The same properties that make it hard to prove you deleted the contents make it hard to *prove* what the contents were. No surprise here really. SSDs are a b*tch no matter which side you're on.
For hiding stuff, the best policy is to never store unencrypted data on the device. Install full-disk encryption, then data.
For recovering stuff *to legal standards*.. Who knows. The courts are fickle at first, but standards of evidence will emerge over time.
As for "slashdot hipsterism", I've owned my model M longer then my Slashdot account. Heck, I've owned it longer then Slashdot has existed.
You still haven't said whether you've actually used a Model M, or just like sounding snobby. I've tested (and continue to test) many different keyboards and use the one I like. I spend ~10 hours a day using it heavily, and so have invested a decent amount of time to find the keyboard and mouse I like the best. Have you done the research? Have you tried a Model M (or a fixie for that matter)? If you have and it doesn't work for you that's your preference. If you haven't, then you're an empty windbag.
Test your equipment, and use what works for you. Making snide comparisons about other choices (especially if you haven't tried them) is exactly the "hipsterism" you claim to hate.
Are you implying there's some great functionality I'm missing out on? I've used tons of keyboards, and the Model M is my favorite by far. The only thing I occasionally miss is a "windows" key, but everything else I might want a "fancy" keyboard can do can be done in software. The Cherry MX key switches are decent also, but have a few niggles like the reset point on the most common ones.
If you want a simplicity analogy, the Model M is more like a sword, and less like a fixie. Fixies are fashionable, not designed for practicality except for a few tricks. The best swords today are still made the same way they were many years ago, and the modern mass produced varieties are worse, despite their flashy handles or detailing.
The model M is far from fashionable. It's a serious tool, built well, that has stood the test of time. I've been using my current model since 1997, when I bought it 2nd hand. It was built in 1990. I type measurably faster on it with less subjective fatigue then any other keyboard I've tried.
If you've never used a Model M (or other tactile response and/or clicky keyboard like the Cherry MX based ones) I suggest you do. You might have less to smirk about, and be more productive.;-)
You made me spit coffee out at "awesome keyboard". My Model M is an awesome keyboard. My ThinkPad has a great keyboard for a laptop. My new MacBook Pro has a tolerable keyboard at best.
I think the GP was trying to state that music is so compressed to the point it has 3db dynamic range. At least that's what I think they are trying to imply from the context.
Honestly, I rather liked McCain the senator, but McCain the guy running for president wasn't at all the same. He was trying to remake himself to play to "middle america" and couldn't even do that right. The whole campaign was a train wreck.
The fact that ketchup is a vegetable isn't the scary part. For the purpose of US school lunch nutrition at least, French Fries are considered a vegetable. That is scary.
Yes, if there was one high compression, cross platform, already in hardware, open standard, royalty free codec, it should totally be in the spec. H.264 and WebM both fall down on different parts of those qualifications, so we get a turf war.
A celibate clergy did serve a few strong purposes: 1) The stated purpose of allowing them to focus on their people. 2) The less stated purpose of curbing nepotism at at time when the church had a large amount of power in society.
Acela is the only "high speed"(still pitiful by international standards, but faster than driving) rail in the US, and coincidently the only part of Amtrack that actually turns a profit.
Or free porn. It already exists by way of free NNTP servers, but most people don't know NNTP= free porn. If the IETF bought Playboy and made the back catalog available for free over IPv6 only, we'd all have IPv6 by next Wednesday.
Since April 1996 Apache has been the most popular HTTP server software in use.
Before April 1996, that title belonged to NCSA httpd.
Mosiac and lynx were free and available before Netscape. Even IE and IIS were gratis after a fashion, if you used Windows (which most did) they were bundled with the OS. If you didn't use Windows, you couldn't use IE or IIS anyway, and there were free browsers for other systems.
Yes, there were a few years when Mozilla(the old pay version) and IE (which is only sort of gratis) dominated as the best browsers, but there were always other options.
The innovation on the server side is just as if not more important to the growth of the ecosystem, and for all the history that matters, web servers have been gratis.
The web was NOT built on commercial software. There was a very limited time when commercial, non graits software dominated desktop graphical viewing software, but that was a limited subset of the ecosystem, after the creation of the system, and only lasted for a very short period of time.
H.264 patents expire 2028. There has never been a royalty baring standard that has survived on the web for that amount of time, and to allow one now will limit innovation on the web for years to come.
Mozilla is tri-licensed,GPL, LGPL, and MPL. Unlike many other projects, they do not require copyright assignment, so they are bound under the terms of all 3 licenses.
To quote, from the GPL V2, section 7:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The MPL also seems to have some patent language, though my non-lawyer self doesn't quite grok it (and don't have the time at the moment to look it over)
It seems to say Mozilla can't distribuite H.264, since they can't trivially relicense as there are many contributions from others in the code. If you know otherwise I would be interested how...
Note that there are very few Open Standards that are royalty bearing that are important to the web. That is part of why innovation on the web happens so quickly. There is no worrying about licensing on the small or large end of a new venture, unless you choose to use servers and support software from a small handful of suppliers. Most of the building blocks of the web are both Open Standards AND gratis.
We can argue all day about which one is more important, but the truth is that both matter.
Mozilla has two options: Farm out video decoding to the OS (hard to do cross platform in a performant way), or support only non-patented algorithms. Their license doesn't really give them any other choices.
In terms of market share, Firefox is still a much bigger deal then Chrome, so I'm surprised no one cared until Google acted.. No matter which stats engine you look at, Firefox has about 2x as many users as chrome.
Microsoft... have chosen H.264 as the only one they will support
BZZT! WRONG!
[Citation needed] Everything I've read says they will support H.264, and also allow whatever you want to install otherwise. Defaults matter.
I believe Google might add H.264 support back into Chrome
People also believe virgins can give birth to sons of imaginary etheral entities and that clinically dead people can be arisen just by magical mumbling. That doens't make it a rational belief. Google is removing support for H.264 to kill it as a distribution codec. No more, no less.
A business as an individual should be free to operate within.the law. "Should be mandatory" is something that Kim Il Jung and Joseph Stalin likes but that has somehow fallen out of favor among the thinking population.
I would never presume to say anything about what Google should and should not do, but I can analyze their motives.
So sorry. "Ideally, for the benefit of future innovation, gratis standards should be incentivised in the present market." You like that wording better? Creating an incentive for WebM adoption is exactly what Google has done.
I believe that is the goal of the action Google is taking
Google cares about ruling the world according to the book of Google and about selling your personal information to as many advertisers as they can. They don't give a flying dung pile about Gratis or Free.
Security problems are just a very nasty subset of quality control issues. Quality code is a function of the quality of programmer, tooling, time schedule, etc. Open source vs closed source is only one part of that equation, and though I believe it matters, it's not a determining factor BY ITSELF.
Second, Android VS iphone. There's 2 most likely attack vectors today: Browser bugs, and trojans downloaded on purpose that do something other then what they claim.
Android fairs worse then iOS on both of these. Both have lots of flaws in the browsers, but Apple is much better about actually allowing their users to patch their own phones(which just blows my mind, I admit, because they are still slow, but it happens.. Android patching rarely happens).
Both have malware available, but it's easier to distruibuite for Android.
Note that neither has a lick to do with opensource vs closed source, it's timely (though SLOW by desktop standards) software updates and quality control vs carrier locked, no-updates-ever and free for all downloading.
Microsoft and Apple do not support a gratis standard, and have chosen H.264 as the only one they will support. If everyone already supported one of the gratis standards, I would agree with you, this might be a bad move.
Google's move is intended to help force Microsoft, Apple, other browsers(the large ones of whom have already), the handset manufacturers to standardize on WebM. It's better for the internet if everyone supports a gratis standard, and optionally also supports paid ones.
Once everyone supports WebM (or theora, or some other non-royalty baring standard), I believe Google might add H.264 support back into Chrome.
It's not about removing support for patented codecs, it's about forcing the inclusion of free ones.
Graits standards should be mandatory, paid ones optional, both on the producing and consuming side. That is my point, and I believe that is the goal of the action Google is taking.
I believe you missed the point. Let's have the WHOLE quote:
It's IMPORTANT that the web does not become Cable. Cable is where you pay money for content, and that's the end of it. The use of open standards on the web allows for end users to make the software and content they choose.
Paying for content is a valid model.
What I mean by "It's IMPORTANT that the web does not become Cable" is that I wish to avoid driving the Internet away from the "content at the edges" model where everyone can be both a consumer AND producer of content, to a centralized, controlled, homogonized pipe of a few pre-packaged pieces of content. Think the web VS compuserve or AOL if you go back that far. Or the web vs cable TV, which was my point.
I'm not saying Cable TV is bad, just that the web is the generator of innovation and growth that it is because the building blocks are both libre and gratis. Lets keep it that way as much as possible.
Remember, this isn't just about WebM. At least Theora, WebM, and Dirac are candidates at this stage. WebM is currently the front runner or course, but it's not what we must be stuck with for the next 50 years.
There's been Theora patent FUD for 6 years now, and no action. There's been WebM patent FUD for 6 months now, no action. WebM has been under development (as VP8) since 2008 at least. I'm pretty sure they would have done a very careful patent search as part of the development, and Google would have done the same when they bought and later freed it. There are a lot of similar parts, but they seem to have tiptoed around the actual patents in a number of ways, some of which do have minor quality impacts that show avoiding the patents was their concern.
So, FUD away, but one is patent unencumbered as far as we can tell, and one is definitely patented.
Also, from the cost perspective you only mentioned the consumer side.. I could care less what Google, Apple, MS have to pay for licenses. What I care about is the freedom to make and sell or give away whatever tech or content I want. That's where innovation comes from, individuals and companies coming up with new ideas, testing those ideas, and a few of them taking off. Patented standards limit this kind of innovation. I should be able to test ideas in my garage and build a new technology, without having to hire a lawyer as my first employee.
Slashdot Mirror
The same properties that make it hard to prove you deleted the contents make it hard to *prove* what the contents were. No surprise here really. SSDs are a b*tch no matter which side you're on.
For hiding stuff, the best policy is to never store unencrypted data on the device. Install full-disk encryption, then data.
For recovering stuff *to legal standards*.. Who knows. The courts are fickle at first, but standards of evidence will emerge over time.
As for "slashdot hipsterism", I've owned my model M longer then my Slashdot account. Heck, I've owned it longer then Slashdot has existed.
You still haven't said whether you've actually used a Model M, or just like sounding snobby. I've tested (and continue to test) many different keyboards and use the one I like. I spend ~10 hours a day using it heavily, and so have invested a decent amount of time to find the keyboard and mouse I like the best. Have you done the research? Have you tried a Model M (or a fixie for that matter)? If you have and it doesn't work for you that's your preference. If you haven't, then you're an empty windbag.
Test your equipment, and use what works for you. Making snide comparisons about other choices (especially if you haven't tried them) is exactly the "hipsterism" you claim to hate.
Pretty damn well.
Are you implying there's some great functionality I'm missing out on? I've used tons of keyboards, and the Model M is my favorite by far. The only thing I occasionally miss is a "windows" key, but everything else I might want a "fancy" keyboard can do can be done in software. The Cherry MX key switches are decent also, but have a few niggles like the reset point on the most common ones.
If you want a simplicity analogy, the Model M is more like a sword, and less like a fixie. Fixies are fashionable, not designed for practicality except for a few tricks. The best swords today are still made the same way they were many years ago, and the modern mass produced varieties are worse, despite their flashy handles or detailing.
The model M is far from fashionable. It's a serious tool, built well, that has stood the test of time. I've been using my current model since 1997, when I bought it 2nd hand. It was built in 1990. I type measurably faster on it with less subjective fatigue then any other keyboard I've tried.
If you've never used a Model M (or other tactile response and/or clicky keyboard like the Cherry MX based ones) I suggest you do. You might have less to smirk about, and be more productive. ;-)
You made me spit coffee out at "awesome keyboard".
My Model M is an awesome keyboard.
My ThinkPad has a great keyboard for a laptop.
My new MacBook Pro has a tolerable keyboard at best.
I thought this was a news site? The fact that Paypal is a bunch of unethical business is not news.
I think the GP was trying to state that music is so compressed to the point it has 3db dynamic range. At least that's what I think they are trying to imply from the context.
11.0.672.2 is a Dev channel release. Call it "alpha" if you like. http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2011/02/dev-channel-update_17.html
There are 3 release channels: Stable, Beta, and Dev.
Honestly, I rather liked McCain the senator, but McCain the guy running for president wasn't at all the same. He was trying to remake himself to play to "middle america" and couldn't even do that right. The whole campaign was a train wreck.
Depends what part of H.264 you compare it to.
WebM is roughly the same quality as H.264 baseline.
H.264 High profile is clearly better.
You make IPv6 support a requirement for new equipment and software.
It's not quite yet the time to retrofit IPv6 everywhere, but it is definitely time to build support into your new development requirements.
Just like y2k, if you coded software that used 2 digit date fields in 1995, you had only yourself to blame for needing to rush around in 1999.
The fact that ketchup is a vegetable isn't the scary part.
For the purpose of US school lunch nutrition at least, French Fries are considered a vegetable. That is scary.
Right, the hardware concern is for mobile devices and set top box type applications.
WebM will likely be in many handsets by the end of the year, but H.264 is in the last few years of mobile devices and set top boxes already.
Yes, if there was one high compression, cross platform, already in hardware, open standard, royalty free codec, it should totally be in the spec.
H.264 and WebM both fall down on different parts of those qualifications, so we get a turf war.
A celibate clergy did serve a few strong purposes:
1) The stated purpose of allowing them to focus on their people.
2) The less stated purpose of curbing nepotism at at time when the church had a large amount of power in society.
Acela is the only "high speed"(still pitiful by international standards, but faster than driving) rail in the US, and coincidently the only part of Amtrack that actually turns a profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
Or free porn. It already exists by way of free NNTP servers, but most people don't know NNTP= free porn.
If the IETF bought Playboy and made the back catalog available for free over IPv6 only, we'd all have IPv6 by next Wednesday.
You pay less and train or you buy skills. Most companies these days seem to want to buy skills.
Most web server software has always been gratis.
The first major web server was the public domain httpd by NCSA.
It was later supplanted by apache, which is a play on words of the patches layered on top of httpd.
http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html
According to Wikipedia:
Since April 1996 Apache has been the most popular HTTP server software in use.
Before April 1996, that title belonged to NCSA httpd.
Mosiac and lynx were free and available before Netscape. Even IE and IIS were gratis after a fashion, if you used Windows (which most did) they were bundled with the OS. If you didn't use Windows, you couldn't use IE or IIS anyway, and there were free browsers for other systems.
If you look at a time line of web browsers, you will see there was never a time when there weren't multiple, competing gratis browsers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers
Yes, there were a few years when Mozilla(the old pay version) and IE (which is only sort of gratis) dominated as the best browsers, but there were always other options.
The innovation on the server side is just as if not more important to the growth of the ecosystem, and for all the history that matters, web servers have been gratis.
The web was NOT built on commercial software. There was a very limited time when commercial, non graits software dominated desktop graphical viewing software, but that was a limited subset of the ecosystem, after the creation of the system, and only lasted for a very short period of time.
H.264 patents expire 2028. There has never been a royalty baring standard that has survived on the web for that amount of time, and to allow one now will limit innovation on the web for years to come.
Mozilla is tri-licensed,GPL, LGPL, and MPL. Unlike many other projects, they do not require copyright assignment, so they are bound under the terms of all 3 licenses.
To quote, from the GPL V2, section 7:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The MPL also seems to have some patent language, though my non-lawyer self doesn't quite grok it (and don't have the time at the moment to look it over)
It seems to say Mozilla can't distribuite H.264, since they can't trivially relicense as there are many contributions from others in the code. If you know otherwise I would be interested how...
Note that there are very few Open Standards that are royalty bearing that are important to the web. That is part of why innovation on the web happens so quickly. There is no worrying about licensing on the small or large end of a new venture, unless you choose to use servers and support software from a small handful of suppliers. Most of the building blocks of the web are both Open Standards AND gratis.
We can argue all day about which one is more important, but the truth is that both matter.
Mozilla has two options: Farm out video decoding to the OS (hard to do cross platform in a performant way), or support only non-patented algorithms. Their license doesn't really give them any other choices.
In terms of market share, Firefox is still a much bigger deal then Chrome, so I'm surprised no one cared until Google acted.. No matter which stats engine you look at, Firefox has about 2x as many users as chrome.
Microsoft ... have chosen H.264 as the only one they will support
BZZT! WRONG!
[Citation needed] Everything I've read says they will support H.264, and also allow whatever you want to install otherwise. Defaults matter.
I believe Google might add H.264 support back into Chrome
People also believe virgins can give birth to sons of imaginary etheral entities and that clinically dead people can be arisen just by magical mumbling. That doens't make it a rational belief. Google is removing support for H.264 to kill it as a distribution codec. No more, no less.
My opinion, your opinion. Both are rational. Mine happens to be supported: http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html But thanks for the insults anyway.
Graits standards should be mandatory
A business as an individual should be free to operate within .the law. "Should be mandatory" is something that Kim Il Jung and Joseph Stalin likes but that has somehow fallen out of favor among the thinking population.
I would never presume to say anything about what Google should and should not do, but I can analyze their motives.
So sorry. "Ideally, for the benefit of future innovation, gratis standards should be incentivised in the present market." You like that wording better? Creating an incentive for WebM adoption is exactly what Google has done.
I believe that is the goal of the action Google is taking
Google cares about ruling the world according to the book of Google and about selling your personal information to as many advertisers as they can. They don't give a flying dung pile about Gratis or Free.
They claim to. Their stated reasons lines up 100% with my guesses. Strange that... http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html
You're allowed to be sceptical, but you could try to be less of a dick about it.
This is complicated.
First, open source vs closed source:
Security problems are just a very nasty subset of quality control issues. Quality code is a function of the quality of programmer, tooling, time schedule, etc.
Open source vs closed source is only one part of that equation, and though I believe it matters, it's not a determining factor BY ITSELF.
Second, Android VS iphone. There's 2 most likely attack vectors today: Browser bugs, and trojans downloaded on purpose that do something other then what they claim.
Android fairs worse then iOS on both of these. Both have lots of flaws in the browsers, but Apple is much better about actually allowing their users to patch their own phones(which just blows my mind, I admit, because they are still slow, but it happens.. Android patching rarely happens).
Both have malware available, but it's easier to distruibuite for Android.
Note that neither has a lick to do with opensource vs closed source, it's timely (though SLOW by desktop standards) software updates and quality control vs carrier locked, no-updates-ever and free for all downloading.
This is my point:
Microsoft and Apple do not support a gratis standard, and have chosen H.264 as the only one they will support. If everyone already supported one of the gratis standards, I would agree with you, this might be a bad move.
Google's move is intended to help force Microsoft, Apple, other browsers(the large ones of whom have already), the handset manufacturers to standardize on WebM. It's better for the internet if everyone supports a gratis standard, and optionally also supports paid ones.
Once everyone supports WebM (or theora, or some other non-royalty baring standard), I believe Google might add H.264 support back into Chrome.
It's not about removing support for patented codecs, it's about forcing the inclusion of free ones.
Graits standards should be mandatory, paid ones optional, both on the producing and consuming side. That is my point, and I believe that is the goal of the action Google is taking.
I believe you missed the point. Let's have the WHOLE quote:
It's IMPORTANT that the web does not become Cable. Cable is where you pay money for content, and that's the end of it. The use of open standards on the web allows for end users to make the software and content they choose.
Paying for content is a valid model.
What I mean by "It's IMPORTANT that the web does not become Cable" is that I wish to avoid driving the Internet away from the "content at the edges" model where everyone can be both a consumer AND producer of content, to a centralized, controlled, homogonized pipe of a few pre-packaged pieces of content. Think the web VS compuserve or AOL if you go back that far. Or the web vs cable TV, which was my point.
I'm not saying Cable TV is bad, just that the web is the generator of innovation and growth that it is because the building blocks are both libre and gratis. Lets keep it that way as much as possible.
Remember, this isn't just about WebM. At least Theora, WebM, and Dirac are candidates at this stage. WebM is currently the front runner or course, but it's not what we must be stuck with for the next 50 years.
There's been Theora patent FUD for 6 years now, and no action. There's been WebM patent FUD for 6 months now, no action. WebM has been under development (as VP8) since 2008 at least. I'm pretty sure they would have done a very careful patent search as part of the development, and Google would have done the same when they bought and later freed it. There are a lot of similar parts, but they seem to have tiptoed around the actual patents in a number of ways, some of which do have minor quality impacts that show avoiding the patents was their concern.
So, FUD away, but one is patent unencumbered as far as we can tell, and one is definitely patented.
Also, from the cost perspective you only mentioned the consumer side.. I could care less what Google, Apple, MS have to pay for licenses. What I care about is the freedom to make and sell or give away whatever tech or content I want. That's where innovation comes from, individuals and companies coming up with new ideas, testing those ideas, and a few of them taking off. Patented standards limit this kind of innovation. I should be able to test ideas in my garage and build a new technology, without having to hire a lawyer as my first employee.