Slashdot Mirror

I think you're slightly confused. DRM can be open sourced, as long as the actual key to decrypt your data is somehow kept secret from the poor bugger using it - in much the same way your Linux box encrypts your password in an entirely open-source manner, although the password itself is secret.

In fact, Sun has started work on an "open source DRM system" already. It's a pity that it wasn't using the GPLv2; that way anyone could make a GPLv3 derivative of it, then deny Sun the right to sue under the DMCA. Oh well.

"Open Source DRM" is ironic, like having a concentration camp run by a non-heirarchical, politically correct worker's co-operative. It's not impossible, unfortunately.

In Minnesota, just having PGP on your computer is evidence of criminal intent.

Welcome to the land of the free...

Hardware VS Software Raid

The $13 card you purchased is software Raid. Promise cards are mostly hardware RAID. I recently purchased a Promise FastTrack S150 SX4-M for less than $100 hardware RAID5 card compared to the $30-50 software RAID5 cards. I'm pretty satisified with the purchase but unfortunately there isn't room for much upgrade. I currently have 4x160GB in a RAID5 configuration giving me 480GB of space and 1 disc of redundnacy.

Some useful links to tell you the difference between software raid and hardware raid are:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/raid/conf/ctrl Hardware-c.html
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Man ual/custom-guide/s1-raid-approaches.html
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-10880_11-5715216. html
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/4 349/2/

Interestingly, there already seems to be a bit of friction between Apple's and Intel's marketing departments.

Our other customers aren't boring
New Apple ad catches Intel by surprise

It's nice to know they are taking such a proactive stance on the issue of security. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-816880.html

The Cell will render King Kong in real-time just like the PS2 rendered Toy Story in real-time. W00t DVDs.

Actually, it was the Xbox that was supposed to render Toy Story in realtime.

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+got+game+Xbox+unveil ed/2100-1040_3-250632.html

It was a project named Jonathan (one of the original Open Mac projects). Here's a short desc Apple's Jonathan Project = Mac Mini

There was a prompt. It just installed itself anyway.

...violated state laws because it was [installed] even if users rejected a license agreement.

Samsung will start producing 16 gigabit Nand Flash chips this year...

Gartner estimates that 16GB Flash drives will cost from about $90...

Memory chips are measured in gigabits, or Gb, but consumer electronics manufacturers talk about how many gigabytes, or GB, are in their products. Eight gigabits make a gigabyte, so one 8Gb chip is the equivalent of 1GB.

Dec '06 is not the dead line any more. It's been pushed to Feb 2009.
http://news.com.com/House+approves+new+digital-TV+ deadline/2100-1025_3-6000804.html

The Sunbird/Calendar development team keeps a development weblog. Last updated 5 days ago. Oracle also has (as of May 2005, anyway) three employees working on the Lightning project.

I think the best part of Macworld so far, for me, we hearing that Apple's stock closed at $80.86 on the day they unveiled Intel Macs.

Check out the original Slashdot thread on GreenFuel from back in May, 2005. The news.com article link has changed.

News.com had a few followup articles as well here (about investing in clean tech) and here (about J. Craig Venter looking at bioengineering more effective microbes for doing this kind of stuff).

Check out the original Slashdot thread on GreenFuel from back in May, 2005. The news.com article link has changed.

News.com had a few followup articles as well here (about investing in clean tech) and here (about J. Craig Venter looking at bioengineering more effective microbes for doing this kind of stuff).

Check out the original Slashdot thread on GreenFuel from back in May, 2005. The news.com article link has changed.

News.com had a few followup articles as well here (about investing in clean tech) and here (about J. Craig Venter looking at bioengineering more effective microbes for doing this kind of stuff).

What is interesting to me is the number of new users to IM services fall for Bots that chat with them using a perl script or whatever. Now some of the worms using IM are chatting with the users first in order to work better:

http://news.com.com/New%20IM%20worm%20chats%20with %20intended%20victims/2100-7349_3-5984845.html

A patent on FAT doesn't really have much of a use for them now; at least none that I can think of. Just let the filesystem become an open standard now, MS.

I only wish that were true. The problem is that this is exactly the kind of thing that Microsoft has been after for quite a while. Now that it's everywhere, and it's something that every modern operating system has already implemented, Microsoft is going to go on a licensing spree. After all, they have already been talking about licensing it, long before anyone else considered the idea that the patents might actually be approved.

There are only a few possible ways that this can turn out good:

• Microsoft has a change of heart, and decides that the chance to utterly destroy all its competition and leverage a complete monopoly with Windows is not worth the price of temporarily finding itself villified in the eyes of the public. (Unlikely.)
• Some intrepid open-source developer(s) quickly cracks open the last few secrets of the NTFS file system, finally allowing the Linux kernel total interoperability with NTFS volumes. The open-source community rips out FAT support and relies more on NTFS volumes, fully expecting Microsoft to try to patent this file system too. In the meantime, additional research is performed either to try and create a more universal file system, or grant ext2 and ext3 more reliable interoperability with Windows and other operating systems. (Wishful thinking.)
• Microsoft does indeed go on a licensing spree and begins threatening the markets for all competing operating systems. Commercial OS's will fork over the money; open-source OS's like Linux, BSD, ReactOS, etc. will strip FAT support from their systems, disrupting their interoperability with Windows volumes and each other. The US economy takes such a hard hit from this scandal that the patents get overturned later. Or perhaps, this is the evidence that the free and open-source software advocates in the US need to finally demonstrate that software patents aren't just a hassle, but a genuine liability. (Hard to say.)

At any rate, I hope that I'm wrong, and that this is just excessive paranoia on my part. But with Microsoft in this position, I don't think we should rely on optimism and just say that this will all be fine.

Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

Or you can search for php vulns and worms like Santy... Some of the above are probably dupes.

Exactly as was predicted by knowledgeable people at the time: "Adding security to an existing, large insecure system will, in my judgment, prove an impossible task." Bill Joy

1. Intel is losing against AMD in both performance and OEM, even Dell is considering AMD. Intel will need something to keep OEM with Intel. Being able to offer OEM the Mac OS X would be a possible way to maintain OEM royalty.
2. Microsoft is losing the ground of driving the demand of more computing power. On the lower end, Linux is eating into the Microsoft market. Vista has a tough requirement; however, when Vista is shipped in 2007, that would be a mid-level configuration and Microsoft Office can't eat up any more CPUs. Hey, Mac version runs just fine in Rosetta on Intel Mac. On the other hand, iLife (photo, video and music) are going to drive the demand of raw CPU power; thus keep the demand for CPU to be progress at the speed of Moore's Law.
3. Steve Jobs. In the CES, Intel is clearly targeting at home entertainment as its future market of growth. However, Intel can't rally Hollywood studio behind it's proposal. Intel needs a Hollywood insider and Steve Jobs is a heavy weight Hollywood executive!
4. Intel needs a charismatic leaders. Few in Silicon Valley can fill Andy Grove's shoe. Come on, Paul Otellini? Jobs is up for the, well, job!

You know, you're right. But then again so is trolling as an AC, and that hasn't stopped anything around here.

Are some forms of discrimination unacceptable to you, or are you cool with all of them?

Do not waste your time on this. On this story comments you can see the lack of maturity in a majority of slashdoters. They do not want to see the real state of Google or any other companies. I am amazed at the level of stupidity people show just because someone told them that X company is "good" or "cool" then they should follow like sheeps.

Take for example, this comment:

So, it's not the companies that are doing anything wrong so much as the laws need to be changed. But those are very, very different things. Getting mad at Google for doing this would be akin to setting up a boardgame and getting mad if people follow the letter (if not spirit) of the rules.

So, this means, if it is Microsoft, SCO, SONY or any other "not good" company doing something to increase their profit then it is terrible! they are doing illegal things and they should be sued into oblivion.

But if it is Google or Apple or whatever other "good" company, then it is ok to do it, they are doing what they need to do as a public traded company.

It is stupid, the google "do no evil" moto is plain PR crap. Google do not care to be "evil" with their USERS because that would not help them on anything (until now). But if you see it from the side of its CUSTOMERS (the ones that buy the ad space) google is as bad ass
as any other company.

And now, that they are selling some service to the end USERS, they will start to screw them out until they get all their money.

Anyway, it is nice to see someone not idiotized with the Google halo, at the end, google is a company.

The problem is in the current capitalism model, as someone else said before, Google, Microsoft, Apple and all of them are companies, publicly shared, and they exist to make money. I remember a story called Nemesis from Isaac Asimov, in which he portraits an intelligent planet system that is composed of all the small microorganisms of the planet, each one of them acts autonomously but they all form a big mind.

This same phenomena happens with economic entities, you, me and everyone that works on them do our work, and we may even be good on our acts but the bigger entity, the "company" is what is evil by its own definition. So, when you join the acts of all the persons, the company gets its own "mind" and acts in an evil way.

Watch CNET video on Google's Video Store if you want to know more about the product. I don't recall DRM mentioned in details though. Be warned Larry is a really bad communicator.

Roll your eyes all you want but not all of us forget the past and curent practices of MS.
MS restrictions did not cover every piece of software and every licensee but it was a common practice and still would be today if it had not have been specifically restricted by the DOJ. Do you really think MS would have had a change of heart on their own?

Here is a clip from Computerworld

Microsoft today said that it built a clause into the recent licensing changes that forces PC makers to include the MSN icon alongside any third-party ones. Varma said that requirement was just an extension of a 6-year-old contract Microsoft's hardware partners are required to sign.

Another link here

The MSN icon issue referenced above was one that recieved the most attention but the licenses restricted the changes and software third parties could add.
The plans of preventing unwanted third party apps and icons was going full speed ahead until this:

Here is the actual ruling sent down from the district court regarding this issue, search or go to "C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:" in that page if you do not want to read the whole thing.

I guess you have not followed the issues in Europe with the bundling of MS Media Player and lack of choice by vendors either have you? Here are some links.

I wouldn't call landing a spot with EA the most awesome job.

How many companies do you call 'awesome' that have workers suing their employer?

Here is your chance to test a new law

Can I ask, shrub, why you insist on signing STUPID AND POINTLESS legislations, while other people are suffering 15 years of Identity theft? (And don't get me started on the no-fly blacklist)

Somebody get him out of the whitehouse, please.

Actually, many people feel prices won't be raised for some time due to recent antitrust investigations into digital music. Story here

I have to say that it doesn't seem out of character for the RIAA to just go ahead and demand higher prices despite the investigation. Personally I think it's rather obvious the RIAA is rolling in the dough, and even if antitrust practices are found the slap on the wrist they get will probably not even begin to make a dent in the money they made from inflated prices.

Actually, that Microsoft settlement was rejected at least some judges for some states:

• Cnet article
• Microsoft Monitor

At least some judge had some sense.

http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6021998.html
Apparently everyone missed the other article that states: "Also for $1.99, people will be able to rent, for 24 hours, recent episodes of popular TV series from CBS like "NCIS," "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" and "The Amazing Race," Chane said."

So the big shows are on a rental basis, not even a regular DRMed download.
I can either rent it for 24 hours, or buy it cheaper on DVD (or record on DVR/PC/VHS) and watch forever. Gee, I wonder what people will choose.

http://news.com.com/DivX+partners+with+Google+Vide o%2C+Pioneer/2100-1025_3-6022290.html?tag=nefd.top

DivX partners with Google Video, Pioneer
By Elinor Mills
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: January 6, 2006, 4:00 PM PST

LAS VEGAS--Video technology company DivX is partnering with Google to make Google Video accessible on a variety of consumer electronics devices, the companies announced Friday at the Consumer Electronics Show here.

The DivX video-codec video compression technology offers DVD quality at 10 times the compression of traditional MPEG2 files, enabling a full-length film to fit on one CD or eight films to fit on one DVD.

DivX also announced that Pioneer Electronics will introduce a new line of DivX-certified DVD players and recorders in the U.S. and JVC will introduce a new line of DivX Ultra-certified in-car DVD receivers in North America.

More than 50 million DivX-certified devices are on the market worldwide, San Diego-based DivX said.

In addition, DivX said Zoran's Vaddis processors are DivX certified and ADS Tech's DVD Xpress DX2 audio/video-capture device supports DivX digital video technology.

Further strengthening its ties to Hollywood, DivX announced that Christopher McGurk, former Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer chief operating officer, has joined the DivX board of directors.

Watch the keynote from CNET News.com. It looks like the videos from video.google.com.

Heh, Larry Page isn't a good speaker. :I

Click here to watch the 9 minutes and 8 seconds keynote.

From what I read Blu-Ray will require ~$30 in software royalties to support it. Considing many disros still don't bundle a JVM what would that mean for Linux? HD-DVD seems to be the more Linux friendly standard. I made some similar groundless speculations here.

Ok, First off I'll visit John McCain's website and let's see what cookies I get...
dum de dum dum...
looking for cookies from mccain.senate.gov ... hrmmm, none, not even a session cookie.
...looking for cookies from senate.gov domain (just in case they're being stored as wildcard cookies) ... nope none.

okay, now let's hop on over to the referenced article slamming John McCain's website for setting a cookie on CNET ...
Hrmmm....
Cookies for news.com.com...
Ok there's (counts) 1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 .. 5 .. 6 .. 7 ... 7 cookies for news.com.com. Let's have a look at them...

ok, two of them are session cookies, "team" and "isFlash7". Not sure what team is for, but isflash7 appears to be an indicator that i have flash 7 on my system (I wonder if I explicitly set that to 0 if CNET would stop serving me flash ads? Anyways, no need since I use Adblock).

There are three cookies that are numbers followed by _uu. They appear to be set for a duration of one year and appear to track which articles I've viewed on CNET. These are the *gasp, shock horror* "tracking cookies" (queue "dun dun duhhhhh" dark sounding music).

The other two cookies appear to be set for one month and are "whatshot" and "contextPane". They appear to be some sort of preference settings, but I don't ever recall telling them I want to see a graphical "what's hot" button or a large "Content Pane" right in the middle of the article I'm trying to read. I wonder if tweakign with these cookies might get rid of those?

To me this article stinks of the pot calling the kettle black, only there is no kettle. Either McCain's webmasters fixed the site to stop sending this cookie as soon as the article broke, or Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache (the writers of the CNET article) visited a page on his site that I didn't, or they're outright lieing. At any rate, they really should've checked thier own site before going on this rampage against McCain.

will tell you exactly what EACH and EVERY visitor to your site did, i.e. what pages they visited. The server logs tell all!

If that was true why would a multi million dollar company base its entire business on this rather large piece of code talking to their servers ?, read the code, dissasemble the functions, and imagine what kind of stats you could create with it when applied through a relational db

the server log will only tell you so much, in stats there is only 1 rule, get as much data as you can, in this case every single bit of client data the browser and user can give them

When they tried to demo Yahoo Go TV with the music and movie content, the screen showed an error message. "And we know whose software this runs on," Rosensweig quipped.

http://news.com.com/Yahoos+CES+demo+Mission+imposs ible/2100-1026_3-6021983.html?tag=nl

Comcast and TiVo has a deal that starts mid-2006 to market TiVo DVRs to Comcast customers.

http://news.com.com/TiVo,+Comcast+reach+DVR+deal/2 100-1041_3-5616961.html

Microsoft didn't mean for this to be released this week.

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+inadvertently+leaks+ WMF+patch/2100-1002_3-6018263.html?part=rss&tag=60 18263&subj=news

IBM is getting into the whole software as a service thing http://news.com.com/IBM+doubles+down+on+software+s ervices/2100-1014_3-5553386.html or http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/26/HNibmsof twareasservice_1.html which walks on Microsofts turf. IBM isnt all about open source and big mainframes anymore ... stuff like this squares them off as a direct competitor to where Microsoft wants to be in the near future.

This article http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/09/26/ibm-so ftware-investments-cz_qh_0926ibm.html states "In effect, giant IBM hopes this loosely allied swarm will overwhelm application offerings from the likes of Microsoft, Oracle and SAP. "This is about building out an ecosystem of partners to compete" ... IBM also figures watching the little guys is a good way to spot future trends early, he said..."

-everphilski-

So, has the IRS contacted you about the taxes you own on what the options were worth when they were given to you?

http://news.com.com/2100-1017-255818.html

link to $1.00 paycut. Turns out the chairman of the board did the same.
http://news.com.com/2100-1033-256405.html
-nB

I think Game Boys are illegal in Greece
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html

Unfortunately, the Gamecube hasn't been selling very well lately, so hopefully this makes up for that. I have a soft spot in my heart for Nintendo, who somehow seems less evil than Sony and Microsoft.

I didn't know that. I had always read/heard that Jobs got a tour at PARC and went back and incorporated what he saw.

Do you have a source for that? I can't find anything that says Applic licenesed anything from Xerox.

on the contrary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

In an odd twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. The Xerox case was dismissed on a technicality.

If Apple had licensed Xerox GUI ideas/designs/components, why did Xerox sue?

In fact:

http://news.com.com/5208-1016-0.html?forumID=1&thr eadID=6103&messageID=38010&start=-114

Apple licensed technology from Xerox and improved on it
Reader post by: Michael Louka
Posted on: April 15, 2005, 6:14 AM PDT
Story: An early peek at Longhorn

This is incorect, based on common myths about Apple and
Xerox, which are really unfair to the true innovators. Douglas
Englebart, Xerox, and Apple all contributed to the development
of the desktop GUI as we know it today, and each of them added
significant innovations

1) The concept of the mouse-controlled UI was NOT a Xerox
innvolation. It was conceived by Douglas Englebart much earlier
(see for example http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/
1968Demo.html)

2) Xerox produced the first (very expensive) commercial system
with a bitmap GUI display with pop-up menus that used a
windowing concept and some SmallTalk niceties (that the Mac
OS did not learn from), and a mouse to control it and do stuff
like selecting text (however the mac introduced direct
manipulation of such text).

3) Apple licensed the technology from Xerox. Yes, they actually
*paid* for it. Apple is commonly accused of stealing ideas from
Xerox (like many later accused Microsoft of stealing ideas from
Apple), but Apple licensed the technology from Xerox, and it
was knowingly demonstrated to Apple, so these repeated
accusations of stealling are very unfair, especially since those
that accuse apple of stealing the interface extend the interface
concept way beyond what Xerox had, to also encompass Apple's
own innvoations, which Apple should be credited for! See http:///
www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?
project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progre ss.txt&t
opic=Origins&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=med ium

4) Apple developed the desktop metaphor (The Mac Finder with
drag and drop manipulation of files and folder, the trash can,
etc.) that most modern systems use. This was not a part of the
Xerox design and was a significant innovation by Apple that
greatly enhanced the usability of computer systems. The Star did
not even have overlapping window, which were also a Mac first.

if you are interesting in computing history and the development
of the desktop GUI as we know it today see:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macin tosh&story=Busy_Being_Born.txt&topic=User%20Interf ace&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium

I realize this is a post on a user forum and hardly authoritative, but it was the best I could find on short notice to respond to the 'nitwit' belittlement.

What I find amazing about the group of C++ detractors as a whole is how rarely I comprehend the claims put forward about the vaguely defined desirable language ~C++.

I think "you don't pay for what you don't use" is a fundamental design flaw of the language.

What is the precise claim here? That the entire language niche of pay-as-you-play languages should have remained empty? That C++ was the wrong language to occupy this niche? That there is a finite set of everyone-pays-all-the-time features that could have been added to C++ without compromising the language's scope or applicability? That any two people asked to write down such a list would produce a non-empty intersection?

Pay-as-you-play enables compositionality: the very idea that libraries like Boost can exist and be 90% as effective as if those same features had been designed into the language. It's the 10% that Boost doesn't achieve that gets folded back into the core language.

One guy was ranting that the true test of cohones is what the designer removes from the language, while another long post was devoted to a laundry list of "how could this language not have all these kitchen sinks so late in the day?" Which is it? You can't have minimalism in all places all of the time. Minimalism to the compiler vendor is a different beast than minimalism to the end user.

Ada had generics in 1983. Yada yada yada. What do you get when you start with a clean slate in 1995?

Does it thrill Marc Andreessen?

http://news.com.com/Andreessen+PHP+succeeding+wher e+Java+isnt/2100-1012_3-5903187.html

"Java is much more programmer-friendly than C or C++, or was for a few years there until they made just as complicated. It's become arguably even harder to learn than C++," Andreessen said. And the mantle of simplicity is being passed on: "PHP is such is an easier environment to develop in than Java."

Does it thrill Miguel de Icaza?

http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,3902465 0,39129961,00.htm

The problem with J2EE really is that it became very, very academic and the complexity of all these perfectly designed systems in schools does not necessarily map when you have deadlines and all kinds of other things.

http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=cplus plus&seqNum=200&rl=1

When Java designers decided to disallow operator overloading, they cited C++ as an example of the inherent woes of this feature. As usual, they got it wrong, which is why operator overloading is slowly but surely creeping into Java just as generics recently did.

Does it thrill Sun insiders?

http://idevnews.com/CaseStudies.asp?ID=170

Peter Yared, former CTO for Sun J2EE app server unit says Java/J2EE may lose out to Open Source technologies in the future, as IT managers are architects get tired of the time and cost of building in Java.

The sad fact is that few of the C++ detractors out there could do any better than Java, and Java didn't hit its own sweet spot any better than C++ mapped to its own misbegotten design criteria.

To any company that is pushing machines out the door at a fairly steady rate (you don't have to be a Dell to do it) the OEM cost can drop as low as $10-$30.

Then why WindowsXP Starter Edition for the developing countries? WindowsXP Starter costs the OEMs about $25 (there were lots of reports on the cost when it came out, and it's only sold to OEMs) but XP Starter also only runs 3 applications at a time.

XP Home costs the big OEMs about $70-80/copy, while the Mom and Pop shops pay well over $100 (best buy sells it for $200 and Mom and Pop shops aren't likely to get much of a discount)

Of course, you could always go on the internet and buy a cheap copy of Windows XP from pirates--some are even listed on pricewatch--but then you might have trouble with the "Windows Genuine Advantage" program

This article has a little more info, including a projected price of $18.50/GB.

Considering that *most* computer sales are laptops

This is wrong. Most computer sales are desktops.

Hmm, I see what you mean.

Odd that, I thought the next gen core was EMT64 capable. I found some reference to it not being enabled to reduce power consumption in Yonah, not sure how true that is.

http://news.com.com/Intel+spills+beans+on+Yonah,+t he+next+notebook+chip/2100-1006_3-5729925.html

But I'd bet that if Apple wanted a 64 bit chip, they could have had it.