Unsupported by a commercial interest it will fail
on
The Hundred-Buck PC
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Unsupported by a commercial interest this will fail. It may make good copy but will, if it gets anywhere at all, develop into an unsupported technological deadend.
The 3rd world is a place where webtv would actually work. Stick a 200mhz ARM, 64mb, a modem and video out into a small box and build a service around it... then you're getting somewhere.
Someone with money will finally apply AOL mid 90's marketing tactics with an easy install, fully featured 'comfort' version to a major linux distro. You want market penetration, this is it... otherwise why would the aversge user switch from Windows XX that came with their box in the first place. Be smart, throw money... some company out there has to have the balls to do this.
Gimme a break, you want to complain about a company that struggles to squeaze a dollar from your hand while the rest of the economy is in the pits. How do you think these people pay for the bandwidth server space to download 133megs? Sheesh! Back in the day you'd have to suck up to some freak pudknocker running a cheesy text based BBS to download a copy of tradewars.. and it was about 150k.
I've certainly got no problem suffering plugs for the personal server.. and might even give them my cash. If they don't see a reason to be in business.. ie: you give them money, they will probably go bye bye just like most of the others. Then where you will be? Whining on Slashdot about how you can't download the newest demo unless you HAVE to pay for the service.
Its funny to watch AT$T muscle @Home into this position. The 'last mile' people: AT$T, Qwest, etc, make the majority of revenues from broadband customers. Now that they've forced all the small players from the play field they are now going for dominance over everyone else. The ultimate loser will be YOU. After the dust has settled.. long after, only the 'last milers' will control your access and they'll be making billions because you have no choice.
This speaks more to the Patent Office than IBM. IBM's success, in part, is a function of developing new things and getting the rights to sell them exclusively.. and if you had your own IBM you'd be doing the same thing. The Patent Office, on the other hand, is woefully inept at identifying unique things. In addition, they bear none of the consequences for granting a patent when no patent should have been issued.
Realistically, I doubt IBM would even bother to enforce this patent. It would behoove them nothing.
You're pretty much 'spot on'. I'm sure that the code will survive and be incorporated into other products but only those that make bank. Large scale corporate products won't have exposure to everyday users.. and basically, the everyday user that needs, knows, and wants PGP can get it for free (or write it themselves:P).
Actually, the 2 year sunset applies only to the House version of the legislation. The Senate version has no sunset provision. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about these things to determine which law will reach the President's desk if both the House and Senate pass. Anyone have any insight?
Perhaps you don't mind a slow erosion of basic American liberties and freedoms. I do and I find it alarming.
Basically there is alot to be excited about here. These law enforcement agencies exploit the american people's fear and anxienty to forward their own vision of a future where privacy and due process mean very little.
I doubt that any request for a wiretap in any jurisdiction in the US, at least as it pertains to investigation into terrorism, would go unfulfilled at this time. All these laws do is streamline this process and shave away some of our liberties at the same time. And they last forever.
With the new anti-terrorism laws in place it will be perfectly legal for foreign governments to do the spying that America previously couldn't, on it's own citizens at least. I'm sure that Mexico or Canada will gladly log any future correspondence you have and pass it on to the FBI.
Quite true. Sadly, if encruption were offered as a basic part of Microsoft Outlook more people might take interest. However, few people are aware of how open their computers are to inspection. Encryption is really only an option for people that realize how transparent the interent is THEN realize that they really have something to conceal... a small minority indeed. It's my guess that the people that are aware just expect (and hope for) obfiscation by means of proliferation.
250 is a lot of employees for such a small product.. at least in terms of what a person would view as a niche product, at best. Perhaps this is just one of the last vestiges of the bloated net economy fading into the distance.
However, other influences may be involved. It's pretty obvious that encryption schemes, in general, are under scrutiny after the Sept 11 attacks. Any company that is producing an encryption product certainly has taken a look at it's business in recent days.
Ultimately, I think most people have given into the idea that their correspondence via email.. and really anything that ends up on their computer could be an open book if anyone really wants to look.
Well, if I owned a WebTV then I wouldnt care. But when you motherboard becomes the pretense for a marketing tool you might want to be a little concerned.
Wow, perhaps you'll make good mid-level management for a Fortune 500 corporation when you grow up. In the mean time your personal life becomes an open slate and your genome is public information. What the hell, screw personal privacy rights... who needs them... they are bad for big business.
This is, of course, the result that Napster has wanted all along. The pursuit of licensing deals is the one, and only, way that Napster business model worked. Napsters response to the findings in the lawsuits against them has been, repeatedly, for the courts to effectuate a pay per play service.
This is the end game for Napster, and the content companies know it. My guess is that this current offer will be refused... and Napster will be left hanging in the wind.
This technology compresses populations of geometry and does't seem directly applicable to frames of video. However, it could spur interest in new ways of interpreting photographed images as defined sets of geometries.
Maybe thats the questions the RIAA should ask itself. Why should they feel threatened that the average Joe can have a jukebox in his home? If youve ever used Napster then you know a few things. One, the sound quality is relatively poor, perhaps the same quality you can achieve with a decent FM station in a metropolitan area. Two, assembling the entire content of all but a few, very popular albums in their original form would appear to take more time and effort than just buying the album in the first place. Jukeboxes are great promotions... they get people buying music.
And perhaps the most importand thing you may have noticed about Napster... Three: It breaks down the strangle hold of a few hundred recording industry exuctives that control WHAT content you see, and from WHICH artists. Artists that are paid a fraction of the revenue there effort generates. Artists which may never even be signed because they don't fit a sales projection or market analysis. Maybe this is the part the RIAA has noticed
Slashdot Mirror
Unsupported by a commercial interest this will fail. It may make good copy but will, if it gets anywhere at all, develop into an unsupported technological deadend.
The 3rd world is a place where webtv would actually work. Stick a 200mhz ARM, 64mb, a modem and video out into a small box and build a service around it... then you're getting somewhere.
It's a play for revenues. MGM wants cash. My prediction: amicalbly resolved with an undisclosed cash settlement in 2 weeks.
Someone with money will finally apply AOL mid 90's marketing tactics with an easy install, fully featured 'comfort' version to a major linux distro. You want market penetration, this is it... otherwise why would the aversge user switch from Windows XX that came with their box in the first place. Be smart, throw money... some company out there has to have the balls to do this.
Gimme a break, you want to complain about a company that struggles to squeaze a dollar from your hand while the rest of the economy is in the pits. How do you think these people pay for the bandwidth server space to download 133megs? Sheesh! Back in the day you'd have to suck up to some freak pudknocker running a cheesy text based BBS to download a copy of tradewars.. and it was about 150k.
I've certainly got no problem suffering plugs for the personal server.. and might even give them my cash. If they don't see a reason to be in business.. ie: you give them money, they will probably go bye bye just like most of the others. Then where you will be? Whining on Slashdot about how you can't download the newest demo unless you HAVE to pay for the service.
Its funny to watch AT$T muscle @Home into this position. The 'last mile' people: AT$T, Qwest, etc, make the majority of revenues from broadband customers. Now that they've forced all the small players from the play field they are now going for dominance over everyone else. The ultimate loser will be YOU. After the dust has settled.. long after, only the 'last milers' will control your access and they'll be making billions because you have no choice.
My guess is, even if IBM wanted to, that it would apply to a complete product that generates an entire web site.
This speaks more to the Patent Office than IBM. IBM's success, in part, is a function of developing new things and getting the rights to sell them exclusively.. and if you had your own IBM you'd be doing the same thing. The Patent Office, on the other hand, is woefully inept at identifying unique things. In addition, they bear none of the consequences for granting a patent when no patent should have been issued.
Realistically, I doubt IBM would even bother to enforce this patent. It would behoove them nothing.
You're pretty much 'spot on'. I'm sure that the code will survive and be incorporated into other products but only those that make bank. Large scale corporate products won't have exposure to everyday users.. and basically, the everyday user that needs, knows, and wants PGP can get it for free (or write it themselves :P).
Actually, the 2 year sunset applies only to the House version of the legislation. The Senate version has no sunset provision. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about these things to determine which law will reach the President's desk if both the House and Senate pass. Anyone have any insight?
Perhaps you don't mind a slow erosion of basic American liberties and freedoms. I do and I find it alarming.
Basically there is alot to be excited about here. These law enforcement agencies exploit the american people's fear and anxienty to forward their own vision of a future where privacy and due process mean very little.
I doubt that any request for a wiretap in any jurisdiction in the US, at least as it pertains to investigation into terrorism, would go unfulfilled at this time. All these laws do is streamline this process and shave away some of our liberties at the same time. And they last forever.
With the new anti-terrorism laws in place it will be perfectly legal for foreign governments to do the spying that America previously couldn't, on it's own citizens at least. I'm sure that Mexico or Canada will gladly log any future correspondence you have and pass it on to the FBI.
Quite true. Sadly, if encruption were offered as a basic part of Microsoft Outlook more people might take interest. However, few people are aware of how open their computers are to inspection. Encryption is really only an option for people that realize how transparent the interent is THEN realize that they really have something to conceal... a small minority indeed. It's my guess that the people that are aware just expect (and hope for) obfiscation by means of proliferation.
250 is a lot of employees for such a small product.. at least in terms of what a person would view as a niche product, at best. Perhaps this is just one of the last vestiges of the bloated net economy fading into the distance.
However, other influences may be involved. It's pretty obvious that encryption schemes, in general, are under scrutiny after the Sept 11 attacks. Any company that is producing an encryption product certainly has taken a look at it's business in recent days.
Ultimately, I think most people have given into the idea that their correspondence via email.. and really anything that ends up on their computer could be an open book if anyone really wants to look.
Well, if I owned a WebTV then I wouldnt care. But when you motherboard becomes the pretense for a marketing tool you might want to be a little concerned.
Wow, perhaps you'll make good mid-level management for a Fortune 500 corporation when you grow up. In the mean time your personal life becomes an open slate and your genome is public information. What the hell, screw personal privacy rights... who needs them... they are bad for big business.
This is, of course, the result that Napster has wanted all along. The pursuit of licensing deals is the one, and only, way that Napster business model worked. Napsters response to the findings in the lawsuits against them has been, repeatedly, for the courts to effectuate a pay per play service. This is the end game for Napster, and the content companies know it. My guess is that this current offer will be refused... and Napster will be left hanging in the wind.
They're just using humans to do the dirty work.
This technology compresses populations of geometry and does't seem directly applicable to frames of video. However, it could spur interest in new ways of interpreting photographed images as defined sets of geometries.
Maybe thats the questions the RIAA should ask itself. Why should they feel threatened that the average Joe can have a jukebox in his home? If youve ever used Napster then you know a few things. One, the sound quality is relatively poor, perhaps the same quality you can achieve with a decent FM station in a metropolitan area. Two, assembling the entire content of all but a few, very popular albums in their original form would appear to take more time and effort than just buying the album in the first place. Jukeboxes are great promotions... they get people buying music.
And perhaps the most importand thing you may have noticed about Napster... Three: It breaks down the strangle hold of a few hundred recording industry exuctives that control WHAT content you see, and from WHICH artists. Artists that are paid a fraction of the revenue there effort generates. Artists which may never even be signed because they don't fit a sales projection or market analysis. Maybe this is the part the RIAA has noticed
And it explains the bright/dim pattern. Unfortunately the original review fails to explain how this system works. Thanks for the insight.