Slashdot Mirror

One can standardize the method while leaving open enough details to maintan obscurity.

In traditional ("real") security, yes, because there the security has the clear, definite goal of sperating the universe into two groups: those who have access to the information, and those who do not. Those who have the key/password/whatever can access this server, or decrypt this email, or whatever; those who can't, can't. WIth this aim, you can actually *use* cryptography, which is based on real, solid, one-way math; and since you are using math and not secrets to protect your stuff, you can use standards.

In "copy protection" (i.e. "use control"), however, this is not the case. Here, the person you are giving access to is the same person that you are attempting to limit. The "has access" and "does not have access" distinction is eliminated completely. The "shared secret" of the "key" that makes up the inherent obscurity part of any security is no longer something that is used to unlock the book; it is something that is used to limit when and how the book can be unlocked by a person who posesses a key. Your "enemy" is not some evil person who has intercepted your encrypted email; your enemy is the person who has purchased your product. Therefore, you cannot put the security into cryptography-style math, becuase if the person you have sold the product to can pay $25 to ANSI and get the copy of your "standard", they can see how you are preventing copying, remove the prevention, and copy all they like. In the end, security through obscurity of method is all you have, because obscuring the key is not an option-- you must give your enemy a copy of the key for them to be able to watch your dvd at all! And since the enemy has a key, all that is needed is for one of the enemy to reverse-engineer or figure out how their key works, and your copy protection scheme has become completely useless.

It is important to note here that most content-protection forms i have seen thus far-- most notably CSS-- are there with the "copy protection" aspect there not as the primary goal, but just as a side effect, with use limitations being the primary purpose. CSS is there not to prevent the copying of movies, but there so that nobody can build a nonliscensed DVD player-- meaning that nobody can build a DVD player without paying money to the dvd forum, and that all dvd players can conform to the exact demands of the dvd forum (like, nobody can watch THe Sixth Sense without watching a trailer first, or watch a japanese movie on an american player before the movie companies decide they're good and ready to release the japanese movie in america), meaning nobody can invoke fair use and use a dvd in a way inconsistent with the desires of the dvd forum. The "copy prevention" thing is there mostly as a smokescreen, and so using a legitimate open standard for dvd devices would not work here; a scheme which would restrict illegal & immoral redistribution without restricting who can build devices for the viewing of dvds would be unacceptable to the dvd forum.

Please note that i am referring only to the traditional, nefarious form of "copy protection", the one that is more accurately described as "use control". If by "copy protection" you mean some kind of watermarking/tracing scheme, then that is not what i refer to in the above paragraphs, and i have nothing in particular to say on that subject at this time.

-mcc
help me help me i'm in a windows computer lab and i miss applespell

lack of a sane backup mechanism? you can just copy the files around for backup...

No. You don't want your web site to turn away customers for 20 minutes every night just because your database doesn't support live replication.

And I know just the client to test it out on too.

Will that be Michael Eisner (head of Di$ney and responsible for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]), Hilary Rosen (head of RIAA), or Jack Valenti (head of MPAA)?

The tune is copyrighted. The copyrighted *lyrics* are:

Now, I'll have to sic AOL on Slashdot. AOL owns the copyright on Happy Birthday and will own it forever thanks to the Sonny Bono Act[?], which sets a dangerous precedent that every 20 years, Congress will pass a law extending copyright terms. And even the Supremes have a price.

The tune is copyrighted. The copyrighted *lyrics* are:

Now, I'll have to sic AOL on Slashdot. AOL owns the copyright on Happy Birthday and will own it forever thanks to the Sonny Bono Act[?], which sets a dangerous precedent that every 20 years, Congress will pass a law extending copyright terms. And even the Supremes have a price.

The owner of a small consulting firm I used to work for patented a method of software assembly using genetic algorithms about two decades ago

It'd be in the public domain by now. The term for the patent monopoly was 17 years after the patent is granted or 20 years after it's filed; those are about the same because it typically takes 3 years to approve a patent.

Just thank goodness Sonny Bono[?] never touched patents.

You mean that open source database MySQL pukes everytime it gets a little traffic?

Yes. And every once in a while, Slashdot and Everything really feel it. On the other hand, PostgreSQL (another free DBMS and the basis for Red Hat Database) supports proper ACID transactions and nested select statements and is known to lag quite a bit less in high-load situations.

<OT>
Also, the first seven initial caps on its web site spell "Pelt JTT" because he's a wooden actor.
</OT>

You only have to make the source available to the person you send the binaries.

And if Sony is releasing a DVD containing a Linux kernel and GNU operating environment, it is releasing binaries to everybody who buys the Linux kit, must release source code for all GPL covered software on that DVD, and must make it available for the cost of duplication + S&H to all persons who have received Sony's binaries (GNU GPL, section 3b). In fact, Sony included the source tarballs on the Linux DVD.

This, however, doesn't stop Sony from putting every single driver into proprietary kernel modules, which are treated as "mere aggregation"[?] under the GPL.

Yep. Between Paint Shop Pro for imaging and ABBYY FineReader for .PDF capture, I don't see how Adobe stays in business.

Full version Photoshop (designed for professional work) costs $600; Photoshop eLEments (designed for hobbyist and web use; lacks PANTONE support) costs only $100. GIMP and GIMP for Windows, on the other hand, compare to PSLE and Paint Shop Pro and cost only $2.50 from your friend with DSL for the blank CD, wear on the burner, bandwidth, and eir[0] time.

Kontour (the Illustrator replacement) just isn't that well known and doesn't run on Windows yet (although Cygwin+XFree86 could in theory run KDE), and I haven't seen any printers running a Ghostscript engine.

[0] 'eir' is a gender-neutral Spivak pronoun[?].

Bah, drugged out after a trip to the dentist. Me go home now.

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

OK, so how should "Microsoft" or "proprietary software" or "DMCA" or "RIAA" or "MPAA" be explained by OSSmartTags?

E2 nodes contain neutral, pro-individual, and even pro-business writeups. If you're not happy, register (only need name, email, and desired login/password, no personal information) and add your own. (If it's not well written, it will be voted down and deleted.) Here's how they'd look:

• Microsoft[?]
• proprietary software[?]
• DMCA[?] and the politics of copy protection[?]
• RIAA[?]
• MPAA[?] mostly talks about the ratings and doesn't even mention DeCSS[?]
• Napster[?]
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?]

That seems a bit like overkill. There is an Everything2 node on this subject with some simpler PHP code samples, including (full disclosure) one by me.

Scientologists destroyed it.

Apparently you've never had to write a parser for EDI, or any other binary data interchange format.

I'm not going to claim that XML is a magic bullet for data interchange -- but I will attest that human-readable data formats are superior to binary formats when it comes to data interchange. I have lost track of the number of custom parsers I've had to write over the last 15+ years in order to convert data from one system to another, simply because the systems in question didn't have a shared data format. The big wins for XML are that (1) you can visually inspect your before-and-after results, (2) you don't have to write the parser, even if you have to write code to call it, (3) there are actually two sensible APIs to match two very different ways to look at the data, each of which is parser independent, and best of all (4) if you don't have documentation for the schema (or it's misimplemented), you still have a prayer of interpreting the data correctly.

Anyone who's ever had to write an EDI application will *instantly* understand the appeal of XML.

Nothing has entered the public domain by its full term since 1920 or so.

The exact figure is 1923, thanks to a corrupt U.S. Congress that will do anything for a bit of campaign money, even pass a 20-year copyright term extension every 20 years.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=112673 9&lastnode_id=1037487 is where they really want to link that definition to. I think everything moved Code Red Worm to it's own node instead of making it a definition of Code Red.

We had this discussion already, in the TopText thread.

If you are going to claim that it is against copyright law to alter something you are viewing for your personal use, then you might as well just throw out fair use altogether.

I have the right to install software on my computer which alters content i view (assuming it is legal for me to view that content in some form) in any way i see fit. I have the right to take a content work i have purchased the right to read and insert advertising, or filter out advertising, or make every word a link to the word's respective node on everything2, or make the text 3 times as big (or have the computer read the text aloud) because i have poor eyesight, or replace the CSS with my own, or run a program on the text that uses complex heuristics to censor out anything that conflicts with scientology. I have the right to do these things by hand; i have the right to have a software program do these things for me; i have the right to create a software program and sell it to others to let others have my software program do those things for them. I can't necessarily turn around and sell other people the altered content, but i have the right to alter the content for personal use. Fair use makes this quite clear, and if you try to erase the parts of fair use that say that.. well, everything falls apart. You can't logically or legally draw a line between a program which randomly inserts advertising and a program which, say, renders HTML. Because Gator does its unethical magic within the computer, it's completely legal on copyright grounds.

This may still be illegal in terms of deceptive business practices-- i don't think ANYONE installing Snooz! (or whatever the hell that lame-ass bust-a-move ripoff with the faces is called.. i don't remember. it installs gator.) is aware that they are installing it, and those that are aware they installed something called "gator" probably think. (Making matters worse, people sometimes wind up accidentally installing Gator on public computers-- last year somehow Gator got installed on every computer in the school's computer labs (the security on the NT boxes was completely worthless), and nobody knew who did it, and so lots of 9th graders who don't understand computers got confused by this Gator thing they didn't install. That's not good, although it's the school's fault, not Gator's.). However, this is WHOLLY an issue of nefariously installing software the user doesn't want by preying on user ignorance or confusion. Copyright law does not come into play here.

That being said, i haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would want to install Gator. I hate that goddamn thing.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Tim+Berne rs-Lee

copyright lasts for (IIRC) 50 years from the death of the creator (although I have a funny feeling that it is longer now)

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?], passed under the same conditions as DMCA (double cover of Kosovo and Lewinsky, lots of corporate bribes, unaccountable voice vote), extended copyright to life + 71 for freelance works written after 1978 and 96 years for all other works. It pretty much amounts to welfare for GGM[?] companies.

US gov wanting to protect Micky Mouse

I'm not sure that's even possible anymore, as Mickey Mouse has fallen into PD because Disney screwed up the copyright notice on the first couple films with Mickey Mouse.

copyright lasts for (IIRC) 50 years from the death of the creator (although I have a funny feeling that it is longer now)

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?], passed under the same conditions as DMCA (double cover of Kosovo and Lewinsky, lots of corporate bribes, unaccountable voice vote), extended copyright to life + 71 for freelance works written after 1978 and 96 years for all other works. It pretty much amounts to welfare for GGM[?] companies.

US gov wanting to protect Micky Mouse

I'm not sure that's even possible anymore, as Mickey Mouse has fallen into PD because Disney screwed up the copyright notice on the first couple films with Mickey Mouse.

Keep extending the application as long as you can. This allows you to Extend the life of your patent. You can have an application in for 20 years but the clock doesn't start ticking until it's awarded ... This is now no more

New U.S. patents now expire 20 years after filing (instead of 17 years after they're granted) to prevent just this type of abuse. Our lawmakers aren't completely clueless.

grandfathered

This is what bugs me about another GGM[?] issue: copyright term extension. The Walt Disney Company was able to grandfather its old works into the new 96-year copyright terms when there was no good reason to except for greed, as extending the term of an existing work's monopoly does nothing "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." However, some doubts have been cast as to whether Mickey Mouse's likeness is under copyright at all because of an oversight in the copyright notices for the first two Mickey Mouse films.

See what gets used and invented in the industry during that time. Amend your patent to include these technologies.

Outright fraud. A patent application includes an affidavit to the effect: "I/we invented everything described in the claims." This type of fraud can get the applicant thrown in prison for the life of the patent.

Keep extending the application as long as you can. This allows you to Extend the life of your patent. You can have an application in for 20 years but the clock doesn't start ticking until it's awarded ... This is now no more

New U.S. patents now expire 20 years after filing (instead of 17 years after they're granted) to prevent just this type of abuse. Our lawmakers aren't completely clueless.

grandfathered

This is what bugs me about another GGM[?] issue: copyright term extension. The Walt Disney Company was able to grandfather its old works into the new 96-year copyright terms when there was no good reason to except for greed, as extending the term of an existing work's monopoly does nothing "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." However, some doubts have been cast as to whether Mickey Mouse's likeness is under copyright at all because of an oversight in the copyright notices for the first two Mickey Mouse films.

See what gets used and invented in the industry during that time. Amend your patent to include these technologies.

Outright fraud. A patent application includes an affidavit to the effect: "I/we invented everything described in the claims." This type of fraud can get the applicant thrown in prison for the life of the patent.

It says (at Nintendo's site): Are all Nintendo ROMS on the Internet Illegal?

The exact text of a listed question and answer:

"Does Nintendo Think Emulation Companies Promote Piracy? Why?" Yes. The only purpose of Nintendo video game emulators are to play illegal copied games from the Internet.

They are saying that pirating THEIR software is illegal, which, well, it is.

According to Nintendo's legal page, Nintendo is hiding behind a mask work[?] copyright on the semiconductor ROM chips that contain game software. A mask work copyright does not permit backups except for fair-use reverse engineering, which in the NES's case requires you to be familiar with 6502 assembly language. After the ten-year term of mask work copyright expires (thank goodness Sonny Bono[?] never got to this one), a piece of software on a semiconductor becomes the same as any other piece of software, subject to the full limitations on exclusive monopolies embodied in the fair use and backup exemptions.

See my Everything writeup on 'mask work' for more information and U.S. Code citations.

It says (at Nintendo's site): Are all Nintendo ROMS on the Internet Illegal?

The exact text of a listed question and answer:

"Does Nintendo Think Emulation Companies Promote Piracy? Why?" Yes. The only purpose of Nintendo video game emulators are to play illegal copied games from the Internet.

They are saying that pirating THEIR software is illegal, which, well, it is.

According to Nintendo's legal page, Nintendo is hiding behind a mask work[?] copyright on the semiconductor ROM chips that contain game software. A mask work copyright does not permit backups except for fair-use reverse engineering, which in the NES's case requires you to be familiar with 6502 assembly language. After the ten-year term of mask work copyright expires (thank goodness Sonny Bono[?] never got to this one), a piece of software on a semiconductor becomes the same as any other piece of software, subject to the full limitations on exclusive monopolies embodied in the fair use and backup exemptions.

See my Everything writeup on 'mask work' for more information and U.S. Code citations.

It says (at Nintendo's site): Are all Nintendo ROMS on the Internet Illegal?

The exact text of a listed question and answer:

"Does Nintendo Think Emulation Companies Promote Piracy? Why?" Yes. The only purpose of Nintendo video game emulators are to play illegal copied games from the Internet.

They are saying that pirating THEIR software is illegal, which, well, it is.

According to Nintendo's legal page, Nintendo is hiding behind a mask work[?] copyright on the semiconductor ROM chips that contain game software. A mask work copyright does not permit backups except for fair-use reverse engineering, which in the NES's case requires you to be familiar with 6502 assembly language. After the ten-year term of mask work copyright expires (thank goodness Sonny Bono[?] never got to this one), a piece of software on a semiconductor becomes the same as any other piece of software, subject to the full limitations on exclusive monopolies embodied in the fair use and backup exemptions.

See my Everything writeup on 'mask work' for more information and U.S. Code citations.

Is the AtheOS web site down? I'm not able to browse their site.

The damn Slashdot Effect. See third definition.

For us Americans...
A Telstra spokesman said today the link, laid "donkey's years ago", carried very little of the telco's network traffic before yesterday's cut.
This confused me, until I found the idiom.

(It wasn't here or here.)

--

Nope, I don't think that they should have a right to sue in that case, because it's the same thing. AIM is a strong trademark, given the installed base. Does that mean AOL should have the right to sue the Aim Recording Company

No. AIM isn't that strong. Such strengths are generally reserved for trademarks such as AMERICA ONLINE®, WARNER BROS.®, NINTENDO®, POKEMON®, MICROSOFT®, DISNEY®, STAR WARS®, and other marks along those lines where use of a trademark by a company in a related field would be considered endorsement of the new business by the existing TM owner. For example, Israel's Supreme Court overturned a registration for "BAKARDI" brand jeans because it was too similar to BACARDI® brand liquor. The Republic of China, based on the island Taiwan, also has a law about famous trademarks. And here's some information about the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which sets guidelines for protection of famous trademarks in the U.S.

But remember Tetrisgate? The Tetris Company was found not to have a copyright or patent on the game of falling tetraminoes but merely a trademark on TETRIS®; the cloners simply changed the names of their games, all of which had been clean-room from the start. Nevertheless, the findings didn't stop a quality control consulting firm based out of Edmonton, Alberta, from calling itself Tetris Management Group. Guess the TETRIS trademark isn't that strong in Canada.

Government-granted monopolies[?] are easiest to deal with when problems are solved before they escalate; that's why trademark law (unlike US copyright and patent law) requires TM owners to react in a speedy manner, that is, either license or sue would-be infringers.

Oh, and by the way, according to Lego^H^H^H^H Elgo Irrigation's web site, there was a recent name change.

Nope, I don't think that they should have a right to sue in that case, because it's the same thing. AIM is a strong trademark, given the installed base. Does that mean AOL should have the right to sue the Aim Recording Company

No. AIM isn't that strong. Such strengths are generally reserved for trademarks such as AMERICA ONLINE®, WARNER BROS.®, NINTENDO®, POKEMON®, MICROSOFT®, DISNEY®, STAR WARS®, and other marks along those lines where use of a trademark by a company in a related field would be considered endorsement of the new business by the existing TM owner. For example, Israel's Supreme Court overturned a registration for "BAKARDI" brand jeans because it was too similar to BACARDI® brand liquor. The Republic of China, based on the island Taiwan, also has a law about famous trademarks. And here's some information about the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which sets guidelines for protection of famous trademarks in the U.S.

But remember Tetrisgate? The Tetris Company was found not to have a copyright or patent on the game of falling tetraminoes but merely a trademark on TETRIS®; the cloners simply changed the names of their games, all of which had been clean-room from the start. Nevertheless, the findings didn't stop a quality control consulting firm based out of Edmonton, Alberta, from calling itself Tetris Management Group. Guess the TETRIS trademark isn't that strong in Canada.

Government-granted monopolies[?] are easiest to deal with when problems are solved before they escalate; that's why trademark law (unlike US copyright and patent law) requires TM owners to react in a speedy manner, that is, either license or sue would-be infringers.

Oh, and by the way, according to Lego^H^H^H^H Elgo Irrigation's web site, there was a recent name change.

You took up 2 precious minutes

Every minute we waste is another minute we spend evolving (or not). It is predicted that by the year 802,701, the human race will have evolved into something resembling Precious Moments figurines. We only have 800,700 years to make sure that the carnivorous ant people don't come down from space, enslave us, and eventually farm us for food.

You took up 2 precious minutes

Every minute we waste is another minute we spend evolving (or not). It is predicted that by the year 802,701, the human race will have evolved into something resembling Precious Moments figurines. We only have 800,700 years to make sure that the carnivorous ant people don't come down from space, enslave us, and eventually farm us for food.

You took up 2 precious minutes

Every minute we waste is another minute we spend evolving (or not). It is predicted that by the year 802,701, the human race will have evolved into something resembling Precious Moments figurines. We only have 800,700 years to make sure that the carnivorous ant people don't come down from space, enslave us, and eventually farm us for food.

The C Program implementing this algorithm has been noded on Everything 2.
--

Am I the only one who still sees "DDR RAM" and thinks "dance dance revolution random access memory?"

Am I the only one who still sees "DDR RAM" and thinks "RAM made in what used to be East Germany[?]"?

The referenced K5 article was hardly a "fabulous response." It was mainly a long stream of fanciful conjecture.

P.S.: Everything2, the only "free encyclopedia" I'm familiar with, is a great and wonderful thing, but there is plenty of room for things like it as well as things like Britannica. They really don't compete with each other.

----------

Encyclopedias are extremely expensive to write, and when you buy the great big paper edition you have to pay a fortune. I guess that the Internet edition was not developed without cost as well.
Britannica never said that they would keep the service free, did they? I seem to recall that they were saying that it would be free in the beginning, and after a few years they would either start charging, or live by income from advertisers (as most of you probably know, only a few sites are able to survive only with income from advertisers.)

I do not think that we will see a lot of free encyclopedias on the net, before we get some kind of open encyclopedia where the users post the information.
something like everything2.com. H2G2 has got some potential as well, but it is probably to humorous.

There is probably a lot more encyclopedia projects going on, but I can not seem to recall any of them.

The creator of the sound said that it contains a "massive amount of frequencies..." Shouldn't a sound like this be hard to reproduce effectively on computer speakers?

Easy way to generate white noise: cat /dev/random > /dev/audio (I forget the dd syntax used to generate short bursts). I can also do it easily from Cool Edit, and even an old NES console can do it through a 15-bit LFSR. Can you say "prior art"? I know you can.

Other noises include brown noise[?] (named after Brownian motion; integral of white noise; falls off at 6 dB per octave, that is, it contains an equal amount of amplitude in each octave) and pink noise[?] (named after Pink Floyd; sum of white noises bandpassed to octaves; falls off at 3 dB per octave, that is, it contains an equal amount of energy in each octave). It's also possible to make "in-between" noises using simple fractal methods; as falloff and fractal dimension are two ways of measuring the same thing, brown/pink/white noise becomes a mere special case.

The creator of the sound said that it contains a "massive amount of frequencies..." Shouldn't a sound like this be hard to reproduce effectively on computer speakers?

Easy way to generate white noise: cat /dev/random > /dev/audio (I forget the dd syntax used to generate short bursts). I can also do it easily from Cool Edit, and even an old NES console can do it through a 15-bit LFSR. Can you say "prior art"? I know you can.

Other noises include brown noise[?] (named after Brownian motion; integral of white noise; falls off at 6 dB per octave, that is, it contains an equal amount of amplitude in each octave) and pink noise[?] (named after Pink Floyd; sum of white noises bandpassed to octaves; falls off at 3 dB per octave, that is, it contains an equal amount of energy in each octave). It's also possible to make "in-between" noises using simple fractal methods; as falloff and fractal dimension are two ways of measuring the same thing, brown/pink/white noise becomes a mere special case.

There's more info on Object Pascal here on everything2

All those console players who thus far do not know the beauty of the One True Game will finally be enlightened!

-- Agthorr