You know, when I first started covering the case, I hoped that Reiser didn't do it. Nina was obviously smart enough to get a medical degree, so faking your own death shouldn't be too hard.
As more evidence piled up, in spite of my wanting to believe Hans was innocent, the evidence didn't seem to point that way. Human behavior does have a wide gamut, but the problem is that it seems that time and time again, Hans had not just odd behavior, but behaved oddly at incredibly suspicious times. The odd behavior isn't in and of itself unusual, but the timing isn't something most people are willing to ignore.
Hans also is well known for being exactly what the judge accused him of being - incredibly arrogant, and condescending to everyone else. His behavior and arrogance on the LKML did more to keep Reiser4 out of the kernel than any flaws in the code. (Though the code wasn't well received either). He didn't seem to get that opinions are like backsides - everybody has them, nobody wants to see yours. His contempt for his own defense counsel was obvious, as was his contempt for the entire system of law enforcement, and for the intelligence of both the Judge & jury.
The fact of the matter is the courts are a human system, and you have to deal with humans - like a jury and judge that don't appreciate a defendant who leaves the impression he felt the jury was intellectually deficient. Call me crazy, but when your life is in the hands of twelve people, it's a good idea to treat them with due respect - because they will be deciding your fate.
People have been convicted of much less; and it's a sad thing that innocent people have their lives ruined by the courts; unfortunately it's a human system, and we're not exactly perfect. I don't want to ever put an innocent person in prison, but juries have only two things to go by for court cases: 1.) What is presented in court 2.) Their own experience with other humans.
Most humans become parents at some point in time, and guess what? Kids lie to cover their asses. When a defendant sits on the stand, and makes arguments with the plausibility level of 5 year old, the juror will likely think 'hmm... my 5-year was acting the same way a week ago, and I know my kid was lying..." yeah; that doesn't help your case.
So given those two filters, we do the best we can; lots of guilty people go free, and innocent people lose their freedom, or their life.
That fact alone is why, in spite of their many known flaws, there's the continual search for a working lie detector. Until we have a perfect lie detector, and 24/7 survellience of every man, woman, and child, then there's gonna be innocent people going to jail, because there's always going to be an overzealous cop, a DA with a chip on his shoulder, a victim who fingers the wrong guy, a mistaken eyewitness...
Depends entirely on the time of day you drove past. Typical working hours for most employees was shifted a few hours later in the day. There were plenty of vehicles there yesterday, (and around back), as well as quite a few today.
One reason few cars were there is they were trying to plow the parking lot in the morning (yesterday and today). There was a pretty wicked snowstorm the night before, making the commute painful.
That and most of the staff rolls in later in the morning, and leave later at night than most office drones typically do.
So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."
More accurately, Samsung put a player out onto the market that met the demands of the (currently unfinished) Blu-ray disc standard.
Blu-ray was rushed to market before it was ready - HD DVD's release ensured the BDA couldn't wait until the standard was completed.
The Blu-ray trade assosciation admitted as much at CES 2008, and then noted that only Sony's PS3 had any hope of being upgradeable to Profile 2.0, due in October. (I'm sure Sony was more than happy to hear that... and I'm betting it really annoys the other manufacturers in the BDA).
In contrast, HD DVD was a polished, complete standard at the time of release, and the first HD DVD players can handle every feature of every disc made - including features that Blu-ray does not currently have.
I'm officially format-neutral - I have both (Samsung's BD/HD DVD player).
I think it's funny to hear various fanbois pitting it as a Microsoft vs. Sony thing - it's more Toshiba/NEC vs. Sony/Panasonic/Philips, which is more or less what almost happened with "regular" DVD, except this time, Sony & co. decided to push its product, instead of suffering the "disgrace" of following someone else's lead. Rivalries among Japanese companies are a lot like college sports - sometimes I have difficulty telling the difference between rivalry and a full-on holy war. And HD DVD vs Blu-ray is very similar - the battle was faught in the DVD forum for years, with Sony, Panasonic, and Philips doing everything possible to prevent HD DVD from happening.
Many of the ignorant thing that the menu system used by HD DVD is Microsoft's - which is completely false. HD DVD uses "Advanced Content" - an open standard defined by Disney & Warner Brothers. The most popular implementation is Microsoft's HDi. In other words, HDi is to Advanced Content as Internet Explorer is to HTML. HDi is one implementation, and is from Microsoft; Advanced Content is the standard, and is from Disney and Warner. HDi is the most popular, much like how IE is the dominant web browser for HTML.
In the end, HD DVD's release forced the BDA's hand - the BDA had to either give up entirely (no format war and only HD DVD) or release a product based on an incomplete standard. Not wanting to give up royalties, the BDA released a half-baked product.
The part that's not forgivable is that the BD player makers had a very good idea what the final standard would be - things like internet connectivity, two decoders for picture-in-picture, built-in storage - you know, stuff that its HD DVD competitor does.
All things told, I like that HD DVD is a "finished" standard - HD DVD owners are unlikely to get "burned" - even if the format fails, the discs will still play, after all. Blu-ray can't say that - early adopters are getting burned, and will continue to be burned until Profile 2.0 players are common, if not longer.
As far as being "burned" by "losing" the format war - I remind readers that iTunes sold more movies than either HD DVD or Blu-ray in 2007. It's quite likely that both HD DVD and Blu-ray will "lose" in the end - though the discs will still play, and both discs are already rippable.
There's nothing wrong with P2P - it's using it to infringe on copyright that's bad. (I'm strongly against copyright infringement as well). I've never been to a concert of my favorite bands because, well, they don't deem my area worth their time, so paying for recordings, however corrupt the process is, is the only thing I can do that might get some money to the artists. I'm not going to travel hundreds of miles for a concert - period.
I would also argue that MS may have wanted to stall the HDDVD/BluRay uptake, not only to push downloadable content, but also to hamper PS3 growth
As long as the PS2 outsells the PS3, I don't think the finger of blame for the PS3's current problems lie anywhere but Sony. The "PS3 Killer" came long before the Xbox 360, before the Xbox, even - it's called the PS2...
That's because there is no difference in the actual movie - same codecs for both audio and video, and when all is said, the same bitrates too; it costs more to make a dual layer disc than a single layer, so there's always the pressure to keep the bitrates as low as possible.
When all is said & done, the only difference is: 1.) The physical disc. HD DVD's spec has up to 3 layers, each in roughly 15 GB increments. The BD spec has 2 layers, each about 25 (the "experimental" discs that are 10 layer aren't actually compliant with the specification) 2.) The menu system. HD DVD uses HDi, designed by Disney (who is oddly in the BD camp), and is more or less a web browser, using web technologies. BD uses BD-Java (A subset of Java). Both have advantages - it's a heck of a lot easier to make a menu for HD DVD than for BD. HD DVD was released with the full HDi spec finished and published - BD took over a year after release before BD-J was finalized. 3.) HD DVD has more Mandatory codecs - ie. the player is required to be able to read & play more codecs). So while both have the same codecs, they're mandatory on HD DVD, and optional on BD.
But I've never really understood the arguments against the iPod - most of them seem to boil down to the adolescent "I don't want to buy it because everybody else is getting it" argument.
I can see people liking other shapes/cases over the iPod, but in terms of features, I just don't see anything compelling that the iPod lacks or does poorly.
The only features I've seen in iPod competitors that are even interesting involves playing FLAC and Vorbis files - which I only half support, as they aren't ISO standards.
WMA, Vorbis, and FLAC aren't ISO standard formats.
I've been a fan of Vorbis from years before it made 1.0. But I support standards - and Vorbis is only a standard in that its source code is open source.
I also believe that even though the chip may support WMA, that's no reason to include it - support the standard codecs, not the ones Microsoft paid the chip company to include.
iPods already support the ISO standard codecs: AAC, MP3, H.264, and I believe MPEG-4. Vorbis is great, but AAC is very competitive - enough so to justify sticking to the ISO standard codec. There are few compelling reasons to use any of the alternatives to the ISO standard codecs, unless you're trying to sell licenses for your own proprietary format, like WMA.
Much flak has been shot at Apple for FairPlay (a combination of the standard AES encryption and AAC codec), and their unwillingness to license it out. As it stands, the record companies are so desperate to divorce themselves from Apple (but are unable to, as Apple sells so much of their goods, and iPods are so popular), that they're willing to give up DRM and proprietary PlaysForSure (which Apple won't support) to regain some semblance of the control they desire.
It would be a horrible step backwards should Apple license FairPlay; it would give the record companies a reason to keep using DRM. Apple has scored a big victory (though most likely unintentional) for consumers over the record companies in more or less forcing them to either ditch DRM or allow Apple to take over the entire industry.
Well, if you aren't observant, if you go back in the history on a mac, depending on your browser, it can appear as bad as the topic claims.
Appearances can be deceiving, though.
Basically, if you use Safari, on a Mac, then you can go back into the history and view the files. Oh noes! A security breach!
Not really.
It only works after you've unlocked the login keychain, which has your.Mac login information. Keychain is similar to the KDE wallet, or any of a number of other password managers. (I use KDE's wallet because it's the closest thing i can think of - complete with an API so any app can use the keychain, so you don't have to write your own. I wish the FireFox devs would use the keychain on Macintosh. Oh well, I just use a browser that does instead.
Nearly every browser for OS X I've used uses the keychain - including Safari. So when you go back into your history, Safari uses the password stored in the keychain, fills in the password, and voila - you're in, no typing required, and you don't see the login prompt.
As mentioned (and I'm stressing it because it's important), Safari is using the keychain to authenticate, and is working as designed. So when iDisk's website asks for your username & password, Safari looks in the keychain, supplies the information immediately, and lets you go on with your life.
Naturally, to do this, you have to put your authentication information into the keychain.
You can get around this pretty easily: Don't be an idiot an put your passwords into a public system's keychain. It's every bit as stupid as storing passwords in IE (or FireFox's) password manager.
Being from the salt lake valley (where overstock.com is headquartered), I know a few people who used to work there.
Used to is the operative word. They weren't let go; they quit. And the reason is always the same: Rampant nepotism.
When a relatively new (and incompetent) person is promoted, and a highly experienced and trained person is passed by, it raises an eyebrow. When the reason the person was promoted is they are a niece/nephew, it's a different story entirely.
It's not any one branch of the company - it seems systemic, from management, to sales, to marketing, to IT.
And there's a slow exodus of the people who actually have talent, which are then replaced by relatives...
With that kind of corporate culture-- promoting illegal hiring and promotion practices, it's not hard to see how overstock.com can have management that isn't willing to see any of their own problems. Being oblivious to their own problems, they decide to try to put blame on external sources - be it Wikipedia, financial institutions, etc.
That being said, I would like to see more transparency on Wikipedia.
And I certainly feel that blanket IP address bans are a bad thing. Banning people whose only 'crime' against wikipedia is belonging to the same ISP as someone who is a problem is not something I'd expect.
I really do think that Wikipedia should consider more thorough authentication mechanisms -- like requiring a crypto certificate from an authority that verifies identity; however this is an expensive and time-consuming process. But it should help reduce the sock-puppet effect.
The Cancel or Allow thing only appears when a program requires admin rights for me the only time I see this is when I'm installing a game or driver. Or if you decide to organize the start menu. (Is it still called the Start menu now that it doesn't say 'start?')
One thing that's neat about OS X is you can install many programs as a normal user (granted, everything stays within your home directory, but it's possible, and won't affect the system as a whole.)
My beefs with the Vista UI are 1.) The folder icons. The mini-icons look more like the WinXP "zipfile" icon, which caused no end of grief for me. Fully-customizable, however, so it's just an inconvenience. 2.) I really dislike the 'ribbon' UI concept; but as I stressed in my earlier post, this is a matter of personal preference. 3.) While not really a problem, per se, it was maddening finding where Vista put a number of functions that were previously easy to find in the menu. This problem obviously 'went away' as I learned where they are in Vista.
As far as stability problems go - Apple does have an advantage in that it has a limited hardware set. However, Linux runs on even more hardware than Windows, and is rock solid. (I'll grant you that the average Linux user is more savvy than the average windows user - and this probably accounts for much.) But I've got 3 macs, one is PPC, the other two are Intel. All run Leopard, and none have crashed. That being said, I run Vista (via boot camp), and have only crashed vista once or twice. But since I've had Vista several months longer than Leopard, you've gotta expect a higher number of crashes, right?
And with the "old school Linux camp" - leave the 60 year olds alone. Old dog & new tricks & all. But they do have a valid point - it is useful to be able to use the command line. But that's about as far as I'll go. (And I'm one of those freaks who was looking at Leopard's new feature set and didn't really thing "woo hoo!" until I read about the upgraded terminal.)
As far as why it's necessary to edit files manually instead of a wizard - mainly because text files are the standard method of holding configuration data in Unix-like OSes. (OS X tends to use.plists, which are also formatted text files). But why not wizards? Usually because a great many linux software developers aren't that motivated to make configuration easy. It's not a very fun job, and given the amount of Linux software written by volunteers, it's a case of the developers ignoring that 'boring' step. Things are slowly changing, but it's still Linux's major problem.
You know, it's funny - You shine a spotlight on "bizarre" UI issues that Apple made, yet quietly sweep Vista's under the rug. And Linux geeks have been, in my experience, the most helpful of all computer users. The only people who shout RTFM are either tweens or people with the maturity of one.
Given Mac's heritage in graphic design (ie. the people who stuck with apple from '95-2000), it's not surprising to hear designer after designer lamenting decisions they don't agree with.
The new dock appearance has had no end of critics; fortunately it can be configured and customized fairly easily. The translucent menu bar is similar. In both cases, Apple should have provided the tools, instead of forcing people to take matters into their own hands.
The dock in general has had no end of critics; there is a legion of users who pine for the days of the "classic" interface; not because it's bad, but because it's not what they had in 1984. In some ways, I see the design complaints like an old man sitting on his porch, lamenting the styling of modern cars.
Though I'd like to see an example of a 'real' deficiency that has been spun as a wonderful feature. It's easy to say that apple is ignoring major problems, but I have yet to see any examples. Any of the 'design' issues like icon appearance, dock appearance, or menu bar appearance are customizable, should you not like the default. But design is, to me, a non-issue, as it's very subjective, and there's no pleasing everybody.
And as for Apple users not holding Apple to a higher standard - surely you jest. Graphic designers have been complaining long and loud ever since OS X was released about things they didn't like. (Probably before that, but I didn't consider "Classic" macintosh at all viable). Unix geeks have also held apple to a very high standard - to the point that it's now one of the very few operating systems that's been certified as Unix. In fact, the terminal application received a major amount of attention in Leopard, with many improvements.
That being said, I also have & run Vista. Frankly, it seems (to me) to be little different from XP from a user's standpoint. Again, some graphic design issues, some I like, some I don't. (I think it's funny to hear people lament about the Leopard Folder icons. Vista's were an even bigger step backwards...) But overall, Vista was just plain underwhelming to me. Vista had more compatibility issues at release than Leopard did, though a good part of that was lousy video drivers from ATI & Nvidia. I also don't appreciate Vista's umpteen levels of DRM and having to click "allow or deny" all kinds of connections to the internet. XP couldn't play many games as a non-administrator (I haven't checked if Vista has the same problem).
In general, OS X, like most Unix & unix-like OSes, just works with a non-administrative user. XP was a joke, and I haven't seen anything to indicate an improvement in Vista.
And what of hacking phones for new software? There's absolutely no doubt that a video game console is a programmable device.
Microsoft is still allowed to keep the Xbox closed to development unless you pay for an SDK. You can't publish your software unless Microsoft approves of it. Microsoft can change the Xbox so that anything you've done no longer works.
Nintendo can (and does) do the same thing with its Wii, GameCube, N64, SNES, NES..
You can't sue Sony because you want to hack the firmware on their Blu-ray player, or that their lastest firmware release bricked your disc player because you added software on it.
You can't sue Toshiba for bricking an HD DVD player after you hacked its firmware (their HD DVD players are essentially Intel PC's).
You can't sue TiVo because they don't allow you to put your hacked software on their device.
You're missing one detail: * The DMCA only means that a company can't sue you for unlocking the phone. And by unlocking, I mean making the phone work with other cell phone carriers.
* There's nothing saying that a company has to allow a consumer to program its device.
Let's take a non-Apple example, a video game console. There's absolutely no doubt that these are programmable devices.
* Microsoft doesn't have to allow you to code for the Xbox 360 (and in fact doesn't, unless you pay for an SDK, whether it is the consumer or pro devel tools). * Nintendo doesn't have to allow you to code for the Wii, and similarly doesn't allow anybody to do it unless they've met criteria set by the manufacturer. * Sony doesn't have to allow development on its box either; but they do allow you to install Linux on their machine and program from there. I don't know if they require a developer to purchase an SDK if they want to do development outside PS3 Linux.
Basically, people who want to sue because they aren't allowed to program a device they purchased have nothing to support them. It's more or less standard practice for any embedded device.
Unless iphones start bursting into flame like nokia's, negligence does not apply. If you were hurt because a phone blew up when you dropped it in a toilet, cooked it in the oven, or danced on it, then sure- you might have a case.
But the iPhone isn't dangerous, I'd or at least hasn't been shown to be.
And even then, look at the outcome with the ford pinto burning its occupants alive when rear ended. They had a dangerous product, and people died, but Ford was not found guilty of negligence. Negligence is a lot harder to prove than you'd think, and it's not clear it can even be applied in this case.
If you think that software can't cause permanent damage to hardware then you haven't spent enough time working close to hardware. This isn't suprising, as a lot of 'hardware' in a desktop computer only exposes functions via a firmware interface that cuts off direct access to the hardware to keep a programmer from frying the hardware. Embedded devices typically skip that step because it isn't intended to allow the customer to program the device. Why go to the trouble and expense of making it safe for programmers if you're not going to allow third party development?
the dmca only says apple can't sue you for unlocking your phone.
It does not require Apple to do anything to support unlocking.
From day one, Apple told everyone it would never have an sdk. From day one Apple announced it would be exclusive to AT&T in the states. Neither exceptions are unusual in phones sold in the us. In spite of apple singing to the rafters that there would be no sdk and exclusive to AT&T, people bought it.
There are many phone models exclusive to a carrier. Why is Apple the bad guy, but motorola, samsung, lg and nokia exempt from such rage over exclusive contracts? Apple has always said it would be a closed platform. Now people are upset that Apple is keeping it closed? Usually people get upset when a company doesn't keep its promises.
I'm not defending apple so much as asking why such an obvious double standard exists? Is it just because the iphone is "cool" and its competition is not? There were always other options that claimed to be - and are open platforms. Apple has always said the iPhone would be a closed platform. Why the crying when they move to keep it closed as they have intended?
It's almost like these people have no idea that every manufacturer has rights too. If you violate your end of a contract (eula?), they have no obligation to uphold their end. Bricked iphones will still work with a valid sim and are therefore not eligible for repair as they are not defective.
I'm much more willing to pay $30 for an 'uncompressed' DRM-free CD than I am to pay $30 for a compressed DRM-laden CD. That's a moot point, since I wouldn't pay that much for either.
I don't think these geniuses realize that music doesn't have the entertainment monopoly they enjoyed a century ago. People like to enjoy recordings of TV, and we have DVD's. We also have these newfangled 'video games'. There's a lot more competition than the local theater troupe and the girl (or guy) next door.
YouTube pretty much proves that we don't need 'content providers' to create and enjoy entertainment.
Basically, the ability to cheaply record music & video - using consumer recording equipment, is starting to break the monopoly of content providers. Artists don't have to go to these companies to get a quality recording made and published anymore.
This doesn't diminish the need for talented non-artists (recording engineers, for example), but it does make most of what a recording company has traditionally done obsolete. So why fight to maintain infrastructure (replication, printing, and distribution) that isn't a competitive advantage anymore? It just costs money they don't need to spend. They're wanting to jack up prices so they can maintain infrastructure they don't even need anymore.
Instead of doing what most businesses do, and cut costs, they're increasing the prices to levels consumers won't tolerate. (Blindly believing there aren't other entertainment options for the consumer's dollar).
I wish media companies would realize what their business is: Record artists, and distribute content at a modest profit. They don't need to spend billions on trying to force tastes on its consumers; just cater to what they want.
It's honestly not difficult (or expensive) to start a recording company anymore. If the 'big' labels don't want to play, Apple can just promote the independent labels (which it is already doing). Then the "big" labels will have to explain to their stockholders why they threw away 30+% of their sales - and in free money, no less.
I'm more an observer in both cases; maybe it's that the Linux code into BSD was months ago and memory has faded. But it seems that the reaction of some in the BSD community is louder & longer. When I first heard of the Linux code being put into BSD, my thought was something to the extent of "Some people are making a very big fuss over a really minor mistake -- that was immediately corrected". And with the exception of a few GPL-Nazis, the issue was considered resolved.
I find it interesting that there appears to be more noise coming from the 'BSD code being used in Linux' - part of it is no doubt due to misinterpretation of the BSD license, and some pure reciprocity on the part of prominent OpenBSD coders. (And some equally bad behavior of the 'GPL-forever' crowd).
I find it odd that OpenBSD -- not Net, Free, or DragonFly BSD, seem to get the headlines for bad relations with Linux & GPL projects; especially as FreeBSD is the most popular of the bunch. I's almost as if some in the OpenBSD project want to prohibit their code from being used in GPL projects; a restriction not found in the BSD license.
Either way, just fix the problem and move on. Vitriolic grandstanding doesn't do anybody any good.
I do find it funny that some of the arguments are centered around minutae in copyright law in Germany. While the argument may hold weight in Germany, it doesn't hold any weight in the other countries any more than the USA's copyright laws have on the (Russian) allofmp3.com, or on the (Swedish) pirate bay.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, when I first started covering the case, I hoped that Reiser didn't do it. Nina was obviously smart enough to get a medical degree, so faking your own death shouldn't be too hard.
As more evidence piled up, in spite of my wanting to believe Hans was innocent, the evidence didn't seem to point that way. Human behavior does have a wide gamut, but the problem is that it seems that time and time again, Hans had not just odd behavior, but behaved oddly at incredibly suspicious times. The odd behavior isn't in and of itself unusual, but the timing isn't something most people are willing to ignore.
Hans also is well known for being exactly what the judge accused him of being - incredibly arrogant, and condescending to everyone else. His behavior and arrogance on the LKML did more to keep Reiser4 out of the kernel than any flaws in the code. (Though the code wasn't well received either). He didn't seem to get that opinions are like backsides - everybody has them, nobody wants to see yours. His contempt for his own defense counsel was obvious, as was his contempt for the entire system of law enforcement, and for the intelligence of both the Judge & jury.
The fact of the matter is the courts are a human system, and you have to deal with humans - like a jury and judge that don't appreciate a defendant who leaves the impression he felt the jury was intellectually deficient. Call me crazy, but when your life is in the hands of twelve people, it's a good idea to treat them with due respect - because they will be deciding your fate.
People have been convicted of much less; and it's a sad thing that innocent people have their lives ruined by the courts; unfortunately it's a human system, and we're not exactly perfect. I don't want to ever put an innocent person in prison, but juries have only two things to go by for court cases: 1.) What is presented in court 2.) Their own experience with other humans.
Most humans become parents at some point in time, and guess what? Kids lie to cover their asses. When a defendant sits on the stand, and makes arguments with the plausibility level of 5 year old, the juror will likely think 'hmm... my 5-year was acting the same way a week ago, and I know my kid was lying..." yeah; that doesn't help your case.
So given those two filters, we do the best we can; lots of guilty people go free, and innocent people lose their freedom, or their life.
That fact alone is why, in spite of their many known flaws, there's the continual search for a working lie detector. Until we have a perfect lie detector, and 24/7 survellience of every man, woman, and child, then there's gonna be innocent people going to jail, because there's always going to be an overzealous cop, a DA with a chip on his shoulder, a victim who fingers the wrong guy, a mistaken eyewitness...
Depends entirely on the time of day you drove past. Typical working hours for most employees was shifted a few hours later in the day. There were plenty of vehicles there yesterday, (and around back), as well as quite a few today.
One reason few cars were there is they were trying to plow the parking lot in the morning (yesterday and today). There was a pretty wicked snowstorm the night before, making the commute painful.
That and most of the staff rolls in later in the morning, and leave later at night than most office drones typically do.
LNXI hasn't been in Lindon for years, FYI. It (was) in Bluffdale for 3-4 years now.
So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."
More accurately, Samsung put a player out onto the market that met the demands of the (currently unfinished) Blu-ray disc standard.
Blu-ray was rushed to market before it was ready - HD DVD's release ensured the BDA couldn't wait until the standard was completed.
The Blu-ray trade assosciation admitted as much at CES 2008, and then noted that only Sony's PS3 had any hope of being upgradeable to Profile 2.0, due in October. (I'm sure Sony was more than happy to hear that... and I'm betting it really annoys the other manufacturers in the BDA).
In contrast, HD DVD was a polished, complete standard at the time of release, and the first HD DVD players can handle every feature of every disc made - including features that Blu-ray does not currently have.
I'm officially format-neutral - I have both (Samsung's BD/HD DVD player).
I think it's funny to hear various fanbois pitting it as a Microsoft vs. Sony thing - it's more Toshiba/NEC vs. Sony/Panasonic/Philips, which is more or less what almost happened with "regular" DVD, except this time, Sony & co. decided to push its product, instead of suffering the "disgrace" of following someone else's lead. Rivalries among Japanese companies are a lot like college sports - sometimes I have difficulty telling the difference between rivalry and a full-on holy war. And HD DVD vs Blu-ray is very similar - the battle was faught in the DVD forum for years, with Sony, Panasonic, and Philips doing everything possible to prevent HD DVD from happening.
Many of the ignorant thing that the menu system used by HD DVD is Microsoft's - which is completely false. HD DVD uses "Advanced Content" - an open standard defined by Disney & Warner Brothers. The most popular implementation is Microsoft's HDi. In other words, HDi is to Advanced Content as Internet Explorer is to HTML. HDi is one implementation, and is from Microsoft; Advanced Content is the standard, and is from Disney and Warner. HDi is the most popular, much like how IE is the dominant web browser for HTML.
In the end, HD DVD's release forced the BDA's hand - the BDA had to either give up entirely (no format war and only HD DVD) or release a product based on an incomplete standard. Not wanting to give up royalties, the BDA released a half-baked product.
The part that's not forgivable is that the BD player makers had a very good idea what the final standard would be - things like internet connectivity, two decoders for picture-in-picture, built-in storage - you know, stuff that its HD DVD competitor does.
All things told, I like that HD DVD is a "finished" standard - HD DVD owners are unlikely to get "burned" - even if the format fails, the discs will still play, after all. Blu-ray can't say that - early adopters are getting burned, and will continue to be burned until Profile 2.0 players are common, if not longer.
As far as being "burned" by "losing" the format war - I remind readers that iTunes sold more movies than either HD DVD or Blu-ray in 2007. It's quite likely that both HD DVD and Blu-ray will "lose" in the end - though the discs will still play, and both discs are already rippable.
I just knew there was more to a guy's attatchment to his remote control. I just didn't know it ran so deep.
There's nothing wrong with P2P - it's using it to infringe on copyright that's bad. (I'm strongly against copyright infringement as well). I've never been to a concert of my favorite bands because, well, they don't deem my area worth their time, so paying for recordings, however corrupt the process is, is the only thing I can do that might get some money to the artists. I'm not going to travel hundreds of miles for a concert - period.
I would also argue that MS may have wanted to stall the HDDVD/BluRay uptake, not only to push downloadable content, but also to hamper PS3 growth
As long as the PS2 outsells the PS3, I don't think the finger of blame for the PS3's current problems lie anywhere but Sony. The "PS3 Killer" came long before the Xbox 360, before the Xbox, even - it's called the PS2...
That's because there is no difference in the actual movie - same codecs for both audio and video, and when all is said, the same bitrates too; it costs more to make a dual layer disc than a single layer, so there's always the pressure to keep the bitrates as low as possible.
When all is said & done, the only difference is:
1.) The physical disc. HD DVD's spec has up to 3 layers, each in roughly 15 GB increments. The BD spec has 2 layers, each about 25 (the "experimental" discs that are 10 layer aren't actually compliant with the specification)
2.) The menu system. HD DVD uses HDi, designed by Disney (who is oddly in the BD camp), and is more or less a web browser, using web technologies. BD uses BD-Java (A subset of Java). Both have advantages - it's a heck of a lot easier to make a menu for HD DVD than for BD. HD DVD was released with the full HDi spec finished and published - BD took over a year after release before BD-J was finalized.
3.) HD DVD has more Mandatory codecs - ie. the player is required to be able to read & play more codecs). So while both have the same codecs, they're mandatory on HD DVD, and optional on BD.
The amazon scores change hourly - just after christmas the HD DVD titles were in the top 25, and no blu ray titles were there. It goes back and forth.
Amazon isn't exactly the most useful metric for who's selling what.
Quite true. But I think everybody would like to forget the ROKR. (And probably the 'other' iTunes phone, the SLVR).
I agree that the lawsuit is entirely stupid.
But I've never really understood the arguments against the iPod - most of them seem to boil down to the adolescent "I don't want to buy it because everybody else is getting it" argument.
I can see people liking other shapes/cases over the iPod, but in terms of features, I just don't see anything compelling that the iPod lacks or does poorly.
The only features I've seen in iPod competitors that are even interesting involves playing FLAC and Vorbis files - which I only half support, as they aren't ISO standards.
WMA, Vorbis, and FLAC aren't ISO standard formats.
I've been a fan of Vorbis from years before it made 1.0. But I support standards - and Vorbis is only a standard in that its source code is open source.
I also believe that even though the chip may support WMA, that's no reason to include it - support the standard codecs, not the ones Microsoft paid the chip company to include.
iPods already support the ISO standard codecs: AAC, MP3, H.264, and I believe MPEG-4. Vorbis is great, but AAC is very competitive - enough so to justify sticking to the ISO standard codec. There are few compelling reasons to use any of the alternatives to the ISO standard codecs, unless you're trying to sell licenses for your own proprietary format, like WMA.
Much flak has been shot at Apple for FairPlay (a combination of the standard AES encryption and AAC codec), and their unwillingness to license it out. As it stands, the record companies are so desperate to divorce themselves from Apple (but are unable to, as Apple sells so much of their goods, and iPods are so popular), that they're willing to give up DRM and proprietary PlaysForSure (which Apple won't support) to regain some semblance of the control they desire.
It would be a horrible step backwards should Apple license FairPlay; it would give the record companies a reason to keep using DRM. Apple has scored a big victory (though most likely unintentional) for consumers over the record companies in more or less forcing them to either ditch DRM or allow Apple to take over the entire industry.
Well, if you aren't observant, if you go back in the history on a mac, depending on your browser, it can appear as bad as the topic claims.
.Mac login information. Keychain is similar to the KDE wallet, or any of a number of other password managers. (I use KDE's wallet because it's the closest thing i can think of - complete with an API so any app can use the keychain, so you don't have to write your own. I wish the FireFox devs would use the keychain on Macintosh. Oh well, I just use a browser that does instead.
Appearances can be deceiving, though.
Basically, if you use Safari, on a Mac, then you can go back into the history and view the files. Oh noes! A security breach!
Not really.
It only works after you've unlocked the login keychain, which has your
Nearly every browser for OS X I've used uses the keychain - including Safari. So when you go back into your history, Safari uses the password stored in the keychain, fills in the password, and voila - you're in, no typing required, and you don't see the login prompt.
As mentioned (and I'm stressing it because it's important), Safari is using the keychain to authenticate, and is working as designed. So when iDisk's website asks for your username & password, Safari looks in the keychain, supplies the information immediately, and lets you go on with your life.
Naturally, to do this, you have to put your authentication information into the keychain.
You can get around this pretty easily: Don't be an idiot an put your passwords into a public system's keychain. It's every bit as stupid as storing passwords in IE (or FireFox's) password manager.
Being from the salt lake valley (where overstock.com is headquartered), I know a few people who used to work there.
Used to is the operative word. They weren't let go; they quit. And the reason is always the same: Rampant nepotism.
When a relatively new (and incompetent) person is promoted, and a highly experienced and trained person is passed by, it raises an eyebrow. When the reason the person was promoted is they are a niece/nephew, it's a different story entirely.
It's not any one branch of the company - it seems systemic, from management, to sales, to marketing, to IT.
And there's a slow exodus of the people who actually have talent, which are then replaced by relatives...
With that kind of corporate culture-- promoting illegal hiring and promotion practices, it's not hard to see how overstock.com can have management that isn't willing to see any of their own problems. Being oblivious to their own problems, they decide to try to put blame on external sources - be it Wikipedia, financial institutions, etc.
That being said, I would like to see more transparency on Wikipedia.
And I certainly feel that blanket IP address bans are a bad thing. Banning people whose only 'crime' against wikipedia is belonging to the same ISP as someone who is a problem is not something I'd expect.
I really do think that Wikipedia should consider more thorough authentication mechanisms -- like requiring a crypto certificate from an authority that verifies identity; however this is an expensive and time-consuming process. But it should help reduce the sock-puppet effect.
The Cancel or Allow thing only appears when a program requires admin rights for me the only time I see this is when I'm installing a game or driver.
.plists, which are also formatted text files). But why not wizards? Usually because a great many linux software developers aren't that motivated to make configuration easy. It's not a very fun job, and given the amount of Linux software written by volunteers, it's a case of the developers ignoring that 'boring' step. Things are slowly changing, but it's still Linux's major problem.
Or if you decide to organize the start menu. (Is it still called the Start menu now that it doesn't say 'start?')
One thing that's neat about OS X is you can install many programs as a normal user (granted, everything stays within your home directory, but it's possible, and won't affect the system as a whole.)
My beefs with the Vista UI are
1.) The folder icons. The mini-icons look more like the WinXP "zipfile" icon, which caused no end of grief for me. Fully-customizable, however, so it's just an inconvenience.
2.) I really dislike the 'ribbon' UI concept; but as I stressed in my earlier post, this is a matter of personal preference.
3.) While not really a problem, per se, it was maddening finding where Vista put a number of functions that were previously easy to find in the menu. This problem obviously 'went away' as I learned where they are in Vista.
As far as stability problems go - Apple does have an advantage in that it has a limited hardware set. However, Linux runs on even more hardware than Windows, and is rock solid. (I'll grant you that the average Linux user is more savvy than the average windows user - and this probably accounts for much.) But I've got 3 macs, one is PPC, the other two are Intel. All run Leopard, and none have crashed. That being said, I run Vista (via boot camp), and have only crashed vista once or twice. But since I've had Vista several months longer than Leopard, you've gotta expect a higher number of crashes, right?
And with the "old school Linux camp" - leave the 60 year olds alone. Old dog & new tricks & all. But they do have a valid point - it is useful to be able to use the command line. But that's about as far as I'll go. (And I'm one of those freaks who was looking at Leopard's new feature set and didn't really thing "woo hoo!" until I read about the upgraded terminal.)
As far as why it's necessary to edit files manually instead of a wizard - mainly because text files are the standard method of holding configuration data in Unix-like OSes. (OS X tends to use
You know, it's funny - You shine a spotlight on "bizarre" UI issues that Apple made, yet quietly sweep Vista's under the rug. And Linux geeks have been, in my experience, the most helpful of all computer users. The only people who shout RTFM are either tweens or people with the maturity of one.
Given Mac's heritage in graphic design (ie. the people who stuck with apple from '95-2000), it's not surprising to hear designer after designer lamenting decisions they don't agree with.
The new dock appearance has had no end of critics; fortunately it can be configured and customized fairly easily. The translucent menu bar is similar. In both cases, Apple should have provided the tools, instead of forcing people to take matters into their own hands.
The dock in general has had no end of critics; there is a legion of users who pine for the days of the "classic" interface; not because it's bad, but because it's not what they had in 1984. In some ways, I see the design complaints like an old man sitting on his porch, lamenting the styling of modern cars.
Though I'd like to see an example of a 'real' deficiency that has been spun as a wonderful feature. It's easy to say that apple is ignoring major problems, but I have yet to see any examples. Any of the 'design' issues like icon appearance, dock appearance, or menu bar appearance are customizable, should you not like the default. But design is, to me, a non-issue, as it's very subjective, and there's no pleasing everybody.
And as for Apple users not holding Apple to a higher standard - surely you jest. Graphic designers have been complaining long and loud ever since OS X was released about things they didn't like. (Probably before that, but I didn't consider "Classic" macintosh at all viable). Unix geeks have also held apple to a very high standard - to the point that it's now one of the very few operating systems that's been certified as Unix. In fact, the terminal application received a major amount of attention in Leopard, with many improvements.
That being said, I also have & run Vista. Frankly, it seems (to me) to be little different from XP from a user's standpoint. Again, some graphic design issues, some I like, some I don't. (I think it's funny to hear people lament about the Leopard Folder icons. Vista's were an even bigger step backwards...) But overall, Vista was just plain underwhelming to me. Vista had more compatibility issues at release than Leopard did, though a good part of that was lousy video drivers from ATI & Nvidia. I also don't appreciate Vista's umpteen levels of DRM and having to click "allow or deny" all kinds of connections to the internet. XP couldn't play many games as a non-administrator (I haven't checked if Vista has the same problem).
In general, OS X, like most Unix & unix-like OSes, just works with a non-administrative user. XP was a joke, and I haven't seen anything to indicate an improvement in Vista.
our earth?
What makes you think it's ours, you presumptuous git!
It's the RIAA's planet, and anybody who disagrees will be sued for copyright infringement.
And what of hacking phones for new software? There's absolutely no doubt that a video game console is a programmable device.
Microsoft is still allowed to keep the Xbox closed to development unless you pay for an SDK. You can't publish your software unless Microsoft approves of it. Microsoft can change the Xbox so that anything you've done no longer works.
Nintendo can (and does) do the same thing with its Wii, GameCube, N64, SNES, NES..
You can't sue Sony because you want to hack the firmware on their Blu-ray player, or that their lastest firmware release bricked your disc player because you added software on it.
You can't sue Toshiba for bricking an HD DVD player after you hacked its firmware (their HD DVD players are essentially Intel PC's).
You can't sue TiVo because they don't allow you to put your hacked software on their device.
You're missing one detail:
* The DMCA only means that a company can't sue you for unlocking the phone. And by unlocking, I mean making the phone work with other cell phone carriers.
* There's nothing saying that a company has to allow a consumer to program its device.
Let's take a non-Apple example, a video game console. There's absolutely no doubt that these are programmable devices.
* Microsoft doesn't have to allow you to code for the Xbox 360 (and in fact doesn't, unless you pay for an SDK, whether it is the consumer or pro devel tools).
* Nintendo doesn't have to allow you to code for the Wii, and similarly doesn't allow anybody to do it unless they've met criteria set by the manufacturer.
* Sony doesn't have to allow development on its box either; but they do allow you to install Linux on their machine and program from there. I don't know if they require a developer to purchase an SDK if they want to do development outside PS3 Linux.
Basically, people who want to sue because they aren't allowed to program a device they purchased have nothing to support them. It's more or less standard practice for any embedded device.
Unless iphones start bursting into flame like nokia's, negligence does not apply. If you were hurt because a phone blew up when you dropped it in a toilet, cooked it in the oven, or danced on it, then sure- you might have a case.
But the iPhone isn't dangerous, I'd or at least hasn't been shown to be.
And even then, look at the outcome with the ford pinto burning its occupants alive when rear ended. They had a dangerous product, and people died, but Ford was not found guilty of negligence. Negligence is a lot harder to prove than you'd think, and it's not clear it can even be applied in this case.
If you think that software can't cause permanent damage to hardware then you haven't spent enough time working close to hardware. This isn't suprising, as a lot of 'hardware' in a desktop computer only exposes functions via a firmware interface that cuts off direct access to the hardware to keep a programmer from frying the hardware. Embedded devices typically skip that step because it isn't intended to allow the customer to program the device. Why go to the trouble and expense of making it safe for programmers if you're not going to allow third party development?
the dmca only says that Apple can't sue you for unlocking the phone.
This does not mean Apple can't brick or otherwise keep you from unlocking it. It only means Apple can't sue you.
The dmca does not give you a way to sue Apple in this case. There might be other laws that do, but the dmca does not.
the dmca only says apple can't sue you for unlocking your phone.
It does not require Apple to do anything to support unlocking.
From day one, Apple told everyone it would never have an sdk. From day one Apple announced it would be exclusive to AT&T in the states. Neither exceptions are unusual in phones sold in the us. In spite of apple singing to the rafters that there would be no sdk and exclusive to AT&T, people bought it.
There are many phone models exclusive to a carrier. Why is Apple the bad guy, but motorola, samsung, lg and nokia exempt from such rage over exclusive contracts? Apple has always said it would be a closed platform. Now people are upset that Apple is keeping it closed? Usually people get upset when a company doesn't keep its promises.
I'm not defending apple so much as asking why such an obvious double standard exists? Is it just because the iphone is "cool" and its competition is not? There were always other options that claimed to be - and are open platforms. Apple has always said the iPhone would be a closed platform. Why the crying when they move to keep it closed as they have intended?
It's almost like these people have no idea that every manufacturer has rights too. If you violate your end of a contract (eula?), they have no obligation to uphold their end. Bricked iphones will still work with a valid sim and are therefore not eligible for repair as they are not defective.
Are you prepared to pay $30 for a music CD?
I'm much more willing to pay $30 for an 'uncompressed' DRM-free CD than I am to pay $30 for a compressed DRM-laden CD. That's a moot point, since I wouldn't pay that much for either.
I don't think these geniuses realize that music doesn't have the entertainment monopoly they enjoyed a century ago. People like to enjoy recordings of TV, and we have DVD's. We also have these newfangled 'video games'. There's a lot more competition than the local theater troupe and the girl (or guy) next door.
YouTube pretty much proves that we don't need 'content providers' to create and enjoy entertainment.
Basically, the ability to cheaply record music & video - using consumer recording equipment, is starting to break the monopoly of content providers. Artists don't have to go to these companies to get a quality recording made and published anymore.
This doesn't diminish the need for talented non-artists (recording engineers, for example), but it does make most of what a recording company has traditionally done obsolete. So why fight to maintain infrastructure (replication, printing, and distribution) that isn't a competitive advantage anymore? It just costs money they don't need to spend. They're wanting to jack up prices so they can maintain infrastructure they don't even need anymore.
Instead of doing what most businesses do, and cut costs, they're increasing the prices to levels consumers won't tolerate. (Blindly believing there aren't other entertainment options for the consumer's dollar).
I wish media companies would realize what their business is: Record artists, and distribute content at a modest profit. They don't need to spend billions on trying to force tastes on its consumers; just cater to what they want.
It's honestly not difficult (or expensive) to start a recording company anymore. If the 'big' labels don't want to play, Apple can just promote the independent labels (which it is already doing). Then the "big" labels will have to explain to their stockholders why they threw away 30+% of their sales - and in free money, no less.
Are you certain it isn't snipped in half? Zoidberg's claws are pretty potent, after all.
I'm more an observer in both cases; maybe it's that the Linux code into BSD was months ago and memory has faded. But it seems that the reaction of some in the BSD community is louder & longer. When I first heard of the Linux code being put into BSD, my thought was something to the extent of "Some people are making a very big fuss over a really minor mistake -- that was immediately corrected". And with the exception of a few GPL-Nazis, the issue was considered resolved.
I find it interesting that there appears to be more noise coming from the 'BSD code being used in Linux' - part of it is no doubt due to misinterpretation of the BSD license, and some pure reciprocity on the part of prominent OpenBSD coders. (And some equally bad behavior of the 'GPL-forever' crowd).
I find it odd that OpenBSD -- not Net, Free, or DragonFly BSD, seem to get the headlines for bad relations with Linux & GPL projects; especially as FreeBSD is the most popular of the bunch. I's almost as if some in the OpenBSD project want to prohibit their code from being used in GPL projects; a restriction not found in the BSD license.
Either way, just fix the problem and move on. Vitriolic grandstanding doesn't do anybody any good.
I do find it funny that some of the arguments are centered around minutae in copyright law in Germany. While the argument may hold weight in Germany, it doesn't hold any weight in the other countries any more than the USA's copyright laws have on the (Russian) allofmp3.com, or on the (Swedish) pirate bay.