I think either way, Microsoft is going to bashed. Consider the opposite. If they started bundling every security tool (firewall, antivirus, etc) into the OS to make it secure, wouldn't everybody jump on them saying that they're trying to pull another IE? Abusing their monopolistic powers to drive Mcafee and Norton out of business? So, bundling = bashing, and selling = bashing. Given the 2 choices, no wonder they decided to sell.
But if I get a penny for watching the commercials, I'm going to press play without even watching the crap. I'll find the most ad-intensive programs out there and watch them again and again (with the TV off). I'll probably write some computer program to handle the IR rewind to watch commercials again and again.
That sounds reasonable. I'm not a media buyer, but when an agency buys a spot on TV, don't they pay for every spot? For example, if commercial A runs at 7:00pm, and then runs again at 8:00pm, the ad company has to pay for 2 spots. So that should work in reverse. If you watch the spot at 7:00, then watch it again at 8:00, you should be compensated twice. Otherwise, the ad agency has to pay twice to the network, but the network is only paying you once? I think the ad agencies would be upset about that.
Why would anybody pay for a subscription to PC Mag or any of the other magazines when all of the content is free on their respective websites, including all of the archives? It's no wonder that they're losing money.
It's not just HDTV sets. Everything outputting video signals will have to change. If you want HDTV quality, you'll have to get all new equipment: dvd players, dvrs, a/v receivers, set-top boxes. But, my question is, would the old equipment still work? I have a HDTV tuner connected to a HDTV that I use to receive HD programs. Shouldn't that still work? Sure they might outlaw the analog connection, but how is that enforcable?
That is not correct at all. If your example was true, there would be no bad loans at all. Suppose, person A defaulted, so bank A is out $5k. All it needs to do is go through that scheme several times and the invented money covers the bad load. I don't think so.
The reason why that doesn't work is that the banks have to borrow money to lend person A! Suppose, person C took out his $5k and wrote a check to Home Depot. And, Person A took his $5k loan and wrote a check to Home Depot. When Home Depot comes to collect on those checks, where does bank A get the money to pay the $10k bill? That money has to come from somewhere. Other banks, that's where! Banks borrow money from other banks to cover your loan! In your example, bank A would borrow $5k from bank B @ 5% interest (prime rate). Lend it to person A @ 10% interst. When person A repays the loan, bank A pays back its loan to bank B, and pockets the difference. If person A defaults on that loan, bank A must come up with the money from its own money supply to bank B. If enough people default on bank A, bank A will default. That might cause bank B to be in financial trouble, which might affect bank C, D, etc. This is the exact situation that caused the Asia financial crisis years ago.
I personally think this will be the first step. I think everybody knows that these cards will be tampered with. But, the technology will work. The convenience factor would be too much for ordinary people and governments to pass up. They just need a more tamper proof solution, which will lead to someone suggesting that those smart chips be implanted. It's only a matter of time.
The article clearly states that you'll have to buy new equipment, *even if they don't use the encryption*.
1) HD-DVD
HDTV needs about 20 Mb/s compressed (broadcast quality) to 24 Mb/s depending on quality , so a two hour video needs over 20 GB of disc space. Besides capacity, the DVD format only supports a 9 Mb/s transfer rate, making even short portions of HD content unavailable on DVD.
You'll have to buy a new DVD player in order to play HD-DVDs.
2) HD-TVs currently get their signal via component cables. Those are ANALOG. Everybody knows that you need DIGITAL connections for the best quality.
DVI was developed by the Digital Display Working Group (DDWG) and has been chosen by the industry as the digital video connectivity solution. With a maximum capacity of 1.65 Gb/s per TMDS link (3 data channels per link, 2 links possible per connector), DVI is just right for high resolution video. The new(er) standard affords digital audio as well.
You'll need a HDTV with DVI connections to receive a digital signal.
Now, the MPAA wants to add copy protection to the digital signal. That sucks big donkey, but that's totally besides the point. You'll need to buy new sets anyway.
Re:$20K Isn't really that much if you consider it.
on
Google's Search Appliance
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If you consider the amount of time needed to create a search engine like Google, you'll see that $20k is very cheap. At my company, IT charges our dept $100/hr, so $20k only gives you 200 man-hours. And, that's cheap! In talking with some of my friends, their IT dept charges almost $500/hr, which would only give you 40 man-hours. I'd much rather pay Google for their search engine than get a product from IT that they threw together in 40-200 man hours.
The worse thing that a manager can do is start asking for more and more from the system. A good manager will recognize that the system is complete. Many managers, including mine, think of development as an on-going, never-ending process.
There's plenty of voting fraud going on with the current system. You can't tell me that the "pregnant chad/hanging chad" system of voting is much better. Besides if they're worried about how to properly identify someone, then take a look at the E-File system being used by the IRS. I'm quite sure that the IRS won't stand for being hacked.
Past generations tinkered because computers were a hobby, so of course, they thought it was fun to tinker with. Nowadays for the average user, computers are just a way to get entertainment: games, news, videos, music, etc. Just look at the ads for computers now. What do they hype? CD-BURNER! DVD-ROM! The computer has turned into an appliance. People don't want tinker with appliances.
There's nothing to stop you sharing SnapStream videos over the Internet. Nothing but bandwidth, that is. Most high-speed home Internet services allow rapid downloads, but relatively slow uploads. It'd take all day to send an episode of Babylon 5 at today's speeds. So there's little chance that TV shows will be Napsterized - for now.
Why is it that everytime you read one of these articles, the author always mentions that bandwidth is the primary restriction. Are they implying that the lack of bandwidth is what is stopping rampant piracy of all these shows? If that is true, then it's not so hard to believe why we don't have broadband. It's in the interest of the TV Networks, MPAA, and RIAA to keep the public from getting broadband access. In fact, it seems like there are more benefits to corporate america for restricting broadband than promoting it.
If you read the email, it states that the actual MP3 transfer is not encrypted. So, it doesn't matter that the p2p users don't own the copyright, because there is no encryption involved. However, the communication between the supernodes and the client is encrypted. The email states the following:
Significantly, the FastTrack system encrypts all communications (a) between a
peer and the log-in server, (b) between a peer and its supernode, (c) between a
supernode and the central servers, and (d) between supernodes.
The communication between the servers, supernodes, and clients are controlled by Fasttrack's software, and Fasttrack does own the copyright to that. So, in theory, it should be protected by the DCMA.
IE does have some control over that. If you stumble onto one of those sites where you're in pop-up hell, put that site into in the Restricted Sites Zone, and it'll stop all javascript from running next time.
With that logic, you should also be able to run a huge site with tons of software, dvds, mp3s, and child pornography. Ever see that happening?
Think of the Censorship analogy - if they can censor some speech, then they are only an 'arbitrary decision' away from censoring *YOUR* speech.
Horrible analogy. The government *ALREADY* censors speech. There are 12 words that you cannot say on television, but the right to free speech is still actively debated. Any decision that is going to further limit free speech will definitely not be arbitrary.
The problem with this idea is that the software becomes too much of a black box. Since it was created using mutations and natural selection, we might not understand how it works. That is acceptable if the code was 100% bug free, but what if it's not? What if a patch is needed? How would you insert that into the code when you don't even know how it works?
"It is my opinion that the Supreme Court has made an mistake. It is the function of the police, not only to apprehend criminals, but to prevent if possible criminal acts from taking place."
Come on now. If this is true, then why not install police cameras on all the street corners, shops, or other public places? In fact, why not install cameras inside your own house to prevent you from committing crimes? And, how do you exactly prevent crimes? If I pick up a knife, should the police come to my house because there's a possibility for crime? What if I look at someone in a threatening manner?
You missed the point of the ruling. Searching is not about walking through a door, and, it's not just about thermal imaging. Sure, if the police wants to look in your closet, they'll have to get a warrant. But what if in the future, some technology was developed that enables them to look in your closet from outside your house? That's still searching, except that they're doing it from a remote location. This ruling trys to prevent the police from doing that without a warrant.
Well, speaking as an options trader, I'd have to disagree. Stock options have an intrinsic worth, and you trade options just like stock (although they're much riskier). You can find out how much your options are worth by looking at Yahoo's Option Center. Just enter in the stock symbol for your company.
There are 3 major components that determine options value: time until expiration, strike price, and underlying stock violatility.
If your options don't expire until 2010, the strike price is close to the current stock price, and the stock has high violatility (ie, moves 10 pts a day), then your options will be worth alot. If it's the opposite case where your options expires tomorrow, the strike price is 100 pts above the stock price, and the stock moves 1 cent a day, the options are worthless. In most cases, the options are probably somewhere in the middle. Note: stock options are considered to be decaying assets. That is, given no movement in the underlying stock, your options will lose value everday until they become worthless. That can be a good thing or bad thing depending on what you're planning to do with your options.
Recall Section 1201 in the DMCA, which states that it is a crime to circumvent the encryption of a copyrighted work. The senator wants to change that so that it's only illegal if you want to infringe on someone's copyright. So pirating is still illegal, but it's legal for everything else.
Now, recall that Aimster is using encryption to protect itself from RIAA's snooping of Aimster's network. Basically, Aimster is using the DMCA to its advantage. Well, if Section 1201 is changed, Aimster cannot use the DMCA to protect itself anymore. RIAA would be able to break the encryption and monitor Aimster's network as long as the RIAA does not steal Aimster's encryption code. And, once the RIAA starts monitoring Aimster, it has a clear path to shut it down.
ContentKeyTM is an e-commerce and promotional tool that allows consumers to activate additional pre-recorded content on DataPlay digital media over the Internet without the need for time-consuming downloads.
So basically, ContentKey is designed for pre-recorded media, so that companies can use it like Divx. But, it does not affect the blank media that consumers can buy. Unless they implement some crazy scheme where you have to pay for the blank media AND pay for the keys, there's nobody that can stop you from putting anything and everything on those disks.
On a similar note MP3s are shit. They sound like crap... If I was the music industry I would be pushing this sort of thing out like CRAZY. i.e. I'd have hundreds of Napster "servers" out there serving up slightly munged songs.
I think you missed the point. The average consumer does not have "golden ears". This same argument was raised during the LP vs CD debates. Many audiophiles claim that LPs sound better than CDs, but it didn't stop CDs from becoming the audio medium of choice. Why? Because average consumers aren't oracles, and average stereo systems aren't of studio quality.
MP3s or deSDMI songs may sound bad, but in the end, it has to bother the average consumer enough to where they'll buy the original. And, that's the whole issue. Napster has proven that for 51 million people, they either can't hear, don't have the equipment to hear, or flat out don't care about the muddiness of MP3s. These people probably won't care about deSDMI songs either, and that's what the record industry is worried about.
a Washington, D.C. firm. IPR calculated how many computers were being sold into a country for business purposes and how much software was being sold... From this they could calculate how much software should be sold to match the number of business computers in the country. The deficit between the ideal sales rate and the actual one is the piracy rate.
I don't understand how that could give an accurate estimate of lost revenue. Suppose a company had 1000 computers, each with a licensed copy of MS Office. Then, they scrapped all those computers, and bought 1000 new computers, and installed the old MS Office onto the new computers. There would now be a difference of 1000 between computer sales and software sales. There was no piracy involved, but according to that statement, MS lost around $400K ($400 for Office x 1000 computers) to piracy. How does that work? Even if the company sold the 1000 old computers to users, who in turn bought 1000 copies of MS Office, you'd still have a deficit of 1000 (+1000 new computers, +1000 old computers, -1000 MS Office).
Slashdot Mirror
I think either way, Microsoft is going to bashed. Consider the opposite. If they started bundling every security tool (firewall, antivirus, etc) into the OS to make it secure, wouldn't everybody jump on them saying that they're trying to pull another IE? Abusing their monopolistic powers to drive Mcafee and Norton out of business? So, bundling = bashing, and selling = bashing. Given the 2 choices, no wonder they decided to sell.
ApacheWeek also has a review of this book found here, link
But if I get a penny for watching the commercials, I'm going to press play without even watching the crap. I'll find the most ad-intensive programs out there and watch them again and again (with the TV off). I'll probably write some computer program to handle the IR rewind to watch commercials again and again.
That sounds reasonable. I'm not a media buyer, but when an agency buys a spot on TV, don't they pay for every spot? For example, if commercial A runs at 7:00pm, and then runs again at 8:00pm, the ad company has to pay for 2 spots. So that should work in reverse. If you watch the spot at 7:00, then watch it again at 8:00, you should be compensated twice. Otherwise, the ad agency has to pay twice to the network, but the network is only paying you once? I think the ad agencies would be upset about that.
Why would anybody pay for a subscription to PC Mag or any of the other magazines when all of the content is free on their respective websites, including all of the archives? It's no wonder that they're losing money.
It's not just HDTV sets. Everything outputting video signals will have to change. If you want HDTV quality, you'll have to get all new equipment: dvd players, dvrs, a/v receivers, set-top boxes. But, my question is, would the old equipment still work? I have a HDTV tuner connected to a HDTV that I use to receive HD programs. Shouldn't that still work? Sure they might outlaw the analog connection, but how is that enforcable?
That is not correct at all. If your example was true, there would be no bad loans at all. Suppose, person A defaulted, so bank A is out $5k. All it needs to do is go through that scheme several times and the invented money covers the bad load. I don't think so.
The reason why that doesn't work is that the banks have to borrow money to lend person A! Suppose, person C took out his $5k and wrote a check to Home Depot. And, Person A took his $5k loan and wrote a check to Home Depot. When Home Depot comes to collect on those checks, where does bank A get the money to pay the $10k bill? That money has to come from somewhere. Other banks, that's where! Banks borrow money from other banks to cover your loan! In your example, bank A would borrow $5k from bank B @ 5% interest (prime rate). Lend it to person A @ 10% interst. When person A repays the loan, bank A pays back its loan to bank B, and pockets the difference. If person A defaults on that loan, bank A must come up with the money from its own money supply to bank B. If enough people default on bank A, bank A will default. That might cause bank B to be in financial trouble, which might affect bank C, D, etc. This is the exact situation that caused the Asia financial crisis years ago.
I personally think this will be the first step. I think everybody knows that these cards will be tampered with. But, the technology will work. The convenience factor would be too much for ordinary people and governments to pass up. They just need a more tamper proof solution, which will lead to someone suggesting that those smart chips be implanted. It's only a matter of time.
PEP National Directory of Computer Recycling Programs
You can go there to see what options you have on recycling computer parts in your area.
The article clearly states that you'll have to buy new equipment, *even if they don't use the encryption*.
1) HD-DVD
HDTV needs about 20 Mb/s compressed (broadcast quality) to 24 Mb/s depending on quality , so a two hour video needs over 20 GB of disc space. Besides capacity, the DVD format only supports a 9 Mb/s transfer rate, making even short portions of HD content unavailable on DVD.
You'll have to buy a new DVD player in order to play HD-DVDs.
2) HD-TVs currently get their signal via component cables. Those are ANALOG. Everybody knows that you need DIGITAL connections for the best quality.
DVI was developed by the Digital Display Working Group (DDWG) and has been chosen by the industry as the digital video connectivity solution. With a maximum capacity of 1.65 Gb/s per TMDS link (3 data channels per link, 2 links possible per connector), DVI is just right for high resolution video. The new(er) standard affords digital audio as well.
You'll need a HDTV with DVI connections to receive a digital signal.
Now, the MPAA wants to add copy protection to the digital signal. That sucks big donkey, but that's totally besides the point. You'll need to buy new sets anyway.
If you consider the amount of time needed to create a search engine like Google, you'll see that $20k is very cheap. At my company, IT charges our dept $100/hr, so $20k only gives you 200 man-hours. And, that's cheap! In talking with some of my friends, their IT dept charges almost $500/hr, which would only give you 40 man-hours. I'd much rather pay Google for their search engine than get a product from IT that they threw together in 40-200 man hours.
The worse thing that a manager can do is start asking for more and more from the system. A good manager will recognize that the system is complete. Many managers, including mine, think of development as an on-going, never-ending process.
There's plenty of voting fraud going on with the current system. You can't tell me that the "pregnant chad/hanging chad" system of voting is much better. Besides if they're worried about how to properly identify someone, then take a look at the E-File system being used by the IRS. I'm quite sure that the IRS won't stand for being hacked.
Past generations tinkered because computers were a hobby, so of course, they thought it was fun to tinker with. Nowadays for the average user, computers are just a way to get entertainment: games, news, videos, music, etc. Just look at the ads for computers now. What do they hype? CD-BURNER! DVD-ROM! The computer has turned into an appliance. People don't want tinker with appliances.
There's nothing to stop you sharing SnapStream videos over the Internet. Nothing but bandwidth, that is. Most high-speed home Internet services allow rapid downloads, but relatively slow uploads. It'd take all day to send an episode of Babylon 5 at today's speeds. So there's little chance that TV shows will be Napsterized - for now.
Why is it that everytime you read one of these articles, the author always mentions that bandwidth is the primary restriction. Are they implying that the lack of bandwidth is what is stopping rampant piracy of all these shows? If that is true, then it's not so hard to believe why we don't have broadband. It's in the interest of the TV Networks, MPAA, and RIAA to keep the public from getting broadband access. In fact, it seems like there are more benefits to corporate america for restricting broadband than promoting it.
If you read the email, it states that the actual MP3 transfer is not encrypted. So, it doesn't matter that the p2p users don't own the copyright, because there is no encryption involved. However, the communication between the supernodes and the client is encrypted. The email states the following:
Significantly, the FastTrack system encrypts all communications (a) between a peer and the log-in server, (b) between a peer and its supernode, (c) between a supernode and the central servers, and (d) between supernodes.
The communication between the servers, supernodes, and clients are controlled by Fasttrack's software, and Fasttrack does own the copyright to that. So, in theory, it should be protected by the DCMA.
IE does have some control over that. If you stumble onto one of those sites where you're in pop-up hell, put that site into in the Restricted Sites Zone, and it'll stop all javascript from running next time.
I pay for DSL, i can run *WHATEVER* i want on it.
With that logic, you should also be able to run a huge site with tons of software, dvds, mp3s, and child pornography. Ever see that happening?
Think of the Censorship analogy - if they can censor some speech, then they are only an 'arbitrary decision' away from censoring *YOUR* speech.
Horrible analogy. The government *ALREADY* censors speech. There are 12 words that you cannot say on television, but the right to free speech is still actively debated. Any decision that is going to further limit free speech will definitely not be arbitrary.
Someone should spoof the IP of Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen, upload some mp3s or movies to the newsgroups, and then give the ISP an anonymous tip.
The problem with this idea is that the software becomes too much of a black box. Since it was created using mutations and natural selection, we might not understand how it works. That is acceptable if the code was 100% bug free, but what if it's not? What if a patch is needed? How would you insert that into the code when you don't even know how it works?
"It is my opinion that the Supreme Court has made an mistake. It is the function of the police, not only to apprehend criminals, but to prevent if possible criminal acts from taking place."
Come on now. If this is true, then why not install police cameras on all the street corners, shops, or other public places? In fact, why not install cameras inside your own house to prevent you from committing crimes? And, how do you exactly prevent crimes? If I pick up a knife, should the police come to my house because there's a possibility for crime? What if I look at someone in a threatening manner?
You missed the point of the ruling. Searching is not about walking through a door, and, it's not just about thermal imaging. Sure, if the police wants to look in your closet, they'll have to get a warrant. But what if in the future, some technology was developed that enables them to look in your closet from outside your house? That's still searching, except that they're doing it from a remote location. This ruling trys to prevent the police from doing that without a warrant.
Well, speaking as an options trader, I'd have to disagree. Stock options have an intrinsic worth, and you trade options just like stock (although they're much riskier). You can find out how much your options are worth by looking at Yahoo's Option Center. Just enter in the stock symbol for your company.
There are 3 major components that determine options value: time until expiration, strike price, and underlying stock violatility. If your options don't expire until 2010, the strike price is close to the current stock price, and the stock has high violatility (ie, moves 10 pts a day), then your options will be worth alot. If it's the opposite case where your options expires tomorrow, the strike price is 100 pts above the stock price, and the stock moves 1 cent a day, the options are worthless. In most cases, the options are probably somewhere in the middle. Note: stock options are considered to be decaying assets. That is, given no movement in the underlying stock, your options will lose value everday until they become worthless. That can be a good thing or bad thing depending on what you're planning to do with your options.
Recall Section 1201 in the DMCA, which states that it is a crime to circumvent the encryption of a copyrighted work. The senator wants to change that so that it's only illegal if you want to infringe on someone's copyright. So pirating is still illegal, but it's legal for everything else.
Now, recall that Aimster is using encryption to protect itself from RIAA's snooping of Aimster's network. Basically, Aimster is using the DMCA to its advantage. Well, if Section 1201 is changed, Aimster cannot use the DMCA to protect itself anymore. RIAA would be able to break the encryption and monitor Aimster's network as long as the RIAA does not steal Aimster's encryption code. And, once the RIAA starts monitoring Aimster, it has a clear path to shut it down.
From the site:
ContentKeyTM is an e-commerce and promotional tool that allows consumers to activate additional pre-recorded content on DataPlay digital media over the Internet without the need for time-consuming downloads.
So basically, ContentKey is designed for pre-recorded media, so that companies can use it like Divx. But, it does not affect the blank media that consumers can buy. Unless they implement some crazy scheme where you have to pay for the blank media AND pay for the keys, there's nobody that can stop you from putting anything and everything on those disks.
On a similar note MP3s are shit. They sound like crap... If I was the music industry I would be pushing this sort of thing out like CRAZY. i.e. I'd have hundreds of Napster "servers" out there serving up slightly munged songs.
I think you missed the point. The average consumer does not have "golden ears". This same argument was raised during the LP vs CD debates. Many audiophiles claim that LPs sound better than CDs, but it didn't stop CDs from becoming the audio medium of choice. Why? Because average consumers aren't oracles, and average stereo systems aren't of studio quality. MP3s or deSDMI songs may sound bad, but in the end, it has to bother the average consumer enough to where they'll buy the original. And, that's the whole issue. Napster has proven that for 51 million people, they either can't hear, don't have the equipment to hear, or flat out don't care about the muddiness of MP3s. These people probably won't care about deSDMI songs either, and that's what the record industry is worried about.
a Washington, D.C. firm. IPR calculated how many computers were being sold into a country for business purposes and how much software was being sold... From this they could calculate how much software should be sold to match the number of business computers in the country. The deficit between the ideal sales rate and the actual one is the piracy rate.
I don't understand how that could give an accurate estimate of lost revenue. Suppose a company had 1000 computers, each with a licensed copy of MS Office. Then, they scrapped all those computers, and bought 1000 new computers, and installed the old MS Office onto the new computers. There would now be a difference of 1000 between computer sales and software sales. There was no piracy involved, but according to that statement, MS lost around $400K ($400 for Office x 1000 computers) to piracy. How does that work? Even if the company sold the 1000 old computers to users, who in turn bought 1000 copies of MS Office, you'd still have a deficit of 1000 (+1000 new computers, +1000 old computers, -1000 MS Office).