Slashdot Mirror

I thought your "real language" is a rip-off of Java. Sounds like you should learn the *original* real language....

There is something called ISO 9241-9 - Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals - Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices. It covers mouse performance, and a metric called throughput (TP). Its validity is a matter of considerable debate. You can read the following technical report from IBM Research for much more information. There is also a recent article in the Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61:6, 2004 by the same author on the same topic.

DISCLOSURE: I work for IBM and these are my own views.

There is a product called Tivoli Storage Manager for Space Management that can really help you out in automating the migration to and from tape. Its available for most operating systems. Check it out at: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/st orage-mgr-space/

Your local IBM rep should be able to arrange a demo for you.

With LTO3 and a decent library, you can throw data around quite quickly and it works really well.

AMD promotes changing the design of data centers to increase airflow to keep the supercomputers cool."

While AMD is using more power to carry away heat, Intel on the other hand made Blade servers which simply use less power to have less heat to carry away.

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/intel-ba sed.html

The HS20 ultra low-power blade is a high-density blade server that features high-performance Intel® Xeon® dual-core processors.

Ideal applications include: Collaboration, Citrix, clusters and compute-centric applications.

Processor/Speed Intel Xeon 1.67- 2.00 GHz
Number of Processors 1 standard/2
Memory (Range) 512MB to 16GB
Disk (Range) 0GB -- 146GB

If IBM can do it[1], I'm sure Google and Yahoo can too.

[1] <http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/bcrs/sites/ste rling-forest.html>

We had a prototype of the device you are mentioning back in 2000, it was called the IBM Workpad z50 http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/documen t.do?sitestyle=lenovo&lndocid=BMOE-46XPTL. I have one. It runs WinCE 2.11. Using it's built-in compact flash adapter, and the upgrade to 48 Mb, it's possible to run NetBSD on it. http://www.tux.org/~bball/z50/ This could work.

You probably meant "why Linux will never succeed on the desktop". It's worth keeping in mind that Linux succeeded commercially a long time ago. IBM isn't backing Linux for fun.

Whether Linux ever succeeds on the desktop doesn't really have much to do with indivduals like the one you responded to. It has much more to do with whether large companies ever find a reason to promote desktop Linux and support it properly. For example, Walmart tried to use Linux to reduce their PC unit cost. The chances of something like that succeeding on a large scale grow better every day.

This thread got me thinking about upgrading my Thinkpad and I ended up finding some LILO/GRUB advice for configuring the 2nd HD adapter that fits in the expansion bay to work under the 2.4 kernel.

http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/documen t.do?sitestyle=lenovo&lndocid=MIGR-50366

Regardless of the utility of this specific information, I'd like to see more ~mainstream hardware companies standing behind Linux like this. In the meantime, I'll be ordering up a Thinkpad X60s tonight :)

I have several customers that now want more than my word about the security of the systems that have worked for them flawlessly for over 5-6 years now with minimal expense outside of upgrades and patching for security.

Try IBM,
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/opensource/
Download some of the report PDFs and send them to your clients.

This week I received calls from 4 different customers that they were warned that they are dangerously insecure because they run Open Source Operating systems or Software because 'anyone can read the code and hack you with ease' they are being told.

I'd have your sales rep call your clients and let them know that your company shares thier concern. At the same time remind them of SQL Slammer, Code Red, Melissa, Blaster, etc. Point out all the other companies using OSS products, Google, Wall Street, etc.

Of course I'm just a programmer, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
Enjoy,

First a disclaimer that I work for IBM. Similarly, my comments don't necessarily reflect that of my employer, etc, etc, etc...

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/developer /application/

I use it for all the coding work I do. It has a GUI building tool that only generates Java code. Its much better than the old visual age line of products that required separate files to manage the GUI construction. You can even edit most of the generated code manually without fear of no longer being able to use the GUI builder. It uses (Eclipse) as its base platform so other eclipse plugins can be added to the tool. It includes extensive tools for other web related development as well (DB definitions, EJB work, XML, etc...)

Granted, it's listed as ~$2k for 1 license, so its not for everyone, but you'd be hard pressed to find a java/web development function that it doesn't help you with.

Dan

I find IBM's AUIML to be an amazingly good solution. You can design the GUI with a visual tool and write code that runs in Swing as well as in a web server (as a web or portal application). Here's a link to AUIML page on AlphaWorks: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/auiml Download seems to be outdated at this time. Look for version 6.x if you want to give it a try.

There is a notes client for Linux (7.0.1), but it requires Domino 7.
read http://www-142.ibm.com/software/sw-lotus/products/ product4.nsf/wdocs/linux

An original IBM PC weighed 28 pounds with two floppy disk drives. A cell phone (err... mobile?) with a heavy gauge steel case would probably be pretty durable, but I wouldn't want to carry one around.

These guys IBM already are; Groklaw.

They seem to be coping well enough.

As a software engineer you should be able to think of a productivity increase. Otherwise you lack imagination.

Go and read Paul Graham's essay on Great Hackers as an inspiration
and then revise your statement.

Amazing Grace invented the compiler because she saw a limit of productivity imposed by machine language programming. Ever since, programming
languages and new programming doctrines have extended productivity probably hundreds of times and you say you can not think how to go on?

A recent example: some say Ruby on Rails cuts development times in Java by 90%.

I can not tell, wether this is true or not. But it makes clear, that in principle it could be true. Tenfold productivity may be just around the
corner.

Here's IBM's side of the story. Even with IBM writing the story you can see that IBM is basically claiming to own Amazon's business. I didn't read the actual patents (nor am I going to read them), so I can't tell you exactly what the claims are, but I wouldn't be surprised if any ecommerce site would infringe.

Now, if you happen to be the sort of person that happens to believe that IBM should own the concept of ecommerce whether or not they have written or sell code that is ecommerce related then I suppose we are going to have to simply agree to disagree. If not, then here's a little bit about the realities of software patents (and patents in general).

It is a common myth that software patents are commonly used to protect the "little guy" from the big guy. That is true in some cases, but only when the little guy doesn't actually write software. If you write software chances are really good that you are using one of IBM's patents without paying royalties. This means that IBM and most of the other large patent holders can do whatever they want, and if they happen to infringe on your patent and you take them to court they can simply bury you in patent lawsuits until you agree to settle your case and set up some sort of patent licensing deal (chances are good that you'll end up paying money).

These days companies are getting around this problem by simply not actually writing any software. This guarantees that they aren't infringing on anyone's patents. You can't force someone into a cross licensing deal that doesn't actually write software. These companies simply patent their ideas and wait for someone else to write the software. Once their patent is embedded in all sorts of software (say like IBM's ecommerce patents) they begin to go after companies that have actually written software.

IBM is a bit of a special case. It has so many patents that it can basically build a case against anyone. However, it also makes billions of dollars selling software, so it has to be careful and pick victims that don't have patents that it uses in its own software. That's the reason that IBM went after Amazon.com in this case. Amazon.com has patents, but it doesn't have any that IBM infringes on because IBM doesn't actually sell ecommerce software so it is relatively safe. Here's an article that talks about this.

I honestly doubt that you could find a single solitary example of a software patent suit that was "useful," and business method patents are worse. In the real world these types of patents simply don't work like they should. For the most part they are used by the large software development houses to keep the software development game an activity that only large, well-funded software houses can play. If you don't have the money to keep an army of lawyers busy creating patents then you are vulnerable to patent abuse. Even if you do hire the lawyers and obtain some patents these patents aren't going to help you if you actually write the software. If you write and sell software then you'll end up having little choice but to cross-license your patents (you'll probably pay a fee as well). That's why you hear so much in the news about companies that simply license their patents without actually writing software. These days its the only sane way to deal with the current patent regime. Unless, of course, you are IBM and have 40,000 patents already.

Excuse me if I think that a system that discourages companies from actually writing software is promoting innovation.

If the cost difference we're talking about here is simply the licensing/upgrading cost, it's worth noting that several of the popular "mega expensive" database platforms offer free (as in $0) versions - albeit with certain functionality removed.

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition
Only supports databases up to 4GB, and is lacking the built-in task scheduler, and most of the high-availability and business intelligence features, but is perfectly usable for small-to-mid-sized applications/web sites. Plus you can upgrade later to one of the fancier versions if necessary.

Oracle 10g Express Edition
I haven't had a chance to play with this yet, but it looks similar to SQL Server Express in terms of features and limitations.

IBM DB2 Express-C
I don't really know anything about this one. I just now found it in a fit of "I wonder..." The product comparison pages don't really say much about it, but they'll send it to you free on a DVD, so that's pretty neat.

Sybase ASE Express
Never used this one either. It seems to be only for Linux.

Though honestly, from what I've seen of Postgre, I'd almost think that one would be worth looking into more so than these for small systems. One of these days I'll get around to experimenting with it. The advantage with the Express Editions is, however, that you don't have such a nasty learning curve if you can just jump right in with a database platform you're familiar with from at work. Why else would I do something insane like running php + MS SQL Server? :)

Actually, if their goal really is quantum computing, the spin of atomic nuclei would have been a better bet than electron spin. The atomic nucleus is one of the best-isolated quantum mechanical systems known, and it usually takes a very long time for decoherence and similar behavior to destroy any superposition of spin states that you create (an absolute necessity for any type of useful quantum computation). The most promising methods to date (such as this and this) for quantum computation are largely based on nuclear spin. Electron spin superpositions are not only hard to create but they succumb to decoherence very quickly, making them difficult to use.

Since electrons are like photons and they are waves at small scales, it's more about these little probability eddies or whirlpools where the electrons hang out more.

Now, while even people who are experts in the field of quantum mechanics are at a loss to explain what the spin of a quantum particle actually is, this explanation you give is about as far from the phenomenology of spin as it gets. It has nothing to do whatever with "probability eddies" where "electrons hang out more", but is an intrinsic property of the electron or whatever other quantum particle (note that it isn't only electrons that have this property, as you seem to think: almost everything appears to have it). If you put a charged particle such as an electron inside a nonuniform magnetic field (e.g. inside a Stern-Gerlach apparatus), for example, it will have only two possible values for its magnetic moment thanks to this intrinsic spin, and hence the electron would be deflected by the field in only two possible directions.

Actually, they're not

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/librar y/pa-cell/

To get a glimpse of what you have to look forward to when you install Linux on your PS3:

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/cell/d ocs_documentation.html

Best option is getting the $499 20gig model and buying a 100+ gig drive to upgrade the machine. The PS3 will partition the disk for you right from a menu and then you just follow the instructions they give you for the distro of your choice. People who just got their machines this morning already have things going and are posting pictures and results.

There is a full set of all the normal Linux dev tools that you get with any distro but there also is the Cell devkit - which you can get right now to check out although you won't be able to run anything of course.

Cell programming is incredibly cool...

Especially considering that the library people who are supposed to be teaching them are all idiots. We had to do that in my sophomore year in high school, and our librarian taught us such useful things as "Google uses boolean search terms" and "The internet is never reliable".

Where is the problem exactly ?
Especially since you can install these binaries in any Linux distros, just by creating a custom package. Just like some distros did for firefox binaries. This doesn't make the OS closed at all.

Try installing ClearCase on anything other than RedHat or SUSE. Things may have improved in the last few months, but SUSE only received official support just over a year ago. Prior to that, it was RedHat only. If you were/are a Debian user, you were essentially SOL.

Linux distros can, in fact, be marginalized by precisely the kind of half-baked support Microsoft plans.

Schwab

Depending on the drop, yes it is. The physical parts of a hard drive do not like being banged around and with all the parts of the laptop being so tightly packed, it doesn't take a lot to give a drive a lot of shock, especially if it is spinning. It was because of this that companies (I think IBM, now Lenovo, Thinkpads were among the first) to provide systems to protect drives by attempting to detect the impending fall and stopping the drive the drive from spinning.

IANAP, but when I studied some basic quantum theory, I thought that one of the issues that arose in the EPR/Bell research was that in order for entanglement to be valid, it could not be used to transmit information, except via quantum teleportation, which has strong limitations due to being a classical information channel. Does anyone care to clarify for me?

I think I found the source survey that is the grist for the initial blog entry by Dana Blankenhorn, "The war is over and Linux won." The survey is available from www.ibm.com/linux/opensource/ (right column link).

It seems the survey population would certainly have some bias. Participants were people who had signed up for IBM Linux/open source newsletters. To IBM's or the survey company's credit, they clearly the describe the survey parameters in the 1st paragraph of the article. To quote from the article:

"In September 2006, IBM sponsored a survey of readers of its Open Source & LinuxLine newsletter to gauge the levels of adoption, planning, and platforms for Linux and other open-source software. The survey was conducted by Unisphere Research via e-mail notification, which directed participants to a Web-based survey instrument. A total of 434 anonymous responses were collected by the survey deadline."

The survey itself contains some interesting bits, but I would be reluctant to directly extrapolate from the survey population to the overall market. That said, I think the up-front disclosure of methods in the actual survey negates any FUD charge. I chalk it up to Linux/open source exuberence by the blog author.

At least i found the number one: http://www.research.ibm.com/atomic/nano/roomtemp.h tml

I wonder how much faster the Intel versions will be in comparison to the G5s...

Look at #20; it's almost identical to an Intel Xserve.

If anybody's curious, here's Barcelona Supercomputing Center's brief description of their system: MareNostrum System Architecture

MareNostrum uses 2560 IBM BladeCenter JS21 blades.

link

Many computer programmers are accomplished musicians; it's the rare software company that can't put together a decent house band. However, many programmer/musicians might be unaware of an interesting area in which their vocations and avocations intersect: algorithmic music composition. Algorithmic music composition is the application of a rigid, well-defined algorithm to the process of composing music. Cellular automata (CAs) -- a class of mathematical structures that evolve over time -- present an intriguing avenue for algorithmic music composition. Computers are ideal for computing the evolutions of a cellular automaton (CA) and displaying them graphically. You can also represent the evolutions with sound, including music. But finding techniques of mapping CA evolutions into pleasing and interesting music is a highly nontrivial problem. This article presents some techniques for doing CA-based musical composition in the Java language and explores specific mappings that yield especially good results.

GeForce 8: 128 Stream Processors
Sparc T1: 8 Cores w/4 threads (Maximum thoroughput: 32 simultaneous processes)
16 Core POWER5
Cell Processor: 1 Primary + 8 Sub-Processors

Intel Promises 80 cores

We're at a LOT more than "four".

Enterprise Single Sign-On is what you're after. It's long been the holy grail of enterprise security vendors, and it's still not quite perfect...but the Tivoli solution's Kiosk Adapter integrates with extended authentication mechanisms from many vendors (smartcards, biometrics, etc), doesn't require a GINA replacement, and provides fast user switching in domain environments. You can also define session lockout and shutdown behavior on a per-application basis.


Disclaimer: Yes, I work for IBM/Tivoli...take that as you will. While that means I know what our solutions are capable of, it also means I have an interest in their success. But I'm an SE, so don't ask me about costs... ;)

With the progress of multi-core CPU's, especially looking at the AMD / ATI deal, PC's are moving towards a single 'super chip' that will do everything while phasing out the use of a truly separate graphics system.

Not really...

PC's run multiple processes that have unpredictable branching - like network protocol stacks, device drivers and word processors and plug'n'play devices. More CPU cores help to spread the load. For the desktop windows system, 3D functionality was simply a bolt-on to the windows system through a separate API, now it is integral to the windows system. However, the new multi-core CPU's will still have the graphics processing logic.

In the past, supercomputers were either built from custom ASIC's or simply from a large number of CPU's networked together into a particular topology .

GPU's now support both floating-point textures and downloadable shading programs that are executed in parallel, Combining these two features together, gives the GPU all the functionality of a supercomputer.
Although up until now, the GPU has only supported 16-bit floating point precision rather than the 32-bit or 64-bit precision that traditional supercomputing applications such as FFT or computational fluid dynamics have required.

And since these applications are purely mathematical equations with no conditional branching within the innermost loops, these are well suited to being ported onto the GPU. The only limitation has been that GPU's couldn't form scalable architectures - at least until SLI came along. So, you've basically got supercomputing performance on a board. This fits into the scalable architecture of a supercomputer .

why not just buy a laptop with a Linux distro(suse 10.1) pre-installed, configed AND supported by vendor?

I would like to lay out the fundamental argument against the use of computers anywhere in the chain of voting to vote counting. I don't take this from a luddite stance, but from a Information Theoretic stance. In Computer Science, we study what can and cannot be computed. We have found many limits in what computers can do. Unknown to most people, but there is no such thing as "verifying" a computer program. No process can detect all possible outputs from any sufficiently large computational system. Computer Scientists know this from very clever and fundamental arguments about how computation happens.

In "An Undetectable Computer Virus" David Chess and Steven White show that you can always create a vote changing program (called virus there) that no "verification software" can ever detect. They do this by a very clever argument which you can pursue in that paper, but the important thing to realize is that their results are not in doubt. You also should know that these arguments apply to every computer system that can ever be created. Therefore, if you use a computer anywhere in the vote counting process, you cannot be certain of the result.

I would like to point out that as much as I personally like open source software, it too falls victim to this very same argument. No computer is immune. No computer that ever will be constructed is immune. It is as impossible as traveling faster than the speed of light. Every computer system invented or YET TO BE INVENTED has this flaw. It can never work.

So, given that we can logically deduce that we can never trust computer voting, we are left with hand counting. We can use computers to double check our mathematics, but the marks should be on paper, counted by hand, tallied by hand, and only then added to a computer. It will be a chore, but it is the chore of representative rule.

Check the paper out at:
http://www.research.ibm.com/antivirus/SciPapers/VB 2000DC.htm

I'm going to take a few seconds to lay out the math side of the argument really quick. I'll try to write it for a layman audience. This is how we know we can never make a perfect "verified voting software" system.

Let us say that we have a program called BadVoteCheck. When you run BadVoteCheck, you input a "system" (Like for example Diebold voting code, or any other code you want to test) for BadVoteCheck to test. BadVoteCheck will only return true if the "system" (like a Diebold system) rigs a vote.

So we have

BadVoteCheck(System): This is our program that takes in voting software and checks it. It returns TRUE if we have software that doesn't count votes correctly.

System: This is the particular system we want to test.

BadVoteCheck(Diebold_Gems_old_version) should return TRUE because there was a way to hack the memory cards. I hope everyone can understand this. We are making a system to TEST for "Voting Accuracy".

Now here is the magic... I'm going to make a new program SneakyVoteChanger that works as follows

SneakyVoteChanger is

If BadVoteCheck(SneakyVoteChanger) then exit the program.
Otherwise fake_the_vote

So we run BadVoteCheck on this new program to see if it can "fake the vote" or change votes. However, doing this puts us into a bind.

If BadVoteCheck(SneakyVoteChanger) returns TRUE, this means that SneakyVoteChanger is a "bad voting program". However, if this does returns true then the SneakyVoteChanger program says "exit the program." Exiting the program is certainly not faking the vote. So then BadVoteCheck is not perfect this way, it makes mistakes.

Lets say BadVoteCheck(SneakyVoteChanger) returns FALSE. Then the SneakyVoteChanger says to "fake_the_vote". So BadVoteCheck isn't perfect on this side either. It doesn't get the right answer either way.

Obviously, we have covered both values for BadVoteCheck so the problem has to be in our assumption that we can create a BadVoteCheck. It is a contradicti

This pilot project is part of the Information Technology for Analysis and Intelligent Design for E-government (ITAIDE) research project funded by the European Commission, in an effort to help reduce security concerns and tax fraud. Implementing the European objectives of Single-Window Access Points (SWA) and Authorized Economic Operators (AEO), this project is expected to lead to significant reductions in the administrative burden and hence a reduction in costs.

IBM also has one of the largest patent portfolios ever assembled. Right now, somewhere in Redmond, a Microsoft programmer is infringing on IBM patents. If MS wants to play rough, IBM will play rough. Here's a couple articles on IBM, open source, and patents:

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/191 01.wss
http://news.com.com/IBM+offers+500+patents+for+ope n-source+use/2100-7344_3-5524680.html

Probably because MS has enough money to slap them back with a legal team worth more than RIM's settlement itself.

Yep, it is called QBIC--query by image content. The web site points to another web site or two that use QBIC for retrieving images from a collection.

Facial recognition is one thing, but if you just want to try to categorize your current collection you might try imgSeek, which is a pretty cool program. Keep in mind that no one has really yet hit upon a great general purpose algorithm for finding matches to images or query by content. There is a large subjective component in categorizing images. If an image is mostly monochromatic blue and it's a picture of a boat, does it get classified as a boat or does it get lumped in with other predominantly blue images? How do you decide whether something is more blue than it is a boat? I suppose at that point a human has to step in to say "I'm really interested in the shape of the object more than I am the color right now."

Doesn't Sun with Solaris and Java qualify as "the world's biggest listed open source software business"

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource

KFG

Actually, I think you could write a DCOP script to fix Konqueror in this case, and browse it away to a site of your choice. See:

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/librar y/l-dcop/index.html?ca=dgr-lnxw12ConnectKDE

(though I'm not currently at my KDE box to see if this works when a modal dialogue is open)

or PowerPC 750CL can do 4 instructions per cycle? http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/t echdocs/2F33B5691BBB8769872571D10065F7D5/$file/ppc 750cl_ds_dd20_5oct06.pdf

i mean specs data tell that it "Fetches four instructions per clock".

afaik,Gekko only fetches two

When John Milan says "the days of purely desktop-based applications are clearly numbered, but so are the days of exclusively web-based apps" - he is absolutely correct, but not for the reasons given.

The writing is on the wall people -- we're already seeing a demand for hybrid applications.

Example from my work area -- online education:

Teachers publish their course materials online, create online tests, grade assignments, lead discussion forums online. So far, so good. Now they want ways work on their materials offline, superior editing tools, vastly improved performance, the ability to save materials off the server, and significantly improved control of the student's test taking environment.

A web-only application cannot provide (all) of this. Conversely, developing a pure client-server application throws away the marvelous (and growing) cross-platform infrastructure (HTML, Javascript, Flash) provided by IE and Firefox, the ability to access the course from any computer with a browser, and an internet connection and default data synchronization with a highly accessible server (i.e. you don't have to "sync" gmail - it does it for you).

One potential answer as well as upcoming buzzphrase is the "offline client", and companies such as IBM and Adobe are taking this seriously.

There of course are questions about who's going to implement the most successful online/offline application suites and development environments. But I it's good bet that -- within the next 15 years -- anyone who builds an application without both significant functionality on the browser side *and* a featureful offline client will be in the same boat of someone trying to build an GUI-less application today.

As Miller says, it would be foolish for Microsoft and Google not to try to capitalize on this trend. Look for Microsoft Studio 2010 to tout its "offline client wizard" capabilities.

Check this site: Linux Success Stories
This book is free, and it rocks: Linux Client Migration Cookbook

The product mentioned in TFA is all about controlling your computer and your data and keeping unauthorised people from abusing it. What kind of crack is the parent smoking?!

The "crack" he is smoking is that he appears to be well informed on the subject, and was almost certainly aware of certain information and facts that did not appear in the TFA.

TFA is essentially a corporate press release, and of course they don't dicuss DRM, and they spin the hell out of it to advertize it as a Good Thing for you. A perceptive reader could have picked up on that fact when the article said:

"Seagate said it has already implemented the technology into one of its drives for laptops and another for digital video recorders. "

Yes... digital video recorders... because of course customers like you and I have been in desperate need of strong cryptographic locking to protect our recording of American Idol when someone steals the harddrive out of our DVR while leaving the DVR unit itself behind.

This Segate DriveTrust system is in fact designed for DRM and it is in fact designed as a component of Trusted Computing, to secure computers against their owners.

Just because a product/technolofy (and the story about it) story does not mention DRM or Trusted Computing does not mean that it is not actually a Trusted Computing DRM system. Companies know that people do not like or want DRM, and that they do not like or want Trusted Computing, and that their products will receive hatred and very bad press from some people if they know about that, so they bury the DRM / Trusted Computing aspect and hype the hell out of the supposedly pro-consumer angles and they abuse the hell out of the word "security. They use the word "security" in a sense that actually means securing the product against the owner, and rely on the fact that people assume that the word "security" is a positive thing for their benefit.

Every two weeks or so, I spot exactly this situation with some product or technology story running on Slashdot. A story on something that covertly incorporates Trusted Computing, and the story completely misses that aspect. In fact I last caught this just 10 days ago in the Networking For Overconvenience story. The story made it sound like it was about fairly boring ordinary pro-consumer networking for home appliances. But as I posted here, I located the technical PDF on it specifying the securit chip and the encryption to be secure against the owner.

The anti-consumer anti-owner Trusted Computing is proceeding full speed ahead. The primary plan to sucessfully deploy Trusted Computing is to do it by stealth to avoid criticism, backlash, and consumer rejection. Countless products and projects are going Trusted Computing based, and burying that fact in obscure technical specification documents and without using the words "Trusted Computing".

It's not paranoia or a tinfoil hat consiracy theory when there is an industry consortium involving hundreds of companies OPENLY dedicated to it. It's not paranoia or a tinfoil hat consiracy theory when the technical specification documents for various products and projects include it. It's not paranoia or a tinfoil hat consiracy theory when Intel and AMD and the new Cell Processor all publically document the fact that they are introducing CPU support for it. It's not paranoia or a tinfoil hat consiracy theory when IBM runs

IBM has just release something similar for their high end tape drive products, check out http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/enewscast/da ta_encryption/. I know that on their offering the encryption is done by hardware on the drive itself, is the Seagate hard drive similar in this regard?

Alternatively you could use IBM's DB2 Express - only limit 4GB RAM!!! addressable. DB size is not limited!!!!
IBM DB2 Express C

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/x/rack/x3755/index.h tml

Maximum of 32 DIMMs. With 4GB each.

It would have been cheaper for Amazon to just license the patents.

It would have been cheaper for Amazon to just license the patents.

It would have been cheaper for Amazon to just license the patents.