Then that CD you make is going to one full of completely random static. Most music isn't that, and will compress a bit without having to use lossy compression. Same ting with images. You can save a file as a losslessly compressed TIFF or EPS file and get 2:1 or 3:1 savings. Or you can save it as a JPEG and get 10:1 or 50:1 space savings.
There really isn't all that much out there that won't compress at least 2:1, except for precompressed files, and compiled applications.
Think about it. No one's trying to sell you one-off CD's. The only people that the watermark would effect are people that bought their music on the internet, as mp3's or what not, and then redistributed those files. There's no possible way for them to watermark CD's you'd buy in stores in such a way that they'ed be traceable to you. But one of the arguments that Napster users cite is that they use napster because the music industry doesn't have a system in place to allow purchasing and downloading of music over the internet. SDMI is their attempt to answer that concern.
From the the aspirations they pointed to in their contest, one of the things was that the watermark was supposed to stay intact all the way from a non-compressed AIF or WAV file down to a 64 kbps mp3. And listening to the samples they provided, I really couldn't hear any discernible difference between the two. Too bad they didn't supply a utility to go along with their samples which would actually let you try to detect the watermark rather than needing to send it back to them...
To summarize: Their goal for the watermark is for it withstand a lot of compression and still remain with the file.
Then there's nothing wrong with the "community" proving it to them with each successive contest that they hold. Unless it's just that everyone's afraid that maybe they'll get it right... And then they'll have to start paying for their music again. Shudder to think that might be the case.
By buying SMDI products you are supporting & paying for something which does nothing.
No, you're actually signifying that you would like to see artists and recordlabels embrace the internet as a means of music distribution, so much so that you'd even like to make sure that everyone involved (including the artists, who often get forgotten about around here) gets the cut that's theirs.
You can still establish secure communications with a server that doesn't have a certificate from a recognized authority, it just gives you a warning that the it's not recognized. That's not a big tradeoff. Really, the only reason that you'd want one that doesn't generate that sort of message is if you're selling stuff or otherwise collecting sensitive information from people, in which case you're probably making money, so the $300 that it'd cost for a "real" certificate isn't that much when what you're really paying for is an added level of "trust" from the public.
Free PGP keyservers are out there. But that's all they store keys. Verisign and the likes actually go through the motions of trying to prove that the person who they've given a key to is that actual person. No PGP keyservers attempt to do that.
Re:Yeah, when can Iwalk into CompUSA and buy one?
on
Dual Athlons Released
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. Otherwise, what? 2 GHz Pentium 4's would be considered "released". After all, intel did demo such a chip...
Then you shouldn't have bought the package they sold to you. Lots of places sell things as a package. And at those places, you don't have much recourse. A windows license isn't really any much different than that. They choose what they want to sell you. If all they want to sell is something with Windows preinstalled, that's what you're getting. You can either pay your window's tax, or go to a vendor who'll sell you something that more closely suits your needs.
Right. I was saying that that's not allowed. And i'd guess the license that says that is legal, since OEM copies of Windows are so much cheaper than retail copies. If you want to be able to move your license for Windows from machine to machine, you need to buy the retail version, and clear it off your old machines, if you want to stay legal.
if I was forced to buy a PC with the OEM version of win98 installed and I immediately overwrite it with linux and never use the shrinkwrapped win98 cd or license aren't I within my 'first sale' rights to resell that unused/unregistered copy?
No. The reason that distributors' copies of windows cost 1/4 to 1/2 the price we'd pay in stores is because the copy of windows they supply is only licensed to run on the machine it originally came installed on. If you bought the full version, then you can resell that, but then you would have had to buy that voluntarily...
I'm just curious, but what does the architecture matter to someone besides those that write compilers or assemblers? I mean, to C, C++, Java, and others, aren't they all basically the same? yeah, performance varies, but to joe user, what difference does a different chip mean if the benchmarks and real world performance are about identical?
Will the Athlon already dominate the high-end market by that point? I think it's already happening.
The Athlon's not going near the highend until VIA or AMD can release a SMP chipset. Until then it'll just be a gamer, home user, desktop user, and possibly economy server CPU. Which isn't bad. I just bought an Athlon system last week. Which incedentally, won't recognize it's sound blaster live card while running Redhat 7 (so if anyone here wants to give me some advice, i'd much appreciate it, hint hint:)
Most every unix vendor's machines are 64 bit. It's just that unix's date format is based on 32 bit libraries. Sparc's, Alpha's, MIPS, Power's, PA-RISCs, they're all 64 bit chips.
And not to sound too much like whoever hyped up the Y2k "problem" blamed, but isn't the year 2000 a bit early to worry about 2038, anyhow?
Well, those employees wouldn't have gotten those options in the first place if it weren't for the tax and cash advantages it supplies to companies. The employees certainly can't complain that they're being "used" by microsoft so that they don't have to pay taxes, because they (the employees) are making far more money from excersizing their options than they would have from a standard salary.
Right, but it's not solely Microsoft and Cisco that are doing it. Yes, the article mentions them, but i'd bet that every dotcom of 1999 and every linux company of 2000 and every wireless company of 2001 has or has plans to take advantage of that.
Just because the article mentions Cisco and Microsoft, it'd be nice if the editors, who often add some slant to the stories posted, would be kind enough to add at the end of the little blurb something like "this probably means all of the dotcoms, too, guys!". Not that hard,
Yeah, except that lower and middle class families generally buy more and save less than the upper class, resulting in people who make less money paying a higher percentage of their earnings to taxes, since they won't have as much saveable income.
They do. Because when the (theoretical) 1.26 GHz P3 arrives, that'll push down the cost of the 1.13 GHz model. Just as it's been for years. Of course, the absolute fastest processor is going to cost an arm and a leg. They always have. Their main purpose for us isn't to make us want to buy one, it's to push down the prices of all the previous chips.
As for BSD, it is my impression that in any given flavor of BSD (BSD/OS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) there is still only one official distribution. I would not define FreeBSD and OpenBSD as different distributions of the same OS, as I would with Slackware and Red Hat -- the code is quite different in different versions of BSD, and there is no central authority defining kernel version X as the standard as there is in Linux.
Right on. There really isn't much differentiating between all the various distros at this point. They all have basically the same kernel, X server, gnu utilities, et cetera. The only real differences are in what the window manager is, be it one of the older things (unlikely at this point) such as AfterStep or Lesstif, or Gnome or KDE, file layout, value added utilities, and program management. Plus whatever apps happen to come bundled with each given distro.
So... if people can settle down on one side of the fence, so far as.deb vs.rpm and Gnome vs. KDE, that'd go a long way towards making Linux a more generic term... Right now you really need to pay attention to the name that comes before "Linux" so you know what you're getting...
THERE still aren't any desktop apps that people really want. StarOffice up until now is a poor substitute for MS Office. Applixware, ditto. Quicken.... The list goes on.
As for Linux 2.4 features. Hold off on boasting about those until the new kernel arrives...
Going down MSFT's linux myths:
1 - Linux out performs windows NT.
That's incredibly subjective and should be disregarded.
2 - Linux is more reliable than NT
Again, subjective. for every person here that says they get a BSOD once a day, there's one person that doesn't know how to configure their system. Just because they happen to know more of linux than NT doesn't mean that one's inherently better than the other. Just one's better in their hands than the other.
3 - Linux is free.
With Redhat (the most visible vendor) selling $2500 distributions (Oracle optimized and High Availabilty), Linux is far from free. And redhat charges $50 for an OEM version, which is just a hair under what Microsoft charges. Yes, roll your own distro's are free, but no company or uninitiated person is going to be rolling their own...
4 - Linux is more secure than Windows NT
Again like speed and reliability, security is rather subjective. True, as of today, there are many more exploits for Win32 based OSes than Linux, but that doesn't mean that tomorrow someone won't release something that decimates linux's security. It's really all in the hands of the administrator.
5 - Linux can replace Windows on the desktop
No. It can't. Not for the majority of users. See my little preamble, or else look at what's not available for linux: MS Office, Adobe products, Quicktime, Intuit products, etc etc etc.
Not trying to be overly harsh, but the myths that microsoft perpetuates are ones that they win hands down. Which is why they chose to perpetuate them, incedentally. I think the whole "linux community' should stop taking aim at microsoft and instead build the OS they want to use based on it's merits alone rather than get pulled into a feature war with microsoft...
No... StarOffice is a desktop app that doesn't even touch a server unless you save to one... StarPortal, Sun's future plans, will run from servers, hence your conspiracy could still hold true in a couple of years.
1 - Hold down C at startup
2 - can't use the mouse at all? Command-Option-W to close all windows and then type the first couple of letters of the disks name, then command-y.
3 - Never played with darwin. I'm guessing that there's a bootloader to be found in the control panels, else change the startup disk cp to point at the partition that hold darwin...
I actually can't wait to get a new mac... just holding off until OS X is here, at this point. Dual G4/450 + OS X... mmmmmmm...
Plenty of people have developed apps for DOS, Windows, BeOS, and the Mac OS without needing to "get at the guts of the OS"... Otherwise, why would their be so many more DOS/Windows apps than just about any other platform out there?
And past that, if you don't want to conform to Apple's standards, frankly, Apple and most Mac users don't really need you then. The entire reason that the mac is the mac is that all of the programs function in similar manners, where applicable. Take that away, and you have Windows or yet another Unix....
Slashdot Mirror
Then that CD you make is going to one full of completely random static. Most music isn't that, and will compress a bit without having to use lossy compression. Same ting with images. You can save a file as a losslessly compressed TIFF or EPS file and get 2:1 or 3:1 savings. Or you can save it as a JPEG and get 10:1 or 50:1 space savings.
There really isn't all that much out there that won't compress at least 2:1, except for precompressed files, and compiled applications.
Think about it. No one's trying to sell you one-off CD's. The only people that the watermark would effect are people that bought their music on the internet, as mp3's or what not, and then redistributed those files. There's no possible way for them to watermark CD's you'd buy in stores in such a way that they'ed be traceable to you. But one of the arguments that Napster users cite is that they use napster because the music industry doesn't have a system in place to allow purchasing and downloading of music over the internet. SDMI is their attempt to answer that concern.
From the the aspirations they pointed to in their contest, one of the things was that the watermark was supposed to stay intact all the way from a non-compressed AIF or WAV file down to a 64 kbps mp3. And listening to the samples they provided, I really couldn't hear any discernible difference between the two. Too bad they didn't supply a utility to go along with their samples which would actually let you try to detect the watermark rather than needing to send it back to them...
To summarize: Their goal for the watermark is for it withstand a lot of compression and still remain with the file.
Then there's nothing wrong with the "community" proving it to them with each successive contest that they hold. Unless it's just that everyone's afraid that maybe they'll get it right... And then they'll have to start paying for their music again. Shudder to think that might be the case.
By buying SMDI products you are supporting & paying for something which does nothing.
No, you're actually signifying that you would like to see artists and recordlabels embrace the internet as a means of music distribution, so much so that you'd even like to make sure that everyone involved (including the artists, who often get forgotten about around here) gets the cut that's theirs.
You can still establish secure communications with a server that doesn't have a certificate from a recognized authority, it just gives you a warning that the it's not recognized. That's not a big tradeoff. Really, the only reason that you'd want one that doesn't generate that sort of message is if you're selling stuff or otherwise collecting sensitive information from people, in which case you're probably making money, so the $300 that it'd cost for a "real" certificate isn't that much when what you're really paying for is an added level of "trust" from the public.
Free PGP keyservers are out there. But that's all they store keys. Verisign and the likes actually go through the motions of trying to prove that the person who they've given a key to is that actual person. No PGP keyservers attempt to do that.
Exactly. Otherwise, what? 2 GHz Pentium 4's would be considered "released". After all, intel did demo such a chip...
Then you shouldn't have bought the package they sold to you. Lots of places sell things as a package. And at those places, you don't have much recourse. A windows license isn't really any much different than that. They choose what they want to sell you. If all they want to sell is something with Windows preinstalled, that's what you're getting. You can either pay your window's tax, or go to a vendor who'll sell you something that more closely suits your needs.
Right. I was saying that that's not allowed. And i'd guess the license that says that is legal, since OEM copies of Windows are so much cheaper than retail copies. If you want to be able to move your license for Windows from machine to machine, you need to buy the retail version, and clear it off your old machines, if you want to stay legal.
if I was forced to buy a PC with the OEM version of win98 installed and I immediately overwrite it with linux and never use the shrinkwrapped win98 cd or license aren't I within my 'first sale' rights to resell that unused/unregistered copy?
No. The reason that distributors' copies of windows cost 1/4 to 1/2 the price we'd pay in stores is because the copy of windows they supply is only licensed to run on the machine it originally came installed on. If you bought the full version, then you can resell that, but then you would have had to buy that voluntarily...
Nah. it doesn't matter how nice of a desktop environment Gnome and Kde provide if Microsoft office forever stays Windows and Mac only...
Not if you transport your OEM copy of Windows to each subsequent machine.
I'm just curious, but what does the architecture matter to someone besides those that write compilers or assemblers? I mean, to C, C++, Java, and others, aren't they all basically the same? yeah, performance varies, but to joe user, what difference does a different chip mean if the benchmarks and real world performance are about identical?
Will the Athlon already dominate the high-end market by that point? I think it's already happening.
:)
The Athlon's not going near the highend until VIA or AMD can release a SMP chipset. Until then it'll just be a gamer, home user, desktop user, and possibly economy server CPU. Which isn't bad. I just bought an Athlon system last week. Which incedentally, won't recognize it's sound blaster live card while running Redhat 7 (so if anyone here wants to give me some advice, i'd much appreciate it, hint hint
Most every unix vendor's machines are 64 bit. It's just that unix's date format is based on 32 bit libraries. Sparc's, Alpha's, MIPS, Power's, PA-RISCs, they're all 64 bit chips.
And not to sound too much like whoever hyped up the Y2k "problem" blamed, but isn't the year 2000 a bit early to worry about 2038, anyhow?
Well, those employees wouldn't have gotten those options in the first place if it weren't for the tax and cash advantages it supplies to companies. The employees certainly can't complain that they're being "used" by microsoft so that they don't have to pay taxes, because they (the employees) are making far more money from excersizing their options than they would have from a standard salary.
Right, but it's not solely Microsoft and Cisco that are doing it. Yes, the article mentions them, but i'd bet that every dotcom of 1999 and every linux company of 2000 and every wireless company of 2001 has or has plans to take advantage of that.
Just because the article mentions Cisco and Microsoft, it'd be nice if the editors, who often add some slant to the stories posted, would be kind enough to add at the end of the little blurb something like "this probably means all of the dotcoms, too, guys!". Not that hard,
Yeah, except that lower and middle class families generally buy more and save less than the upper class, resulting in people who make less money paying a higher percentage of their earnings to taxes, since they won't have as much saveable income.
Sorry, next idea...
They do. Because when the (theoretical) 1.26 GHz P3 arrives, that'll push down the cost of the 1.13 GHz model. Just as it's been for years. Of course, the absolute fastest processor is going to cost an arm and a leg. They always have. Their main purpose for us isn't to make us want to buy one, it's to push down the prices of all the previous chips.
As for BSD, it is my impression that in any given flavor of BSD (BSD/OS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) there is still only one official distribution. I would not define FreeBSD and OpenBSD as different distributions of the same OS, as I would with Slackware and Red Hat -- the code is quite different in different versions of BSD, and there is no central authority defining kernel version X as the standard as there is in Linux.
.deb vs .rpm and Gnome vs. KDE, that'd go a long way towards making Linux a more generic term... Right now you really need to pay attention to the name that comes before "Linux" so you know what you're getting...
Right on. There really isn't much differentiating between all the various distros at this point. They all have basically the same kernel, X server, gnu utilities, et cetera. The only real differences are in what the window manager is, be it one of the older things (unlikely at this point) such as AfterStep or Lesstif, or Gnome or KDE, file layout, value added utilities, and program management. Plus whatever apps happen to come bundled with each given distro.
So... if people can settle down on one side of the fence, so far as
THERE still aren't any desktop apps that people really want. StarOffice up until now is a poor substitute for MS Office. Applixware, ditto. Quicken.... The list goes on.
As for Linux 2.4 features. Hold off on boasting about those until the new kernel arrives...
Going down MSFT's linux myths:
1 - Linux out performs windows NT.
That's incredibly subjective and should be disregarded.
2 - Linux is more reliable than NT
Again, subjective. for every person here that says they get a BSOD once a day, there's one person that doesn't know how to configure their system. Just because they happen to know more of linux than NT doesn't mean that one's inherently better than the other. Just one's better in their hands than the other.
3 - Linux is free.
With Redhat (the most visible vendor) selling $2500 distributions (Oracle optimized and High Availabilty), Linux is far from free. And redhat charges $50 for an OEM version, which is just a hair under what Microsoft charges. Yes, roll your own distro's are free, but no company or uninitiated person is going to be rolling their own...
4 - Linux is more secure than Windows NT
Again like speed and reliability, security is rather subjective. True, as of today, there are many more exploits for Win32 based OSes than Linux, but that doesn't mean that tomorrow someone won't release something that decimates linux's security. It's really all in the hands of the administrator.
5 - Linux can replace Windows on the desktop
No. It can't. Not for the majority of users. See my little preamble, or else look at what's not available for linux: MS Office, Adobe products, Quicktime, Intuit products, etc etc etc.
Not trying to be overly harsh, but the myths that microsoft perpetuates are ones that they win hands down. Which is why they chose to perpetuate them, incedentally. I think the whole "linux community' should stop taking aim at microsoft and instead build the OS they want to use based on it's merits alone rather than get pulled into a feature war with microsoft...
VA Linux REALLY REALLY needs to get bought up by Dell... They'ed be a perfect fit, in my eyes...
No... StarOffice is a desktop app that doesn't even touch a server unless you save to one... StarPortal, Sun's future plans, will run from servers, hence your conspiracy could still hold true in a couple of years.
1 - Hold down C at startup
2 - can't use the mouse at all? Command-Option-W to close all windows and then type the first couple of letters of the disks name, then command-y.
3 - Never played with darwin. I'm guessing that there's a bootloader to be found in the control panels, else change the startup disk cp to point at the partition that hold darwin...
I actually can't wait to get a new mac... just holding off until OS X is here, at this point. Dual G4/450 + OS X... mmmmmmm...
Plenty of people have developed apps for DOS, Windows, BeOS, and the Mac OS without needing to "get at the guts of the OS"... Otherwise, why would their be so many more DOS/Windows apps than just about any other platform out there?
And past that, if you don't want to conform to Apple's standards, frankly, Apple and most Mac users don't really need you then. The entire reason that the mac is the mac is that all of the programs function in similar manners, where applicable. Take that away, and you have Windows or yet another Unix....