I'll be presenting a paper which will demonstrate otherwise. Its based on research to be presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computing ISWC2002.
I encourage interested persons to read about it when the conference proceedings are released.
.
Small motherboards are great. Unfortunately, most local vendors still carry computer cases the size of bathtubs. Can anyone recommend some sources of small computer cases to go with the smaller motherboards?
Hi.
Our lab is doing very similar work. We've interpolated frames of video from an 8fps image sequence (taken with a wearable computer) into a smooth 30fps video sequence, using VideoOrbits. Theres a short video example available somewhere on my homepage. Perhaps this would be of interest to you. VideoOrbits is freely available at http://wearcam.org/orbits.
Video Orbits runs at over 11 fps on
a 700 MHz dual processor machine. Its also a featureless tracking algorithm so no point correspondences need to be identified.
"income derives directly from the popularity of their recordings that require a significant amount of financial investment from the record company"
Well, music IS now easily distributed with p2p, so the record companies don't need to spend money to distribute anymore - people distribute amongst themselves, unless they stifle p2p - but then don't cry about your investments please - you're doing it to yourselves.
"looking for whom privacy really hurts, ask the guitarist in the coffee shop"
You mean the one who signed away his music so companies can charge $15 a CD so no one will want to take a risk to listen to spend the money? You mean the artist who's best chance at being heard to become popular is the ability to people to share music with each other, which RIAA is making sure won't happen so people can continue to not hear and not buy it, and the artists are bound not to share their music on p2p systems? This argument is a vague and potentially unfounded as its opposite counterpart. But then "I'm sure you'd like to believe its really the struggling artists who are really losing out."
"Morality is suffient ground for putting a stop to theft of IP"
How about: "morality is sufficient ground for putting a stop to IP". It all depends on a person's viewpoint. Please RIAA, don't presume to talk to me about morality, when you want to stifle the freedoms upon which the US ideals were built.
"you may hear and think copyright law stifles technology, in fact we have the most thriving economy"
So then why is RIAA always trying to change the laws? If you really believe the current system is working, why are you still meddling with it?
"building a legitimate business model..navigating incompatible DRMs...isn't quite as easy as people might think"
So RIAA builds a complicated system, then whines about companies not being able to navigate it, and as a result expect people to foot the bill? Well, that is both a clever and "legitimate" business model, i must admit.
"instead of more music we will have less"
Uh huh. Was at a talk the other day and the speaker said the same thing, albiet somewhat ironically: "Napster made music so abudant and prevelant on everyone's computer, I was afraid music would go extinct": the more of something you see, the more likely it is to disappear. Like computers - everyone's got one so in the future we'll probably have less.
And finally, I generally resent the rather simple argument of "legitimacy" and the interpretation of "legitimate": only those to whom RIAA gives its blessing. Its the very typical argument: "If you'd just do everything exactly as I say and like, we'd have no problem. Why are you causing so much problems? Lets `work togther': i'll stop everyone else from doing things which make me lose money, you start thinking up ways of making me more money."
When you point out that trade secret law is a state issue, and thus doesn't invoke a competing constitutional issue, i can't help but wonder why this would be the system. Doesn't this allow state laws to circumvent the constitution? ( which, I personally would argue, isn't desirable).
i.e. when its trade secret, does this mean the constitution is thrown out the window?
As an example, we see the govt doing this when they purchased satellite photos of a conflict zone to prevent media from getting it. This protects the photos through copyright laws allowing (as I understood the issues) the gov't to avoid constitutional questions being raised. In the end, the effect was similar - a controlled blackout of satellite images, perhaps a justifiable ends in that case, but it did not require examination of the constitutional issues at hand. So govt can take action which potentially violates the constitution without due process.
So my feeling is that circumventing the constitution through trade secret laws is a very strange thing, even if technically possible - I believe the constitution is more important than trade secrets - at any level of law making.
Perhaps it needs to recognized that technological change means that trade secrets have impact beyond just industry and commerce, and have begun to challenge the very fundamentals upon which the constitution was formed.
So as I understand it, the right to disclose the DeCSS code is upheld as freedom of speech.
However, the DMCA takes away the right to research and develop the code in the first place.
So as I see it, this decision and the DMCA are at odds on a fundamental level. If the government says its OK to disclose details of DeCSS, how can it still say its illegal to develop DeCSS?
Firstly, security isn't achieved through non-disclosure. For instance, encryption algorithms are all fully published so they can be analyzed by the community for weaknesses. The definition of a good cipher is that you can have all the information on how it works, but it can't be broken.
Secondly, the IIS worm is a rather poor justification for preventing relase of code. The point of a worm is it is self-replicating. Thus the exploit only need to be carried out once for it to be a widespread problem, irrespective of whether variants or script-kiddies ues it.
Finally, from most of the alerts i've seen, enough technical information is kept out so if you understand the exploit code to a point where you could use it, you're good enough to have found it anyways, and if you don't fully understand it, you can't use the code as an exploit properly.
The fact that a micosoft security expert would say this then actually goes a long way to explaining all their security holes!!
If you object to the content protection used, dont buy it. Dont request it on the radio. Dont listen to it if someone offers to play it for you. Dont bother to make an mp3, don't download the mp3. If they want to keep their music encrypted and secret, let them - ignore it, make it non-existent.
And don't stand idly by if they bombard you with their unwanted encrypted music either. If you're unwillingly exposed, how about documenting the evidence as a recording and suing them, then placing it into the court record.
For those who use push this content protection on us, their morality is dictated by their wallet. Harm their profits and watch how quickly the encryption disappears.
This system would make those who are concerned with privacy into criminals.
For instance, someone requests medical or criminal records - you have nothing to hide, but refuse on principal.
"But", they would say, "everyone else submitted to our demands - why not you? What is it you're hiding? After all, only a criminal/fraud artist would be afraid to hand over this information!"
So, saying that the person can choose to store, release information does not necessarily put them in a position of power.
Who would pay for cable access with NO gnutella, NO napster, inability to play online copied games etc. etc.
I've found that Gnutella and Napster both made
cable modem access more useful to me, and I suspect that this is the same for others. If ISPs keep caving into the MPAA/outside interest, pretty soon there will be less incentive to buy broadband access. Thus, the ISPs have an incentive to resist the MPAA, if they look at it this way.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the concept of wearcomps for a little while, and I think that there can be more to them than many people realize.
What I have observed from many comments is that many people think about wearables for about 30 seconds, come up with completely unfeasable situations for them, proceed to prove that they're not feasable in those situations, and thus conclude wearables are a stupid idea.
I completely agree that strapping a laptop/fax/pager to your head is insane. You've got my support there.
I also believe there is tremendous potential for wearcomps in the future.
Why? Read Steve Mann's papers and try to understand his direction, why wearcomps can empower individuals, promote human interaction, and shoot back at the establishment, or how can they provide an alternative to Orwellian smart room possibilities?
When people take issue with those, well, IMO, that's when the debate about wearables really starts to get exciting.
Simply taking the desktop computing paradigm and placing it on a wearable would be dismissing the technology out of hand. As with any technology (with or without great voice recognition - i think that's a side issue) its success will be determined largely by whether it enriches our daily experiences and by whether we make wise choices in how we use it
'Smart people' is an attempt (I think) to place the computers/machines under direct and constant control of people, rather than in their environment. The idea is to use computers not to empower your house, but to empower people themselves.
I think the house of the future should be really well equipped with lots of microchips which are all dumb as..
I don't want my house sending marketing information to companies, or monitoring me.
I want, however, to have a wearcomp under my personal control. No spam. No commerce. Just `stuff that matters':) to me and only me.
Then, my wearcomp interfaces with all the 'dumb' devices in the future house. I control my wearcomp, and use it to interface with the objects around me as an extension of myself into the digital domain.
People are the smartest things about. Wearcomps are a little intelligent (or at least however intelligent we choose to have them be), and houses and environments should be dead stupid.
I think in many ways, the REAL problem is not aesthetics, but philosophy. I'm happy to wear gigantic, clumsy, but FUNCTIONAL wearables because they allow me to get first hand experience with where wearables may go in the future.
The `real problem' which must be investigated, I believe, is 'why wearcomp?'.
Miniaturization, power consumption, aesthetics: I believe these can be solved. The technology people are great at that. Steve Mann's newer machines are pretty much there anyways. I think what's important now is to figure out why we want these machines, what they should and should not do, and how they can really help us in our lives.
While we need people interested in aesthetics, Its important we explore the 'why' question. OTherwise we risk producing beautiful, useless, fad gadgets. I believe there's a lot of potential in Eyetap and Wearcomp, if we can understand there's a greater vision (excuse the pun) beyond just strapping a laptop on your head.
I think I might be able to shed light on the HTML design on wearcam.org and eyetap.org
Lets take my experiences on June 15. There I was with my rig covering a protest turned violent in Toronto (http://www.engwear.org/OCAP). When you're in a situation where you're dodging truncheons, ducking pepper spray and bricks, you don't have time to try and concentrate on 10pt 160 column text windows. Or, more generally, when you're dodging crazed taxi drivers or other urban hazards, you want easily readable text.
A typical 'out and about' wearable xterm is maybe 30 chars wide, and 10 lines down. 320x240 or 640x480 suffices nicely for HMDs IMHO.
Back to web design: Our pages work nicely on most browsers, including Lynx which is great for wearables (because it doesn't need a mouse).
So:
30 column xterms + Lynx == SIMPLE HTML.
No pop-ups, CSS, animated text or what-have you. Its also nice to have pages everybody can see, whether or not they shell out cash for expensive computers and proprietary operating systems. HTML which degrades nicely lets everyone participate.
Slashdot Mirror
without either.
I'll be presenting a paper which will demonstrate otherwise. Its based on research to be presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computing ISWC2002.
I encourage interested persons to read about it when the conference proceedings are released.
.
Small motherboards are great. Unfortunately, most local vendors still carry computer cases the size of bathtubs. Can anyone recommend some sources of small computer cases to go with the smaller motherboards?
Hi.
Our lab is doing very similar work. We've interpolated frames of video from an 8fps image sequence (taken with a wearable computer) into a smooth 30fps video sequence, using VideoOrbits. Theres a short video example available somewhere on my homepage. Perhaps this would be of interest to you. VideoOrbits is freely available at http://wearcam.org/orbits.
Video Orbits runs at over 11 fps on
a 700 MHz dual processor machine. Its also a featureless tracking algorithm so no point correspondences need to be identified.
Well, music IS now easily distributed with p2p, so the record companies don't need to spend money to distribute anymore - people distribute amongst themselves, unless they stifle p2p - but then don't cry about your investments please - you're doing it to yourselves.
You mean the one who signed away his music so companies can charge $15 a CD so no one will want to take a risk to listen to spend the money? You mean the artist who's best chance at being heard to become popular is the ability to people to share music with each other, which RIAA is making sure won't happen so people can continue to not hear and not buy it, and the artists are bound not to share their music on p2p systems? This argument is a vague and potentially unfounded as its opposite counterpart. But then "I'm sure you'd like to believe its really the struggling artists who are really losing out."
How about: "morality is sufficient ground for putting a stop to IP". It all depends on a person's viewpoint. Please RIAA, don't presume to talk to me about morality, when you want to stifle the freedoms upon which the US ideals were built.
So then why is RIAA always trying to change the laws? If you really believe the current system is working, why are you still meddling with it?
So RIAA builds a complicated system, then whines about companies not being able to navigate it, and as a result expect people to foot the bill? Well, that is both a clever and "legitimate" business model, i must admit.
Uh huh. Was at a talk the other day and the speaker said the same thing, albiet somewhat ironically: "Napster made music so abudant and prevelant on everyone's computer, I was afraid music would go extinct": the more of something you see, the more likely it is to disappear. Like computers - everyone's got one so in the future we'll probably have less.
And finally, I generally resent the rather simple argument of "legitimacy" and the interpretation of "legitimate": only those to whom RIAA gives its blessing. Its the very typical argument: "If you'd just do everything exactly as I say and like, we'd have no problem. Why are you causing so much problems? Lets `work togther': i'll stop everyone else from doing things which make me lose money, you start thinking up ways of making me more money."
Thanks. Good response.
When you point out that trade secret law is a state issue, and thus doesn't invoke a competing constitutional issue, i can't help but wonder why this would be the system. Doesn't this allow state laws to circumvent the constitution? ( which, I personally would argue, isn't desirable).
i.e. when its trade secret, does this mean the constitution is thrown out the window?
As an example, we see the govt doing this when they purchased satellite photos of a conflict zone to prevent media from getting it. This protects the photos through copyright laws allowing (as I understood the issues) the gov't to avoid constitutional questions being raised. In the end, the effect was similar - a controlled blackout of satellite images, perhaps a justifiable ends in that case, but it did not require examination of the constitutional issues at hand. So govt can take action which potentially violates the constitution without due process.
So my feeling is that circumventing the constitution through trade secret laws is a very strange thing, even if technically possible - I believe the constitution is more important than trade secrets - at any level of law making.
Perhaps it needs to recognized that technological change means that trade secrets have impact beyond just industry and commerce, and have begun to challenge the very fundamentals upon which the constitution was formed.
So as I understand it, the right to disclose the DeCSS code is upheld as freedom of speech.
However, the DMCA takes away the right to research and develop the code in the first place.
So as I see it, this decision and the DMCA are at odds on a fundamental level. If the government says its OK to disclose details of DeCSS, how can it still say its illegal to develop DeCSS?
Some observations:
Firstly, security isn't achieved through non-disclosure. For instance, encryption algorithms are all fully published so they can be analyzed by the community for weaknesses. The definition of a good cipher is that you can have all the information on how it works, but it can't be broken.
Secondly, the IIS worm is a rather poor justification for preventing relase of code. The point of a worm is it is self-replicating. Thus the exploit only need to be carried out once for it to be a widespread problem, irrespective of whether variants or script-kiddies ues it.
Finally, from most of the alerts i've seen, enough technical information is kept out so if you understand the exploit code to a point where you could use it, you're good enough to have found it anyways, and if you don't fully understand it, you can't use the code as an exploit properly.
The fact that a micosoft security expert would say this then actually goes a long way to explaining all their security holes!!
The exhibit was produced WELL before the
events of sept11.
CNET radio did an interview with Dr. Mann about
the SeatSale Exhibit.
There's a OGG version of it at
http://www.eyetap.org/seatsale/seatsale_cnet.ogg
and more information and links at
http://www.eyetap.org/seatsale
If you object to the content protection used, dont buy it. Dont request it on the radio. Dont listen to it if someone offers to play it for you. Dont bother to make an mp3, don't download the mp3. If they want to keep their music encrypted and secret, let them - ignore it, make it non-existent.
And don't stand idly by if they bombard you with their unwanted encrypted music either. If you're unwillingly exposed, how about documenting the evidence as a recording and suing them, then placing it into the court record.
For those who use push this content protection on us, their morality is dictated by their wallet. Harm their profits and watch how quickly the encryption disappears.
This system would make those who are concerned with privacy into criminals.
For instance, someone requests medical or criminal records - you have nothing to hide, but refuse on principal.
"But", they would say, "everyone else submitted to our demands - why not you? What is it you're hiding? After all, only a criminal/fraud artist would be afraid to hand over this information!"
So, saying that the person can choose to store, release information does not necessarily put them in a position of power.
Who would pay for cable access with NO gnutella, NO napster, inability to play online copied games etc. etc. I've found that Gnutella and Napster both made cable modem access more useful to me, and I suspect that this is the same for others. If ISPs keep caving into the MPAA/outside interest, pretty soon there will be less incentive to buy broadband access. Thus, the ISPs have an incentive to resist the MPAA, if they look at it this way.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the concept of wearcomps for a little while, and I think that there can be more to them than many people realize.
What I have observed from many comments is that many people think about wearables for about 30 seconds, come up with completely unfeasable situations for them, proceed to prove that they're not feasable in those situations, and thus conclude wearables are a stupid idea.
I completely agree that strapping a laptop/fax/pager to your head is insane. You've got my support there.
I also believe there is tremendous potential for wearcomps in the future.
Why? Read Steve Mann's papers and try to understand his direction, why wearcomps can empower individuals, promote human interaction, and shoot back at the establishment, or how can they provide an alternative to Orwellian smart room possibilities?
When people take issue with those, well, IMO, that's when the debate about wearables really starts to get exciting.
Simply taking the desktop computing paradigm and placing it on a wearable would be dismissing the technology out of hand. As with any technology (with or without great voice recognition - i think that's a side issue) its success will be determined largely by whether it enriches our daily experiences and by whether we make wise choices in how we use it
'Smart people' is an attempt (I think) to place the computers/machines under direct and constant control of people, rather than in their environment. The idea is to use computers not to empower your house, but to empower people themselves.
:) to me and only me.
I think the house of the future should be really well equipped with lots of microchips which are all dumb as..
I don't want my house sending marketing information to companies, or monitoring me.
I want, however, to have a wearcomp under my personal control. No spam. No commerce. Just `stuff that matters'
Then, my wearcomp interfaces with all the 'dumb' devices in the future house. I control my wearcomp, and use it to interface with the objects around me as an extension of myself into the digital domain.
People are the smartest things about. Wearcomps are a little intelligent (or at least however intelligent we choose to have them be), and houses and environments should be dead stupid.
I think in many ways, the REAL problem is not aesthetics, but philosophy. I'm happy to wear gigantic, clumsy, but FUNCTIONAL wearables because they allow me to get first hand experience with where wearables may go in the future.
The `real problem' which must be investigated, I believe, is 'why wearcomp?'.
Miniaturization, power consumption, aesthetics: I believe these can be solved. The technology people are great at that. Steve Mann's newer machines are pretty much there anyways. I think what's important now is to figure out why we want these machines, what they should and should not do, and how they can really help us in our lives.
While we need people interested in aesthetics, Its important we explore the 'why' question. OTherwise we risk producing beautiful, useless, fad gadgets. I believe there's a lot of potential in Eyetap and Wearcomp, if we can understand there's a greater vision (excuse the pun) beyond just strapping a laptop on your head.
I think I might be able to shed light on the HTML design on wearcam.org and eyetap.org
Lets take my experiences on June 15. There I was with my rig covering a protest turned violent in Toronto (http://www.engwear.org/OCAP). When you're in a situation where you're dodging truncheons, ducking pepper spray and bricks, you don't have time to try and concentrate on 10pt 160 column text windows. Or, more generally, when you're dodging crazed taxi drivers or other urban hazards, you want easily readable text.
A typical 'out and about' wearable xterm is maybe 30 chars wide, and 10 lines down. 320x240 or 640x480 suffices nicely for HMDs IMHO.
Back to web design: Our pages work nicely on most browsers, including Lynx which is great for wearables (because it doesn't need a mouse).
So:
30 column xterms + Lynx == SIMPLE HTML.
No pop-ups, CSS, animated text or what-have you. Its also nice to have pages everybody can see, whether or not they shell out cash for expensive computers and proprietary operating systems. HTML which degrades nicely lets everyone participate.