I took a tour of this lab last Fall. While it was impressive from a consumer usability perspective, the technical decisions they made were at times curious.
Like Microsoft, IBM sees the home of the future as a collection of dumb appliances that are dependent on a big, smart server to operate. Microsoft sees the server as the Windows XP platform, while IBM sees it as some form of their Websphere application server.
So there were no peer-to-peer technologies like IEEE 1394 or JINI to be found in their lab. And no Bluetooth or X-10, either.
In fact, the connection technology of the future, if the PvC lab is to belived... is CeBus! Now, CeBus is mighty fine at what it does, and fits well into IBM's architecture where everything is controlled by a Websphere set-top box, but it is much more expensive than the competing technologies. Right now, I can't see anyone (except Larry) paying a couple of hundred bucks extra for blinders that go up and down at different times in the day.
The bill states that to receive federal funding, schools and libraries must "[install censorware] that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors..." Also note that one of the definitions of being harmful to minors is material that "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors". (Here's an example)
There are two ways to read the provision. One is that censorware that allows any image that meets the above criteria to pop up in front of Timmy's eyes disqualifies your library or school from federal funds. If this is the correct interpretation, the only way to legally qualify for funds will be to install censorware that filters all images, or to force everyone to browse with Lynx.
The other way to read the provision is that censorware that blocks any (but not necessarily all) images that meet the above criteria will qualify you for federal funds. In that case, a school or library can install a simple proxy filter that blocks access to goatse.cx, allows all other content through, and be eligible for federal funds.
Of course, that's not what the authors of this legislation had in mind. They simply wanted to be able to use federal funds as a weapon in their war on communities that do not impose the specific censorship agenda that they are comfortable with. But there's no way to codify that in a piece of legislation without being in blatant violation of the First Amendment. And for good reason.
If you stop by the IBM Wearables Lab in New York, you can take a look at a wristwatch that runs on linux, and leverages its stable threading model.
Palm OS and Windows CE are great for doing PDA's, but when you decide to install them onto a VCR or a car stereo you will find them considerable less flexible or configurable than Linux. Everyone here knows how easy it is to get a minimum footprint of Linux running with only the modules you need. And Linux's licensing terms are considerably more flexible than Palm or WinCE.
I am working in the technical strategy phase on a consumer appliance that will be Bluetooth-enabled. Linux lets us get coding right off the bat with the great drivers at Axis.
Try coding and testing Bluetooth support with one of the commercial embedded OS's!
I love the concept of Mojo Nation, but there is one fundamental issue in their architecture that I haven't seen addressed, and I'm not sure it can be.
The equilibrium of the system rests on the integrity of the system's currency, Mojo Dollars. Obviously, each user's currency needs to be stored on a centralized server. If clients were responsible for tracking their own currency, it would be trivial for everyone to manufacture additional currency for themselves at will.
But if currency levels are on the server, then the server must trust the clients to report when they have earned additional currency. My client must report "I have made 6 gigs of disk space available," or "I have been running an index server for other Mojo Nation users," or "I have been offering a proxy service for users behind firewalls," and "therefore, my account should be credited for x mojo dollars."
Well obviously, anyone can modify their open-source clients to submit false reports to the server and accumulate currency that they actually haven't earned.
I don't believe this problem is solvable. Can anyone suggest otherwise?
I think this is open source working exactly the way it is supposed to. If Netscape wants to put money into branding and promoting their particular build of Mozilla, and they feel that consumers will want to endure the endless cross-promotions because of the perceived Netscape brand value, then more power to them.
Other companies and organizations are free to distribute their own builds of the product, and most Slashdotters prefer the current builds directly off of the Mozilla website.
There is nothing unethical about Netscape distributing what they feel is the right balance of current features and revenue-generating opportunities in their build. Have they struck the right balance? Consumers and the marketplace will make that decision.
Comparisons to closed-source IE border on ludicrous.
OK, I have browsed through the first 305 posts on this topic and I still can't find anyone taking a stab at what Gore means by ISPs having a 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up'.
I know I don't like Bush's filtering plan. What do I think about Gore's 95% parent protection plan? I don't have any fucking clue!
Can someone please expound on what the Hell he is talking about?
IANAL. The way I read the text of the bill, it is the responsibility of the school to select and install software that blocks all obscene material and all child pornography.
We all know that none of the commercial filterlist software packages accomplish this. In fact, the only way to comply with this is to choose a set of known 'safe' sites, and only allow access to those sites. But few if any schools are actually going to do this, because it renders the Internet rather useless to the educational mission.
So that leaves open the possibility that schools could download and install a freely available, open source proxy server that screens out goatse.cx, but allows all other content through. Does that comply with the letter of the law? If it doesn't, then neither does installing any of the popular censorware packages.
The censorware vendors are wetting themselves at the thoughts of schools taking thousands of dollars out of their textbook budgets to buy licenses for their scam software. I hope that schools will take a stand against them by adopting a minimalist, free filtering solution.
So what the hell is this? An RIAA-approved ID3 tag?
Corby
Re:Much Too Complicated
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
Dude, if you want to start something, I will jump in my Touring Machine, solve the Shortest Path problem to your house in linear time, and kick your ass.
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way.
The member companies of the RIAA are certainly not 'leading' sites like MP3.com when it comes to number of digital music downloads, or revenue generated. Several RIAA members don't distribute music online; those that do use the least innovative methods of digital distribution.
Consider my recent experience when I visited Sony Music's first online music offering: the Digital Download. I had to really want my Digital Download, because the mystifying site layout made it very difficult to find what I was looking for.
I finally found a list of under 100 single tracks available from Sony's entire catalog. The cost per download? $2.50. The file format? I don't have any fucking clue. I spent ten minutes on the site looking for indication of what I would be getting if I paid them money for their top-40 rotation music file. MP3? Liquid Audio? WMF? Who the hell is going to overpay for a music file when they don't even know what hardware or software is capable of playing the file?
So I am struggling to understand Hillary's definition of 'leadership' in online music. Ah, yes, I remember. RIAA member companies are leading all other companies in threatening legal action against artists that attempt to distribute their own music online.
The music publishers have to provide backward-compatible support for the (rather significant) install base of existing CD players on their SDMI-encoded music. As long as my old CD player can read the media, I can rip it into a less restrictive digital music format.
Even when CD's came out, where there were significant consumer advantages for migrating from the casette format, it took a decade for the install base of CD players to grow large enough that casette releases could be phased out.
If the record companies tried to release music in SDMI format that could not be played by existing CD players, the financial consequences would be disastrous, to put it mildly.
Extract the watermark, don't extract it. It really doesn't matter.
Yesterday's Forrester report on the new Nomad reiterates the commonly held view that SDMI is irrelevant:
"SDMI is too late to make a difference. Net users see access to free music as a key benefit of digitally downloading music. While the Jukebox is hardware-ready to support SDMI -- the security rules developed by the music industry's Secure Digital Music Initiative -- owners will ignore secure, paid-for music downloads and opt for the free version."
I don't have any problem paying for music, but I am going to continue to rip my CD's to use the unrestricted MP3 file format, rather than use watermarked SDMI files. Flexibility and convenience is very important to me as a music consumer. And there will always be music players for unrestricted formats.
What are the reasons for the split between Reynolds and Meier? There seems to be some implication in the interview that Reynolds didn't have the opportunity to assume complete responsibility for a product.
Slashdot Mirror
Just have to copy-and-paste all the smart comments from the previous story, and I'll have my +1 mod bonus in no time!
Thanks, Michael!
I took a tour of this lab last Fall. While it was impressive from a consumer usability perspective, the technical decisions they made were at times curious. Like Microsoft, IBM sees the home of the future as a collection of dumb appliances that are dependent on a big, smart server to operate. Microsoft sees the server as the Windows XP platform, while IBM sees it as some form of their Websphere application server.
So there were no peer-to-peer technologies like IEEE 1394 or JINI to be found in their lab. And no Bluetooth or X-10, either.
In fact, the connection technology of the future, if the PvC lab is to belived... is CeBus! Now, CeBus is mighty fine at what it does, and fits well into IBM's architecture where everything is controlled by a Websphere set-top box, but it is much more expensive than the competing technologies. Right now, I can't see anyone (except Larry) paying a couple of hundred bucks extra for blinders that go up and down at different times in the day.
Corby
The NBA has been doing this for a couple of years now. You can see it in the "Audio League Pass" section of the NBA.com site.
Corby
The bill states that to receive federal funding, schools and libraries must "[install censorware] that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors..." Also note that one of the definitions of being harmful to minors is material that "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors". (Here's an example)
There are two ways to read the provision. One is that censorware that allows any image that meets the above criteria to pop up in front of Timmy's eyes disqualifies your library or school from federal funds. If this is the correct interpretation, the only way to legally qualify for funds will be to install censorware that filters all images, or to force everyone to browse with Lynx.
The other way to read the provision is that censorware that blocks any (but not necessarily all) images that meet the above criteria will qualify you for federal funds. In that case, a school or library can install a simple proxy filter that blocks access to goatse.cx, allows all other content through, and be eligible for federal funds.
Of course, that's not what the authors of this legislation had in mind. They simply wanted to be able to use federal funds as a weapon in their war on communities that do not impose the specific censorship agenda that they are comfortable with. But there's no way to codify that in a piece of legislation without being in blatant violation of the First Amendment. And for good reason.
Corby
Perhaps most impressive in this gallery of images was Peter Molyneaux's commentary on Al Gore's victory in the Florida Supreme Court this evening.
Corby
If you stop by the IBM Wearables Lab in New York, you can take a look at a wristwatch that runs on linux, and leverages its stable threading model.
Palm OS and Windows CE are great for doing PDA's, but when you decide to install them onto a VCR or a car stereo you will find them considerable less flexible or configurable than Linux. Everyone here knows how easy it is to get a minimum footprint of Linux running with only the modules you need. And Linux's licensing terms are considerably more flexible than Palm or WinCE.
I am working in the technical strategy phase on a consumer appliance that will be Bluetooth-enabled. Linux lets us get coding right off the bat with the great drivers at Axis.
Try coding and testing Bluetooth support with one of the commercial embedded OS's!
Corby
I love the concept of Mojo Nation, but there is one fundamental issue in their architecture that I haven't seen addressed, and I'm not sure it can be.
The equilibrium of the system rests on the integrity of the system's currency, Mojo Dollars. Obviously, each user's currency needs to be stored on a centralized server. If clients were responsible for tracking their own currency, it would be trivial for everyone to manufacture additional currency for themselves at will.
But if currency levels are on the server, then the server must trust the clients to report when they have earned additional currency. My client must report "I have made 6 gigs of disk space available," or "I have been running an index server for other Mojo Nation users," or "I have been offering a proxy service for users behind firewalls," and "therefore, my account should be credited for x mojo dollars."
Well obviously, anyone can modify their open-source clients to submit false reports to the server and accumulate currency that they actually haven't earned.
I don't believe this problem is solvable. Can anyone suggest otherwise?
Corby
I think this is open source working exactly the way it is supposed to. If Netscape wants to put money into branding and promoting their particular build of Mozilla, and they feel that consumers will want to endure the endless cross-promotions because of the perceived Netscape brand value, then more power to them.
Other companies and organizations are free to distribute their own builds of the product, and most Slashdotters prefer the current builds directly off of the Mozilla website.
There is nothing unethical about Netscape distributing what they feel is the right balance of current features and revenue-generating opportunities in their build. Have they struck the right balance? Consumers and the marketplace will make that decision.
Comparisons to closed-source IE border on ludicrous.
Corby
OK, I have browsed through the first 305 posts on this topic and I still can't find anyone taking a stab at what Gore means by ISPs having a 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up'.
I know I don't like Bush's filtering plan. What do I think about Gore's 95% parent protection plan? I don't have any fucking clue!
Can someone please expound on what the Hell he is talking about?
Thanks,
Corby
IANAL. The way I read the text of the bill, it is the responsibility of the school to select and install software that blocks all obscene material and all child pornography.
We all know that none of the commercial filterlist software packages accomplish this. In fact, the only way to comply with this is to choose a set of known 'safe' sites, and only allow access to those sites. But few if any schools are actually going to do this, because it renders the Internet rather useless to the educational mission.
So that leaves open the possibility that schools could download and install a freely available, open source proxy server that screens out goatse.cx, but allows all other content through. Does that comply with the letter of the law? If it doesn't, then neither does installing any of the popular censorware packages.
The censorware vendors are wetting themselves at the thoughts of schools taking thousands of dollars out of their textbook budgets to buy licenses for their scam software. I hope that schools will take a stand against them by adopting a minimalist, free filtering solution.
Corby
So what the hell is this? An RIAA-approved ID3 tag?
Corby
Dude, if you want to start something, I will jump in my Touring Machine, solve the Shortest Path problem to your house in linear time, and kick your ass.
Corby
Computer scientists such as Mr. Platnikov are going to very complex lengths to prove that P=NP, but their approach is much too circuitous.
A true mathematician would realize that we only need to establish that P=0, or that N=1.
Corby
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way.
The member companies of the RIAA are certainly not 'leading' sites like MP3.com when it comes to number of digital music downloads, or revenue generated. Several RIAA members don't distribute music online; those that do use the least innovative methods of digital distribution.
Consider my recent experience when I visited Sony Music's first online music offering: the Digital Download. I had to really want my Digital Download, because the mystifying site layout made it very difficult to find what I was looking for.
I finally found a list of under 100 single tracks available from Sony's entire catalog. The cost per download? $2.50. The file format? I don't have any fucking clue. I spent ten minutes on the site looking for indication of what I would be getting if I paid them money for their top-40 rotation music file. MP3? Liquid Audio? WMF? Who the hell is going to overpay for a music file when they don't even know what hardware or software is capable of playing the file?
So I am struggling to understand Hillary's definition of 'leadership' in online music. Ah, yes, I remember. RIAA member companies are leading all other companies in threatening legal action against artists that attempt to distribute their own music online.
Corby
Unfortunately, those of you browsing behind content filters will be unable to read Dick Armey's statements.
Corby
1) Does Rijndael support some sort of key escrow?
2) If not, will it be illegal for US companies to sell Rijndael-capable devices outside of the US (and perfectly legal vice-versa)?
A far better choice, although a bit pricier, would be the Empeg. http://www.empeg.com
Software and support is outstanding. And yes, it runs on Linux.
The music publishers have to provide backward-compatible support for the (rather significant) install base of existing CD players on their SDMI-encoded music. As long as my old CD player can read the media, I can rip it into a less restrictive digital music format.
Even when CD's came out, where there were significant consumer advantages for migrating from the casette format, it took a decade for the install base of CD players to grow large enough that casette releases could be phased out.
If the record companies tried to release music in SDMI format that could not be played by existing CD players, the financial consequences would be disastrous, to put it mildly.
Corby
Extract the watermark, don't extract it. It really doesn't matter.
Yesterday's Forrester report on the new Nomad reiterates the commonly held view that SDMI is irrelevant:
"SDMI is too late to make a difference. Net users see access to free music as a key benefit of digitally downloading music. While the Jukebox is hardware-ready to support SDMI -- the security rules developed by the music industry's Secure Digital Music Initiative -- owners will ignore secure, paid-for music downloads and opt for the free version."
I don't have any problem paying for music, but I am going to continue to rip my CD's to use the unrestricted MP3 file format, rather than use watermarked SDMI files. Flexibility and convenience is very important to me as a music consumer. And there will always be music players for unrestricted formats.
Corby
What are the reasons for the split between Reynolds and Meier? There seems to be some implication in the interview that Reynolds didn't have the opportunity to assume complete responsibility for a product.