So, if Mr. Perens is arrested, how many of you so-called geeks are going to boycott Hollywood movies, RIAA music, cancel your cable/dish TV, etc. I hope every single one of you--for anyone who does not is a flaming hypocrite. And you'd better spread the word to your neighbors as well. DMCA is no small violation of our basic freedoms and it needs fought tooth and nail.
And like any good boycott, you can help promote substitutes as well:
- off-air television (get yourself a Terk TV-55 or similar) - local bands / unsigned online artists - independent films - trade existing movies with friends but don't buy into anything new
But first off, isn't "open source cookbook" a little redundant. I mean really.. it's only the most common metaphoric term for source code to begin with. (-: Perhaps you should just call it "The Geek Cookbook" or something. Anyhow since you asked, here's an idea for an easy recipe. It's a pretty rich sauce so you can spread it thinner over lots of (cheap) pasta. Maybe good for hacker gatherings..
First, saute a minced onion, some garlic and mushrooms, adjusting to taste. I like 5-6 cloves garlic, 3 fresh mushrooms, and a red onion. Use olive oil if available. Takes about 5-10 minutes depending on heat.
Put the following in a large pot: - 32oz. of straight tomato product (such as a can of tomato puree / minced tomato, no additives) - 1/8-1/4 cup of cooking wine, pref. Marsala - oregano, basil, salt, and pepper to taste (I use more oregano than basil, but taste and see) - one package of cream cheese (typ. 8 oz. but use less if you want less rich sauce). Use the fat free stuff for a healthier meal. - add the stuff you had sauteing
-Mix up the sauce real well and let it simmer about a half hour or until you're ready to eat. I don't think you can really overcook it very easily. Then serve it over pasta. (duh)
- If you want to go all out, get some pre-breaded chicken breast fillets (Tyson or other) and fry them in a little olive oil in the same pan you used for sauteing. Dump on some garlic powder, basil, oregano, and parmesan to taste. Add some "Italian break crumbs" sprinkle if you want more breading material. Chop up the chicken and serve it on the pasta and sauce.
Money talks. If you like what they are doing, tell them you like it by buying one of their cards.
But first you'd better understand what they're doing and what they're not. They are NOT open-sourcing their video card drivers. Until they do or somebody manages to reverse engineer the binary ones, their products remain proprietary. IMHO, nobody that supports Free Software should buy proprietary hardware that requires closed-source drivers. So it seems instead this Cg thing is just a language for programming shaders so you don't have to use assembly. Big deal. It's a step in the right direction to have a standard, but it doesn't make their products any more friendly to Free Software.
Not on the desktop. Not on the PC. Not on anything that resembles what you call the desktop. Windows has won. Face it. The market is not driven by a technically superior kernel, or an OS that avoids its crashes a few times a day. Users don't (mostly) care. They just reboot and get on with it. They want apps. If the apps they want and like aren't there, it's a lose-lose. Windows has the apps. Linux does not.
OK, so Rast. got tired of doing E. Not surprising. It lost the cutting edge years ago. But that doesn't mean Linux on the desktop is "dead" and it's a pity to hear him talk so flippantly.
First off, Rasterman makes it sound like Linux and related free software is all interfaces and no applications. Nothing could be more blantantly untrue. Either this poor man has sold out to M$ FUD or he's been buried in xterms too long. Yes, there are weak spots like video editing and high-end graphics, but these are the exception, not the norm! Look around at what most people use computers for!.. email, p2p, chat, web browsing, dtp / word processing, finance, games, and, if in a business environment, a custom database of some sort. Open Source software available today fulfills ALL these needs and most every other.
Secondly, people most definitely DO care about how often their computer crashes. I got a service call just the other day from a guy whose Windows install had become a tangled, corrupted mess. "It keeps crashing now and then and my printer sometimes won't work.. it gives me all these weird error messages." You go into ANY household with kids in US suburbia and you'll find a trashed out Windows machine loaded with spyware, viruses, ugly background / colorscheme, half broken apps, etc. Anyhow, he specifically ASKED me about Linux because he'd heard somewhere it was much better. That and he said he really didn't want to waste $150 on going to WinXP, especially since the nice computer he bought has never really worked that well from day one.
A week ago, some folks with a small business contacted me about switching to Linux because they too are totally fed up with overpriced, buggy proprietary software. Score another consulting job that'll let me keep developing free software with the rest of my time.
I have, in the last couple months, come across 5 churches and non-profit groups that are sick of the problems they have with Windows (all version), not to mention the exorbitant cost. All of them are looking at Linux, but don't know where to start or who to turn to.
Attention geeks: People are desperate for an alternative to Microsoft. Anyone who can't see this has had their 'head in the sand' the last 2 years. Folks, you NEED to get out and socialize and make connections with your local community.
My apologies if that's what you meant. After reading several articles on this topic, I had gotten the impression that the tech industry was essentially pushing for 'limited' forms of DRM. (which actually, I believe they may still be, considering M$ et al.) If that's the case and both sides are the enemy, the motley geeks were right to boo and hiss if that's the only way their dissent would be made known. The problem is there are a significant number of folks that are dumb enough to believe that there could exist a "reasonable" DRM solution that would allow officially-specified 'fair use' capacity. If you're not one of them, congrats. (:
Perhaps the best way to fight this stupidity is to entirely ignore software patents. Let them fuss and fume and try to take everyone to court as they scrounge around trying to get money for nothing. Once enough folks get peeved, maybe there'll finally be enough uproar to force an overhaul of our entirely broken patent system. Take it to the supreme court if need be to establish that algorithms are both protected speech and natural discoveries (ie. mathematics, therefore not patentable). Heck, this could even help css-cracking cases if that happened.
Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
You're absolutely right about free markets being the solution. Where you're wrong is that any form of DRM would be precisely anti-free-market. There is no optimum compromise here. Those "screaming, indignant geeks" are fighting for our basic freedoms of speech and expression in an open society. Those freedoms die if we lose control of our tools of expression.
The same goes for privacy rights. What would the world be like if everything we read, listened to, and watched was tracked by media giants for the purpose of pay-per-usage? And it wouldn't even have to be for extracting micro-payments. Any official DRM-enabled viewer device would have some sort of unique identifier. And any DRM-enforced information source would be able to get than info during authentication.
We all need to take a firm stance on this issue. If any of the crap being proposed makes it way into legislation, mass boycotts are in order. And I don't mean using the latest Napster clone to warez pop music. I mean spreading pamphlets throughout our neighborhoods, organizing peaceful demonstrations, refusing to buy any product of the offending parties--yes, that means stop going to / renting movies, cancelling your cable TV, not buying your favorite artist's CD's, ignoring record-label organized concerts, etc. Freedom is more important than a few minor pleasures for the time being.
What on earth are you talking about? QuickTime is free, Darwin and Darwin Stream Server are open source projects, for Macs and PCs.
No, sir. QuickTime is NOT free, nor available for Linux or *BSD, nor Open Source, nor nag-free. What the heck are you talking about? And Darwin? A hacked derivative of an old 2.x version of BSD? And btw, do you have the sourcecode to OS X? Can you audit it? Didn't think so. Yes, Apple endorsing MPEG-4 is a move in the right direction.. well, except that software patents are evil. Ungrateful? Why should I care. I've been using 'unofficial' open source MPEG-4 codecs for 2 years now. Check out XViD and FFMPEG.
Sorry, do you care to remind us what the Open Source community has achieved in this regard.
Why don't you do some research first and remind yourself. Start with Xine, MPlayer, and VideoLAN. And if you're interested in the cutting edge, have a look at the MPEG4IP, which has been doing AAC (mpeg-4 audio), mp4 encoding/streaming, etc. long before Quicktime.
Precisely. Sorensen is licensed by Apple from a different company. It is *this* company that keeps the algorithm proprietary.
NO crap. But it's Apple who is the biggest distributor of Sorensen and the one that promotes it through getting content to be made for it. Basically, it's a lame way to get people over to their website (while downloading the latest QT player or movie trailer).
Besides, how could it be profitable if they give it away for free?
Who says the software itself has to be profitable? Apple has this serious hang-up with free software--they want to control everything on their platform. There's no good reason for all this proprietary Sorensen nonsense. I predict that if Apple continues this way, they are going to continue to fail. Of course, the logical thing to do would be to embrace Open Source software all the way and stop doing their own thing. Apart from the Open Source community, they have no chance to make any progress against Microsoft. If they would just realize this, we'd all be better off. And I might actually buy some of their nice hardware..
Quite simply, Apple, *can't* base QT entirely on "open standards" simply because it's a container format, the codecs are what matter. Since Apple doesn't own all the codecs, they can't make that happen.
That wasn't a troll; it was poorly worded, perhaps. I'm quite aware that QT is a container format just like AVI and that the specs are open. On the other hand, it has been Apple's choice whether or not to include totally proprietary codecs (like Sorensens') as part of their proprietary QT implementation / distribution. In this sense, they are forcing Sorensen down people's throats by first including it by default and then marketing it by making deals such that new movie trailers, streamed content, etc. are ONLY released with this encoding--and only playable with the latest official Quicktime release. Apple, Real, and M$ are all trying to become the big "gateway" to online media by forcing their own proprietary standards in one way or another. Either way, this is not good.
Somethings are best left standardized, video codecs are one of them.
Yeah, that's what standards bodies are for. Doesn't mean the standard has to be proprietary (Sorensen).
Great, another proprietary version of another proprietary set of codecs. What the hell is Apple thinking? Proprietary standards are no way to increase control of a market dominated by M$. If they would base QuickTime entirely on open standards, they might just have a chance at doing their part in weening people away from their competitors. Oh wait a minute. Linux is one of their competitors. Nevermind. (Or they could what's right and become a hardware ONLY company--seeing as how that's the only thing they're really good at.) But that would actually make sense.
This is dedication.
More like stupidity. This story is not news for nerds, it's news for rice boys. (you know.. the people who think their Honda will go faster if they lower the suspension and add a giant spoiler..) Car MP3 player "mods" are no longer cool nor original. Sorry. Many (most?) commercial CD decks now play MP3's. The ones that don't probably have a line-in for an external portable unit. And for crying out loud, this guy is using Windows--the world's worst 'embedded' OS.
Now, on the other hand, if someone wants to show off a minimal-footprint Linux driven unit sporting gpsdrive, WAP scanning, police radar, clock sync via radio, cabin noise cancellation, speed/heading/mileage/odometer on a HUD, engine diagnostics, proximity sensors, and of course voice synth/recognition, THEN I might raise an eyebrow. So have at it fellow geeks. Oh, and you might as well make it play OGG/MP3/DIVX too. (-:
The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?
The question is, when will folks in the US make enough stink to get rid of software.. err.. I mean mathematical patents. Software patents do nothing but slow innovation and create a legal minefield as we see even by the fact that the OpenGL group is having to worry about it. Software patents are totally incompatible with free software, not to mention freedom of speech. How's that different from ordinary patents? Because software has a zero cost of entry and is often NOT developed as a commercial enterprise but rather a pasttime.
It's pretty simple from a plain economic view. People make bootleg copies when the legit ones are too expensive. Stop the price-fixing and so-called "piracy" will evaporate overnight. Would Napster ever have become popular if full-length albums were $4 on CD and $2 online in a lossless format? Not likely. Would street vendors be peddling movies if legit copies were $5? Heck, would anybody even rent movies if they were that cheap to buy? And imagine if all profits from album sales went to the artists. This is what we need to aim for--not a half-hearted set of fair-use guidelines for the current overpriced content that exists today. Furthermore, we need a sort of "anti-DMCA" that requires all copyrighted works to be plaintext and entirely unprotected by copy controls. But alas, hollywood has decided that they should set ridiculously high prices to make room for several unneeded middlemen. And in defense of these high prices, they've pushed for more legislation in attempt to rein in control of the disgruntled masses. This is not what copyright was intended to be.
You know what's most ridiculous and illogical about these types of predictions? They assume that technology does not or can not change. And in fact, they don't even look at current technological developments. In 25 years, let alone 50, almost everyone will be driving a fuel-cell based or other non-polluting vehicle. Roofing tiles and mirror windows will be commonly made of ultra-cheap photovoltaic cells, supplying 30% or more household energy needs. Photonic computers will be so small that they'll require only miniscule amounts of resources to produce and negligible energy to run. More people than ever will work at home thanks to massive telecommunications advancements, 3D immersion technologies, etc. Paper will be nearly forgotten. Materials research will have replaced most of todays use of wood and steel with a diverse assortment composite and organic plastics. Advances in agricultural science, such as hydroponics, combined with a growing desire for organic foods will multiply the efficiency of production by at least an order of magnitude. At long last (mostly due to computer modelling), we will figure out human dietary science once and for all, quickly transforming the American diet into one with lower intake, greater nutrition, and paradoxically greater enjoyment. The same advances will carry over to properly feeding nearly all of the world, albeit with less emphasis on taste. Who says the world's gonna end in 50 years because of resource shortage? Not I. Although there are other issues that may render the same effect. See Revelation for vague details. (-:
The rest of the world (businessmen, congressmen, your manager, your neighbor Joe) all see a successful, huge company, the richest man in the world, and products that have shiny boxes.
No, actually most casual users of computers are really sick and tired of the problems they face on a daily basis and are eager to learn about alternatives. Keep up the M$ badmouthing campaign, folks. The general public is slowly starting to see the light--at very least, that M$ software is buggy crap.
"Palladium Enhanced" computers will be able to do everything non-Palladium computers can do, plus they will be able to view DRM movies, DRM music, and whatever else. The content industries will jump on board.
This is essentially what the Circuit City / DIVX people tried. They wanted to create a deviant standard for DVD movies that required special hardware and pay-per-view accounting of titles. For awhile, there was talk that some movie studios would only be releasing on DIVX, supposedly because it was more secure and profitable. But it failed miserably. Why? Because #1. Millions of people already had "standard" DVD players. and #2. There was a rather large popular campaign to stop / boycott the DIVX standard. Several people along the way asked me what was the difference and why they shouldn't just buy a DIVX-capable DVD player in case the standard caught on. I then explained why DIVX was harmful for the consumer and reminded them that if they didn't want this garbage, they should not vote with it with their dollars. And none of them did. We can do the same thing with Palladium: start a popular campaign to boycott it before it's even on the shelves. It's just a matter of spreading the word. Tell people that M$ wants to take away control of their computers and make it illegal to run anything but Windows on all new computer hardware. Tell them how much DRM is a bad idea. Tell them that the answer to viruses and computer security is secure software to begin with, not this pathetic attempt to plug up the holes in their flaky software.
We just write the code that we want, and sometimes that happens to fall under a users' request, after all, developers are users too. This attitude is a problem for the future of Open Source. See, there's no reason why we can't, as a community, topple the vast majority of proprietary software in a few years time. But it would take a serious entrepreneurial effort. How so? Well, we need to establish a way for geek and non-geek users alike to fund free software developers to work full time on their pet projects and add a stronger incentive to listen to our feature requests. I think the best way to do this is some type of "code bounty" that can be placed on desired features. Put funds into an escrow until somebody comes along and fulfils the need. Then, that person gets the reward. And make a system by which many people can contribute to a bounty through micropayments, so that even casual users can help out in their small way. Say there's a needed feature missing in Mozilla and 300 frustrated people around the world each pitch in on average $5. That'd be a pretty tempting reward for a project that may take an experienced programmer only a few days to complete. Or, on a larger scale, businesses could become "patrons" to a project and by doing so gain a proportional say in directing development towards their own needs. Don't get me wrong. There are dozens of other ways to encourage focused OSS development, but it's all about capitalism. Some folks like RMS seem to ignore this, but it's the truth. Open Source needs commercialized so that we geeks can get paid for doing what we love. Keep the software free as in GPL, but let people put their money where their mouth is.
Anybody else think it's kinda ironic that Sony, one of the RIAA big-5, is going out of its way to facilitate supposed "unauthorized copying"? (Not to mention all the other Sony products like CD/MP3 portables and their DVD/CD/MP3-player home units that specifically advertise "CD-RW compatible") Is this just a failure to communicate between their Electronics and Music divisions or are they finally seeing the light that fair-use is actually profitable? If so, this is a good sign that consumers are realizing the value of their rights and perhaps it'll be easier than we expect to get folks to shun M$ Palladium.
This is what they should have done in the first place- go after the people who are actually doing it instead of making P2P seemingly illegal.
WARNING: Opinions Ahead. (-:
What a clueless statement. First off, P2P itself has never been and will never be "seemingly illegal". Second, Mr.Taco, this whole issue is not about reasonable respect for the RIAA as long as they "behave." This is about a grassroots movement to eliminate a long-standing cartel that has been found guilty on multiple occasions of price-fixing (which hurts consumers) and has been screwing over musicians for decades with bad contracts. It's about digital technology bridging a divide and eliminating obsolete middlemen. It's about the people of the free world asserting that their personal freedom is infinitely more important than the profits of mega-corporations. (And do you want DRM all through your hardware? eh? Didn't think so.) I'm a big supporter of the musical profession. But I do it in a way that only helps those who deserve compensation for their work--the artists themselves. That to me means a complete boycott of all RIAA member music. Anytime you buy an album produced by an RIAA member, you are voting with your dollars that the RIAA is the way to go. You are encouraging artists to keep selling their careers to greedy middlemen and you are discouraging folks from going independent because they're afraid of being ignored otherwise.
Then there are the people who keep saying stuff like "hey, I buy more music now because P2P lets me preview it." This is precisely what NOT to do because guess what kinda music dominates the P2P scene? RIAA member music!!! Do you want to empower people who are striving to take away your rights? It's so ironic it's sick. Don't even download the crap!
Support live music. Support smaller bands. Boycott RIAA member music. Learn to play an instrument yourself. Lets take back our culture.
Here's how people need to respond to this:
1.) Entirely ignore any presentations they put on. Standing around watching just wastes your time and gives them apparent credence, especially with the press.
2.) Wear subtle anti-MS themed clothing to the Expo. Simple, witty statements that get the truth across.
3.) Overwelm their representatives with fake interest--in other words quietly D.O.S. their trained FUD-spewing drones--but don't give them any feedback as to how to attack next. Play dumb while gaining recon on their latest propaganda tactics.
In other words quiet, peaceful subversion. It's self defense people. They're looking to stir up a fuss and gain some ground somewhere.
There is ONE type of product that M$ does well, and makes an honest living with - Input devices.
You've apparently never taken one of "their" input devices apart. Do so and learn. Last I checked, they're all made by Mitsumi. Who the heck knows how or by whom they were designed. They're just branded OEM products. I like the keyboard design reasonably well, but Logitech makes much more ergonomic mice IHMO.
Why work for somebody else if you don't have to? If you have the skills, cut out the middleman. Maybe find some of your brightest friends/colleagues and pursue the entrepreneurial dream. Or maybe just look around at people's needs and start a small, friendly, ethical business to meet them. There's an old saying that goes something like "help people and the money will follow." And you'll never have to sit through another interview either. (-:
-- Q.) What do you call a college dropout in 5 years? A.) Boss
Slashdot Mirror
So, if Mr. Perens is arrested, how many of you so-called geeks are going to boycott Hollywood movies, RIAA music, cancel your cable/dish TV, etc. I hope every single one of you--for anyone who does not is a flaming hypocrite. And you'd better spread the word to your neighbors as well. DMCA is no small violation of our basic freedoms and it needs fought tooth and nail.
And like any good boycott, you can help promote substitutes as well:
- off-air television (get yourself a Terk TV-55 or similar)
- local bands / unsigned online artists
- independent films
- trade existing movies with friends but don't buy into anything new
But first off, isn't "open source cookbook" a little redundant. I mean really.. it's only the most common metaphoric term for source code to begin with. (-: Perhaps you should just call it "The Geek Cookbook" or something. Anyhow since you asked, here's an idea for an easy recipe. It's a pretty rich sauce so you can spread it thinner over lots of (cheap) pasta. Maybe good for hacker gatherings..
First, saute a minced onion, some garlic and mushrooms, adjusting to taste. I like 5-6 cloves garlic, 3 fresh mushrooms, and a red onion. Use olive oil if available. Takes about 5-10 minutes depending on heat.
Put the following in a large pot:
- 32oz. of straight tomato product (such as a can of tomato puree / minced tomato, no additives)
- 1/8-1/4 cup of cooking wine, pref. Marsala
- oregano, basil, salt, and pepper to taste (I use more oregano than basil, but taste and see)
- one package of cream cheese (typ. 8 oz. but use less if you want less rich sauce). Use the fat free stuff for a healthier meal.
- add the stuff you had sauteing
-Mix up the sauce real well and let it simmer about a half hour or until you're ready to eat. I don't think you can really overcook it very easily. Then serve it over pasta. (duh)
- If you want to go all out, get some pre-breaded chicken breast fillets (Tyson or other) and fry them in a little olive oil in the same pan you used for sauteing. Dump on some garlic powder, basil, oregano, and parmesan to taste. Add some "Italian break crumbs" sprinkle if you want more breading material. Chop up the chicken and serve it on the pasta and sauce.
Prep time: 30 mins. with a helper.
Money talks. If you like what they are doing, tell them you like it by buying one of their cards.
But first you'd better understand what they're doing and what they're not. They are NOT open-sourcing their video card drivers. Until they do or somebody manages to reverse engineer the binary ones, their products remain proprietary. IMHO, nobody that supports Free Software should buy proprietary hardware that requires closed-source drivers. So it seems instead this Cg thing is just a language for programming shaders so you don't have to use assembly. Big deal. It's a step in the right direction to have a standard, but it doesn't make their products any more friendly to Free Software.
Not on the desktop. Not on the PC. Not on anything that resembles what you call the desktop. Windows has won. Face it. The market is not driven by a technically superior kernel, or an OS that avoids its crashes a few times a day. Users don't (mostly) care. They just reboot and get on with it. They want apps. If the apps they want and like aren't there, it's a lose-lose. Windows has the apps. Linux does not.
.. email, p2p, chat, web browsing, dtp / word processing, finance, games, and, if in a business environment, a custom database of some sort. Open Source software available today fulfills ALL these needs and most every other.
OK, so Rast. got tired of doing E. Not surprising. It lost the cutting edge years ago. But that doesn't mean Linux on the desktop is "dead" and it's a pity to hear him talk so flippantly.
First off, Rasterman makes it sound like Linux and related free software is all interfaces and no applications. Nothing could be more blantantly untrue. Either this poor man has sold out to M$ FUD or he's been buried in xterms too long. Yes, there are weak spots like video editing and high-end graphics, but these are the exception, not the norm! Look around at what most people use computers for!
Secondly, people most definitely DO care about how often their computer crashes. I got a service call just the other day from a guy whose Windows install had become a tangled, corrupted mess. "It keeps crashing now and then and my printer sometimes won't work.. it gives me all these weird error messages." You go into ANY household with kids in US suburbia and you'll find a trashed out Windows machine loaded with spyware, viruses, ugly background / colorscheme, half broken apps, etc. Anyhow, he specifically ASKED me about Linux because he'd heard somewhere it was much better. That and he said he really didn't want to waste $150 on going to WinXP, especially since the nice computer he bought has never really worked that well from day one.
A week ago, some folks with a small business contacted me about switching to Linux because they too are totally fed up with overpriced, buggy proprietary software. Score another consulting job that'll let me keep developing free software with the rest of my time.
I have, in the last couple months, come across 5 churches and non-profit groups that are sick of the problems they have with Windows (all version), not to mention the exorbitant cost. All of them are looking at Linux, but don't know where to start or who to turn to.
Attention geeks: People are desperate for an alternative to Microsoft. Anyone who can't see this has had their 'head in the sand' the last 2 years. Folks, you NEED to get out and socialize and make connections with your local community.
My apologies if that's what you meant. After reading several articles on this topic, I had gotten the impression that the tech industry was essentially pushing for 'limited' forms of DRM. (which actually, I believe they may still be, considering M$ et al.) If that's the case and both sides are the enemy, the motley geeks were right to boo and hiss if that's the only way their dissent would be made known. The problem is there are a significant number of folks that are dumb enough to believe that there could exist a "reasonable" DRM solution that would allow officially-specified 'fair use' capacity. If you're not one of them, congrats. (:
Perhaps the best way to fight this stupidity is to entirely ignore software patents. Let them fuss and fume and try to take everyone to court as they scrounge around trying to get money for nothing. Once enough folks get peeved, maybe there'll finally be enough uproar to force an overhaul of our entirely broken patent system. Take it to the supreme court if need be to establish that algorithms are both protected speech and natural discoveries (ie. mathematics, therefore not patentable). Heck, this could even help css-cracking cases if that happened.
Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.
You're absolutely right about free markets being the solution. Where you're wrong is that any form of DRM would be precisely anti-free-market. There is no optimum compromise here. Those "screaming, indignant geeks" are fighting for our basic freedoms of speech and expression in an open society. Those freedoms die if we lose control of our tools of expression.
The same goes for privacy rights. What would the world be like if everything we read, listened to, and watched was tracked by media giants for the purpose of pay-per-usage? And it wouldn't even have to be for extracting micro-payments. Any official DRM-enabled viewer device would have some sort of unique identifier. And any DRM-enforced information source would be able to get than info during authentication.
We all need to take a firm stance on this issue. If any of the crap being proposed makes it way into legislation, mass boycotts are in order. And I don't mean using the latest Napster clone to warez pop music. I mean spreading pamphlets throughout our neighborhoods, organizing peaceful demonstrations, refusing to buy any product of the offending parties--yes, that means stop going to / renting movies, cancelling your cable TV, not buying your favorite artist's CD's, ignoring record-label organized concerts, etc. Freedom is more important than a few minor pleasures for the time being.
What on earth are you talking about? QuickTime is free, Darwin and Darwin Stream Server are open source projects, for Macs and PCs.
No, sir. QuickTime is NOT free, nor available for Linux or *BSD, nor Open Source, nor nag-free. What the heck are you talking about? And Darwin? A hacked derivative of an old 2.x version of BSD? And btw, do you have the sourcecode to OS X? Can you audit it? Didn't think so. Yes, Apple endorsing MPEG-4 is a move in the right direction.. well, except that software patents are evil. Ungrateful? Why should I care. I've been using 'unofficial' open source MPEG-4 codecs for 2 years now. Check out XViD and FFMPEG.
Sorry, do you care to remind us what the Open Source community has achieved in this regard.
Why don't you do some research first and remind yourself. Start with Xine, MPlayer, and VideoLAN. And if you're interested in the cutting edge, have a look at the MPEG4IP, which has been doing AAC (mpeg-4 audio), mp4 encoding/streaming, etc. long before Quicktime.
Precisely. Sorensen is licensed by Apple from a different company. It is *this* company that keeps the algorithm proprietary.
NO crap. But it's Apple who is the biggest distributor of Sorensen and the one that promotes it through getting content to be made for it. Basically, it's a lame way to get people over to their website (while downloading the latest QT player or movie trailer).
Besides, how could it be profitable if they give it away for free?
Who says the software itself has to be profitable? Apple has this serious hang-up with free software--they want to control everything on their platform. There's no good reason for all this proprietary Sorensen nonsense. I predict that if Apple continues this way, they are going to continue to fail. Of course, the logical thing to do would be to embrace Open Source software all the way and stop doing their own thing. Apart from the Open Source community, they have no chance to make any progress against Microsoft. If they would just realize this, we'd all be better off. And I might actually buy some of their nice hardware..
Quite simply, Apple, *can't* base QT entirely on "open standards" simply because it's a container format, the codecs are what matter. Since Apple doesn't own all the codecs, they can't make that happen.
That wasn't a troll; it was poorly worded, perhaps. I'm quite aware that QT is a container format just like AVI and that the specs are open. On the other hand, it has been Apple's choice whether or not to include totally proprietary codecs (like Sorensens') as part of their proprietary QT implementation / distribution. In this sense, they are forcing Sorensen down people's throats by first including it by default and then marketing it by making deals such that new movie trailers, streamed content, etc. are ONLY released with this encoding--and only playable with the latest official Quicktime release. Apple, Real, and M$ are all trying to become the big "gateway" to online media by forcing their own proprietary standards in one way or another. Either way, this is not good.
Somethings are best left standardized, video codecs are one of them.
Yeah, that's what standards bodies are for. Doesn't mean the standard has to be proprietary (Sorensen).
Great, another proprietary version of another proprietary set of codecs. What the hell is Apple thinking? Proprietary standards are no way to increase control of a market dominated by M$. If they would base QuickTime entirely on open standards, they might just have a chance at doing their part in weening people away from their competitors. Oh wait a minute. Linux is one of their competitors. Nevermind. (Or they could what's right and become a hardware ONLY company--seeing as how that's the only thing they're really good at.) But that would actually make sense.
This is dedication.
More like stupidity. This story is not news for nerds, it's news for rice boys. (you know.. the people who think their Honda will go faster if they lower the suspension and add a giant spoiler..) Car MP3 player "mods" are no longer cool nor original. Sorry. Many (most?) commercial CD decks now play MP3's. The ones that don't probably have a line-in for an external portable unit. And for crying out loud, this guy is using Windows--the world's worst 'embedded' OS.
Now, on the other hand, if someone wants to show off a minimal-footprint Linux driven unit sporting gpsdrive, WAP scanning, police radar, clock sync via radio, cabin noise cancellation, speed/heading/mileage/odometer on a HUD, engine diagnostics, proximity sensors, and of course voice synth/recognition, THEN I might raise an eyebrow. So have at it fellow geeks. Oh, and you might as well make it play OGG/MP3/DIVX too. (-:
The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?
The question is, when will folks in the US make enough stink to get rid of software.. err.. I mean mathematical patents. Software patents do nothing but slow innovation and create a legal minefield as we see even by the fact that the OpenGL group is having to worry about it. Software patents are totally incompatible with free software, not to mention freedom of speech. How's that different from ordinary patents? Because software has a zero cost of entry and is often NOT developed as a commercial enterprise but rather a pasttime.
It's pretty simple from a plain economic view. People make bootleg copies when the legit ones are too expensive. Stop the price-fixing and so-called "piracy" will evaporate overnight. Would Napster ever have become popular if full-length albums were $4 on CD and $2 online in a lossless format? Not likely. Would street vendors be peddling movies if legit copies were $5? Heck, would anybody even rent movies if they were that cheap to buy? And imagine if all profits from album sales went to the artists. This is what we need to aim for--not a half-hearted set of fair-use guidelines for the current overpriced content that exists today. Furthermore, we need a sort of "anti-DMCA" that requires all copyrighted works to be plaintext and entirely unprotected by copy controls. But alas, hollywood has decided that they should set ridiculously high prices to make room for several unneeded middlemen. And in defense of these high prices, they've pushed for more legislation in attempt to rein in control of the disgruntled masses. This is not what copyright was intended to be.
You know what's most ridiculous and illogical about these types of predictions? They assume that technology does not or can not change. And in fact, they don't even look at current technological developments. In 25 years, let alone 50, almost everyone will be driving a fuel-cell based or other non-polluting vehicle. Roofing tiles and mirror windows will be commonly made of ultra-cheap photovoltaic cells, supplying 30% or more household energy needs. Photonic computers will be so small that they'll require only miniscule amounts of resources to produce and negligible energy to run. More people than ever will work at home thanks to massive telecommunications advancements, 3D immersion technologies, etc. Paper will be nearly forgotten. Materials research will have replaced most of todays use of wood and steel with a diverse assortment composite and organic plastics. Advances in agricultural science, such as hydroponics, combined with a growing desire for organic foods will multiply the efficiency of production by at least an order of magnitude. At long last (mostly due to computer modelling), we will figure out human dietary science once and for all, quickly transforming the American diet into one with lower intake, greater nutrition, and paradoxically greater enjoyment. The same advances will carry over to properly feeding nearly all of the world, albeit with less emphasis on taste. Who says the world's gonna end in 50 years because of resource shortage? Not I. Although there are other issues that may render the same effect. See Revelation for vague details. (-:
The rest of the world (businessmen, congressmen, your manager, your neighbor Joe) all see a successful, huge company, the richest man in the world, and products that have shiny boxes.
No, actually most casual users of computers are really sick and tired of the problems they face on a daily basis and are eager to learn about alternatives. Keep up the M$ badmouthing campaign, folks. The general public is slowly starting to see the light--at very least, that M$ software is buggy crap.
"Palladium Enhanced" computers will be able to do everything non-Palladium computers can do, plus they will be able to view DRM movies, DRM music, and whatever else. The content industries will jump on board.
This is essentially what the Circuit City / DIVX people tried. They wanted to create a deviant standard for DVD movies that required special hardware and pay-per-view accounting of titles. For awhile, there was talk that some movie studios would only be releasing on DIVX, supposedly because it was more secure and profitable. But it failed miserably. Why? Because #1. Millions of people already had "standard" DVD players. and #2. There was a rather large popular campaign to stop / boycott the DIVX standard. Several people along the way asked me what was the difference and why they shouldn't just buy a DIVX-capable DVD player in case the standard caught on. I then explained why DIVX was harmful for the consumer and reminded them that if they didn't want this garbage, they should not vote with it with their dollars. And none of them did. We can do the same thing with Palladium: start a popular campaign to boycott it before it's even on the shelves. It's just a matter of spreading the word. Tell people that M$ wants to take away control of their computers and make it illegal to run anything but Windows on all new computer hardware. Tell them how much DRM is a bad idea. Tell them that the answer to viruses and computer security is secure software to begin with, not this pathetic attempt to plug up the holes in their flaky software.
We just write the code that we want, and sometimes that happens to fall under a users' request, after all, developers are users too.
This attitude is a problem for the future of Open Source. See, there's no reason why we can't, as a community, topple the vast majority of proprietary software in a few years time. But it would take a serious entrepreneurial effort. How so? Well, we need to establish a way for geek and non-geek users alike to fund free software developers to work full time on their pet projects and add a stronger incentive to listen to our feature requests. I think the best way to do this is some type of "code bounty" that can be placed on desired features. Put funds into an escrow until somebody comes along and fulfils the need. Then, that person gets the reward. And make a system by which many people can contribute to a bounty through micropayments, so that even casual users can help out in their small way. Say there's a needed feature missing in Mozilla and 300 frustrated people around the world each pitch in on average $5. That'd be a pretty tempting reward for a project that may take an experienced programmer only a few days to complete. Or, on a larger scale, businesses could become "patrons" to a project and by doing so gain a proportional say in directing development towards their own needs.
Don't get me wrong. There are dozens of other ways to encourage focused OSS development, but it's all about capitalism. Some folks like RMS seem to ignore this, but it's the truth. Open Source needs commercialized so that we geeks can get paid for doing what we love. Keep the software free as in GPL, but let people put their money where their mouth is.
Anybody else think it's kinda ironic that Sony, one of the RIAA big-5, is going out of its way to facilitate supposed "unauthorized copying"? (Not to mention all the other Sony products like CD/MP3 portables and their DVD/CD/MP3-player home units that specifically advertise "CD-RW compatible") Is this just a failure to communicate between their Electronics and Music divisions or are they finally seeing the light that fair-use is actually profitable? If so, this is a good sign that consumers are realizing the value of their rights and perhaps it'll be easier than we expect to get folks to shun M$ Palladium.
This is what they should have done in the first place- go after the people who are actually doing it instead of making P2P seemingly illegal.
WARNING: Opinions Ahead. (-:
What a clueless statement. First off, P2P itself has never been and will never be "seemingly illegal". Second, Mr.Taco, this whole issue is not about reasonable respect for the RIAA as long as they "behave." This is about a grassroots movement to eliminate a long-standing cartel that has been found guilty on multiple occasions of price-fixing (which hurts consumers) and has been screwing over musicians for decades with bad contracts. It's about digital technology bridging a divide and eliminating obsolete middlemen. It's about the people of the free world asserting that their personal freedom is infinitely more important than the profits of mega-corporations. (And do you want DRM all through your hardware? eh? Didn't think so.) I'm a big supporter of the musical profession. But I do it in a way that only helps those who deserve compensation for their work--the artists themselves. That to me means a complete boycott of all RIAA member music. Anytime you buy an album produced by an RIAA member, you are voting with your dollars that the RIAA is the way to go. You are encouraging artists to keep selling their careers to greedy middlemen and you are discouraging folks from going independent because they're afraid of being ignored otherwise.
Then there are the people who keep saying stuff like "hey, I buy more music now because P2P lets me preview it." This is precisely what NOT to do because guess what kinda music dominates the P2P scene? RIAA member music!!! Do you want to empower people who are striving to take away your rights? It's so ironic it's sick. Don't even download the crap!
Support live music. Support smaller bands. Boycott RIAA member music. Learn to play an instrument yourself. Lets take back our culture.
Here's how people need to respond to this:
1.) Entirely ignore any presentations they put on. Standing around watching just wastes your time and gives them apparent credence, especially with the press.
2.) Wear subtle anti-MS themed clothing to the Expo. Simple, witty statements that get the truth across.
3.) Overwelm their representatives with fake interest--in other words quietly D.O.S. their trained FUD-spewing drones--but don't give them any feedback as to how to attack next. Play dumb while gaining recon on their latest propaganda tactics.
In other words quiet, peaceful subversion. It's self defense people. They're looking to stir up a fuss and gain some ground somewhere.
There is ONE type of product that M$ does well, and makes an honest living with - Input devices.
You've apparently never taken one of "their" input devices apart. Do so and learn. Last I checked, they're all made by Mitsumi. Who the heck knows how or by whom they were designed. They're just branded OEM products. I like the keyboard design reasonably well, but Logitech makes much more ergonomic mice IHMO.
Why work for somebody else if you don't have to? If you have the skills, cut out the middleman. Maybe find some of your brightest friends/colleagues and pursue the entrepreneurial dream. Or maybe just look around at people's needs and start a small, friendly, ethical business to meet them. There's an old saying that goes something like "help people and the money will follow." And you'll never have to sit through another interview either. (-:
--
Q.) What do you call a college dropout in 5 years?
A.) Boss