Sure, there will probably be companies like that. That's the risk you take when you use open source software.
At least I have a better chance of less exploits created because there are so many eyes on the code. I've heard that openBSD developers have founded and fixed other security bugs while working to fix exploits, so I still don't see an inherent disadvantage to using FireFox vs. Explorer.
Perhaps the biggest reason people go digital is the ease of transfer to a computer, and perhaps the low cost of media. If you are really into high-quality analog video (film) seems to be still hanging around after all of these years, and there is no doubting the quality of the result, as well as the archive capabilities.
However, you did ask for digital, so here is the answer. I'd probably go with the miniDV format. With this, you have tons of options. I've seen miniDV cameras on ebay for less than $100 (albeit first-gen low-qual, no frills models). The real high-quality route seems to be going with the likes of the Canon XL-1 (and related models). I've seen some great quality results coming from these cameras, and I spotted one in use during the filming of The Italian Job (check out the dvd special features to see it used), presumably for proof shots, dailies, etc.
Not sure if that helps you, and even the miniDV format may be obsolete in another couple of years.
this seems like a very smart move by Clear Channel. They are actually attempting to address the very viable market of live cd recordings of events.
As to whether the RIAA will like this: well, I think it all boils down to who controls this market. Notice that most of the times, the RIAA will let things like this happen because a company is spearheading this effort.
I have a feeling that if consumers really started encouraging this, it would be a bigger deal than if a company started it. Mostly, it has to do with how much money the RIAA will (probably) get from this endeavor.
I like your logic. That's like saying if a study on parachutes finds that 1% of them fail during use (leading to the death/injury of the user), then misinformation will be spread throughout the world that since parachutes don't work, one shouldn't use them, and consequently, according to your explanation of logic, there will be many skydivers jumping un-parachuted out of a plane.
This study doesn't say that condoms don't work, it just says that if one would have the choice of birth control methods (and humans were certianly created/evolved/morphed with brains to make choice), then abstitence clearly has less of a failure rate and would be the better choice.
Heck, if there was something that I was using that didn't work, I would sure want to know about it.
and who are you to say that I cannot use logic or science when discussing religion?
last time I checked, I had a free will to doubt (or to believe) if a god exists or not, to logically weigh whether various issues are right, or even to reason.
The article was a fairly non-biased look at DRM, and I particularly liked the quote from Dave Debona, who works at a company that might use DRM to aid in IP protection. His quote: "But, of course, any technology [DRM] can be twisted and misdirected. Anyone proclaiming to protect assets for others is scary. We typically feel safer guarding our own chicken coop," DeBona said. "We will evaluate Microsoft's DRM offering, with extra attention paid to security. A healthy dose of skepticism never hurts."
DRM, to me, is merely a tool, like you would call the Internet a tool or even a gun a tool. From a business standpoint (not just record companies,etc)DRM is not essentially evil, however, in agreeing with the above quote, DRM patented and controlled by one company is very scary. Don't let DRM == absolute evil, but instead, let the "one company to rule them all" mentality be attributed to evil.
If DRM has to exist, it needs to exist with more than one entity (i.e. not even one goverment) controlling it.
qualcomm has been and is making a product that competes with something Microsoft has out. the very fact that a competing company released something like this should raise red flags. it would definitely be different if say CERT, et. al. would have made the bug public.
I do love conspiracies, but in this case, there seems to be no other motive for a competing company to release info about a security hole in software other than to harm the maker of the software product.
that qualcomm (maker of the eudora PIM/email client) was the company that found the bug? not that I like microsoft, but somehow this was a sneaky way to undermine microsoft by releasing to the public such a huge bug.
I just wonder... did qualcomm try to blackmail microsoft first, before releasing the "scoop" on the bug?
...about a salon article in which a slashdot comment is used. the thought is just funny.
now only if salon would write an article about the comments posted on slashdot referring to the article on salon that referenced a slashdot comment. than, slashdot would have to post a story about the article on salon about the story on slashdot that arose from an article on salon that featured a slashdot comment...
I found out about these guys through a site that is hosted by them. It's termed "p2p" hosting, but it's more like a co-op, where somebody that has bandwidth and a server(s) allows them to be used. The policy is for non-commerical sites only though.
what about http://www.orisinal.com? Incredible games that are really addictive and are quick playing. Besides, they all work great under linux (moz 0.9.8).
To have a whole bunch of people with digital video cameras all sending video to the net via a wireless feed? With the size of cameras these days, it would be possible to hid them in coats, bags, etc. The unoffical "press" would than stream the video to a free-net type location-- or even put it right onto a file-sharing network. It wouldn't take long before the IOC would give up their rules against the internet... because they would be useless. Please, somebody start something like this. Isn't this what the internet is about?
I'd have to say this whole thing is really suspicious. Lawyers out there: is this *legal*? It doesn't seem to be right, trying to surprise us. What can we (as in the deCSS people) do? I'm sure the/. community would appreciate any comments by lawyers on this.
I was wrong in lumping together all NT sysadmins. Some of these guys (and gals too) are very good people how just have no choice as to which OS they use.
The sad thing about this whole thing is that M$ will ALWAYS be believed. I know that most NT sysadmins think that M$ is the absolute truth, and if it comes from them, they better believe it. M$ trumpets that NT is better than linux, and those die-hard NT sysadmin's will believe it (and won't bother trying linux out themselves). Those same die-hards won't believe thousands and thousands of real-world, pro-linux testimony, but yet they'll believe one company... and a lying one at that. Crazy, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
then you should check out digg.com. like slashdot, but better. the people are the editors, and generally, it just doesn't suck.
...he still lives in his *mom's* basement
Step 1: Invent gadget
Step 2: Get the US Government addicted to it.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit
Sure, there will probably be companies like that. That's the risk you take when you use open source software.
At least I have a better chance of less exploits created because there are so many eyes on the code.
I've heard that openBSD developers have founded and fixed other security bugs while working to fix exploits, so I still don't see an inherent disadvantage to using FireFox vs. Explorer.
that was darpa that stopped the funding on openbsd. a nice summary is available here
Perhaps the biggest reason people go digital is the ease of transfer to a computer, and perhaps the low cost of media. If you are really into high-quality analog video (film) seems to be still hanging around after all of these years, and there is no doubting the quality of the result, as well as the archive capabilities.
However, you did ask for digital, so here is the answer. I'd probably go with the miniDV format. With this, you have tons of options. I've seen miniDV cameras on ebay for less than $100 (albeit first-gen low-qual, no frills models). The real high-quality route seems to be going with the likes of the Canon XL-1 (and related models). I've seen some great quality results coming from these cameras, and I spotted one in use during the filming of The Italian Job (check out the dvd special features to see it used), presumably for proof shots, dailies, etc.
Not sure if that helps you, and even the miniDV format may be obsolete in another couple of years.
Good Luck!
I'm betting that the beans might be cheaper than a /. subscription
As to whether the RIAA will like this: well, I think it all boils down to who controls this market. Notice that most of the times, the RIAA will let things like this happen because a company is spearheading this effort.
I have a feeling that if consumers really started encouraging this, it would be a bigger deal than if a company started it. Mostly, it has to do with how much money the RIAA will (probably) get from this endeavor.
I like your logic. That's like saying if a study on parachutes finds that 1% of them fail during use (leading to the death/injury of the user), then misinformation will be spread throughout the world that since parachutes don't work, one shouldn't use them, and consequently, according to your explanation of logic, there will be many skydivers jumping un-parachuted out of a plane.
This study doesn't say that condoms don't work, it just says that if one would have the choice of birth control methods (and humans were certianly created/evolved/morphed with brains to make choice), then abstitence clearly has less of a failure rate and would be the better choice.
Heck, if there was something that I was using that didn't work, I would sure want to know about it.
a good place for statistics taken from the UCR and other governmental sources is: US Department of Justice Stats
very nice graphs and explanations
where does any religion say that?
and who are you to say that I cannot use logic or science when discussing religion?
last time I checked, I had a free will to doubt (or to believe) if a god exists or not, to logically weigh whether various issues are right, or even to reason.
The article was a fairly non-biased look at DRM, and I particularly liked the quote from Dave Debona, who works at a company that might use DRM to aid in IP protection. His quote:
"But, of course, any technology [DRM] can be twisted and misdirected. Anyone proclaiming to protect assets for others is scary. We typically feel safer guarding our own chicken coop," DeBona said. "We will evaluate Microsoft's DRM offering, with extra attention paid to security. A healthy dose of skepticism never hurts."
DRM, to me, is merely a tool, like you would call the Internet a tool or even a gun a tool. From a business standpoint (not just record companies,etc)DRM is not essentially evil, however, in agreeing with the above quote, DRM patented and controlled by one company is very scary. Don't let DRM == absolute evil, but instead, let the "one company to rule them all" mentality be attributed to evil.
If DRM has to exist, it needs to exist with more than one entity (i.e. not even one goverment) controlling it.
qualcomm has been and is making a product that competes with something Microsoft has out. the very fact that a competing company released something like this should raise red flags. it would definitely be different if say CERT, et. al. would have made the bug public.
I do love conspiracies, but in this case, there seems to be no other motive for a competing company to release info about a security hole in software other than to harm the maker of the software product.
that qualcomm (maker of the eudora PIM/email client) was the company that found the bug? not that I like microsoft, but somehow this was a sneaky way to undermine microsoft by releasing to the public such a huge bug.
I just wonder... did qualcomm try to blackmail microsoft first, before releasing the "scoop" on the bug?
now only if salon would write an article about the comments posted on slashdot referring to the article on salon that referenced a slashdot comment. than, slashdot would have to post a story about the article on salon about the story on slashdot that arose from an article on salon that featured a slashdot comment...
sorry, its been a long day.
...why so much money is spent on research when there are easier, cheaper, and more effective methods to stop AIDS?
I found out about these guys through a site that is hosted by them. It's termed "p2p" hosting, but it's more like a co-op, where somebody that has bandwidth and a server(s) allows them to be used. The policy is for non-commerical sites only though.
Check it out, it might be what you need.
bashbrotha
what about http://www.orisinal.com?
Incredible games that are really addictive and are quick playing. Besides, they all work great under linux (moz 0.9.8).
To have a whole bunch of people with digital video cameras all sending video to the net via a wireless feed? With the size of cameras these days, it would be possible to hid them in coats, bags, etc. The unoffical "press" would than stream the video to a free-net type location-- or even put it right onto a file-sharing network. It wouldn't take long before the IOC would give up their rules against the internet... because they would be useless. Please, somebody start something like this. Isn't this what the internet is about?
toddg
I'd have to say this whole thing is really suspicious. Lawyers /. community would appreciate any comments by
out there: is this *legal*? It doesn't seem to be right, trying
to surprise us. What can we (as in the deCSS people) do?
I'm sure the
lawyers on this.
BashBrotha aka toddg
I was wrong in lumping together all NT sysadmins. Some of these guys (and gals too) are very good people how just have no choice as to which OS they use.
Todd Gearhart
The sad thing about this whole thing is that M$ will ALWAYS be believed. I know that most NT sysadmins think that M$ is the absolute truth, and if it comes from them, they better believe it. M$ trumpets that NT is better than linux, and those die-hard NT sysadmin's will believe it (and won't bother trying linux out themselves). Those same die-hards won't believe thousands and thousands of real-world, pro-linux testimony, but yet they'll believe one company... and a lying one at that. Crazy, isn't it?
Todd Gearhart