Slashdot Mirror

There's a copy-protection scheme called Macrovision which prevents recording onto VHS by messing with the automatic gain. Not all disks have it. It too can be defeated, either by disabling in hardware or software the code which turns it on, or by using a device which cleans the signal.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that "Macrovision" is listed on some DVDs (eg., Australian/Region 4 "Dark City") as a feature alongside widescreen and digital sound? The writing is pretty small but I think it says something like "Protecting your image" underneath "MACROVISION". Very strange.

The Macrovision protection system is part of a really good article published about the details of DVDs:

The dynamic digital disk (IEEE Spectrum, October 1999, pp. 28-35)

Oops - are the IEEE now a defendant?

would argue that their innovation, in spite of the "support" of Bell Labs, was not inevitable

I think this account is rather at odds with the accepted history.

Bell Labs 1946 in fact had a department doing development work on the solid state physics of semi-conductors because of the known deficiencies with existing switches - especially switching speeds. The expected need for improvements to support the anticipated growth in the field of telecommunications was a powerful incentive. One of the official targets of this group was in fact the solid state amplifier - the equivalent to Lee DeForest's vacuum triode.

Solid state diodes and rectifiers had been use for a long time at this point, so the utility of semiconductors was well known when this effort started. In particular p-n junctions had been used in radio detectors for many years. Russell Ohl, working at Bell Labs had over the previous years worked out much of the solid state theory of p-n junctions.

The war effort to perfect RADAR had a major impact in developing knowledge of the performance of solid state materials in electronics applications. In fact some workers in the field felt that studies of the performance of crystal detectors, particularly purity effects, used in RADAR made the step to the transitor quite straitforward. There is a history of this point here.

The theory of the transistor effect had been worked out as early as 1925 by J.E. Lillenfield - although several attempts to build the device he predicted had failed.

The main contribution of Shockley Bardeen and Brattain was in fact to work out what materials were needed to make Lillenfield's theory work. Certainly not trivial, but I think quite inevetable.

There is another, less frequently cited theory that Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain were using materials recovered from an 'incident' at Roswell New Mexico, but I think I will leave this to the cold fusion and hydion crowd to discuss.

Anyone ever heard of metadata? Instead of indexing every word in a document we should be capturing accurate, relevant metadata about it and facilitating the searching of that. As non-text content increases (like mp3s, videos, images, audio streams, animations, etc.) on the internet, the need for a new search paradigm increases as well. Of course there's the the Dublin Core, but much more interesting to me is the IEEE LTSC's work. Their metadata standard, currently at version 3.8, is very close to being finalized. In addition to providing general fields, it also includes some that supposedly facilitate the instructional use of the object of the metadata.

This may be slightly off topic but, the 802.11 WLAN Working Group is currently starting work on enhancements to privacy and authentication for the 802.11 wireless LAN. The impetus for the work is specifically because the current, weak, 40-bit encryption used in the standard is unacceptable to nearly all corporate users. If you would like to submit a proposal, send an email to the chairman, Vic Hayes for more information.

This may be slightly off topic but, the 802.11 WLAN Working Group is currently starting work on enhancements to privacy and authentication for the 802.11 wireless LAN. The impetus for the work is specifically because the current, weak, 40-bit encryption used in the standard is unacceptable to nearly all corporate users. If you would like to submit a proposal, send an email to the chairman, Vic Hayes for more information.

Geez! The url should be the 802.16 working group.

This technology uses the MMDS spectrum, which is licensed spectrum. In general, thelicense holder will have sole use of the spectrum in the license area. License areas are usually metropolitan areas. The only queer areas are where two or more licensed metro areas abut. There is currently work going on in the 802.16 Working Group on broadband wireless access to define sharing etiquette at these boundaries.

Check out Circuit Cellar if you like the hardware side of computing magazines.

This is the only non-IEEE magazine I subscribe to. Everything else I pick off the bookstore shelf, as I see fit.

For the IEEE's (Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineering) appraisal of the Y2K situation, check here. Basically, it says that there's nothing serious to worry about, and since they're the authorities on this type of thing, I think I'll trust 'em.

bp

In general, I'd say it's a good idea. I found a link (http://www.ieee.org/organizations/eab/pelicens.ht ml) on the IEEE web site with some good reasonings for it...

Take a look at that. Maybe even e-mail some people there and get more information. If you're NOT in IEEE, I'd strongly recommend you join. GOOD networking available that way for career advancement. (not to mention, auto insurance companies give major discounts to members of Professional Societies. :)

Good luck out there!

-Ken

The IEEE policy on patents allows them to be used in IEEE standards if the patents are licensed at a reasonable rate and without discrimination.

The IEEE has a set of ethics for its members to follow. There's nothing really ground breaking here just some common sense, but it does exist. Some of these you read and go, yeah, if I was building a bridge or a nuclear power plant then I'd follow all these, but they all directly apply to the "Software Engineer" (to Engineers this term is about as enjoyable as Floral Engineer ;) ) too, even to me, and all I do is write games.

the only problem is the industry at large ignores them, and it's unlikely that anything short of legislative intervention will change that...

You can get jobs working for people you never meet, and who don't even live in the same country as you.

I realize that this is possible, however, it is a very tiny exception to a very prevalent practice.

I have neither a high school nor college degree and I haven't had any problem.

Good for you. I suspect you got an early break in being able to demonstrate your competance without being "properly" credentialed, and after that employers looked at your experience instead of your (lack of) academics? I know a number of people who have gotten started in computers this way.

But, there are still a large number of employers (rightly or wrongly) who care about high school and college credentials. Enough to make this a real barrier.

Where I live (St. Louis), the inner city public schools spend more money per pupil ... [blame inner city school failure on students]

Reasons for why inner-city schools are awful, in spite of huge sums of money sunk into them, are more than I have time to write (and no doubt vary from city to city somewhat). But "blame the students, they get the education they deserve" is simplistic, to say the least.

As far as the attrition rate of blacks in technical colleges, do you think it is a possibility that this may be in part to the fact that blacks who were not academically prepared were admitted into these programs in the name of diversity? We'll find out, in many places (California for example), students are being admitted to programs solely on the basis of academic merit. I would suspect that the attrition rate of blacks under these circumstances would be much lower.

Again, this is "blame the student," and again, I think that to make this the answer is to miss what's going on.

The IEEE has actually done some studies on this issue. If I remember correctly, their studies show that the dropout of black engineering students did not correlate with test scores or "affirmative action" admissions. Which would invalidate the theory that black attrition at the college level is due to admission policy. If you actually care about this, you might want to look into that research. If you just want to use it as an excuse to bash admission policies that try to take into account the atrociousness of the previously-mentioned schools, then don't let me confuse you with facts.

Where I go to school the race distribution in programming courses is often 50% asian. Don't know how this qualifies as a white thing.

I know that, and you know that (this is a weakness with the Katz article and the cited work, it does not deal with large non-white, non-black IT worker population). But would you have known this before you went to your school? I wouldn't have. With the possible exception of Charles Wang, when was the last time you saw a computer person in the media who wasn't some white guy?

There is, unfortunately, a perception that some blacks hold, that education is a "white thing", leading to peer pressure against academic excellance. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to wonder if this (incorrect) perception extends to computing.

I would argue that certain professions require lesser formal qualifications then others. Of course you might be able to name handfuls of people who've "beaten" the system but overall formal qualifications provide a particular form of guarantee.

Organizations like the IEEE are there to ensure standards within the profession. Note for example the IEEE's code of ethics. Point number one says:

"to accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;"

Many people who call themselves "software engineers" are not bounded by such regulations? You may ask why, and the simple reason is that there exist no such organizations for software engineers to protect their formal status.

Even a lowly qualified electrician is required to undertake formal courses and to follow and obey government regulated guidelines and if not is liable to prosecution. Why then are so called software engineers (again I stress those working on mission critical applications) without qualifications allowed a free hold?

I see too many people haphazardly using the term "engineer" without ever thinking about the responsibility. I've heard that in Japan you have to work at least five years in the engineering profession after completing your degree before you can formally call yourself an "engineer" (can anyone in Japan confirm this?).

To soften your dictionary definition, Merriam-Webster also defines "engineer" as: "a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering." But who cares about dictionary definitions. At the end of the day we're talking about responsibility. If you're employing someone wouldn't you feel safer employing a qualified person bounded by regulations such as IEEEs? Or would you employ any cowboy who lists "engineer" as their profession?

Maybe we see things differently outside the US, where education is mostly cheaper (or free) and undergoing a 3-4 year university degree is not as hard on the pocket.

Us SysAdmin types already have a trade organization in the form of SAGE, the System Administrators Guild, a part of USENIX. I think forming a SAGE lobbying group and/or PAC (political action commitee) would be one way to go. Of course we need a good portion of the SysAdmins out there to join and support us... It probably wouldn't hurt to have IEEE and ACM start PACs representing their members as well. I'm just surprised that all of these trade organizations were ignored by Katz *and* the Slashdot readership. I only saw one post mention the ACM! Wow.

Here is the actual article, right on the IEEE site... :)

http://www.spectrum. ieee.org/spectrum/may99/features/work.html

-r

note: this isnt a personal attack to you =)
I'm glad you threw in that caveat.
I'm not going to respond to your mischaracterization of my leadership style here, as it's off-topic (but feel free to email me if you do want to discuss it).
I need to clarify that I don't necessarily think parents unplugging computers is the right approach, but rather that I firmly believe it is the parents' right and obligation to raise their children as they see fit. When I talk of "productive members of society," I'm talking about people who contribute to the general welfare (in any capacity), or at the very least, do not cause harm.
Christopher A. Bohn