I'm fairly sure they have actual people reading over each name, not just a computer. Otherwise simple replacements would potentially get them in trouble.
It's actually quite likely that Vorbis infringes on several of Fraunhoffer/Thompson's patents (now, whether you agree with the patents or not is a seperate issue).
The fact is that Fraunhoffer has pattent MANY different technologies used in perceptual encoding. Basically everything in MP3 and AAC is covered by strong patents. They even have many patents on other perceptual coding techniques not used in those formats.
One of the biggest impediments to commercial development of competitors to MP3 has been the Fraunhoffer patent collection - which makes it difficult to do any type of perceptual encoding without infringment. Pretty much the only other companies that can get away with it are people like Lucent (w/ PAC/ePAC) that also have their share of perceptual audio coding licenses that they can cross-license w/ Fraunhoffer so they don't sue each other into oblivion.
The chances that the Vorbis guys have discovered some completely revolutionary method of encoding that doesn't infringe on any of these patents is unfortunately very slim.
Of course, I wouldn't expect to see Thompson do anything about this until it becomes a real threat. No reason to waste money on lawyers otherwise.
Eg: a light-weight word-processor that imports foreign formats correctly, but only has the features most people use.
One of the things that makes importing foreign formats so difficult is that you almost have to support every feature the foreign product supports, or it won't import correctly. Don't support watermarks? Funky table alignments? Post-it-notes? Then it's never going to import 100% correctly.
You can't host a server behind any NAT (unless port forwarding is configured on it) - that's just a limitation of NAT.
Outgoing connections work because the NAT knows where the two endpoints are - it knows the origin because it came from you, and it knows the destination because it's in the header.
Incoming connections don't work because the destination is the NAT itself - it doesn't know how to forward it beyind itself (unless manually configured).
Here is a link to the framework description - anyone interested in this topic should DEFINATELY read this - as it addresses almost all of the problems of NATs in a very elegant fashion that can be implemented at the IP Stack layer, transparent to applications. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nat -rsip-framework-05.txt
Coming from the gaming industry (which has done P2P LONG before Napster), I can safely say that Proxys and NATs are the bane of a network programmer's existence. Often times it's difficult or impossible to detect them, and most of the time once detected there's nothing you can do about them.
NAT is certainly an improvement over application-specific proxies (like HTTP) - since you can usually make arbitrary outgoing connections, but the inability to allow incoming connections makes peer-to-peer gaming difficult or impossible.
However, there is a solution in the works, it's called Realm-Specific IP, here's the IETF working group that's working on it: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nat-charter.html
Basically it allows a client behind a NAT to reserve a port on the NAT and forward all traffic from that port to the client. So different clients can open up different listening ports on the NAT, and it will forward them incoming connections. Since a NAT box has a good 65k ports to play with, you should easily be able to support several thousand clients on a NAT'd IP with virtually no loss in functionality - clients can make any outgoing connection they want, and can accept incoming connections after binding a port on the NAT.
I pray every day that this protocol will get finalized quickly and be implemented in all NAT products. Even better if it could be implemented in the client OSs at a low-level - so that when you do a bind() on a client, it automatically makes an RSIP request to your NAT to bind the port there as well. That way client applications can work transparently without having to add special code (like you do to support stuff like SOCKS) - although I expect there will be Winsock wrappers on Windows to support RSIP like there are SOCKS wrappers.
You can't save or edit documents after the date - only open, view, print (basically like the free Word Viewer) - so that method won't work.
As for cracking it - it should be possible (just like any other software) - I'll be interested in seeing what they do to prevent it. Hopefully they'll do what they should have done all along - build executable signing into the operating system, and have the operating system not run executables with bad signatures (of course you could still create/run unsigned stuff, but signed software could not be "unsigned").
You don't seem to understand - the problem is not that YOU will have a standards-incompliant browser if you download NS6 (after all, as you say, YOU can always patch).
The problem is content developers - content developers ALWAYS have to build towards the lowest-common-demonator. That means as long as there are people out there using NS 6.0, content developers will NOT be able to support all the new DOM/CSS features that it's SUPPOSED to support. We won't be any better off than NS 4.7 (and in some ways - worse, since it breaks stuff that worked in 4.7). That's what this article is about - content developers being screwed over because NS6 is rushed out the door.
Of course, if NS6 had a bad-ass auto-updating system built in (so that even your grandma could patch it) this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Maybe some of their developers should focus on making THAT a priority.
Actually if you look at the laser vendor site, they show how they can be used to render "raster" graphics - basically bitmaps, and can even be used for video.
Yes, and after running for millions of years Linux will finally tell us the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Assuming the earth lasts that long...
The way the "contest" worked, you got 3 sound files for each set, 2 of them were the same segment (one with watermark, one without) for you to analyze, the 3rd is a segment with the watermark that you were supposed to remove, then re-upload. The upload server automatically checks the files for the precense of the watermark, and rejects them if its not found.
The fact that they've got 450 files to analyze means that at least that many files were succesfully uploaded. Now, it's possible that a bunch of people uploaded random noise or badly distorted versions of the sample (I'm not sure whether the upload server checked that), in which case it's not really a "break" - but I suspect at least a few of the uploads were real breaks.
...and as for the idea that it wouldn't be broken because a bunch of internet hackers decided to boycott it.. well, most software or system crackers out there probably wouldn't know where to begin to crack something like a audio watermark (unless they had the watermarking source to disassemble) - if there were successful breaks made, it was probably by audio stenography experts that already had a good understanding of how the process works and what its shortcomings are.
Well, by ordinary access I'm sure he means that anyone with enough money (probably $50-100k) can buy one without arousing suspiscion or having a federal background check. Yea, you can't buy one at CompUSA, but I'm sure you can buy one over the 'net at compaq.com...
Wow.. this is freaky (from that article):
The hardware itself, in the z900 machines, can actually be field-upgraded by using an IBM-supplied software key to unlock additional processors. It turns out that each z900 includes a full complement of CPUs inside the multichip module, and the customer can purchase additional capacity over the web. This practice of software-enabling features that are already installed has been common in mainframe environments for decades, and in fact IBM has used the same technique in some of the laser printers made by their Lexmark subsidiary. The concept still seems a little alien from a PC-oriented viewpoint, though.
They are NOT planning on charging every web merchant for every web transaction that takes place - obviously that's technically (and legally) impossible.
What they're talking about is charging the merchants that pay for advertising on the AT&T Broadband customer home page - they plan to expand their charging scheme to make it based on purchases instead of just a CPM banner style.
This is very much the same as the relationship AOL has with retailers - AOL gets a cut of each sale in addition to a referral fee. AOL makes PHAT cash from this arrangement and AT&T just wants a similar system.
Most geeks will change their homepage off the AT&T broadband page in about 30 seconds after installation, so you won't see their ads and won't shop at "their" merchants, and this won't be an issue.
Note that most DVI video cards I've run across (e.g. the GeForce DDR-DVI cards) will not do any higher than 1280x1024 to the digital out (although they go higher on the analog out).
If you get the apple monitor make sure you get a card that can support that res on the digital connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Post links to all of the control panel companies on slashdot and see who's sites stay up.. right now both of these sites are having issues.
If you read the page, you'll see the monitor supports both digital and analog inputs. It may have been using analog, but it supports digital as well.
Is it possible to file a patent application without using the word "plurality"? I've certainly never seen one! Apple's has 13 in just the claims...
I'm fairly sure they have actual people reading over each name, not just a computer. Otherwise simple replacements would potentially get them in trouble.
The problem is that nobody agrees on what exactly their "strengths and weaknesses" are - so the communities constantly fight over that list.
It doesn't work with NFL2k1, or several other multiplayer games (but Q3 works). Support has to be built in by the developer.
It's actually quite likely that Vorbis infringes on several of Fraunhoffer/Thompson's patents (now, whether you agree with the patents or not is a seperate issue).
The fact is that Fraunhoffer has pattent MANY different technologies used in perceptual encoding. Basically everything in MP3 and AAC is covered by strong patents. They even have many patents on other perceptual coding techniques not used in those formats.
One of the biggest impediments to commercial development of competitors to MP3 has been the Fraunhoffer patent collection - which makes it difficult to do any type of perceptual encoding without infringment. Pretty much the only other companies that can get away with it are people like Lucent (w/ PAC/ePAC) that also have their share of perceptual audio coding licenses that they can cross-license w/ Fraunhoffer so they don't sue each other into oblivion.
The chances that the Vorbis guys have discovered some completely revolutionary method of encoding that doesn't infringe on any of these patents is unfortunately very slim.
Of course, I wouldn't expect to see Thompson do anything about this until it becomes a real threat. No reason to waste money on lawyers otherwise.
One of the things that makes importing foreign formats so difficult is that you almost have to support every feature the foreign product supports, or it won't import correctly. Don't support watermarks? Funky table alignments? Post-it-notes? Then it's never going to import 100% correctly.
You can't host a server behind any NAT (unless port forwarding is configured on it) - that's just a limitation of NAT.
Outgoing connections work because the NAT knows where the two endpoints are - it knows the origin because it came from you, and it knows the destination because it's in the header.
Incoming connections don't work because the destination is the NAT itself - it doesn't know how to forward it beyind itself (unless manually configured).
Here is a link to the framework description - anyone interested in this topic should DEFINATELY read this - as it addresses almost all of the problems of NATs in a very elegant fashion that can be implemented at the IP Stack layer, transparent to applications.t -rsip-framework-05.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-na
Coming from the gaming industry (which has done P2P LONG before Napster), I can safely say that Proxys and NATs are the bane of a network programmer's existence. Often times it's difficult or impossible to detect them, and most of the time once detected there's nothing you can do about them.
l
NAT is certainly an improvement over application-specific proxies (like HTTP) - since you can usually make arbitrary outgoing connections, but the inability to allow incoming connections makes peer-to-peer gaming difficult or impossible.
However, there is a solution in the works, it's called Realm-Specific IP, here's the IETF working group that's working on it: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nat-charter.htm
Basically it allows a client behind a NAT to reserve a port on the NAT and forward all traffic from that port to the client. So different clients can open up different listening ports on the NAT, and it will forward them incoming connections. Since a NAT box has a good 65k ports to play with, you should easily be able to support several thousand clients on a NAT'd IP with virtually no loss in functionality - clients can make any outgoing connection they want, and can accept incoming connections after binding a port on the NAT.
I pray every day that this protocol will get finalized quickly and be implemented in all NAT products. Even better if it could be implemented in the client OSs at a low-level - so that when you do a bind() on a client, it automatically makes an RSIP request to your NAT to bind the port there as well. That way client applications can work transparently without having to add special code (like you do to support stuff like SOCKS) - although I expect there will be Winsock wrappers on Windows to support RSIP like there are SOCKS wrappers.
You can't save or edit documents after the date - only open, view, print (basically like the free Word Viewer) - so that method won't work.
As for cracking it - it should be possible (just like any other software) - I'll be interested in seeing what they do to prevent it. Hopefully they'll do what they should have done all along - build executable signing into the operating system, and have the operating system not run executables with bad signatures (of course you could still create/run unsigned stuff, but signed software could not be "unsigned").
The Windows Whistler Beta has specific support for 200dpi monitors (although I'm guessing many apps will break).
You don't seem to understand - the problem is not that YOU will have a standards-incompliant browser if you download NS6 (after all, as you say, YOU can always patch).
The problem is content developers - content developers ALWAYS have to build towards the lowest-common-demonator. That means as long as there are people out there using NS 6.0, content developers will NOT be able to support all the new DOM/CSS features that it's SUPPOSED to support. We won't be any better off than NS 4.7 (and in some ways - worse, since it breaks stuff that worked in 4.7). That's what this article is about - content developers being screwed over because NS6 is rushed out the door.
Of course, if NS6 had a bad-ass auto-updating system built in (so that even your grandma could patch it) this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Maybe some of their developers should focus on making THAT a priority.
Actually if you look at the laser vendor site, they show how they can be used to render "raster" graphics - basically bitmaps, and can even be used for video.
Doubtful - the test run is farily slow, especially for a large amount of memory. It would be like doing a massive fsck every time you boot.
No, that's chilisoft.com - I wonder if these guys are just trying to rip off their name (since chilisoft's ASP solution is fairly well known)
Yes, and after running for millions of years Linux will finally tell us the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Assuming the earth lasts that long...
The way the "contest" worked, you got 3 sound files for each set, 2 of them were the same segment (one with watermark, one without) for you to analyze, the 3rd is a segment with the watermark that you were supposed to remove, then re-upload. The upload server automatically checks the files for the precense of the watermark, and rejects them if its not found.
The fact that they've got 450 files to analyze means that at least that many files were succesfully uploaded. Now, it's possible that a bunch of people uploaded random noise or badly distorted versions of the sample (I'm not sure whether the upload server checked that), in which case it's not really a "break" - but I suspect at least a few of the uploads were real breaks.
...and as for the idea that it wouldn't be broken because a bunch of internet hackers decided to boycott it.. well, most software or system crackers out there probably wouldn't know where to begin to crack something like a audio watermark (unless they had the watermarking source to disassemble) - if there were successful breaks made, it was probably by audio stenography experts that already had a good understanding of how the process works and what its shortcomings are.
Well, by ordinary access I'm sure he means that anyone with enough money (probably $50-100k) can buy one without arousing suspiscion or having a federal background check. Yea, you can't buy one at CompUSA, but I'm sure you can buy one over the 'net at compaq.com...
Wow.. this is freaky (from that article):
The hardware itself, in the z900 machines, can actually be field-upgraded by using an IBM-supplied software key to unlock additional processors. It turns out that each z900 includes a full complement of CPUs inside the multichip module, and the customer can purchase additional capacity over the web. This practice of software-enabling features that are already installed has been common in mainframe environments for decades, and in fact IBM has used the same technique in some of the laser printers made by their Lexmark subsidiary. The concept still seems a little alien from a PC-oriented viewpoint, though.
Use Sourceoffsite (www.sourceoffsite.com) for VSS access under Linux - works great and has is fully compatible.
They are NOT planning on charging every web merchant for every web transaction that takes place - obviously that's technically (and legally) impossible.
What they're talking about is charging the merchants that pay for advertising on the AT&T Broadband customer home page - they plan to expand their charging scheme to make it based on purchases instead of just a CPM banner style.
This is very much the same as the relationship AOL has with retailers - AOL gets a cut of each sale in addition to a referral fee. AOL makes PHAT cash from this arrangement and AT&T just wants a similar system.
Most geeks will change their homepage off the AT&T broadband page in about 30 seconds after installation, so you won't see their ads and won't shop at "their" merchants, and this won't be an issue.
Note that most DVI video cards I've run across (e.g. the GeForce DDR-DVI cards) will not do any higher than 1280x1024 to the digital out (although they go higher on the analog out).
If you get the apple monitor make sure you get a card that can support that res on the digital connection.
Where have I seen this before?
Oh wait, it was on Slashdot! Man, this site is always way behind compared to Slashdot!