The internal PS2 drive will not acknowledge anything other than official PS1/PS2 discs. You have two options to mount CDs or DVDs on your PS2 running linux. You can either attach an external USB drive, or you can mount one off another computer (the kit does come with an ethernet adapter).
To quote mogul, one the SCEA guys who posts on the boards on playstation2-linux.com, when asked about external drives, "Once someone writes or ports drivers for them, yes. Until then you can just cross mount a volume from your PC and do it over the network. You may even be more than satisfied to do it this way."
Let's focus on the issue of college students here. I agree with your assessment that people are willing to pay for certian things and not others. Ever wonder why? For starters, the vast majority of college students have no idea how to budget their money. They simply live hand to mouth. Have you ever seen those commercials that Visa used to run about college students spending out of control and wracking up huge debts? There is a reason for that...
The second problem is one that is central to the concept of economics, scarcity. Human beings have an unlimited desire for goods and services, but production capacity and natural resources do not enjoy such a luxury. Most goods depend on natural resources, such as food, cars and houses. They cannot be copied. Software, music, and movies are in a different classification because their scarcity is somewhat artificial. The media upon which they are delivered is scarce, but the information on that media can be duplicated endlessly (for all practical purposes). This breaks the fundemental economic structure. Given that people have such a voracious appetite for consumption, and the limits on said consumption have effectively been removed, people will continue to "pirate" software and music.
(Side note: Some folks will pay for everything they consume, some will pay for a fraction, others will never pay for anything they don't absolutely have to. Exploring the reasons for that is more of a psychology issue than an economic one. Don't assume everyone's motivation is as simple as trying to win a zero-sum game.)
Here's the perennial question: How do people make money off of a good that ceases to be scarce? I don't claim all the answers, but a couple of trite phrases jump to mind:
1) Keep it simple, stupid! 2) You catch more flies with honey than vinager
It's foolish to expect a person to pay a premium price for something that is simply not scarce. You must provide other incentive for them to pay (and penalty of law isn't as good of an incentive as you might think.;)
Yes: You can probably get the information for free.
No: You cannot get the information as quickly for free.
This is a service targeted at corporations and their information hounds, not for your average Joe InternetUser.
I used to work for the Technology Intelligence group at USWest (yeah, yeah... the (ex)phone company.), and we subscribed to about 6 services like this. Sure, I could have found my information through free means, and sometimes I did. But when the Powers That Be need information on that technology that hasn't made it through the mainstream media, and they need it yesterday... You can't spend the time floundering around, hoping that you'll find it with google.
Remember the old adage, "Time is Money". Yahoo is selling people time, which in the business world is often worth more than $1-$4 per search.
I'll throw my two cents into the ring. I've done quite a bit of research into this area recently. Hopefully I can provide you with some useful information to consider.
Let me start with the hard part: Speakers.
I cannot tell you which speakers to buy. I suggest that you don't listen to anyone who tells you what speakers to buy either. The reason for this is quite simple. What sounds good to me might not sound good to you.
Speakers are a tricky matter due to the inherent subjective nature of what sounds good. All speaker manufacturers have a different "sound". Some are brighter in the high range, some have a more powerful midrange. The best suggestion anyone can give you is to go somewhere and listen to every speaker that you can. Choose the one that sounds best to your ears.
One more suggestion. Bring a high quality recording of classical music with you when you listen to speakers. The reasoning is that classical employs the broadest range of sound frequencies. It is the best test of a speaker's range.
Having said that, my personal recommendation is Polk. They are brighter without sacrificing much midrange.
Now on to recievers.
If you are interested in watching a lot of movies on this setup, I highly recommend something from Yamaha for the reciever. I've heard time and time again that they have the best DSP chips. They offer the greatest number of modes and very high quality of surround sound decoding.
I urge you not to base your choice off of power output numbers. A higher power will not ensure better sound. It usually means that you'll get a cleaner signal, but that's a loose guideline and not a rule.
Again I suggest a listening test. Although my experience leads me to believe there isn't much of a difference in audio quality in the $400-$600 price range (where I assume you'll be looking).
A final bit of advice that is directed towards anyone else who is building a system. If you're buying a dvd player that will double as a CD player, check to make sure that it will play CD-R's. Much to my father's chagrin, the Onkyo DVD player he bought has a blocker in it to prevent playback of burned audio CDs.
I need to make a clarification. The prices set by SwitchPoint in Utah are a bit of an anomoly. They are set quite rediculously low. You aren't likely see that kind of pricing around the country... although since this technology competes with DSL and Cable Modems, the companies that deploy this will price accordingly.
(Unfortunately that's all I can really say about that. I have inside information, as I have a relative who is senior management for SwitchPoint.)
Okay... I'm going to submit this as an article, but I thought I would write here first... just in case it doesn't get posted.
This submission was interesting, but people around here would be far more interested in what SwitchPoint Networks is doing. They're offering 100Mbs (synchronous) service to residential customers for about the price of ADSL. They already have live customers in Utah. They recently signed a deal with Wide Open West to start deploying this technology on a wider scale.
So, if you're really interested in getting proper "broadband" capabilities, these are the folks you need to talk to. (Well... actually they're a technology company, they don't build the networks anymore. So tell your friendly neighborhood overbuilder to start using their technology.)
I understand the concerns that were expressed in the two articles regarding the VA Linux/Andover merger. The possibility does exist that VA Linux might muck up their newly acquired holdings. But that thought bothered me for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on at first. My initial reaction was that only a fool would spend a billion dollars to turn a couple of community sites into a propaganda machine that would be instantly rendered ineffective as soon as the scent of corporate motives was detected. It just doesn't click.
That led me to wonder exactly why VA bothered to purchase Andover in the first place. What do they stand to gain? I decided to go to the source and read the VA Linux press release regarding the takeover. Amidst the usual rhetoric, I found the answer I was looking for in these quotes from said press release on what the purchase was to accomplish:
-- Consolidate the complementary networks of VA (including Linux.com, Sourceforge.net, and Themes.org) and Andover.Net (including Slashdot.org and Freshmeat.net) to create the Internet's leading destination for Open Source developers, with nearly two-thirds of the total traffic of major Open Source sites and putting the combined network in the top 100 web destinations worldwide;
And
-- Integrate teams that have worked cooperatively within the Linux community culture over several years, initially as volunteers in the Open Source world, and recently in the building of the next generation developer infrastructure.
They aren't looking to control the content of these sites. They're looking to bolster their image in the business community by attracting developers to their web sites. This is a very similar tactic that was used by our dear friends at Microsoft. They built a developer community and won over many software developers by giving away their toolkits and giving them a place where they could chat with the best and brightest people engaged in similar work.
In this case, the toolkits are already free. What VA is trying to do is buy/build the best open source community network out there. The most important thing this does for VA is that it builds a mental association in the public at large between themselves and the best, brightest, most influential open source developers in the world. (Not to mention that claim can give them reason to jack up ad rates)
As I see it, VA stands to lose much more by trying to control Slashdot than taking the heat for anything stupid they might do in the future. It would go against the very reason why they bought Andover in the first place. If they lose the developers, they've lost everything they set out to do in this acquisition. They can disseminate their propaganda, push their corporate ideology and perform necessary damage control through the news section on the valinux.com web site.
I won't object to the fact that no other industry is allowed to operate under the lax guidelines under which the software industry functions. There is, however, a major discrepancy between what should be and what is. The reason why buggy software is allowed and accepted is two-fold.
The first reason is purely historical. The roots of programming lie with the hardcore geeks and nerds. They were, and still are, interested primarily in coaxing the computer into doing something new, exciting, and cool. Ensuring that it worked correctly under every circumstance never ranked real high on the list of priorities. Regression testing isn't exactly the most glamourous or exciting part of software design. The bugs could always be worked out later, especially the really elusive ones. Let the user find them and we'll fix them in the next release.
The second reason this practice continues is a matter of public policy. The government has taken the stance of treading very lightly around the computer industry because they are the foundation for the paradigm shift into the Information Age and the most recent economic boom. If the feds decided lay a heavy hand upon the software industry, they run the risk of causing the whole thing to go bust, taking the entire welfare of the United States down with them. There isn't a politician in the world who would be eager to take the blame for that one. The price of buggy software is a small one to pay to keep this juggernaut moving along.
Someday things will likely change through a combination of successful lawsuits and government intervention. Just don't expect it to happen any time real soon. It's also not going to happen overnight.
Before I end this, I would like to point out that I personally do not condone what AOL has done. I agree that ethical standards should be strictly adhered to. I think people should take pride in their work and not release substandard products. However, the reality of the situation is that not everyone agrees with me.
While John Tenniel's drawings provided the original interpretation of Carrol's book, I have to argue that they are not untouchable.
I have a reproduction of a 1907 limited printing of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland that was illustrated by Arthur Rackham.
Rackham's illustrations are quite lovely and contain a certain something that Tenniel lacked.
Here is an except from the "About This Edition":
This is a facsimile of the deluxe limited edition of 1907 that was illustrated by Arthur Rackham. Rackham [1867-1939] was the first and the greatest of the illustrators to succeed John Tenniel, whose drawings had provided the original interpretation of Lewis Carroll's masterpiece in 1885. Tenniel, however, had not illustrated the book in color; and thus Rackham was the pioneer in that respect.
While I will not assert that color makes one picture superior over another, I do suggest that any fan of the story who hasn't seen Rackham's illustrations take a look. Even the pieces that are not in color have a charm and flair that escape arbitrary placement in the shadow of Tenniel's exemplary work.
I first read about quantum encryption in some long lost article about three or four years ago. The basic premise involves polarizing photons as they travel down a strand of fibre optic cable.
Okay, I just did a quick search on Google and turned up a recent article in New Scientist describing the process and the issues facing practical, widespread implementation. Still, it looks quite promising.
Sharp's Press Release has all the spin-doctored details. They've also has a web page dedicated to it. You can buy it now. (Anyone know if they're actually shipping?)
Apparently the Voquette software is the key to all of this. It will allow you to easily put mp3s and Internet audio streams onto any recording medium. They're selling a cassette recorder deal very similar to Sharp's offering. A salvation for those of you without a CD player in your car and no CD-R burner.;)
Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!!
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
Ever notice how we always seem to be getting upset with the RIAA or the MPAA when they throw their weight around? Where did they get the weight to push the MDCA into law anyway?
All the concerned parties banded together! They formed groups to persue common interests.
A group exists to protect the consumers rights under the Fair Use clause. It's the Home Recording Rights Coalition. Go join them! Do it now. As far as I know, it's the only group in Washington that is solely dedicated to preserving your right to make backups, record broadcasts, and make compilation disks.
Cheers, Chris
(p.s. Remember your cartoons? Voltron got significantly more powerful when they united. The Wonder Twins were always combining their powers. There's a lesson in there somewhere. I'm sure of it...)
I'm going to give up my privileges to moderate the comments for this article to say a public "Thank You" to Scott for taking the time to respond.
I think he presented the pertinent points quite well, so I won't go over them again. Suffice to say that I believe people are being way to critical of Loki on this issue.
Yes, the situation isn't a perfect mesh with the Open Source ideals. They aren't releasing the code to the world so that everyone can have a crack at improving the game or possibly learn from examples. This is far better than nothing. It looks like it would be a lot of fun too.
It's just a shame that I don't know C++ well enough to have a chance to be one of the thirty. Such is life.
... Back to my original point. Thanks again Scott. You've really improved the image of Loki in my mind.
I have to add my skepticism to this discussion as well. Despite the fact that most of the critical comments already posted have been moderated down, I think some good points have been raised.
While I think Intel is taking a step in the right direction by offloading the burden of network encryption onto hardware, the fact that the first rev only runs under Win2k and they're using export restricted crypto bothers me. I suppose this does have it's applications inside corporatations (otherwise they wouldn't have brought the product to market). Obviously this product is not targetted at the Open Source community.
The question on everyone's mind is, where's the Linux support. I don't know, but all I can say is that I hope it's coming. I would like to think that Intel's investment in RedHat was more than to just turn a profit and generate some good PR. Only time will tell on that one.
Here's my biggest concern: Did they kowtow to the FBI and install some key escrow into this product? Corporations might like that sort of thing anyway... keeps the feds happy and potentially off their back. However, if they did, then I don't think I'll ever be buying this little gadget. I'll just continue sacrificing a tiny bit of CPU performance to use the crypto I like.
Quite a little backlash we have going here... This is a wonderful time to bring up a topic that has been eating at the back of my mind since I started reading slashdot, quite a while ago.
It is my opinion that people generally take this kind of report far too personally. Understand that the author is not trying to peg every computer literate person as suffering from autism. The foundation is that people who suffer from a lack of social and physical graces, and subsequently exceed in ability to focus, exhibit traits that are similar to autism. Thus Louis Skolnick, from Revenge of the Nerds, was a good candidate for a mild case of autism.
The lesson learned here can be applied just about everywhere. Calm down a little folks. Don't make a knee jerk defensive reaction and start screaming how any author clearly doesn't know what s/he's talking about until you've thought it through. If, after some investiagation and reflection, an injustice has truely been served... then let 'em have it.
Empeg Security System?@ stereos@
on
Empeg in March
·
· Score: 1
Not fair. I drive a BMW.
Okay, so it isn't the latest. It's a 1987. But I still take offence to that remark.;)
Seriously though, if you've been to the expensive section of your local retail hifi audio specialist, you would see a few high end tape decks (and a cd player or two) that hide the slot behind a moveable, full-sized LCD screen. It's very similar to the look of the empeg and thieves know what those look like. Just as pricy too. So, don't think that will save you if you get one (which I am going to).
Since it is a computer, you could conceivably wire it into being not only anti-theft, but the heart of your car's security system.
But then again, you might just lose it anyway. Never underestimate the stupidity of a petty thief. Pulling it out and putting it in the boot is still the best defense.
I realize what Escient is doing offends the diehard GPL zealots out there. As I have said before, I believe that protocols should be free.
Having said that, let me get down business (pun intended).
I would be shocked and amazed if the folks over at Escient woke up a couple weeks ago and said, "Ya know, now that everyone is using our protocol, let's reel them in and make them pay!!! Fools!! All of them!!" Not a very likely scenario.
What probably *did* happen was something more along the line of a high level management discussion that revolved around the realization that people were using thier product and they could use that as a tool to build a company brand identity. Because branding is big business. Think facial tissues and Kleenex. Everyone in business wants to be like that.
The big problem is, they timed this all wrong. Someone at that company should get fired for releasing that updated licensing agreement right after the linux/gnu media frenzy kicked up. Shesh. Seems silly to me, but then again I'm on the other side of the fence.
A bit of unsolicited advice. Remeber that we live in a free market society. Try not to immediately demonize all profit making ventures that don't completely agree with your personal code. As Dennis Leary would say, "This is America. You have the right to be stupid and wrong.";)
Can they do this? Yes, I'm pretty sure they can. Let me first say that I'm not a lawyer. I haven't been able to ask our resident intellectual property expert yet either. However all historical facts I can see point in their favor. Microsoft, for example, has come up with quite a number of "standard protocols" that they sucessfully hold the rights to, although I can't recall any of their names at the moment. Also I believe that Novell holds the rights to IPX.
As I recall from the previous version of this particular agreement, they did explicitly reserve the rights to the protocol and said they could change it if such pleased them. I guess it did. It sounds very similar to Miribillis and ICQ.
And yes. I would gladly support a free alternative. I personally believe that protocols should be commodities, not revenue sources.
Now this begs the question, will they actually enforce this? Well... I'll state my opinion on that in a seperate posting.
Slashdot Mirror
The internal PS2 drive will not acknowledge anything other than official PS1/PS2 discs. You have two options to mount CDs or DVDs on your PS2 running linux. You can either attach an external USB drive, or you can mount one off another computer (the kit does come with an ethernet adapter).
To quote mogul, one the SCEA guys who posts on the boards on playstation2-linux.com, when asked about external drives, "Once someone writes or ports drivers for them, yes. Until then you can just cross mount a volume from your PC and do it over the network. You may even be more than satisfied to do it this way."
Let's focus on the issue of college students here. I agree with your assessment that people are willing to pay for certian things and not others. Ever wonder why? For starters, the vast majority of college students have no idea how to budget their money. They simply live hand to mouth. Have you ever seen those commercials that Visa used to run about college students spending out of control and wracking up huge debts? There is a reason for that...
;)
The second problem is one that is central to the concept of economics, scarcity. Human beings have an unlimited desire for goods and services, but production capacity and natural resources do not enjoy such a luxury. Most goods depend on natural resources, such as food, cars and houses. They cannot be copied. Software, music, and movies are in a different classification because their scarcity is somewhat artificial. The media upon which they are delivered is scarce, but the information on that media can be duplicated endlessly (for all practical purposes). This breaks the fundemental economic structure. Given that people have such a voracious appetite for consumption, and the limits on said consumption have effectively been removed, people will continue to "pirate" software and music.
(Side note: Some folks will pay for everything they consume, some will pay for a fraction, others will never pay for anything they don't absolutely have to. Exploring the reasons for that is more of a psychology issue than an economic one. Don't assume everyone's motivation is as simple as trying to win a zero-sum game.)
Here's the perennial question: How do people make money off of a good that ceases to be scarce? I don't claim all the answers, but a couple of trite phrases jump to mind:
1) Keep it simple, stupid!
2) You catch more flies with honey than vinager
It's foolish to expect a person to pay a premium price for something that is simply not scarce. You must provide other incentive for them to pay (and penalty of law isn't as good of an incentive as you might think.
Yes: You can probably get the information for free.
No: You cannot get the information as quickly for free.
This is a service targeted at corporations and their information hounds, not for your average Joe InternetUser.
I used to work for the Technology Intelligence group at USWest (yeah, yeah... the (ex)phone company.), and we subscribed to about 6 services like this. Sure, I could have found my information through free means, and sometimes I did. But when the Powers That Be need information on that technology that hasn't made it through the mainstream media, and they need it yesterday... You can't spend the time floundering around, hoping that you'll find it with google.
Remember the old adage, "Time is Money". Yahoo is selling people time, which in the business world is often worth more than $1-$4 per search.
I'll throw my two cents into the ring. I've done quite a bit of research into this area recently. Hopefully I can provide you with some useful information to consider.
Let me start with the hard part: Speakers.
I cannot tell you which speakers to buy. I suggest that you don't listen to anyone who tells you what speakers to buy either. The reason for this is quite simple. What sounds good to me might not sound good to you.
Speakers are a tricky matter due to the inherent subjective nature of what sounds good. All speaker manufacturers have a different "sound". Some are brighter in the high range, some have a more powerful midrange. The best suggestion anyone can give you is to go somewhere and listen to every speaker that you can. Choose the one that sounds best to your ears.
One more suggestion. Bring a high quality recording of classical music with you when you listen to speakers. The reasoning is that classical employs the broadest range of sound frequencies. It is the best test of a speaker's range.
Having said that, my personal recommendation is Polk. They are brighter without sacrificing much midrange.
Now on to recievers.
If you are interested in watching a lot of movies on this setup, I highly recommend something from Yamaha for the reciever. I've heard time and time again that they have the best DSP chips. They offer the greatest number of modes and very high quality of surround sound decoding.
I urge you not to base your choice off of power output numbers. A higher power will not ensure better sound. It usually means that you'll get a cleaner signal, but that's a loose guideline and not a rule.
Again I suggest a listening test. Although my experience leads me to believe there isn't much of a difference in audio quality in the $400-$600 price range (where I assume you'll be looking).
A final bit of advice that is directed towards anyone else who is building a system. If you're buying a dvd player that will double as a CD player, check to make sure that it will play CD-R's. Much to my father's chagrin, the Onkyo DVD player he bought has a blocker in it to prevent playback of burned audio CDs.
Happy listening!
I need to make a clarification. The prices set by SwitchPoint in Utah are a bit of an anomoly. They are set quite rediculously low. You aren't likely see that kind of pricing around the country... although since this technology competes with DSL and Cable Modems, the companies that deploy this will price accordingly.
(Unfortunately that's all I can really say about that. I have inside information, as I have a relative who is senior management for SwitchPoint.)
Okay... I'm going to submit this as an article, but I thought I would write here first... just in case it doesn't get posted.
This submission was interesting, but people around here would be far more interested in what SwitchPoint Networks is doing. They're offering 100Mbs (synchronous) service to residential customers for about the price of ADSL. They already have live customers in Utah. They recently signed a deal with Wide Open West to start deploying this technology on a wider scale.
So, if you're really interested in getting proper "broadband" capabilities, these are the folks you need to talk to. (Well... actually they're a technology company, they don't build the networks anymore. So tell your friendly neighborhood overbuilder to start using their technology.)
That led me to wonder exactly why VA bothered to purchase Andover in the first place. What do they stand to gain? I decided to go to the source and read the VA Linux press release regarding the takeover. Amidst the usual rhetoric, I found the answer I was looking for in these quotes from said press release on what the purchase was to accomplish:
And
They aren't looking to control the content of these sites. They're looking to bolster their image in the business community by attracting developers to their web sites. This is a very similar tactic that was used by our dear friends at Microsoft. They built a developer community and won over many software developers by giving away their toolkits and giving them a place where they could chat with the best and brightest people engaged in similar work.
In this case, the toolkits are already free. What VA is trying to do is buy/build the best open source community network out there. The most important thing this does for VA is that it builds a mental association in the public at large between themselves and the best, brightest, most influential open source developers in the world. (Not to mention that claim can give them reason to jack up ad rates)
As I see it, VA stands to lose much more by trying to control Slashdot than taking the heat for anything stupid they might do in the future. It would go against the very reason why they bought Andover in the first place. If they lose the developers, they've lost everything they set out to do in this acquisition. They can disseminate their propaganda, push their corporate ideology and perform necessary damage control through the news section on the valinux.com web site.
I won't object to the fact that no other industry is allowed to operate under the lax guidelines under which the software industry functions. There is, however, a major discrepancy between what should be and what is. The reason why buggy software is allowed and accepted is two-fold.
The first reason is purely historical. The roots of programming lie with the hardcore geeks and nerds. They were, and still are, interested primarily in coaxing the computer into doing something new, exciting, and cool. Ensuring that it worked correctly under every circumstance never ranked real high on the list of priorities. Regression testing isn't exactly the most glamourous or exciting part of software design. The bugs could always be worked out later, especially the really elusive ones. Let the user find them and we'll fix them in the next release.
The second reason this practice continues is a matter of public policy. The government has taken the stance of treading very lightly around the computer industry because they are the foundation for the paradigm shift into the Information Age and the most recent economic boom. If the feds decided lay a heavy hand upon the software industry, they run the risk of causing the whole thing to go bust, taking the entire welfare of the United States down with them. There isn't a politician in the world who would be eager to take the blame for that one. The price of buggy software is a small one to pay to keep this juggernaut moving along.
Someday things will likely change through a combination of successful lawsuits and government intervention. Just don't expect it to happen any time real soon. It's also not going to happen overnight.
Before I end this, I would like to point out that I personally do not condone what AOL has done. I agree that ethical standards should be strictly adhered to. I think people should take pride in their work and not release substandard products. However, the reality of the situation is that not everyone agrees with me.
I have a reproduction of a 1907 limited printing of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland that was illustrated by Arthur Rackham.
Rackham's illustrations are quite lovely and contain a certain something that Tenniel lacked.
Here is an except from the "About This Edition":
While I will not assert that color makes one picture superior over another, I do suggest that any fan of the story who hasn't seen Rackham's illustrations take a look. Even the pieces that are not in color have a charm and flair that escape arbitrary placement in the shadow of Tenniel's exemplary work.
I first read about quantum encryption in some long lost article about three or four years ago. The basic premise involves polarizing photons as they travel down a strand of fibre optic cable.
Okay, I just did a quick search on Google and turned up a recent article in New Scientist describing the process and the issues facing practical, widespread implementation. Still, it looks quite promising.
Cheers.
Sharp's Press Release has all the spin-doctored details. They've also has a web page dedicated to it. You can buy it now. (Anyone know if they're actually shipping?)
;)
Apparently the Voquette software is the key to all of this. It will allow you to easily put mp3s and Internet audio streams onto any recording medium. They're selling a cassette recorder deal very similar to Sharp's offering. A salvation for those of you without a CD player in your car and no CD-R burner.
Ever notice how we always seem to be getting upset with the RIAA or the MPAA when they throw their weight around? Where did they get the weight to push the MDCA into law anyway?
All the concerned parties banded together! They formed groups to persue common interests.
A group exists to protect the consumers rights under the Fair Use clause. It's the Home Recording Rights Coalition. Go join them! Do it now. As far as I know, it's the only group in Washington that is solely dedicated to preserving your right to make backups, record broadcasts, and make compilation disks.
Cheers,
Chris
(p.s. Remember your cartoons? Voltron got significantly more powerful when they united. The Wonder Twins were always combining their powers. There's a lesson in there somewhere. I'm sure of it...)
Year 2003: This is a public service anouncement. All confusing things are hereby banned. That is all. Thank you.
;)
Does this mean that differential equations, tax laws, and single-line perl competitions will be banned?
I'm going to give up my privileges to moderate the comments for this article to say a public "Thank You" to Scott for taking the time to respond.
I think he presented the pertinent points quite well, so I won't go over them again. Suffice to say that I believe people are being way to critical of Loki on this issue.
Yes, the situation isn't a perfect mesh with the Open Source ideals. They aren't releasing the code to the world so that everyone can have a crack at improving the game or possibly learn from examples. This is far better than nothing. It looks like it would be a lot of fun too.
It's just a shame that I don't know C++ well enough to have a chance to be one of the thirty. Such is life.
... Back to my original point. Thanks again Scott. You've really improved the image of Loki in my mind.
I have to add my skepticism to this discussion as well. Despite the fact that most of the critical comments already posted have been moderated down, I think some good points have been raised.
While I think Intel is taking a step in the right direction by offloading the burden of network encryption onto hardware, the fact that the first rev only runs under Win2k and they're using export restricted crypto bothers me. I suppose this does have it's applications inside corporatations (otherwise they wouldn't have brought the product to market). Obviously this product is not targetted at the Open Source community.
The question on everyone's mind is, where's the Linux support. I don't know, but all I can say is that I hope it's coming. I would like to think that Intel's investment in RedHat was more than to just turn a profit and generate some good PR. Only time will tell on that one.
Here's my biggest concern: Did they kowtow to the FBI and install some key escrow into this product? Corporations might like that sort of thing anyway... keeps the feds happy and potentially off their back. However, if they did, then I don't think I'll ever be buying this little gadget. I'll just continue sacrificing a tiny bit of CPU performance to use the crypto I like.
Quite a little backlash we have going here... This is a wonderful time to bring up a topic that has been eating at the back of my mind since I started reading slashdot, quite a while ago.
It is my opinion that people generally take this kind of report far too personally. Understand that the author is not trying to peg every computer literate person as suffering from autism. The foundation is that people who suffer from a lack of social and physical graces, and subsequently exceed in ability to focus, exhibit traits that are similar to autism. Thus Louis Skolnick, from Revenge of the Nerds, was a good candidate for a mild case of autism.
The lesson learned here can be applied just about everywhere. Calm down a little folks. Don't make a knee jerk defensive reaction and start screaming how any author clearly doesn't know what s/he's talking about until you've thought it through. If, after some investiagation and reflection, an injustice has truely been served... then let 'em have it.
Not fair. I drive a BMW.
;)
Okay, so it isn't the latest. It's a 1987. But I still take offence to that remark.
Seriously though, if you've been to the expensive section of your local retail hifi audio specialist, you would see a few high end tape decks (and a cd player or two) that hide the slot behind a moveable, full-sized LCD screen. It's very similar to the look of the empeg and thieves know what those look like. Just as pricy too. So, don't think that will save you if you get one (which I am going to).
Since it is a computer, you could conceivably wire it into being not only anti-theft, but the heart of your car's security system.
But then again, you might just lose it anyway. Never underestimate the stupidity of a petty thief. Pulling it out and putting it in the boot is still the best defense.
--Chris
I realize what Escient is doing offends the diehard GPL zealots out there. As I have said before, I believe that protocols should be free.
;)
Having said that, let me get down business (pun intended).
I would be shocked and amazed if the folks over at Escient woke up a couple weeks ago and said, "Ya know, now that everyone is using our protocol, let's reel them in and make them pay!!! Fools!! All of them!!" Not a very likely scenario.
What probably *did* happen was something more along the line of a high level management discussion that revolved around the realization that people were using thier product and they could use that as a tool to build a company brand identity. Because branding is big business. Think facial tissues and Kleenex. Everyone in business wants to be like that.
The big problem is, they timed this all wrong. Someone at that company should get fired for releasing that updated licensing agreement right after the linux/gnu media frenzy kicked up. Shesh. Seems silly to me, but then again I'm on the other side of the fence.
A bit of unsolicited advice. Remeber that we live in a free market society. Try not to immediately demonize all profit making ventures that don't completely agree with your personal code. As Dennis Leary would say, "This is America. You have the right to be stupid and wrong."
Can they do this? Yes, I'm pretty sure they can. Let me first say that I'm not a lawyer. I haven't been able to ask our resident intellectual property expert yet either. However all historical facts I can see point in their favor. Microsoft, for example, has come up with quite a number of "standard protocols" that they sucessfully hold the rights to, although I can't recall any of their names at the moment. Also I believe that Novell holds the rights to IPX.
As I recall from the previous version of this particular agreement, they did explicitly reserve the rights to the protocol and said they could change it if such pleased them. I guess it did. It sounds very similar to Miribillis and ICQ.
And yes. I would gladly support a free alternative. I personally believe that protocols should be commodities, not revenue sources.
Now this begs the question, will they actually enforce this? Well... I'll state my opinion on that in a seperate posting.