how would I administer the calendaring portion of the server ?
I skimmed through the architechture paper, and I didn't see much about calendaring on the server. From the specs:
The logic behind the calendar events and their handling is entirely done by the client applications. The server mainly acts as a network storage device in this regard.
An exception to this rule is the dealing with automatic shared ressources (rooms, technical equipement, cars, etc.).
I'm not saying I necessarily even know what that is at this point, but it'll happen.
Linux needs enterprise management software (accounting, payroll, taxes, inventory). GnuEnterprise strives to fill this hole, but it has a long way to go.
Also, I don't think OpenOffice and KOffice are ready to replace MS Office.
Once open source provides quality replacements for all proprietary software, companies will be reluctant to switch because they will have to rewrite their expensive, custom software.
We know the republicans will back them - they always do - but they will use this argument to win a few democrats.
I'm no fan of Republicans, but take a look at where the money is going. So far this election season, the TV/Movies/Music industry has given 77% of their campaign contributions to Democrats.
On the other hand, while they may give more money to Democrats, they still give money to almost as many Republicans (just in smaller amounts). 411 out of our 535 congresscritter have their hands in the media industry's pockets.
The system requires much effort on the part of potential terrorists, and that effort exposes them.
"Much effort" amounts to sending a minimum of six people through the system. Al Qeada probably sends dozens of people through the system anyway. The whole point of the paper is that the system lowers the bar. Once terrorists have collected data from six flights (that they would have taken anyway), they know enough about the system to make it useless. Once they've collected data from seven flights, they can turn the system against itself.
that effort exposes them.
The terrorists can probe the system without committing any crimes. They do not take any risks by taking a routine flight that they would have taken anyway.
Every system involves trading some liberty for security
With CAPPS, we surrender our privacy, and end up with a system that is less secure.
it seems to me that demanding a perfect system is not a valid way to reach that consensus.
I'm not demanding a perfect system. I am pointing out that CAPPS is assisting terrorists.
They proved that any profiling system is less effective than searching passangers at random.
Only if terrorists are distributed over all demographic groups with equal frequency, which is obviously not the case.
They made no such assumption. The only assumptions were:
The system would have systematic false negatives once in a while.
The suspects were able to determine when they were flagged (e.g. when they were searched).
There were at least some passengers that were not subjected to an extensive search (a prerequisite for having false negatives).
Suspects could conduct their research and carry out an attack before the rules change.
To turn the system against itself, terrorists would first study it by sending people through and checking if they get flagged. The terrorists' demographic make-up does not matter. The system will be wrong once in a while. If the system decides if some people are terrorists, it effectively also decides if some people are not terrorists. By probing the system, the terrorists discover non-terrorist profiles, which they can exploit.
Let's consider a flight with 200 passengers. The system flags 40 people for an extensive search. If the system flagged people at random, the odds of each terrorist getting searched are 20%. But the government thinks they can increase the odds by flagging the 30 most likely terrorists, and picking 10 people at random. The system, however, incorrectly flags the terrorists as harmless. Now the terrorists have only a 5% chance of being searched (they could be one of the ten people picked at random).
The point is, because the terrorists have found people who are incorrectly flagged, the profiling system does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. The paper goes on to discuss how the terrorists can find innocent-looking people with as few as six probes.
tell me about it. even those with something to hide still get all of the usual trial rights.
You mean just like Jose Padilla? Oh, you mean he doesn't have the right to a trial at all, even though he is a U.S. citizen and was captured in the United States?
Samidh Chakrabarti and Aaron Strauss developed the Carnival Booth Algorithm to defeat CAPPS I. They proved that any profiling system is less effective than searching passangers at random. In fact, the more consistent a profiling system works, the easier it is to defeat. If CAPPS II is an 'improvement' over CAPPS I, it will simply make the airlines an easier target for terrorists.
Wow! That's amusing. I admit, I only read the first couple paragraphs. Normally, I take the time to find a good source for my links, but this time I just grabbed the first link I could find off google. I first heard about the grocery profiling here on Slashdot. FoxNews wrote a story about it. Now that I've investigated the source, it looks like everyone else just copied the story from the Village Voice.
The first amendment guarantees the right to speak, it does NOT guarantee the right to be heard
Following that logic, we could outlaw speech in public since it annoys people to see protesters running around carrying signs. <sarcasm>After all, they don't have the right to be heard. They can confine their speech to a private home where only people who volutarily show up have to hear them. How will people know to show up? They can pass the message through word of mouth. </sarcasm>
Email is speech. If you make it illegal to send spam, you are outlawing speech. If you don't want to read that email, then don't. What right do you have to tell Spammin' Sam he can't send any email to me? You can argue that I don't have the right to hear Spammin' Sam, but he certainly has the right to speak to me.
Despite popular opinion, not all spam is necessarily commercial. It is entirely possible to send unsolicted bulk mail with a picture of you tossing the constitution on top of a pile of junk mail and setting it ablaze.
However, due to the PATRIOT act, and the fact that we are pissed off about it, we are now shredding the patron internet login sheets every night. So at least they won't get access to that. I think other library systems are doing this as well..
Thank you! But why do patrons have to log in at all? Why can't people just use the internet anonymously?
On another note, with the FBI sniffing around, I think you're going to find a lot of controversial books 'disappearing' rather than being checked out.
Maybe as a "privacy advocate" you find the idea of someone knowing your salary frightening, but I sure don't. If you ask me, I'll tell you. Maybe you don't want anyone to know how much you weigh or what your favorite softdrink is. I really don't care who knows this.
Do you mind if people know the general tone of yourSlashdotposts? Or what you eat for dinner? Or what sort of news articles you read?
How do you feel about someone compiling all of that data, and using it to create a psychological profile? How about if they sell that profile to employers, land lords, insurance companies, lawyers, law enforcement, or anyone else who wants to make a decision about you?
Do they take software makers to task for poor quality software and/or insecure software which create the majority of security expenses for industry and the government?
Do they demand more accountability from software vendors for these flaws, including potentially requiring opening specs or even source code up for inspection before using the software in mission-critical systems?
The open source community is no better than Microsoft and other closed source vendors when it comes to releasing insecure software. The open source community needs to get its act together and use type-safe languages. Continuing to use C and C++ for security-critical software is just plain irresponsible.
Don't give me any of that bologna about good programmers never leaving holes in their software. OpenSSL was audited and still had an exploitable buffer overflow bug. Apache has had a number of security holes. Virtually every major open source program has had multiple security holes.
So what if the open source community patches their software quickly? A patch doesn't negate the fact that a buffer overflow bug never should have happened in the first place. Besides, some of those buggy programs will continue to be in use years from now.
When your neighborhood decides you should have a license to put up a web site, you'll go along with that? And when your neighborhood decides a good community doesn't have porn, or anti-semitic materials, or terrorism-related materials, you'll happily ban those as well? The big problem with HOAs is that you are joining a little renegade government that is not bound by the constitution. If 51% of the HOA disagrees with you, tough luck. You signed away your constitutional rights when you moved into the neighborhood.
Therefore I would guess he will be released (on parole) within 16 months or so.
Some time in the mid 1990's, congress eliminated parole in all federal prisons. Since copyright infringment is a federal crime, I don't think Mr. Tresco will be getting out on parole.
The mission pack outsold the original game by 1.5x.
I know people who will buy an expansion pack, and be totally oblivious to the fact that they need the original game to play it. When they find out, they just toss the $10 expansion pack in the corner and forget about it.
I also have to wonder how they counted the sales. Did they count the number of people who bought the game, or did they count the number of copies sold to stores? A store like WalMart may buy a bunch of expansion packs without any idea how many copies the original game sold.
So, instead of dragging our feet, why arent we comming up with a better DRM solution? One that takes care of medical documents, etc - things that aren't art, etc. and even gives a sense of security to the music people, w/o infringing on fair use rights?
No open source solution will give a sense of security to music people.
Piracy is a social problem that needs a social solution. I think that if copyrighted, non-redistributable content is wrapped in DRM, you should be able to disable the DRM system; but first you should take a little quiz on copyright. In order to pass the quiz, you need to read a brief history of copyright, the criteria for "fair use", Richard Stallman's The Right to Read, and a brief description of why your DRM system can be bypassed by passing a simple quiz. Most people would give up before they get to the quiz.
> "Running non-secure software will become a federal offense punishable by life in prison or worse"Yeah you'll be executed for warez. Goddamnit, get a grip on reality.
Could you please relay that message to your senators and representatives? In 1900, Coca-Cola put cocaine in their soft drinks. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a mandatory sentence of life-without-parole for possessing 0.672 kilos of cocaine was not "cruel and unusual". Our government is quite capable of handing out outrageoussentences for petty offenses.
This is true. I originally started writing assuming that AOL was trying to monopolize the IM industry, while Microsoft et al were trying to do the same thing. Whether it's a conspiracy or not does not matter. If the major IM vendors go ahead with an interoperable standard, the result is likely to be no different than the consipiracy I described.
Internet service providers already pass the cost of bandwidth onto their customers. There is no reason to charge again just because their customers are using a certain type of (very low cost) service. Especially when the customers on each side of the communication benefit equally from the mutual conversation.
Like so much we read today, this is really about control. The financial institutions have large investments in AOL/Time-Warner, Microsoft, and Yahoo. They would like nothing more than for an elite club to control and profit from instant messaging. They know that if something isn't done quick, Jabber will take over as the de facto standard and eliminate the profit opportunity.
It looks to me like they are trying to form an organization, similar to the DVD-CCA, which would dictate payment and conduct requirements amongst member companies. The organization (let's call it Chatter) would form an artificial barrier to entry for startup vendors. If you want to enter the instant messaging market, you will have to pay a modest fee ($100,000) to read the protocol specifications, and agree to pay an annual fee to communicate with the other vendors.
Each member of Chatter would maintain their own servers. If you want your servers to communicate with other Chatter members, you have to become a member yourself. It does not matter if you're running a Jabber server, AIM server, or some other instant messaging server. If you want to communicate with the vast majority of IM users, you have to join Chatter.
In the end, almost all instant messages will be filtered through a few small companies. In order to pay for the artificial costs (and of course generate extra revenue), vendors will force advertisements upon their customers, track who people communicate with, and otherwise turn all aspects of life into a commercial venture. Who knows, maybe they'll also archive conversations for law enforcement.
What needs to be done, is for someone to smack them hard with an anti-trust suit. Of course, we all know that will never happen. If people would just switch to Jabber (before the formation of an organization like Chatter), this would all become a non-issue.
People just don't seem to understand Palladium. There's nothing you can do on a non-Palladium computer that you can't also do on a Palladium machine.
You don't seem to understand. If Palladium becomes a de facto standard, virtually all content will require a Palladium machine. Microsoft will monopolize the gateway to that content. If you want to read the news, listen to music, or watch movies, you will have to use Palladium. Blind people will be unable to read electronic books because we can't encrypt braille. Search engines will not be able to read web sites. Instead, they will index based on whatever keywords the author tells them to.
Palladium is a direct attack on Open Source Software (OSS). Sure, in theory, OSS can process DRM protected content, but first it has to be signed. If you change the software, it will not work with protected content unless the changes are signed. This flies in the face of software freedom. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the signing authority will sign future versions of OSS. Even if the signing authority signs OSS, it will require a lengthy and expensive auditing process, slowing development and artificially inflating the price.
The Palladium scheme allows Microsoft to decide who can, or can not create trusted software. If it's anything like the DVD-CCA, the opportunity will cost $112,000. After spending the $112,000, the author then has to follow whatever draconian rules Microsoft puts forth or their license will be revoked. This is clearly intended to create an artificial barrier to entry and cut off competition. It also gives Microsoft power over hardware manufacturers and software companies. Based on Microsoft's history, I have no doubt they will use their signing power as leverage when dealing with hardware manufacturers and software developers. If a hardware manufacturer or software company fails to comply with Microsoft's demands, they will encounter roadblocks when signing their drivers and software.
Palladium also sets up a key authority to control the master keys. If you want your content protected, you have to get permission from the key authority. Rest assured, the price and restrictions will be well within reach of most media companies, but out of reach for most independent publishers. This is just another artificial barrier to cut off competition. You can also be certain that the price scheme will be more economical for large publishers than for small ones, thus encouraging consolidation.
Palladium includes the ability to revoke licenses for content, thus allowing the government to outlaw content through court rulings, legislation, executive orders, FCC rules, etc (just like the Bush administration removed content from libraries after 9/11). The system will also allow the media to 'erase' historical news reports (Texaco get accused of accounting fraud, so they pay the media to erase news reports about Enron), and revoke licenses during times of national tragedy, similar to Clear Channel's post 9/11 blacklist (don't want people hearing John Lennon's Imagine when they're supposed to be clamoring for revenge).
By acquiring a Palladium machine, you are helping to entrench Palladium as a de facto standard, making it easier for content companies to wrap all their content in DRM. If you support Palladium, you will be responsible for this.
I don't think that anyone would like to give paychecks to the guy who constantly bashes and tries to damage his own employer, like bruce used to do.
Could you please cite a single story, article, or comment where Bruce bashed HP? I have seen him defend HP dozens of times. I have never seen him bash his employer.
The worst I see him doing, is claiming that he would criticize HP management. I don't see him actually doing it. Even though he no longer works for HP, he is still defending them:
Also the point about noone ordering broadband because there's no high definition movies to download is just bull.
Real Networks, Microsoft, and Apple have provided video players with built-in Digital Rights Management for years, but Hollywood doesn't seem to have any interest in providing movies in those formats. As of July 29 this year, Hollywood has donated over $25 million to congresscritters. It would cost less than that to develop their own DRM protected software to download and play encrypted DVD images. If Hollywood won't sell movies on the internet protected with current DRM schemes, they have no plans to ever release movies on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and since Slashcode is tossing in a space, you need to remove it.
So why don't you put together a Linux desktop system and let them try it out?
I skimmed through the architechture paper, and I didn't see much about calendaring on the server. From the specs:
Linux needs enterprise management software (accounting, payroll, taxes, inventory). GnuEnterprise strives to fill this hole, but it has a long way to go.
Also, I don't think OpenOffice and KOffice are ready to replace MS Office.
Once open source provides quality replacements for all proprietary software, companies will be reluctant to switch because they will have to rewrite their expensive, custom software.
I'm no fan of Republicans, but take a look at where the money is going. So far this election season, the TV/Movies/Music industry has given 77% of their campaign contributions to Democrats.
On the other hand, while they may give more money to Democrats, they still give money to almost as many Republicans (just in smaller amounts). 411 out of our 535 congresscritter have their hands in the media industry's pockets.
"Much effort" amounts to sending a minimum of six people through the system. Al Qeada probably sends dozens of people through the system anyway. The whole point of the paper is that the system lowers the bar. Once terrorists have collected data from six flights (that they would have taken anyway), they know enough about the system to make it useless. Once they've collected data from seven flights, they can turn the system against itself.
that effort exposes them.
The terrorists can probe the system without committing any crimes. They do not take any risks by taking a routine flight that they would have taken anyway.
Every system involves trading some liberty for security
With CAPPS, we surrender our privacy, and end up with a system that is less secure.
it seems to me that demanding a perfect system is not a valid way to reach that consensus.
I'm not demanding a perfect system. I am pointing out that CAPPS is assisting terrorists.
Only if terrorists are distributed over all demographic groups with equal frequency, which is obviously not the case.
They made no such assumption. The only assumptions were:
To turn the system against itself, terrorists would first study it by sending people through and checking if they get flagged. The terrorists' demographic make-up does not matter. The system will be wrong once in a while. If the system decides if some people are terrorists, it effectively also decides if some people are not terrorists. By probing the system, the terrorists discover non-terrorist profiles, which they can exploit.
Let's consider a flight with 200 passengers. The system flags 40 people for an extensive search. If the system flagged people at random, the odds of each terrorist getting searched are 20%. But the government thinks they can increase the odds by flagging the 30 most likely terrorists, and picking 10 people at random. The system, however, incorrectly flags the terrorists as harmless. Now the terrorists have only a 5% chance of being searched (they could be one of the ten people picked at random).
The point is, because the terrorists have found people who are incorrectly flagged, the profiling system does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. The paper goes on to discuss how the terrorists can find innocent-looking people with as few as six probes.
You mean just like Jose Padilla? Oh, you mean he doesn't have the right to a trial at all, even though he is a U.S. citizen and was captured in the United States?
Samidh Chakrabarti and Aaron Strauss developed the Carnival Booth Algorithm to defeat CAPPS I. They proved that any profiling system is less effective than searching passangers at random. In fact, the more consistent a profiling system works, the easier it is to defeat. If CAPPS II is an 'improvement' over CAPPS I, it will simply make the airlines an easier target for terrorists.
Wow! That's amusing. I admit, I only read the first couple paragraphs. Normally, I take the time to find a good source for my links, but this time I just grabbed the first link I could find off google. I first heard about the grocery profiling here on Slashdot. FoxNews wrote a story about it. Now that I've investigated the source, it looks like everyone else just copied the story from the Village Voice.
Following that logic, we could outlaw speech in public since it annoys people to see protesters running around carrying signs. <sarcasm>After all, they don't have the right to be heard. They can confine their speech to a private home where only people who volutarily show up have to hear them. How will people know to show up? They can pass the message through word of mouth. </sarcasm>
Email is speech. If you make it illegal to send spam, you are outlawing speech. If you don't want to read that email, then don't. What right do you have to tell Spammin' Sam he can't send any email to me? You can argue that I don't have the right to hear Spammin' Sam, but he certainly has the right to speak to me.
Despite popular opinion, not all spam is necessarily commercial. It is entirely possible to send unsolicted bulk mail with a picture of you tossing the constitution on top of a pile of junk mail and setting it ablaze.
Thank you! But why do patrons have to log in at all? Why can't people just use the internet anonymously?
On another note, with the FBI sniffing around, I think you're going to find a lot of controversial books 'disappearing' rather than being checked out.
Do you mind if people know the general tone of your Slashdot posts? Or what you eat for dinner? Or what sort of news articles you read?
How do you feel about someone compiling all of that data, and using it to create a psychological profile? How about if they sell that profile to employers, land lords, insurance companies, lawyers, law enforcement, or anyone else who wants to make a decision about you?
The open source community is no better than Microsoft and other closed source vendors when it comes to releasing insecure software. The open source community needs to get its act together and use type-safe languages. Continuing to use C and C++ for security-critical software is just plain irresponsible.
Don't give me any of that bologna about good programmers never leaving holes in their software. OpenSSL was audited and still had an exploitable buffer overflow bug. Apache has had a number of security holes. Virtually every major open source program has had multiple security holes.
So what if the open source community patches their software quickly? A patch doesn't negate the fact that a buffer overflow bug never should have happened in the first place. Besides, some of those buggy programs will continue to be in use years from now.
When your neighborhood decides you should have a license to put up a web site, you'll go along with that? And when your neighborhood decides a good community doesn't have porn, or anti-semitic materials, or terrorism-related materials, you'll happily ban those as well? The big problem with HOAs is that you are joining a little renegade government that is not bound by the constitution. If 51% of the HOA disagrees with you, tough luck. You signed away your constitutional rights when you moved into the neighborhood.
Some time in the mid 1990's, congress eliminated parole in all federal prisons. Since copyright infringment is a federal crime, I don't think Mr. Tresco will be getting out on parole.
I know people who will buy an expansion pack, and be totally oblivious to the fact that they need the original game to play it. When they find out, they just toss the $10 expansion pack in the corner and forget about it.
I also have to wonder how they counted the sales. Did they count the number of people who bought the game, or did they count the number of copies sold to stores? A store like WalMart may buy a bunch of expansion packs without any idea how many copies the original game sold.
No open source solution will give a sense of security to music people.
Piracy is a social problem that needs a social solution. I think that if copyrighted, non-redistributable content is wrapped in DRM, you should be able to disable the DRM system; but first you should take a little quiz on copyright. In order to pass the quiz, you need to read a brief history of copyright, the criteria for "fair use", Richard Stallman's The Right to Read, and a brief description of why your DRM system can be bypassed by passing a simple quiz. Most people would give up before they get to the quiz.
Could you please relay that message to your senators and representatives? In 1900, Coca-Cola put cocaine in their soft drinks. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a mandatory sentence of life-without-parole for possessing 0.672 kilos of cocaine was not "cruel and unusual". Our government is quite capable of handing out outrageous sentences for petty offenses.
This is true. I originally started writing assuming that AOL was trying to monopolize the IM industry, while Microsoft et al were trying to do the same thing. Whether it's a conspiracy or not does not matter. If the major IM vendors go ahead with an interoperable standard, the result is likely to be no different than the consipiracy I described.
Like so much we read today, this is really about control. The financial institutions have large investments in AOL/Time-Warner, Microsoft, and Yahoo. They would like nothing more than for an elite club to control and profit from instant messaging. They know that if something isn't done quick, Jabber will take over as the de facto standard and eliminate the profit opportunity.
It looks to me like they are trying to form an organization, similar to the DVD-CCA, which would dictate payment and conduct requirements amongst member companies. The organization (let's call it Chatter) would form an artificial barrier to entry for startup vendors. If you want to enter the instant messaging market, you will have to pay a modest fee ($100,000) to read the protocol specifications, and agree to pay an annual fee to communicate with the other vendors.
Each member of Chatter would maintain their own servers. If you want your servers to communicate with other Chatter members, you have to become a member yourself. It does not matter if you're running a Jabber server, AIM server, or some other instant messaging server. If you want to communicate with the vast majority of IM users, you have to join Chatter.
In the end, almost all instant messages will be filtered through a few small companies. In order to pay for the artificial costs (and of course generate extra revenue), vendors will force advertisements upon their customers, track who people communicate with, and otherwise turn all aspects of life into a commercial venture. Who knows, maybe they'll also archive conversations for law enforcement.
What needs to be done, is for someone to smack them hard with an anti-trust suit. Of course, we all know that will never happen. If people would just switch to Jabber (before the formation of an organization like Chatter), this would all become a non-issue.
You don't seem to understand. If Palladium becomes a de facto standard, virtually all content will require a Palladium machine. Microsoft will monopolize the gateway to that content. If you want to read the news, listen to music, or watch movies, you will have to use Palladium. Blind people will be unable to read electronic books because we can't encrypt braille. Search engines will not be able to read web sites. Instead, they will index based on whatever keywords the author tells them to.
Palladium is a direct attack on Open Source Software (OSS). Sure, in theory, OSS can process DRM protected content, but first it has to be signed. If you change the software, it will not work with protected content unless the changes are signed. This flies in the face of software freedom. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the signing authority will sign future versions of OSS. Even if the signing authority signs OSS, it will require a lengthy and expensive auditing process, slowing development and artificially inflating the price.
The Palladium scheme allows Microsoft to decide who can, or can not create trusted software. If it's anything like the DVD-CCA, the opportunity will cost $112,000. After spending the $112,000, the author then has to follow whatever draconian rules Microsoft puts forth or their license will be revoked. This is clearly intended to create an artificial barrier to entry and cut off competition. It also gives Microsoft power over hardware manufacturers and software companies. Based on Microsoft's history, I have no doubt they will use their signing power as leverage when dealing with hardware manufacturers and software developers. If a hardware manufacturer or software company fails to comply with Microsoft's demands, they will encounter roadblocks when signing their drivers and software.
Palladium also sets up a key authority to control the master keys. If you want your content protected, you have to get permission from the key authority. Rest assured, the price and restrictions will be well within reach of most media companies, but out of reach for most independent publishers. This is just another artificial barrier to cut off competition. You can also be certain that the price scheme will be more economical for large publishers than for small ones, thus encouraging consolidation.
Palladium includes the ability to revoke licenses for content, thus allowing the government to outlaw content through court rulings, legislation, executive orders, FCC rules, etc (just like the Bush administration removed content from libraries after 9/11). The system will also allow the media to 'erase' historical news reports (Texaco get accused of accounting fraud, so they pay the media to erase news reports about Enron), and revoke licenses during times of national tragedy, similar to Clear Channel's post 9/11 blacklist (don't want people hearing John Lennon's Imagine when they're supposed to be clamoring for revenge).
By acquiring a Palladium machine, you are helping to entrench Palladium as a de facto standard, making it easier for content companies to wrap all their content in DRM. If you support Palladium, you will be responsible for this.
Could you please cite a single story, article, or comment where Bruce bashed HP? I have seen him defend HP dozens of times. I have never seen him bash his employer.
I modified my own DMCA paper to protect HP's Linux program.
There were no blacklist threats. I became convinced that I'd hurt HP's Linux program if I went ahead. My boss was very considerate, he even flew out to give a preamble to my talk explaining HP's position.
Give me some time to investigate the situation, as this is the first I've heard of it - right here on Slashdot as I come home from dinner. HP is really still two companies in many ways - Compaq and HP will take a long time to become entirely integrated, and obviously tru64 is on the Compaq side. If this is real, I'll have some criticism for HP management.
The worst I see him doing, is claiming that he would criticize HP management. I don't see him actually doing it. Even though he no longer works for HP, he is still defending them:
Well, I guess "being fired" gets news - but I would rather the article was just about me and not about HP. Besides, everybody knew I was leaving due to the two articles here previously, and it really was an amicable parting.
Real Networks, Microsoft, and Apple have provided video players with built-in Digital Rights Management for years, but Hollywood doesn't seem to have any interest in providing movies in those formats. As of July 29 this year, Hollywood has donated over $25 million to congresscritters. It would cost less than that to develop their own DRM protected software to download and play encrypted DVD images. If Hollywood won't sell movies on the internet protected with current DRM schemes, they have no plans to ever release movies on the internet.
In response to doubtful Slashdotter's, it looks like the author has posted his code. It really is sucky. Only two comments in the whole program.