Yes, and some of the STBs are starting to be fanless, which makes them great for hacking into what I want. Indeed, it looks like the Allwell and RealMagic stuff is on the right track: hardware decoding of compute-intensive MPEG2 that doesn't need active cooling and is already close to what I want. Of course, because of low demand, and a niche market (hotel VOD), they tend to be pricy: around $500 without hard disk or DVD).
Didn't know that gaming consoles were noisy (I don't own one). I will grant that fancy 3d graphics rendering will probably require an actively-cooled graphics chip for the forseeable future. While I have seen monster copper passive heatsinks for them, they haven't reviewed well.
Ironically, the closest thing I have now to an STB is my Sony DTC-HD100 Satellite/Terrestrial HDTV receiver which has a fan in it that is on all the time.
Re:you could do everything you describe
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 2
From my original post:
It has to be quiet, and not look like a computer.
It is real hard to find a PC that does not need active cooling. Some of the STBs today come close... the Allwell iDVD3036 looks interesting, and anything with the Sigma Designs 8400 MPEG2 decoder reduces the need to do MPEG2 in software and thus the need for a fast (i.e. hot) CPU.
If I were to use a PC, I'd probably go for i810 video with a NetStream2000TV card. Adding a 3d Graphics card will almost certainly mean a fan or two. The again, gaming is not my primary goal, but MPEG2 video streaming is, so i810 mobo video is adequate.
C O N V E R G E N C E
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
People here know that I've gone on and on about having a reasonably powerful device in my living/family room to which I can stream audio and compressed video from a home server (hence the need for some kind of standard network connection). It has to be quiet, and not look like a computer.
While we're at it, it would be nice if it would let me browse the web, or perhaps run some online games that are playable at some distance from a relatively large, low-resolution (640x480) screen (though I have an HD-ready high-resolution set, most don't). And you know, all these entertainment devices with their complex controls, some of which have a video output for interactive menus are getting a pain to control. Why can't they provide a web server interface to a device with a browser and appropriate plugins, and just be hubbed into the local room 'net?
The ability to run local entertainment software (i.e. games), networked or not, is a feature that comes for free if we're going to have enough "oomph" to do MPEG2 decoding. While you might want to use it for non-entertainment duties (i.e. checking one's bank acount, or ordering a pizza on-line), work isn't it's primary purpose.
THAT is what the XBox could be. Architecture should be open, so third parties can develop apps/add on hardware for it. Still, it should be useful enough on it's own to justify it's price. Whether the hard disk (if present) and or CD/DVD-ROM is integrated, or outboard (firewire?) is more of a stylistic issue -- today we have A/V receivers as well as separates.
In my search I have come across some neat tech by Sigma Designs (http://www.sigmadesigns.com, http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/netstream_con sole.htm (watch the damn inserted space), and particularly the iDVD3036). So decent convergence products are coming (say 2002).
But, if PC history tells us anything, the ones that succeed will be more open than the one's that don't. Unless Microsoft opens the XBox up architecturally and makes it easy for third party hacker developers, they will be among the convergence also-rans.
I've done it with an ATI All-In-Wonder, using framebuffer video, 640x480, Xvfb, and GATOS to actually display input from a video cam, or the ATI tuner on a TV via svideo-out on the ATI.
Don't ask me to remember exactly how, but I may try to ressurect it some time.
I was being sarcastic. "Good enough" as in early Windows releases not supporting multiple network interfaces cleanly, i.e. a local LAN, and a dial-up modem. But your point is noted, perhaps I should have said "frustratingware": purporting to do a job, but doing so poorly, or inflexibly.
O.K. I'll go out on a limb here... I support RMS's efforts to make all software free even as I disagree that this should happen.
Why?
Becuase such efforts have useful side effects.
I don't think that all software will ever be free simply because that will require force against those who disagree and are willing to spend money for non-free software. History has shown that using force against people who conspire to engage in mutually-beneficial (to them) activities fails in the long term: you can't effectively separate the addict from his drug, the prostitute from her client, or willing purchasers from Windows.
Now, RMS might try to use some form of political influence to discourage mention or use of non-free applications, but that's as likely to stop a real die-hard as it is to shove the original DeCSS key back up Xing's wazoo. Still, I do think that discouraging use of non-free software is a good thing and there needs to be more such discouragement.
You see, people have a choice -- they can choose free software (or support the writing of a free app that they need), or thay can shackle theselves to the restrictions that non-free, but potentially useful code, provides. It's a question of what matters more. And, as a libertarian, I fully support that freedom of choice. But, I fear that too many people do not choose wisely and don't properly understand the tradeoffs. An ill-informed choice is not a good one.
We've seen this ignorance manifest itself in the proliferation of trust-my-securityware (M.S. Passport), spyware, and just plain good-enoughware. We've seen people surprised that they can't just hand over the O/S when they sell their PC because of licenseware and lose fair use right they didn't know they had because of DMCAware, not to mention control of how they use things they buy.
Free software makes all such things transparent, and thus relatively impotent and without effect. Fair use? No problem. Security? See for yourself. Buggy? Well, have a hand at it then. Expensive? No, you can share a copy with your friends. Doesn't work quite the way you want? See "buggy".
Now, I'm fairly sure that RMS would agree these points are important but not as important as the freedom to help one another. That's his political agenda, and opposing anything that might conflict with that view is a logical consequence of such a view. Personally, I rank "freedom to cooperate" along with those points, though how much that matters depends on the circumstances.
But matter it does. All those points matter. It may be that people won't realize how much they all matter until they are required to watch a minimum amount of "media" that is acceptable to their "indoctrinating" employer, and tracked through their TVs. An Orwellian horror? Sure, but a whole damn more possible today than even 20 years ago. You can be sure that "the powers that be" certainly lust for that kind of control that modern technology can provide, if people accept it.
Free software, of course, renders these things ineffective against those people who don't want them -- rip the fscking spyware out, damnit. More free software is therefore better. Anything that encourages more free software is better.
So, in the end, RMS's inflexible, unwavering position has some very desirable effects. Could those effects be better had with a different kind of advocate? Maybe, but instead of attacking RMS, why not try to be that advocate?
Well, acording to Quebec Law, if your site "caters to" Quebecers (whatever that means, i.e. presumably if you sell stuff that someone in Quebec might want to buy, you "cater to" Quebec), you must provide a French version of your site.
Of course,/me stuck his tongue out at such silly laws, packed up, and left Quebec, legally depriving them of my tax dollars in the process.
It is portable but only in the army sense that it can be moved by 3 men or a jeep.
It seams to me that what you need is something portable, with a couple hundred gig storage, ethernet interface, that can connect to a PC and let you burn a CD on demand. (or have a build in burner... hmm).
Cool Music! And I usually don't go to the trouble to check music out online. Though not completely synth, it strikes me as a cross between early Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream (espescially the first two tracks, though I doubt that was the intent, and the analogy is stretched).
I'd like to support you. Where can I send, oh, $10?
Oh, it is SOOO tempting to patch what you know, rather than start over with something new, and relatively untested, espescially when deadlines loom.
Of course, this might not fix the problem: either the patch doesn't fix enough, or the design is flawed to start with (I have not delved into either Linux VM to competently present an opinion here, just speculation on what might be wrong). But there is something to be said for "the devil you know". At least the problems with the old VM were fairly well known. Moving to a new VM could potentially introduce new ones. Not something you want to do close to release.
Now, those plagued by problems with the older VM might, in exasperation, think anything would be better. Enter Linus with Andrea's alternative: "looks good, ship it!" [my paraphrasing]. Those of us who'd tremble at the thought of new, untested code, could, well, stick to an older kernel, even if it meant giving up some new features.
But wait! It's Alan to the rescue!! Picking up all the relatively easy fixes and enhancements, and giving me a choice. Leave the contentious parts till later..
It strikes me that the minor, temporary -ac fork served both camps of users until the issues were resolved.
Some might argue for a more disciplined approach, and not make major changes so close to release. (But, if it isn't "ready", why not just postpone release? Is Linus feeling pressure to release prematurely? Or just trying to release "often enough".) But that stands in the way of progress -- I've seen managers crippled by fear of changing anything. Sometimes you gotta take a chance, even if some things break while (many) others get fixed.
While smaller, digestable kernel changes might be more palatable, they're already available in interim development releases. Sometimes a change is sufficiently profound that it touches everything (yes, that's an argument to refactor, but hindsight is 20/20, so I won't argue that point too much) and takes a while.
I am not one to say which approach is globally better -- I can only comment on what works better for me. I can say, though, that when a community is really split over a course of action, and any single choice will not satisfy a large number of people, a fork, even if temporary, is probably the least painful route in the short term, even as the long term consequences are undesirable if it goes on too long.
After all, all progress is a mini-fork from "stable" to "untested".
I registered with a bunch of sites: dice, computerjobs, monster, probably a few others, as well as hit the job search engines. It is a royal pain to enter data for each one. (note to self: develop a resume XML DTD).
It took from May 15th to the last week of June (about) to land a position. In that time, I got about 1/2 dozen calls, two interviews, and two offers, both sent my way by headhunters. None of my personal applications panned out. So, my "saturation" technique didn't result in what I'd consider excessive interest -- you just never know who uses what job engine or site.
I ended up accepting a position near Dallas, TX, and moved from Chicago, IL. Employer payed a flat rate toward moving expenses and left me to deal with the logistics (the allowance was generous, but the headache of dealing with all the logistics was a pain -- apparently outsourcing that kind of stuff is expensive).
Now, my case might be atypical, because in addition to all the other problems related to the downturn in the economy, I required visa sponsorship. Still, I found and got a job I liked using only on-line resources.
For contemporaries, I might suggest Robert Forward's Starquake and Drangon's Egg.
Good "hard science" fiction, and fun stories to boot. Then again, I don't know if he will be a prolific enough writer to "stand the test of time" and not be known as a "few hit" wonder.
I've seen, and been subjected to software-estimation techniques.
The best defense I've heard is that "Yes, everyone's estimate will be way off, but they are independent estimates of different pieces of code and when aggregated the standard deviation drops to a reasonable value". IOW, the estimate I pulled out of my butt will be way optimistic, but your estimate will be pessimistic, and it will all cancel out.
There are a few problems with this, rather nice and neat statistical trick:
1) As Michael Milken found out, the observations are not independent -- there are two many interactions between the components being estimated. In Milken's case, he argued that a diversified portfolio or junk bonds would have high yield, low risk charactersitics. Unfortunately, the performance of shaky companies in a market downturn is rather strongly corelated.
2) You need something objective to estimate. In our case, we measured the number of easy, medium, and hard member functions of classes that had to be implemented. See the problem? You need to cast your interfaces in stone, external, and internal ones, right at the start. On simple projects this is easy, but not on hard ones, as much as we all agree it is desirable. There is something called learning from one's mistakes and it will happen with anything novel.
3) This presumes that the design is sound. To ensure this we reviewed and analyzed and studied, and "damnit, you indented 3 spaces instead of 4...", well you get the idea. The closest scrutiny will find the obvious bugs, but not the really tricky ones.
4) This technique does not encourage the one thing that saves you in the face of change -- adaptive and modular design. You make things modular so change affects as little as possible, and you make things adaptive so change is as painless as possible. IOW, you plan for making changes bacause of mistakes. Naturally, this violates (1) above, so it is not permitted. The mantra is "Design it right the first time!" We know that we can get 95% or 99% or maybe even 99.5% of it right, but never 100%.
In the end, sure, we "finished" on time, but, er what was finished didn't work very well, and had to be rescued by the few who knew what was going on. To be fair, the design efforts and documentation helped provide a somewhat modular system, but the really important parts weren't documented -- we had reams of paper describing the "trees", but not nearly enough describing the "forest" as it were.
So, I'm skeptical.
I've heard that these techniques encourage "discipline" and help mediocre programmers contribute acceptable code. Well, where I work now, we have a policy of not hiring "mediocre" programmers. I can dump a suspicious log on someone and be assured that they WILL fix the problem -- I don't have to argue that there IS a problem ("but, the process, the process says this WON'T happen... your log must be a lie...")
James T. Kirk: William Shatner
Spock: Leonard Nemoy
Dr. McCoy: DeForest Kelly
Scotty: James Doohan
Sulu: George Takei
Checkov: Walter Koenig
Uhura: Nichelle Nicols
Nurse Chappel: Majel Barret (later Montgomory)
I perked up when I saw your reference to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. For anyone with an interest in history, and/or politics, it is a must-read.
You went to the effort to make a long response, so I'll address your points...
How about this, ditch the "transcrypter" and replace it with a smart card or a small set of smart cards.
Yes, that's an obvious choice, but has the following flaw: if the card is generic, it will provide an unencrypted digital signal at some point. That's no good. Of course, there's no reason why the card couldn't be a transcrypter.
Companies like Dish Network have shown a way to do it and still get the bandwidth advantages a broadcast style system provides.
And are too easy to crack, IMHO. Lots of peole did it in Canada (where it was legal).
VOD style systems are inpractical as they require far too much bandwidth, far more than we can support at present.
At present, yes. Which is why you need some type of widely distributed common private key at some point in such a broadcast chain.
Honestly though, it is impossible to achieve an "uncrackable" system and once something is deployed it can't be changed in large ways because if backward compatibility is lost people will FREAK. So it will be cracked, and likely it will be crackable by "joe sixpack" in a modest amount of time. Then we're back where we started.
I do not share this pessimism. Keys to homes and cars are generally easy to duplicate, yet, we don't have a massive burglery problem. Similarly, if a broadcast key is cracked, all units can be recalled for "repair". A pain yes, but strong-SSSCA-like sanctions against a limited set of devices like decrypters and transcrupters could help here.
I really don't see this type of protection as being practical as a technological measure. Too many holes. Not to mention, high-quality video capture is allready cheap and easy. People will just do what they have been, take an analog capture over high quality connections and cables and encode it to MPEG.
The major hole involves (a) cracking a hidden private key, and (b) distributing it widely. If the "owner" of the public key is known, appropriate penalties can be applied if negligence can be proven (i.e. a stolen decrypter not reported, etc.) As for sharing digitized component or even SVideo, that's tolerated today as long as it isn't excessive. Try getting a VCR with component imputs, though. You can't make hi-resolution digital copies unless you use a computer today. SSSCA proponents want to make this impossible or cumbersome. I suggest permitting all sorts of encrypted copies, and restricting distribution of the decryption keys.
I believe the media companies have figgured this out and that is why they are going for the draconian laws to destroy fair-use. It's the only way they can get the protection they want. Now, if they just offered us what we want, most of us would be willing to pay for it.
Sure, but they're adcovating a draconian solution that throws the baby out with the bathwater and is just a technically vulnerable as what I propose. So, if the technical vulnerabilities are acceptable, let's limit the places where we have to live with them... our TVs yes, our disk drives, no.
[much "what the market wants" stuff snipped]
Just make it so I can make CD/DVD copies from mine and use something like SCMS.
SCMS was a joke and easily defeated.
My "fun idea" for a machine...
Yeah, I want something similar. A PC in the living room is too noisy.
There are several approaches... some technical, and some legal.
One legal approach would be to require escrow of copyright material in unencrypted form with a trusted authority (government? shudder) to be released at a future date into the public domain. Failing to do this would mean that the copyright not be granted.
From a purely technical approach, the encrypted material could have an "encryption expiration date" that decrypters or transcrypters recognize.
Personally, I'd like to see BOTH approaches lest one fail to work.
And here I thought the money I was sending to the EFF wasn't going to do any real good.
Granted, this is a very small victory, but I for one, won't look this [gift] horse in the mouth. It also restores my faith in the belief that justice can be had and doesn't have to be bought.
But, it is sad that defensive litigation against these kind of suits does have to be bought. What if there was no one to represent the defendent? What if the DVDCCA could out-legal-fee him to guilt? If that isn't an attack on the "American way", I don't know what is. For this kind of malicious persecution, the DVDCCA should be considered an anti-American terrorist group.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't know that gaming consoles were noisy (I don't own one). I will grant that fancy 3d graphics rendering will probably require an actively-cooled graphics chip for the forseeable future. While I have seen monster copper passive heatsinks for them, they haven't reviewed well.
Ironically, the closest thing I have now to an STB is my Sony DTC-HD100 Satellite/Terrestrial HDTV receiver which has a fan in it that is on all the time.
It has to be quiet, and not look like a computer.
It is real hard to find a PC that does not need active cooling. Some of the STBs today come close... the Allwell iDVD3036 looks interesting, and anything with the Sigma Designs 8400 MPEG2 decoder reduces the need to do MPEG2 in software and thus the need for a fast (i.e. hot) CPU.
If I were to use a PC, I'd probably go for i810 video with a NetStream2000TV card. Adding a 3d Graphics card will almost certainly mean a fan or two. The again, gaming is not my primary goal, but MPEG2 video streaming is, so i810 mobo video is adequate.
The Netstream Console is also interesting.
While we're at it, it would be nice if it would let me browse the web, or perhaps run some online games that are playable at some distance from a relatively large, low-resolution (640x480) screen (though I have an HD-ready high-resolution set, most don't). And you know, all these entertainment devices with their complex controls, some of which have a video output for interactive menus are getting a pain to control. Why can't they provide a web server interface to a device with a browser and appropriate plugins, and just be hubbed into the local room 'net?
The ability to run local entertainment software (i.e. games), networked or not, is a feature that comes for free if we're going to have enough "oomph" to do MPEG2 decoding. While you might want to use it for non-entertainment duties (i.e. checking one's bank acount, or ordering a pizza on-line), work isn't it's primary purpose.
THAT is what the XBox could be. Architecture should be open, so third parties can develop apps/add on hardware for it. Still, it should be useful enough on it's own to justify it's price. Whether the hard disk (if present) and or CD/DVD-ROM is integrated, or outboard (firewire?) is more of a stylistic issue -- today we have A/V receivers as well as separates.
In my search I have come across some neat tech by Sigma Designs (http://www.sigmadesigns.com, http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/netstream_con sole.htm (watch the damn inserted space), and particularly the iDVD3036). So decent convergence products are coming (say 2002).
But, if PC history tells us anything, the ones that succeed will be more open than the one's that don't. Unless Microsoft opens the XBox up architecturally and makes it easy for third party hacker developers, they will be among the convergence also-rans.
RMS has stated to me that he considers himself "liberal".
Don't ask me to remember exactly how, but I may try to ressurect it some time.
I was being sarcastic. "Good enough" as in early Windows releases not supporting multiple network interfaces cleanly, i.e. a local LAN, and a dial-up modem. But your point is noted, perhaps I should have said "frustratingware": purporting to do a job, but doing so poorly, or inflexibly.
Why?
Becuase such efforts have useful side effects.
I don't think that all software will ever be free simply because that will require force against those who disagree and are willing to spend money for non-free software. History has shown that using force against people who conspire to engage in mutually-beneficial (to them) activities fails in the long term: you can't effectively separate the addict from his drug, the prostitute from her client, or willing purchasers from Windows.
Now, RMS might try to use some form of political influence to discourage mention or use of non-free applications, but that's as likely to stop a real die-hard as it is to shove the original DeCSS key back up Xing's wazoo. Still, I do think that discouraging use of non-free software is a good thing and there needs to be more such discouragement.
You see, people have a choice -- they can choose free software (or support the writing of a free app that they need), or thay can shackle theselves to the restrictions that non-free, but potentially useful code, provides. It's a question of what matters more. And, as a libertarian, I fully support that freedom of choice. But, I fear that too many people do not choose wisely and don't properly understand the tradeoffs. An ill-informed choice is not a good one.
We've seen this ignorance manifest itself in the proliferation of trust-my-securityware (M.S. Passport), spyware, and just plain good-enoughware. We've seen people surprised that they can't just hand over the O/S when they sell their PC because of licenseware and lose fair use right they didn't know they had because of DMCAware, not to mention control of how they use things they buy.
Free software makes all such things transparent, and thus relatively impotent and without effect. Fair use? No problem. Security? See for yourself. Buggy? Well, have a hand at it then. Expensive? No, you can share a copy with your friends. Doesn't work quite the way you want? See "buggy".
Now, I'm fairly sure that RMS would agree these points are important but not as important as the freedom to help one another. That's his political agenda, and opposing anything that might conflict with that view is a logical consequence of such a view. Personally, I rank "freedom to cooperate" along with those points, though how much that matters depends on the circumstances.
But matter it does. All those points matter. It may be that people won't realize how much they all matter until they are required to watch a minimum amount of "media" that is acceptable to their "indoctrinating" employer, and tracked through their TVs. An Orwellian horror? Sure, but a whole damn more possible today than even 20 years ago. You can be sure that "the powers that be" certainly lust for that kind of control that modern technology can provide, if people accept it.
Free software, of course, renders these things ineffective against those people who don't want them -- rip the fscking spyware out, damnit. More free software is therefore better. Anything that encourages more free software is better.
So, in the end, RMS's inflexible, unwavering position has some very desirable effects. Could those effects be better had with a different kind of advocate? Maybe, but instead of attacking RMS, why not try to be that advocate?
Jesus Christ (substitute prophet of your choice)
Martin Luther
Cristopher Columbus
Frederic Bastiat
Founding Fathers of the United States
Martin Luther King
Rosa Parks
Charles Lindburg
Nelson Mandela
and, of course, our favorite
Linus Torvalds.
Granted, some of their opinions would be considered common sense today, and not extreme, but in their time, they were definately not the norm.
Of course, /me stuck his tongue out at such silly laws, packed up, and left Quebec, legally depriving them of my tax dollars in the process.
It is portable but only in the army sense that it can be moved by 3 men or a jeep.
It seams to me that what you need is something portable, with a couple hundred gig storage, ethernet interface, that can connect to a PC and let you burn a CD on demand. (or have a build in burner... hmm).
I'd like to support you. Where can I send, oh, $10?
Of course, this might not fix the problem: either the patch doesn't fix enough, or the design is flawed to start with (I have not delved into either Linux VM to competently present an opinion here, just speculation on what might be wrong). But there is something to be said for "the devil you know". At least the problems with the old VM were fairly well known. Moving to a new VM could potentially introduce new ones. Not something you want to do close to release.
Now, those plagued by problems with the older VM might, in exasperation, think anything would be better. Enter Linus with Andrea's alternative: "looks good, ship it!" [my paraphrasing]. Those of us who'd tremble at the thought of new, untested code, could, well, stick to an older kernel, even if it meant giving up some new features.
But wait! It's Alan to the rescue!! Picking up all the relatively easy fixes and enhancements, and giving me a choice. Leave the contentious parts till later..
It strikes me that the minor, temporary -ac fork served both camps of users until the issues were resolved.
Some might argue for a more disciplined approach, and not make major changes so close to release. (But, if it isn't "ready", why not just postpone release? Is Linus feeling pressure to release prematurely? Or just trying to release "often enough".) But that stands in the way of progress -- I've seen managers crippled by fear of changing anything. Sometimes you gotta take a chance, even if some things break while (many) others get fixed.
While smaller, digestable kernel changes might be more palatable, they're already available in interim development releases. Sometimes a change is sufficiently profound that it touches everything (yes, that's an argument to refactor, but hindsight is 20/20, so I won't argue that point too much) and takes a while.
I am not one to say which approach is globally better -- I can only comment on what works better for me. I can say, though, that when a community is really split over a course of action, and any single choice will not satisfy a large number of people, a fork, even if temporary, is probably the least painful route in the short term, even as the long term consequences are undesirable if it goes on too long.
After all, all progress is a mini-fork from "stable" to "untested".
It took from May 15th to the last week of June (about) to land a position. In that time, I got about 1/2 dozen calls, two interviews, and two offers, both sent my way by headhunters. None of my personal applications panned out. So, my "saturation" technique didn't result in what I'd consider excessive interest -- you just never know who uses what job engine or site.
I ended up accepting a position near Dallas, TX, and moved from Chicago, IL. Employer payed a flat rate toward moving expenses and left me to deal with the logistics (the allowance was generous, but the headache of dealing with all the logistics was a pain -- apparently outsourcing that kind of stuff is expensive).
Now, my case might be atypical, because in addition to all the other problems related to the downturn in the economy, I required visa sponsorship. Still, I found and got a job I liked using only on-line resources.
Good "hard science" fiction, and fun stories to boot. Then again, I don't know if he will be a prolific enough writer to "stand the test of time" and not be known as a "few hit" wonder.
Oh, agree re. Shelly.
The best defense I've heard is that "Yes, everyone's estimate will be way off, but they are independent estimates of different pieces of code and when aggregated the standard deviation drops to a reasonable value". IOW, the estimate I pulled out of my butt will be way optimistic, but your estimate will be pessimistic, and it will all cancel out.
There are a few problems with this, rather nice and neat statistical trick:
1) As Michael Milken found out, the observations are not independent -- there are two many interactions between the components being estimated. In Milken's case, he argued that a diversified portfolio or junk bonds would have high yield, low risk charactersitics. Unfortunately, the performance of shaky companies in a market downturn is rather strongly corelated.
2) You need something objective to estimate. In our case, we measured the number of easy, medium, and hard member functions of classes that had to be implemented. See the problem? You need to cast your interfaces in stone, external, and internal ones, right at the start. On simple projects this is easy, but not on hard ones, as much as we all agree it is desirable. There is something called learning from one's mistakes and it will happen with anything novel.
3) This presumes that the design is sound. To ensure this we reviewed and analyzed and studied, and "damnit, you indented 3 spaces instead of 4...", well you get the idea. The closest scrutiny will find the obvious bugs, but not the really tricky ones.
4) This technique does not encourage the one thing that saves you in the face of change -- adaptive and modular design. You make things modular so change affects as little as possible, and you make things adaptive so change is as painless as possible. IOW, you plan for making changes bacause of mistakes. Naturally, this violates (1) above, so it is not permitted. The mantra is "Design it right the first time!" We know that we can get 95% or 99% or maybe even 99.5% of it right, but never 100%.
In the end, sure, we "finished" on time, but, er what was finished didn't work very well, and had to be rescued by the few who knew what was going on. To be fair, the design efforts and documentation helped provide a somewhat modular system, but the really important parts weren't documented -- we had reams of paper describing the "trees", but not nearly enough describing the "forest" as it were.
So, I'm skeptical.
I've heard that these techniques encourage "discipline" and help mediocre programmers contribute acceptable code. Well, where I work now, we have a policy of not hiring "mediocre" programmers. I can dump a suspicious log on someone and be assured that they WILL fix the problem -- I don't have to argue that there IS a problem ("but, the process, the process says this WON'T happen... your log must be a lie...")
and, our favorite,
Yeoman Rand: Grace Lee Whitney
Er, wasn't Checkov played by Walter Koening?
er, two words: Jules Verne.
I perked up when I saw your reference to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. For anyone with an interest in history, and/or politics, it is a must-read.
that's partly my point... the U.S. government has recently diluted the term in defining what are considered acts of terrorism under the law.
no, but the Altair did.
How about this, ditch the "transcrypter" and replace it with a smart card or a small set of smart cards.
Yes, that's an obvious choice, but has the following flaw: if the card is generic, it will provide an unencrypted digital signal at some point. That's no good. Of course, there's no reason why the card couldn't be a transcrypter.
Companies like Dish Network have shown a way to do it and still get the bandwidth advantages a broadcast style system provides.
And are too easy to crack, IMHO. Lots of peole did it in Canada (where it was legal).
VOD style systems are inpractical as they require far too much bandwidth, far more than we can support at present.
At present, yes. Which is why you need some type of widely distributed common private key at some point in such a broadcast chain.
Honestly though, it is impossible to achieve an "uncrackable" system and once something is deployed it can't be changed in large ways because if backward compatibility is lost people will FREAK. So it will be cracked, and likely it will be crackable by "joe sixpack" in a modest amount of time. Then we're back where we started.
I do not share this pessimism. Keys to homes and cars are generally easy to duplicate, yet, we don't have a massive burglery problem. Similarly, if a broadcast key is cracked, all units can be recalled for "repair". A pain yes, but strong-SSSCA-like sanctions against a limited set of devices like decrypters and transcrupters could help here.
I really don't see this type of protection as being practical as a technological measure. Too many holes. Not to mention, high-quality video capture is allready cheap and easy. People will just do what they have been, take an analog capture over high quality connections and cables and encode it to MPEG.
The major hole involves (a) cracking a hidden private key, and (b) distributing it widely. If the "owner" of the public key is known, appropriate penalties can be applied if negligence can be proven (i.e. a stolen decrypter not reported, etc.) As for sharing digitized component or even SVideo, that's tolerated today as long as it isn't excessive. Try getting a VCR with component imputs, though. You can't make hi-resolution digital copies unless you use a computer today. SSSCA proponents want to make this impossible or cumbersome. I suggest permitting all sorts of encrypted copies, and restricting distribution of the decryption keys.
I believe the media companies have figgured this out and that is why they are going for the draconian laws to destroy fair-use. It's the only way they can get the protection they want. Now, if they just offered us what we want, most of us would be willing to pay for it.
Sure, but they're adcovating a draconian solution that throws the baby out with the bathwater and is just a technically vulnerable as what I propose. So, if the technical vulnerabilities are acceptable, let's limit the places where we have to live with them... our TVs yes, our disk drives, no.
[much "what the market wants" stuff snipped]
Just make it so I can make CD/DVD copies from mine and use something like SCMS.
SCMS was a joke and easily defeated.
My "fun idea" for a machine...
Yeah, I want something similar. A PC in the living room is too noisy.
There are several approaches... some technical, and some legal.
One legal approach would be to require escrow of copyright material in unencrypted form with a trusted authority (government? shudder) to be released at a future date into the public domain. Failing to do this would mean that the copyright not be granted.
From a purely technical approach, the encrypted material could have an "encryption expiration date" that decrypters or transcrypters recognize.
Personally, I'd like to see BOTH approaches lest one fail to work.
Those certainly were interesting times.
And here I thought the money I was sending to the EFF wasn't going to do any real good.
Granted, this is a very small victory, but I for one, won't look this [gift] horse in the mouth. It also restores my faith in the belief that justice can be had and doesn't have to be bought.
But, it is sad that defensive litigation against these kind of suits does have to be bought. What if there was no one to represent the defendent? What if the DVDCCA could out-legal-fee him to guilt? If that isn't an attack on the "American way", I don't know what is. For this kind of malicious persecution, the DVDCCA should be considered an anti-American terrorist group.
O.K. Rant off.