct the instabilities found in previous versions of Office (and Windows) that resulted in wasted time and lost documents because of hung machines, spontaneous rebooting, mysterious error messages, and system crashes.

Rather than improve stability, they reduce the damage caused by instability. Why didn't they just direct those resources directly at improving stability?

It seems clear to me, contrary to Kaplan's assertions, that his ruling will not be upheld, unless higher courts radically change their attitudes to free speech.

The first amendment right to free speech has already been applied to crypto source code, in a case which denied the federal government the ability to restrict speech in the form of computer code. The protection applied to computer code as free expression has been found sufficient to override laws regarding national security. Surely the national interest is more important than specific commercial interests, such as those of the MPAA and its members, in which case overriding the MPAA's interest in this case should have been a non-issue.

Kaplan also referenced the Pacifica ruling which restricts content transmitted over public airwaves; but again, communications on the Internet have already been held to the highest standard of freedom of expression by other circuit appeal courts, including the panel which declawed the CDA, so Kaplan's choice of precedent is highly questionable. By Kaplan's argument, swearing on the Internet could conceivably be banned, and according to him, to think otherwise would be an "absolutist view of the First Amendment"!!!

So Kaplan is simply picking and choosing inappropriate precedents (e.g. re public airwaves) to bolster his pro-industry prejudice, and ignoring more recent and relevant precedent (albeit in different circuits) which contradict his position.

Perhaps the way in which Kaplan could be said to be "smart" is that he didn't feel comfortable singlehandedly dealing with the conflict between the DMCA and the Constitution, and so chose to simply uphold the most recent law, ignoring the fundamental law upon which the United States is founded; or one could say he is smart in that he has protected a possible future consulting revenue stream from his former employer, Time Warner, by not alienating them with a ruling counter to their interests.

But why CmdrTaco should think that is "smart" is beyond me. Kaplan is either stupid or corrupt, or both.

This should have warned us.

Here's an article on the .heath rejection

Sorry, I pressed "Submit" too early:
The P2P Myth

Why should the WHO have a monopoly on the .health TLD? Should we give the WTO .trade? Should we give the WorldBank .finance? APEC .asia? The UN Council for Human Rights .family?

This is not a debate against modern medicine v. new age quackery, or science v. superstition. It's about giving UN regulatory power over what would be a good portion of the internet. The UN has never been a friend of either the internet or a free flow of information.

• It was the UN that proposed a global tax on email. http://www.wirednews .co m/news/politics/0,1283,20705,00.html
• It was the UN that called for censorship on the internet. http://news.cnet.com/n ews /0-1005-200-323675.html?sas.mail
• It was the UN that cried out for a tax on international travel. http://www.globalpolicy.o rg/ socecon/glotax/baumert.htm

It is not a good idea to give the United Nations/The World Health Organization this control. If they wish to run their own site, say health.un.org, health.who.org, I have no problem with that. But it is foolish to believe that giving the WHO autority of a TLD is a good idea. They will either punish groups that use a .health domain for a purpose that the WHO don't like (what if southafricamedicalassociation.health publishes a paper denying HIV causes AIDS), or, much worse, prior restrait.

I also fear that the WHO won't stop there. The UN (of which the WHO is a part) has already tried to tax and censor the internet because of political reasons. With that mindset, it's only logical to do the same thing for medical reasons. You want to operate a web site that advocates smoking, or drinking, or steak eating, or having sex without protection? Pay a cent tax per hit.

The UN has already seen fit to run over individual beliefs when the issue's important. It's hard to feel sorry for hate groups when the United Nations advocates their banning. But what of a Roman Catholic site that decries birth control? What of a vegan site that implores the visitor not to consume animal products?

Giving an organization that's adamently against free-information (in both meanings) is a bad idea. I hope you will reconsider.

IE5.5 Score
NS6 Score

If you'll notice, they both got the same overall score, so it comes down to a matter of taste.

-bZj

IE5.5 Score
NS6 Score

If you'll notice, they both got the same overall score, so it comes down to a matter of taste.

-bZj

Click this link to see the benchmarks and this link for the entire page of that article.

Clearly IE is faster, by a huge margin (surprising actually).

A news.com article reports that AOL will soon be mass distributing Netscape 6 on CDs in numerous magazines owned by Time-Warner. Great, the faster sooner users replace their Netscape 4.x installations, the better. Alas, I'll still have to cater to 4.x till 2002, but I look forward to dancing on 4.x's grave.

Did any of the compliance bugs named in Flanagan's petition to postpone the release get fixed before the final release?

Now it's official. Netscape.com has an announcement of the final release of 6.0. It's now available through their download page.

According to a news.com article , Netscape 6 will also be mass distributed AOL-style on CDs included in numerous magazines owned by Time-Warner.

ZDNet's story on the release refers to Flanagan's petition to postpone the release until standards compliance bugs were fixed.

cnet has already posted a review.

Now it's official. Netscape.com has an announcement of the final release of 6.0. It's now available through their download page.

According to a news.com article , Netscape 6 will also be mass distributed AOL-style on CDs included in numerous magazines owned by Time-Warner.

ZDNet's story on the release refers to Flanagan's petition to postpone the release until standards compliance bugs were fixed.

cnet has already posted a review.

Haven't Inprise changed their name back to Borland?

• 2000-11-09 15:32:41 "Inprise" now back to "Borland" again (articles,tech) (rejected)

Alex Bischoff
---

eMarker
C|Net Article

More info/links here.