is that Microsoft actually has all of their stuff written already, while the MoxiBoxi is currently vapor-tastic. Unless, of course, Moxi is just planning on rolling out a slightly tweaked WinXP embedded box, which would create nothing more than a Homestation minus XBOX game compatability. Personally, I think Microsoft release WinXP embedded for no other reason than to make corporations feel silly about writing their own STB software. Then, when the suits decide to just use the XP Embedded softwares, they'll have a hard time distinguishing themselves from a superior (XBOX compatible) Homestation.
Working as an opensource advocate within a primarily closed-source company, has your career trajectory been affected by your continuing advocacy of the open-source movement? For example, have there been career moves that you were unable to make because higher-ups were concerned about placing someone with your views in a position to make relevant decisions? In that vein, do you have any advice for the rest of us suits who wish to advocate open-source tactfully, without giving the impression that our primary goal in life is to give away the company's assets?
That's funny, most ASP developers don't use Interdev. In fact, I too develop ASP pages for Win2k servers. All that work is done from a linux platform, and the guys here who use Windows boxes are just using TextPad, Dreamweaver, Homesite or some other non-intrusive text editor. Give it a try sometime. It's not like Interdev's data environments are really that much of a benefit...
...the idea is that Chicago wants to bring broadband to the masses and is accepting proposals to design and build a MAN: 'The project, called SweetStuff, is aimed at bringing a love machine with integrated data, voice and video capabilities to every nook and cranny of Chicago over the next 10 years.'
I've seen Shuttle SV24s with pretty good kits inside of them. Starting at $250 buy-in, that's not bad. Also, I've seen one where a guy bolted on an Amp Strap to the top of the case, which seemed to work well.
Was this so non-obvious?
on
Xbox Sequel Rumors
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Step 1) Microsoft develops a technology infrastructure to support a full range of set-top-box applications.
Step 2) Microsoft deploys a subset of those technologies in the form of a game console.
Step 3) Microsoft releases a packaged version of their set-top-box mislabeled as "Windows XP Embedded" to see how applications running under it work in the marketplace.
Step 4) Microsoft takes the lessons learned from both deployments to deploy a super-box.
Step 4 is the only one to not have happened yet, but it's a pretty obvious step in the progression. I mean, look at what's in XP Embedded and you can see that you could almost drag-n-drop to create the box under discussion. The real shame is that they're selling companies the tools to create cookie-cutter STBs all the while planning to squash them with M$s real deal.
That's kind of a stretch on their part. Try 2 kits, each with 2 differently sized heat transfer blocks. To save you some time, they like the one from Innovatech, and despise the other one. Want a big surprise? They like BOTH "kits" from Innovatech and hate BOTH "kits" from the other guys
"Hey recording industry! Seeing as we have captured one of the largest audiences currently trading illegal copies of your music, we somehow believe to have transformed ourselves into a valuable commodity. I mean, of course these guys all came to our service in order to get music for free, but I'm certain that if you pay us some money, instead of shutting us down, that the people will GLADLY pay money for the music they once got for free...."
Next month I'm going to start a business to corner the market on killing people. I'm not sure how commercialize my business model, but I'm sure I can convince someone to pay me to stop.
That they're touting access to new content from the now defunct Loki. I wonder if I should start a subscription service for $2.00/month offering all the updates to a number of deactivated products.
or does that watch deal sound incredibly fraudulent. I love the concept!
"Hey Svenn! The foolish Americans want to buy that watch we photoshopped!"
"Jah Olie? They're perfectly welcome to send as much money as they want to my account! International prosecutions for petty crimes are delightfully hard to pursue..."
R1: 'Hey eddie, turn the dial up, let's see what this can do, eh! (get it? eh?)
R2: 'Here it goes!'
*POOF*
R1: 'Where'd nova scotia go?'
Boy this is really surprising!
on
Adcritic Shuts Down
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I wonder why companies would possibly try to stop someone from attempting to make money from their intellectual property. I'd imagine that this was a situation where the MPAA had a brotherly talk with its foolish 'younger brother.' Something along the lines of.... 'So these guys are abusing you, eh? Let me show you how to fix them...'
Now they just need to improve things to the point that they can boldly advertise wireless security to the consumer public without having fear of getting burned. You've perhaps wondered why we've never heard any w-commerce commercials touting the security of wireless banking transactions? That's because they aren't, at least not yet.
Heck, they still have trouble with the plain-ol' landlocked net.
Sure, he says exactly what I did. That in order to dual-license a project in which you accept outside submissions, you must necessarily force them to assign copyrights to you. He simply says that he has not yet been sued over the deal. Has he actually protected himself from liability or a legal challenge? Certainly not, and more power to him! However, not all people are so brave as to make business deals based on murky legal grounds.
Au Contraire to you as well, my friend! You are forgetting that if he GPL'd the code and allowed outside contributors, he would have to impose restrictive agreements upon those contributors under which they would be forced to give up all copyrights to the code they contribute.
Otherwise, the code they contribute will be released under GPL as well, and he (no longer being the sole copyright holder) would have to gain their permission to release the updated code under a non-GPL license. As copyright holders, they could object.
It's kind of hard to get people to work on a project for free when it's apparent that your intention is to immediately release it under a non-open license. Usually, you have to pay those guys.
The net effect? You've exposed your codec's guts to the world without being able to easily commercialize any of the benefits of being open-sourced.
I'll be getting in touch with you. Don't GPL it, that would be silly. If you guys made the darn thing with the intention of earning money, you should darn well get some money for it!
For anyone who cares, the groups that disappeared last night were DoD,Razor1911, and TFL. The latter two were incredibly productive release groups. However, this shouldn't affect things too much, as the only reason they were tops was the speed of the crackers, i.e. Razor owned a lot of releases because they could crack,pack,and ship a new release more quickly than the other groups. The net effect will simply be a change in ownership of releases to the groups with less effective crackers. But seriously, anyone who's good at math can figure out how to crack most of this stuff. More impactful is the number of top-level distribution sites which were pulled offline. Those pulls represented a good chunk of the available pipes and storage for distribution, most of which was being supplied to the groups by those Taiwanese cd-pressers everyone is so fond of.
Slashdot Mirror
is that Microsoft actually has all of their stuff written already, while the MoxiBoxi is currently vapor-tastic. Unless, of course, Moxi is just planning on rolling out a slightly tweaked WinXP embedded box, which would create nothing more than a Homestation minus XBOX game compatability. Personally, I think Microsoft release WinXP embedded for no other reason than to make corporations feel silly about writing their own STB software. Then, when the suits decide to just use the XP Embedded softwares, they'll have a hard time distinguishing themselves from a superior (XBOX compatible) Homestation.
Anyone else notice that the Amazon link has a ref-id on it? I wonder if it's the poster or someone else who's earning off of that?
Working as an opensource advocate within a primarily closed-source company, has your career trajectory been affected by your continuing advocacy of the open-source movement? For example, have there been career moves that you were unable to make because higher-ups were concerned about placing someone with your views in a position to make relevant decisions? In that vein, do you have any advice for the rest of us suits who wish to advocate open-source tactfully, without giving the impression that our primary goal in life is to give away the company's assets?
That's funny, most ASP developers don't use Interdev. In fact, I too develop ASP pages for Win2k servers. All that work is done from a linux platform, and the guys here who use Windows boxes are just using TextPad, Dreamweaver, Homesite or some other non-intrusive text editor. Give it a try sometime. It's not like Interdev's data environments are really that much of a benefit...
...the idea is that Chicago wants to bring broadband to the masses and is accepting proposals to design and build a MAN: 'The project, called SweetStuff, is aimed at bringing a love machine with integrated data, voice and video capabilities to every nook and cranny of Chicago over the next 10 years.'
I've seen Shuttle SV24s with pretty good kits inside of them. Starting at $250 buy-in, that's not bad. Also, I've seen one where a guy bolted on an Amp Strap to the top of the case, which seemed to work well.
Step 1) Microsoft develops a technology infrastructure to support a full range of set-top-box applications.
Step 2) Microsoft deploys a subset of those technologies in the form of a game console.
Step 3) Microsoft releases a packaged version of their set-top-box mislabeled as "Windows XP Embedded" to see how applications running under it work in the marketplace.
Step 4) Microsoft takes the lessons learned from both deployments to deploy a super-box.
Step 4 is the only one to not have happened yet, but it's a pretty obvious step in the progression. I mean, look at what's in XP Embedded and you can see that you could almost drag-n-drop to create the box under discussion. The real shame is that they're selling companies the tools to create cookie-cutter STBs all the while planning to squash them with M$s real deal.
Most people don't really live on the internet. In fact, many people think that cellphones are kind of silly.
That's kind of a stretch on their part. Try 2 kits, each with 2 differently sized heat transfer blocks. To save you some time, they like the one from Innovatech, and despise the other one. Want a big surprise? They like BOTH "kits" from Innovatech and hate BOTH "kits" from the other guys
"Hey recording industry! Seeing as we have captured one of the largest audiences currently trading illegal copies of your music, we somehow believe to have transformed ourselves into a valuable commodity. I mean, of course these guys all came to our service in order to get music for free, but I'm certain that if you pay us some money, instead of shutting us down, that the people will GLADLY pay money for the music they once got for free...."
Next month I'm going to start a business to corner the market on killing people. I'm not sure how commercialize my business model, but I'm sure I can convince someone to pay me to stop.
I heard that Jar-Jar Binks is looking for work.
A whole new stretch of ocean-front property to buy from shady realtors! They need somewhere, now that all that Louisiana swampland is finally sold.
That they're touting access to new content from the now defunct Loki. I wonder if I should start a subscription service for $2.00/month offering all the updates to a number of deactivated products.
or does that watch deal sound incredibly fraudulent. I love the concept!
"Hey Svenn! The foolish Americans want to buy that watch we photoshopped!"
"Jah Olie? They're perfectly welcome to send as much money as they want to my account! International prosecutions for petty crimes are delightfully hard to pursue..."
OMG, those are links?!?!
R1: 'Hey eddie, turn the dial up, let's see what this can do, eh! (get it? eh?) R2: 'Here it goes!' *POOF* R1: 'Where'd nova scotia go?'
I wonder why companies would possibly try to stop someone from attempting to make money from their intellectual property. I'd imagine that this was a situation where the MPAA had a brotherly talk with its foolish 'younger brother.' Something along the lines of.... 'So these guys are abusing you, eh? Let me show you how to fix them...'
Now they just need to improve things to the point that they can boldly advertise wireless security to the consumer public without having fear of getting burned. You've perhaps wondered why we've never heard any w-commerce commercials touting the security of wireless banking transactions? That's because they aren't, at least not yet. Heck, they still have trouble with the plain-ol' landlocked net.
Sure, he says exactly what I did. That in order to dual-license a project in which you accept outside submissions, you must necessarily force them to assign copyrights to you. He simply says that he has not yet been sued over the deal. Has he actually protected himself from liability or a legal challenge? Certainly not, and more power to him! However, not all people are so brave as to make business deals based on murky legal grounds.
Au Contraire to you as well, my friend! You are forgetting that if he GPL'd the code and allowed outside contributors, he would have to impose restrictive agreements upon those contributors under which they would be forced to give up all copyrights to the code they contribute.
Otherwise, the code they contribute will be released under GPL as well, and he (no longer being the sole copyright holder) would have to gain their permission to release the updated code under a non-GPL license. As copyright holders, they could object.
It's kind of hard to get people to work on a project for free when it's apparent that your intention is to immediately release it under a non-open license. Usually, you have to pay those guys.
The net effect? You've exposed your codec's guts to the world without being able to easily commercialize any of the benefits of being open-sourced.
I'll be getting in touch with you. Don't GPL it, that would be silly. If you guys made the darn thing with the intention of earning money, you should darn well get some money for it!
For anyone who cares, the groups that disappeared last night were DoD,Razor1911, and TFL. The latter two were incredibly productive release groups. However, this shouldn't affect things too much, as the only reason they were tops was the speed of the crackers, i.e. Razor owned a lot of releases because they could crack,pack,and ship a new release more quickly than the other groups. The net effect will simply be a change in ownership of releases to the groups with less effective crackers. But seriously, anyone who's good at math can figure out how to crack most of this stuff. More impactful is the number of top-level distribution sites which were pulled offline. Those pulls represented a good chunk of the available pipes and storage for distribution, most of which was being supplied to the groups by those Taiwanese cd-pressers everyone is so fond of.
You know it's bad when the link to the offtopic post is ALSO /.ed!
Try