"My position about the work being a part of the voting process is important. I don't want voting to be marginalized more than it already is. A balance between making things too hard with unnecessary reductions in turnouts and the "too easy" process with potentially high turnouts containing results not well thought out is something I do not see in the discussion where it should be."
Personally, I think that anything that encourages voter participation is good -- the idea of it being "too easy" seems like a non-problem to me.
Anyway, I hope you visit www.openvotingconsortium.org. It's not the fanciest web site, but there's a lot of very good material in the mailing list archives.
Disclaimer: I'm a fan of the project, but I'm not a voting expert. Go to www.openvotingconsortium.org to get more thorough information.
"The information detailing the will of the people should be moved via a means that is human traceable and readable and durable. Paper seems ideal for this because it addresses all three issues and because it takes people to actually do the moving. Any of us can observe the process and many of the movements and all the results are there for questions later."
The OVC system has people using voting workstations where you use a computer to enter your voting information. The result of this is a printed ballot (text + barcode for scanning) that encodes your votes, but no personally identifiable data. The voting workstation is stand-alone, for security. Workstations can allow blind voters to vote, securely and with privacy, which is one of the key drivers towards digital voting.
If you want to verify that the barcode on the ballot matches the printed vote, you can take it to a verification station, which will read the barcode and display the encoded votes. For the blind, it'll read the votes to you via headphones.
To actually vote, you take your ballot (in a folder so that only the barcode is visible, for privacy) and take it to be scanned and stored permanently. After scanning, the physical ballots are retained for recounting, system audits, etc.
"Why take the work out of the process in the first place? We have plenty of workers who are willing to do their civic duty."
Well, if the system is trustworthy (auditable, etc.) you can get more accurate results digitally than manually for all of the usual reasons people automate manual processes. Also, manual processes do not allow blind voters to vote securely and with privacy, which is turning out to be one of the major drivers towards digital voting systems.
"10.Rank the importance of server operating attributes to your organization. (1 indicates a preference for low product cost and more administive and end-user time. 5 indicates a high up-front product cost but less user effort)"
Note that this assumes that your two choices are "low cost/more administration" and "high code/less administration". In practice, Linus is both lower cost and lower administrative overhead, while Windows is higher cost and higher administrative overhead.
"11.Rank the importance of easy initial configuration and setup of a server operating system against easier administration. (1 is easy initial setup and lousy administration and 5 is difficult initial setup and great administration)"
Similarly, this question assumes that you have to choose between "hard setup/easy administration" and "easy setup/hard administration". Linux is both easier to install and easier to administer than Windows.
Ah well, perhaps even by setting up false options, they'll learn something about what people consider important.
"about. Correct me if I am wrong, but I had the understanding that Oracle stored procedures were compiled C code. In this case, we are talking about Java which is interpreted. For that and various other reasons, we are dealing with far more impact on the database's performance."
Actually, these days Java is compiled to native binaries (by hotspot), while Oracle's PL/SQL is "compiled" to bytecode that is interpreted. That's why Java stored procedires (in Oracle) generally (though not always) outperform PL/SQL stored procedures.
Please support the Open Voting Consortium
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 5, Informative
If you're concerned about reliable voting in the US (and elsewhere) based on an open, auditable system, please go to http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/, read up on what they're doing, and volunteer to help out.
To quote from their web site:
The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of an open voting system for use in public elections.
We are currently developing free voting software to run on very inexpensive PC hardware. The OVC voting system will accommodate different languages and scoring methods, as well as voters with special needs.
We expect to be fully operational by 2005, with the certification of version 1.0 of the Open Voting software. Meanwhile, we have demonstration software under development at http://sourceforge.net/projects/evm2003, which should be ready by the end of this year.
If you want to Help make it happen, then mailto:alan@openvotingconsortium.org to send us an e-mail.
"can you prove that I didn't by that PIL album back in 1986, and am now just D/L ing a legitimate eletronique copy"
A few mistakes in this one sentence (very efficient):
1) Buying the album doesn't give you the right to download it, any more more than buying the LP gave you a free CD.:-)
2) The RIAA isn't going after people for downloading, they're going after people for sharing, so they're not going to go after you, even for downloading a PIL album.
3) Since it's sharing that they're going after, it doesn't matter where the bits came from. So even if you bought the CD and ripped it yourself, they don't want you broadcasting it to everyone on the planet.
"You know, we do have free speech in this country (most of the time). There's no reason to shy away from saying that this software is designed to avoid getting spied on by the RIAA. It's perfectly legal to code it and to use it."
Well, it's perhaps legal to implement, distribute and run the software, but they're encouraging people specifically to use it to break the law. IANAL, but I think that if the application of a product is to break the law, that makes the technology illegal. That's how it works with cable descramblers, for example -- in theory they "clean the video signal" but of course they're really used to steal cable service, and people who use (or sell?) them get arrested.
Well, in my experience Java stored procedures are faster than PL/SQL stored procedures, and Oracle says that that's typically the case, but I don't have benchmarks.
I agree that the strongest argument for running Java inside the database is because Java ia full featured programming language. Your example with string parsing sent shivers down my spine.
"Sounds like a job for stored procedures ala Oracle. If MySQL does not have them it should."
That's the issue -- the poster's complaint actually has nothing to do with MySQL embedding Java in particular -- he's worried that if he allows users to execute stored procedures they can bog down his database.
I don't know about MySQL, but in Oracle, Sybase, etc., you can put a CPU time limit on queries so that if someone starts sucking the system down their queries time out.
Don't think of it that way. Think of it as "now we can code stored procedures in Java instead of weird, proprietary scripting languages" or "Now we can use MySQL for our application that requires stored procedures"!
"The ability to write stored procedures in Java has been in Oracle for some time but I still cannot figure out why anyone would do that."
Here are some reasons:
1) Java runs _way_ faster than PL/SQL. This is because lots of people have been working in making Java run very efficiently compared to PL/SQL. I've seen people port from PL/SQL to Java stored procedures justified purely by increased system performance.
2) It allows for consistent coding between database-resident and application server-resident code. This means that you don't need to train people in two very different languages to get work done.
3) It allows for code portability between the database and application-server. This lets you tune performance. For example, if you have some code that does tons of database I/O, it may run far more efficiently inside the database rather than accessing the database across a network.
I don't know how well the MySQL guys integrated Java yet, but in Oracle it's pretty wonderful compared to using their weird, slow, proprietary language.
Right, there are two basic approaches (that I can think of) to playing DRM'd music on a device like this.
1) Implement the DRM on the device, and handle the key management, etc., so that the device has the same rights to decrypt and play the DRM's content.
2) Use the DRM on the desktop computer, and stream the result to the device.
I think that (2) is the better approach, because it means that you don't need to do the work of porting a zillion proprietary DRM systems to your box, but can leave that on the desktop where's it's already present (or you wouldn't have the DRM'd content). The easiest way to do it would be to have the 'streaming' software tell the desktop music software to play whatever you wanted, capture the metadata and output stream, and send it to the device. It'd require a little integration to be able to remote control WMP, iTunes, etc., and capture their audio output stream, but that's got to be less work than licensing and porting their proprietary code to Linux.
"If current trends continue, we're looking at a significant dropoff of song downloads"
Actually, digital download sales have been climbing steadily (according to Soundscan and NPD). Admittedly, download sales are tiny compared to CD sales, but they're heading up at a remarkable clip -- there's hope for the music industry yet!
"I don't think there's any obligation to help... They certainly would not have any obligation to help you re-write the Linux kernel in such a way that does not violate their copyright"
I guess that what I wrote was ambiguous. What I meant was that my understanding was that if someone accuses someone else of infringing their copyrights, they are required to identify those infringements so that the accused can have a chance to remove the infringements, before the accuser can pursue anything further. In this case, SCO appears to be avoiding telling the accused ANYTHING, specifically in order to prevent the open source community from correcting the infringements. So it sounds to be like they're blowing their own case out of the water by failnig to act in good faith to help the accused address the infringement. For example, sending a list of hundreds of filenames and saying that there might be some infringements in them, isn't specific enough to allow anyone to correct any infringements. IANAL, which is why I'm hoping a lawyer jumps in.
"iPod, iTunes, SD cards, Texas Instruments graphing calculators, game consoles, and so forth all have DRM. The items that don't forcefully use DRM are the ones that sell."
Don't forget cell phones, most commercial videotapes, cable set top boxes, Palm Pilots, Newtons (ok, kinda dated),...
Most forms of "DRM" are fairly innocuous. For example, the "you can't beam this program to anybody else" flag on many commercial Palm programs isn't too unreasonable. And when the cable or satellite company scrambles their signal, or a commercial videotape can't be copied, people may complain (who wouldn't want free cable...), but most people see those measures as a fair way for the companies to keep from getting ripped off.
When people say that they don't like DRM, what they're probably referring to are the complicated, annoying forms of lock-down, like Windows XP's registration process, or Windows Media, or Intuit's fiasco last year, that are complex, unusually restrictive, and annoying to deal with.
This article didn't say where the group was on the DRM spectrum, from "copy protect bit" to FairPlay to WMA. So until we know a little more, it's premature (IMO) to get out the tinfoil hats.
Actually, what this announcement means is that the media companies aren't going to allow Microsoft's DRM to become the standard, and they'd rather have an "open standard" than allow any one company to control the media distribution business. They were vague in the article about what "open standard" means, so I'd guess (!) that it might mean "open" in the sense of MP3 or MPEG4, which is that you'll have to pay licensing fees, as opposed to "open" in the sense of "free to use" or "open source". But who knows? It'd be interesting to have to decide how pro-open source, anti-DRM folks might feel about an open source DRM system.:-)
IANAL, but I thought that if you claimed that someone was infringing your copyrights you had a responsibility to help them _correct_ the infringement? It sure looks to me like SCO is doing its best to prolong the infringement in order to maximize a hypothetical penalty, which, from what I've read, would result in their case being thrown out. Any lawyer want to comment?
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year. "
Besides which, this claim makes no sense -- letting people see the code doesn't give people the right to use the code -- SCO would still have the copyright on anything that they wrote (or, to be more accurate, bought the rights to). That's like arguing that you can't publish books because people could read them and publish copies.
"the very nasty 1.6x multiplication factor that they never tell you about."
I assume that you're talking about the issue that the sensor size and position in a DSLR don't exactly match the film size and position in an SLR, so the image taken by the two camers, given the same lens, has a different area and focal length. Yeah, this is a bit annoying, because all of the measurements on the lens are "off" when used with a DSLR. Of course, what you actually see through the viewfinder matches what you capture when you shoot, but it's still a hassle converting the measurements.
But you can get also lenses specifically designed for DSLR's that don't have that issue. For Canon, the non-DSLR lenses are the EF lenses, and the DSLR lenses are the EF-S lenses. I believe that a couple of companies are working on a standard "4/3" that is supposed to work across a couple of manufacturer's cameras as well.
If buy the Digital Rebel and find that you really get into photography, you will soon buy lenses, tripds, lights, etc., that will exceed the cost of the camera body in value. Then you can upgrade your camera body to the 10D and sell the used 300D, at no real cost penalty.
I'll stick with Steve's take: "The first thing we need to point out is that there are now three distinct categories of digital SLR cameras: Amateur, Enthusiast and Professional. Canon's new EOS Digital Rebel (also sold as EOS 300D and EOS Kiss Digital outside of the U.S.) falls into the newly created Amateur dSLR category. At the moment only Canon's Digital Rebel is in this category but we imagine that Nikon and others will follow suit with their own under-$1000 dSLRs in the near future. In the meantime, I feel comfortable in predicting that Canon will sell Digital Rebels as fast as they can make them, it's sure to be the #1 dSLR this holiday season.
The EOS Digital Rebel is a somewhat de-featured EOS 10D, using a similar (but different) 6.3-megapixel CMOS imager and Canon's DIGIC processor. It lacks features such as the ability to select the metering mode, less control over focus modes, no Custom Settings Menu and no external flash PC connector. The Digital Rebel has a polycarbonate (high-impact plastic) body whereas the 10D has a cast magnesium (metal) body. This is like the car manufacturers that offer deluxe high-powered models and "stripped down" economy models. Both cars get you where you want to go and believe me, the EOS Digital Rebel is as capable of taking a great picture as the 10D. By offering an interchangeable lens SLR camera for under $900 (body only price) Canon opens up the world of advanced digital photography to a much larger base of consumers. If you need the more advanced features of the 10D then you need to spend more money, it's your choice. The Digital Rebel will more than fill the needs of non-professional users who tired of dealing with the limitations of consumer digicams."
My vote would go to the Canon Digital Rebel (AKA Canon EOS 300D) camera. There's a review at http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/300d.h tml and http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_ eos300d.asp?dontcount=1.
The short version is that for $1000 you can get a quality Digital SLR camera with a very good zoom lens. And you can then use Canon EF lenses for flexibility.
Compared to other DSLR's it's _way_ less expensive (compare to the previous bargain 10D for $1,500 with no lens), and makes pretty reasonable tradeoffs. It has the same 6 Mpixel sensor, but the camera body is plastic instead of metal, and a few other esoteric controls are missing. So they give you the functionality that any photographer actually uses, for around 1/2 the cost of its closest competition.
Compared to point-and-shoot digicams, the 300D (1) has a much larger lens, allowing you to shoot in less light/faster speed, and (2) lets you use any Canon EF lens, so you can use super zoom lenses, macro lenses, etc., (3) it gives you manual control over everything, and (4) it auto-focuses and shoots much faster than any point-and-shoot I've tested.
"So an attacker who can gain access to your network -- over a wired connection or wirelessly -- can trick an affected system into trusting a rogue machine, and when the compromised machine reboots, take it over and even attack other systems on the network."
This is overstating the problem a little bit -- an attacker who breaks into your wireless LAN can only potentially compromise a machine on the wireless LAN, and then only when that machine reboots, and then only if his machine is used as the DHCP server instead of the wireless access point. Sure, it's not quite impossible, but not too likely. But machines on your wired LAN will never see a wireless machine as a DHCP server since the wireless and wired LAN's are different subnets.
Now, keep in mind that this means that virtually all home users are completely immune from this attack.
So while this isn't a trivial security hole, it's still pretty obscure compared to the issues plaguing windows (e.g. "browse this web page and I get root access to your PC").
Overall, I think that this article is a good sign -- if someone pathetically eager to attack Apple and defend the honor of Windows can only come up with something this silly, it shows:
1) Windows users are starting to feel real heat for having chosen an insecure operating system, so they feel that they have to defend it, and
2) They can't find anything real to complain about.
Even so, you'd think that an editor would keep them from printing such juvenile ramblings -- it just makes them look bad.
"Of course, there are certain advantages to random access storage with a directory structure. Like, say, knowing what's on the disk and where it is.:-)... Of course, that's true. But in that case, most people chose convenience (floppies) over cheap (casettes). It's not the same with TiVo vs homebrew DVR. TiVo is both easier and cheaper than a homebrew DVR. So I don't really see Tivo going the way of the data cassette."
Right, but the discussion was about whether one should "just buy a VCR".
Btween the TiVo and the MythTV, I personally have both -- the MythTV is a cool device, and astoundingly good for what it is. The TiVo is already paid for (with lifetime subscription), and works just fine, so I have no reason to stop using it. Choosing between them, right now the TiVo is better for a normal person, and the MythTV is an astoundingly good, useful hacker toy. Wait six months, and I bet that companies are selling preconfigured MythTV boxes.:-)
I agree - for a non-technical user, a TiVo is both cheaper and easier to use.
But for a mildly technical user who likes to push the boundaries, the MythTV is a wonderful thing. It's ALMOST as easy to use as a TiVo and lets you do all sorts of cool things, like RIP a DVD to an MPEG4 video stream with one click of an IR remote. Yes, setting the MythTV up is too much work, but either you enjoy that sort of thing (I do), or you can get a preconfigured install CD that sets it all up for you. It's only a matter of time until someone starts selling pre-built, pre-configured MythTV boxen.
Slashdot Mirror
"My position about the work being a part of the voting process is important. I don't want voting to be marginalized more than it already is. A balance between making things too hard with unnecessary reductions in turnouts and the "too easy" process with potentially high turnouts containing results not well thought out is something I do not see in the discussion where it should be."
Personally, I think that anything that encourages voter participation is good -- the idea of it being "too easy" seems like a non-problem to me.
Anyway, I hope you visit www.openvotingconsortium.org. It's not the fanciest web site, but there's a lot of very good material in the mailing list archives.
Disclaimer: I'm a fan of the project, but I'm not a voting expert. Go to www.openvotingconsortium.org to get more thorough information.
"The information detailing the will of the people should be moved via a means that is human traceable and readable and durable. Paper seems ideal for this because it addresses all three issues and because it takes people to actually do the moving. Any of us can observe the process and many of the movements and all the results are there for questions later."
The OVC system has people using voting workstations where you use a computer to enter your voting information. The result of this is a printed ballot (text + barcode for scanning) that encodes your votes, but no personally identifiable data. The voting workstation is stand-alone, for security. Workstations can allow blind voters to vote, securely and with privacy, which is one of the key drivers towards digital voting.
If you want to verify that the barcode on the ballot matches the printed vote, you can take it to a verification station, which will read the barcode and display the encoded votes. For the blind, it'll read the votes to you via headphones.
To actually vote, you take your ballot (in a folder so that only the barcode is visible, for privacy) and take it to be scanned and stored permanently. After scanning, the physical ballots are retained for recounting, system audits, etc.
"Why take the work out of the process in the first place? We have plenty of workers who are willing to do their civic duty."
Well, if the system is trustworthy (auditable, etc.) you can get more accurate results digitally than manually for all of the usual reasons people automate manual processes. Also, manual processes do not allow blind voters to vote securely and with privacy, which is turning out to be one of the major drivers towards digital voting systems.
"10.Rank the importance of server operating attributes to your organization.
(1 indicates a preference for low product cost and more administive and end-user time. 5 indicates a high up-front product cost but less user effort)"
Note that this assumes that your two choices are "low cost/more administration" and "high code/less administration". In practice, Linus is both lower cost and lower administrative overhead, while Windows is higher cost and higher administrative overhead.
"11.Rank the importance of easy initial configuration and setup of a server operating system against easier administration.
(1 is easy initial setup and lousy administration and 5 is difficult initial setup and great administration)"
Similarly, this question assumes that you have to choose between "hard setup/easy administration" and "easy setup/hard administration". Linux is both easier to install and easier to administer than Windows.
Ah well, perhaps even by setting up false options, they'll learn something about what people consider important.
"about. Correct me if I am wrong, but I had the understanding that Oracle stored procedures were compiled C code. In this case, we are talking about Java which is interpreted. For that and various other reasons, we are dealing with far more impact on the database's performance."
Actually, these days Java is compiled to native binaries (by hotspot), while Oracle's PL/SQL is "compiled" to bytecode that is interpreted. That's why Java stored procedires (in Oracle) generally (though not always) outperform PL/SQL stored procedures.
If you're concerned about reliable voting in the US (and elsewhere) based on an open, auditable system, please go to http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/, read up on what they're doing, and volunteer to help out.
To quote from their web site:
The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of an open voting system for use in public elections.
We are currently developing free voting software to run on very inexpensive PC hardware. The OVC voting system will accommodate different languages and scoring methods, as well as voters with special needs.
We expect to be fully operational by 2005, with the certification of version 1.0 of the Open Voting software. Meanwhile, we have demonstration software under development at http://sourceforge.net/projects/evm2003, which should be ready by the end of this year.
If you want to Help make it happen, then mailto:alan@openvotingconsortium.org to send us an e-mail.
"can you prove that I didn't by that PIL album back in 1986, and am now just D/L ing a legitimate eletronique copy" A few mistakes in this one sentence (very efficient): 1) Buying the album doesn't give you the right to download it, any more more than buying the LP gave you a free CD. :-)
2) The RIAA isn't going after people for downloading, they're going after people for sharing, so they're not going to go after you, even for downloading a PIL album.
3) Since it's sharing that they're going after, it doesn't matter where the bits came from. So even if you bought the CD and ripped it yourself, they don't want you broadcasting it to everyone on the planet.
"You know, we do have free speech in this country (most of the time). There's no reason to shy away from saying that this software is designed to avoid getting spied on by the RIAA. It's perfectly legal to code it and to use it."
Well, it's perhaps legal to implement, distribute and run the software, but they're encouraging people specifically to use it to break the law. IANAL, but I think that if the application of a product is to break the law, that makes the technology illegal. That's how it works with cable descramblers, for example -- in theory they "clean the video signal" but of course they're really used to steal cable service, and people who use (or sell?) them get arrested.
Well, in my experience Java stored procedures are faster than PL/SQL stored procedures, and Oracle says that that's typically the case, but I don't have benchmarks.
I agree that the strongest argument for running Java inside the database is because Java ia full featured programming language. Your example with string parsing sent shivers down my spine.
"Sounds like a job for stored procedures ala Oracle. If MySQL does not have them it should."
That's the issue -- the poster's complaint actually has nothing to do with MySQL embedding Java in particular -- he's worried that if he allows users to execute stored procedures they can bog down his database.
I don't know about MySQL, but in Oracle, Sybase, etc., you can put a CPU time limit on queries so that if someone starts sucking the system down their queries time out.
"More code to bog down the servers with"
Don't think of it that way. Think of it as "now we can code stored procedures in Java instead of weird, proprietary scripting languages" or "Now we can use MySQL for our application that requires stored procedures"!
"The ability to write stored procedures in Java has been in Oracle for some time but I still cannot figure out why anyone would do that."
Here are some reasons:
1) Java runs _way_ faster than PL/SQL. This is because lots of people have been working in making Java run very efficiently compared to PL/SQL. I've seen people port from PL/SQL to Java stored procedures justified purely by increased system performance.
2) It allows for consistent coding between database-resident and application server-resident code. This means that you don't need to train people in two very different languages to get work done.
3) It allows for code portability between the database and application-server. This lets you tune performance. For example, if you have some code that does tons of database I/O, it may run far more efficiently inside the database rather than accessing the database across a network.
I don't know how well the MySQL guys integrated Java yet, but in Oracle it's pretty wonderful compared to using their weird, slow, proprietary language.
Right, there are two basic approaches (that I can think of) to playing DRM'd music on a device like this.
1) Implement the DRM on the device, and handle the key management, etc., so that the device has the same rights to decrypt and play the DRM's content.
2) Use the DRM on the desktop computer, and stream the result to the device.
I think that (2) is the better approach, because it means that you don't need to do the work of porting a zillion proprietary DRM systems to your box, but can leave that on the desktop where's it's already present (or you wouldn't have the DRM'd content). The easiest way to do it would be to have the 'streaming' software tell the desktop music software to play whatever you wanted, capture the metadata and output stream, and send it to the device. It'd require a little integration to be able to remote control WMP, iTunes, etc., and capture their audio output stream, but that's got to be less work than licensing and porting their proprietary code to Linux.
IMO, of course.
"If current trends continue, we're looking at a significant dropoff of song downloads"
Actually, digital download sales have been climbing steadily (according to Soundscan and NPD). Admittedly, download sales are tiny compared to CD sales, but they're heading up at a remarkable clip -- there's hope for the music industry yet!
"I don't think there's any obligation to help ... They certainly would not have any obligation to help you re-write the Linux kernel in such a way that does not violate their copyright"
I guess that what I wrote was ambiguous. What I meant was that my understanding was that if someone accuses someone else of infringing their copyrights, they are required to identify those infringements so that the accused can have a chance to remove the infringements, before the accuser can pursue anything further. In this case, SCO appears to be avoiding telling the accused ANYTHING, specifically in order to prevent the open source community from correcting the infringements. So it sounds to be like they're blowing their own case out of the water by failnig to act in good faith to help the accused address the infringement. For example, sending a list of hundreds of filenames and saying that there might be some infringements in them, isn't specific enough to allow anyone to correct any infringements. IANAL, which is why I'm hoping a lawyer jumps in.
"iPod, iTunes, SD cards, Texas Instruments graphing calculators, game consoles, and so forth all have DRM. The items that don't forcefully use DRM are the ones that sell."
...
Don't forget cell phones, most commercial videotapes, cable set top boxes, Palm Pilots, Newtons (ok, kinda dated),
Most forms of "DRM" are fairly innocuous. For example, the "you can't beam this program to anybody else" flag on many commercial Palm programs isn't too unreasonable. And when the cable or satellite company scrambles their signal, or a commercial videotape can't be copied, people may complain (who wouldn't want free cable...), but most people see those measures as a fair way for the companies to keep from getting ripped off.
When people say that they don't like DRM, what they're probably referring to are the complicated, annoying forms of lock-down, like Windows XP's registration process, or Windows Media, or Intuit's fiasco last year, that are complex, unusually restrictive, and annoying to deal with.
This article didn't say where the group was on the DRM spectrum, from "copy protect bit" to FairPlay to WMA. So until we know a little more, it's premature (IMO) to get out the tinfoil hats.
Actually, what this announcement means is that the media companies aren't going to allow Microsoft's DRM to become the standard, and they'd rather have an "open standard" than allow any one company to control the media distribution business. They were vague in the article about what "open standard" means, so I'd guess (!) that it might mean "open" in the sense of MP3 or MPEG4, which is that you'll have to pay licensing fees, as opposed to "open" in the sense of "free to use" or "open source". But who knows? It'd be interesting to have to decide how pro-open source, anti-DRM folks might feel about an open source DRM system. :-)
IANAL, but I thought that if you claimed that someone was infringing your copyrights you had a responsibility to help them _correct_ the infringement? It sure looks to me like SCO is doing its best to prolong the infringement in order to maximize a hypothetical penalty, which, from what I've read, would result in their case being thrown out. Any lawyer want to comment?
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year. "
Besides which, this claim makes no sense -- letting people see the code doesn't give people the right to use the code -- SCO would still have the copyright on anything that they wrote (or, to be more accurate, bought the rights to). That's like arguing that you can't publish books because people could read them and publish copies.
"the very nasty 1.6x multiplication factor that they never tell you about."
I assume that you're talking about the issue that the sensor size and position in a DSLR don't exactly match the film size and position in an SLR, so the image taken by the two camers, given the same lens, has a different area and focal length. Yeah, this is a bit annoying, because all of the measurements on the lens are "off" when used with a DSLR. Of course, what you actually see through the viewfinder matches what you capture when you shoot, but it's still a hassle converting the measurements.
But you can get also lenses specifically designed for DSLR's that don't have that issue. For Canon, the non-DSLR lenses are the EF lenses, and the DSLR lenses are the EF-S lenses. I believe that a couple of companies are working on a standard "4/3" that is supposed to work across a couple of manufacturer's cameras as well.
If buy the Digital Rebel and find that you really get into photography, you will soon buy lenses, tripds, lights, etc., that will exceed the cost of the camera body in value. Then you can upgrade your camera body to the 10D and sell the used 300D, at no real cost penalty.
I'll stick with Steve's take: "The first thing we need to point out is that there are now three distinct categories of digital SLR cameras: Amateur, Enthusiast and Professional. Canon's new EOS Digital Rebel (also sold as EOS 300D and EOS Kiss Digital outside of the U.S.) falls into the newly created Amateur dSLR category. At the moment only Canon's Digital Rebel is in this category but we imagine that Nikon and others will follow suit with their own under-$1000 dSLRs in the near future. In the meantime, I feel comfortable in predicting that Canon will sell Digital Rebels as fast as they can make them, it's sure to be the #1 dSLR this holiday season.
The EOS Digital Rebel is a somewhat de-featured EOS 10D, using a similar (but different) 6.3-megapixel CMOS imager and Canon's DIGIC processor. It lacks features such as the ability to select the metering mode, less control over focus modes, no Custom Settings Menu and no external flash PC connector. The Digital Rebel has a polycarbonate (high-impact plastic) body whereas the 10D has a cast magnesium (metal) body. This is like the car manufacturers that offer deluxe high-powered models and "stripped down" economy models. Both cars get you where you want to go and believe me, the EOS Digital Rebel is as capable of taking a great picture as the 10D. By offering an interchangeable lens SLR camera for under $900 (body only price) Canon opens up the world of advanced digital photography to a much larger base of consumers. If you need the more advanced features of the 10D then you need to spend more money, it's your choice. The Digital Rebel will more than fill the needs of non-professional users who tired of dealing with the limitations of consumer digicams."
My vote would go to the Canon Digital Rebel (AKA Canon EOS 300D) camera. There's a review at http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/300d.h tml and http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_ eos300d.asp?dontcount=1.
The short version is that for $1000 you can get a quality Digital SLR camera with a very good zoom lens. And you can then use Canon EF lenses for flexibility.
Compared to other DSLR's it's _way_ less expensive (compare to the previous bargain 10D for $1,500 with no lens), and makes pretty reasonable tradeoffs. It has the same 6 Mpixel sensor, but the camera body is plastic instead of metal, and a few other esoteric controls are missing. So they give you the functionality that any photographer actually uses, for around 1/2 the cost of its closest competition.
Compared to point-and-shoot digicams, the 300D (1) has a much larger lens, allowing you to shoot in less light/faster speed, and (2) lets you use any Canon EF lens, so you can use super zoom lenses, macro lenses, etc., (3) it gives you manual control over everything, and (4) it auto-focuses and shoots much faster than any point-and-shoot I've tested.
"So an attacker who can gain access to your network -- over a wired connection or wirelessly -- can trick an affected system into trusting a rogue machine, and when the compromised machine reboots, take it over and even attack other systems on the network."
This is overstating the problem a little bit -- an attacker who breaks into your wireless LAN can only potentially compromise a machine on the wireless LAN, and then only when that machine reboots, and then only if his machine is used as the DHCP server instead of the wireless access point. Sure, it's not quite impossible, but not too likely. But machines on your wired LAN will never see a wireless machine as a DHCP server since the wireless and wired LAN's are different subnets.
Now, keep in mind that this means that virtually all home users are completely immune from this attack.
So while this isn't a trivial security hole, it's still pretty obscure compared to the issues plaguing windows (e.g. "browse this web page and I get root access to your PC").
Overall, I think that this article is a good sign -- if someone pathetically eager to attack Apple and defend the honor of Windows can only come up with something this silly, it shows:
1) Windows users are starting to feel real heat for having chosen an insecure operating system, so they feel that they have to defend it, and
2) They can't find anything real to complain about.
Even so, you'd think that an editor would keep them from printing such juvenile ramblings -- it just makes them look bad.
"Spare time? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
:-)
We ain't got no steenking spare time in my house, and that's with only ONE child."
Well, yeah, but nobody's going to pay you to do _that_.
"Of course, there are certain advantages to random access storage with a directory structure. Like, say, knowing what's on the disk and where it is. :-) ...
:-)
Of course, that's true. But in that case, most people chose convenience (floppies) over cheap (casettes). It's not the same with TiVo vs homebrew DVR. TiVo is both easier and cheaper than a homebrew DVR. So I don't really see Tivo going the way of the data cassette."
Right, but the discussion was about whether one should "just buy a VCR".
Btween the TiVo and the MythTV, I personally have both -- the MythTV is a cool device, and astoundingly good for what it is. The TiVo is already paid for (with lifetime subscription), and works just fine, so I have no reason to stop using it. Choosing between them, right now the TiVo is better for a normal person, and the MythTV is an astoundingly good, useful hacker toy. Wait six months, and I bet that companies are selling preconfigured MythTV boxes.
I agree - for a non-technical user, a TiVo is both cheaper and easier to use.
But for a mildly technical user who likes to push the boundaries, the MythTV is a wonderful thing. It's ALMOST as easy to use as a TiVo and lets you do all sorts of cool things, like RIP a DVD to an MPEG4 video stream with one click of an IR remote. Yes, setting the MythTV up is too much work, but either you enjoy that sort of thing (I do), or you can get a preconfigured install CD that sets it all up for you. It's only a matter of time until someone starts selling pre-built, pre-configured MythTV boxen.