The copy control technology they want is a two part system: software and hardware. It's the same as with DVD's. If the software doesn't send the right bus key, the hardware refuses to talk *at all* And that's only the first layer of course. The content itself is also encrypted. Point being is that this system only works with closes source software! You can't have an Open Source implementation because then the authentication and decryption keys are out in the open and that defeats the purpose.
Some people argue that this doesn't matter because we can just use non-protected data on our free OS'es. But what happens to people who want to dual-boot? They won't be able to access ANYTHING on their non-free OS partitions using Open Source software. Furthermore, what happens when more and more media gets distributed using copy control technology? Anyone using an Open Source OS will be entirely unable to view it. Think of the Sorenson Quicktime codecs.. but then imagine that for ALL data.
OK, so we have even more multimedia limitation. But take this further. This technology could be applied to accessing web pages as well! Or advertisements or images.. Imagine this: You're browsing in your free OS of choice and you go to access some page that uses copy controls. Suddenly, you get a kernel panic due to a memory I/O failure. Your copy control enabled memory has just refused to write a block of data.. (say an image from the web page) because it detected the encrypted header of the data you tried to access and it was not in authentication mode.
Because this copy control technology requires low level hardware / operating system communication at the most fundamental level (disk, memory, system busses), it could effectively make it nearly impossible to use an Open Source operating system on any new hardware. At very least, it would necessitate a large infusion of 3rd party closed source object code into our previously free OS kernels. (Not to mention all system utilities involved with file management, etc.) And don't think this is just MS. This is not just about another Windows proprietary format. This is about an industry wide standard from consumer electronics to PC's.
I warn you. This is not DIVX: The Sequel. This is not a single retail chain pushing for a flimsy standard. And this is not just another market experiment by MS. This is something that nearly all of corporate America wants right now and given enough time, they're going to get it. If you want to do something, support the EFF and write to your appropriate legislators to let them know what is happening and how your freedoms are being taken away.
I would first like to quote Thomas Jefferson on his view of the patent system (which was controversial at its very creation as our founding fathers debated whether congress should execute its power to protect IP "for a limited time"). Please note that this was written some 200 years ago, long before extreme corporate abuse of patents began.
"If the bringing together under the same roof various useful things before known.. entitles him to an exclusive use of all these, either seperately or combined, every utensil of life might be taken from us by a patent."
"If a new application of our old machines be a ground of monopoly, the patent law will take from us much more than it will give.. a man has the right to use his knife to cut his meat, a fork to hold it; may a patentee take from him the right to combine their use on the same subject?"
The second quote is of course where/.'s "patent pending" topic icon comes from.
Now, are all patents entirely bad? For software patents I would say yes, because they are too similar to mathematical formulas and algorithms. In fact, technology patents in general are dubious because technology by its nature needs to change and evolves quickly to make any real progress. Perhaps the reason that the patent system has become so bloated in the last few decades is that our technology is becoming increasingly multi-faceted. We no longer seek simple devices that perform a single function, but complex devices that can do whatever we want them to--perhaps covering extremely broad fields of "innovation." As an example, a patent on a general technology application, such as... "an electronic book" (of which there are many patents) not only stops innovative people from building a business around this general idea, but henceforth prevents further innovation by manufacturers. Look around. I don't see many electronic books, do you? (Except for the copy control encumbered eBook which is hardly innovative.) As a technologist, I take a look at what tools are available to me and how I can put them together to improve the quality of life. But if all of the general technologies are patented, I am limited. Perhaps this is why so many electronic devices to date have been of such limited scope of use and design.
But I do think there are some cases in which patents are acceptable if not required assuming that we still want a market economy. Such cases would be those in which a *highly specific* device or substance is created. Pharmaceutical companies are the common example, but the idea can be extended to some cases of mechanical or electronic invention, such as machines designed for an ultra-specific task. I think the line here must be drawn based on who benefits. If a patent takes away from the general public, it must certainly be ruled out for this is not the purpose of patent law. As Open Source has demonstrated that software is the domain of the general public, all software patents must be eliminated because they limit individual freedoms (ex. codec related patents). On the other hand, a patent that is only between competing businesses (such as a new manufacturing process) is certainly acceptable because it provides incentive to improve quality and efficiency. A specific example would be some of Transmeta's radically new ideas on microprocessor design. Patenting these ideas does not hurt the general public because (at least right now), the general public does not have the means to fabricate integrated circuits. Even at this, however, I argue that the length of patents should be shortened due to the needs of fast technological evolution.
So now what? I think the only answer to this situation is to start pressing for patent law reform. Our legislators need to know that we the people are not happy with what the patent office has turned into and that change is necessary to keep the new economy strong.
ogerman
Have you ever made a cat run around using a laser pointer? If so, you are in violation of a patent. Not kidding! Go look it up! (-; US Patent Number: 5443036
Why should lyrics and sheet music (such as used for performances, etc.) enjoy copyright protection? This activity only squashes the free flow of culture and puts a financial burden on those who shouldn't have it. For example, back in high school, our marching band, choir, and orchestra had to pay lots of royalties for the music we performed. Because the school inadequately funded its arts program, there were sometimes limitations on what music could be performed. Here's a second example: Remember lyrics.ch? (That is before it ran into trouble) Any song you could think of had the lyrics available. It was a wonderful source for hobby musicians who wanted to learn the words of songs they were trying to figure out by ear. Of course, you can still find all those lyrics / guitar tabs out there somewhere if you need them, but now its a hastle compared to relying on one site with everything. Consider also the fact that stores, clubs, etc. must pay royalties for simply having a radio on for background music. (And this has included even "mom and pop" shops if they're caught by ASCAP). So what are we gaining by paying songwriters a few cents in royalties? Its certainly not making no-name composers rich, whose music is rarely featured. But it IS making crappy pop-music songwriters wealthy, because statistically their stuff is played the most so they get the biggest share of the ASCAP royalties pie. I think for once I agree with the RIAA..
They say that if you love something, you should set it free.
I guess alot of modern artists really hate their work..
This is how Open Source business sometimes works. I don't know why people are complaining. It's really no different than contract jobs. You hire people to write some Open Source code, they prepare it for public consumption such that the product can attain "critical mass," and then you let the programmers go and let the community take over the rest. Face it people, there's less money and less "job security" in Open Source. But look at it this way.. at least you hard work is doing more than just making some big corporation richer. And you're being PAID to write Open Source code. What more can you ask for?
I would say, that companies that plan on using this model probably ought to warn employees ahead of time...
You have three choices for a computer degree: CS, CmpE, EE. It's a tough choice even though they all overlap. I believe that CmpE is the best choice because it gives you a solid background in hardware, software, and higher math--and to be a good engineer, you should understand all aspects of your tools. I can't tell you how much it frustrates me when some of my CS friends have no clue about basic electronics or low-level computer hardware. On the other hand, I know EE majors who have no clue what happens on the software side and are only comfortable with a VHDL analyzer or breadboard.
There is something about knowing EVERY aspect of computing that gives you the feeling that you are truly master of your machines. Having a more diverse knowledge base lets you better see how hardware and software and algorithms work together in the big picture. This leads to increased creativity and insight in problem solving as well as a more satisfying and interesting career.
In closing, one additional thing worth mentioning is that Comp.E and EE majors both give you a solid ground in classical engineering knowledge. (Physics, Differential equations and their application, systems and signals theory, etc.) This knowledge is applicable in all engineering disciplines--once you learn it, you can pick up a book on say.. acoustics.. and actually understand it. A Computer Science degree will most likely not give you this.
Whatever it really means, I don't see anything for which there is not an extensive amount of prior art. IMHO, the ppl at Apple must be getting awfully desperate if this is where they think their profits will come from. (some sort of 'really unique' look to their GUI). There's a place for art, there's a place for engineering. There's no reason to try to mesh the two.
(around 30,000 genes, versus 19,000 for a simple roundworm and the 100,000+ that were expected)But with each additional gene, the number of interactions between its expression and the expressions of other genes rises exponentially, doesn't it?
I think you are on to something. If there is perfect interaction among genes (all-to-all sort of relationship) then you could say that we are (4^30000 / 4^19000) = 4^11000 times more complex than a "simple roundworm". Of course, there may be some genes that appear to have a one-to-one relationship with some traits, but it seems unlikely or at least there may be unknown side effects of toggling this gene on or off. Either way, it just goes to show how pathetically little we REALLY know about the human genome. Sure, we now have a "map" but all this really gives us is a rough prototype of an immense data structure with no documentation. For all practical purposes, genetic research is probing a black box. In the case of humans, that's a black box with 30000 2-bit inputs, an unknown number of outputs, and exponential order internal complexity.
Why does everyone mention the NV20 anytime discussion of new 3D technology comes up? Rumors have it the Radeon 2 will be equal or better than the NV20.. And considering ATI's Open Source friendliness vs. NVidias closed, non-DRI drivers, you'd think we'd be hyping them instead on/. By the time the Radeon2 is out, the ATI DRI drivers for the Radeon should be fairly complete, including TCL support. It should from that point on be simple to extend the drivers to support Radeon 2. Now how long will it take for NVidia to put out XFree drivers? Who knows. I for one are very excited about things like evas running fully accelerated on some stable DRI drivers for my board. Just food for thought..
There are VERY good reasons why you should play the so called "Open Source or Die" game with hardware drivers.
1.) By relying on a binary-only driver that must run with root privledges, your system can no longer be trusted. You don't know what that driver contains. You don't know if it contains something that could compromise your entire system's security. You don't know if it contains an obscure bug that could bring down your whole system and might never be fixed because there aren't enough eyes probing the code.
2.) Any company that refuses to open source their hardware drivers clearly does not understand and support the Open Source movement. Such companies, after this much time, are unlikely to change. To use their products is to be forever stuck with a proprietary solution. And what happens when the company phases out driver development for older products? You are now stuck with a binary driver that ONLY works with a specific, outdated Open Source version. Lets say, hypothetically, that tomorrow NVidia stopped developing the GeForce drivers for XF86. Would you be satisfied running XF 4.0.2 for the rest of your video card's useful life?
3.) To use an old saying, "Slow and steady wins the race.." Sure a closed source driver may offer an adequate solution *right now*, but an open source driver will inevitably surpass the closed one in quality in the near future.
That is an overview for all hardware drivers. Now what about NVidia vs. ATI/Matrox? Consider that ATI and Matrox cards are generally accepted as having higher quality RAMDAC's which lead to better 2D image quality (cleaner analog signal). Furthermore, I believe the Radeon DDR bests the GeForce2 GTS in 32-bit at high resolutions by a significant margin.
Just my $0.02. Please also read Eric Raymond's "The Magic Cauldron." (Especially the last section about open source drivers)
I think the idea of open-core design is pretty much useless at this stage due to the high cost of fabrication. However, what about designing chips that use a large amount of programmable logic that can be flash-upgraded? I'm sort of thinking along the lines of the Crusoe but perhaps taking the idea several steps further. If a significant amount of the chip can be 're-designed', then perhaps there would be some incentive for open-source development.. such as tweaking the chip for different tasks.
You're missing the point. If.NET takes over the mainstream, it will be the final piece in the puzzle that large corporations have been constructing to have total control over mainstream users' computers. Sure, we programmers can always use Linux and all of our wonderful, intelligent GNU software, but at some point, the mainstream is going to spill over and affect us. What are you going to do when all digital entertainment content (tv, radio, music, movies, books, etc.) is encrypted by some proprietary system that only runs on.Net enabled Windows boxes? What about people (family, spouses, etc.) we care about that don't know any better and end up having to use.Net in their workplaces or for personal use because there is no alternative for them. Saying that Open Source should stop at 'programmers software written by and for programmers' is very short sighted. But unfortunately, this elitism seems to be the view of most Linux advocates. I'm not for the commercialization of Linux anymore than anyone else. I don't like RedHat or see a need for them. But I do know that ordinary users CAN benefit from Linux if a quality web browser and office suite is available--the existance of which will not affect those of us who prefer vi to wysiwyg. As a side note, mass acceptance of Linux would also result in new job opportunities for Linux enthusiasts and sysadmins.
I was just thinking about the whole.NET strategy that MS is adopting and I realized that this could potentially be their downfall. It seems to me they are looking at.NET as an all or nothing attempt to derail the Open Source movement by: 1.) Popularlizing a subscription model of payment for software -- both theirs and 3rd party. This is the ultimate dream of proprietary software companies.. 2.) Requiring their OS'es as a runtime environment for the.NET "solutions" coupled with anti-piracy protections and online-only functionality (this could effectively make it impossible to run Windows applications on an emulator) 3.) Getting developers to learn proprietary languages that are only useful for writing.NET software.
But this could fail. Here's how:
1.) Home users are in general leary of subscription services when it comes to computers. Furthermore, they may be scared off by the notion that they must pay a monthly / yearly fee to use what they perceive as "their software" on the expensive system they bought..NET gives thes the impression of a loss of control. And consider also that the public at large is starting to get a taste for information freedom due to free MP3 music and the expansion of the Internet in general..NET seems to run exactly contrary to this movement.
2.) Developers have already expressed concern over the changes MS is making to their Visual development suites. They may be reluctant to change.
3.) The.NET infrastructure seems to have many potential points of failure--everything to a customer's internet connection to bugs in the OS to problems on the ASP's end.
4.) Users and businesses are already fed up with how much they pay for software and how little control they have over their computers. For those thinking about Linux, this may push them over the edge.
5.) If MS can implement an effective method of piracy-protection in the form of required net access to activate the software, etc, then those who pirate software (and this includes many businesses, surprisingly) will have no choice but to pay up or switch to Linux. This is especially the case outside the US where a very large percentage of software is pirated.
So it makes me wonder.. is.NET a marketing experiment or is it a total paradigm shift in MS's strategy. Judging by the extent of effort they have put forth, I think it is the latter. If so, this is the perfect time for Open Source to come in and save the day. And I might add that it is a fairly narrow window of opportunity. If.NET gets well entrenched, it will be nearly impossible to offer people Open Source alternatives because they will be entirely incompatible. And there is one significant way that Open Source can fail that we must prevent: we do not have a quality browser and office suite for people to fall back on should they choose to reject.NET. I know that these are not popular projects, but this is a major turning point in the history of software. It's now or never. We need as many programmers as possible to devote their time to developing quality alternatives. I propose essentially a one-time push in these two areas. Once a solid base is created, we can go back to designing stuff we really care about.
This comment represents solely the opinion of the poster. It does not represent that of any past, present, or future employer.
I think we've had enough of the hastles with trying to get Linux support for 'mainstream' closed a/v codecs. The community needs to develop their own codec that is of equal or better quality to offerings by Microsoft, Apple, and RealMedia. If we could provide the industry with a superior format, we could ELIMINATE big corporate control over this increasingly important form of media.
It needs to be every bit as functional and easy to use as Office to the point of feature bloat (via plugins) that people expect in a modern office suite. It needs to be very efficiently coded. It needs to support the MS Office file formats almost perfectly for BACKWARDS compatibility. It needs to create a NEW,open, flexible, industry standard document format (or wait.. why aren't we just using HTML and tarballing the attachments?!?)
A closed source, free-as-in-beer Office suite WILL NOT WORK either. I believe that StarOffice has proven that free, closed source software has quite a few limitations. This office suite I describe must be under a GPL license.
If the open source community can rally together enough resources to create a perfect replacement for MS Office (and perhaps a truly Open Source browser as well - I am a tad leary of Mozilla), we can completely eliminate Microsoft once and for all and finally get back to efficient technological progress in this industry.
In the places using Microsoft products where I've worked as a assistant net admin., MOST of the desktops only had Windows and Office installed. If these can be provided for free, what business in the right mind would actually buy Microsoft products? Currently, there is an incentive to go with Microsoft Windows / Office because there are no office suites for Linux of comparable quality and stability. But how much effort would it REALLY take to change that?
At this point, I see KOffice as the closest to what I am describing, except that: 1.) It's development is progressing too slowly 2.) It is nowhere near feature rich enough to replace Office 3.) It is tied to the KDE / Qt libraries, thus wasting memory if you do not prefer to use the KDE environment 4.) It relies upon non-standard native file formats rather than some sort of industry wide accepted standard. 5.) It does not support MS Office formats (which will be necessary as people make the transition to Linux and convert their 'old' documents).
I urge all open source developers to stand back and take a look at the whole scene. I truly believe that the future of Linux will depend solely on if the community can eliminate proprietary standards and file formats. Look at the DVD scandel and see how that applies to all software.
Current attempts at mobile computing in the form of laptops and PDA's are entirely impractical. These devices require too much manuevering, too much time to operate, and are too bulky. They essentially defeat their own purpose by requiring so much attention of the user.
Here is my idea of the ultimate wearable / mobile computing device: 1.) Location of peripherals must not interfere with ordinary clothing nor limit the users movements in any way. This means that the box containing the CPU and battery must be extremely flat, thin, perhaps flexible, and not much larger than a pager. (perhaps a wallet shaped device that would fit in your back pocket) 2.) I/O devices must be wireless, nearly invisible, and constantly available for use. (ie. eyeglass HUD overlayed on field of vision, gloves with sensors in fingertips as a keyboard, voice recognition) 3.) High resolution camera (4000x2000 or greater) mounted in such a way that it can capture the users current field of view.. 4.) Wireless, non-persistant internet connection with dynamic IP. (for privacy reasons) A non-proprietary, industry-wide standard for wireless internet via cellular or otherwise is needed to allow full operability with broad range of hardware and local providers.
In devising a new business model for IP distribution, I think its important to keep in mind that our ultimate goal make everyone better off--not just the consumer. Artists and producers should make more money off their content. Consumers should have greater availability of content and lower prices. However, if that goal means the elimination of certain "middle-men" in the current system, then so be it. Keep in mind that in an ideal system which maximizes economic profit for both, the producers of IP sell directly to the consumers. Whether this can be accomplished in reality will be up to the market and the marketing skills of those who produce IP.
NOTE: see my earlier post here which goes into greater detail: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/21/23423 5&cid=141
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that they are comparing specialized floating point operations used for 3D graphics processing with general purpose FP instructions used a general purpose CPU like the Intel PentiumIII or Celeron or Athlon or G4. If this is true, then this is 'Apples to Oranges' and says NOTHING about the supposed engineering marvel of the EE. That would be like saying "The NVidia G-Force outperforms the PentiumIII in floating point by x times" when all they really mean is that a specialized set of long instructions on the G-Force for doing say.. texture and lighting, is more efficient than doing the same operations with general purpose FP instructions on a standard CPU. Granted, the PSX2 will be impressive for it's price and probably be a great gaming platform / DVD decoder, but I really doubt it's CPU will be suitable for much else... Now if only Sony would make 3D accelerators for the PC..
The nature of the study of mathematics is the discovery of numerical patterns and properties that have always existed. Because of this, they should not be patentable--just as one cannot claim a patent on, for example, a newly discovered form of deep sea life. I believe this should apply to all mathematics including numerical algorithms (data compression and encryption included), approximation techniques, etc.
It's all about control of distribution..
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 3
Historically, all forms of electronic mass media and broadcast (such as radio, TV, records, tapes, CD's, etc.) have had physical limitations (limited radio / TV stations, cost of media production, etc.) The Internet represents the first medium with no physical restrictions and virtually no barriers to entry. Therefore it is impossible to dominate the Internet as CBS and NBC dominated radio in the early-mid 20th century. (for example, they sometimes put small local stations out of business by overpowering their signals--this is before the FCC). All other forms of media have followed similar suit, with different tactics respectively to fight for control of their medium. The result is that traditional mass media is controlled by gigantic corporations who stand between content producers and their audience. (of course with TV, they often control both content and broadcast, operating under a profit through advertising model).
With the arrival of the Internet as a popular medium, the physical barriers that allowed tight control of the producer->audience have been made obsolete. Before, musicians had to sign up with a big label to get known and get their music out. Now they can set up a web server in the back room.. The corporations and organizations who control the current system of limited physical distribution, yet do not themselves produce content, are essentially obsolete. They are now trying to stall their demise by erecting non-physical barriers to protect their business model (IP law, lawsuits).
In closing my opinion, I would like to make a few predictions regarding the future of electronic media distribution:
1.) Business entities that control, own, and manage distribution of others IP, but themselves produce no content will gradually disappear or drastically change their business models (such as the RIAA, MPAA, major labels, etc.) 2.) Producers of IP will create individual businesses around their IP to increase profits. (ex. musicians selling their own music). 3.) New specialized businesses will meet the auxiliary needs of producers that were previously provided them by large labels (such as studio time, production management, advertising, arranging concerts, etc.) 4.) Producers will adopt whatever form of IP management they feel best suits their audience and business -- anything from a "give away music and sell T-shirts" approach to forms of pay-per-view. 5.) Consumers will be better off as the popularity / availability of content will be judged by the market rather than by the big players who decide for us. 6.) Appreciation of the arts will become more diverse. 7.) Piracy will decrease drastically as there will be little incentive for it. 8.) We'll finally see an end to these ridiculous lawsuits. (-:
It's quite simple.. and it requires no encryption, no digital signatures, and no expensive hardware to implement: just use a rotating pin number for each credit card transaction.
Each month with your credit card bill, you get a list of say.. 10 randomly generated (http://lavarand.sgi.com anyone?:-) 4-digit pins printed on a cheap laminated card. Each time you make a transaction, you go to the next number, then cycle back to the top at the end of the list. This way, even if someone steals your credit card number and pin (such as from an online database), it is completely useless to them since the next transaction will require a different, random pin and only you and the credit card company know the list.
The only case in which this would not work is if you made enough consecutive transactions with the same party to go all the way through the list. But thieves are looking for a quick steal. They would not likely go through this much hastle.
In summary, this method would eliminate, first of all, the most common type of credit card theft: the casual, unscrupulous store/hotel clerk. And secondly, it would drastically reduce the potential of online theft by making credit card number databases, in themselves, nearly worthless to crackers.
..a sidethought: the system could be made more secure by appending a single rotating digit to the number from a list of say.. 6 random digits. (or any other number such that the modulus of it and the number of 4-digit #'s is non-zero) This digit would also be printed on the card rotated with each transaction, but it might add enough extra complexity to confuse idiots..
It's quite simple.. and it requires no encryption, no digital signatures, and no expensive hardware to implement: just use a rotating pin number for each credit card transaction. Each month with your credit card bill, you get a list of say.. 10 randomly generated (http://lavarand.sgi.com anyone?:-) 4-digit pins printed on a cheap laminated card. Each time you make a transaction, you go to the next number, then cycle back to the top at the end of the list. This way, even if someone steals your credit card number and pin (such as from an online database), it is completely useless to them since the next transaction will require a different, random pin and only you and the credit card company know the list. The only case in which this would not work is if you made enough consecutive transactions with the same party to go all the way through the list. But thieves are looking for a quick steal. They would not likely go through this much hastle. In summary, this method would eliminate, first of all, the most common type of credit card theft: the casual, unscrupulous store/hotel clerk. And secondly, it would drastically reduce the potential of online theft by making credit card number databases, in themselves, nearly worthless to crackers...a sidethought: the system could be made more secure by appending a single rotating digit to the number from a list of say.. 6 random digits. (or any other number such that the modulus of it and the number of 4-digit #'s is non-zero) This digit would also be printed on the card rotated with each transaction, but it might add enough extra complexity to confuse idiots..
Slashdot Mirror
The copy control technology they want is a two part system: software and hardware. It's the same as with DVD's. If the software doesn't send the right bus key, the hardware refuses to talk *at all* And that's only the first layer of course. The content itself is also encrypted. Point being is that this system only works with closes source software! You can't have an Open Source implementation because then the authentication and decryption keys are out in the open and that defeats the purpose.
Some people argue that this doesn't matter because we can just use non-protected data on our free OS'es. But what happens to people who want to dual-boot? They won't be able to access ANYTHING on their non-free OS partitions using Open Source software. Furthermore, what happens when more and more media gets distributed using copy control technology? Anyone using an Open Source OS will be entirely unable to view it. Think of the Sorenson Quicktime codecs.. but then imagine that for ALL data.
OK, so we have even more multimedia limitation. But take this further. This technology could be applied to accessing web pages as well! Or advertisements or images.. Imagine this: You're browsing in your free OS of choice and you go to access some page that uses copy controls. Suddenly, you get a kernel panic due to a memory I/O failure. Your copy control enabled memory has just refused to write a block of data.. (say an image from the web page) because it detected the encrypted header of the data you tried to access and it was not in authentication mode.
Because this copy control technology requires low level hardware / operating system communication at the most fundamental level (disk, memory, system busses), it could effectively make it nearly impossible to use an Open Source operating system on any new hardware. At very least, it would necessitate a large infusion of 3rd party closed source object code into our previously free OS kernels. (Not to mention all system utilities involved with file management, etc.) And don't think this is just MS. This is not just about another Windows proprietary format. This is about an industry wide standard from consumer electronics to PC's.
I warn you. This is not DIVX: The Sequel. This is not a single retail chain pushing for a flimsy standard. And this is not just another market experiment by MS. This is something that nearly all of corporate America wants right now and given enough time, they're going to get it. If you want to do something, support the EFF and write to your appropriate legislators to let them know what is happening and how your freedoms are being taken away.
I would first like to quote Thomas Jefferson on his view of the patent system (which was controversial at its very creation as our founding fathers debated whether congress should execute its power to protect IP "for a limited time"). Please note that this was written some 200 years ago, long before extreme corporate abuse of patents began.
/.'s "patent pending" topic icon comes from.
"If the bringing together under the same roof various useful things before known.. entitles him to an exclusive use of all these, either seperately or combined, every utensil of life might be taken from us by a patent."
"If a new application of our old machines be a ground of monopoly, the patent law will take from us much more than it will give.. a man has the right to use his knife to cut his meat, a fork to hold it; may a patentee take from him the right to combine their use on the same subject?"
The second quote is of course where
Now, are all patents entirely bad? For software patents I would say yes, because they are too similar to mathematical formulas and algorithms. In fact, technology patents in general are dubious because technology by its nature needs to change and evolves quickly to make any real progress. Perhaps the reason that the patent system has become so bloated in the last few decades is that our technology is becoming increasingly multi-faceted. We no longer seek simple devices that perform a single function, but complex devices that can do whatever we want them to--perhaps covering extremely broad fields of "innovation." As an example, a patent on a general technology application, such as... "an electronic book" (of which there are many patents) not only stops innovative people from building a business around this general idea, but henceforth prevents further innovation by manufacturers. Look around. I don't see many electronic books, do you? (Except for the copy control encumbered eBook which is hardly innovative.) As a technologist, I take a look at what tools are available to me and how I can put them together to improve the quality of life. But if all of the general technologies are patented, I am limited. Perhaps this is why so many electronic devices to date have been of such limited scope of use and design.
But I do think there are some cases in which patents are acceptable if not required assuming that we still want a market economy. Such cases would be those in which a *highly specific* device or substance is created. Pharmaceutical companies are the common example, but the idea can be extended to some cases of mechanical or electronic invention, such as machines designed for an ultra-specific task. I think the line here must be drawn based on who benefits. If a patent takes away from the general public, it must certainly be ruled out for this is not the purpose of patent law. As Open Source has demonstrated that software is the domain of the general public, all software patents must be eliminated because they limit individual freedoms (ex. codec related patents). On the other hand, a patent that is only between competing businesses (such as a new manufacturing process) is certainly acceptable because it provides incentive to improve quality and efficiency. A specific example would be some of Transmeta's radically new ideas on microprocessor design. Patenting these ideas does not hurt the general public because (at least right now), the general public does not have the means to fabricate integrated circuits. Even at this, however, I argue that the length of patents should be shortened due to the needs of fast technological evolution.
So now what? I think the only answer to this situation is to start pressing for patent law reform. Our legislators need to know that we the people are not happy with what the patent office has turned into and that change is necessary to keep the new economy strong.
ogerman
Have you ever made a cat run around using a laser pointer? If so, you are in violation of a patent. Not kidding! Go look it up! (-; US Patent Number: 5443036
Why should lyrics and sheet music (such as used for performances, etc.) enjoy copyright protection? This activity only squashes the free flow of culture and puts a financial burden on those who shouldn't have it. For example, back in high school, our marching band, choir, and orchestra had to pay lots of royalties for the music we performed. Because the school inadequately funded its arts program, there were sometimes limitations on what music could be performed. Here's a second example: Remember lyrics.ch? (That is before it ran into trouble) Any song you could think of had the lyrics available. It was a wonderful source for hobby musicians who wanted to learn the words of songs they were trying to figure out by ear. Of course, you can still find all those lyrics / guitar tabs out there somewhere if you need them, but now its a hastle compared to relying on one site with everything. Consider also the fact that stores, clubs, etc. must pay royalties for simply having a radio on for background music. (And this has included even "mom and pop" shops if they're caught by ASCAP). So what are we gaining by paying songwriters a few cents in royalties? Its certainly not making no-name composers rich, whose music is rarely featured. But it IS making crappy pop-music songwriters wealthy, because statistically their stuff is played the most so they get the biggest share of the ASCAP royalties pie. I think for once I agree with the RIAA..
They say that if you love something, you should set it free.
I guess alot of modern artists really hate their work..
This is how Open Source business sometimes works. I don't know why people are complaining. It's really no different than contract jobs. You hire people to write some Open Source code, they prepare it for public consumption such that the product can attain "critical mass," and then you let the programmers go and let the community take over the rest. Face it people, there's less money and less "job security" in Open Source. But look at it this way.. at least you hard work is doing more than just making some big corporation richer. And you're being PAID to write Open Source code. What more can you ask for?
I would say, that companies that plan on using this model probably ought to warn employees ahead of time...
You can get an ATI Radeon 32Mb. DDR for like $80 now.. (maybe even less..) And ATI supports OpenSource... so there is a DRI driver in development.
Here's my quickie opinion as a Comp.Eng. major..
You have three choices for a computer degree: CS, CmpE, EE. It's a tough choice even though they all overlap. I believe that CmpE is the best choice because it gives you a solid background in hardware, software, and higher math--and to be a good engineer, you should understand all aspects of your tools. I can't tell you how much it frustrates me when some of my CS friends have no clue about basic electronics or low-level computer hardware. On the other hand, I know EE majors who have no clue what happens on the software side and are only comfortable with a VHDL analyzer or breadboard.
There is something about knowing EVERY aspect of computing that gives you the feeling that you are truly master of your machines. Having a more diverse knowledge base lets you better see how hardware and software and algorithms work together in the big picture. This leads to increased creativity and insight in problem solving as well as a more satisfying and interesting career.
In closing, one additional thing worth mentioning is that Comp.E and EE majors both give you a solid ground in classical engineering knowledge. (Physics, Differential equations and their application, systems and signals theory, etc.) This knowledge is applicable in all engineering disciplines--once you learn it, you can pick up a book on say.. acoustics.. and actually understand it. A Computer Science degree will most likely not give you this.
Good luck with whatever you choose!
Whatever it really means, I don't see anything for which there is not an extensive amount of prior art. IMHO, the ppl at Apple must be getting awfully desperate if this is where they think their profits will come from. (some sort of 'really unique' look to their GUI). There's a place for art, there's a place for engineering. There's no reason to try to mesh the two.
(around 30,000 genes, versus 19,000 for a simple roundworm and the 100,000+ that were expected) But with each additional gene, the number of interactions between its expression and the expressions of other genes rises exponentially, doesn't it?
I think you are on to something. If there is perfect interaction among genes (all-to-all sort of relationship) then you could say that we are (4^30000 / 4^19000) = 4^11000 times more complex than a "simple roundworm". Of course, there may be some genes that appear to have a one-to-one relationship with some traits, but it seems unlikely or at least there may be unknown side effects of toggling this gene on or off. Either way, it just goes to show how pathetically little we REALLY know about the human genome. Sure, we now have a "map" but all this really gives us is a rough prototype of an immense data structure with no documentation. For all practical purposes, genetic research is probing a black box. In the case of humans, that's a black box with 30000 2-bit inputs, an unknown number of outputs, and exponential order internal complexity.
There is no gene for the human spirit. -- Gattaca
Why does everyone mention the NV20 anytime discussion of new 3D technology comes up? Rumors have it the Radeon 2 will be equal or better than the NV20.. And considering ATI's Open Source friendliness vs. NVidias closed, non-DRI drivers, you'd think we'd be hyping them instead on /. By the time the Radeon2 is out, the ATI DRI drivers for the Radeon should be fairly complete, including TCL support. It should from that point on be simple to extend the drivers to support Radeon 2. Now how long will it take for NVidia to put out XFree drivers? Who knows. I for one are very excited about things like evas running fully accelerated on some stable DRI drivers for my board. Just food for thought..
There are VERY good reasons why you should play the so called "Open Source or Die" game with hardware drivers.
1.) By relying on a binary-only driver that must run with root privledges, your system can no longer be trusted. You don't know what that driver contains. You don't know if it contains something that could compromise your entire system's security. You don't know if it contains an obscure bug that could bring down your whole system and might never be fixed because there aren't enough eyes probing the code.
2.) Any company that refuses to open source their hardware drivers clearly does not understand and support the Open Source movement. Such companies, after this much time, are unlikely to change. To use their products is to be forever stuck with a proprietary solution. And what happens when the company phases out driver development for older products? You are now stuck with a binary driver that ONLY works with a specific, outdated Open Source version. Lets say, hypothetically, that tomorrow NVidia stopped developing the GeForce drivers for XF86. Would you be satisfied running XF 4.0.2 for the rest of your video card's useful life?
3.) To use an old saying, "Slow and steady wins the race.." Sure a closed source driver may offer an adequate solution *right now*, but an open source driver will inevitably surpass the closed one in quality in the near future.
That is an overview for all hardware drivers. Now what about NVidia vs. ATI/Matrox? Consider that ATI and Matrox cards are generally accepted as having higher quality RAMDAC's which lead to better 2D image quality (cleaner analog signal). Furthermore, I believe the Radeon DDR bests the GeForce2 GTS in 32-bit at high resolutions by a significant margin.
Just my $0.02. Please also read Eric Raymond's "The Magic Cauldron." (Especially the last section about open source drivers)
I think the idea of open-core design is pretty much useless at this stage due to the high cost of fabrication. However, what about designing chips that use a large amount of programmable logic that can be flash-upgraded? I'm sort of thinking along the lines of the Crusoe but perhaps taking the idea several steps further. If a significant amount of the chip can be 're-designed', then perhaps there would be some incentive for open-source development.. such as tweaking the chip for different tasks.
You're missing the point. If .NET takes over the mainstream, it will be the final piece in the puzzle that large corporations have been constructing to have total control over mainstream users' computers. Sure, we programmers can always use Linux and all of our wonderful, intelligent GNU software, but at some point, the mainstream is going to spill over and affect us. What are you going to do when all digital entertainment content (tv, radio, music, movies, books, etc.) is encrypted by some proprietary system that only runs on .Net enabled Windows boxes? What about people (family, spouses, etc.) we care about that don't know any better and end up having to use .Net in their workplaces or for personal use because there is no alternative for them. Saying that Open Source should stop at 'programmers software written by and for programmers' is very short sighted. But unfortunately, this elitism seems to be the view of most Linux advocates. I'm not for the commercialization of Linux anymore than anyone else. I don't like RedHat or see a need for them. But I do know that ordinary users CAN benefit from Linux if a quality web browser and office suite is available--the existance of which will not affect those of us who prefer vi to wysiwyg. As a side note, mass acceptance of Linux would also result in new job opportunities for Linux enthusiasts and sysadmins.
I was just thinking about the whole .NET strategy that MS is adopting and I realized that this could potentially be their downfall. It seems to me they are looking at .NET as an all or nothing attempt to derail the Open Source movement by: 1.) Popularlizing a subscription model of payment for software -- both theirs and 3rd party. This is the ultimate dream of proprietary software companies.. 2.) Requiring their OS'es as a runtime environment for the .NET "solutions" coupled with anti-piracy protections and online-only functionality (this could effectively make it impossible to run Windows applications on an emulator) 3.) Getting developers to learn proprietary languages that are only useful for writing .NET software.
.NET gives thes the impression of a loss of control. And consider also that the public at large is starting to get a taste for information freedom due to free MP3 music and the expansion of the Internet in general. .NET seems to run exactly contrary to this movement.
2.) Developers have already expressed concern over the changes MS is making to their Visual development suites. They may be reluctant to change.
3.) The .NET infrastructure seems to have many potential points of failure--everything to a customer's internet connection to bugs in the OS to problems on the ASP's end.
4.) Users and businesses are already fed up with how much they pay for software and how little control they have over their computers. For those thinking about Linux, this may push them over the edge.
5.) If MS can implement an effective method of piracy-protection in the form of required net access to activate the software, etc, then those who pirate software (and this includes many businesses, surprisingly) will have no choice but to pay up or switch to Linux. This is especially the case outside the US where a very large percentage of software is pirated.
.NET a marketing experiment or is it a total paradigm shift in MS's strategy. Judging by the extent of effort they have put forth, I think it is the latter. If so, this is the perfect time for Open Source to come in and save the day. And I might add that it is a fairly narrow window of opportunity. If .NET gets well entrenched, it will be nearly impossible to offer people Open Source alternatives because they will be entirely incompatible. And there is one significant way that Open Source can fail that we must prevent: we do not have a quality browser and office suite for people to fall back on should they choose to reject .NET. I know that these are not popular projects, but this is a major turning point in the history of software. It's now or never. We need as many programmers as possible to devote their time to developing quality alternatives. I propose essentially a one-time push in these two areas. Once a solid base is created, we can go back to designing stuff we really care about.
But this could fail. Here's how:
1.) Home users are in general leary of subscription services when it comes to computers. Furthermore, they may be scared off by the notion that they must pay a monthly / yearly fee to use what they perceive as "their software" on the expensive system they bought.
So it makes me wonder.. is
This comment represents solely the opinion of the poster. It does not represent that of any past, present, or future employer.
I think we've had enough of the hastles with trying to get Linux support for 'mainstream' closed a/v codecs. The community needs to develop their own codec that is of equal or better quality to offerings by Microsoft, Apple, and RealMedia. If we could provide the industry with a superior format, we could ELIMINATE big corporate control over this increasingly important form of media.
It needs to be every bit as functional and easy to use as Office to the point of feature bloat (via plugins) that people expect in a modern office suite. It needs to be very efficiently coded. It needs to support the MS Office file formats almost perfectly for BACKWARDS compatibility. It needs to create a NEW ,open, flexible, industry standard document format (or wait.. why aren't we just using HTML and tarballing the attachments?!?)
A closed source, free-as-in-beer Office suite WILL NOT WORK either. I believe that StarOffice has proven that free, closed source software has quite a few limitations. This office suite I describe must be under a GPL license.
If the open source community can rally together enough resources to create a perfect replacement for MS Office (and perhaps a truly Open Source browser as well - I am a tad leary of Mozilla), we can completely eliminate Microsoft once and for all and finally get back to efficient technological progress in this industry.
In the places using Microsoft products where I've worked as a assistant net admin., MOST of the desktops only had Windows and Office installed. If these can be provided for free, what business in the right mind would actually buy Microsoft products? Currently, there is an incentive to go with Microsoft Windows / Office because there are no office suites for Linux of comparable quality and stability. But how much effort would it REALLY take to change that?
At this point, I see KOffice as the closest to what I am describing, except that: 1.) It's development is progressing too slowly 2.) It is nowhere near feature rich enough to replace Office 3.) It is tied to the KDE / Qt libraries, thus wasting memory if you do not prefer to use the KDE environment 4.) It relies upon non-standard native file formats rather than some sort of industry wide accepted standard. 5.) It does not support MS Office formats (which will be necessary as people make the transition to Linux and convert their 'old' documents).
I urge all open source developers to stand back and take a look at the whole scene. I truly believe that the future of Linux will depend solely on if the community can eliminate proprietary standards and file formats. Look at the DVD scandel and see how that applies to all software.
Current attempts at mobile computing in the form of laptops and PDA's are entirely impractical. These devices require too much manuevering, too much time to operate, and are too bulky. They essentially defeat their own purpose by requiring so much attention of the user.
Here is my idea of the ultimate wearable / mobile computing device:
1.) Location of peripherals must not interfere with ordinary clothing nor limit the users movements in any way. This means that the box containing the CPU and battery must be extremely flat, thin, perhaps flexible, and not much larger than a pager. (perhaps a wallet shaped device that would fit in your back pocket)
2.) I/O devices must be wireless, nearly invisible, and constantly available for use. (ie. eyeglass HUD overlayed on field of vision, gloves with sensors in fingertips as a keyboard, voice recognition)
3.) High resolution camera (4000x2000 or greater) mounted in such a way that it can capture the users current field of view..
4.) Wireless, non-persistant internet connection with dynamic IP. (for privacy reasons) A non-proprietary, industry-wide standard for wireless internet via cellular or otherwise is needed to allow full operability with broad range of hardware and local providers.
In devising a new business model for IP distribution, I think its important to keep in mind that our ultimate goal make everyone better off--not just the consumer. Artists and producers should make more money off their content. Consumers should have greater availability of content and lower prices. However, if that goal means the elimination of certain "middle-men" in the current system, then so be it. Keep in mind that in an ideal system which maximizes economic profit for both, the producers of IP sell directly to the consumers. Whether this can be accomplished in reality will be up to the market and the marketing skills of those who produce IP.
3 5&cid=141
NOTE: see my earlier post here which goes into greater detail:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/21/2342
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that they are comparing specialized floating point operations used for 3D graphics processing with general purpose FP instructions used a general purpose CPU like the Intel PentiumIII or Celeron or Athlon or G4. If this is true, then this is 'Apples to Oranges' and says NOTHING about the supposed engineering marvel of the EE. That would be like saying "The NVidia G-Force outperforms the PentiumIII in floating point by x times" when all they really mean is that a specialized set of long instructions on the G-Force for doing say.. texture and lighting, is more efficient than doing the same operations with general purpose FP instructions on a standard CPU. Granted, the PSX2 will be impressive for it's price and probably be a great gaming platform / DVD decoder, but I really doubt it's CPU will be suitable for much else. .. Now if only Sony would make 3D accelerators for the PC..
The nature of the study of mathematics is the discovery of numerical patterns and properties that have always existed. Because of this, they should not be patentable--just as one cannot claim a patent on, for example, a newly discovered form of deep sea life. I believe this should apply to all mathematics including numerical algorithms (data compression and encryption included), approximation techniques, etc.
Historically, all forms of electronic mass media and broadcast (such as radio, TV, records, tapes, CD's, etc.) have had physical limitations (limited radio / TV stations, cost of media production, etc.) The Internet represents the first medium with no physical restrictions and virtually no barriers to entry. Therefore it is impossible to dominate the Internet as CBS and NBC dominated radio in the early-mid 20th century. (for example, they sometimes put small local stations out of business by overpowering their signals--this is before the FCC). All other forms of media have followed similar suit, with different tactics respectively to fight for control of their medium. The result is that traditional mass media is controlled by gigantic corporations who stand between content producers and their audience. (of course with TV, they often control both content and broadcast, operating under a profit through advertising model).
With the arrival of the Internet as a popular medium, the physical barriers that allowed tight control of the producer->audience have been made obsolete. Before, musicians had to sign up with a big label to get known and get their music out. Now they can set up a web server in the back room.. The corporations and organizations who control the current system of limited physical distribution, yet do not themselves produce content, are essentially obsolete. They are now trying to stall their demise by erecting non-physical barriers to protect their business model (IP law, lawsuits).
In closing my opinion, I would like to make a few predictions regarding the future of electronic media distribution:
1.) Business entities that control, own, and manage distribution of others IP, but themselves produce no content will gradually disappear or drastically change their business models (such as the RIAA, MPAA, major labels, etc.)
2.) Producers of IP will create individual businesses around their IP to increase profits. (ex. musicians selling their own music).
3.) New specialized businesses will meet the auxiliary needs of producers that were previously provided them by large labels (such as studio time, production management, advertising, arranging concerts, etc.)
4.) Producers will adopt whatever form of IP management they feel best suits their audience and business -- anything from a "give away music and sell T-shirts" approach to forms of pay-per-view.
5.) Consumers will be better off as the popularity / availability of content will be judged by the market rather than by the big players who decide for us.
6.) Appreciation of the arts will become more diverse.
7.) Piracy will decrease drastically as there will be little incentive for it.
8.) We'll finally see an end to these ridiculous lawsuits. (-:
It's quite simple.. and it requires no encryption, no digital signatures, and no expensive hardware to implement: just use a rotating pin number for each credit card transaction.
:-) 4-digit pins printed on a cheap laminated card. Each time you make a transaction, you go to the next number, then cycle back to the top at the end of the list.
Each month with your credit card bill, you get a list of say.. 10 randomly generated (http://lavarand.sgi.com anyone?
This way, even if someone steals your credit card number and pin (such as from an online database), it is completely useless to them since the next transaction will require a different, random pin and only you and the credit card company know the list.
The only case in which this would not work is if you made enough consecutive transactions with the same party to go all the way through the list. But thieves are looking for a quick steal. They would not likely go through this much hastle.
In summary, this method would eliminate, first of all, the most common type of credit card theft: the casual, unscrupulous store/hotel clerk. And secondly, it would drastically reduce the potential of online theft by making credit card number databases, in themselves, nearly worthless to crackers.
..a sidethought: the system could be made more secure by appending a single rotating digit to the number from a list of say.. 6 random digits. (or any other number such that the modulus of it and the number of 4-digit #'s is non-zero) This digit would also be printed on the card rotated with each transaction, but it might add enough extra complexity to confuse idiots..
It's quite simple.. and it requires no encryption, no digital signatures, and no expensive hardware to implement: just use a rotating pin number for each credit card transaction. Each month with your credit card bill, you get a list of say.. 10 randomly generated (http://lavarand.sgi.com anyone? :-) 4-digit pins printed on a cheap laminated card. Each time you make a transaction, you go to the next number, then cycle back to the top at the end of the list. This way, even if someone steals your credit card number and pin (such as from an online database), it is completely useless to them since the next transaction will require a different, random pin and only you and the credit card company know the list. The only case in which this would not work is if you made enough consecutive transactions with the same party to go all the way through the list. But thieves are looking for a quick steal. They would not likely go through this much hastle. In summary, this method would eliminate, first of all, the most common type of credit card theft: the casual, unscrupulous store/hotel clerk. And secondly, it would drastically reduce the potential of online theft by making credit card number databases, in themselves, nearly worthless to crackers. ..a sidethought: the system could be made more secure by appending a single rotating digit to the number from a list of say.. 6 random digits. (or any other number such that the modulus of it and the number of 4-digit #'s is non-zero) This digit would also be printed on the card rotated with each transaction, but it might add enough extra complexity to confuse idiots..