I wonder if they've considered adding a few microphones to Lewis?
I remember a gimmick 35mm camera a while back that came mounted on a tabletop tripod with a servo and directional mic. When the microphone picked up loud noise, the camera swiveled around and shot, the theory being you'd pick up the wildest party moments on film.
Damn, that would be great! Then we wouldn't have to suffer through the dialogue!
I'm personally waiting for the Hindi EP2 DVD to be released... that way I can watch it in a language I don't understand, and not be distracted by the dreadful screenplay.
Why? 75% of the music I listen to comes out of my computer. Most of that are from CD's I own and ripped. Probably a quarter is downloaded via P2P.
Listen.com was the first to put together contracts with all 5 "major" labels, and more importantly (in my book) with a few dozen small labels. As a result, about 90% of the artists I listen to are included in Listen's catalog.
All of it, streamed on demand. Less than 2 seconds after clicking "Play", I'm listening to the song, at a quality indistinguishable from a ripped CD. (I'm listening on $500 bi-amped studio monitors. It's not quite audiophile quality, but nothing to sneeze at.)
No, you can't download the tracks. That's OK for me, since I don't rip music to an MP3 player. I do listen to CDs in my car occasionally, but mostly NPR.
Is it perfect? No. There are artists I'd prefer to have in the catalog (The Beatles being the holy grail of online music licensing). Barring that, I'd like to be able to combine network and local files on my playlist.
But comparing it to any of the existing P2P networks, it's undeniably more convenient having all the tracks available on demand. I don't have to try 3 different searches, then struggle through 4 downloads on slow connections that terminate 3/4ths through. I don't have to correct all the title, artist, and album information to get it in a usable form in my library.
It comes down to a pretty simple cost-benefit analysis: Does this service provide $8.33 a month worth of value to me? (They advertise the service at $10/mo, but you can subscribe for $25/quarter.)
Well, that's the cost of a movie, or 3/4ths of a CD. Will I get more than a movie's enjoyment out of this every month? Darn tootin'. So I pulled out the credit card.
If they start offering downloadable or burnable options, will I shell out more cash? I don't know. Maybe they'll provide a pay-as-you-go option for that.
But at $8.33/mo for an unlimited jukebox, I'm hooked.
Also pretty rare. The only process I ever had do this was Mozilla (and maybe the old Netscape - I can't remember) and the last time it happened was at least six months ago. Anyway, hardly seems worth it when you can just fix the particular offending applications.
There's a dangerous mindset. It's exactly what Microsoft thought for years. Users/journalists would say "Windows crashes all the time!" and people inside Microsoft would say "No! The app is crashing, or this device driver is crashing! If the apps and device drivers were fixed, Windows wouldn't crash!"
Finally, Microsoft got some religion in this area, and started crash tracking. It was generally true that the OS didn't crash on it's own, but that doesn't matter -- perceptions matter. So it became part of the mission to fix or prevent other people's bugs for the good of the platform.
When Office XP crashes on any platform, or any app under Windows XP goes down, you can send developers a snapshot of what happened. The same thing happens after a BSOD, which is thankfully much rarer in WinXP.
That crash tracking was rolled out for the Office XP and WinXP betas, and because of it, both are now more solid than X on Linux or BSD.
...if it's just as easy for scrappy developers to sign their code as it is for corporations, the whole system would still be impractical for open-source developers.
Why is that?
By definition, the code in an open-source application is not set in stone. The whole point of the General Public License, the license under which Linux-based operating systems are offered, is to allow people to modify code ad infinitum. But under Palladium, an application that has been modified loses its signature. Each new version of an application, therefore, would presumably need a signature before it could run on a system.
Yes, so? Get it signed! By definition, any piece of code is not set in stone. Those are called upgrades, and they exist in closed-source software too!
There's no reason the FSF, EFF, or your mom couldn't become a signing authority! When Red Hat releases SkipFlapJack Beta 17, they get it signed. If you recompile your kernel, you can get it signed!
If you decide the cDc is a signing authority you trust, then allow their code to run.
Having a Palladium chip on your motherboard will require more work from developers. That's part of the deal here. It will also require more work from virus writers.
Clearly there will have to be ways for authors to run code compiled on their own machines -- Microsoft has very little interest in locking out developers, because then there'd be no software to run. Contrary to popular opinion (at least on/.), Microsoft does depend on 3rd party software to keep the OS alive. Businesses would never buy an OS that locks them out of their proprietary applications.
Let's all step off the panic button for a moment and think about it. What's the worst case scenario here? Microsoft does successfully lock out open source software on Intel/AMD chips... and Linux/BSD users start running on PPC!
But if you have a Linux distro that's signed by a free software signing authority (say, the FSF, or EFF, if they're interested in joining the ball game), there's no reason why you couldn't force that distro to disallow any software from a non-free software signing authority, like Microsoft, or UnitedLinux.
I can't believe I ate the whole thing! (Yes, I read the log.)
I made no judgement as to the quality of the OS (in fact, I greatly admire OBOS's techincal goals). But this an observation about the chances of OBOS's success if the people who are creating it don't take some level of responsibility for nurturing a user base.
IMHO, saying "We are an OSS project. Marketing is not our job" does not bode well for the additional goal of "But I also want to make it work for my Mom".
My mom, your mom, everyone's mom for that matter, needs to learn about alternative OS's somewhere, and see the value in using them. That can be accomplished without multi-million dollar ad campaigns. But it cannot be accomplished if developers take the position that evangelizing and marketing (which are flip sides of the same coin) is not their job.
My point is that marketing goes far beyond buying ads and doing press releases. That's simply advertising.
So yes, if the people doing the coding want people to actually run their code, they should take it upon themselves to do some evangelizing. If there's not a groundswell of support, then distros will never pick up the code and do the advertising work that follows.
Well, that's his perogative, but not necessarily one that will lead to a successful project.
What's the goal of this project? To create a new open source OS that no one uses? If so, marketing is definitely not their job.
But if one of the goals is to create a new open source OS with a strong, active base of users and developers, then marketing MUST be part of the job and project plan.
Marketing goes far beyond advertising for the sake of increasing revenue. Marketing is all of the PR work you do with the development community, IT decision-makers, not to mention the media (including Slashdot).
Too often, open source advocates only associate marketing with profit-making companies, while forgetting that non-profits have marketing people too.
From museums to charitable foundations, the most successful ones are those that can successfully market their 'product' to the world. Open source software is no different.
Yikes! I installed SnapStream 2 weeks ago and couldn't get it to do a damn thing on my machine (WinXP, ATI Radeon VE, ATI TV Wonder VE). I uninstalled it after it didn't record as scheduled, or at all manually.
Of course, ATI's MMC is no great shakes either.
Right now, I'm using ShowShifter. It's not perfect, but does nicely in full-screen mode, using a wireless optical mouse to control it. They promise big improvements in the next upgrade, including programming via TitanTV. If they deliver, I'll gladly pay the $50.
MediaBoy77: I have to leave you, Elle ElleGirlBuddy: l8er, MediaBoy77!:-) MediaBoy77: No, you don't understand! It's over between us! ElleGirlBuddy: really? MediaBoy77: For good! ElleGirlBuddy: yeah:-) MediaBoy77: I've found another woman. ElleGirlBuddy: uh... what?? MediaBoy77: She's cuter than you are. ElleGirlBuddy: huh? MediaBoy77: Not that you're not wonderful and all, but now that the supreme court has approved virtual kiddie porn, text just isn't good enough. ElleGirlBuddy: that was too long for me to understand! please try something shorter. MediaBoy77: see? there's the problem. we can't communicate. ElleGirlBuddy: i'm sorry, i don't know what you're saying.:-\ try again. MediaBoy77: exactly my point! ElleGirlBuddy: right
what else do u wanna talk about, anyway?
>>> ELLEgirl magazine is killer! have u seen the new prom issue?? (Link: http://r.activebuddy.com/?661)subscribe now and u can get a kewl t-shirt!
One of Xbox's in-store problems is that they're demo'ing the wrong games. Halo is a great, deep game, but it looks very similar to PC shooters, and has a learning curve that can't be overcome in 30 seconds of play in a store.
I've also seen DOA3, Bloodwake, and Munch's Oddysee in stores. DOA3 is gorgeous, but doesn't have anything that separates it from Soul Caliber on those in-store monitors. Bloodwake just doesn't have the gameplay to sell the console. Munch comes closest to a good demo game, but I haven't seen the whole game in stores, only a short demo with no other characters on-screen.
Microsoft's marketing crew needs to bite the big one and feature non-MS published games in stores and ads. JSRF and NFL2k2, for starters. And they still have RalliSport challenge to include on those new demo discs.
Or, you could read the specs before you whine about them.
Analog Audio
Frequency Response 10Hz to 20kHz (+0.1/-0.3dB)
Dynamic Range 97 dB (20 Bit Precision), 94 dB (16 Bit Precision)
Signal-to-Noise Ratio 99 dB (20 Bit Precision), 96 dB (16 Bit Precision)
Channel Separation 108 dB (1kHz)
THD+N 0.006% (1kHz)
Noise Modulation 105 dB ± 1.7 dB
Output Level 2 V RMS ± 0.2 (1kHz)
Audio D/A Converter 24 Bit, 96kHz
Wow & Flutter 0.0017% W. Peak (EIAJ) Digital Audio
Optical Output Level 18 dBm
Coaxial Output Level 0.5 V p-p / 75 Ohm
Don't forget, the PS2 had a pretty meager launch itself. Massive unit shortages, which was probably fine, because there weren't any great games to go with it.
In comparison, Halo is a much stronger game than any of those, and will have a much longer shelf life.
More Xbox games are in the pipe, and they will get better. (If you haven't checked out JSRF and RalliSport Challenge, go do it now. Both blew my mind away, not to mention blowing away anything I've seen on the PS2.)
I'm not saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but I usually don't see the most knowledgeable computer/electronics info in the newspaper.
FWIW, Walt Mossberg is probably the most influential tech journalist writing in the mainstream media. He has a very big soapbox that he uses to great affect. He's an advocate for ease of use, rails against products that don't work as advertised (frequently Microsoft's), and isn't afraid to slam a product or offend PR people.
Let's face it, the tech press may be read by CIOs, but the Journal is read by CEOs. And in the world of The Buck Stops Here, being able to point to a Mossberg column and say "look, Walt likes it" goes a long way to selling the bigwigs on a product.
During my time as a Program Manager at Microsoft, when Walt spoke, people listened. Several e-mails from BillG that were the direct result of Walt's WSJ columns made it down the chain of command and led to changes in products.
IANAE - I am not an engineer... But that's never stopped the non-lawyers from expounding on legal matters around here.
There are several issues that haven't been addressed in this thread. If you haven't read the actual petition (http://us.share.geocities.com/nospamcarl/sirius_f cc.pdf), you should. (Per the earlier poster, you probably need to copy and paste that URL into your browser for geocities to work.
First, much of the petition deals with RF lighting and UWB. I'm new to RF lighting, but I remember the last UWB thread on/., and plenty of folks were claiming it was the end of the world for all tranmissions that weren't UWB. Sirius seems to be making the same claim here.
Has anyone done interference testing with 2.4GHz devices and RF lighting? Would RF streetlamps disable Bluetooth and 802.11b freenets?
Secondly, Sirius isn't asking the FCC to ban 802.11b. They're asking the FCC to make WiFi manufacturers put stronger filters on their transmitters. Quoting from the petition:
Because the lower edge of the 2.4GHz band is only 55 MHz from the top edge of the SDARS's spectrum, the filter mechanism that Part 15 and Part 18 devices currently use to limit their out-of-band emissions may be insufficient to satisfy the proposed aggregate field strength limit within the SDARS band (clip).... Petitioner does not anticipate that designing filtering mechanisms to comply with the proposed field strength limitations will be technically difficult for manufacturers of future Part 15 and Part 18 devices to accomodate.
Obviously, the wireless industry disagrees. But they also claim this would force them to retrofit existing devices, which simply isn't in Sirius' petition at all. The actual proposed rule change is on pg. 26:
...Petitioner requests that the Commission establish a rule to limit their [Part 15 and Part 18 devices] aggregate field strength for out-of-band radiated emissions between 2320 and 2345 MHz to 8.6 (micro)V/m at 3m (18.7 dB(micro)V/m) on a free space, co-polarized basis measured in a 1MHz bandwidth. The above limit would go into effect 18 months after the date of final adoption of the rule and apply to all devices
manufactured thereafter. (emphasis mine)
So the real questions seem to be: 1) how hard would it be for 802.11b makers to follow that proposed rule change, and 2) Would this mean the end of RF lighting and UWB?
Interesting game. Only fun if you play it with people who don't spend every round searching for anime.
And the scoring system needs re-vamping. It seems quite random. Some items will score very few points for a guess off the top, and some will score lots of points for an answer when almost the entire phrase has been filled in.
Slashdot Mirror
4 megapixels... with a FIXED LENS?
Sure, it's a Zeiss lens and all, but what good are all those pixels if you have to walk forward and back to compose a good picture?
With a fixed lens on a camera, anything much above 2 megapixels is overkill.
I wonder if they've considered adding a few microphones to Lewis?
I remember a gimmick 35mm camera a while back that came mounted on a tabletop tripod with a servo and directional mic. When the microphone picked up loud noise, the camera swiveled around and shot, the theory being you'd pick up the wildest party moments on film.
Send it through an AOL mail gateway!
You forgot Nightmare on Elm Street 12: The Musical.
Damn, that would be great! Then we wouldn't have to suffer through the dialogue!
I'm personally waiting for the Hindi EP2 DVD to be released... that way I can watch it in a language I don't understand, and not be distracted by the dreadful screenplay.
Gives "Blue Screen of Death" a whole new meaning...
I'm not kidding! Not to this guy's service, but to Listen.com's Rhapsody service.
Why? 75% of the music I listen to comes out of my computer. Most of that are from CD's I own and ripped. Probably a quarter is downloaded via P2P.
Listen.com was the first to put together contracts with all 5 "major" labels, and more importantly (in my book) with a few dozen small labels. As a result, about 90% of the artists I listen to are included in Listen's catalog.
All of it, streamed on demand. Less than 2 seconds after clicking "Play", I'm listening to the song, at a quality indistinguishable from a ripped CD. (I'm listening on $500 bi-amped studio monitors. It's not quite audiophile quality, but nothing to sneeze at.)
No, you can't download the tracks. That's OK for me, since I don't rip music to an MP3 player. I do listen to CDs in my car occasionally, but mostly NPR.
Is it perfect? No. There are artists I'd prefer to have in the catalog (The Beatles being the holy grail of online music licensing). Barring that, I'd like to be able to combine network and local files on my playlist.
But comparing it to any of the existing P2P networks, it's undeniably more convenient having all the tracks available on demand. I don't have to try 3 different searches, then struggle through 4 downloads on slow connections that terminate 3/4ths through. I don't have to correct all the title, artist, and album information to get it in a usable form in my library.
It comes down to a pretty simple cost-benefit analysis: Does this service provide $8.33 a month worth of value to me? (They advertise the service at $10/mo, but you can subscribe for $25/quarter.)
Well, that's the cost of a movie, or 3/4ths of a CD. Will I get more than a movie's enjoyment out of this every month? Darn tootin'. So I pulled out the credit card.
If they start offering downloadable or burnable options, will I shell out more cash? I don't know. Maybe they'll provide a pay-as-you-go option for that.
But at $8.33/mo for an unlimited jukebox, I'm hooked.
His books are understandable and real, of course they're going to depict images that are realistic.
Are we still talking about a fantasy writer here?
6. Die stray processes, die!
Also pretty rare. The only process I ever had do this was Mozilla (and maybe the old Netscape - I can't remember) and the last time it happened was at least six months ago. Anyway, hardly seems worth it when you can just fix the particular offending applications.
There's a dangerous mindset. It's exactly what Microsoft thought for years. Users/journalists would say "Windows crashes all the time!" and people inside Microsoft would say "No! The app is crashing, or this device driver is crashing! If the apps and device drivers were fixed, Windows wouldn't crash!"
Finally, Microsoft got some religion in this area, and started crash tracking. It was generally true that the OS didn't crash on it's own, but that doesn't matter -- perceptions matter. So it became part of the mission to fix or prevent other people's bugs for the good of the platform.
When Office XP crashes on any platform, or any app under Windows XP goes down, you can send developers a snapshot of what happened. The same thing happens after a BSOD, which is thankfully much rarer in WinXP.
That crash tracking was rolled out for the Office XP and WinXP betas, and because of it, both are now more solid than X on Linux or BSD.
There's no reason the FSF, EFF, or your mom couldn't become a signing authority! When Red Hat releases SkipFlapJack Beta 17, they get it signed. If you recompile your kernel, you can get it signed!
If you decide the cDc is a signing authority you trust, then allow their code to run.
Having a Palladium chip on your motherboard will require more work from developers. That's part of the deal here. It will also require more work from virus writers.
Clearly there will have to be ways for authors to run code compiled on their own machines -- Microsoft has very little interest in locking out developers, because then there'd be no software to run. Contrary to popular opinion (at least on
Let's all step off the panic button for a moment and think about it. What's the worst case scenario here? Microsoft does successfully lock out open source software on Intel/AMD chips... and Linux/BSD users start running on PPC!
The short answer is "Yes".
Presumably, not on Windows.
But if you have a Linux distro that's signed by a free software signing authority (say, the FSF, or EFF, if they're interested in joining the ball game), there's no reason why you couldn't force that distro to disallow any software from a non-free software signing authority, like Microsoft, or UnitedLinux.
I can't believe I ate the whole thing! (Yes, I read the log.)
I made no judgement as to the quality of the OS (in fact, I greatly admire OBOS's techincal goals). But this an observation about the chances of OBOS's success if the people who are creating it don't take some level of responsibility for nurturing a user base.
IMHO, saying "We are an OSS project. Marketing is not our job" does not bode well for the additional goal of "But I also want to make it work for my Mom".
My mom, your mom, everyone's mom for that matter, needs to learn about alternative OS's somewhere, and see the value in using them. That can be accomplished without multi-million dollar ad campaigns. But it cannot be accomplished if developers take the position that evangelizing and marketing (which are flip sides of the same coin) is not their job.
My point is that marketing goes far beyond buying ads and doing press releases. That's simply advertising.
So yes, if the people doing the coding want people to actually run their code, they should take it upon themselves to do some evangelizing. If there's not a groundswell of support, then distros will never pick up the code and do the advertising work that follows.
"Marketing is not our job"?
Well, that's his perogative, but not necessarily one that will lead to a successful project.
What's the goal of this project? To create a new open source OS that no one uses? If so, marketing is definitely not their job.
But if one of the goals is to create a new open source OS with a strong, active base of users and developers, then marketing MUST be part of the job and project plan.
Marketing goes far beyond advertising for the sake of increasing revenue. Marketing is all of the PR work you do with the development community, IT decision-makers, not to mention the media (including Slashdot).
Too often, open source advocates only associate marketing with profit-making companies, while forgetting that non-profits have marketing people too.
From museums to charitable foundations, the most successful ones are those that can successfully market their 'product' to the world. Open source software is no different.
Yikes! I installed SnapStream 2 weeks ago and couldn't get it to do a damn thing on my machine (WinXP, ATI Radeon VE, ATI TV Wonder VE). I uninstalled it after it didn't record as scheduled, or at all manually.
Of course, ATI's MMC is no great shakes either.
Right now, I'm using ShowShifter. It's not perfect, but does nicely in full-screen mode, using a wireless optical mouse to control it. They promise big improvements in the next upgrade, including programming via TitanTV. If they deliver, I'll gladly pay the $50.
...is that you can't even dump them!
:-) :-) :-\ try again.
MediaBoy77: I have to leave you, Elle
ElleGirlBuddy: l8er, MediaBoy77!
MediaBoy77: No, you don't understand! It's over between us!
ElleGirlBuddy: really?
MediaBoy77: For good!
ElleGirlBuddy: yeah
MediaBoy77: I've found another woman.
ElleGirlBuddy: uh... what??
MediaBoy77: She's cuter than you are.
ElleGirlBuddy: huh?
MediaBoy77: Not that you're not wonderful and all, but now that the supreme court has approved virtual kiddie porn, text just isn't good enough.
ElleGirlBuddy: that was too long for me to understand! please try something shorter.
MediaBoy77: see? there's the problem. we can't communicate.
ElleGirlBuddy: i'm sorry, i don't know what you're saying.
MediaBoy77: exactly my point!
ElleGirlBuddy: right
what else do u wanna talk about, anyway?
>>> ELLEgirl magazine is killer! have u seen the new prom issue?? (Link: http://r.activebuddy.com/?661)subscribe now and u can get a kewl t-shirt!
One of Xbox's in-store problems is that they're demo'ing the wrong games. Halo is a great, deep game, but it looks very similar to PC shooters, and has a learning curve that can't be overcome in 30 seconds of play in a store.
I've also seen DOA3, Bloodwake, and Munch's Oddysee in stores. DOA3 is gorgeous, but doesn't have anything that separates it from Soul Caliber on those in-store monitors. Bloodwake just doesn't have the gameplay to sell the console. Munch comes closest to a good demo game, but I haven't seen the whole game in stores, only a short demo with no other characters on-screen.
Microsoft's marketing crew needs to bite the big one and feature non-MS published games in stores and ads. JSRF and NFL2k2, for starters. And they still have RalliSport challenge to include on those new demo discs.
Or, you could read the specs before you whine about them.
Analog Audio
Frequency Response 10Hz to 20kHz (+0.1/-0.3dB)
Dynamic Range 97 dB (20 Bit Precision), 94 dB (16 Bit Precision)
Signal-to-Noise Ratio 99 dB (20 Bit Precision), 96 dB (16 Bit Precision)
Channel Separation 108 dB (1kHz)
THD+N 0.006% (1kHz)
Noise Modulation 105 dB ± 1.7 dB
Output Level 2 V RMS ± 0.2 (1kHz)
Audio D/A Converter 24 Bit, 96kHz
Wow & Flutter 0.0017% W. Peak (EIAJ)
Digital Audio
Optical Output Level 18 dBm
Coaxial Output Level 0.5 V p-p / 75 Ohm
Don't forget, the PS2 had a pretty meager launch itself. Massive unit shortages, which was probably fine, because there weren't any great games to go with it.
Of this list of launch titles, how many are you still playing?
In comparison, Halo is a much stronger game than any of those, and will have a much longer shelf life.
More Xbox games are in the pipe, and they will get better. (If you haven't checked out JSRF and RalliSport Challenge, go do it now. Both blew my mind away, not to mention blowing away anything I've seen on the PS2.)
I'm not saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but I usually don't see the most knowledgeable computer/electronics info in the newspaper.
FWIW, Walt Mossberg is probably the most influential tech journalist writing in the mainstream media. He has a very big soapbox that he uses to great affect. He's an advocate for ease of use, rails against products that don't work as advertised (frequently Microsoft's), and isn't afraid to slam a product or offend PR people.
Let's face it, the tech press may be read by CIOs, but the Journal is read by CEOs. And in the world of The Buck Stops Here, being able to point to a Mossberg column and say "look, Walt likes it" goes a long way to selling the bigwigs on a product.
During my time as a Program Manager at Microsoft, when Walt spoke, people listened. Several e-mails from BillG that were the direct result of Walt's WSJ columns made it down the chain of command and led to changes in products.
There are several issues that haven't been addressed in this thread. If you haven't read the actual petition (http://us.share.geocities.com/nospamcarl/sirius_
First, much of the petition deals with RF lighting and UWB. I'm new to RF lighting, but I remember the last UWB thread on
Has anyone done interference testing with 2.4GHz devices and RF lighting? Would RF streetlamps disable Bluetooth and 802.11b freenets?
Secondly, Sirius isn't asking the FCC to ban 802.11b. They're asking the FCC to make WiFi manufacturers put stronger filters on their transmitters. Quoting from the petition:
Obviously, the wireless industry disagrees. But they also claim this would force them to retrofit existing devices, which simply isn't in Sirius' petition at all. The actual proposed rule change is on pg. 26:
So the real questions seem to be: 1) how hard would it be for 802.11b makers to follow that proposed rule change, and 2) Would this mean the end of RF lighting and UWB?
Since when is the speed of light only a "tad" faster than the speed of sound?
Interesting game. Only fun if you play it with people who don't spend every round searching for anime.
And the scoring system needs re-vamping. It seems quite random. Some items will score very few points for a guess off the top, and some will score lots of points for an answer when almost the entire phrase has been filled in.
But a thumbs-up on the concept!
...and Linux will be stable and secure when I stop patching it? Boy, life just got a whole lot easier for Marcelo Tosatti and Alan Cox.