You know the fanboi is well aware of the drivel he spews when he resorts to defending Apple anonymously.
And yet the whole of Slashdot can go ahead bashing Apple without actually investigating the problem. Had anyone actually checked, they'd have noticed that the main.Mac page—which is how one accesses the iDisk interface—has this nifty little logout button, as seen in this screenshot.
But it's more fun to bash Apple unconditionally.
Perhaps it's a minor oversight that the self-contained iDisk interface lacks a logout button, but to say that "there is no way for the average computer user to log-out of their iDIsk on public computers" is patently false. Sure, they have to use the main.Mac page to do it, but you have to open that page to get to your iDisk in the first place. So: it's the user's choice to close that window while working on iDisk (the iDisk interface opens in a second window), and the user's oversight in failing to return there to log out.
Use a very small piece of scotch tape, and place it over only the right or left four copper traces on the end of an ethernet cable. Then plug the cable back into its jack.
When done right, it will take a VERY long time for your roommate to realize why the network isn't working quite right.
Last I checked, the eMac wasn't ugly. Sure, it still used a CRT, but it was much more well-designed than your common IBM PC setup having the computer, monitor, and speakers as seperate items. The eMac is/was targeted at educational institutions (hence the e), where it's a huge bonus to have a one-piece system when you're installing 30 or more computers in a lab. Reduces cable nightmare. So for its target audience, the eMac was a very elegant machine, and I still don't think it's that ugly, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.
The eMac was recently ditched, most likely because the iMac now can serve the same purpose; I also read somewhere that the case for the eMac was the most expensive part of the computer to manufacture, so it was also likely getting to the point of not being very profitable anymore.
Disclaimer: I have drunk the Apple Kool-Aid, and will be receiving my first Mac (PowerMac G5, thanks) sometime in the near future.
Well, I have, but I still had it set up to be 1 IP per NIC. Thanks for pointing that out, though; I'd never really seen that type of configuration, so I stand corrected on that point.
Running two OSes still doesn't seem quite parallel to having Linux sitting underneath all those IPs to manage them, but apparently I don't quite understand how switches learn to direct packets. So... I still see problems on the machine trying to run two OSes, but I trust that you're right in saying that external switches/routers wouldn't get confused.
That's a bit different, because Virtual PC provides a layer of software between Windows and OS X. I'm pretty sure Virtual PC has two network configurations:
1. Let both OSes share the same IP, same MAC. 2. Put Windows behind a virtual NAT router on its own IP and own software-generated MAC.
Either way, Virtual PC software sits between Windows and the OS X network stack. In the first case, Virtual PC handles corner cases where both OSes are trying to run services on the same port, etc... To the outside world, it looks like all packets are coming from the single NIC, and a single IP address. In the second case, it's exactly as if Windows were behind a real NAT router, eliminating such possible corner cases, but limiting functionality in some areas.
Either way, both of these are very different than running two IP addresses on the same MAC address, which would seem to be the case with the proposed hardware-sharing method of running Windows and OS X concurrently.
Unfortunately, when sharing the hardware directly, there is no layer of software between a second OS and the NIC to resolve conflicts that could arise with having two operating systems running services on the same port concurrently. Such a task is not something that could be designed into hardware and fits in software much better, but would still require large amounts of work on each OS separately.
Even if that logic could go into hardware/firmware, adding a new type of protocol (like IPv6) would be unsupported by the hardware, and then IPv6 conflicts would start arising... it just seems like there's no easy hardware-only solution to that problem, and I honestly believe that neither Microsoft nor Apple are going to put the effort into making that virtualization possible...
As for Intel's forthcoming virtualization-friendly chipsets, I have no idea; those chipsets may very well solve these issues. For now, though, I still don't see concurrent operating systems happening directly on hardware without a layer of software virtualization (i.e. VMWare, Xan, or something higher-level like Virtual PC).
The problem with doing this, maybe mentioned elsewhere, is trying to share hardware peripherals such as the network card, sound card, etc... among multiple operating systems running concurrently. If both operating systems try to initialize each peripheral, then one will randomly clobber the configuration set up by the other.
It is not a problem of being able to run both concurrently on separate processors; it is being able to manage hardware resources (busses, graphics, peripherals, etc...) among operating systems without them interfering destructively with one another.
Even more complicated would be using a single NIC to connect two operating systems to the same network. Unless someone came up with a clever solution, each OS would need its own IP address. However, routers and switches outside the computer would become immensely confused when a single NIC and a single MAC address belong to two IP addresses, since most routers/switches only have a one-to-one correlation between MAC addresses and IP addresses.
Even if firmware could solve the problem by implementing all the low-level drivers, the single-NIC, multiple-IP problem is one that cannot be solved at the firmware level, and would require massive modifications at both the OS and application level to get multiple OSes running various services running on a single IP using a single NIC.
There are more problems to doing this than your comment leads one to believe, and that's why I think we won't see that happening anytime soon.
Just my initial thoughts on the matter; maybe someone who knows more about the hardware involved can correct me if I'm wrong.
As another student of Virginia Tech, I'd like to add that, in addition to becoming a partner, Tech will be piloting the use of Sakai alongside Blackboard next year, so we will see how well that goes.
Personally, however, I hate Blackboard; it's interface, though learnable, is not nearly as intuitive as an online course management system should be, and for some reason, both professors and TAs have trouble with entering and managing grades through Blackboard. This suggests to me that Blackboard is a poorly written, but well-marketed course management system. I look forward to moving away from it.
NO, they are wrong. There is a distinct difference between liberties and safety! I don't see how people can be duped into believing that terrorist groups affect liberties!
The only reason they affect liberties is because Congress passes things like the Patriot Act. Otherwise, all they affect is safety.
Terrorists affect SAFETY, Congress affects LIBERTY. Get it straight, and we can all stop falling for this crap coming from Washington. If they said these terrorist groups were the greatest threat to our safety, then I'd buy it. But they are, however, NOT a threat to our liberty.
The Patriot Act is the threat to our liberty, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights when it comes to searches and siezures, and the right to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial.
Government disheartens me. So do the people who buy crap like this from them and cannot draw the distinction for themselves. Just my (flaming) two cents.
This isn't supposed to be flamebait, but mod it as such if you think it is.
My guess would be that the fundamentals of system design atrophy. In many ways the computer science field has seen very little innovation as far as "operating systems" are concerned. At least in the recent past.
Most systems try to mimick windows or something else, except for Apple's OS X. But on the other hand, it is also built atop a UNIX-style system, and is thus somewhat based on old ideas.
The IT industry has created such large barriers to entry that any new or radical ideas as far as desktop systems go (or servers, for that matter) have failed to enter the market successfully. Arguably, Linux's success is due to the fact that it's just a reimplementation of the old UNIX system design.
Colleges and other higher-level academic institutions are the testbed for new ideas in the CS field, and things like system design and a computers' fundamental setup have atrophied over the past few years, since I, for one, have seen very little that qualifies as "new."
One thing I would like to do is try to completely reinvent the desktop system in college as a project, because many, many technologies are just improvements upon older ones. What the industry needs is a radically new system that takes advantage of what's out there now, as far as both ideas go and as far as hardware goes.
This is just my two cents, but if you look at basic system design (device drivers, processing, filesystems, et cetera), there has been very little that is radically new.
This is why I think basic system design has atrophied at the expense of other areas.
Maybe with the exception of IBM, all of the aforementioned companies and corporations not only offer support, but they also spend time and money maintaining their own distributions (except for IBM - they maintain their own hardware).
I was talking about a company that is/was created purely for the purpose of offering support for Open Source Software; one that wouldn't also have to focus on maintaining hardware or software distributions.
Maybe what Linux needs is a giant support clearing house. By that, I mean that most open source projects don't have the resources to have their own support department, but if one were to form a company or other institution with a handful of linux techies, companies could use OSS and rely upon the said support clearinghouse for their support needs, should they actually need help.
And in some ways, that might be better, because if you have a handful of people who understand the software itimately, you won't have to cut through 3 layers of workers before you get to the "Engineer" level.
In addition to that, the cost of support is taken away from the maintainers of the OSS projects, and placed in one company which could take the revenue and pay their own costs, and then distribute profit (if any) amongst open source projects, possibly, to help improve the OSS? I know that's idealistic, but hey, it could happen...
Let's turn that around and look at it from a multi-user perspective. The root user has the ability to upgrade the kernel, and most likely the knowledge (since root isn't given to just anybody!)
But Joe User can still log in to the machine, locally or remotely, and use the GUI that he/she is familiar with, and not even know that the kernel has been upgraded.
However with windows, the newest drivers may require an OS upgrade, and with that comes an upgrade for the GUI and everything else, which is in no way transparent to Joe User.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that "hacking" is the (lost?) art of taking apart, fiddling, and generally reverse engineering. The purpose of "hacking" was (is?) to educate oneself on the inner workings of a device. A common misconception would be that "hacking" was limited to computers. It is generally used in reference to technology, but it may be any digital (or analog for that matter) device. One could also stretch the meaning of "hacker" and apply it to fields such as automobiles - taking apart and "modding" your car could be considered "hacking."
Crackers (and cracking), on the other hand, are those who maliciously exploit hardware and software that is not their own, for personal gain, and sometimes just for the sake of having done it.
Did that help clarify the difference? Hackers are reverse-engineers who seek to educate themselves, without inflicting damage. The objective of a cracker, however, is damaging a system (in whatever way), and being able to claim responsibility for it, because they (and their clique) may consider it "cool" or "macho," or in some cases, because they can fraudulently benefit from it (usually economically...)
I hope that helps. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
P.S. The "cool" and "macho" part was added by me, but I can see no other motivation to do it.
Maybe I'm the only one that had this train of thought, but I'll put it here anyways. I, personally, run a home-based server that runs many services (web, ftp, SMTP and POP3 are some of them).
The threat of being blacklisted would make me change my ways, as I have nothing to gain and everything to lose should that happen. I would presume the same is true for most sys admins out there, who run *honest* servers.
Now let's say that the few "Open Relay" servers that are left are threatened, but they don't take action. Pardon my conspiracy theory, but it may very well be that these "innocent" open relays are in fact sponsored by spam clearinghouses, in which case server admins have monetary incentive to NOT close their relays.
I'd imagine the few open relays that are left are supported by spammers in some way, as they are key in spreading spam, and most people don't want spam passing through their systems anyway, so any anti-spam person would probably close their relays as soon as they are first notified.
So to relate this to the article, I'd say that a letter from the FTC that doesn't threaten *legal* action will provide no more incentive to these system administrators to close the relays; thus the letters become little more than a waste of paper...
How is it that sending spam [is] such a heinous crime while "sharing" MP3s is a service to Mankind?
The difference is here:
Sharing MP3s is a voluntary action on behalf of both parties involved - the source and the downloader (whoever they may be).
Spam is involuntarily forced upon the recipient, and it becomes a nuissance.
I'm not saying that sharing MP3s is good, but it is voluntary to both users, where as spam is a pain in the butt that the recieving user is forced to deal with against his or her will.
Well, he mentioned that Transmeta placed the TPM inside the processor, via extensions to the x86 instruction set. By placing the TPM inside the processor (and making it available via extended x86 instructions), it should theoretically become available for non-TCPA-related uses. Maybe that's why Transmeta chose to embed the TPM in the processor.
Patrolling the Border
on
Droning On
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
... won't be the only application; you can bet they'll be patrolling internal areas too.
I don't mean to be a pessimist, but patrolling the border will most likely be one of many surveillance applications. Especially with the growing 'power' (so to speak) of the FBI, NSA, and other government agencies, there is a high likelihood that these will end up being used for domesetic spying too.
Are you a suspected terrorist? I'll bet these will show up shortly.
Supporters, of course, won't point out this application, for one of two reasons. One is that it never occurred to them, so they support it blindly, or they're such ardent supporters that they're ignoring and/or accepting this use.
I have nothing against unmanned aircraft, I think they have many wonderful applications. It's just there are some less-than-desirable applications, which we must all be aware of. They're just like guns - they have good applications (sports) and bad applications (as a lethal weapon); the better applications such as traffic monitoring are great, but it's potential uses as a spying mechanism are somewhat unnerving.
We've just got to be careful how we monitor the use of these. Just my $0.02.
The operative word being _was_. I have a song (in wav format) that I recorded off of a reel-to-reel tape. I encoded it using qualities, 10, 6, and -1. Honestly, for me, it was rather difficult to tell the difference between the 3, past the size difference. The fidelity of OGG at -1 is incredible, with an average bitrate of 34 kbps, or 4 kilobytes a second. Thats almost streamable over a modem!
(for those of you interested, the 3:52 song was only about 974k at -1, from a 16bit 44100kHz stereo.wav)
Kudos to the OGG team and all the hard work they put in to the codec, as it performs extremely well for a wide range of bitrates!
OK, so they would like to get their royalties 1.5 times. Good for them, but besides the fact that we all think its wrong (I'm not disagreeing), there are other fundemental problems that it seems they haven't thought out yet.
If I got to a CD resale store and sell them my CD (for them to re-sell), how in the world would the RIAA know about it? Would all CD-carrying stores be required to be audited, and all of their sales tracked and recorded? That is the only way (that I see) the RIAA would be able to keep track of resold CD's.
I'm not sure about you, but if I owned a store, I wouldn't want to keep track of all my sales for auditing purposes, especially if the RIAA wants it that way. Could it be that anywhere selling CD's would become like a pawn shop is, and be subject to monitoring by the police? Then entrapment could become a problem.
Maybe I'm stretching it too far, but I don't think so. If you do, please let me know. Just my two cents.
Slashdot Mirror
... sounds a lot like Shinra. And we all know well that turned out.
And yet the whole of Slashdot can go ahead bashing Apple without actually investigating the problem. Had anyone actually checked, they'd have noticed that the main .Mac page—which is how one accesses the iDisk interface—has this nifty little logout button, as seen in this screenshot.
But it's more fun to bash Apple unconditionally.
Perhaps it's a minor oversight that the self-contained iDisk interface lacks a logout button, but to say that "there is no way for the average computer user to log-out of their iDIsk on public computers" is patently false. Sure, they have to use the main .Mac page to do it, but you have to open that page to get to your iDisk in the first place. So: it's the user's choice to close that window while working on iDisk (the iDisk interface opens in a second window), and the user's oversight in failing to return there to log out.
Investigative journalism at its best. Cripes.
There's a reason they have a world-renowned business school. I'm pretty sure Jumping To Conclusions is a senior-level course.
*ducks*
Use a very small piece of scotch tape, and place it over only the right or left four copper traces on the end of an ethernet cable. Then plug the cable back into its jack.
When done right, it will take a VERY long time for your roommate to realize why the network isn't working quite right.
Last I checked, the eMac wasn't ugly. Sure, it still used a CRT, but it was much more well-designed than your common IBM PC setup having the computer, monitor, and speakers as seperate items. The eMac is/was targeted at educational institutions (hence the e), where it's a huge bonus to have a one-piece system when you're installing 30 or more computers in a lab. Reduces cable nightmare. So for its target audience, the eMac was a very elegant machine, and I still don't think it's that ugly, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.
The eMac was recently ditched, most likely because the iMac now can serve the same purpose; I also read somewhere that the case for the eMac was the most expensive part of the computer to manufacture, so it was also likely getting to the point of not being very profitable anymore.
Disclaimer: I have drunk the Apple Kool-Aid, and will be receiving my first Mac (PowerMac G5, thanks) sometime in the near future.
IBM has since released an English press release, available here.
This should be significantly more informative than the earlier available Japanese documents.
Well, I have, but I still had it set up to be 1 IP per NIC. Thanks for pointing that out, though; I'd never really seen that type of configuration, so I stand corrected on that point.
Running two OSes still doesn't seem quite parallel to having Linux sitting underneath all those IPs to manage them, but apparently I don't quite understand how switches learn to direct packets. So... I still see problems on the machine trying to run two OSes, but I trust that you're right in saying that external switches/routers wouldn't get confused.
Thanks for correcting me.
That's a bit different, because Virtual PC provides a layer of software between Windows and OS X. I'm pretty sure Virtual PC has two network configurations:
1. Let both OSes share the same IP, same MAC.
2. Put Windows behind a virtual NAT router on its own IP and own software-generated MAC.
Either way, Virtual PC software sits between Windows and the OS X network stack. In the first case, Virtual PC handles corner cases where both OSes are trying to run services on the same port, etc... To the outside world, it looks like all packets are coming from the single NIC, and a single IP address. In the second case, it's exactly as if Windows were behind a real NAT router, eliminating such possible corner cases, but limiting functionality in some areas.
Either way, both of these are very different than running two IP addresses on the same MAC address, which would seem to be the case with the proposed hardware-sharing method of running Windows and OS X concurrently.
Unfortunately, when sharing the hardware directly, there is no layer of software between a second OS and the NIC to resolve conflicts that could arise with having two operating systems running services on the same port concurrently. Such a task is not something that could be designed into hardware and fits in software much better, but would still require large amounts of work on each OS separately.
Even if that logic could go into hardware/firmware, adding a new type of protocol (like IPv6) would be unsupported by the hardware, and then IPv6 conflicts would start arising... it just seems like there's no easy hardware-only solution to that problem, and I honestly believe that neither Microsoft nor Apple are going to put the effort into making that virtualization possible...
As for Intel's forthcoming virtualization-friendly chipsets, I have no idea; those chipsets may very well solve these issues. For now, though, I still don't see concurrent operating systems happening directly on hardware without a layer of software virtualization (i.e. VMWare, Xan, or something higher-level like Virtual PC).
The problem with doing this, maybe mentioned elsewhere, is trying to share hardware peripherals such as the network card, sound card, etc... among multiple operating systems running concurrently. If both operating systems try to initialize each peripheral, then one will randomly clobber the configuration set up by the other.
It is not a problem of being able to run both concurrently on separate processors; it is being able to manage hardware resources (busses, graphics, peripherals, etc...) among operating systems without them interfering destructively with one another.
Even more complicated would be using a single NIC to connect two operating systems to the same network. Unless someone came up with a clever solution, each OS would need its own IP address. However, routers and switches outside the computer would become immensely confused when a single NIC and a single MAC address belong to two IP addresses, since most routers/switches only have a one-to-one correlation between MAC addresses and IP addresses.
Even if firmware could solve the problem by implementing all the low-level drivers, the single-NIC, multiple-IP problem is one that cannot be solved at the firmware level, and would require massive modifications at both the OS and application level to get multiple OSes running various services running on a single IP using a single NIC.
There are more problems to doing this than your comment leads one to believe, and that's why I think we won't see that happening anytime soon.
Just my initial thoughts on the matter; maybe someone who knows more about the hardware involved can correct me if I'm wrong.
I see you submitted that comment using the trusty handwriting recognition capabilities of your Apple Newton.
As another student of Virginia Tech, I'd like to add that, in addition to becoming a partner, Tech will be piloting the use of Sakai alongside Blackboard next year, so we will see how well that goes.
Personally, however, I hate Blackboard; it's interface, though learnable, is not nearly as intuitive as an online course management system should be, and for some reason, both professors and TAs have trouble with entering and managing grades through Blackboard. This suggests to me that Blackboard is a poorly written, but well-marketed course management system. I look forward to moving away from it.
That's my two cents.
NO, they are wrong. There is a distinct difference between liberties and safety! I don't see how people can be duped into believing that terrorist groups affect liberties!
The only reason they affect liberties is because Congress passes things like the Patriot Act. Otherwise, all they affect is safety.
Terrorists affect SAFETY, Congress affects LIBERTY. Get it straight, and we can all stop falling for this crap coming from Washington. If they said these terrorist groups were the greatest threat to our safety, then I'd buy it. But they are, however, NOT a threat to our liberty.
The Patriot Act is the threat to our liberty, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights when it comes to searches and siezures, and the right to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial.
Government disheartens me. So do the people who buy crap like this from them and cannot draw the distinction for themselves. Just my (flaming) two cents.
This isn't supposed to be flamebait, but mod it as such if you think it is.
My guess would be that the fundamentals of system design atrophy. In many ways the computer science field has seen very little innovation as far as "operating systems" are concerned. At least in the recent past.
Most systems try to mimick windows or something else, except for Apple's OS X. But on the other hand, it is also built atop a UNIX-style system, and is thus somewhat based on old ideas.
The IT industry has created such large barriers to entry that any new or radical ideas as far as desktop systems go (or servers, for that matter) have failed to enter the market successfully. Arguably, Linux's success is due to the fact that it's just a reimplementation of the old UNIX system design.
Colleges and other higher-level academic institutions are the testbed for new ideas in the CS field, and things like system design and a computers' fundamental setup have atrophied over the past few years, since I, for one, have seen very little that qualifies as "new."
One thing I would like to do is try to completely reinvent the desktop system in college as a project, because many, many technologies are just improvements upon older ones. What the industry needs is a radically new system that takes advantage of what's out there now, as far as both ideas go and as far as hardware goes.
This is just my two cents, but if you look at basic system design (device drivers, processing, filesystems, et cetera), there has been very little that is radically new.
This is why I think basic system design has atrophied at the expense of other areas.
Maybe with the exception of IBM, all of the aforementioned companies and corporations not only offer support, but they also spend time and money maintaining their own distributions (except for IBM - they maintain their own hardware).
I was talking about a company that is/was created purely for the purpose of offering support for Open Source Software; one that wouldn't also have to focus on maintaining hardware or software distributions.
I hope that helps to clear things up...
Headline:
"Slashdot, home of bad grammar and spelling, posts article about proper grammar. Rioting ensues."
Maybe what Linux needs is a giant support clearing house. By that, I mean that most open source projects don't have the resources to have their own support department, but if one were to form a company or other institution with a handful of linux techies, companies could use OSS and rely upon the said support clearinghouse for their support needs, should they actually need help.
And in some ways, that might be better, because if you have a handful of people who understand the software itimately, you won't have to cut through 3 layers of workers before you get to the "Engineer" level.
In addition to that, the cost of support is taken away from the maintainers of the OSS projects, and placed in one company which could take the revenue and pay their own costs, and then distribute profit (if any) amongst open source projects, possibly, to help improve the OSS? I know that's idealistic, but hey, it could happen...
Anyways, just my thoughts on the issue.
Let's turn that around and look at it from a multi-user perspective. The root user has the ability to upgrade the kernel, and most likely the knowledge (since root isn't given to just anybody!)
But Joe User can still log in to the machine, locally or remotely, and use the GUI that he/she is familiar with, and not even know that the kernel has been upgraded.
However with windows, the newest drivers may require an OS upgrade, and with that comes an upgrade for the GUI and everything else, which is in no way transparent to Joe User.
That's where the point lies, I believe.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that "hacking" is the (lost?) art of taking apart, fiddling, and generally reverse engineering. The purpose of "hacking" was (is?) to educate oneself on the inner workings of a device. A common misconception would be that "hacking" was limited to computers. It is generally used in reference to technology, but it may be any digital (or analog for that matter) device. One could also stretch the meaning of "hacker" and apply it to fields such as automobiles - taking apart and "modding" your car could be considered "hacking."
Crackers (and cracking), on the other hand, are those who maliciously exploit hardware and software that is not their own, for personal gain, and sometimes just for the sake of having done it.
Did that help clarify the difference? Hackers are reverse-engineers who seek to educate themselves, without inflicting damage. The objective of a cracker, however, is damaging a system (in whatever way), and being able to claim responsibility for it, because they (and their clique) may consider it "cool" or "macho," or in some cases, because they can fraudulently benefit from it (usually economically...)
I hope that helps. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
P.S. The "cool" and "macho" part was added by me, but I can see no other motivation to do it.
Maybe I'm the only one that had this train of thought, but I'll put it here anyways. I, personally, run a home-based server that runs many services (web, ftp, SMTP and POP3 are some of them).
The threat of being blacklisted would make me change my ways, as I have nothing to gain and everything to lose should that happen. I would presume the same is true for most sys admins out there, who run *honest* servers.
Now let's say that the few "Open Relay" servers that are left are threatened, but they don't take action. Pardon my conspiracy theory, but it may very well be that these "innocent" open relays are in fact sponsored by spam clearinghouses, in which case server admins have monetary incentive to NOT close their relays.
I'd imagine the few open relays that are left are supported by spammers in some way, as they are key in spreading spam, and most people don't want spam passing through their systems anyway, so any anti-spam person would probably close their relays as soon as they are first notified.
So to relate this to the article, I'd say that a letter from the FTC that doesn't threaten *legal* action will provide no more incentive to these system administrators to close the relays; thus the letters become little more than a waste of paper...
Just my thoughts on the matter.
The difference is here:
Sharing MP3s is a voluntary action on behalf of both parties involved - the source and the downloader (whoever they may be).
Spam is involuntarily forced upon the recipient, and it becomes a nuissance.
I'm not saying that sharing MP3s is good, but it is voluntary to both users, where as spam is a pain in the butt that the recieving user is forced to deal with against his or her will.
Yes, and to counter the Emax movement, we'll have VIMIX!
Thus the inevitable debate continues...
Well, he mentioned that Transmeta placed the TPM inside the processor, via extensions to the x86 instruction set. By placing the TPM inside the processor (and making it available via extended x86 instructions), it should theoretically become available for non-TCPA-related uses. Maybe that's why Transmeta chose to embed the TPM in the processor.
... won't be the only application; you can bet they'll be patrolling internal areas too.
I don't mean to be a pessimist, but patrolling the border will most likely be one of many surveillance applications. Especially with the growing 'power' (so to speak) of the FBI, NSA, and other government agencies, there is a high likelihood that these will end up being used for domesetic spying too.
Are you a suspected terrorist? I'll bet these will show up shortly.
Supporters, of course, won't point out this application, for one of two reasons. One is that it never occurred to them, so they support it blindly, or they're such ardent supporters that they're ignoring and/or accepting this use.
I have nothing against unmanned aircraft, I think they have many wonderful applications. It's just there are some less-than-desirable applications, which we must all be aware of. They're just like guns - they have good applications (sports) and bad applications (as a lethal weapon); the better applications such as traffic monitoring are great, but it's potential uses as a spying mechanism are somewhat unnerving.
We've just got to be careful how we monitor the use of these. Just my $0.02.
I will now prepare for my first flamebait mod.
The operative word being _was_. I have a song (in wav format) that I recorded off of a reel-to-reel tape. I encoded it using qualities, 10, 6, and -1. Honestly, for me, it was rather difficult to tell the difference between the 3, past the size difference. The fidelity of OGG at -1 is incredible, with an average bitrate of 34 kbps, or 4 kilobytes a second. Thats almost streamable over a modem!
.wav)
(for those of you interested, the 3:52 song was only about 974k at -1, from a 16bit 44100kHz stereo
Kudos to the OGG team and all the hard work they put in to the codec, as it performs extremely well for a wide range of bitrates!
OK, so they would like to get their royalties 1.5 times. Good for them, but besides the fact that we all think its wrong (I'm not disagreeing), there are other fundemental problems that it seems they haven't thought out yet.
If I got to a CD resale store and sell them my CD (for them to re-sell), how in the world would the RIAA know about it? Would all CD-carrying stores be required to be audited, and all of their sales tracked and recorded? That is the only way (that I see) the RIAA would be able to keep track of resold CD's.
I'm not sure about you, but if I owned a store, I wouldn't want to keep track of all my sales for auditing purposes, especially if the RIAA wants it that way. Could it be that anywhere selling CD's would become like a pawn shop is, and be subject to monitoring by the police? Then entrapment could become a problem.
Maybe I'm stretching it too far, but I don't think so. If you do, please let me know. Just my two cents.