I'm an outsider to the world of video codecs, but it seems like it doesn't have to be as hard as it is. Why is it that every third video file breaks ALL the video player clients I have installed? And why is it that whenever a player like Realplayer tries to download a new codec, it always fails? And why are codecs upgraded so often? So many questions, but it truly does boggle the mind that something can possibly be this hard to get right. What is stopping the industry from standardizing on one interoperable standard?
"The current version of TVHarmony AutoPilot is 1.0 Beta 1, v05 and will expire on 12/31/05."
Stunts like this are why I like open source.
Their ploy means that without giving users any ability to rely on the functionality in the future, they effectively dissuade any competitor from offering a similar product.
This wouldn't be so annoying if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly the kind of software that could be banned by some future BigCo lawsuit. If the company gets sued out of business, not only is the source not available, but the existing copies of the software expire, at least for most people who aren't tuned into any hacks that might become available.
Check out the whatsinmybag tag on Flickr. Lots of ideas for different bags there. Even though the focus is more on the contents, people do talk about and show their bags there as well.
Also there's the whatsinyourbag tag, but it's pretty much the same thing.
I think they are treating the phone a little too much like a gun.
It's not like it will be the end of the world if someone can access my personal phone information. I can control what I store on there; it's my own choice whether to put private things in a phone, and while the list of people I call is private, it's really not that big of a deal. And there are other ways of remotely restricting access.
Seems like a case of some technologists with a hammer, looking for a nail.
24/96 minimum, preferably 24/192 (yes I'm insane about audio quality, and remember audio data could be consumed not just by humans, but also by machines, and every bit of quality helps) wave recording as an option solid state hardware, no moving disks to make noise no ACG, or at least ability to turn it off all files named by date/time/second by default: yyyymmdd@hhmmssnn.wav ability to edit metadata of files changing the external name of a file also changes the internal (metadata) name built-in stereo microphones XLR mic jacks phantom power stereo mini-plug mic jack line in, including optical in line out, including optical out USB2/firewire separate reference tone track separate timing signal track ability to set left and right levels separately sensitive mode for quiet environments and environmental recording (please do not make it suitable only for loud rock concerts) ability to use rechargable AA batteries, 1.2 volts each store to SD card store to CF card hard drive, if any (preferably none) removable and user-upgradable important: if it has a hard drive, it should be able to still function without the hard drive, writing to other media both a stereo 1/4 inch headphone jack and a stereo mini headphone jack ability to manage power smartly, so for example device isn't paying the expense of phantom power or hard disk when these aren't being used.
This is a closed system. Notice that besides wireless, there is another way to get the pictures off the camera: take the card to a Kodak kiosk. Again, closed.
Who benefits by having this system "computer-free"? Kodak, of course.
Every photo upload, download, and printout will be ringing Kodak's cash register. This is not progress.
>The hiptop is the Hotel California of mobile devices.
To clarify why my comment above is relevant to Greenspun's article, if this type of model (lock-in) carries over into a device that does all your computing needs, that would be scary for consumers.
Right now desktop systems are pretty open. You can write your own programs for them, for example. Phones are much less open. OK, all that is obvious.
What's not well known outside the hiptop user community is just how closed some systems can be.
My understanding of the Danger hiptop is this: To put programs you write yourself on a Danger hiptop, you must become a registered developer, and even then you can not share your programs with other users unless they are also registered developers, or unless Danger gives its official stamp of approval that your application will be THE representative application for its category (calculator, etc.) in their commercial catalog. If they have a choice of approving a free calculator program, versus a less nice commercial calculator that their carrier customers will make money from, which one do you think they approve of? That's right, the commercial one.
Imagine if this model became the model for desktop computing. Everything goes through an approval process, where approval is based on the business interests of some gatekeepers. Not very good for consumers. So while the form factor may be capable as Greenspun suggests, let's hope the business models to not follow.
Good luck to your friend ever getting their data back if they ever break their hiptop and decide to move on to anther device. The only way to get your data (address book, email, etc.) is to stay with a hiptop for your next contract, and the next, and the next, and...
The hiptop is the Hotel California of mobile devices.
Reading the first post on the blog, this guy is exhuberant, talks agressively and confidently. Definitely a marketing person, maybe high level. Or hangs out with them enough to be able to ape the attitude. The user id "Who d'Punk" fits a bemused high level exec who is untouchable, and wants a forum where the rules of political correctness are relaxed.
There are some signature turns of phrase that really stand out. I bet it's already an open secret at MS who this is, and they are probably chuckling now at how slashdot gets excited over a mystery they already know the answer to.
It's amazing how otherwise well-informed people didn't pick up years ago on the fact that it is easy to identify a writer based on the statistical properties of their writing. This guy is providing plenty of material for the analysis. Do a cross check against the email for all employees, and game over.
Also very few people actually print out corporate memos like the Ballmer memo he mentions (yes, strikingly many do, but as a percentage, it's small). So that narrows down the field right there, and I haven't even got beyond the top post on the blog. Sure, he could have printed it at home, but did he? Naaahhhh.
If he hasn't been fired by now, it's not because they can't find out who he is. They are just waiting for the right moment.
Not long ago we did the same type of move. We also got rid of a lot of stuff.
But after we settled down, we realized it wasn't as cramped as we had been expecting. Now there are things we got rid of that I really miss. Like we had a huge 6-person tent, and I thought, where are we going to store this thing -- turns out it wouldn't have been a problem, and now we don't have it. Suckage.
If I were you, I would hang on to the ORA books and the beige metal/plastic/silicon boxes. You can always toss them later. Give yourself a cooling off period before you panic and get rid of stuff that serves you well. But yes do dump the large empty velvet lined box you've been saving because it might come in handy someday, and anything else in the crap category.
Stories like this always leave out my favorite Firefox feature. It's such a small, easy feature to implement, but it has such a great impact:
Easy font resizing. Ctrl-plus to make fonts bigger on any web site.
Whenever I show this feature to somone over 40, it immediately sells them on Firefox.
Sure, it's possible in IE too, but not for every site. Some sites are coded in such a way that text resizing doesn't work in IE. But in Firefox it always does work for any text.
There are just some risks that have to be accepted if you are going to do business. Other/.ers will hopefully point out all kinds of useful ways to mitigate the risks, and that is a good thing, but no system will ever be perfect. So there has to be some way to judge other than perfect-vs-flawed. Good approaches will strike a balance between letting people get things done, and having security. Don't assume you can get to perfection, but don't let that stop you from trying to make things better.
Your reply really looks like a troll, though it's too late for anyone else to be paying attention to this conversation by now.
Gmail is -way- better than Yahoo! mail, and the reason is exactly innovation. Any deficiency you may see in the UI is more than compensated for by the far superior UI speed.
They can certainly copy the visible parts of Google, the products that are out (heh, mostly in beta) now.
But what about all the other stuff that's still hidden, that's in the Google pipeline? You could call it the Google Iceberg. The cool stuff that is yet to come. It looks like Google is pretty good at staying ahead by innovating.
As always, Microsoft is claiming to innovate, while actually just copying what they find out there in the marketplace already. They don't move the ball forward, they just keep the pressure on.
Most people read the words "trusted computing" and they assume they know what it means. They think it means you, the user, can trust you computer to be secure. So, so wrong.
I know it sounds like a/. cliche, a guy on slashdot saying you should see who supports open source, and go with that provider. But that's what I'm going to say.
Not so much because they support open source, but more because if an OSS project is hosted there, it's probably there because of the quality, not just because of the sponsorship. OSS projects are run by savvy people who know how to not stay stuck on a bad host.
If you look around at where various respected OSS sites are hosted, a few big names keep popping up. pair.com and he.net, for example. No referral links here.
But do your own research. I could not recommend the sites I use (the above two) to you without knowing your needs. If you need hand holding, go with someone else. If you want a nice clean toolbox, they are OK. If you want a company that answers the phone with a human on the third ring 24x7, he.net is good, if a little stingy with the disk space and transfer allocation.
>there is a small problem with this. It assumes that if manned-space is killed, the money will be transferred to unmanned.
Actually it makes no such assumption. In fact I would make the opposite assumption.
Maybe an analogy would help. If a poor village somewhere needs transportation, you could buy them a Lear jet, build an airport for them, and install all the necessary infrastructure including subsidizing some businesses to help support the needs of the airport. Or you could take one tenth of that money, and you could buy a small fleet of trucks, and bicycles for everybody, and still have money left over, while having an arguably better solution to the transportation problem.
If you think my example of a Lear jet for a village is too extravagant, maybe you underestimate the extravagance of human space exploration.
In case that doesn't make the point for you, the point is, NASA could make do with far less money, and still do far more science, if they were not spending so much on human exploration.
Human space exploration is fun to think about. Migrating tribes colonizing distant planets in other solar systems, and all that. But maybe our early successes have blinded us to the realities. Space is *big*. Human life support systems are expensive (in terms of overall resources including time, not just money).
NASA's current thinking on space seems to be like dreaming about a fairy land, with chocolate rivers and peppermint trees. Just because we can manufacture candy and we can make a place like Disneyland, doesn't mean that fairylands are going to become real.
We are doing cargo cult Star Trek.
And wasting a lot of money on it. Our money would be much better spent on robotic missions, which have a far bigger bang for the buck. And by the time we are ready for a human Mars mission, robots will probably be quite capable of the autonomous thinking and initiative that humans bring to the table. So what purpose is served by spending the extra overhead for human exploration, and doing 1/100th of the science that we could be doing for the same money? None, other than perpetuating a fairyland fantasy.
>If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.
Your post is very dismissive, on the basis that free speech is decently protected in the US. But I think one goal of Freenet is to protect the anonymity and privacy of information providers that use it. Free speech by itself does not do that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an outsider to the world of video codecs, but it seems like it doesn't have to be as hard as it is. Why is it that every third video file breaks ALL the video player clients I have installed? And why is it that whenever a player like Realplayer tries to download a new codec, it always fails? And why are codecs upgraded so often? So many questions, but it truly does boggle the mind that something can possibly be this hard to get right. What is stopping the industry from standardizing on one interoperable standard?
From the site:
"The current version of TVHarmony AutoPilot is 1.0 Beta 1, v05 and will expire on 12/31/05."
Stunts like this are why I like open source.
Their ploy means that without giving users any ability to rely on the functionality in the future, they effectively dissuade any competitor from offering a similar product.
This wouldn't be so annoying if it weren't for the fact that this is exactly the kind of software that could be banned by some future BigCo lawsuit. If the company gets sued out of business, not only is the source not available, but the existing copies of the software expire, at least for most people who aren't tuned into any hacks that might become available.
Check out the whatsinmybag tag on Flickr. Lots of ideas for different bags there. Even though the focus is more on the contents, people do talk about and show their bags there as well.
Also there's the whatsinyourbag tag, but it's pretty much the same thing.
I think they are treating the phone a little too much like a gun.
It's not like it will be the end of the world if someone can access my personal phone information. I can control what I store on there; it's my own choice whether to put private things in a phone, and while the list of people I call is private, it's really not that big of a deal. And there are other ways of remotely restricting access.
Seems like a case of some technologists with a hammer, looking for a nail.
Wishlist:
24/96 minimum, preferably 24/192 (yes I'm insane about audio quality, and remember audio data could be consumed not just by humans, but also by machines, and every bit of quality helps)
wave recording as an option
solid state hardware, no moving disks to make noise
no ACG, or at least ability to turn it off
all files named by date/time/second by default: yyyymmdd@hhmmssnn.wav
ability to edit metadata of files
changing the external name of a file also changes the internal (metadata) name
built-in stereo microphones
XLR mic jacks
phantom power
stereo mini-plug mic jack
line in, including optical in
line out, including optical out
USB2/firewire
separate reference tone track
separate timing signal track
ability to set left and right levels separately
sensitive mode for quiet environments and environmental recording (please do not make it suitable only for loud rock concerts)
ability to use rechargable AA batteries, 1.2 volts each
store to SD card
store to CF card
hard drive, if any (preferably none) removable and user-upgradable
important: if it has a hard drive, it should be able to still function without the hard drive, writing to other media
both a stereo 1/4 inch headphone jack and a stereo mini headphone jack
ability to manage power smartly, so for example device isn't paying the expense of phantom power or hard disk when these aren't being used.
This is a closed system. Notice that besides wireless, there is another way to get the pictures off the camera: take the card to a Kodak kiosk. Again, closed.
Who benefits by having this system "computer-free"? Kodak, of course.
Every photo upload, download, and printout will be ringing Kodak's cash register. This is not progress.
>You just described Palladium / Treacherous Computing.
Exactly. You connected the dots, thank you.
>The hiptop is the Hotel California of mobile devices.
To clarify why my comment above is relevant to Greenspun's article, if this type of model (lock-in) carries over into a device that does all your computing needs, that would be scary for consumers.
Right now desktop systems are pretty open. You can write your own programs for them, for example. Phones are much less open. OK, all that is obvious.
What's not well known outside the hiptop user community is just how closed some systems can be.
My understanding of the Danger hiptop is this: To put programs you write yourself on a Danger hiptop, you must become a registered developer, and even then you can not share your programs with other users unless they are also registered developers, or unless Danger gives its official stamp of approval that your application will be THE representative application for its category (calculator, etc.) in their commercial catalog. If they have a choice of approving a free calculator program, versus a less nice commercial calculator that their carrier customers will make money from, which one do you think they approve of? That's right, the commercial one.
Imagine if this model became the model for desktop computing. Everything goes through an approval process, where approval is based on the business interests of some gatekeepers. Not very good for consumers. So while the form factor may be capable as Greenspun suggests, let's hope the business models to not follow.
Good luck to your friend ever getting their data back if they ever break their hiptop and decide to move on to anther device. The only way to get your data (address book, email, etc.) is to stay with a hiptop for your next contract, and the next, and the next, and...
The hiptop is the Hotel California of mobile devices.
True. Text analysis would still be the best way.
Maybe it's Ballmer.
Reading the first post on the blog, this guy is exhuberant, talks agressively and confidently. Definitely a marketing person, maybe high level. Or hangs out with them enough to be able to ape the attitude. The user id "Who d'Punk" fits a bemused high level exec who is untouchable, and wants a forum where the rules of political correctness are relaxed.
There are some signature turns of phrase that really stand out. I bet it's already an open secret at MS who this is, and they are probably chuckling now at how slashdot gets excited over a mystery they already know the answer to.
>Gee, there are too many easier ways to get him/her
Not necessarily. It depends on what stupid mistakes are being made.
The point is that even avoiding those mistakes you mention, just writing the thing in ones own words is already mistake enough.
It's amazing how otherwise well-informed people didn't pick up years ago on the fact that it is easy to identify a writer based on the statistical properties of their writing. This guy is providing plenty of material for the analysis. Do a cross check against the email for all employees, and game over.
Also very few people actually print out corporate memos like the Ballmer memo he mentions (yes, strikingly many do, but as a percentage, it's small). So that narrows down the field right there, and I haven't even got beyond the top post on the blog. Sure, he could have printed it at home, but did he? Naaahhhh.
If he hasn't been fired by now, it's not because they can't find out who he is. They are just waiting for the right moment.
Not long ago we did the same type of move. We also got rid of a lot of stuff.
But after we settled down, we realized it wasn't as cramped as we had been expecting. Now there are things we got rid of that I really miss. Like we had a huge 6-person tent, and I thought, where are we going to store this thing -- turns out it wouldn't have been a problem, and now we don't have it. Suckage.
If I were you, I would hang on to the ORA books and the beige metal/plastic/silicon boxes. You can always toss them later. Give yourself a cooling off period before you panic and get rid of stuff that serves you well. But yes do dump the large empty velvet lined box you've been saving because it might come in handy someday, and anything else in the crap category.
Cargo Cult Star Trek.
Stories like this always leave out my favorite Firefox feature. It's such a small, easy feature to implement, but it has such a great impact:
Easy font resizing. Ctrl-plus to make fonts bigger on any web site.
Whenever I show this feature to somone over 40, it immediately sells them on Firefox.
Sure, it's possible in IE too, but not for every site. Some sites are coded in such a way that text resizing doesn't work in IE. But in Firefox it always does work for any text.
There are just some risks that have to be accepted if you are going to do business. Other /.ers will hopefully point out all kinds of useful ways to mitigate the risks, and that is a good thing, but no system will ever be perfect. So there has to be some way to judge other than perfect-vs-flawed. Good approaches will strike a balance between letting people get things done, and having security. Don't assume you can get to perfection, but don't let that stop you from trying to make things better.
Your reply really looks like a troll, though it's too late for anyone else to be paying attention to this conversation by now.
Gmail is -way- better than Yahoo! mail, and the reason is exactly innovation. Any deficiency you may see in the UI is more than compensated for by the far superior UI speed.
They can certainly copy the visible parts of Google, the products that are out (heh, mostly in beta) now.
But what about all the other stuff that's still hidden, that's in the Google pipeline? You could call it the Google Iceberg. The cool stuff that is yet to come. It looks like Google is pretty good at staying ahead by innovating.
As always, Microsoft is claiming to innovate, while actually just copying what they find out there in the marketplace already. They don't move the ball forward, they just keep the pressure on.
>Is that YOU, the computer OWNER is not trusted.
You hit the nail on the head, my friend.
Most people read the words "trusted computing" and they assume they know what it means. They think it means you, the user, can trust you computer to be secure. So, so wrong.
One of the seminal papers in the field of trusted computing is called "Programming Satan's Computer" (PDF file).
In that paper, the point is, when the user of the computer is as evil as, say, Satan, how do you protect the information on that computer?
In other words, the whole approach of trusted computing is looking at the user as the bad guy.
I know it sounds like a /. cliche, a guy on slashdot saying you should see who supports open source, and go with that provider. But that's what I'm going to say.
Not so much because they support open source, but more because if an OSS project is hosted there, it's probably there because of the quality, not just because of the sponsorship. OSS projects are run by savvy people who know how to not stay stuck on a bad host.
If you look around at where various respected OSS sites are hosted, a few big names keep popping up. pair.com and he.net, for example. No referral links here.
But do your own research. I could not recommend the sites I use (the above two) to you without knowing your needs. If you need hand holding, go with someone else. If you want a nice clean toolbox, they are OK. If you want a company that answers the phone with a human on the third ring 24x7, he.net is good, if a little stingy with the disk space and transfer allocation.
>there is a small problem with this. It assumes that if manned-space is killed, the money will be transferred to unmanned.
Actually it makes no such assumption. In fact I would make the opposite assumption.
Maybe an analogy would help. If a poor village somewhere needs transportation, you could buy them a Lear jet, build an airport for them, and install all the necessary infrastructure including subsidizing some businesses to help support the needs of the airport. Or you could take one tenth of that money, and you could buy a small fleet of trucks, and bicycles for everybody, and still have money left over, while having an arguably better solution to the transportation problem.
If you think my example of a Lear jet for a village is too extravagant, maybe you underestimate the extravagance of human space exploration.
In case that doesn't make the point for you, the point is, NASA could make do with far less money, and still do far more science, if they were not spending so much on human exploration.
>Im not sure why the heavy criticism post flight.
Maybe you're focusing just on this one flight.
I think the critics are more concerned with the entire program. Flights like this are just a symptom of the real problem.
Human space exploration is fun to think about. Migrating tribes colonizing distant planets in other solar systems, and all that. But maybe our early successes have blinded us to the realities. Space is *big*. Human life support systems are expensive (in terms of overall resources including time, not just money).
NASA's current thinking on space seems to be like dreaming about a fairy land, with chocolate rivers and peppermint trees. Just because we can manufacture candy and we can make a place like Disneyland, doesn't mean that fairylands are going to become real.
We are doing cargo cult Star Trek.
And wasting a lot of money on it. Our money would be much better spent on robotic missions, which have a far bigger bang for the buck. And by the time we are ready for a human Mars mission, robots will probably be quite capable of the autonomous thinking and initiative that humans bring to the table. So what purpose is served by spending the extra overhead for human exploration, and doing 1/100th of the science that we could be doing for the same money? None, other than perpetuating a fairyland fantasy.
>If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.
Your post is very dismissive, on the basis that free speech is decently protected in the US. But I think one goal of Freenet is to protect the anonymity and privacy of information providers that use it. Free speech by itself does not do that.