Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Brainwaves, MPnothin', Telescopy
They felt your unvoiced contempt. perl-guy writes "According to a recent NASA press release, reports such as those in this Slashdot story stating that NASA is planning to develop mind-reading equipment for airports in efforts against terrorism are exaggerated and ignore the facts and science behind current research. 'NASA does not have the capability to read minds, nor are we suggesting that would be done,' said Robert Pearce, Director, NASA's Strategy and Analysis Division in the Office of Aerospace Technology in Washington. 'Our scientists were asked to think outside the box with regards to ideas that could aid the nation in the war on terrorism and that's what they are doing. We have not approved any research in this area and because of the sensitivity of such research, we will seek independent review before we do.'"
Let's put that Schneier fellow on the "body-search" list. Quixotic1 writes "Four articles are highlighted over at The Atlantic Online arguing that to protect ourselves against terrorism we must rely on people, not simply on technology. The outline touches on the recent article about Bruce Schneier, the national ID card proposal, and the Clipper Chip."
Star systems, slip through fingers, etc. Since Thomson Multimedia / the Frauenhofer Institute has decided to press the $0.75-per-decoder charge for MP3 decoders mentioned earlier today, there are probably a lot of people suddenly more interested in other formats. I favor the Xiph Foundation's Ogg Vorbis; Xiph CEO Emmett Plant has written his thank-you note to Thomson Multimedia.
Depends what you consider "great." morhoj writes "ZDNet is running a great commentary that talks about the recent debate involving the Digital Software Security Act (the California law the would force governments to use open source software). ''Open source is supposed to be about freedom. Unfortunately, certain advocates have lost sight of that goal.'' I couldn't have summed it up better myself. Forcing anyone to use Open Source software is no better than ludicrous Microsoft licensing agreements." I think Carroll is dead-wrong when he focuses on cost-benefit analyses (and ignores the question of whose money is being spent by whom, for what), but YMMV.
I bet they'd have to edit Super Troopers, too. David_Bloom writes: "Following up on an earlier article, according to a page (link is a direct link to a frame - context sold separately) on the IMAX website, the first movie to use 35mm to 70mm IMAX DMR technology will be the hit 1995 flick Apollo 13. It is interesting to note that, according to a FilmRatings.com lookup, the film has been edited for content for its IMAX release (which is bad news for people hoping to see The Matrix or similar movies on IMAX)."
No, I said I'm meet you by the other telescope! Reader Dan Yocum points out that the skyward-gazing Yalies who captured asteroid 2002 NY40 digitally did so with a different telescope than the one reported. He writes: "They weren't even using WIYN. They were using the 0.9M that's next to it (about 50yd away)." Thanks for the correction!
Please be sure to threaten those who challenge your license fees with lawsuits and draconian collections efforts. We officially support any action you take to drive home the 'mp3 costs money' message. Thanks again, and best of luck!
Certainly, there is part of me that wants Ogg to get a lift from this bad business... so I can certainly seeing him wanting them to press with litigation... On the other tentacle, is it wrong to wish such evil behaviour (on the part of the Thompson Multimedia) upon innocent and unsuspecting people?
Or maybe his overall message was: 'You guys just made a real dumbass business move, and now we're gonna getcha!!'
no thanks
The reasoning has nothing to do with Freedom. You and I are meant to be free; governments, as the executors of the will of the people, are not. We do have the right to force our government to choose Open Source.
The real question is, is this a good idea? And as the Peruvian Congressman stated so eloquently in his own letter, yes it is. The reason it is a good idea is because anything used by the government is public property, and public property must be subject to public review.
I highly recommend looking up and reading what Congressman Villanueva had to say on the topic, because he says it much more eloquently, and covers the important details and facts for why this is a necessary step for the preservation of democracy in the digital age.
Again, the government is the executor of the policy of freedom -- not free in itself. This is what freedom is about: The government is bound to the people's will, as opposed to the other way around. There are exceptions to protect certain things from the tyranny of the majority -- which are listed in the Bill of Rights. But these restrict which laws can govern the people, not which laws govern the government.
Anyhow, go read Villanueva's letter. It is as important a statement on the meaning of liberty as any ever written.
What was in there that could possibly offend the sensibilities of the average public? If they can't handle that movie.. argh.
This is probably some of the worst possible timing for the rigorous enforcement of the MP3 royalty fees. Consider: -The decline of Napster-clones -The legislation surrounding Internet radio -The 'already-there' Microsoft WMA (for windows users) -The presence of the OGG Vorbis format and it's superior quality (not to mention established support in popular free music players) -The expense of portable non-CD MP3 players and their associated memory cards/sticks (the more costly portion of the product, IMHO) ...it seems to me some of the more popular uses of the MP3 format are in a state of flux, while alternatives that may not have presented a definate threat to it's popularity are now in the lime-light.
Personally, it sounds like an underhanded scheme originating from the RIAA. :)
But in either form ("open source" or "free software"), it's revisionist bullshit.
Free software, according to Stallman and the FSF, is about the essential freedom to share and modify software. They explictly reject the choice to produce and use proprietary software as a freedom. That makes as much sense, they say, as the "freedom to choose slavery". Free software is about as far away from "freedom to choose" as you can get.
How about open source, that much more convenient doctrine? According to its founders,
So while ESR may support the freedom to choose in general (he does), that is not at all what open source is about. Open source is about convincing the world that it is a better development methodology. Most of its adherents would be perfectly happy it it killed off proprietary software, thus eliminating "choice".
So, the "freedom to choose" may be your philosophy, or Tim O'Reilly's philosophy, but it is not that of free software or open source.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Governments do not have to use open source unless the people say they must. Our governments are indeed executors of the will of the people, however they are also the stewards of taxpayers' money. If open source does not win in the cost-benefit analysis (particularly the "benefit" part of the equation), then open source should not be used.
IMO, the more important issue, and one I think which came out in the Peruvian letter, is this: Governments must not force citizens to use proprietary software to interact with their government. This means that, for example, a government department may use Microsoft Word to store its internal documents, but published documents must be in an open format (e.g. PDF). Similarly, your taxation officials may use IIS to run their web site, but must not require you to use IE in order to file your tax returns electronically.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
It is very rare for governments to think long term. They are just like companies. They need to make themselves look good so you re-elect them. They do this by reducing expenditure, reducing taxes, and making populist decisions etc. Open Source is a good way to make the books look good on a short timeframe (reduced licence costs). I would be pleasantly surprised if they are even considering the long term implications of such a decision. Don't get me wrong, the long term implications might be good, but then again, they might not be.
lounge around on the blue couch
OK, again and again, the RIAA say MP3s are responsibe for killing their industry. Then a company starts taxing MP3 installs.
A) If there's no connection, how long before RIAA decides they should the compensated out of these royalties for a product that is (apparently) only used for pirating music?
B)If there is a connection, wouldn't this be a most excellent stick for the RIAA? "No one can possibly be using MP3 unless they are using it in an un-approved manner, therefore we can sue anyone not implementing MP3 in an approved manner".
C) Yes, aquiring an interest in this would be a great way to force a shift to another format. What use is an MP3 file if writing or distributing a player for it will send you to jail? (similar to point B except for the goal)
This is the Unisys GIF thing, but with more interested parties on the top end.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
The problem is developers can't make available indefinite numbers of free downloads, and businesses can't distribute (for instance) free ISOs of Linux distros containing MP3 decoders.
People who use whatever MP3 software comes with Windows or Mac won't notice the difference -- -- it's only $0.75 out of a product costing hundreds of $$.
Thomson has already made various comments indicating that they feel that Vorbis must be covered by their patents (Thomson has a LOT of patents). The Xiph people have had lawyers look into all this (and believe they are safe), so the Thomson comments are generally seen as antagonistic. Given that atmosphere, the "Thank you" letter is par for the course in the relationship between the two groups.
However, Xiph HAS been forming workable relationships with some other companies (and even changed the original license to be more friendly to some commercial concerns).
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
I don't work for NASA, but I would assume that it is because they are the top of the heap in physiological monitoring technology out of necessity (physical and mental stress combined with an absolute need to detect even the most mundane of problems as early as possible).
-Peter
PS: I'm ignoring the "funny" part of your post.
-P