So, 100 people showing up in person is worth a LOT more than 10,000 people sending in e-mail.
Yes, except that 100,000 people getting an inflammatory chain letter, espeically if it gets press coverage, can have a strong "chilling effect" on any legislation even remotely related.
A while back, there was some consideration about changing US coin designs (something that's way overdue in many collectors' opinions, including mine). An incorrect rumor got started that congress was going to remove "In God We Trust" from coins, a call-in and letter-writing campaign ensued, and the legitimate legislation (which NEVER contemplated removing any of the currently mandated legends or devices) died a swift and silent death.
I've often wondered about whether some of the chain letters out there weren't deliberately placed. Maybe taking a page from Ayn Rand or Ender's Game (Demosthenes, etc.) would be an effective way to get stuff done. After all, it's all about public opinion, and the best way to sway that is with FUD, as we all know too well.
Of course, it's sort of stooping to "their" level, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
I wrote a nice rant about this some time ago, but I can't manage to find it with/.'s lousy search system. Something about "modem tax" and "chain letters" and such, to try to get "normal people" inflamed and calling their representatives. Does anyone know of a way to search *all* of one person's postings?
and a whole bunch of other stuff too. (E.g. client domain, WINS [yech], Samba node type, time servers etc.)
Go read some DHCP docs...
Er, yeah, I know that. What I meant (and maybe I didn't say it clearly) is that the *client* has to be configured to accept that information from DHCP.
That is, it's simple to configure a machine with a hard-coded DNS server, while still letting it get its IP address from DHCP.
This is an interesting problem. At first blush, it seems that it should be possible. Consider a web request at a packet level:
the laptop spits out a packet for, say, 10.3.5.1, and it contains a DNS request for www.slashdot.org
some network device configured to receive all packets snarfs that up
The device looks at the packet, sees it's a DNS lookup, does the lookup, and then spits out a response packet
the laptop now sends out an HTTP packet for 64.28.67.150
the magic box sees that packet, recognizes it for what it is, and forwards/NATs it on to/.
... etc...
So far, so good.
Of course, if your laptop sends out a DHCP request, then all the pertinent information (router, DNS, etc.) can be returned that way -- but then again, the laptop has to be configured to accept, for example, the DNS server via DHCP and not be hard-coded.
So, yes, sure, conceptually it might be possible. And it might even be "easy" to implement. But I can think of a few problems, offhand:
First, what I described above -- where some data (IP and subnet, for example) come via DHCP, but router and DNS are hard-coded. The system will have to be able to work in both "transparent magic box mode" and "sensible DHCP mode" at the same time, for the same client.
Cases where the laptop's "home network" is comprised of routable addresses, and they want to access something on that network. Er, wait, this might actually work -- but the system would have to keep track of "internal" IP addresses (used by the guests' laptops), so that if, say, two folks from the same company want to file share between their laptops, the system won't forward those packets onto the internet, but'll just let them sit there on the local net.
...I can't think of any other issues right now. I'm sure there are plenty.
As I said, interesting idea, and I'm really curious if it actually is possible, or if I'm missing something significant here.
If you implement a cool solution, document it somewhere on the web and send it back to/. again!
[vaguely off-topic:] I first read of something like this nearly 20 years ago. When Pink Floyd's _The Final Cut_ came out, it utilized something called "Holophonics," the creation of some guy named Zuccarelli (or somesuch). The basis of his system was that the ear produces continuous high-pitched sounds, and the sounds we hear in everyday life interfere with those sounds, and are processed by the brain to produce a 3-D soundscape.
He then went on to assert that, by combining sound effects artificially mixed with that same high-frequency pitch, they can create and record that "interference pattern," much like a visual hologram works. Then, by playing that pattern back to the user (with nicely spaced speakers or, especially, wearing headphones), they could recreate the soundscape perfectly.
On the plus side, it worked. I heard a broadcast of a Roger Waters concert, where he demonstrated walking behind the listener and striking a timpani. Sounded cool.
On the minus side, it was a load of crap. The technical issues are just way too numerous to go into here, but the bottom line is that it was probably nothing more than nicely-recorded binaural sound. No new discoveries there.
[Returning to topic] But, still, there was that case of the sound being produced by the ear -- at about the same time as holophonics coming out, I read some articles that sounded much like the current article -- there's sound, it's unpredictable, and we're not sure why it's there. Sounds like they're starting to figure out why.
Of course, anyone who listens to Suzanne Vega would have known all this years ago -- "Blood makes noise / It's a ringing in my ear.":)
IIRC, Apple are legally unable to sell music due to a deal with Apple Music (of Beatles fame) way back when.
I don't know if it's still a problem anymore, but Apple (the computer maker) could get away from it with a wholly-owned subsidiary, as long as the name wasn't confusing with "Apple Records" (or whatever it was called, "Music" didn't sound right to me).
And I doubt it'd apply to video distribution, but I think that'd be even harder to get into, unless they started distributing DVDs for indie filmmakers (or established filmmakers with the bucks to buck the system).
The CIO here is absolutely right -- talk to your lawyers, and above all, do what they tell you. I don't need to describe what the career path might be for someone who ignores the lawyers and opens their employer to a million-dollar settlement.
I had some thoughts about all this while out getting lunch, and now that I've posted my idealogical rant about "innocent until proven guilty" obviously not applying in the civil world, I'll try to be, like, constructive for a moment.
First, any lawyer (and most of the posters here today) is going to tell you that it's cheaper to simply buy all new licenses (or whatever the BSA is demanding). Rifle every likely file cabinet for existing licenes, then buy the difference. Either way, you still need to do your own audit.
On the other hand, if you're at a school with a strong reputation, lots of prestige, and even more money, and if your president believes there's a moral victory worth fighting (and paying) for, then I have some thoughts that I at least find intriguing:
An early response might be "Oh, wow, this could be bad. Okay, we'll work with you. Here's how we'll do it. Here's exactly how we'll do it. And it'll take some time. But we'll be with you all the way, show you what we've done, give you monthly updates, etc." Look for documentation on your internal hardware inventory process (I'm sure you've got one, when I worked at UMCP I had my PC inventoried by like 5 different departments in one year), and use that as a starting point to justify the length of time you're expecting the audit to take. [I think this is the best response, since, ultimately, you'll probably need to do an audit eventually, anyway. Cooporate, but on your own terms.]
Refuse (in legal terms) to deal with BSA. You haven't got any software from BSA (you can't, they don't sell software). Offer to deal with Microsoft, if they send you a letter from their legal team on their letterhead.
Agree to do an audit, but only if BSA pays for it, on a time and materials basis. Present them with a nicely-detailed starting point for the process of actually doing the audit, how long it'll take (see above), how many people it'll take, and how much it'll cost. Tell them that you're pretty sure you're in compliance, but if they want to force an audit, they'll have to pay for it. This is an extension of the comment above, and might be the 'best' out in that you get them to foot the bill. It'd be a victory for both sides, more or less.
Ask them why they've come to your university. Have they had an anonymous tip? Did they see people selling university-stamped materials on eBay? If they simply say that, stastically, there's "probably" piracy happening here, require better justification before you spend any more time with them.
Require them to limit the scope of the search. If their tip came from someone in the Sociology department, limit the audit to only those machines in that department. If they got a tip that "everyone here is copying MS-Office," limit the audit to only look for the most recent version of MS-Office.
If you've gotten this far, then they're probably going to a judge. Ensure that your school is represented at the hearing for the subpoena they'll use to force you to audit. Try to cast the situation in the same light as a search warrant: Police need a specific warrant for a search, showing just cause for the search, and specific targets to be searched, and specific items to search for. No cause, often, no warrant, in my understanding.
Or get it to be treated just like a subpoena for a deposition -- with specific areas of discovery outlined. No judge (I think) would issue a subpoena for a deposition that says "go talk to this guy and ask him anything you want." Instead, the lawers are required to stick to a narrowly-defined scope of questions that directly pertain to some particular action. Try to get the judge to see a parallel between that situation and the BSA audit request.
Ultimately, maybe you can find a lawyer gutsy enough to throw RICO at 'em. Hell, this is just this side of a protection racket on behalf of Microsoft, anyway.
Of course, my initial point still stands -- do your own audit, cheaply, and simply pay for the difference. And, most importantly, build a good system (centralized database backed up with a fire-safe holding physical license papers for the whole school) to track this stuff, and re-audit every 6 months. Or even more frequently. (client-side tracking software is obviously going to be in your future....)
failure to produce licenses for all commercial or shareware software will constitute prima facie evidence of illegal possession, with penalties that could range from the confiscation of the machine to the firing of the user;
and this includes computers *personally* owned by faculty
I'll hit the second one first. If the personally-owned computers are on the network, they're close, maybe, to being able to audit those. Maybe. But that's really grey. I know I, for one, wouldn't let them on, and if they came into my office and said "let me look on that machine," I'd simply disconnect it and say "no."
For the first one, though, I have a much bigger problem. Can anyone cite any other [industry / realm / product space] where one is required to retain all receipts in order to prove ownership? I don't need a receipt to show that I own the shirt I'm wearing. If someone wants to accuse me of stealing it, show some evidence. I don't need a receipt to verify that I own the couch in my living room -- if someone thinks I stole it from my neighbor, fine, prove it. So, why on earth do I need a receipt for software?
I can understand the technical complications that are entailed here -- like when you've got 1 CD for 100 machines. But the legal issues are what I'm more curious about. In no other situation am I, essentially, guilty until proven innocent.
Does anyone know if anyone's fought the software industry on those terms? You can't prove I stole it, so go away. Seems like it should work, but then again, maybe I'm being idealistic.
(Okay, I thought of two examples -- cars and real estate. But those are tracked for me by the government, and if I lose a copy of my title they can send me a new one, for a modest fee.)
Not a few artists have done just that after getting famous and finally having some pull. However, rememeber that the labels also own the distribution houses, have handshake agreements with the major radio stations, etc, etc. Just because you start your own label doesn't mean you can break in.
Exactly. That's why a bunch of little indie labels doesn't really cut the bill. What would be needed is a conglomeration of fair labels under a single entity with some kind of collective clout. They'd have to negotiate decent manufacturing (CD, DVD, books) deals to compete with the big labels/houses. They'd need to work their own distribution system. They'd need their own promoters to work the radio stations and record stores. It would not be an easy thing. But, if they've got a lot of people to do it for, they'd have a chance.
It's really less about being your own label than it is being a competitor to the big machines, and, coincidentally, not bothering to join RIAA or MPAA in the process.
Hell, I mentioned King and Dave Matthews (as very successful artists who might (I've never asked them myself:) ) agree with the goals of this conversation). Add George Lucas to the mix (he's already demonstrated a dislike for the system by quitting the director's guild over not wanting his name before the opening crawl), and you've got serious dollars. Hm. Starting to sound like SKG, isn't it? Except for the agenda, of course...
I'm starting to host small community wikis on my home box ( http://wage.packet.org ) for writers, poets, musicians and others who stand about as much of a chance to land a contract with a media outlet as they have of contracting diseases of the rich.
I've been wondering why some of the bigger names in the industry (those with a conscience, that is), like the folks in the Recording Artists Coalition, or people with huge clout like Stephen King, etc., don't get together and start their own media business. (I hesitate to call it a "label," 'cause there's really no reason to restrict this to music only).
A company that treats its artists well, with reasonable contracts, easy outs, maybe even "a la carte" marketing costs (not "hey, we'll do everything we can, and tell you how much you get after it's all sorted out", but "hey, you want us to buy an ad on MTV? Here's what it'll cost you. You wanna do all your own promotion on the internet? Here's what it'll *add* to your monthly checks.")
A company that isn't afraid to act as an advocate or promoter for the artists, rather than for their stockholders.
Am I crazy? Does such a beast already exist? Or would they be beaten into submission by the RIAA and the other big players?
If a company like this had real backing, and were to sign some big names (king, dave matthews, billy joel, whatever), then I'd think they'd have a chance of actually succeeding.
Maybe (and now I'm getting REALLY crazy), set themselves up as a non-profit company? Hmm....
I read this whole thing and it was obviousy a typographical error and these people are trying to get something for nothing.
Most times, if there's a typo (like in a flyer), they'll put a sign at the door to the store, alerting customers to the typo. But I suspect that the first X people who get through before they detect the typo get a good deal. I think (but am not sure) that law generally states, essentially, that the price on the item is the price you have to honor, even if it ends up being grossly wrong. By posting a notice in the store, they're changing the flyer, and correcting the error.
Furthermore, from the web page referenced here, it doesn't seem like it's a typo. If the ad said "$129, regularly $399, save $20", then it might be arguable that the price was supposed to be $379. But it was "$129, reg $399, save $200", so the math actually worked out. It's possible, maybe, that someone misread a memo saying "knock $20 off the price" as "knock $200 off the price," and then everything got FUBAR at that point as they updated the ad and db to match their reading of the memo. But, as I said before, I think the first few people to get in before the error is caught could be given the opportunity to be, well, lucky.
And, personally, if I were at a store and something like this happened to me, how I respond would depend entirely on how I'd been treated at that store on other occasions. If they've treated me well, answered my questions, given me good service, etc., then I'd be perfectly happy to agree with them that "oops, wow, that's a doosy, okay, I won't buy it then." But, if they're jerks, with bad stocking practices, harrassment at the door when you leave (like they always ask for your receipt when you go out), etc., then, dammit, I'm looking out for myself just as they're looking out for themselves. They wouldn't alert me to an error in their favor, so why should I alert them to an error in mine?
But, yes, though IJAG (I'm just a geek -- let's all drop the IANALs already!:) ), it seems to me that the poster is right. By accepting a credit card at the advertised price, and by actually charging the card and printing out a receipt, they're bound to give you the item. The receipt proves that, at this instant in time, you actually, legally OWN the piece of merchandise in question. They just have to grab it for you from the stockroom.
Or something like that.
(me, I avoid Best Buy entirely by shopping at Circuit City and Amazon.)
So...which of the lying scoundrels is trustworthy and cost effective enough to sign on with?
We're probably getting way off topic at this point, and a lot of this was discussed the other day (in the article about antitrust suits against wireless providers), but I think the general consensus is that they all suck.
I've been hearing good things about Cingular (especially with deals for the nifty-tiny Nokia 3360), but then again I've done some searching around and have seen some people with network issues, and that they're slowly converting to GSM, too. I'm with Verizon, myself, and it's been okay, but I'd like a better plan (like the many family plans with cell-to-cell free calls, etc., that some of the other providers have).
There used to be some good "consumer level" industry sites with real data, comparisons, technology informatino, etc., but nowadays all I find when I search are people selling phones and accessories, or "xxxx_sucks.com" pages. If anyone knows of a good, trustworthy source (what we need is DSLReports.com for cell phones), I'd love to see it.
And then there's 3G... (just when you thought it was safe to re-enter the fray...)
SprintPCS has been running ads for about a year now talking up their PCS network.
What really pisses me off about those ads is that they call themselves the "Clear alternative to cellular." Dammit, Sprint PCS IS cellular! Granted, it's not 800 MHz AMPS Cellular (it's 1900 MHz CDMA, with fallback to 800 MHz AMPS / CDMA), but nobody's really using AMPS anymore, anyway. Verizon (around me, anyway) is 800 MHz AMPS / CDMA + 1900 MHz CDMA, so it's identical to Sprint PCS.
To say that they're not cellular is to imply, to anyone who knows enough to be dangerous (like me), that it's some new-fangled technology. But it's not.
This isn't the first time that Sprint's marketing has stretched the truth somewhat -- I was burned by their SprintSpectrum GSM network several years back. They'd promised coast-to-coast coverage in two years, and never came close. They also advertised the phone as a "cell phone, voice mail, and pager" all rolled into one. To me, a pager is something that I can leave on 24x7 for a month between a battery swap. Imagine my surprise when I bought the damned GSM phone and found that the "pager" functions only worked when the phone was turned on, not in some low-current 'standby pager only' mode. Now, I ask you, if my cell phone's turned on all the time, what the hell do I need a pager for?
Anyway, it really annoyed me, and the "clear alternative to cellular" riles me the same way. Granted, none of the other carriers are completely honest, either ("can you hear me now?"), but at least EVERYONE lies about coverage....
When you install a (note that, "a") copy of any MS product then you are explicitly giving them the right to audit you.
Yes, but does Microsoft have any proof that you've accepted any EULA terms?
If no, then make them get a search warrant to prove the existence of any microsoft products, and then they can enforce the "right to audit" provision of the EULA. And make them list specifically which machines they're going to check. And, once they've finally gotten their filthy little hands inside, refuse access to any machines that you know don't contain MS software.
In short, deny even having any MS software in the first place. If you don't have any software, they've got no right to come in.
Of course, school systems have even less cash than ubergeeks, so there's no chance in the world that any of these systems will force the issue, especially not in court. *sigh*
Maybe they could get Scott McNealy to pay their legal fees, to force the issue in front of a judge....
Thats what you get for shopping at HMV I thought he was talking about Tower. It was the body piercing that did it for me.
At this point, I buy just about all of my "impulse" music at borders, and all the rest of the stuff from Amazon. Prices aren't significantly better, but their customer service and selection have always been worth it to me.
Of course, if I could find a good used-CD store that was of the same quality as the old used-LP store I used to go to (Yesterday and Today Records in Rockville, MD -- if you're an old vinyl freak, this is the place to go), then, well, I'd buy everything there, instead. And, guess what? The artist would get just as much $$ from that sale as they do from a Napster download. But at least it's legal, and I wouldn't feel guilty...
I would think that this is partially illegal to install software on a person computer without that persons consent.
I would think that it's COMPLETELY illegal to do this. If the program that's getting installed were to wipe your hard drive, there'd be lawsuits galore and FBI people kicking down the doors of the company hosting the hostile download. Why exactly nobody's been able to convince a judge that this is the same thing is beyond me.
I got royally flamed in a mailing list for complaining about a site that tried to force gator on me. The admin's response was "it didn't try to install gator, it asked you first." My argument was "it only asked me because it tried, and my browser said 'no.'" Naturally, we got nowhere.
It's even worse if they find a way to install without prompting the user. Not only is that a wide-open door for serious viruses, but it ABSOLUTELY removes any semblance of authorization (and I'd argue that a user blindly clicking "yes" to simply make the damned download panel go away doesn't constitute informed consent, either).
and most of everything that tries to connect over non standard port will be stoped
Yeah, but if you were writing a spy-ware program, would you use a non-standard port to send it out?
I'd just send it over HTTP on port 80. Or better yet, HTTPS on 443, so no content-sniffing could be done on it. Would you be willing to stop all web browsing traffic leaving your home/site/corporation?
The only way, then, to stop this would be to block traffic to particular sites, but if the traffic goes to microsoft.com, you're hosed 'cause you *need* to go there at least monthly to fix whatever's currently broken.:) Plus, now you need a community-contributed and -distributed blackout list (of known spyware URLs), and at that point, you might just as well be using AdAware.
If these programs aren't already doing this, then they're even dumber than I thought. Unless *I* am dumber than I thought (and I admit I can be pretty stupid at times) and I've missed something obvious here.
April fools aside, I actually wish there were a switch for this.
Compilers are often smart enough to be able to parse out what you mean (how many times have you gotten a perl error saying "You left a quote off up there at line 123"?).
I'd like to see a switch that gives the compiler (interpreter, whatever) the authority to try to fix, for itself, some of these stupid issues. If other non-recoverable errors happen later, then fine, it doesn't have to complete the compile. But if I drop a semicolon and get a hundred new errors as a result, and the compiler can see that if that semicolon is replaced, then why can't I ask it to replace that, warn me what it did, and see if it works?
You could always look at the date they were posted, in most cases
Yes, but this also makes it difficult to look for any *real* news from April 1. In fact, most stories (and mailing list postings) from the evening of 31 March until the morning of 2 April are all suspect.
I remember this was very bad last year, and I'm afraid that this year is going to be worse.
It should be relatively trivial to put all April Fools' Jokes into their own category, while allowing them to retain a "real" icon and such. That way, people who just want the news on days like today can filter these things out.
I, for one, would hate to be a PR guy at a company which released something on Friday, got picked up by the geek sites on Monday, and had all the press ignored because it was April 1.
The main reason for people wanting things like this is to keep people's phones from ringing in the middle of, say, a movie. They say that bluetooth technologies will help prevent things like that from happening, by having the theater automatically put all phones into "silent" ring mode when you walk in. Or so one hopes.
Might things like this eventually push broader acceptance of thse kinds of features? Or will it just piss off everyone? (I know it'd piss me off, if I were in a profession where I relied on a remote page for, say, something life-threatening. I know I already take efforts to mute my pilot and turn off my phone when I go into a theater...)
Another classic example of punishing the innocent because of the abuses of a few jerks.
From the paper, lines like "On his personal computer, he could separate a wave into its wavelet components, and then reassemble them into the original wave" and "could be implemented using simple digital filtering ideas, in fact, using short digital filters" prompt me to ask: Just how does one do signal processing on a PC?
I haven't done any programming with sound files since I tried to play a.au file backwards on a NeXT like 13 years ago. Are there really simple libraries that you can use where you say something like "out = lowpass(in.wav, 500)" and get just the bass from a wav file? How, then, do you do funky stuff like "Lt = 0.92Lf + 0.38Rf + j0.92Lb + j0.38Rb" or somesuch, where "j" represents a 90-degree phase shift? (bonus points to anyone who can identify the formula I'm screwing up).
And how do these libraries work? Is it basically iterating stuff over a huge array of amplitudes? So that to implement the lowpass filter, you actually have to somehow or other scan the array to look for patterns that need to be smoothed out? (actually, it occurs to me that you might be able to do this by averaging adjacent entries together. Okay, then, how do you do a high-pass filter, keeping the local oscillations but dropping the low-frequency ones?)
Basically, I'm curious about a good primer for DIY sound processing. Not because I want to build my own sound processing stuff, but because I'm really curious how people can do stuff like what Morlet did, especially considering he did it like 20 years ago, with significantly less-powered hardware...
(and, yes, I searched google for this, but it was a year or two ago...didn't find anything really helpful, except an early framework of an open source library that hadn't progessed much).
What would be really great would be if someone actually tested all the various computer to stereo devices that are now hitting the market and made some sense of their differences, both in terms of features and in terms of quality.
I'll bite. Send me hardware, I'll post the complete review within 30 days of receiving all the components.:)
Rio Central & Rio Receiver Discussed here, with plenty of misunderstandings. From what I've seen, it's the best so far.
Audiotron Cool formfactor (more component-like). But all the playlist / music management happens on the local unit, not on the server. So whenever you update stuff, it's gotta re-parse your folders, rather than simply saying "show me all the artists you have," which is what the Rio does. Plus, if you lose power (like if you unplug it to move it around), it's got to re-scan everything, too.
Lansonic Digital Audio Server Interesting, looks much cooler, but damn is it expensive. $700 for the DISKLESS unit? (the closest competitor to the Rio). On the other hand, the server's a little cheaper. The 950-series looks like it's trying to be the front-end for an in-wall multi-zone system, which actually is something I need personally (and haven't yet figured out how I'll do it). Looks like a high-end audience, but I'm not convinced that it's any better in quality (their space usage estimates assume 128kbps compression rates).
Request Audio Requester I think I've seen this page before. Like Lansonic, I think they're targeting the built-in systems, so they're competing with multi-kilobuck installations and are probably priced accordingly. Seems to include line-in inputs to "rip" LPs and tapes.
SliMP3 Ubercool device. About the size of a SIMM, does what the Rio Receiver does, mostly. Hardware decompression, if I recall, so no chance (as opposed to slim chance) of ogg or other codec support. No amplifier. Designed and built by geeks, for geeks. When they upgrade it to have an optional on-screen display, downloadable menus, and MPEG-2 video support, I'll buy four of 'em for an in-house a/v system.
Stereo-Link Eh. Takes music played from a regular PC, only via USB, and, er, outputs line out audio. Not clear if the decompression is happening in the box or in the computer. This doesn't really belong in this discussion...
Yamaha CAVIT Eh. Looks like the same sort of thing as Stereo-Link, but maybe with an integrated amp? Again, not even the same category of product as the first five.
So, to sum up, we've got Rio (server and client, proprietary but semi-opened protocols), Audiotron (client only, uses SMB), Lansonic and Request (high-end, expensive, very different target audience, probably closed protocols), and SliMP3 (receiver only, linux server, open everything).
Recommendations:
If you want something that looks at home in your stereo rack, and don't mind putting everything on a windows share (even on a linux box), use Audiotron.
If you've got a linux server and want a really cool, geeky, high-tech sort of thing with a display you can read from Mars, get the SliMP3.
If you want a more capable receiver, windows and linux server support, and an optional stereo-component-looking server, choose Rio, especially if you can find more of the $100 units (TigerDirect is apparently sold out now).
Find someone who uses OGG and they'll make it. Actually, I believe there's a problem that OGG requires floating-point operations, and the system the receiver's built on only has integer stuff available.
So, find someone who can write a fast FP OGG decoder and they'll make it might be more accurate.
Plus, the jreceiver project's been experimenting with live streaming and transcoding, so you could maybe transcode an ogg file to very high bitrate mp3 at the server. Not for purists, I suppose, but would keep you from having to re-rip your library.
The SliMP3 is less polished, but is fed with a simple perl program that streams audio. The Audiotron is fed with any Samba compatible server. In other words, either device can work with a Linux box. The Rio currently can't
Okay, this is probably the 10th time there's been a story about the Rio Receiver, and in each and every one someone like me stands up to shout:
There are open-source Linux servers for the Rio Receiver!!!
Sonic Blue engineers frequent that message board, and there's lots of open-source hacking going on, including line-out kernel hacks, integrated web and vnc servers, and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
So, 100 people showing up in person is worth a LOT more than 10,000 people sending in e-mail.
/.'s lousy search system. Something about "modem tax" and "chain letters" and such, to try to get "normal people" inflamed and calling their representatives. Does anyone know of a way to search *all* of one person's postings?
Yes, except that 100,000 people getting an inflammatory chain letter, espeically if it gets press coverage, can have a strong "chilling effect" on any legislation even remotely related.
A while back, there was some consideration about changing US coin designs (something that's way overdue in many collectors' opinions, including mine). An incorrect rumor got started that congress was going to remove "In God We Trust" from coins, a call-in and letter-writing campaign ensued, and the legitimate legislation (which NEVER contemplated removing any of the currently mandated legends or devices) died a swift and silent death.
I've often wondered about whether some of the chain letters out there weren't deliberately placed. Maybe taking a page from Ayn Rand or Ender's Game (Demosthenes, etc.) would be an effective way to get stuff done. After all, it's all about public opinion, and the best way to sway that is with FUD, as we all know too well.
Of course, it's sort of stooping to "their" level, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
I wrote a nice rant about this some time ago, but I can't manage to find it with
Enemy of the State. 'nuff said.
and a whole bunch of other stuff too. (E.g. client domain, WINS [yech], Samba node type, time servers etc.)
Go read some DHCP docs...
Er, yeah, I know that. What I meant (and maybe I didn't say it clearly) is that the *client* has to be configured to accept that information from DHCP.
That is, it's simple to configure a machine with a hard-coded DNS server, while still letting it get its IP address from DHCP.
So far, so good.
Of course, if your laptop sends out a DHCP request, then all the pertinent information (router, DNS, etc.) can be returned that way -- but then again, the laptop has to be configured to accept, for example, the DNS server via DHCP and not be hard-coded.
So, yes, sure, conceptually it might be possible. And it might even be "easy" to implement. But I can think of a few problems, offhand:
As I said, interesting idea, and I'm really curious if it actually is possible, or if I'm missing something significant here.
If you implement a cool solution, document it somewhere on the web and send it back to
[vaguely off-topic:]
:)
I first read of something like this nearly 20 years ago. When Pink Floyd's _The Final Cut_ came out, it utilized something called "Holophonics," the creation of some guy named Zuccarelli (or somesuch). The basis of his system was that the ear produces continuous high-pitched sounds, and the sounds we hear in everyday life interfere with those sounds, and are processed by the brain to produce a 3-D soundscape.
He then went on to assert that, by combining sound effects artificially mixed with that same high-frequency pitch, they can create and record that "interference pattern," much like a visual hologram works. Then, by playing that pattern back to the user (with nicely spaced speakers or, especially, wearing headphones), they could recreate the soundscape perfectly.
On the plus side, it worked. I heard a broadcast of a Roger Waters concert, where he demonstrated walking behind the listener and striking a timpani. Sounded cool.
On the minus side, it was a load of crap. The technical issues are just way too numerous to go into here, but the bottom line is that it was probably nothing more than nicely-recorded binaural sound. No new discoveries there.
[Returning to topic]
But, still, there was that case of the sound being produced by the ear -- at about the same time as holophonics coming out, I read some articles that sounded much like the current article -- there's sound, it's unpredictable, and we're not sure why it's there. Sounds like they're starting to figure out why.
Of course, anyone who listens to Suzanne Vega would have known all this years ago -- "Blood makes noise / It's a ringing in my ear."
IIRC, Apple are legally unable to sell music due to a deal with Apple Music (of Beatles fame) way back when.
I don't know if it's still a problem anymore, but Apple (the computer maker) could get away from it with a wholly-owned subsidiary, as long as the name wasn't confusing with "Apple Records" (or whatever it was called, "Music" didn't sound right to me).
And I doubt it'd apply to video distribution, but I think that'd be even harder to get into, unless they started distributing DVDs for indie filmmakers (or established filmmakers with the bucks to buck the system).
I had some thoughts about all this while out getting lunch, and now that I've posted my idealogical rant about "innocent until proven guilty" obviously not applying in the civil world, I'll try to be, like, constructive for a moment.
First, any lawyer (and most of the posters here today) is going to tell you that it's cheaper to simply buy all new licenses (or whatever the BSA is demanding). Rifle every likely file cabinet for existing licenes, then buy the difference. Either way, you still need to do your own audit.
On the other hand, if you're at a school with a strong reputation, lots of prestige, and even more money, and if your president believes there's a moral victory worth fighting (and paying) for, then I have some thoughts that I at least find intriguing:
Of course, my initial point still stands -- do your own audit, cheaply, and simply pay for the difference. And, most importantly, build a good system (centralized database backed up with a fire-safe holding physical license papers for the whole school) to track this stuff, and re-audit every 6 months. Or even more frequently. (client-side tracking software is obviously going to be in your future....)
Good luck!
I'll hit the second one first. If the personally-owned computers are on the network, they're close, maybe, to being able to audit those. Maybe. But that's really grey. I know I, for one, wouldn't let them on, and if they came into my office and said "let me look on that machine," I'd simply disconnect it and say "no."
For the first one, though, I have a much bigger problem. Can anyone cite any other [industry / realm / product space] where one is required to retain all receipts in order to prove ownership? I don't need a receipt to show that I own the shirt I'm wearing. If someone wants to accuse me of stealing it, show some evidence. I don't need a receipt to verify that I own the couch in my living room -- if someone thinks I stole it from my neighbor, fine, prove it. So, why on earth do I need a receipt for software?
I can understand the technical complications that are entailed here -- like when you've got 1 CD for 100 machines. But the legal issues are what I'm more curious about. In no other situation am I, essentially, guilty until proven innocent.
Does anyone know if anyone's fought the software industry on those terms? You can't prove I stole it, so go away. Seems like it should work, but then again, maybe I'm being idealistic.
(Okay, I thought of two examples -- cars and real estate. But those are tracked for me by the government, and if I lose a copy of my title they can send me a new one, for a modest fee.)
Not a few artists have done just that after getting famous and finally having some pull. However, rememeber that the labels also own the distribution houses, have handshake agreements with the major radio stations, etc, etc. Just because you start your own label doesn't mean you can break in.
:) ) agree with the goals of this conversation). Add George Lucas to the mix (he's already demonstrated a dislike for the system by quitting the director's guild over not wanting his name before the opening crawl), and you've got serious dollars. Hm. Starting to sound like SKG, isn't it? Except for the agenda, of course...
Exactly. That's why a bunch of little indie labels doesn't really cut the bill. What would be needed is a conglomeration of fair labels under a single entity with some kind of collective clout. They'd have to negotiate decent manufacturing (CD, DVD, books) deals to compete with the big labels/houses. They'd need to work their own distribution system. They'd need their own promoters to work the radio stations and record stores. It would not be an easy thing. But, if they've got a lot of people to do it for, they'd have a chance.
It's really less about being your own label than it is being a competitor to the big machines, and, coincidentally, not bothering to join RIAA or MPAA in the process.
Hell, I mentioned King and Dave Matthews (as very successful artists who might (I've never asked them myself
I'm starting to host small community wikis on my home box ( http://wage.packet.org ) for writers, poets, musicians and others who stand about as much of a chance to land a contract with a media outlet as they have of contracting diseases of the rich.
I've been wondering why some of the bigger names in the industry (those with a conscience, that is), like the folks in the Recording Artists Coalition, or people with huge clout like Stephen King, etc., don't get together and start their own media business. (I hesitate to call it a "label," 'cause there's really no reason to restrict this to music only).
A company that treats its artists well, with reasonable contracts, easy outs, maybe even "a la carte" marketing costs (not "hey, we'll do everything we can, and tell you how much you get after it's all sorted out", but "hey, you want us to buy an ad on MTV? Here's what it'll cost you. You wanna do all your own promotion on the internet? Here's what it'll *add* to your monthly checks.")
A company that isn't afraid to act as an advocate or promoter for the artists, rather than for their stockholders.
Am I crazy? Does such a beast already exist? Or would they be beaten into submission by the RIAA and the other big players?
If a company like this had real backing, and were to sign some big names (king, dave matthews, billy joel, whatever), then I'd think they'd have a chance of actually succeeding.
Maybe (and now I'm getting REALLY crazy), set themselves up as a non-profit company? Hmm....
I read this whole thing and it was obviousy a typographical error and these people are trying to get something for nothing.
:) ), it seems to me that the poster is right. By accepting a credit card at the advertised price, and by actually charging the card and printing out a receipt, they're bound to give you the item. The receipt proves that, at this instant in time, you actually, legally OWN the piece of merchandise in question. They just have to grab it for you from the stockroom.
Most times, if there's a typo (like in a flyer), they'll put a sign at the door to the store, alerting customers to the typo. But I suspect that the first X people who get through before they detect the typo get a good deal. I think (but am not sure) that law generally states, essentially, that the price on the item is the price you have to honor, even if it ends up being grossly wrong. By posting a notice in the store, they're changing the flyer, and correcting the error.
Furthermore, from the web page referenced here, it doesn't seem like it's a typo. If the ad said "$129, regularly $399, save $20", then it might be arguable that the price was supposed to be $379. But it was "$129, reg $399, save $200", so the math actually worked out. It's possible, maybe, that someone misread a memo saying "knock $20 off the price" as "knock $200 off the price," and then everything got FUBAR at that point as they updated the ad and db to match their reading of the memo. But, as I said before, I think the first few people to get in before the error is caught could be given the opportunity to be, well, lucky.
And, personally, if I were at a store and something like this happened to me, how I respond would depend entirely on how I'd been treated at that store on other occasions. If they've treated me well, answered my questions, given me good service, etc., then I'd be perfectly happy to agree with them that "oops, wow, that's a doosy, okay, I won't buy it then." But, if they're jerks, with bad stocking practices, harrassment at the door when you leave (like they always ask for your receipt when you go out), etc., then, dammit, I'm looking out for myself just as they're looking out for themselves. They wouldn't alert me to an error in their favor, so why should I alert them to an error in mine?
But, yes, though IJAG (I'm just a geek -- let's all drop the IANALs already!
Or something like that.
(me, I avoid Best Buy entirely by shopping at Circuit City and Amazon.)
So...which of the lying scoundrels is trustworthy and cost effective enough to sign on with?
We're probably getting way off topic at this point, and a lot of this was discussed the other day (in the article about antitrust suits against wireless providers), but I think the general consensus is that they all suck.
I've been hearing good things about Cingular (especially with deals for the nifty-tiny Nokia 3360), but then again I've done some searching around and have seen some people with network issues, and that they're slowly converting to GSM, too. I'm with Verizon, myself, and it's been okay, but I'd like a better plan (like the many family plans with cell-to-cell free calls, etc., that some of the other providers have).
There used to be some good "consumer level" industry sites with real data, comparisons, technology informatino, etc., but nowadays all I find when I search are people selling phones and accessories, or "xxxx_sucks.com" pages. If anyone knows of a good, trustworthy source (what we need is DSLReports.com for cell phones), I'd love to see it.
And then there's 3G... (just when you thought it was safe to re-enter the fray...)
SprintPCS has been running ads for about a year now talking up their PCS network.
What really pisses me off about those ads is that they call themselves the "Clear alternative to cellular." Dammit, Sprint PCS IS cellular! Granted, it's not 800 MHz AMPS Cellular (it's 1900 MHz CDMA, with fallback to 800 MHz AMPS / CDMA), but nobody's really using AMPS anymore, anyway. Verizon (around me, anyway) is 800 MHz AMPS / CDMA + 1900 MHz CDMA, so it's identical to Sprint PCS.
To say that they're not cellular is to imply, to anyone who knows enough to be dangerous (like me), that it's some new-fangled technology. But it's not.
This isn't the first time that Sprint's marketing has stretched the truth somewhat -- I was burned by their SprintSpectrum GSM network several years back. They'd promised coast-to-coast coverage in two years, and never came close. They also advertised the phone as a "cell phone, voice mail, and pager" all rolled into one. To me, a pager is something that I can leave on 24x7 for a month between a battery swap. Imagine my surprise when I bought the damned GSM phone and found that the "pager" functions only worked when the phone was turned on, not in some low-current 'standby pager only' mode. Now, I ask you, if my cell phone's turned on all the time, what the hell do I need a pager for?
Anyway, it really annoyed me, and the "clear alternative to cellular" riles me the same way. Granted, none of the other carriers are completely honest, either ("can you hear me now?"), but at least EVERYONE lies about coverage....
When you install a (note that, "a") copy of any MS product then you are explicitly giving them the right to audit you.
Yes, but does Microsoft have any proof that you've accepted any EULA terms?
If no, then make them get a search warrant to prove the existence of any microsoft products, and then they can enforce the "right to audit" provision of the EULA. And make them list specifically which machines they're going to check. And, once they've finally gotten their filthy little hands inside, refuse access to any machines that you know don't contain MS software.
In short, deny even having any MS software in the first place. If you don't have any software, they've got no right to come in.
Of course, school systems have even less cash than ubergeeks, so there's no chance in the world that any of these systems will force the issue, especially not in court. *sigh*
Maybe they could get Scott McNealy to pay their legal fees, to force the issue in front of a judge....
Thats what you get for shopping at HMV
I thought he was talking about Tower. It was the body piercing that did it for me.
At this point, I buy just about all of my "impulse" music at borders, and all the rest of the stuff from Amazon. Prices aren't significantly better, but their customer service and selection have always been worth it to me.
Of course, if I could find a good used-CD store that was of the same quality as the old used-LP store I used to go to (Yesterday and Today Records in Rockville, MD -- if you're an old vinyl freak, this is the place to go), then, well, I'd buy everything there, instead. And, guess what? The artist would get just as much $$ from that sale as they do from a Napster download. But at least it's legal, and I wouldn't feel guilty...
I would think that this is partially illegal to install software on a person computer without that persons consent.
I would think that it's COMPLETELY illegal to do this. If the program that's getting installed were to wipe your hard drive, there'd be lawsuits galore and FBI people kicking down the doors of the company hosting the hostile download. Why exactly nobody's been able to convince a judge that this is the same thing is beyond me.
I got royally flamed in a mailing list for complaining about a site that tried to force gator on me. The admin's response was "it didn't try to install gator, it asked you first." My argument was "it only asked me because it tried, and my browser said 'no.'" Naturally, we got nowhere.
It's even worse if they find a way to install without prompting the user. Not only is that a wide-open door for serious viruses, but it ABSOLUTELY removes any semblance of authorization (and I'd argue that a user blindly clicking "yes" to simply make the damned download panel go away doesn't constitute informed consent, either).
and most of everything that tries to connect over non standard port will be stoped
:) Plus, now you need a community-contributed and -distributed blackout list (of known spyware URLs), and at that point, you might just as well be using AdAware.
Yeah, but if you were writing a spy-ware program, would you use a non-standard port to send it out?
I'd just send it over HTTP on port 80. Or better yet, HTTPS on 443, so no content-sniffing could be done on it. Would you be willing to stop all web browsing traffic leaving your home/site/corporation?
The only way, then, to stop this would be to block traffic to particular sites, but if the traffic goes to microsoft.com, you're hosed 'cause you *need* to go there at least monthly to fix whatever's currently broken.
If these programs aren't already doing this, then they're even dumber than I thought. Unless *I* am dumber than I thought (and I admit I can be pretty stupid at times) and I've missed something obvious here.
I espcially liked the Compiler directive:
--dwimnwis (Do what I mean not what I said)
April fools aside, I actually wish there were a switch for this.
Compilers are often smart enough to be able to parse out what you mean (how many times have you gotten a perl error saying "You left a quote off up there at line 123"?).
I'd like to see a switch that gives the compiler (interpreter, whatever) the authority to try to fix, for itself, some of these stupid issues. If other non-recoverable errors happen later, then fine, it doesn't have to complete the compile. But if I drop a semicolon and get a hundred new errors as a result, and the compiler can see that if that semicolon is replaced, then why can't I ask it to replace that, warn me what it did, and see if it works?
Just a thought...
You could always look at the date they were posted, in most cases
Yes, but this also makes it difficult to look for any *real* news from April 1. In fact, most stories (and mailing list postings) from the evening of 31 March until the morning of 2 April are all suspect.
I remember this was very bad last year, and I'm afraid that this year is going to be worse.
It should be relatively trivial to put all April Fools' Jokes into their own category, while allowing them to retain a "real" icon and such. That way, people who just want the news on days like today can filter these things out.
I, for one, would hate to be a PR guy at a company which released something on Friday, got picked up by the geek sites on Monday, and had all the press ignored because it was April 1.
The main reason for people wanting things like this is to keep people's phones from ringing in the middle of, say, a movie. They say that bluetooth technologies will help prevent things like that from happening, by having the theater automatically put all phones into "silent" ring mode when you walk in. Or so one hopes.
Might things like this eventually push broader acceptance of thse kinds of features? Or will it just piss off everyone? (I know it'd piss me off, if I were in a profession where I relied on a remote page for, say, something life-threatening. I know I already take efforts to mute my pilot and turn off my phone when I go into a theater...)
Another classic example of punishing the innocent because of the abuses of a few jerks.
From the paper, lines like "On his personal computer, he could separate a wave into its wavelet components, and then reassemble them into the original wave" and "could be implemented using simple digital filtering ideas, in fact, using short digital filters" prompt me to ask: Just how does one do signal processing on a PC?
.au file backwards on a NeXT like 13 years ago. Are there really simple libraries that you can use where you say something like "out = lowpass(in.wav, 500)" and get just the bass from a wav file? How, then, do you do funky stuff like "Lt = 0.92Lf + 0.38Rf + j0.92Lb + j0.38Rb" or somesuch, where "j" represents a 90-degree phase shift? (bonus points to anyone who can identify the formula I'm screwing up).
I haven't done any programming with sound files since I tried to play a
And how do these libraries work? Is it basically iterating stuff over a huge array of amplitudes? So that to implement the lowpass filter, you actually have to somehow or other scan the array to look for patterns that need to be smoothed out? (actually, it occurs to me that you might be able to do this by averaging adjacent entries together. Okay, then, how do you do a high-pass filter, keeping the local oscillations but dropping the low-frequency ones?)
Basically, I'm curious about a good primer for DIY sound processing. Not because I want to build my own sound processing stuff, but because I'm really curious how people can do stuff like what Morlet did, especially considering he did it like 20 years ago, with significantly less-powered hardware...
(and, yes, I searched google for this, but it was a year or two ago...didn't find anything really helpful, except an early framework of an open source library that hadn't progessed much).
What would be really great would be if someone actually tested all the various computer to stereo devices that are now hitting the market and made some sense of their differences, both in terms of features and in terms of quality.
:)
I'll bite. Send me hardware, I'll post the complete review within 30 days of receiving all the components.
Rio Central & Rio Receiver
Discussed here, with plenty of misunderstandings. From what I've seen, it's the best so far.
Audiotron
Cool formfactor (more component-like). But all the playlist / music management happens on the local unit, not on the server. So whenever you update stuff, it's gotta re-parse your folders, rather than simply saying "show me all the artists you have," which is what the Rio does. Plus, if you lose power (like if you unplug it to move it around), it's got to re-scan everything, too.
Lansonic Digital Audio Server
Interesting, looks much cooler, but damn is it expensive. $700 for the DISKLESS unit? (the closest competitor to the Rio). On the other hand, the server's a little cheaper. The 950-series looks like it's trying to be the front-end for an in-wall multi-zone system, which actually is something I need personally (and haven't yet figured out how I'll do it). Looks like a high-end audience, but I'm not convinced that it's any better in quality (their space usage estimates assume 128kbps compression rates).
Request Audio Requester
I think I've seen this page before. Like Lansonic, I think they're targeting the built-in systems, so they're competing with multi-kilobuck installations and are probably priced accordingly. Seems to include line-in inputs to "rip" LPs and tapes.
SliMP3
Ubercool device. About the size of a SIMM, does what the Rio Receiver does, mostly. Hardware decompression, if I recall, so no chance (as opposed to slim chance) of ogg or other codec support. No amplifier. Designed and built by geeks, for geeks. When they upgrade it to have an optional on-screen display, downloadable menus, and MPEG-2 video support, I'll buy four of 'em for an in-house a/v system.
Stereo-Link
Eh. Takes music played from a regular PC, only via USB, and, er, outputs line out audio. Not clear if the decompression is happening in the box or in the computer. This doesn't really belong in this discussion...
Yamaha CAVIT
Eh. Looks like the same sort of thing as Stereo-Link, but maybe with an integrated amp? Again, not even the same category of product as the first five.
So, to sum up, we've got Rio (server and client, proprietary but semi-opened protocols), Audiotron (client only, uses SMB), Lansonic and Request (high-end, expensive, very different target audience, probably closed protocols), and SliMP3 (receiver only, linux server, open everything).
Recommendations:
If you want something that looks at home in your stereo rack, and don't mind putting everything on a windows share (even on a linux box), use Audiotron.
If you've got a linux server and want a really cool, geeky, high-tech sort of thing with a display you can read from Mars, get the SliMP3.
If you want a more capable receiver, windows and linux server support, and an optional stereo-component-looking server, choose Rio, especially if you can find more of the $100 units (TigerDirect is apparently sold out now).
ps -- I've got three Rios. Love 'em.
Find someone who uses OGG and they'll make it.
Actually, I believe there's a problem that OGG requires floating-point operations, and the system the receiver's built on only has integer stuff available.
So, find someone who can write a fast FP OGG decoder and they'll make it might be more accurate.
Plus, the jreceiver project's been experimenting with live streaming and transcoding, so you could maybe transcode an ogg file to very high bitrate mp3 at the server. Not for purists, I suppose, but would keep you from having to re-rip your library.
Why would I need to hook up another device that requires my PC to work to begin with?
Because it takes up only like 8x10" of counter space in my kitchen, doesn't have a fan, and draws like 45mA when playing.
Show me a good general purpose computer for $150 that'll do that and I'll drop the Rio in a heartbeat.
The SliMP3 is less polished, but is fed with a simple perl program that streams audio. The Audiotron is fed with any Samba compatible server. In other words, either device can work with a Linux box. The Rio currently can't
Okay, this is probably the 10th time there's been a story about the Rio Receiver, and in each and every one someone like me stands up to shout:
There are open-source Linux servers for the Rio Receiver!!!
Check out a simple perl/apache one by Jeff Mock at www.mock.com/receiver,
a more complex server that's built on java, jetty, struts, and the like at http://sourceforge.net/projects/jreceiver/. And be sure to check out the Rio discussion forum at http://rioreceiver.comms.net.
Sonic Blue engineers frequent that message board, and there's lots of open-source hacking going on, including line-out kernel hacks, integrated web and vnc servers, and the like.