There's no way the Badass Software Anuses can waltz into your home or office and start rifling your hard drives (unless you invite them in). They aren't the police, and they aren't the feds (although it's quite likely that they ARE vampires).
What COULD (and probably will) happen is (a) they will strut and threaten and lawyer you until you decide it's easier and/or in your best interests to comply so they'll get out of your hair and you can get back to doing REAL work, or (b) failing that they'll actually go and get a court order. The latter would probably be preferable (for you, the anally harassed), because even with a court order they (representatives of the BSA) couldn't do it themselves, the stuff would have to be confiscated and/or checked by court-appointed representatives - unless of course the BSA is cunning enough to get themselves appointed as said representatives...
Which all still leaves the burning question in my mind: what IS the proper plural of "anus"?
This may be one of the closest U.S. Presidential elections ever, but the most BIZARRE race to watch is for the Senate seat for Missouri. The incumbent Senator, John Ashcroft, is running against... a dead guy! His opponent, Missouri governor Mel Carnahan, was killed in a plane crash on Oct. 17th. By law (federal or Missouri state, I'm not sure), he remained on the ballot. His widow, Jean Carnahan, is standing in for him in the election and will (presumably) take office if he wins.
And they JUST reported as I wrote this that Carnahan has in fact WON. So an incumbent has been beaten by a dead contender - THAT'S gotta be a first!
This just goes to prove a pet peeve of mine: not even quasi-scientific journalists can write a decent headline!
Title of actual article:
"Vision Researcher First to Implant an Artificial Retina in Humans"
I mean, c'mon: it's an artificial RETINA. It's a darn good thing it was a VISION researcher that did it first; just imagine the poor patients if a cutting-edge proctologist had done the implantation - no telling how THAT would "come out in the end" (proctology humor, sorry). And it's not even like the article is on some generic news site where they need to be extra-specific just to pander to the LCD (that's Lowest Common Denominator, not Liquid... oh nevermind). It's on blindness.org for cryin' out loud! I highly doubt they run a lot of stories about podiatry or stomach ulcer research...
"It's good to see potentally useful programs attributing their success to the Napster model - hopefully they will help with further defence of it."
I agree, it's very good to see new, innovative applications built on a p2p model. However, this will NOT help Napster because these programs are not Napster-like! These programs are true p2p, whereas Napster is only pseudo-p2p. The term Napster-like is very nice because EVERBODY knows what Napster is, so if you say "Napster-like" everyone knows what that means (or at least, they think they do). An illustration of why this is misleading:
Napster looks like this:
client <--> Napster-server <--> client
True the server is only involved in the initial phase of a transaction, acting as the "negotiator" of a file-sharing session; once the two clients are talking the server drops out. But the server is, BY DESIGN, involved in every client-to-client session, and you can never have a client that is more than once removed from the server (i.e. no client can turn around and act as the server to another client, and the chain is never more than two clients long).
By contrast, a true peer-to-peer implementation is "smooth" - that is, all the nodes are clients. So it looks like this:
If there is ANY server involved (which must be the case with Rumour, though not with Groove), it is at the END of the chain:
server <--> client <--> client <--> client <-->...
Thus one client talks to the server and then shares that information with other clients, which share the info with other clients... In reality the "chain" I've drawn is actually a tree, but the topology isn't important. The important point is that most of the clients NEVER talk to the server, whereas with Napster every client MUST talk to the server!
The terms "server" and "client" are themselves ambiguous, but that's at least partially the fault of trying to force an apricot (Napster) to be an orange (p2p)! In Napster, what I have called the "server" is more of a broker between "clients" (user's computers). One of the clients acts as a
"server" in each transaction, in the sense that it's serving files out, but no client can serve files to another client without going through the Napster server/broker. So it only makes sense to call the machine/site that brokers EVERY single session the "server". In the "true" p2p model the server (if there is one at all) acts in the more traditional sense (serving files), but is not generally involved in any given transaction.
And, of course, there's the small point that neither chat (ala AIM, ICQ, or NetMeeting) nor virus-information-file sharing involves potential copyright infringement. Chat's pretty self-explanatory, and virus info is "safe" because you still have to have a working copy of the anti-virus engine in order to use it.
I defy anyone to present a good reason why any of this should HELP Napster's defence(sic).
"As for Microsoft, Eppers doesn't see the Redmond,
Wash., software maker as an enemy. In fact, he said he'd like to do for desktop Linux what Microsoft has done for Windows."
Cool, so he wants to completely break Linux (but Microsoft had a head-start - their OS was broken to begin with!), force all Linux users that load his apps to re-boot once every couple of hours, and charge an arm-and-a-leg for half-ass apps that require several service patches before they're even minimally functional because they were too cheap to fix the bugs BEFORE they shipped? Oh, that's EXACTLY what Linux needs. Why didn't WE all think of that?!?!?
Sombody PLEASE wonk this guy several dozen times with the ClueBat(tm)!
The link labeled "Does the US Electoral College Still Work?" leads to a very interesting article, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! It's a discussion about the problems with a plurality system (i.e. each person votes once for one candidate, so if there are more than two candidates the winner is the one who receives the MOST votes, which is not necessarily MORE THAN HALF the votes). In fact, the word "electoral" appears exactly once in that article, and the word
"college" twice, and they're NOT NEXT TO EACH OTHER!
I really don't see where the libel (thanks, all you legal types) is! The title of the article says "SDMI cracked!", but that's actually the only place where the word "crack" is used. So, even leaving aside the the various and sundry possible definitions of "cracked", not to mention the fact that headlines hardly EVER reflect the actual content of an article, Salon clearly mentions in the first paragraph that (a) a spokesperson for SDMI has denied the reports (b) that three OFF-THE-RECORD sources provided the info (note that it's THREE - Hemos didn't even get the number right - does THAT qualify as libel?), and (c) "not one single watermark resisted attack." As many astute observers have already pointed out, "not resisting attack" is not quite the same thing as being "cracked", and still others have noticed that Mr. C. has NOT DENIED that either ("cracked" or "failed to resist attack") is true. How could this POSSIBLY be libel/slander/whatever? He's obviously just blowing smoke out of his (rather well-defined) anus.
Uh-Oh, Watch Out! The C-guy's on the warpath!
on
SDMI *NOT* Cracked!?
·
· Score: 5
Considering that it was their idea to make this an OPEN challenge, I'd have difficulty in feeling any sympathy, even if I agreed with their philosophy and approach (which I don't). Just another example of "we want to take advantage of the open approach, but only up to where WE draw the line of openness".
IF it had been an entirely internal affair, I MIGHT sympathize (nah, probably not!) But in either case, the C-man's
wrath is misplaced. He should be angry at the leakers, not at Salon. What he's really saying is "You had no right to report this until *I* said it was OK, because I'm the head honcho." That thinking may apply to whatever underlings leaked the info, but not to the independent media! Salon was carrying out their journalistic duty to REPORT NEWS, and I don't see this as being sensationalist. They presented all the (available) facts, they included both sides (i.e. the fact that the "official report" from SDMI was still forthcoming), and they didn't over-exaggerate the importance or significance of what they were reporting.
One thing I'll buy - he's probably not lying when he says they don't know. I would be very surprised if the "inside sources" weren't simply acting on educated guesses based on preliminary findings. They haven't had enough time to do an in-depth study yet, so it's unlikely that any results are %100 conclusive yet (it couldn't be THAT bad... could it?) On the other hand, educated guesses are often VERY close to the mark, and I suspect some people who know what they're talking about were doing the leaking. And as the C-man points out, it's not a cut-and-dried "it's cracked or it isn't" judgement. A crack may slightly degrade the quality of the audio but leave it sufficiently intact that your average MP3 listener isn't going to mind. By a techincal "all-or-nothing" definition, this is NOT a successful crack, but it's still enough to send them back to the drawing board I'm sure...
Of course Mitnick favors a centralized DNA database. Then he can hack it and steal all of our identities!
And as someone else so astutely pointed out, once some identity thief steals my genetic ID there's no way to prove that I am not the thief (or vice versa), and there's no way to issue me a new identity so that I am distinguishable from the thief again...
Everyone who has mentioned the word "buy" in their comments is confused (except maybe the guy from Utah). The ordinance in question covers "the operation and display of currency-operated amusement machines". They're talking about arcades! This has nothing to do with being able to buy Quake III (e.g.) at EB.
"Granted, this is nowhere CLOSE to showing a causal relation..."
and further down:
"It's nothing to do with VGs, it's just
developmental! Teenagers (and to a lesser extent 20-somethings) are still developing mentally and physically and emotionally. They're more volatile. It's this volatility that both makes them likely to commit crimes of "passion" and also likely to play violent VGs!"
I grant you that my example was not a very good one, but my POINT was that I'm not aware of anyone ever even TRYING to conduct a REASONABLE study that proves (or disproves) a link between VG violence and actual violence.
Is anyone aware of any actual STUDIES on the subject of video games inducing violence? Because I don't buy it, but it shouldn't be TOO difficult to determine. If you can show that (just for instance, I have no idea what the actual numbers might be) 25% of the population has spent significant amounts of time playing Quake III / HalfLife / UT / etc., and that a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes (like 35% or more) are attributable to people in this group, THEN I might begin to believe it. Such a study is not really possible with regards to violence in most types of media because exposure to them is too ubiquitous (how many people HAVEN'T been watching TV but are still "mainstream" enough to make a reasonable control group?) But it shouldn't be difficult with VGs - there's still plenty of "normal" people out there that have never fragged (I think - maybe I'm just out of touch!) Granted, this is nowhere CLOSE to showing a causal relation (which is really QUITE difficult in anything involving patterns of human behavior; this is why psychology, sociology, etc. are still considered "soft" science), but right now all we have is anecdotal evidence (which is no evidence). "Some kid(s) played a bunch of violent games and then went and shot up their school. When asked what they were all about, the kid(s) said "I play Quake lots"."
But think about it - although the video game industry is steadily extending its audience into the over-30 crowd, the main consumers of VGs, especially ultra-violent VGs, are the under-30 crowd. These are ALSO the people that are the most emotionally volatile. It's nothing to do with VGs, it's just developmental! Teenagers (and to a lesser extent 20-somethings) are still developing mentally and physically and emotionally. They're more volatile. It's this volatility that both makes them likely to commit crimes of "passion" and also likely to play violent VGs! I would contend that the "real violence" and "play violence" are both EFFECTS of an underlying CAUSE - plain ol' human adolesence! C'mon, seriously, how many people here over 25 can honestly look back at their years from age 10ish to 25ish and NOT wonder how on earth they made it through adolesence and pre-adulthood withOUT killing themselves or anyone else or just losing it and blasting things randomly?
I suspect that if my hypothetical study above were conducted that the results would be exactly the opposite - violent gamers are LESS likely to be violent in real life. I think this is because the outlet that it provides to get aggression OUT of your system more than offsets the desensitization effects. At least that's certainly how it works for ME. My bottom line has been stated over and over by others, but it's worth repeating: the dangers of violent games (TV, whatever) are marginal. The vast majority of people that wouldn't have gone on a killing spree or whatever had they never played, watched, read, spong-absorbed this input are NOT going to suddenly flip-flop because of it. The unbalanced few would be unbalanced without it. The slim margin of people that MIGHT flip because of it are NOT worth depriving the human race of its natural talents for creativity. Personally, I'd be MUCH more likely to flip if all I could play was the VG equivalent of "The Care Bears"...
Perhaps this post to the Wear-Hard mailing list (and also this follow-up) contain the crux of Professor Pratt's arguments that you are referring to. However, none of this indicates that he doesn't believe this code-morphing technology couldn't be successfully (and lucratively) applied to emulation of non-x86 architectures (in fact he implies in the second post that he things they might do BETTER in competition with non-x86's). All he asserts is that the CURRENT RUN of chips
is tuned solely for x86 emulation (i.e. you go buy
a Sony laptop with a Crusoe, open the case and take out the processor; this chip you hold in your hand is only suited for x86 use), and Transmeta's literature is mainly focused on this use/tuning. That's a world away from saying that the code-morphing technology can't be applied to emulation of other architectures; even if the chips you can buy RIGHT NOW don't do it, it would require VERY minor changes in design and fabrication to "tune" the Crusoe to, say, a Sparc-emulating version. "Very minor" as opposed to the amount of effort required for Intel or AMD to design and fabricate chips to do the same.
So I will amend my initial statement slightly. You are correct: "Crusoe" (Transmeta's product as it now stands) can only emulate the x86 arch. However the TECHNOLOGY behind the product (I guess you could look at it as Transmeta's I.P. base, but people get so up-in-arms around here the moment you mention I.P.:-) is such that future generations of Crusoe (or whatever they may call it) may "jump tracks" very easily. This makes Transmeta MUCH more versatile and agile as a chip maker - certainly as opposed to Intel (what's it been, 5 or 6 years now since they've released anything that had any FUNDAMENTAL improvements
(molest me not with this SIMD crap) to their architecture?)
The server is not responding at the link you provide, so I can't see what it is you're trying to point to. In the meantime, you may want to reviewthispa ge, and also thiswhit e paper(PDF). I'm not saying Dr. Pratt is wrong (that'd be kind of difficult, since I can't even find out what his claims are), but the information presented here directly contradicts your claim, so SOMEONE'S off the mark. I'll make my own judgements once I'm able to read what he has to say. If you know of another site where whatever it is you're trying to link to is available, or can quote it here, please do.
You're obviously confused: SpeedStep only offers you two different steps. Crusoe has a gradient (i.e. it can operate at a number of speeds between it's min and max speeds) and is much more intelligent about deciding what speed to run at. If not much is happening, it drops down a notch or two. If it needs more cycles, it hops up again. With Intel, it's all or nothing. And I think we all know that comparing raw clock speeds (MHz) is
just crap. YES, a < 600MHz Crusoe, performs on average more like a 600MHz Pentium (though it's more like a P3 450 or 500, I don't know where you got that P2 250 figure), but it's a trade-off between speed and power consumption/heat generation. CURRENT P3's with SpeedStep (let's not forget, this "new" thing won't be available for a year) may give you a minor advantage, but in exchange for that 100MHz drop in speed you're still only going from 2-2.5 to 4-5 hours on a standard battery; Crusoe machines can run 10-12 hours! And yes, some of that is due to smaller
monitor, etc., but there's no way getting around that P3 w/SpeedStep (either now or this "new" chip) loses hands down to Crusoe in the performance vs. battery life arena.
Finally, keep in mind, a year from now, when Intel finally rolls out their "new" technology, Transmeta will more than likely have a new surprise.
You're obviously confused: SpeedStep only offers you two different steps. Crusoe has a gradient (i.e. it can operate at a number of speeds between it's min and max speeds) and is much more intelligent about deciding what speed to run at. If not much is happening, it drops down a notch or two. If it needs more cycles, it hops up again. With Intel, it's all or nothing. And I think we all know that comparing raw clock speeds (MHz) is
just crap. YES, a 600MHz Crusoe, performs on average more like a
Finally, keep in mind, a year from now, when Intel finally rolls out their "new" technology, Transmeta will more than likely have a new surprise.
Great, so what this is really saying is that it took some upstart startup to come up with a really good idea AND bring it all the way to market before Intel would get off it's ass and admit that just MAYBE a more power-efficient mobile processor was something that their customers NEED?!? This is a perfect example of WHY monopolies are a "bad thing".
Personally, I don't see this as being any great news from Intel. As far as I'm concerned, the most impressive thing about Crusoe isn't the fact that it's much better for battery life (though that's certainly a good thing, and it's about time SOMEONE did something about it), it's the code-morphing abilities of the chip. This chip has the ability to emulate any processor that TransMeta puts its mind to emulate. And this can be accomplished with SOFT patches (no more difficult that upgrading your BIOS). For now they have chosen to stick the the x86 market, which makes perfect sense. But Apple and Sun better look out, once they get themselves firmly established...
I don't think Gore's license idea is that bad... you do it for your car, which is probably on the same level of lethal potential...)
I realize that this is not a discussion about gun control, but this is just a stupid analogy. The fact that a car can be used to kill someone is a consequence of physics, not design. A car is designed to move people from one place to another. Since it'd be impossible to design a car that could accomplish this goal but could NOT kill someone if appropriately misused, yes cars can kill people. This is still worlds apart from guns, which have no other use other than the one they are designed for: to kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage to people or objects. And let's be serious: I don't think the intent of licensing people to drive was ever anything along the lines of "if we make them get a license they won't go out running people over on purpose!"
items: Silly Hierarchy of Interesting Things
(S.H.I.T.) and the Sily Hierarchy of Interesting Things System (S.H.I.T.S.)
S.H.I.T. claims:
1) the Silly Hierarchy of Interesting Things (S.H.I.T. for short) is a hierarchy of things that are interesting. This hierarchy is silly.
2) The S.H.I.T. encompasses all things that are interesting. All things that exist are interesting by some definition of the word interesting. (Even things that DON'T exist can be interesting - see VaporWare(TM, patent pending)).
Therefore the S.H.I.T. includes everything in the Universe, including the Universe itself.
3) Everything in the hierarchy is built from other members of the hierarchy (that's why it's a hierarchy, duh!) There are some things in the hierarchy that are the simplest things possible. I call them "tinys". Tinys are all and only the things that are comprised only of themselves and no other things.
3b) In case anyone ever figures out that the tinys actual can be sub-divided (call these sub-divisions "sub-tinys"), the hierarchy, by its hierarchical nature, includes these things as well.
4) Since no one else has patented this concept, I'm claiming it as my own. Since every person is, by definition, a member of the S.H.I.T., you all owe me royalties! Money is part of the S.H.I.T. too, of course, so you owe me royalties on the royalties...
S.H.I.T.S. claims:
1) Since everything in the S.H.I.T. (Silly Hierarchy of Interesting Things) is comprised of (built up from, etc.) other things that are also part of the S.H.I.T., there must be rules, forces, or other mystical mumbo-jumbo governing the ways Interesting Things go together to form other Interesting Things to form the S.H.I.T.
2) Specifically, there must be be rules governing the way the "tinys" (see above) go together to form "not tinys". Some examples include the
"always attractive and relatively weak but works over tremendous distances" force (which you lay reader's may refer to as "gravity"), and the "works in a whole bunch of different ways depending on how you wave your hands" force
("electro-weak interaction" in the vulgar).
I can't think of any others. (Neither can anyone
else, apparently.)
3) Since the rules, etc. that govern the way tinys can go together are properties of the tinys, the rules themselves must also be members of the S.H.I.T. Therefore, all rules (known or unknown) and their applications (which are ALSO members of the S.H.I.T.) are subject to the S.H.I.T. patent.
4) Therefore the S.H.I.T.S. (the conglomeration of all the rules, etc.) is itself a member of the S.H.I.T. and subject to the above patent. All you chemical reactions out there, you'd better stop what you're doing until you pay me royalties! DNA self-replicating? Cough up 'dem royalties! What, you plants want to photosynthesize? Better pay up! I've got some nasty herbicides...
Patent application:
items: VaporWare(TM) (VapourWare(TM) in Canada) and the "VaporWare: Build Up Greenbacks!"
(VW BUG) system.
VaporWare claims:
1) any product that does not exist, has never existed, and/or may exist at some future time
(but not now) is VaporWare (TM). If it's on
paper, it's VaporWare. If it's only in your
head, it's VaporWare. If it exists primarily
in the hearts and (puny) minds of your marketing
department, who have written some REALLY great
ad campaigns for it despite the fact that not a single demo or sample has been produced, it's
REALLY Vaporware!
2) VaporWare is equivalent to a useless product
(i.e. one that has no uses, i.e. something that
does nothing). After all, if it doesn't exist,
it can't do anything, right?
3) Things that do nothing can be sold.
4) By #2 and #3, VaporWare can be sold.
5) If people will pay money for something, it ought to be patentable (if you don't believe me ask Amazon and Apple).
Conclusion: It's patentable! Give me a damn patent!
VW BUG Claims:
1) Geeks like owning cool, technological toys.
2) Geeks like talking about and dreaming of owning
said toys even more than actually owning them
(partially because they usually can't afford to buy said toys).
3) If none of their geek friends are able to buy
a cool technological toy due to it's being
VaporWare(TM) (see claims above), then the only
obstacle to the geeks nattering on about cool toys they wished they owned has been removed. Geeks will talk about their favorite VaporWare of the second/minute/hour/day incessently.
Until you wish you (or they, if you have a
strong sense of self) had never been born.
4) Geeks have non-geek friends/acquaintances/
people who are forced to spend significant
amounts of time in close quarters with them.
(Truth IS stranger than fiction.)
5) Non-geeks believe everything that geeks say
about cool technological toys because the non-
geeks assume from experience/ignorance/stupidity
that the geeks know what they are talking about.
6) Non-geeks have way more money than geeks,
because they don't waste their money buying
as many cool technological toys as possible.
7) Since the non-geeks didn't waste their money
(see previous claim), they have capital to invest in companies touting vaporware which
all their geek friends are dying to buy if only a real product actually existed. The non-geeks
know that these companies are shrewd investments
because all the geeks would be lining up to buy
whatever it is they claim to be working on if
it was an actual product.
Conclusion: The VW BUG (VaporWare: Build Up
Greenbacks!) system is a surefire way of getting
instant capital. Simply come up with an idea
that sounds cool (regardless of whether it's
technically possible), draw up a few plans
(preferably on bar napkins), distribute said
plans through geek distribution channels (aka
the "In-ter-net"), and watch the $$$ come pouring
in!
Now if only Bitboys was an American company, they'd owe me a LOT of royalties!
They've set up a 45-days after the fact disclosure policy, but they also put a bunch of loopholes in there allowing for later (or earlier) disclosure based on "negotiations" with the affected vendor and also the severity and sensitivity of the hole. So essentially what it says is "we'll disclose holes 45 days after they are reported, unless anyone gives a good reason why not, where "good reason" is solely up to our discretion." Not really very cut-and-dry, when you get down to it.
Slashdot Mirror
What COULD (and probably will) happen is (a) they will strut and threaten and lawyer you until you decide it's easier and/or in your best interests to comply so they'll get out of your hair and you can get back to doing REAL work, or (b) failing that they'll actually go and get a court order. The latter would probably be preferable (for you, the anally harassed), because even with a court order they (representatives of the BSA) couldn't do it themselves, the stuff would have to be confiscated and/or checked by court-appointed representatives - unless of course the BSA is cunning enough to get themselves appointed as said representatives...
Which all still leaves the burning question in my mind: what IS the proper plural of "anus"?
And they JUST reported as I wrote this that Carnahan has in fact WON. So an incumbent has been beaten by a dead contender - THAT'S gotta be a first!
This just goes to prove a pet peeve of mine: not even quasi-scientific journalists can write a decent headline!
Title of actual article:
"Vision Researcher First to Implant an Artificial Retina in Humans"
I mean, c'mon: it's an artificial RETINA. It's a darn good thing it was a VISION researcher that did it first; just imagine the poor patients if a cutting-edge proctologist had done the implantation - no telling how THAT would "come out in the end" (proctology humor, sorry). And it's not even like the article is on some generic news site where they need to be extra-specific just to pander to the LCD (that's Lowest Common Denominator, not Liquid... oh nevermind). It's on blindness.org for cryin' out loud! I highly doubt they run a lot of stories about podiatry or stomach ulcer research...
</RANT>
I agree, it's very good to see new, innovative applications built on a p2p model. However, this will NOT help Napster because these programs are not Napster-like! These programs are true p2p, whereas Napster is only pseudo-p2p. The term Napster-like is very nice because EVERBODY knows what Napster is, so if you say "Napster-like" everyone knows what that means (or at least, they think they do). An illustration of why this is misleading:
Napster looks like this:
client <--> Napster-server <--> client
True the server is only involved in the initial phase of a transaction, acting as the "negotiator" of a file-sharing session; once the two clients are talking the server drops out. But the server is, BY DESIGN, involved in every client-to-client session, and you can never have a client that is more than once removed from the server (i.e. no client can turn around and act as the server to another client, and the chain is never more than two clients long).
By contrast, a true peer-to-peer implementation is "smooth" - that is, all the nodes are clients. So it looks like this:
client <--> client <--> client <--> client <--> ...
If there is ANY server involved (which must be the case with Rumour, though not with Groove), it is at the END of the chain:
server <--> client <--> client <--> client <--> ...
Thus one client talks to the server and then shares that information with other clients, which share the info with other clients... In reality the "chain" I've drawn is actually a tree, but the topology isn't important. The important point is that most of the clients NEVER talk to the server, whereas with Napster every client MUST talk to the server!
The terms "server" and "client" are themselves ambiguous, but that's at least partially the fault of trying to force an apricot (Napster) to be an orange (p2p)! In Napster, what I have called the "server" is more of a broker between "clients" (user's computers). One of the clients acts as a "server" in each transaction, in the sense that it's serving files out, but no client can serve files to another client without going through the Napster server/broker. So it only makes sense to call the machine/site that brokers EVERY single session the "server". In the "true" p2p model the server (if there is one at all) acts in the more traditional sense (serving files), but is not generally involved in any given transaction.
And, of course, there's the small point that neither chat (ala AIM, ICQ, or NetMeeting) nor virus-information-file sharing involves potential copyright infringement. Chat's pretty self-explanatory, and virus info is "safe" because you still have to have a working copy of the anti-virus engine in order to use it.
I defy anyone to present a good reason why any of this should HELP Napster's defence(sic).
Cool, so he wants to completely break Linux (but Microsoft had a head-start - their OS was broken to begin with!), force all Linux users that load his apps to re-boot once every couple of hours, and charge an arm-and-a-leg for half-ass apps that require several service patches before they're even minimally functional because they were too cheap to fix the bugs BEFORE they shipped? Oh, that's EXACTLY what Linux needs. Why didn't WE all think of that?!?!?
Sombody PLEASE wonk this guy several dozen times with the ClueBat(tm)!
Will you people please friggin' EDIT submissions?
I really don't see where the libel (thanks, all you legal types) is! The title of the article says "SDMI cracked!", but that's actually the only place where the word "crack" is used. So, even leaving aside the the various and sundry possible definitions of "cracked", not to mention the fact that headlines hardly EVER reflect the actual content of an article, Salon clearly mentions in the first paragraph that (a) a spokesperson for SDMI has denied the reports (b) that three OFF-THE-RECORD sources provided the info (note that it's THREE - Hemos didn't even get the number right - does THAT qualify as libel?), and (c) "not one single watermark resisted attack." As many astute observers have already pointed out, "not resisting attack" is not quite the same thing as being "cracked", and still others have noticed that Mr. C. has NOT DENIED that either ("cracked" or "failed to resist attack") is true. How could this POSSIBLY be libel/slander/whatever? He's obviously just blowing smoke out of his (rather well-defined) anus.
IF it had been an entirely internal affair, I MIGHT sympathize (nah, probably not!) But in either case, the C-man's wrath is misplaced. He should be angry at the leakers, not at Salon. What he's really saying is "You had no right to report this until *I* said it was OK, because I'm the head honcho." That thinking may apply to whatever underlings leaked the info, but not to the independent media! Salon was carrying out their journalistic duty to REPORT NEWS, and I don't see this as being sensationalist. They presented all the (available) facts, they included both sides (i.e. the fact that the "official report" from SDMI was still forthcoming), and they didn't over-exaggerate the importance or significance of what they were reporting.
One thing I'll buy - he's probably not lying when he says they don't know. I would be very surprised if the "inside sources" weren't simply acting on educated guesses based on preliminary findings. They haven't had enough time to do an in-depth study yet, so it's unlikely that any results are %100 conclusive yet (it couldn't be THAT bad... could it?) On the other hand, educated guesses are often VERY close to the mark, and I suspect some people who know what they're talking about were doing the leaking. And as the C-man points out, it's not a cut-and-dried "it's cracked or it isn't" judgement. A crack may slightly degrade the quality of the audio but leave it sufficiently intact that your average MP3 listener isn't going to mind. By a techincal "all-or-nothing" definition, this is NOT a successful crack, but it's still enough to send them back to the drawing board I'm sure...
And as someone else so astutely pointed out, once some identity thief steals my genetic ID there's no way to prove that I am not the thief (or vice versa), and there's no way to issue me a new identity so that I am distinguishable from the thief again...
Everyone who has mentioned the word "buy" in their comments is confused (except maybe the guy from Utah). The ordinance in question covers "the operation and display of currency-operated amusement machines". They're talking about arcades! This has nothing to do with being able to buy Quake III (e.g.) at EB.
"Granted, this is nowhere CLOSE to showing a causal relation..."
and further down:
"It's nothing to do with VGs, it's just developmental! Teenagers (and to a lesser extent 20-somethings) are still developing mentally and physically and emotionally. They're more volatile. It's this volatility that both makes them likely to commit crimes of "passion" and also likely to play violent VGs!"
I grant you that my example was not a very good one, but my POINT was that I'm not aware of anyone ever even TRYING to conduct a REASONABLE study that proves (or disproves) a link between VG violence and actual violence.
Is anyone aware of any actual STUDIES on the subject of video games inducing violence? Because I don't buy it, but it shouldn't be TOO difficult to determine. If you can show that (just for instance, I have no idea what the actual numbers might be) 25% of the population has spent significant amounts of time playing Quake III / HalfLife / UT / etc., and that a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes (like 35% or more) are attributable to people in this group, THEN I might begin to believe it. Such a study is not really possible with regards to violence in most types of media because exposure to them is too ubiquitous (how many people HAVEN'T been watching TV but are still "mainstream" enough to make a reasonable control group?) But it shouldn't be difficult with VGs - there's still plenty of "normal" people out there that have never fragged (I think - maybe I'm just out of touch!) Granted, this is nowhere CLOSE to showing a causal relation (which is really QUITE difficult in anything involving patterns of human behavior; this is why psychology, sociology, etc. are still considered "soft" science), but right now all we have is anecdotal evidence (which is no evidence). "Some kid(s) played a bunch of violent games and then went and shot up their school. When asked what they were all about, the kid(s) said "I play Quake lots"."
But think about it - although the video game industry is steadily extending its audience into the over-30 crowd, the main consumers of VGs, especially ultra-violent VGs, are the under-30 crowd. These are ALSO the people that are the most emotionally volatile. It's nothing to do with VGs, it's just developmental! Teenagers (and to a lesser extent 20-somethings) are still developing mentally and physically and emotionally. They're more volatile. It's this volatility that both makes them likely to commit crimes of "passion" and also likely to play violent VGs! I would contend that the "real violence" and "play violence" are both EFFECTS of an underlying CAUSE - plain ol' human adolesence! C'mon, seriously, how many people here over 25 can honestly look back at their years from age 10ish to 25ish and NOT wonder how on earth they made it through adolesence and pre-adulthood withOUT killing themselves or anyone else or just losing it and blasting things randomly?
I suspect that if my hypothetical study above were conducted that the results would be exactly the opposite - violent gamers are LESS likely to be violent in real life. I think this is because the outlet that it provides to get aggression OUT of your system more than offsets the desensitization effects. At least that's certainly how it works for ME. My bottom line has been stated over and over by others, but it's worth repeating: the dangers of violent games (TV, whatever) are marginal. The vast majority of people that wouldn't have gone on a killing spree or whatever had they never played, watched, read, spong-absorbed this input are NOT going to suddenly flip-flop because of it. The unbalanced few would be unbalanced without it. The slim margin of people that MIGHT flip because of it are NOT worth depriving the human race of its natural talents for creativity. Personally, I'd be MUCH more likely to flip if all I could play was the VG equivalent of "The Care Bears"...
Perhaps this post to the Wear-Hard mailing list (and also this follow-up) contain the crux of Professor Pratt's arguments that you are referring to. However, none of this indicates that he doesn't believe this code-morphing technology couldn't be successfully (and lucratively) applied to emulation of non-x86 architectures (in fact he implies in the second post that he things they might do BETTER in competition with non-x86's). All he asserts is that the CURRENT RUN of chips is tuned solely for x86 emulation (i.e. you go buy a Sony laptop with a Crusoe, open the case and take out the processor; this chip you hold in your hand is only suited for x86 use), and Transmeta's literature is mainly focused on this use/tuning. That's a world away from saying that the code-morphing technology can't be applied to emulation of other architectures; even if the chips you can buy RIGHT NOW don't do it, it would require VERY minor changes in design and fabrication to "tune" the Crusoe to, say, a Sparc-emulating version. "Very minor" as opposed to the amount of effort required for Intel or AMD to design and fabricate chips to do the same.
:-) is such that future generations of Crusoe (or whatever they may call it) may "jump tracks" very easily. This makes Transmeta MUCH more versatile and agile as a chip maker - certainly as opposed to Intel (what's it been, 5 or 6 years now since they've released anything that had any FUNDAMENTAL improvements
(molest me not with this SIMD crap) to their architecture?)
So I will amend my initial statement slightly. You are correct: "Crusoe" (Transmeta's product as it now stands) can only emulate the x86 arch. However the TECHNOLOGY behind the product (I guess you could look at it as Transmeta's I.P. base, but people get so up-in-arms around here the moment you mention I.P.
The server is not responding at the link you provide, so I can't see what it is you're trying to point to. In the meantime, you may want to reviewthispa ge, and also thiswhit e paper(PDF). I'm not saying Dr. Pratt is wrong (that'd be kind of difficult, since I can't even find out what his claims are), but the information presented here directly contradicts your claim, so SOMEONE'S off the mark. I'll make my own judgements once I'm able to read what he has to say. If you know of another site where whatever it is you're trying to link to is available, or can quote it here, please do.
(That'll teach me not to use the preview button!)
You're obviously confused: SpeedStep only offers you two different steps. Crusoe has a gradient (i.e. it can operate at a number of speeds between it's min and max speeds) and is much more intelligent about deciding what speed to run at. If not much is happening, it drops down a notch or two. If it needs more cycles, it hops up again. With Intel, it's all or nothing. And I think we all know that comparing raw clock speeds (MHz) is just crap. YES, a < 600MHz Crusoe, performs on average more like a 600MHz Pentium (though it's more like a P3 450 or 500, I don't know where you got that P2 250 figure), but it's a trade-off between speed and power consumption/heat generation. CURRENT P3's with SpeedStep (let's not forget, this "new" thing won't be available for a year) may give you a minor advantage, but in exchange for that 100MHz drop in speed you're still only going from 2-2.5 to 4-5 hours on a standard battery; Crusoe machines can run 10-12 hours! And yes, some of that is due to smaller monitor, etc., but there's no way getting around that P3 w/SpeedStep (either now or this "new" chip) loses hands down to Crusoe in the performance vs. battery life arena.
Finally, keep in mind, a year from now, when Intel finally rolls out their "new" technology, Transmeta will more than likely have a new surprise.
You're obviously confused: SpeedStep only offers you two different steps. Crusoe has a gradient (i.e. it can operate at a number of speeds between it's min and max speeds) and is much more intelligent about deciding what speed to run at. If not much is happening, it drops down a notch or two. If it needs more cycles, it hops up again. With Intel, it's all or nothing. And I think we all know that comparing raw clock speeds (MHz) is just crap. YES, a 600MHz Crusoe, performs on average more like a
Finally, keep in mind, a year from now, when Intel finally rolls out their "new" technology, Transmeta will more than likely have a new surprise.
Great, so what this is really saying is that it took some upstart startup to come up with a really good idea AND bring it all the way to market before Intel would get off it's ass and admit that just MAYBE a more power-efficient mobile processor was something that their customers NEED?!? This is a perfect example of WHY monopolies are a "bad thing".
Personally, I don't see this as being any great news from Intel. As far as I'm concerned, the most impressive thing about Crusoe isn't the fact that it's much better for battery life (though that's certainly a good thing, and it's about time SOMEONE did something about it), it's the code-morphing abilities of the chip. This chip has the ability to emulate any processor that TransMeta puts its mind to emulate. And this can be accomplished with SOFT patches (no more difficult that upgrading your BIOS). For now they have chosen to stick the the x86 market, which makes perfect sense. But Apple and Sun better look out, once they get themselves firmly established...
I realize that this is not a discussion about gun control, but this is just a stupid analogy. The fact that a car can be used to kill someone is a consequence of physics, not design. A car is designed to move people from one place to another. Since it'd be impossible to design a car that could accomplish this goal but could NOT kill someone if appropriately misused, yes cars can kill people. This is still worlds apart from guns, which have no other use other than the one they are designed for: to kill, maim, incapacitate or otherwise cause damage to people or objects. And let's be serious: I don't think the intent of licensing people to drive was ever anything along the lines of "if we make them get a license they won't go out running people over on purpose!"
Patent application:
items: Silly Hierarchy of Interesting Things
(S.H.I.T.) and the Sily Hierarchy of Interesting Things System (S.H.I.T.S.)
S.H.I.T. claims:
1) the Silly Hierarchy of Interesting Things (S.H.I.T. for short) is a hierarchy of things that are interesting. This hierarchy is silly.
2) The S.H.I.T. encompasses all things that are interesting. All things that exist are interesting by some definition of the word interesting. (Even things that DON'T exist can be interesting - see VaporWare(TM, patent pending)).
Therefore the S.H.I.T. includes everything in the Universe, including the Universe itself.
3) Everything in the hierarchy is built from other members of the hierarchy (that's why it's a hierarchy, duh!) There are some things in the hierarchy that are the simplest things possible. I call them "tinys". Tinys are all and only the things that are comprised only of themselves and no other things.
3b) In case anyone ever figures out that the tinys actual can be sub-divided (call these sub-divisions "sub-tinys"), the hierarchy, by its hierarchical nature, includes these things as well.
4) Since no one else has patented this concept, I'm claiming it as my own. Since every person is, by definition, a member of the S.H.I.T., you all owe me royalties! Money is part of the S.H.I.T. too, of course, so you owe me royalties on the royalties...
S.H.I.T.S. claims:
1) Since everything in the S.H.I.T. (Silly Hierarchy of Interesting Things) is comprised of (built up from, etc.) other things that are also part of the S.H.I.T., there must be rules, forces, or other mystical mumbo-jumbo governing the ways Interesting Things go together to form other Interesting Things to form the S.H.I.T.
2) Specifically, there must be be rules governing the way the "tinys" (see above) go together to form "not tinys". Some examples include the
"always attractive and relatively weak but works over tremendous distances" force (which you lay reader's may refer to as "gravity"), and the "works in a whole bunch of different ways depending on how you wave your hands" force
("electro-weak interaction" in the vulgar).
I can't think of any others. (Neither can anyone
else, apparently.)
3) Since the rules, etc. that govern the way tinys can go together are properties of the tinys, the rules themselves must also be members of the S.H.I.T. Therefore, all rules (known or unknown) and their applications (which are ALSO members of the S.H.I.T.) are subject to the S.H.I.T. patent.
4) Therefore the S.H.I.T.S. (the conglomeration of all the rules, etc.) is itself a member of the S.H.I.T. and subject to the above patent. All you chemical reactions out there, you'd better stop what you're doing until you pay me royalties! DNA self-replicating? Cough up 'dem royalties! What, you plants want to photosynthesize? Better pay up! I've got some nasty herbicides...
Patent application: items: VaporWare(TM) (VapourWare(TM) in Canada) and the "VaporWare: Build Up Greenbacks!" (VW BUG) system. VaporWare claims: 1) any product that does not exist, has never existed, and/or may exist at some future time (but not now) is VaporWare (TM). If it's on paper, it's VaporWare. If it's only in your head, it's VaporWare. If it exists primarily in the hearts and (puny) minds of your marketing department, who have written some REALLY great ad campaigns for it despite the fact that not a single demo or sample has been produced, it's REALLY Vaporware! 2) VaporWare is equivalent to a useless product (i.e. one that has no uses, i.e. something that does nothing). After all, if it doesn't exist, it can't do anything, right? 3) Things that do nothing can be sold. 4) By #2 and #3, VaporWare can be sold. 5) If people will pay money for something, it ought to be patentable (if you don't believe me ask Amazon and Apple). Conclusion: It's patentable! Give me a damn patent! VW BUG Claims: 1) Geeks like owning cool, technological toys. 2) Geeks like talking about and dreaming of owning said toys even more than actually owning them (partially because they usually can't afford to buy said toys). 3) If none of their geek friends are able to buy a cool technological toy due to it's being VaporWare(TM) (see claims above), then the only obstacle to the geeks nattering on about cool toys they wished they owned has been removed. Geeks will talk about their favorite VaporWare of the second/minute/hour/day incessently. Until you wish you (or they, if you have a strong sense of self) had never been born. 4) Geeks have non-geek friends/acquaintances/ people who are forced to spend significant amounts of time in close quarters with them. (Truth IS stranger than fiction.) 5) Non-geeks believe everything that geeks say about cool technological toys because the non- geeks assume from experience/ignorance/stupidity that the geeks know what they are talking about. 6) Non-geeks have way more money than geeks, because they don't waste their money buying as many cool technological toys as possible. 7) Since the non-geeks didn't waste their money (see previous claim), they have capital to invest in companies touting vaporware which all their geek friends are dying to buy if only a real product actually existed. The non-geeks know that these companies are shrewd investments because all the geeks would be lining up to buy whatever it is they claim to be working on if it was an actual product. Conclusion: The VW BUG (VaporWare: Build Up Greenbacks!) system is a surefire way of getting instant capital. Simply come up with an idea that sounds cool (regardless of whether it's technically possible), draw up a few plans (preferably on bar napkins), distribute said plans through geek distribution channels (aka the "In-ter-net"), and watch the $$$ come pouring in! Now if only Bitboys was an American company, they'd owe me a LOT of royalties!
No, no, IT'S still naked, but you aren't. Of course, if your wearable PC is running Windows, then guess what you're covered with...
They've set up a 45-days after the fact disclosure policy, but they also put a bunch of loopholes in there allowing for later (or earlier) disclosure based on "negotiations" with the affected vendor and also the severity and sensitivity of the hole. So essentially what it says is "we'll disclose holes 45 days after they are reported, unless anyone gives a good reason why not, where "good reason" is solely up to our discretion." Not really very cut-and-dry, when you get down to it.