What about the computers from the day after tomorrow? And as far as that goes, it's a _Microsoft_ FAQ
Yes, it's a Microsoft FAQ, and if it would be an anti-Microsoft FAQ, you'd hear the opposite. Perhaps the truth about where they're going might be somewhere in between... Not teaming up with RIAA/MPAA and build an OS that refuse non-DRM software to run, but perhaps making Windows Media Player do refuse to play unprotected media, although allowing Winamp to be installed as usual.
I think it's useful to see FAQ's from more than one side to get a perspective on things.
When will people understand that the DRM Microsoft is implementing is just an additional API to provide additional security to applications who use the API?
I guess what you're looking for is basically this question, that's answered in their technical FAQ for DRM whose answer is pretty logical:
----
Q: Will I still be able to play MP3s on my PC?
A: You will. NGSCB will bring additional capabilities to the PC but will not interfere with the operation of any program that runs on current PCs. The nexus and nexus computing agents are designed never to impose themselves on processes that do not request their services; nexus-related features must be explicitly requested by a program. So the MP3 player you have today should still work on a next-generation PC tomorrow.
----
But of course, it's more fun with conspiracy theories, especially on Slashdot.
From Microsoft's NGSCB Technical FAQ: (it's informative, you should read it)
Q: Will the next-generation secure computing base stop spam or prevent viruses?
A: Unfortunately, no. Despite some hype in the media, introducing these enhancements to the PC ecosystem will not, in and of itself, stop spam or prevent viruses. However, by using NGSCB technology as a foundation, a number of trust and infrastructure models can be built to help combat spam and viruses in new and effective ways.
Let's look at spam first. There has been plenty of research on techniques to automatically reject spam e-mail or restrict the ability of spammers to generate it in the first place. These techniques include the following:
Simply rejecting e-mail that isn't authenticated or digitally signed with a "validated" identity (which would block all anonymous e-mail, including desired anonymous e-mail)
Forcing spammers to perform some nontrivial computation for each message they wish to send
Maintaining per-user lists of approved and non-approved senders
Scoring every inbound e-mail message using heuristics that look for common characteristics of spam messages
Systems built on NGSCB architecture could certainly be used to improve signing-required or computation-required regimes, compared with what is possible today on conventional hardware. (The latter is probably more interesting because NGSCB provides facilities that would allow a sender to prove to a recipient that the sender performed a particular computation within the nexus-aware environment.) Clearly, the realm of possibilities for anti-spam measures on PCs designed to the NGSCB architecture is a topic deserving of further study.
With respect to viruses, the contribution from the NGSCB architecture is more straightforward. Since the nexus and NCAs do not interfere with the operation of any program running in the regular Windows environment, everything, including the native OS and viruses, runs there as it does today. Therefore, we are still going to need antivirus monitoring and detection software in Windows as well. However, the nexus and NCAs do provide antivirus software with a secure execution environment that cannot be corrupted by infected code, so an antivirus program built on top of a nexus-aware application could guarantee that it has not been corrupted. This grounding of the antivirus software allows it to bootstrap itself into a guaranteed execution state, something it cannot do today.
PNG is a superior format to GIF from a technical perspective, and it's not encumbered by the LZW patent. However, from the perspective of most mainstream users, it doesn't solve a problem that actually affects them (they don't know or care about the Unisys patent issue),
Isn't bandwidth a problem for all sites? PNG makes that problem, although not far less, slightly less, without loss of quality.
And in my case, "no access to Quicktime player want I."
Grr... Someone need to hack the Sorenson codec or whatever is the usual codec for.mov files, to make it a standard DirectShow thingy that can be used in Windows Media Player / Winamp or any other player supporting those codecs.
I hate to install new players just to play a new codec.:-(
Uninstalling it's not painless either. I tried to do that once, and it killed Outlook 2k by wiping out a common DLL that they use. Doh. (Note: I haven't tried uninstalling OE and installing O2k.)
How does one go about removing Outlook Express from XP?
I'll try to not be "witty" and post something about a Linux distribution that's NOT what you were asking for.
This is the best I could find to help. The article is for 2000, but since XP is esentially just a revised 2000 with a new look, it could apply to XP as well. Especially since it's about the same software (Outlook Express 6).
The usual about being careful with the registry editing applies.:-)
ok, ok.... i realize that may have sounded a little trollish... wasn't my intent. See? I was so soured by recent versions of winamp that it turned me off to the product line in general.
If you're having problems with Winamp3, why not go for the 2.x versions?
classic.winamp.com
It's not like the development for that series has halted or anything. It's just another branch; a much more stable one, but still rich with new features since Winamp3 was announced.
Most people either use WIMP, XMMS or an old version of Winamp.
Yes, but those "old versions of Winamp" (the 2.x series) is still under development. It has had a lot of useful bugfixes and improvements, some pretty major. Take a look at the Winamp 2.9 release notes for example, to see what I'm talking about.
And of course a subscription on a webcam recording showing the production of the digitally enhanced DVD that contains the original web cam recording of the movie.
JPEG's are also worse when compressing line art and similar graphics since the format introduce JPEG artifacts that are especially visible in high contrast graphics such as charts, etc.
Re:Sounds like what C# has that makes it better...
on
Preview of Java 1.5
·
· Score: 1
haha, sure, you've got a point there:-)
But I still think one should carefully evaluate what kind of "programmer need" should be supported in the core language.
Sure, it is definitely more useful to program in an object-oriented language than to program a Universal Cellular Automaton, and that's a reason to why object-oriented languages exists. But is it really necessary to add stuff like foreach loops to the language? Or is that just a keyword most of the Java programmers out there could've been without?
I'm not saying that programming languages shouldn't have evolved from the previous millenium, but that it might not be such a good idea to add unnecessary complexity to the language.
Re:Sounds like what C# has that makes it better...
on
Preview of Java 1.5
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yes, I noticed this as well. I found it pretty interesting, and it reminded me of the old IE/Netscape browser wars. One implements the new features of the other. Let's just hope they don't get too carried away and bloat the language.:-/
To me, Java was a lanaguage with a minimum of "redundant" features. You can write a "for" loop without using "foreach". You can use a class instead of a struct. And so on... I'm actually a bit surprised that Sun are throwing in features the language doesn't really always seem to need. I thought that was C#'s area.:-)
Actually, if we find WMD there, I'm pretty sure it's Saddam who has hid them there. That must be why they haven't found anything in Iraq yet. I mean... That they were wrong about one of the major reasons to start a war is simply impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the computers from the day after tomorrow? And as far as that goes, it's a _Microsoft_ FAQ
Yes, it's a Microsoft FAQ, and if it would be an anti-Microsoft FAQ, you'd hear the opposite. Perhaps the truth about where they're going might be somewhere in between... Not teaming up with RIAA/MPAA and build an OS that refuse non-DRM software to run, but perhaps making Windows Media Player do refuse to play unprotected media, although allowing Winamp to be installed as usual.
I think it's useful to see FAQ's from more than one side to get a perspective on things.
When will people understand that the DRM Microsoft is implementing is just an additional API to provide additional security to applications who use the API?
I guess what you're looking for is basically this question, that's answered in their technical FAQ for DRM whose answer is pretty logical:
----
Q: Will I still be able to play MP3s on my PC?
A: You will. NGSCB will bring additional capabilities to the PC but will not interfere with the operation of any program that runs on current PCs. The nexus and nexus computing agents are designed never to impose themselves on processes that do not request their services; nexus-related features must be explicitly requested by a program. So the MP3 player you have today should still work on a next-generation PC tomorrow.
----
But of course, it's more fun with conspiracy theories, especially on Slashdot.
Q: Will the next-generation secure computing base stop spam or prevent viruses?
A: Unfortunately, no. Despite some hype in the media, introducing these enhancements to the PC ecosystem will not, in and of itself, stop spam or prevent viruses. However, by using NGSCB technology as a foundation, a number of trust and infrastructure models can be built to help combat spam and viruses in new and effective ways.
Let's look at spam first. There has been plenty of research on techniques to automatically reject spam e-mail or restrict the ability of spammers to generate it in the first place. These techniques include the following:
Systems built on NGSCB architecture could certainly be used to improve signing-required or computation-required regimes, compared with what is possible today on conventional hardware. (The latter is probably more interesting because NGSCB provides facilities that would allow a sender to prove to a recipient that the sender performed a particular computation within the nexus-aware environment.) Clearly, the realm of possibilities for anti-spam measures on PCs designed to the NGSCB architecture is a topic deserving of further study.
With respect to viruses, the contribution from the NGSCB architecture is more straightforward. Since the nexus and NCAs do not interfere with the operation of any program running in the regular Windows environment, everything, including the native OS and viruses, runs there as it does today. Therefore, we are still going to need antivirus monitoring and detection software in Windows as well. However, the nexus and NCAs do provide antivirus software with a secure execution environment that cannot be corrupted by infected code, so an antivirus program built on top of a nexus-aware application could guarantee that it has not been corrupted. This grounding of the antivirus software allows it to bootstrap itself into a guaranteed execution state, something it cannot do today.
doesn't cause the emotional excitement as getting a sweet handwritten letter from "Melissa".
:-)
;-)
I can personally be without Melissa's letters.
But I agree that they bring old memories back.
PNG is a superior format to GIF from a technical perspective, and it's not encumbered by the LZW patent. However, from the perspective of most mainstream users, it doesn't solve a problem that actually affects them (they don't know or care about the Unisys patent issue),
Isn't bandwidth a problem for all sites? PNG makes that problem, although not far less, slightly less, without loss of quality.
PNG is not just an alternative to GIF. PNG has things like Alpha Blending, Gamma Correction and Huge color depth (up to 48 bits, I believe).
So you can really do a lot of cool things with PNG that you can't do with GIF's.
And perhaps most importantly...
Compress better than GIF in almost all cases.
No access to Quicktime player have I.
.mov files, to make it a standard DirectShow thingy that can be used in Windows Media Player / Winamp or any other player supporting those codecs.
:-(
And in my case, "no access to Quicktime player want I."
Grr... Someone need to hack the Sorenson codec or whatever is the usual codec for
I hate to install new players just to play a new codec.
Uninstalling it's not painless either. I tried to do that once, and it killed Outlook 2k by wiping out a common DLL that they use. Doh. (Note: I haven't tried uninstalling OE and installing O2k.)
Did you follow the steps outlined here?
KB Article 263837 - OLEXP: How to Manually Remove and Reinstall Outlook Express in Windows 2000
(it applies to Windows XP as well, since the same version of OE is used)
I think we managed to Slashdot his site or something, but the funny part was that I used that Babelfish link and got this:
:-)
Forbidden
You don't have by mission ton of ACCESS/mycpug.htm on this servers.
Apache/1.3.20 Server at kuschel.citybug.de Port 80
Hmm, I'll interpret that like that there's a ton of access on his server.
Standard place? Where? In linux, 99% of the time it's in /etc
And if it's a user-specific registry setting, it's in 99% of the time in
HKCU/Software/Company/Product
I mean.. How hard is it from there to navigate to 10.0->Outlook->Options->Mail? Seems fairly logical to me.
If it's a machine-specific setting, it's in 99% of the time in
HKLM/Software/Company/Product
Too bad that I can't do shit as a user in Windows.
Ehh... What are you talking about?
How does one go about removing Outlook Express from XP?
:-)
I'll try to not be "witty" and post something about a Linux distribution that's NOT what you were asking for.
This is the best I could find to help. The article is for 2000, but since XP is esentially just a revised 2000 with a new look, it could apply to XP as well. Especially since it's about the same software (Outlook Express 6).
The usual about being careful with the registry editing applies.
I am not going to email anyone called "daddypants", thank you very much
:-O
Watch it dude! When I posted something like that, I was modded -1: Offtopic
My first thought that crossed my mind was "Ah, some experiment with next generation armor went wrong".
ok, ok.... i realize that may have sounded a little trollish... wasn't my intent. See? I was so soured by recent versions of winamp that it turned me off to the product line in general.
If you're having problems with Winamp3, why not go for the 2.x versions?
classic.winamp.com
It's not like the development for that series has halted or anything. It's just another branch; a much more stable one, but still rich with new features since Winamp3 was announced.
Most people either use WIMP, XMMS or an old version of Winamp.
Yes, but those "old versions of Winamp" (the 2.x series) is still under development. It has had a lot of useful bugfixes and improvements, some pretty major. Take a look at the Winamp 2.9 release notes for example, to see what I'm talking about.
I'm personally getting the Awesome Slashdot Effect right now. :-P
And of course a subscription on a webcam recording showing the production of the digitally enhanced DVD that contains the original web cam recording of the movie.
... you look for larger screenshots of a chat client with women in its list.
No, but Hell is full of them. :-)
JPEG's are also worse when compressing line art and similar graphics since the format introduce JPEG artifacts that are especially visible in high contrast graphics such as charts, etc.
haha, sure, you've got a point there :-)
But I still think one should carefully evaluate what kind of "programmer need" should be supported in the core language.
Sure, it is definitely more useful to program in an object-oriented language than to program a Universal Cellular Automaton, and that's a reason to why object-oriented languages exists. But is it really necessary to add stuff like foreach loops to the language? Or is that just a keyword most of the Java programmers out there could've been without?
I'm not saying that programming languages shouldn't have evolved from the previous millenium, but that it might not be such a good idea to add unnecessary complexity to the language.
Yes, I noticed this as well. I found it pretty interesting, and it reminded me of the old IE/Netscape browser wars. One implements the new features of the other. Let's just hope they don't get too carried away and bloat the language. :-/
:-)
To me, Java was a lanaguage with a minimum of "redundant" features. You can write a "for" loop without using "foreach". You can use a class instead of a struct. And so on... I'm actually a bit surprised that Sun are throwing in features the language doesn't really always seem to need. I thought that was C#'s area.
Why doesn't the Universe have a sense of timing? Whenever there are moon eclipses where I live, it's either cloudy or reeeaally early in the morning.
Now, there's a solar eclipse... Woohoo! Next is in 100+ years. And the time it's going to happen where I live:
Saturday, 5:40 am, forecast is cloudy.
WTF!
Actually, if we find WMD there, I'm pretty sure it's Saddam who has hid them there. That must be why they haven't found anything in Iraq yet. I mean... That they were wrong about one of the major reasons to start a war is simply impossible.