No, I never said that the linking by itself was illegal did I? You seem to have "read" my post and, in a typical slashbot knee-jerk reaction, completely misunderstood it and started flaming. Well done, shows maturity.
The point is not whether linking is illegal, it is whether specifically allowing people to find illegal material should be allowed - they have a specific genre called "Legal MP3s", thus implying the other genres are "Illegal MP3s", which is condoning piracy. Do you condone piracy?
Well, I'm sure that many/.ers will be up in arms about this latest RIAA lawsuit infringing upon their "freedom" to download pirate music, but this isn't the same as Napster, which has at least tried to make it look like they're a genuine service for minority artists rather than a tool for people who don't like paying for music.
MP3Board.com has an automatic search engine which finds sites with MP3s, verifies that they're active and then posts links to them. Not content with providing this service for budding pirates, they then make it even easier to rip off artists by separating the links to genres such as "Legal MP3s", making it perfectly obiovus to even the dumbest script kiddie where to get pirate music!
The sheer gall of these people is amazing, and there is no way they should be allowed to continue operating a sight that all but advertises itself as a site for pirating music. Whereas Napster has a passive role, MP3Board actively searches for content and categorises it, and as such I have no sympathy at all for them.
For once, I hope the RIAA wins, this doesn't help us at all, and just makes those of us who are after more than the latest MP3 bad.
That's not a bad thing. Maybe through the 'net they'll learn.
LOL! These are the kind of minimally educated apathetic peasents which would never have got onto the net unless "visionaries" like Steve Jobs hadn't come up with a way of making connecting to the net as idiot-proof as possible. And now thanks to AOL we've got millions of them, and how many of them have changed? None, they're all still using AOL.
I think your elitist vision of a net only accessible to the privileged educated few would be quite horrible
Why? Because we can have quality websites filled with stuff that we can appreciate? Because rather than having to pander to corporate whims we can design the web to suit us? What about this fills you with such fear?
So? People get what they deserve and if this helps get rid of some people too stupid to know better then it has only done the Internet a service. Since the rise of services like AOL there have been far too many people on the net who don't have a fucking clue about anything, and all they do is take up bandwidth by downloading huge fuck-off Flash animations and waste server space with crappy Geocities home pages that have pictures of themselves and their dogs - who gives a rat's arse about them?
In fact, I think the way foward here is for the Internet to be restricted to those who have the brains to pass a test on basic technical skills (such as what is UDP or what port does HTTP use) and general net etiqutte. At least this way we'd only get people who would use the net for something good and maybe the corporate dominance of the net would be stymied.
Unfortunately the US, which still seems to think that the net is their private playground (not suprising since the average USian thinks the US is the entire world) and refuses to accept a global controlling body, is so subservient to corporate interests and their well-paid lobbyists that getting this kind of legislation in is next to impossible. Thank God I live in Europe, where the kind of rampant capitalism the US practices is tempered with a more humane socialist brand of politics.
Hopefully this will allow the widest possible cross-section of society a far greater chance to participate in the process of law-making - after all, if people actually have a say in what laws may or may not be passed then their interest in the process will be increased, which is something that modern politics needs desparately to stem the rising trend of apathy.
But OTOH this can also be used to fool the gullible and insecure into supporting legislation that, through the intricacies of legalise, says one thing whilst meaning another. And unless you're a trained lawyer how are you going to be able to separate the real from the fake?
I don't know whether or not this will turn out for the best in the end - but in order for it to stand a chance it's going to require an educated and aware populace - something the US has a real problem with at the moment. If they can change this, then this could be the best idea in ages, otherwise it looks like it could all go horribly wrong.
What you have to remember is that the net is no longer the Government's little toy, designed and maintained for the sole benefit of ivory tower academics and covered by an "appropriate use" policy. It is now the domain of the corporations that have turned the web from a text-based, dull place into the multimedia experiance that people want to see today.
ICANN is a remnant of the Government's long-gone days in which the controlled the net, and I don't think anyone really wants them to control anything. Instead we need to allow market forces to be brought into play in the domain name market, so that consumers can get the best deal possible - something which ICANN seem to be determined to stop.
No, hopefully Afternic will win this case and ICANN will be consigned to the attic like it should have been. The time for government control over the net has gone, and that can only be a good thing for all of us.
As somebody with their hands in both sides of the open source pie, I can honestly say that it's nice to see that the government is responding to criticism from the open source movement. However surely ESR is the wrong person for this kind of thing since he is known for his pro-corporate views and commerce-friendly take on free software.
As a consultant who has worked with several major software houses over the last few years I've been part of the increased uptake of open source solutions into the e-commerce market, doing my bit to promote Linux and other products like Apache to customers for whom scalability is not 100% essential.
Anyway I've talked to some of them over a few beers (expense account of course) and they all seem to say the same thing about the open source luminaries. They are worried about RMS - about his rabidly anti-corporate stance and his Communist philosophy - and would much rather see ESR move into the limelight as he seems extremely sympathetic to companies that want to promote a tech-savvy image in the software market.
So surely ESR is the wrong person to let onto this USPTO committee if we want real change in this area? It seems likely he'll be all bark and no bite, and when it comes to the crunch he'll fold and let the corporations stick it to him in a very private place.
At least RMS wouldn't give in to corporate demands. Of course the fact that he looks like he's been living in a cave in the forest with a bear since the 60s wouldn't help, but it'd still be better for all of us.
This track might be a somewhat difficult since the FSF would not necessairally have standing to do this, but the individual authors would.
Sorry if I'm wrong, but don't the FSF prefer that authors of GPL code sign the copyrights over to them to make the legal situation clearer? That would allow them to sue again over copyright infringement since they would hold that copyright.
Simply for the reason that, as it says in the article, it'll require some kind of changes to the existing laws in place to deal with either copyright or contracts. I can't see that this is going to help the GPL's case any - it's likely that a judge will go for the soft option and rule it invalid.
Of course this all depends on the exact circumstances of the case, which are being kept under wraps at the moment, and what happens if it goes to court. But the FSF will most likely try to avoid court altogether - since at present the GPL's legality is ambiguous a large portion of its effectiveness comes from its "moral" force, something that will mean less if the GPL is ruled invalid.
While I'm all for the advancement of science and improving the lot of humanity, I really think that the widespread use of genetic engineering can only turn out to be a mistake of the worst kind.
Unfortuately, given today's socioeconiomic structure in which corporations have, thanks to America's love-affair with hardcore capitalism, the power to do practically whatever they want to, it seems all but inevitable that serious genetic engineering of humans will begin as soon as possible. After all, there's a lot of profit to be made from it, and in the time it takes an "ethics" council to judge something illegal the corporations will have already done it.
What will knowledge of our genome allow us to do? Firstly it'll be "improving" our children, removing congenital defects and then enhancing their natural characteristics. What then? Inter-species transfer of genetic materal so enable children to do things that God never intended them to do? This may seem somewhat farfetched, but the hubris of scientists and the greed of corporations guarantees that all this, and more, will happen, and sooner than you'd think.
Personally I believe that allowing this kind of work to take place in any situation is dangerous, but allowing the corporations, Satan's tools on Earth, free reign to "experiment" with this is practically placing a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. The Government, whilst having unfortunate liberal tendancies, at least has the decency to try and do the right thing.
No, genetic engineering is likely to turn out to be a disaster in the making - who wants everybody to be the same? When we've turned to world into 6 billion clones, then there truly will be no turning back.
Heh, the place where I'm working now (and at at the moment) has had no mail for over 4 days now because the fucking Exchange server died on Monday. Since it takes 4 hours for every attempt to restart it, and Microsoft's "advice" has proved a big fat steaming pile of crap, it looks like it'll be weeks before we get it back again. Out of all of MS's software, I think Exchange is the crappest by far - I don't know anyone who hasn't had it fuck up on them at least once.
Yeah, over here in the UK the Customs & Excise people have a lot more powers than the police do - they can enter your house without a warrant or you being present for instance. Funny really how much governments want to control what goes into and out of their countries... or maybe not.
Yeah, the whole drugs issue over here is a lot less fanatical than it is in the US - of course a lot of things are a lot less fanatical over here:) But I think there aren't that many people who really have very strong opinions on the issue of cannabis by itself, and you can feel free to speak out about the issue without being labelled some kind of monster. As for how it'll turn out? Even if it doesn't pass, which seems likely, it's worth proposing just to get the debate going again:)
Wow, that's so... reasonable... so there's not a chance it'll pass. Which is a pity, because the government could save a hell of a lot of money and make more from licensing out of this. Damn you, Middle England!
Out of all of the various agencies and bodies that comprise the American system of "justice", those that deal with the "War on Drugs" are the most dangerous of the lot. The entire program of systematic persecution of a large section of society who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody is a true testament to the methods by which even Constiutional "protection" can be subverted in the name of the "greater good".
The fact that the Office of National Drug Control Policy is spying upon the web browsing habits of people viewing its site should really come as no suprise. After all, the whole war on drugs has provided a succession of American governments with a ready-made excuse to violate freedom left, right and centre and thanks to the educational brainwashing that occurs in American schools and homes Americans are only too willing to give up freedom for safety from the drugs "menace".
And despite the war on drugs having failed miserably, this in itself is a bonus for those in power. Citing this failure as being the fault of the "drug barons", they can get more measures into law, so that things like this will become legal, even mandatory. After all, the internet is already known as a haven for pedarats, terrorists and nazis, add drug dealers to that and the American government has all the "moral" justification in the world to impose a Stalinistic regime on the net.
At this rate freedom on the net in America will become a myth by the end of the decade.
Considering the huge amounts of litigation and legal maneuvering going on over the net recently I'm suprised that one of these hasn't gone up before. However, this looks good and I'm sure that/. will find as many opportunities to link to it as possible, for all of those IANAL posts:)
Wouldn't we expect that the greater mass of the large planets, and consequently greater gravity, would compress all their matter into denser (solid) forms?
Whilst it's still an open question thanks to the huge pressures inside Jupiter, it is theorised that Jupiter does have a solid core surrounded by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen - see this page for some more information. Since Jupiter is so large the gravity at its outer edges isn't enough to overcome centripetal forces and cause the entire planet to collapse to a solid core.
And a related question: our solar system has solid and gaseous planets; is there any fundamental eason that there couldn't be liquid planets, or is that just how it happens to fall in this particular uncharted backwater of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm?
Well, there aren't that many liquid elements at the temperatures present in the Solar System - the material that formed it would have been mainly simple elements that were either gaseous or solid at those kinds of temperatures. IIRC some of the outer moons have liquid ammonia and methane on their surfaces, but in terms of overal quantity these substances remain rare.
The last major climatic event (being Krakatoa going bang) in the dark ages was probably responsible for the death of King Arthur.
Eh? What are you talking about with the dark ages? Krakatoa started being active in May 1883, with the final explosive eruption of Krakatoa taking place on August 27 1883. The force was equivalent to that of a 100 megaton bomb, some 5000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima nuke.
It certainly seems to be that the whole MP3 thing has become a kind of move, counter-move, counter-counter-move kind of game between the establishment and the "pirates" (for want of a better word). How long before something else comes along that can defeat this kind of snooping?
Whilst artists do have some legitimate concerns over what happens to their music, they will have to realise that this kind of stubborn refusal to embrace new technology will simply leave them unable to benfit from new advances and just suffering all of the disadvantages. Of course, this seems likely to involve them striking out on their own, something many will find hard, if not impossible, to do...
That way we wouldn't have to waste 10 minutes reading another John Katz article.
Okay, I may be wrong here, but you're certainly implying that if/. were to implement a rating system then you'd automatically rate down every Jon Katz story you saw rather than "wasting 10 minutes" reading it. If you hate Jon Katz that much, then why haven't you filtered his articles from the frontpage? Personally, I just think you like bitching.
Does this book actually cover algorithms and techniques for encoding MP3s? I know there are algorithms and information on the net, but its one of those areas where how the algorithm is implemented makes all the difference - you really can hear the difference between say BladeEnc and the Fraunhoffer codec.
From the sounds of it, it doesn't which is a pity really as the rest of it is the sort of thing which will become out of date very quickly - the legal situtation is coming to a head and the technology is rapidly advancing. As such, I doubt this will be a huge success with those already familiar with MP3s.
Inferno is intended to be used in a variety of network environments, for example those supporting advanced telephones, hand-held devices, TV set-top boxes attached to cable or satellite systems, and inexpensive Internet computers, but also in conjunction with traditional computing systems.
Have we not seen this before? There certainly seems to be a proliferation of "network" operating systems for non-computer systems at the moment. Whilst I'm not knocking Inferno, I don't really know much about it, it has to be said that this are is fast becoming saturated, and the competition is likely to be fierce.
One thing I found interesting is that Inferno, as well as being a stand-alone OS, can also be run as an application under Windows NT, Windows 95, Unix (Irix, Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux, AIX, HP/UX) and Plan 9. This could give it an edge since it increases the number of places where its applications (written in Limbo?) can be run. So even if it doesn't become hugely popular, it might still survive on other platforms.
You just share them across projects and then they'll get kept in sync whenever you do Get Latest Version IIRC. Of course, SourceSafe is not my strong point (thankfully), so I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I never said that the linking by itself was illegal did I? You seem to have "read" my post and, in a typical slashbot knee-jerk reaction, completely misunderstood it and started flaming. Well done, shows maturity.
The point is not whether linking is illegal, it is whether specifically allowing people to find illegal material should be allowed - they have a specific genre called "Legal MP3s", thus implying the other genres are "Illegal MP3s", which is condoning piracy. Do you condone piracy?
I await your reply with breathless anticipation.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Well, I'm sure that many /.ers will be up in arms about this latest RIAA lawsuit infringing upon their "freedom" to download pirate music, but this isn't the same as Napster, which has at least tried to make it look like they're a genuine service for minority artists rather than a tool for people who don't like paying for music.
MP3Board.com has an automatic search engine which finds sites with MP3s, verifies that they're active and then posts links to them. Not content with providing this service for budding pirates, they then make it even easier to rip off artists by separating the links to genres such as "Legal MP3s", making it perfectly obiovus to even the dumbest script kiddie where to get pirate music!
The sheer gall of these people is amazing, and there is no way they should be allowed to continue operating a sight that all but advertises itself as a site for pirating music. Whereas Napster has a passive role, MP3Board actively searches for content and categorises it, and as such I have no sympathy at all for them.
For once, I hope the RIAA wins, this doesn't help us at all, and just makes those of us who are after more than the latest MP3 bad.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Data can exist in a vacuum, information is meaningful data and without some kind of observation and analysis it remains as data.
---
Jon E. Erikson
That's not a bad thing. Maybe through the 'net they'll learn.
LOL! These are the kind of minimally educated apathetic peasents which would never have got onto the net unless "visionaries" like Steve Jobs hadn't come up with a way of making connecting to the net as idiot-proof as possible. And now thanks to AOL we've got millions of them, and how many of them have changed? None, they're all still using AOL.
I think your elitist vision of a net only accessible to the privileged educated few would be quite horrible
Why? Because we can have quality websites filled with stuff that we can appreciate? Because rather than having to pander to corporate whims we can design the web to suit us? What about this fills you with such fear?
---
Jon E. Erikson
So? People get what they deserve and if this helps get rid of some people too stupid to know better then it has only done the Internet a service. Since the rise of services like AOL there have been far too many people on the net who don't have a fucking clue about anything, and all they do is take up bandwidth by downloading huge fuck-off Flash animations and waste server space with crappy Geocities home pages that have pictures of themselves and their dogs - who gives a rat's arse about them?
In fact, I think the way foward here is for the Internet to be restricted to those who have the brains to pass a test on basic technical skills (such as what is UDP or what port does HTTP use) and general net etiqutte. At least this way we'd only get people who would use the net for something good and maybe the corporate dominance of the net would be stymied.
Unfortunately the US, which still seems to think that the net is their private playground (not suprising since the average USian thinks the US is the entire world) and refuses to accept a global controlling body, is so subservient to corporate interests and their well-paid lobbyists that getting this kind of legislation in is next to impossible. Thank God I live in Europe, where the kind of rampant capitalism the US practices is tempered with a more humane socialist brand of politics.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Hopefully this will allow the widest possible cross-section of society a far greater chance to participate in the process of law-making - after all, if people actually have a say in what laws may or may not be passed then their interest in the process will be increased, which is something that modern politics needs desparately to stem the rising trend of apathy.
But OTOH this can also be used to fool the gullible and insecure into supporting legislation that, through the intricacies of legalise, says one thing whilst meaning another. And unless you're a trained lawyer how are you going to be able to separate the real from the fake?
I don't know whether or not this will turn out for the best in the end - but in order for it to stand a chance it's going to require an educated and aware populace - something the US has a real problem with at the moment. If they can change this, then this could be the best idea in ages, otherwise it looks like it could all go horribly wrong.
---
Jon E. Erikson
What you have to remember is that the net is no longer the Government's little toy, designed and maintained for the sole benefit of ivory tower academics and covered by an "appropriate use" policy. It is now the domain of the corporations that have turned the web from a text-based, dull place into the multimedia experiance that people want to see today.
ICANN is a remnant of the Government's long-gone days in which the controlled the net, and I don't think anyone really wants them to control anything. Instead we need to allow market forces to be brought into play in the domain name market, so that consumers can get the best deal possible - something which ICANN seem to be determined to stop.
No, hopefully Afternic will win this case and ICANN will be consigned to the attic like it should have been. The time for government control over the net has gone, and that can only be a good thing for all of us.
---
Jon E. Erikson
As somebody with their hands in both sides of the open source pie, I can honestly say that it's nice to see that the government is responding to criticism from the open source movement. However surely ESR is the wrong person for this kind of thing since he is known for his pro-corporate views and commerce-friendly take on free software.
As a consultant who has worked with several major software houses over the last few years I've been part of the increased uptake of open source solutions into the e-commerce market, doing my bit to promote Linux and other products like Apache to customers for whom scalability is not 100% essential.
Anyway I've talked to some of them over a few beers (expense account of course) and they all seem to say the same thing about the open source luminaries. They are worried about RMS - about his rabidly anti-corporate stance and his Communist philosophy - and would much rather see ESR move into the limelight as he seems extremely sympathetic to companies that want to promote a tech-savvy image in the software market.
So surely ESR is the wrong person to let onto this USPTO committee if we want real change in this area? It seems likely he'll be all bark and no bite, and when it comes to the crunch he'll fold and let the corporations stick it to him in a very private place.
At least RMS wouldn't give in to corporate demands. Of course the fact that he looks like he's been living in a cave in the forest with a bear since the 60s wouldn't help, but it'd still be better for all of us.
---
Jon E. Erikson
This track might be a somewhat difficult since the FSF would not necessairally have standing to do this, but the individual authors would.
Sorry if I'm wrong, but don't the FSF prefer that authors of GPL code sign the copyrights over to them to make the legal situation clearer? That would allow them to sue again over copyright infringement since they would hold that copyright.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Simply for the reason that, as it says in the article, it'll require some kind of changes to the existing laws in place to deal with either copyright or contracts. I can't see that this is going to help the GPL's case any - it's likely that a judge will go for the soft option and rule it invalid.
Of course this all depends on the exact circumstances of the case, which are being kept under wraps at the moment, and what happens if it goes to court. But the FSF will most likely try to avoid court altogether - since at present the GPL's legality is ambiguous a large portion of its effectiveness comes from its "moral" force, something that will mean less if the GPL is ruled invalid.
---
Jon E. Erikson
While I'm all for the advancement of science and improving the lot of humanity, I really think that the widespread use of genetic engineering can only turn out to be a mistake of the worst kind.
Unfortuately, given today's socioeconiomic structure in which corporations have, thanks to America's love-affair with hardcore capitalism, the power to do practically whatever they want to, it seems all but inevitable that serious genetic engineering of humans will begin as soon as possible. After all, there's a lot of profit to be made from it, and in the time it takes an "ethics" council to judge something illegal the corporations will have already done it.
What will knowledge of our genome allow us to do? Firstly it'll be "improving" our children, removing congenital defects and then enhancing their natural characteristics. What then? Inter-species transfer of genetic materal so enable children to do things that God never intended them to do? This may seem somewhat farfetched, but the hubris of scientists and the greed of corporations guarantees that all this, and more, will happen, and sooner than you'd think.
Personally I believe that allowing this kind of work to take place in any situation is dangerous, but allowing the corporations, Satan's tools on Earth, free reign to "experiment" with this is practically placing a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. The Government, whilst having unfortunate liberal tendancies, at least has the decency to try and do the right thing.
No, genetic engineering is likely to turn out to be a disaster in the making - who wants everybody to be the same? When we've turned to world into 6 billion clones, then there truly will be no turning back.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Heh, the place where I'm working now (and at at the moment) has had no mail for over 4 days now because the fucking Exchange server died on Monday. Since it takes 4 hours for every attempt to restart it, and Microsoft's "advice" has proved a big fat steaming pile of crap, it looks like it'll be weeks before we get it back again. Out of all of MS's software, I think Exchange is the crappest by far - I don't know anyone who hasn't had it fuck up on them at least once.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Yeah, over here in the UK the Customs & Excise people have a lot more powers than the police do - they can enter your house without a warrant or you being present for instance. Funny really how much governments want to control what goes into and out of their countries... or maybe not.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Yeah, the whole drugs issue over here is a lot less fanatical than it is in the US - of course a lot of things are a lot less fanatical over here :) But I think there aren't that many people who really have very strong opinions on the issue of cannabis by itself, and you can feel free to speak out about the issue without being labelled some kind of monster. As for how it'll turn out? Even if it doesn't pass, which seems likely, it's worth proposing just to get the debate going again :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
Wow, that's so... reasonable... so there's not a chance it'll pass. Which is a pity, because the government could save a hell of a lot of money and make more from licensing out of this. Damn you, Middle England!
---
Jon E. Erikson
Out of all of the various agencies and bodies that comprise the American system of "justice", those that deal with the "War on Drugs" are the most dangerous of the lot. The entire program of systematic persecution of a large section of society who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody is a true testament to the methods by which even Constiutional "protection" can be subverted in the name of the "greater good".
The fact that the Office of National Drug Control Policy is spying upon the web browsing habits of people viewing its site should really come as no suprise. After all, the whole war on drugs has provided a succession of American governments with a ready-made excuse to violate freedom left, right and centre and thanks to the educational brainwashing that occurs in American schools and homes Americans are only too willing to give up freedom for safety from the drugs "menace".
And despite the war on drugs having failed miserably, this in itself is a bonus for those in power. Citing this failure as being the fault of the "drug barons", they can get more measures into law, so that things like this will become legal, even mandatory. After all, the internet is already known as a haven for pedarats, terrorists and nazis, add drug dealers to that and the American government has all the "moral" justification in the world to impose a Stalinistic regime on the net.
At this rate freedom on the net in America will become a myth by the end of the decade.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Considering the huge amounts of litigation and legal maneuvering going on over the net recently I'm suprised that one of these hasn't gone up before. However, this looks good and I'm sure that /. will find as many opportunities to link to it as possible, for all of those IANAL posts :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
Wouldn't we expect that the greater mass of the large planets, and consequently greater gravity, would compress all their matter into denser (solid) forms?
Whilst it's still an open question thanks to the huge pressures inside Jupiter, it is theorised that Jupiter does have a solid core surrounded by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen - see this page for some more information. Since Jupiter is so large the gravity at its outer edges isn't enough to overcome centripetal forces and cause the entire planet to collapse to a solid core.
And a related question: our solar system has solid and gaseous planets; is there any fundamental eason that there couldn't be liquid planets, or is that just how it happens to fall in this particular uncharted backwater of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm?
Well, there aren't that many liquid elements at the temperatures present in the Solar System - the material that formed it would have been mainly simple elements that were either gaseous or solid at those kinds of temperatures. IIRC some of the outer moons have liquid ammonia and methane on their surfaces, but in terms of overal quantity these substances remain rare.
---
Jon E. Erikson
The last major climatic event (being Krakatoa going bang) in the dark ages was probably responsible for the death of King Arthur.
Eh? What are you talking about with the dark ages? Krakatoa started being active in May 1883, with the final explosive eruption of Krakatoa taking place on August 27 1883. The force was equivalent to that of a 100 megaton bomb, some 5000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima nuke.
There's more information on it here at NASA.
---
Jon E. Erikson
It certainly seems to be that the whole MP3 thing has become a kind of move, counter-move, counter-counter-move kind of game between the establishment and the "pirates" (for want of a better word). How long before something else comes along that can defeat this kind of snooping?
Whilst artists do have some legitimate concerns over what happens to their music, they will have to realise that this kind of stubborn refusal to embrace new technology will simply leave them unable to benfit from new advances and just suffering all of the disadvantages. Of course, this seems likely to involve them striking out on their own, something many will find hard, if not impossible, to do...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Try www.mp3-tech.org or www.mpeg.org for more technical information.
---
Jon E. Erikson
That way we wouldn't have to waste 10 minutes reading another John Katz article.
Okay, I may be wrong here, but you're certainly implying that if /. were to implement a rating system then you'd automatically rate down every Jon Katz story you saw rather than "wasting 10 minutes" reading it. If you hate Jon Katz that much, then why haven't you filtered his articles from the frontpage? Personally, I just think you like bitching.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Does this book actually cover algorithms and techniques for encoding MP3s? I know there are algorithms and information on the net, but its one of those areas where how the algorithm is implemented makes all the difference - you really can hear the difference between say BladeEnc and the Fraunhoffer codec.
From the sounds of it, it doesn't which is a pity really as the rest of it is the sort of thing which will become out of date very quickly - the legal situtation is coming to a head and the technology is rapidly advancing. As such, I doubt this will be a huge success with those already familiar with MP3s.
---
Jon E. Erikson
From this introduction at the web site:
Inferno is intended to be used in a variety of network environments, for example those supporting advanced telephones, hand-held devices, TV set-top boxes attached to cable or satellite systems, and inexpensive Internet computers, but also in conjunction with traditional computing systems.
Have we not seen this before? There certainly seems to be a proliferation of "network" operating systems for non-computer systems at the moment. Whilst I'm not knocking Inferno, I don't really know much about it, it has to be said that this are is fast becoming saturated, and the competition is likely to be fierce.
One thing I found interesting is that Inferno, as well as being a stand-alone OS, can also be run as an application under Windows NT, Windows 95, Unix (Irix, Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux, AIX, HP/UX) and Plan 9. This could give it an edge since it increases the number of places where its applications (written in Limbo?) can be run. So even if it doesn't become hugely popular, it might still survive on other platforms.
---
Jon E. Erikson
You just share them across projects and then they'll get kept in sync whenever you do Get Latest Version IIRC. Of course, SourceSafe is not my strong point (thankfully), so I could be wrong.
---
Jon E. Erikson