So, thought these were basically the same, but I'm rooting for HD-DVD.
It's got managed copy required, not optional for movie companies. You are guaranteed to be able to make a copy to play around your house, stream etc. With the RIAA now saying listening to your CD's on your iPod is a violation of copyright, this is an important thing. This will also mean a consistent experience for folks buying disks.
Also important, while DRM in general tends to be very consumer unfriendly, Sony seems to play the unfriendliest of anyone in this space.
Rootkits, and everything proprietary. They had minidisk, memory stick, and Universal Media Disk, which of course only every played in sony products. They also seem to dislike apple for developing a simple easy to use music DRM solution, and so keep on dropping out of new itunes launches.
That all said, whose to say which will end up winning. If the retailers just retailed a single product it would solve things. As it is, probably best to hold of buying those HDTV sets and next gen DVD players. Some folks are going to be really burned by this.
"Microsoft's announcement last September raised alarm bells at Hewlett-Packard, which was coming to similar conclusions. Hewlett-Packard worried that the software included in the Blu-ray format would cost so much in royalties that H-P would be unable to add affordable DVD drives to its computers."
From the article, which goes on to say Blue-ray hasn't set royalty rates yet.
RIM started this whole intellectual property mess. Some of you remember them making lots of noise about protecting their IP against all the scummy folks who were using it.
Of course, as with all things software patent related, it turns out that others had also patented similar things. And whamo, their story changes.
Anyone have the details of this history? It's something that seems to have been forgotten in this story. I know RIM sued at least Handspring and Good, but I'm really curious about the threats of litigation that got NTP to go after them.
Instead of RIM threatened by bogus patents, this story could very well be company that litigated others out of the market faces own medicine.
I don't remember this well enough though, someone has got to have the history in a better format. All I remember is that RIM was running around talking about patents from way way back.
My gut tells me Cars is not going to do as well as other Pixar films, though with disney owning pixar, they will probably promote the hell out of it. You read the prediction here:)
After that though, they could crank out blockbusters. I loved Monsters, toy story, even nemo. Sequels (to monster etc) are obvious, and franchise films can make big bucks..
If google can get queries to span the whole web (granted highly paralizable) it seems like something could be done (given the profit) to make the blizzard servers keep working.
The BIOS of a computer, and much of the firmware and other object type code can be protected by copyright. For example, try booting your computer and observing the startup screen, before windows or Linux has loaded. Most computers that ship these days have lots of "copyright material".
For example, Dell may ship with an Award BIOS copyright that company, with ATI graphics hardware, with firmware copyright that company. Realize that you can copyright something (ie software) without having to distribute the source code. In fact, trade dress and other things make copyright a bit broader then you might expect.
So, if GPL cannot use digital restriction on copyright material. And copyright material is built into almost every computer currently manufactured, then it would seem the GPL cannot be used on most computers if the user wishes to secure their system against unathorized tampering (such as rootkits and spyware).
Even were a completely open source bios developed, that OpenBIOS is itself copyrighted, so even if the entire system is open (but copyleft) you still can not implement DRM to protect yourself, or your users.
I'm as much against many of the DRM schemes (and more importantly the way they actually get carried out) as the next person.
That said, I think this is a mistake.
Under GPLv3 can I crate a xen node0 and tie it with hardware DRM so only that hypervisor boots? That's the path to a secure node0? Could I use DRM type technology to avoid leaking client data I'm required to collect at my place of business?
What people forget is that DRM technology can be used in many ways. To destroy privacy and restrict rights, or to insure privacy and protect rights.
I can think of lots of areas (patents) that the GPL could have been improved / touched-up other than taking the hard DRM line.
The board has some good provisions that could insure board control. In particular:
Subject to these Rules, if the Board is of the opinion that a member has refused or neglected to comply with these Rules, or has been guilty of conduct unbecoming a member or prejudicial to the interests of the Association, the Board may by resolution:
a) fine that member an amount not exceeding $500; or b) suspend that member from membership of the Association for a specified period; or c) expel that member from the Association.
Since the board defines what is "prejudicial/unbecoming", they can basically remove folks who they don't like, perhaps even dinging them in the process with a $500 fine.
Imagine if you were a corporate shareholder, and agreed to rules like these. It would be very hard to kick out existing board members.
In some cases, you do want board members to maintain control, and might simply avoid voting of membership or make votes advisory. However, Miro and the Foundation are making a big deal about the fact that the members control the foundation, so its worth looking at the actual rules.
Basically, the actual developers who developed Mambo all left.
And for some pretty good reasons. The bylaws of the non-profit foundation were the craziest I've seen (and I used to review bylaws). Clearly designed to lock in control at the top for Miro.
I've been around a long time, and some of the mambo and mambo foundation stunts are huge red-flags for a nonprofit.
I bet when we dig below the surface of the article, we'll find that the submitter (who is shawn@uberdev.com) has a vested interest in this?
Also, tend to beleive the code talks and talk walks. Curious to know how many core developers stayed with Mambo.
And to be honest I like the feel of the Joomla community a bit better, from ducking into both sets of forums. Don't run either package however.
It interesting, he's one of the few AG's to go after white collar criminals with any vigor. The stock research stuff was so obvious, they kept on hyping it, but it was basically sales literature. His point (correct I think), was that you can hype stuff, just don't dress it as independent research.
The music companies claim they are trying to help the consumers. Forced to pick between them and itunes (who released an honestly useful app with reasonable DRM) I'd pick apple in a heartbeat.
Someone on the edge of the relationship, either on the AOL side or the Google side, may have their success very tied in with how this partnership will result. For example, I pushed this deal to buy the $1b stake. It would be good for me to show that the stake is worth something, so I push for AOL to show in a bunch of places.
This would usefully be from the business persons side, rather than a programmers side. Google has grown a lot in a short time, and corporate culture can be tricky to maintain.
This does happen. Let's say some programmer focused on the users said, look, AOL's content is garbage, we should reduce their ranking everywhere, block them from onebox. The guy who pitched a $1b deal is not going to like that and it simply would not be permitted to happen.
And AOL clearly has an incentive to influence Google, and with a $1b partnership, you can bet they will now have a team working to do so.
These things can be surprisingly powerful, I've always been amazed at how after time elapses these types of setups can affect things.
The pure play to keep AdWords at AOL (which arguablly was the point of this deal) would be to increase the share AOL got of the revenue. That would be the marketplace approach. Take the $1b you paid them now, and instead just adjust payments on adwords so over 5 years they get the $1b. This keeps google focused on the user.
The problem is the have a built in structural conflict of interest.
They do well when AOL does.
Even though it seems a stretch, these structural types of conflict of interest can be surprisingly powerful.
Give it five years. At some point, instead of trying to pick the best choices for onebox with the goal of it being the best for the user, they will pick an AOL option, and rationalize it will be the best for the user. It's a subtle difference, but almost guaranteed.
We also see from lobbying in the political realm, that access means a TON. Just getting alot more overlap with Google will let AOL really tune into what they are going to be doing in a way that others won't be able to.
Be interesting to see how this unfolds. Feels very business driven, and even there not sure I buy it. If you have to pay $1b to sell your ads on someone elses site, you're not really selling them. Better to just adjust the cut they get until they and more people everywhere cary them.
Actually, be interesting to see how this all unwinds. AOL probably has much more agressive corporate power politics type players. Sometimes the nice places aren't prepared to manage that, though in this case I'd imagine Google will be able to.
Only thing that is worrying is that companies with declining revenue (aol) can be tempted to try bad ideas. Let's hope google doesn't try too many of them itself.
I remember them suing over everything, Good technology, handspring with the treo, etc etc.
In this case, NTP is clearly just a patent litigation machine which is worse, but everyone's been using these patents to muscle around in the marketplace...
Most of the articles were by Fuad Abazovic I beleive. He's one of theinquirer reports that doesn't do a lot of inquiring. Everytime I see a company like ATI promising everything and making a ton of noise, while their competition eats their lunch, I take the hype of the stuff with a grain of salt.
Aren't there some crossfire articles as well. Crossfires been launched and re-launched for ages now, and got lots of coverage.
for innocent passengers as well, who, when faced with M-16 toting guys can't avoid an "uncontrollable tremor" in their voice.
No mention of the false positive rate on this. If just 1 in a million passenger is a terrorist, and given the number of passenger flights per year without bombings on US planes it has got to be way up there, the false positive rate it going to need to be way WAY down there.
One is, despite the claims that IPv4 will run out in the next "x" years and companies will be screwed, that never happens.
Worst case, folks will figure out how to get by on 1-2 ip addresses, or pay more than the $1/month or so to get an extra. There are TONS of unused, unrouted addresses out there through the entire hierarchy, from subnets, class b's etc.
Second, IPv6 and you can what? If I run IPv6 only, I need to at some point tunnel to IPv4 (and often get an IPv4 address anyways) to connect to the rest of the net. If I run just IPv4, I can connect to everything, and the first person who develops google that is IPv6 ONLY is going to have very few users.
In other words, the business case is flat out not there.
Also, I never understood why IPv4 wasn't just a subset of IPv6? Why can't my existing IPv4 addresses also be IPv6 addresses with a standard prefix? Maybe this has changed, but when IPv6 came out it looked like that wasn't part of it.
If my address was a subset, my ISP could create IPv6 endpoints for my address along with the IPv4 routing, even if I hadn't upgraded. They'd just strip the prefix and forward to me.
Slashdot Mirror
This is facinating, any pointers to good info. I'd love to learn more.
I didn't catch that in the article. Ouch!
Don't think blue-ray will be any better however.
So, thought these were basically the same, but I'm rooting for HD-DVD.
i crosoft-hd-dvd.ars
It's got managed copy required, not optional for movie companies. You are guaranteed to be able to make a copy to play around your house, stream etc. With the RIAA now saying listening to your CD's on your iPod is a violation of copyright, this is an important thing. This will also mean a consistent experience for folks buying disks.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/m
Also important, while DRM in general tends to be very consumer unfriendly, Sony seems to play the unfriendliest of anyone in this space.
Rootkits, and everything proprietary. They had minidisk, memory stick, and Universal Media Disk, which of course only every played in sony products. They also seem to dislike apple for developing a simple easy to use music DRM solution, and so keep on dropping out of new itunes launches.
That all said, whose to say which will end up winning. If the retailers just retailed a single product it would solve things. As it is, probably best to hold of buying those HDTV sets and next gen DVD players. Some folks are going to be really burned by this.
"Microsoft's announcement last September raised alarm bells at Hewlett-Packard, which was coming to similar conclusions. Hewlett-Packard worried that the software included in the Blu-ray format would cost so much in royalties that H-P would be unable to add affordable DVD drives to its computers."
From the article, which goes on to say Blue-ray hasn't set royalty rates yet.
Yowks.
RIM started this whole intellectual property mess. Some of you remember them making lots of noise about protecting their IP against all the scummy folks who were using it.
Of course, as with all things software patent related, it turns out that others had also patented similar things. And whamo, their story changes.
Anyone have the details of this history? It's something that seems to have been forgotten in this story. I know RIM sued at least Handspring and Good, but I'm really curious about the threats of litigation that got NTP to go after them.
Instead of RIM threatened by bogus patents, this story could very well be company that litigated others out of the market faces own medicine.
I don't remember this well enough though, someone has got to have the history in a better format. All I remember is that RIM was running around talking about patents from way way back.
My gut tells me Cars is not going to do as well as other Pixar films, though with disney owning pixar, they will probably promote the hell out of it. You read the prediction here :)
After that though, they could crank out blockbusters. I loved Monsters, toy story, even nemo. Sequels (to monster etc) are obvious, and franchise films can make big bucks..
Be interesting to see how it turns. out.
What platform do they run on? Anyone know?
If google can get queries to span the whole web (granted highly paralizable) it seems like something could be done (given the profit) to make the blizzard servers keep working.
The BIOS of a computer, and much of the firmware and other object type code can be protected by copyright. For example, try booting your computer and observing the startup screen, before windows or Linux has loaded. Most computers that ship these days have lots of "copyright material".
For example, Dell may ship with an Award BIOS copyright that company, with ATI graphics hardware, with firmware copyright that company. Realize that you can copyright something (ie software) without having to distribute the source code. In fact, trade dress and other things make copyright a bit broader then you might expect.
So, if GPL cannot use digital restriction on copyright material. And copyright material is built into almost every computer currently manufactured, then it would seem the GPL cannot be used on most computers if the user wishes to secure their system against unathorized tampering (such as rootkits and spyware).
Even were a completely open source bios developed, that OpenBIOS is itself copyrighted, so even if the entire system is open (but copyleft) you still can not implement DRM to protect yourself, or your users.
I'm as much against many of the DRM schemes (and more importantly the way they actually get carried out) as the next person.
That said, I think this is a mistake.
Under GPLv3 can I crate a xen node0 and tie it with hardware DRM so only that hypervisor boots? That's the path to a secure node0?
Could I use DRM type technology to avoid leaking client data I'm required to collect at my place of business?
What people forget is that DRM technology can be used in many ways. To destroy privacy and restrict rights, or to insure privacy and protect rights.
I can think of lots of areas (patents) that the GPL could have been improved / touched-up other than taking the hard DRM line.
Since the board defines what is "prejudicial/unbecoming", they can basically remove folks who they don't like, perhaps even dinging them in the process with a $500 fine.
Imagine if you were a corporate shareholder, and agreed to rules like these. It would be very hard to kick out existing board members.
In some cases, you do want board members to maintain control, and might simply avoid voting of membership or make votes advisory. However, Miro and the Foundation are making a big deal about the fact that the members control the foundation, so its worth looking at the actual rules.
Basically, the actual developers who developed Mambo all left.
And for some pretty good reasons. The bylaws of the non-profit foundation were the craziest I've seen (and I used to review bylaws). Clearly designed to lock in control at the top for Miro.
I've been around a long time, and some of the mambo and mambo foundation stunts are huge red-flags for a nonprofit.
I bet when we dig below the surface of the article, we'll find that the submitter (who is shawn@uberdev.com) has a vested interest in this?
Also, tend to beleive the code talks and talk walks. Curious to know how many core developers stayed with Mambo.
And to be honest I like the feel of the Joomla community a bit better, from ducking into both sets of forums. Don't run either package however.
From the FAQ:
"Because of bandwidth overuse, we temporarily capped off Coral to disallow transfers of files greater than 50 MB."
Perhaps this has changed though, otherwise you just bump over to the server again.
You can't coral big files like this I don't think:
"Because of bandwidth overuse, we temporarily capped off Coral to disallow transfers of files greater than 50 MB. "
Maybe this has changed or the implementation no longer implements this limit?
Pushing 100mb/s which is my max. Probably best to hold off this one during the initial rush till Tues
http://69.56.247.237/download/howitismade.m4v
This sounds great!
I think the length is fine, and nice that they packaged up a few into one...
It interesting, he's one of the few AG's to go after white collar criminals with any vigor. The stock research stuff was so obvious, they kept on hyping it, but it was basically sales literature. His point (correct I think), was that you can hype stuff, just don't dress it as independent research.
The music companies claim they are trying to help the consumers. Forced to pick between them and itunes (who released an honestly useful app with reasonable DRM) I'd pick apple in a heartbeat.
You may be forgetting a human element in this.
Someone on the edge of the relationship, either on the AOL side or the Google side, may have their success very tied in with how this partnership will result. For example, I pushed this deal to buy the $1b stake. It would be good for me to show that the stake is worth something, so I push for AOL to show in a bunch of places.
This would usefully be from the business persons side, rather than a programmers side. Google has grown a lot in a short time, and corporate culture can be tricky to maintain.
This does happen. Let's say some programmer focused on the users said, look, AOL's content is garbage, we should reduce their ranking everywhere, block them from onebox. The guy who pitched a $1b deal is not going to like that and it simply would not be permitted to happen.
And AOL clearly has an incentive to influence Google, and with a $1b partnership, you can bet they will now have a team working to do so.
These things can be surprisingly powerful, I've always been amazed at how after time elapses these types of setups can affect things.
The pure play to keep AdWords at AOL (which arguablly was the point of this deal) would be to increase the share AOL got of the revenue. That would be the marketplace approach. Take the $1b you paid them now, and instead just adjust payments on adwords so over 5 years they get the $1b. This keeps google focused on the user.
The problem is the have a built in structural conflict of interest.
They do well when AOL does.
Even though it seems a stretch, these structural types of conflict of interest can be surprisingly powerful.
Give it five years. At some point, instead of trying to pick the best choices for onebox with the goal of it being the best for the user, they will pick an AOL option, and rationalize it will be the best for the user. It's a subtle difference, but almost guaranteed.
We also see from lobbying in the political realm, that access means a TON. Just getting alot more overlap with Google will let AOL really tune into what they are going to be doing in a way that others won't be able to.
Be interesting to see how this unfolds. Feels very business driven, and even there not sure I buy it. If you have to pay $1b to sell your ads on someone elses site, you're not really selling them. Better to just adjust the cut they get until they and more people everywhere cary them.
The AOL taint begins :)
Actually, be interesting to see how this all unwinds. AOL probably has much more agressive corporate power politics type players. Sometimes the nice places aren't prepared to manage that, though in this case I'd imagine Google will be able to.
Only thing that is worrying is that companies with declining revenue (aol) can be tempted to try bad ideas. Let's hope google doesn't try too many of them itself.
Research in Motion was the leader in a lot of this patent litigation.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-958550.html
I remember them suing over everything, Good technology, handspring with the treo, etc etc.
In this case, NTP is clearly just a patent litigation machine which is worse, but everyone's been using these patents to muscle around in the marketplace...
Most of the articles were by Fuad Abazovic I beleive. He's one of theinquirer reports that doesn't do a lot of inquiring. Everytime I see a company like ATI promising everything and making a ton of noise, while their competition eats their lunch, I take the hype of the stuff with a grain of salt.
Aren't there some crossfire articles as well. Crossfires been launched and re-launched for ages now, and got lots of coverage.
for innocent passengers as well, who, when faced with M-16 toting guys can't avoid an "uncontrollable tremor" in their voice.
No mention of the false positive rate on this. If just 1 in a million passenger is a terrorist, and given the number of passenger flights per year without bombings on US planes it has got to be way up there, the false positive rate it going to need to be way WAY down there.
Thanks, this was informative. Indeed, who will do the first IPv4 unreachable :)
::ffff/96 IPv4-compatible addresses are being deprecated, because IPv6 transition mechanisms no longer use them
I get:
Didn't have time to read up on the other options.
One is, despite the claims that IPv4 will run out in the next "x" years and companies will be screwed, that never happens.
Worst case, folks will figure out how to get by on 1-2 ip addresses, or pay more than the $1/month or so to get an extra. There are TONS of unused, unrouted addresses out there through the entire hierarchy, from subnets, class b's etc.
Second, IPv6 and you can what? If I run IPv6 only, I need to at some point tunnel to IPv4 (and often get an IPv4 address anyways) to connect to the rest of the net. If I run just IPv4, I can connect to everything, and the first person who develops google that is IPv6 ONLY is going to have very few users.
In other words, the business case is flat out not there.
Also, I never understood why IPv4 wasn't just a subset of IPv6? Why can't my existing IPv4 addresses also be IPv6 addresses with a standard prefix? Maybe this has changed, but when IPv6 came out it looked like that wasn't part of it.
If my address was a subset, my ISP could create IPv6 endpoints for my address along with the IPv4 routing, even if I hadn't upgraded. They'd just strip the prefix and forward to me.