The implicit assumption in my comment, of course, is that information about people's movements, gleaned through automated surveillance techniques (like cell-phone tracking and face-recognition (however imperfect the technology is today)), will eventually be collated and sold just as other sorts of personal data are sold. Think credit-reporting bureaus, etc.
I'm talking about a decade from now when TransUnion and Equifax are brokering this information.
But then you say...Oh but they could all get together and track you and keep track of everyplace you go! OH NO! Someone is going to keep a log of my dreary day to day activities. I don't even remember stuff I do on a day to day basis, if someone else wants to, go for it.
With all due respect, I'm not sure you're really aware of what exploitation of such data might do to your life.
Everyone finds themselves under scrutiny at some time - job interviews, court proceedings (think divorces, civil suits, subpoenas to testify as witnesses, etc., not just criminal acts). Should a prospective employer be able to purchase information on your movements? Do you want them to know you're, e.g., being treated for a medical condition not relevant to your ability to do the job? Or what about your current employer - should they be able to keep tabs on you outside of work, to see if you're interviewing somewhere else?
What if you witness a crime and are asked to testify in court? Should the adverse party have access to your day-to-day movements, they will certainly attempt to use them to undermine your credibility, with potentially embarrasing results. Involved in a divorce or custody case? Lawsuit with your insurer? Expect this info, if available, to be used against you in the most prejudicial way.
Everyone eventually rubs someone else the wrong way at some time. Do you want the unstable guy you cut off on the freeway this morning to have access to your day-to-day movements?
There really aren't any regulations or statutes pertaining to the sale of this type of information; only very narrow classes of information are protected at all by law (medical records, the privacy rights to which you waive if you have insurance; video rental records, explicitly protected by Congress after the Bork confirmation hearings; student records, also protected from disclosure by statute). Everythign else is pretty much fair game.
Have you upgraded to the latest firmware (1.21d) listed on their page, yet? I'd be curious as to what, exactly, "Serial Copyright Management System", and how it affects the usefulness of this device.
I have installed 1.21d. SCMS is the bozo-bit-based copy protection scheme used by consumer digital audio recorders (DATs and CD burners, mainly; it's mandated by the Audio Home Recording Act for any digital audio recorder, and this thing qualifies).
SCMS has very little practical effect on this device for 2 reasons:
- One, the SCMS system allows one digital copy from an original copyrighted digital source (e.g. a CD), which is all you really need in most cases. It just won't let you record digitally from a digital copy made with an SCMS device (e.g. it would block recording from a CDR copy of an original CD, if the CDR copy was made with a consumer standalone audio CD burner).
- Two, disabling SCMS on the Archos Jukebox Recorder is trivial, and doesn't require messing with hardware or firmware. When recording, set the "Artist Name" string to HFSCMSOFF. That's it. Re-enable with HFSCMSON, or just by resetting the device.
I agree with the parent that Archos seems to have the best MP3 devices at the moment. In particular, though, I would recommend staying away from their cheaper "Jukebox 6000" and "Studio 20" products, in favor of their "Jukebox Recorder" machine.
Highlights of this thing?
- Works great on any OS that supports USB storage devices; when attached, mounts like any other USB hard disk. Will store anything you put on there.
- Hackable; will take any 9.5mm 2.5" laptop hard disk. I replaced the stock 6 GB disk with a 20 GB mechanism without any problems.
- Unlike the cheaper models, the Recorder (which goes for around $300-$350 these days) does real-time MP3 recording from analog line-in, digital SPDIF, or an onboard mic!
- Digital in doubles as digital out when not recording.
- The Recorder has a MUCH, MUCH BETTER interface than the cheaper jukeboxes, with an 8-line screen that during playback shows ID3 info (or directory info if file is untagged), elapsed/remaining/total time, left and right VU meters, and labels for the three soft-button function keys.
- Also, the recorder has greatly superior sound compared to the cheaper jukeboxes, with base/treble/loudness/balance adjustments and plenty of volume.
And of course, no SDMI anywhere in sight. The iPod looks nicer, and firewire is cool, but with a 20 gig disk in mine, I've got 4x the capacity of an iPod in a package not much bigger, with digital i/o and real-time mp3 recording abilities. Oh yeah, 10-hour battery life, too, using standard replacable NiMH AA cells.
Where do you read anything in the fourth amendment that says anything about email headers? I see persons, houses, papers, and effects. Email headers literally aren't any of those things, any more than email itself is "speech" in the literal sense.
What about wiretaps? Remember the Olmstead case of 1928? Our Supreme Court essentially followed your advice and took the Fourth Amendment literally. Since the cops could tap the wires on the public easements (and never set foot in your home), no warrants were required. This was the rule until 1967's Katz v. United States.
Of course, you might say that perhaps we should amend the constitution to add protections as the plain language of the amendments no longer track their spirit. But of course amending the constitution is incredibly difficult, and I daresay that codifying even the limited rights we enjoy right now would be impossible in today's political climate.
Every year, the Freedom Forum conducts a national survey to measure the general public's attitudes about the about the First Amendment. According to the poll conducted this summer, the percentage of Americans who said they strongly agreed with the statement "the First Amendment goes to far in the rights it guarantees" increased from 10% to 29%. Another 10% "mildly agree." That's 39% of the population, plus or minus 3%. I doubt the First Amendment as written to day would be ratified by the states with those numbers.
This survey was conducted in May and June, 2001 by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut. I cringe at the thought of what results 2002's survey will reveal.
Your comment sounds pretty bitter, and also pretty false. The rollout of higher speeds was more than just "changing an S register" and I am quite certain that one connects only to one poletop at a time. The big boost in speeds came from a combination of a switch from 2-level to 4-level FSK signalling, and the addition of 2.4/2.5 GHz channels to the poletops for backhaul. With the old ricochet, the poletops and client radios used the same frequencies, forcing the client radios to go quiet while the poletop was relaying packets - with the new ricochet, the poletops communicated in a different band, preventing this problem.
Are you sure you got fired for your self-righteousness?
I agree the ISS is a collossal waste of money, but those who think the main purpose of the ISS was ever scientific are pretty naive. The point of the ISS is to keep the Russian rocket/space industry afloat, thus keeping their scientists and engineers employed in peaceful pursuits instead of working for the missile programs of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, etc. etc.
Thank you for pointing this out! Bentley, if they really do have such software that can display private emails/IMs sent in class on the professor's screen, or to the entire class, they are just asking for a major lawsuit the first time some smartass professor uses this to embarrass a student who knows his or her rights.
Maybe by then I'll be out of law school; that's a case I wouldn't mind taking pro bono...
Liberals reinterpret the constitution to fit the situation. During the presidential debates, Gore said the constitution should be a "living document." A prime example is the former solicitor general's letter that explained the official stand of the DOJ was that the 2nd amendment did not guarantee an individual right to bear arms, only a collective right for state militias. That's funny, they don't argue that about the 1st or 4th amendments.
Right; reinterpreting the 1st and 4th amendments is traditionally the role of the conservatives. *cough*obscenity*cough*indecency*cough*wiretapping *cough*warondrugs*cough* *hack* *wheeze*
Say, the 1st amendment doesn't say anything about the internet, just speech and print! What was the Supreme Court thinking when they dropkicked the CDA?!
Gee, the 4th amendment says nothing about telephones, I guess warrantless wiretapping is hunky-dory! (The "conservative" Supreme Court majority opinion in the Olmstead case made essentially just this argument.)
Frankly, I think the liberal/conservative dichotomies is a false and tired one. Exon ("conservative") sponsored CDA but Clinton ("liberal") signed it. Former lifetime NRA member Bush the Elder banned the importation of "assault weapons". Jim Brady (of Brady bill fame) was Ronny Reagan's press secretary.
Remember GWB's declaration "There ought to be limits to freedom."? He made it at a press conference announcing a legal complaint against the operators of political satire site gwbush.com. I don't think anyone's accused GWB of being a liberal.
I think if the politically active segments of our society stopped masturbating with semiotic games like "liberal"/"right-wing" namecalling, we just might find some unexpected common ground.
Hey, OSS developers need low-cost, tech-savvy legal representation, don't they?
Or did you think I was going into law for the money? Financially, it's a lousy decision for me. But I think I could do more good in the law than as a contract UNIX geek.
Frankly, Adobe's got a solid case, as others have pointed out. And while sending this sort of extortionary demand letter is a more common practice in Germany than the US, it could happen here too - there is due process, and it's called the court system. Adobe's counsel is just making their settlement offer up front - something they could do, IIRC, in the USA if they wanted.
If the professor thinks they have no case, he can go to trial. If he won't pay the settlement and won't show up at trial, Adobe wins by default and the professor will have a judgement assessed against him by the court.
Basic knowledge of trademark law, and a willingness to abide by it, would have saved this guy's bacon. Too late now, but let it be an object lesson to other developers out there.
Me, I'm leaving the tech industry to go to law school. Seriously.
I do agree with the author's conclusion - I think a serious lobbying effort is now or will soon be underway to bar institutions receiving federal funds (read: universities) from releasing GPL'ed code.
Significant kernel and userland code has and continues to come from coders under gov't employ or grad students. Most of the Linux network drivers were written by Donald Becker of NASA, and the copyright is in fact assigned to the US Gov't, administered by the NSA (!).
It's true that currently, most code produced directly by the Federal gov't must be released without copyright. But it's also true that this code can be relicensed and distributed under the GPL (it's public domain, remember?), and it's also true that not all institutions that recieve federal funds are required to release code to the public domain (think universities).
Now, MSFT doesn't have a prayer of getting a bill blocking the GPL passed on its own, but it might be able to slip in a rider on some other bill.
My nightmare is MSFT sweet-talking the gov't on the issue with the siren song of licensing revenue. You know, sort of like how universities already do with patents, where they take public cash for research and sell to the highest bidder?
Sombody at your workplace is (or should be) responsible for software licensing and such. Someone's name is already on the MSDN account. This person should create the passport account, using your company's address and phone number. This is the passport login you should use.
I'm no supporter of MSFT, but if you've already got a business relationship with them, and so they already have info on you. You don't have to give them your home address and tell them your salary and how many pets you have. Just use your business contact info and get over it.
Damn near every vendor I've ever interacted with has required some sort of login to access online downloads or documentation. This isn't MSFT-specific. Who cares if they're using Passport for MSDN authentication? You don't have to use this Passport account for anything but MSDN.
Others have already noted the biases of the interviewee and publisher, but what I want to point out is the disingenuous use of CTS.
Dr. Shorter is quite correct to note that "most [RSI sufferers] didn't have carpal tunnel syndrome", but a right bastard to then claim "hysteria" as the culprit.
I do not know Dr. Shorter, but I do know this - most RSI sufferers do not suffer from CTS, but plain old tendonitis or neuritis. Those of you complaining about elbow, shoulder, and wrist pain in the right arm due to mousing are probably (I am not a physician, this is not a medical opinion) suffering from ulnar neuritis (an inflamation of the sheath containing the ulnar nerve - this is the nerve that runs along the outside of your arm, terminating in the ring finger and pinky). This has nothing to do with CTS, other than also being a repetitive strain injury.
I do agree with the doctor that CTS as an injury is far less common than is commonly believed, and that most people who think they have CTS probably have something else. I don't belive they are hysterical.
And I think the recent moves against OSHA standards for preventing RSI are driven more by the meatpacking industry wishing to continue to do business as usual (working low-wage meat cutters until they're crippled, then discarding them) than by the white-collar sector, but that's a different rant entirely.
> In the days of WinXP, the answer may well be "You can't. DRM's built into the OS. Here's a Linux CD, try this instead."
Exactly! For better or for worse, media and software companies now have the tools and laws to strictly enforce license compliance. What the public will tolerate is a separate issue (vis. Sony backing away from it's "SMDI-way or the highway" strategy for its (not quite)"MP3" players.
They've got enough rope to hang themselves now, that's for sure. Free software is bound to get a lot more popular.
-Isaac
LEGALLY screw the record industry - BUY USED!
on
Napster Going Legit
·
· Score: 1
Want to hurt the record industry, but you're too hooked on their content?
Screw them the legal way - buy used CDs exclusively!
In the physical world, the first-sale doctrine still applies (gawd knows the recording combines have tried to eliminate it, but it still stands).
So, don't give the RIAA any more of your cash (only to have it used against you in the halls of Congress). When you buy a used CD, you support your local retailer (since most stores with used CDs are independent) - the artist has already been paid whatever pittance their contract stipulates for that copy.
Of course, it's always better to avoid consuming their products entirely (since there's a chance that someone else was looking for the used CD that you bought, but will instead buy a new copy and give the RIAA more money after all), but this is the best way to minimize RIAA revenue and still remain legal.
Respect copyright law - screw the RIAA - buy used!
I think the poster is referring to the EMI/Roxio deal recently announced (and beaten to death in a/. article already).
It's all moot anyhow - the real show is the DRM technologies built into Windows XP. Think XP will let you burn DRM-locked files with its built-in CD burner? Remember that within a year, almost every consumer PC will be shipping with XP installed.
Light emitted by current LCDs is polarized, as is inherent to the design, but in the same direction for every pixel on the display. With LCDs reaching 200-300dpi across large areas, if one could alternate or dither the output polarization of pixels, 3D display would be possible with simple polarized glasses (vertical polarization for the left eye, horizontal for the right, like most modern 3D films).
This would certainly be a big improvement over CRT displays and relatively bulky electronic shutter-glasses currently used for a lot of visualization work, across many industries.
I think such a technology, if made cost effective, could ultimately make a huge splash in the computer and consumer electronics industry (e.g. games, 3d visualizations, stereophotographs).
The 50 million peple is the footprint for the PLANNED coverage of the 128kbps service and that is in doubt due to Ricochet's money problems. Unless all of those 50 million people live at the airport.
So far, I've used my Ricochet service in NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Phoenix, and yes, the Bay Area, and no, not just in the airports. I'm told that coverage is already rolled out in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Denver, Minneapolis, Detroit, and San Diego. 50 million might be a little high, but I'd buy 30-35 million people in the existing coverage areas, for sure.
I do hope the service survives, of course, since it's been fantastic so far. It might take being bought out in bankruptcy by a telco (*cough*Worldcom*cough*), though, ala Iridium. It certainly wasn't cheap to build out that network.
See http://film.gimp.org - You can build 16-bit/channel gimp today, with some patching/tweaking.
Gimp 2.0 will use the GEGL image processing library which has more generalized support for data types and color spaces.
I haven't followed the progress on this in a while (no longer in the industry), but AFAIK development rolls on.
-Isaac
Re:You won't see the linux boxen on the artist's d
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 1
Quoth null_session:
Please read the article before posting.
I did read the article - in print, in the WSJ this morning, before this was posted to ZDNet and Slashdot. And I read it thoroughly, much like you didn't read my post.
Yes, Pixar and ILM are *preparing* to move their workstations to Linux. That doesn't mean they're already running Linux workstations. That means they're going to run Linux workstations at some point in the future, i.e. in a while.
And I know all about Pixar's SGI/Sun shop - my employer already has other consultants out there, and is currently trying to place me out there, too. It's in Emeryville, about a mile from my house, and they're a total Sun shop for rendering - ironically, they're one of the few major shops *not* using a Linux renderfarm, even though they're preparing to switch their workstations to Linux (but haven't yet).
Anyhow, my point (which was a response to a poster talking about how he saw only IRIX desktops in the "Making of Shrek" docu-plug) is that Linux was not used on artist's workstations for this film, and that you won't see Linux workstations in the field for a while. Rollouts may be planned, but they're not yet executed. I think my point still stands. And I think I know what I'm talking about, so keep the personal attacks to yourself.
Attempting to inform, not to flame,
-Isaac
You won't see the linux boxen on the artist's desk
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 3
While this press is nice, there's not much new here. It is true that most of the 3D vendors are working on Linux versions (except, notoriously, for Lightwave), but you won't see Linux replacing SGI and NT on the desktops of CG shops for a while.
The "Shrek" guys (and damn near everyone else in CG) used Linux to build a large, cheap renderfarm. This isn't new - when I worked at Digital Domain in 1999, their much-vaunted Linux/Alpha renderfarm used for some of the rendering on "Titanic" was several years old. (It also wasn't an exclusively Linux farm, contrary to popular belief - every box was dual-bootable to NT/Alpha to run the Lightwave renderer when necessary.)
SGI and NT still own the interactive (i.e. desktop, as opposed to batch rendering) part of the market for 3D software. Nowhere in the article was it stated that the creators of "Shrek" were using Linux on the desktop.
Math doesn't create physics, and nobody (sane) believes that it does. I do believe you're a troll, of course, but you do tap into some common frustration with the intangibility of modern (non-newtonian) physics.
The field of particle physics that you extol would not exist but for mathematical models.
If "mathematical what-if scenarios" are junk, how do you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis predicting the existense or behaviour of such-and-such subatomic particle? How do you design the experiment to falsify the hypothesis?
Math isn't physics. Math is a tool for modeling. You're a tool for trolling. You may have a legitimate beef with news media who report abstract theory as sensational fact, but I deride the legitimacy of your beef against physicists.
Well, let's see. Betamax is still the best videotape technology around. While it died off in the consumer market, it's still the standard for broadcast video cameras....
You're confusing Betamax with Betacam/Betacam SP. Different formats - the only commonality is tape width and the cassette shells at the smallest size. The magnetic coatings are different, the tape speeds are different, and Betacam usually uses a larger form-factor cassette as well.
And for that matter, good luck finding a non-Sony Betacam deck. Just because it's "standard" doesn't mean it's not proprietary (e.g. Microsoft).
Slashdot Mirror
The implicit assumption in my comment, of course, is that information about people's movements, gleaned through automated surveillance techniques (like cell-phone tracking and face-recognition (however imperfect the technology is today)), will eventually be collated and sold just as other sorts of personal data are sold. Think credit-reporting bureaus, etc.
I'm talking about a decade from now when TransUnion and Equifax are brokering this information.
-Isaac
With all due respect, I'm not sure you're really aware of what exploitation of such data might do to your life.
Everyone finds themselves under scrutiny at some time - job interviews, court proceedings (think divorces, civil suits, subpoenas to testify as witnesses, etc., not just criminal acts). Should a prospective employer be able to purchase information on your movements? Do you want them to know you're, e.g., being treated for a medical condition not relevant to your ability to do the job? Or what about your current employer - should they be able to keep tabs on you outside of work, to see if you're interviewing somewhere else?
What if you witness a crime and are asked to testify in court? Should the adverse party have access to your day-to-day movements, they will certainly attempt to use them to undermine your credibility, with potentially embarrasing results. Involved in a divorce or custody case? Lawsuit with your insurer? Expect this info, if available, to be used against you in the most prejudicial way.
Everyone eventually rubs someone else the wrong way at some time. Do you want the unstable guy you cut off on the freeway this morning to have access to your day-to-day movements?
There really aren't any regulations or statutes pertaining to the sale of this type of information; only very narrow classes of information are protected at all by law (medical records, the privacy rights to which you waive if you have insurance; video rental records, explicitly protected by Congress after the Bork confirmation hearings; student records, also protected from disclosure by statute). Everythign else is pretty much fair game.
I think your apathy belies serious naivete.
-Isaac
I have installed 1.21d. SCMS is the bozo-bit-based copy protection scheme used by consumer digital audio recorders (DATs and CD burners, mainly; it's mandated by the Audio Home Recording Act for any digital audio recorder, and this thing qualifies). SCMS has very little practical effect on this device for 2 reasons:
- One, the SCMS system allows one digital copy from an original copyrighted digital source (e.g. a CD), which is all you really need in most cases. It just won't let you record digitally from a digital copy made with an SCMS device (e.g. it would block recording from a CDR copy of an original CD, if the CDR copy was made with a consumer standalone audio CD burner).
- Two, disabling SCMS on the Archos Jukebox Recorder is trivial, and doesn't require messing with hardware or firmware. When recording, set the "Artist Name" string to HFSCMSOFF. That's it. Re-enable with HFSCMSON, or just by resetting the device.
-Isaac
I agree with the parent that Archos seems to have the best MP3 devices at the moment. In particular, though, I would recommend staying away from their cheaper "Jukebox 6000" and "Studio 20" products, in favor of their "Jukebox Recorder" machine.
Highlights of this thing?
- Works great on any OS that supports USB storage devices; when attached, mounts like any other USB hard disk. Will store anything you put on there.
- Hackable; will take any 9.5mm 2.5" laptop hard disk. I replaced the stock 6 GB disk with a 20 GB mechanism without any problems.
- Unlike the cheaper models, the Recorder (which goes for around $300-$350 these days) does real-time MP3 recording from analog line-in, digital SPDIF, or an onboard mic!
- Digital in doubles as digital out when not recording.
- The Recorder has a MUCH, MUCH BETTER interface than the cheaper jukeboxes, with an 8-line screen that during playback shows ID3 info (or directory info if file is untagged), elapsed/remaining/total time, left and right VU meters, and labels for the three soft-button function keys.
- Also, the recorder has greatly superior sound compared to the cheaper jukeboxes, with base/treble/loudness/balance adjustments and plenty of volume.
And of course, no SDMI anywhere in sight. The iPod looks nicer, and firewire is cool, but with a 20 gig disk in mine, I've got 4x the capacity of an iPod in a package not much bigger, with digital i/o and real-time mp3 recording abilities. Oh yeah, 10-hour battery life, too, using standard replacable NiMH AA cells.
-Isaac
Where do you read anything in the fourth amendment that says anything about email headers? I see persons, houses, papers, and effects. Email headers literally aren't any of those things, any more than email itself is "speech" in the literal sense.
What about wiretaps? Remember the Olmstead case of 1928? Our Supreme Court essentially followed your advice and took the Fourth Amendment literally. Since the cops could tap the wires on the public easements (and never set foot in your home), no warrants were required. This was the rule until 1967's Katz v. United States.
Of course, you might say that perhaps we should amend the constitution to add protections as the plain language of the amendments no longer track their spirit. But of course amending the constitution is incredibly difficult, and I daresay that codifying even the limited rights we enjoy right now would be impossible in today's political climate.
Every year, the Freedom Forum conducts a national survey to measure the general public's attitudes about the about the First Amendment. According to the poll conducted this summer, the percentage of Americans who said they strongly agreed with the statement "the First Amendment goes to far in the rights it guarantees" increased from 10% to 29%. Another 10% "mildly agree." That's 39% of the population, plus or minus 3%. I doubt the First Amendment as written to day would be ratified by the states with those numbers.
This survey was conducted in May and June, 2001 by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut. I cringe at the thought of what results 2002's survey will reveal.
-Isaac
Your comment sounds pretty bitter, and also pretty false. The rollout of higher speeds was more than just "changing an S register" and I am quite certain that one connects only to one poletop at a time. The big boost in speeds came from a combination of a switch from 2-level to 4-level FSK signalling, and the addition of 2.4/2.5 GHz channels to the poletops for backhaul. With the old ricochet, the poletops and client radios used the same frequencies, forcing the client radios to go quiet while the poletop was relaying packets - with the new ricochet, the poletops communicated in a different band, preventing this problem.
Are you sure you got fired for your self-righteousness?
-Isaac
I agree the ISS is a collossal waste of money, but those who think the main purpose of the ISS was ever scientific are pretty naive. The point of the ISS is to keep the Russian rocket/space industry afloat, thus keeping their scientists and engineers employed in peaceful pursuits instead of working for the missile programs of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, etc. etc.
-Isaac
Thank you for pointing this out! Bentley, if they really do have such software that can display private emails/IMs sent in class on the professor's screen, or to the entire class, they are just asking for a major lawsuit the first time some smartass professor uses this to embarrass a student who knows his or her rights.
Maybe by then I'll be out of law school; that's a case I wouldn't mind taking pro bono...
-Isaac
Right; reinterpreting the 1st and 4th amendments is traditionally the role of the conservatives. *cough*obscenity*cough*indecency*cough*wiretapping *cough*warondrugs*cough* *hack* *wheeze*
Say, the 1st amendment doesn't say anything about the internet, just speech and print! What was the Supreme Court thinking when they dropkicked the CDA?!
Gee, the 4th amendment says nothing about telephones, I guess warrantless wiretapping is hunky-dory! (The "conservative" Supreme Court majority opinion in the Olmstead case made essentially just this argument.)
Frankly, I think the liberal/conservative dichotomies is a false and tired one. Exon ("conservative") sponsored CDA but Clinton ("liberal") signed it. Former lifetime NRA member Bush the Elder banned the importation of "assault weapons". Jim Brady (of Brady bill fame) was Ronny Reagan's press secretary.
Remember GWB's declaration "There ought to be limits to freedom."? He made it at a press conference announcing a legal complaint against the operators of political satire site gwbush.com. I don't think anyone's accused GWB of being a liberal.
I think if the politically active segments of our society stopped masturbating with semiotic games like "liberal"/"right-wing" namecalling, we just might find some unexpected common ground.
-Isaac
Hey, OSS developers need low-cost, tech-savvy legal representation, don't they?
Or did you think I was going into law for the money? Financially, it's a lousy decision for me. But I think I could do more good in the law than as a contract UNIX geek.
-Isaac
...doesn't mean you're exempt from it.
Frankly, Adobe's got a solid case, as others have pointed out. And while sending this sort of extortionary demand letter is a more common practice in Germany than the US, it could happen here too - there is due process, and it's called the court system. Adobe's counsel is just making their settlement offer up front - something they could do, IIRC, in the USA if they wanted.
If the professor thinks they have no case, he can go to trial. If he won't pay the settlement and won't show up at trial, Adobe wins by default and the professor will have a judgement assessed against him by the court.
Basic knowledge of trademark law, and a willingness to abide by it, would have saved this guy's bacon. Too late now, but let it be an object lesson to other developers out there.
Me, I'm leaving the tech industry to go to law school. Seriously.
-Isaac
I do agree with the author's conclusion - I think a serious lobbying effort is now or will soon be underway to bar institutions receiving federal funds (read: universities) from releasing GPL'ed code.
Significant kernel and userland code has and continues to come from coders under gov't employ or grad students. Most of the Linux network drivers were written by Donald Becker of NASA, and the copyright is in fact assigned to the US Gov't, administered by the NSA (!).
It's true that currently, most code produced directly by the Federal gov't must be released without copyright. But it's also true that this code can be relicensed and distributed under the GPL (it's public domain, remember?), and it's also true that not all institutions that recieve federal funds are required to release code to the public domain (think universities).
Now, MSFT doesn't have a prayer of getting a bill blocking the GPL passed on its own, but it might be able to slip in a rider on some other bill.
My nightmare is MSFT sweet-talking the gov't on the issue with the siren song of licensing revenue. You know, sort of like how universities already do with patents, where they take public cash for research and sell to the highest bidder?
Watch out.
-Isaac
Sombody at your workplace is (or should be) responsible for software licensing and such. Someone's name is already on the MSDN account. This person should create the passport account, using your company's address and phone number. This is the passport login you should use.
I'm no supporter of MSFT, but if you've already got a business relationship with them, and so they already have info on you. You don't have to give them your home address and tell them your salary and how many pets you have. Just use your business contact info and get over it.
Damn near every vendor I've ever interacted with has required some sort of login to access online downloads or documentation. This isn't MSFT-specific. Who cares if they're using Passport for MSDN authentication? You don't have to use this Passport account for anything but MSDN.
-Isaac
Others have already noted the biases of the interviewee and publisher, but what I want to point out is the disingenuous use of CTS.
Dr. Shorter is quite correct to note that "most [RSI sufferers] didn't have carpal tunnel syndrome", but a right bastard to then claim "hysteria" as the culprit.
I do not know Dr. Shorter, but I do know this - most RSI sufferers do not suffer from CTS, but plain old tendonitis or neuritis. Those of you complaining about elbow, shoulder, and wrist pain in the right arm due to mousing are probably (I am not a physician, this is not a medical opinion) suffering from ulnar neuritis (an inflamation of the sheath containing the ulnar nerve - this is the nerve that runs along the outside of your arm, terminating in the ring finger and pinky). This has nothing to do with CTS, other than also being a repetitive strain injury.
I do agree with the doctor that CTS as an injury is far less common than is commonly believed, and that most people who think they have CTS probably have something else. I don't belive they are hysterical.
And I think the recent moves against OSHA standards for preventing RSI are driven more by the meatpacking industry wishing to continue to do business as usual (working low-wage meat cutters until they're crippled, then discarding them) than by the white-collar sector, but that's a different rant entirely.
-Isaac
> In the days of WinXP, the answer may well be "You can't. DRM's built into the OS. Here's a Linux CD, try this instead."
Exactly! For better or for worse, media and software companies now have the tools and laws to strictly enforce license compliance. What the public will tolerate is a separate issue (vis. Sony backing away from it's "SMDI-way or the highway" strategy for its (not quite)"MP3" players.
They've got enough rope to hang themselves now, that's for sure. Free software is bound to get a lot more popular.
-Isaac
Want to hurt the record industry, but you're too hooked on their content?
Screw them the legal way - buy used CDs exclusively!
In the physical world, the first-sale doctrine still applies (gawd knows the recording combines have tried to eliminate it, but it still stands).
So, don't give the RIAA any more of your cash (only to have it used against you in the halls of Congress). When you buy a used CD, you support your local retailer (since most stores with used CDs are independent) - the artist has already been paid whatever pittance their contract stipulates for that copy.
Of course, it's always better to avoid consuming their products entirely (since there's a chance that someone else was looking for the used CD that you bought, but will instead buy a new copy and give the RIAA more money after all), but this is the best way to minimize RIAA revenue and still remain legal.
Respect copyright law - screw the RIAA - buy used!
That is all.
-Isaac
I think the poster is referring to the EMI/Roxio deal recently announced (and beaten to death in a /. article already).
It's all moot anyhow - the real show is the DRM technologies built into Windows XP. Think XP will let you burn DRM-locked files with its built-in CD burner? Remember that within a year, almost every consumer PC will be shipping with XP installed.
-Isaac
Light emitted by current LCDs is polarized, as is inherent to the design, but in the same direction for every pixel on the display. With LCDs reaching 200-300dpi across large areas, if one could alternate or dither the output polarization of pixels, 3D display would be possible with simple polarized glasses (vertical polarization for the left eye, horizontal for the right, like most modern 3D films).
This would certainly be a big improvement over CRT displays and relatively bulky electronic shutter-glasses currently used for a lot of visualization work, across many industries.
I think such a technology, if made cost effective, could ultimately make a huge splash in the computer and consumer electronics industry (e.g. games, 3d visualizations, stereophotographs).
Anybody in the field around to comment?
-Isaac
So far, I've used my Ricochet service in NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Phoenix, and yes, the Bay Area, and no, not just in the airports. I'm told that coverage is already rolled out in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Denver, Minneapolis, Detroit, and San Diego. 50 million might be a little high, but I'd buy 30-35 million people in the existing coverage areas, for sure.
I do hope the service survives, of course, since it's been fantastic so far. It might take being bought out in bankruptcy by a telco (*cough*Worldcom*cough*), though, ala Iridium. It certainly wasn't cheap to build out that network.
-Isaac
See http://film.gimp.org - You can build 16-bit/channel gimp today, with some patching/tweaking.
Gimp 2.0 will use the GEGL image processing library which has more generalized support for data types and color spaces.
I haven't followed the progress on this in a while (no longer in the industry), but AFAIK development rolls on.
-Isaac
I did read the article - in print, in the WSJ this morning, before this was posted to ZDNet and Slashdot. And I read it thoroughly, much like you didn't read my post.
Yes, Pixar and ILM are *preparing* to move their workstations to Linux. That doesn't mean they're already running Linux workstations. That means they're going to run Linux workstations at some point in the future, i.e. in a while.
And I know all about Pixar's SGI/Sun shop - my employer already has other consultants out there, and is currently trying to place me out there, too. It's in Emeryville, about a mile from my house, and they're a total Sun shop for rendering - ironically, they're one of the few major shops *not* using a Linux renderfarm, even though they're preparing to switch their workstations to Linux (but haven't yet).
Anyhow, my point (which was a response to a poster talking about how he saw only IRIX desktops in the "Making of Shrek" docu-plug) is that Linux was not used on artist's workstations for this film, and that you won't see Linux workstations in the field for a while. Rollouts may be planned, but they're not yet executed. I think my point still stands. And I think I know what I'm talking about, so keep the personal attacks to yourself.
Attempting to inform, not to flame,
-Isaac
While this press is nice, there's not much new here. It is true that most of the 3D vendors are working on Linux versions (except, notoriously, for Lightwave), but you won't see Linux replacing SGI and NT on the desktops of CG shops for a while.
The "Shrek" guys (and damn near everyone else in CG) used Linux to build a large, cheap renderfarm. This isn't new - when I worked at Digital Domain in 1999, their much-vaunted Linux/Alpha renderfarm used for some of the rendering on "Titanic" was several years old. (It also wasn't an exclusively Linux farm, contrary to popular belief - every box was dual-bootable to NT/Alpha to run the Lightwave renderer when necessary.)
SGI and NT still own the interactive (i.e. desktop, as opposed to batch rendering) part of the market for 3D software. Nowhere in the article was it stated that the creators of "Shrek" were using Linux on the desktop.
-Isaac
Math doesn't create physics, and nobody (sane) believes that it does. I do believe you're a troll, of course, but you do tap into some common frustration with the intangibility of modern (non-newtonian) physics.
The field of particle physics that you extol would not exist but for mathematical models.
If "mathematical what-if scenarios" are junk, how do you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis predicting the existense or behaviour of such-and-such subatomic particle? How do you design the experiment to falsify the hypothesis?
Math isn't physics. Math is a tool for modeling. You're a tool for trolling. You may have a legitimate beef with news media who report abstract theory as sensational fact, but I deride the legitimacy of your beef against physicists.
-Isaac
You're confusing Betamax with Betacam/Betacam SP. Different formats - the only commonality is tape width and the cassette shells at the smallest size. The magnetic coatings are different, the tape speeds are different, and Betacam usually uses a larger form-factor cassette as well.
And for that matter, good luck finding a non-Sony Betacam deck. Just because it's "standard" doesn't mean it's not proprietary (e.g. Microsoft).
-Isaac
Remind me, again, why I would possibly want this over one of the DVD-based formats?
Doubling capacity doesn't cut it anymore - in storage, it's only worth making the leap for an order of magnitude.
-Isaac