...we presented our findings to the client. In this meeting no facts were refuted, only one question was asked: "Why do you need primary keys?"
Though I have had my hands in computers for over a score of years, databases were never my focus. Thus, I must also ask the embarrassing question: What are primary keys, and why are they needed?
Realistically, if it came down to a fight in court, what do you believe are the chances the Gnu General Public License would be upheld and enforced? (And please don't answer with, "It depends":-).)
Okay, in case it needs repeating -- and it probably does:
Copying is not theft. Period.
That said, if this watermarking scheme were intended to protect the reputations of the people who created the film, then I'd be all for it. For artists, reputation is what's really at stake here. A watermarking scheme would help thwart someone copying an artist's work and passing it off as their own.
As it is, it's going to be used by the DVD player's firmware to determine whether the user has "permission" to view the content on that disc, which is a pointless exercise.
The central flaw here is that the studios are failing to acknowledge that the users don't give a rat's ass about what the studios claim is, "their property."
I mean, think about this: In the mind of the average consumer, posession is nine-tenths of the law, especially when they have a receipt to back it up. Yet the studio claims the receipt is meaningless -- they believe they still get to tell the user what they can and can't do with it after the fact. Name a single consumer who's going to buy in to the idea that they should pay for the privilege of being bossed around simply to protect the pocketbook of a guy who's already filthy stinking rich. Where's the value to the consumer in such an arrangement?
On the other hand, if the encryption/watermarking were there to preserve the creator's reputation so that it couldn't be usurped, I think you'd get a lot of consumers to heartily sign on to that bandwagon.
So a Micros~1 lackey is out there spreading FUD against Open Source in general, and the GPL in particular. "Use GPL software," warns Microsoft, "and you could be forced to throw your valuable intellectual property [sic] away."
Quelle surprise.
Microsoft likens the support of Open Source projects to the dot-coms that cratered over the last year or so. They make particular hash of Open Source-based companies hoping to sell their services. "You can't make money supporting Open Source products," warns Microsoft.
However. I casually observe that the whole raison d'être of Microsoft's.NET initiative is to sell software services. It is, of course, in their best interests to construct this system such that only Microsoft gets to control how the infrastructure is deployed, and who gets to use it (and how much tribute they'll pay). So that there is no question about who gets to exercise this control, they are compelled to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing this infrastructure on their own.
...Whereas one of these fresh-faced business school graduates could root around in the Open Source commons and use its resources to construct an equivalent, if not superior, solution for free, cutting Microsoft out of the deal entirely. Moreover, because the code itself isn't being distributed -- the code is being executed on a remote server on behalf of a user, but never actually being distributed anywhere -- intellectual "property" disclosures "forced" by the GPL are not an issue. (This is true of GPL v2.0, anyway; GPL 3.0 is reputed to be addressing this question.)
I am therefore not surprised Microsoft is trying to scare new business leaders away from Open Source. 'Cause if those graduating kids ever figure out they can out-flank Microsoft without spending a dime on fundamental R&D, it would be a devastating tragedy for American businesses... run by Bill Gates.
Let me share a Nasty Thought I've had concerning the current intellectual "property" environment and music visualizers.
The media conglomerates are advancing the position -- unfortunately with a lot of success -- that any use of "their" music not explicitly authorized by them is prima facie unauthorized and therefore illegal.
If we were to regard this view as legitimate, then when you purchase a CD, you have received a license from the media conglomerate to listen to it, and nothing else. You have not been authorized to perform it publicly (such as at a party), you have not been authorized to extract snippets for critical commentary or to incorporate into your newest rap parody, and you have not been authorized to use it as the data source for a visual transformation engine. Ergo, using a visualizer is a copyright violation.
Further -- if we, again, are to regard the media companies' view as legitimate -- the images resulting from a particular CD played through a visualizer constitute a derivative work, since they are derived directly from the original copyrighted musical work. As such, the specific visual presentation also falls under the media conglomerate's copyright. When you bought the CD, you only obtained a license to listen to it; therefore, the resulting derivative images covered by the same copyright require a separate license which you don't have. Ergo, watching the visualizer is a copyright violation.
Reductio Ad Absurdum? I'd desperately like to think so. However, recent court cases concerning intellectual "property" make me very, very worried that we are perilously close to such absurdity.
In the consumer space, this has already happened with DIVX (the DVD "rental" scam). DIVX's answer to its customers was, essentially, "Fsck you."
However, there are also several high-end software packages out there -- the old Diab C compiler and Perforce source repository system come to mind -- where you have to install a "license" server and periodically update the key that allows it to continue to operate. Doubtless others exist. How many of these have had their parent companies fold? What did their customers do? Was the eventuality covered in the contract?
Quake/first-person shooter maps based on actual floorplans of high schools or post offices or other such locations, in general, don't play well.
Good FPS maps have a "flow" to them where, in the natural progression of things, a player will encounter another player moving in another direction. This is why Quake's DM6 is so well-liked: Walkways cross over/under other walkways, where other players are likely to appear, affording lots of scoring opportunities.
Real-world architecture, by comparison, doesn't have this. Most of the space is consumed by rooms of various size, ususally with a single door. This means that another player isn't likely to be found inside, since the room doesn't lead anywhere. Players are always on the move, and won't walk into a dead-end unless there's a good reason. If you "force" people to enter the room by putting items inside, then the room becomes a camping site (just launch rockets at the only door and get dozens of cheap frags as people try to enter to collect the item). Very dull.
Unless the architect was unusually creative, most real-world buildings don't make good FPS maps. The only exceptions to this rule are shopping malls and amusement parks, where sculpting the flow of visitors past storefronts and attractions is actually a design goal.
If you're playing CounterStrike, however, all the bets are off, and real-world architecture tends to rule the day.
As I (dimly) recall, user-created maps for Duke Nukem 3D had an unusual leaning toward real-world and semi-real-world sites.
Believe it or not, the issue of units naming for bits and bytes has been addressed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Though the unit names are not officially part of SI (Systeme Internationale), and the chosen names are unfamiliar, they make a good starting point.
You can't even download a complete page these days in 5-7 seconds, much less an animated GIF. How is this supposed to work if you don't have broadband access?
This will also give the masses yet another (good) reason to turn off JavaScript.
the V-chip technology gives people the ability to control their own content, meaning regulatory bodies will need to interfere *LESS* with general broadcasting and what can be seen on television.
Oh, you mean how the US Goverment interferes less with the motion picture industry now that MPAA ratings are in place?
Don't kid yourself.
There are more important questions here, however:
Can the user pick any source of ratings they want?
If not, who controls/creates the ratings?
Does the V-chip report anything (like its current setting) back to the head end?
Can the user's preferences be overridden by a command from the broadcaster?
If you're interested in small, imaginative companies that publish small, imaginative games, then you'd be well-served to check out wonderfully named Cheapass Games.
Don't let the name -- or the packaging -- fool you. It is their very simplicity that makes Cheapass Games so enjoyable. The concepts are ludicrous, the artwork often hilarious, and the game fun due in no small part to a handful of simple rules.
Thank you very much for the heads up. I went to CERT's site, and found an example syslog entry almost identical to the one on my laptop. Fortunately, I already had the fixed rpc.statd (v0.9.1-1) installed on my Debian laptop.
I'll go update 'bind' now (assuming I bothered to install it).
But don't you also need an ISP to provide mail hosting, an NNTP source and stuff? Or will Covad do that?
I don't have my own domain yet. I have a box I bought that is intended to function as the Web and mail server, with FreeBSD 4.0 installed. But I don't want to go live until I've learned how to properly secure the box. Otherwise, I risk becoming another nuisance to the community.
Maybe it's just coincidence, but last night, I had a very weird syslog event while I was pulling down email off my (Northpoint:-) ) DSL line. Copied below is a (very badly formatted) octal dump of the relevant section of the log:
________ 0000000 M a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 3 : 2 7
0000020 w a l k i e s - - M A R K
0000040 - - \n M a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 4:
0000060 0 4 w a l k i e s i d e n t
0000100 d [ 1 2 2 8 6 ] : s t a r t e
0000120 d \n M a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0
0000140 7 w a l k i e s \n M a r 2
0000160 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 w a l k i
0000200 e s s y s l o g d : C a n n
0000220 o t g l u e m e s s a g e
0000240 p a r t s t o g e t h e r \n M
0000260 a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 w
0000300 a l k i e s 1 7 3 > M a r 2
0000320 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 / s b i n
0000340 / r p c . s t a t d [ 1 6 4 ]:
0000360 g e t h o s t b y n a m e e
0000400 r r o r f o r ^ X 367 377 277 ^ X
0000420 367 377 277 ^ Y 367 377 277 ^ Y 367 377 277 ^ Z 367
0000440 377 277 ^ Z 367 377 277 ^ [ 367 377 277 ^ [ 367 377
0000460 277 % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x
0000500 % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 2 3 6
0000520 x % n % 1 3 7 x % n % 1 0 x % n
0000540 % 1 9 2 x % n 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220
0000560 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220
*
0002160 220 220 220 1 300 353 | Y 211 A ^ P 211 A ^ H
0002200 376 300 211 A ^ D 211 303 376 300 211 ^ A 260 f 315
0002220 200 263 ^ B 211 Y ^ L 306 A ^ N 231 306 A ^
0002240 H ^ P 211 I ^ D 200 A ^ D ^ L 210 ^ A
0002260 260 f 315 200 263 ^ D 260 f 315 200 263 ^ E 0 300
0002300 210 A ^ D 260 f 315 \n M a r 2 3 0
0002320 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 w a l k i e s
0002340 307 ^ F / b i n 307 F ^ D / s h A 0
0002360 300 210 F ^ G 211 v ^ L 215 V ^ P 215 N ^
0002400 L 211 363 260 ^ K 315 200 260 ^ A 315 200 350 177 377
0002420 377 377 \n
0002423
________
I have 416K SDSL service through Best/Verio. Northpoint is the actual DSL provider, and they've done nothing to annoy me. Actual transfer rates are typically in the 480K bit range. Occasionally, the entire net will vanish, killing my Quake/HalfLife games, but that's more down to Best/Verio's routers going apesh*t than Northpoint's equipment. In fact, I can't ever recall a ping failing to get through to Best's nameserver, which tells me Northpoint had their act together.
I really can't understand why two of the biggest DSL providers are on the ropes. I can't use cable modem service (I want to run servers), and I really don't want PacificSmell's ADSL offering (I want to run servers, which needs more than 128K upstream). I don't know of any other DSL network providers in my area (SF Peninsula). I'm not rich enough to afford a full T1, and PacificSmell would probably fsck it up, anyway.
Even if it means I have to change out my DSL modem, I'd prefer to be switched over to Covad. Maybe the influx of new customers will help keep them going.
Assembly? Geez, kids these days. Back in my day, we entered machine code directly, entered in octal by toggling address and data switches on the front panel and hitting DEPOSIT NEXT.
Schwab
(Better mod this down; "Can You Top This?" cascades can get out of hand...)
(And no, I'm not kidding, I really did fiddle with IMSAI and Altair boxes...)
I don't think that the 44 khz bandwidth of a CD will faithfully reproduce a 20 khz or more signal without seriously mangling it...
No no. You cut two spiral tracks in the disc. The head will lock on and track whichever one it finds first. Yes, a given track will be "moving" twice as fast as it ordinarily would, but I can't imagine a CD player that couldn't handle that.
I have a copy of that very album. Yes, you could copy off the content (which is of course first-rate), but there's just something ineffably cool about a three-sided record.
Unless I'm remembering my Red Book spec wrong, there's no reason you couldn't apply the same technique to a CD. Someone in a pressing house should give it a try.
OK, so are they trying to stop people copying to tape by screwing with the signal? That's been tried before as well: the Beatles were among the first, adding a high-frequency tone to their LPs to interfere with the bias signal on a tape deck. [... ]
The Beatles attempted copy control on their albums? This is the first I've heard of any such thing. Those guys were richer and more popular than God, and they attempted copy control? Do you have a reference for this? Was it at the band's request, or did the publishing house try it behind their back?
Expect to get sued by The Walt Disney Corporation.
"Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" is the name of a children's ride at DisneyLand. You can bet that the name has been trademarked with lethal efficiency. And since Disney are one of the most ruthless, humorless, ligitious agents out there when it comes to intellectual "property", I place the lifespan of your venture somewhere short of a crippled, emphysemic cockroach in a Raid factory.
The question is not profits, but property rights, and anything else is a totally extraneous question.
Except that copyrights are not property. They are a limited-time monopoly right conferred by the government.
Property is tangible; rights are not. Property can be stolen; rights can only be infringed.
The RIAA/MPAA/SIAA are relying on the misconceptions they've sown over the past few decades to confuse the debate, to get people arguing over the wrong things while they loot your wallet and strip your rights. Be smarter than that.
First, you get a logo designed and trademarked. Then, in your Copious Spare Time, you evalute a bunch of devices. If they prove compliant, then you send a polite letter to the manufacturer saying, "Congratulations! Your Flabloden model #XP-Z7 meets the conditions for bearing the OMI compliance symbol. As you may be aware, OMI is an organization dedicated to promoting the values of [blah blah blah...] So that consumers will be able to more readily identify your product as safe, you are authorized to use the OMI logo on the specific-named product, and on product-related promotional literature and Web sites. Encapsulated Postscript and PNG files of approved logo imagery may be obtained from..."
Some manufacturers may choose not to bother, but their stuff still gets listed on the OMI Web site. So a central resource listing approved devices still exists, and people can still make informed choices.
Yes, it's a massive exercise in reputation-building. No better time to start than now...
If you are sued, then the proscribed measures are in place, and OMI certification is denied. QED:-).
As for getting manufacturers to submit to testing, that would happen on a "pro-bono" basis, at least initially. Since an OMI certification currently has no value in the marketplace, manufacturers would have no reason to seek it. So studies and certifications would be done in a sort of "Consumer Reports" manner. Once OMI compliance becomes a consumer requirement, manufacturers will seek certification directly.
It's a risky proposition -- the risk being that the public may Just Not Give a Damn -- but I think it's worth a try.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I have had my hands in computers for over a score of years, databases were never my focus. Thus, I must also ask the embarrassing question: What are primary keys, and why are they needed?
Schwab
Realistically, if it came down to a fight in court, what do you believe are the chances the Gnu General Public License would be upheld and enforced? (And please don't answer with, "It depends" :-).)
Schwab
Okay, in case it needs repeating -- and it probably does:
Copying is not theft. Period.
That said, if this watermarking scheme were intended to protect the reputations of the people who created the film, then I'd be all for it. For artists, reputation is what's really at stake here. A watermarking scheme would help thwart someone copying an artist's work and passing it off as their own.
As it is, it's going to be used by the DVD player's firmware to determine whether the user has "permission" to view the content on that disc, which is a pointless exercise.
The central flaw here is that the studios are failing to acknowledge that the users don't give a rat's ass about what the studios claim is, "their property."
I mean, think about this: In the mind of the average consumer, posession is nine-tenths of the law, especially when they have a receipt to back it up. Yet the studio claims the receipt is meaningless -- they believe they still get to tell the user what they can and can't do with it after the fact. Name a single consumer who's going to buy in to the idea that they should pay for the privilege of being bossed around simply to protect the pocketbook of a guy who's already filthy stinking rich. Where's the value to the consumer in such an arrangement?
On the other hand, if the encryption/watermarking were there to preserve the creator's reputation so that it couldn't be usurped, I think you'd get a lot of consumers to heartily sign on to that bandwagon.
Schwab
So a Micros~1 lackey is out there spreading FUD against Open Source in general, and the GPL in particular. "Use GPL software," warns Microsoft, "and you could be forced to throw your valuable intellectual property [sic] away."
Quelle surprise.
Microsoft likens the support of Open Source projects to the dot-coms that cratered over the last year or so. They make particular hash of Open Source-based companies hoping to sell their services. "You can't make money supporting Open Source products," warns Microsoft.
However. I casually observe that the whole raison d'être of Microsoft's .NET initiative is to sell software services. It is, of course, in their best interests to construct this system such that only Microsoft gets to control how the infrastructure is deployed, and who gets to use it (and how much tribute they'll pay). So that there is no question about who gets to exercise this control, they are compelled to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing this infrastructure on their own.
...Whereas one of these fresh-faced business school graduates could root around in the Open Source commons and use its resources to construct an equivalent, if not superior, solution for free, cutting Microsoft out of the deal entirely. Moreover, because the code itself isn't being distributed -- the code is being executed on a remote server on behalf of a user, but never actually being distributed anywhere -- intellectual "property" disclosures "forced" by the GPL are not an issue. (This is true of GPL v2.0, anyway; GPL 3.0 is reputed to be addressing this question.)
I am therefore not surprised Microsoft is trying to scare new business leaders away from Open Source. 'Cause if those graduating kids ever figure out they can out-flank Microsoft without spending a dime on fundamental R&D, it would be a devastating tragedy for American businesses... run by Bill Gates.
Schwab
Yes. So is driving faster than 65. What's your point?
Schwab
Let me share a Nasty Thought I've had concerning the current intellectual "property" environment and music visualizers.
The media conglomerates are advancing the position -- unfortunately with a lot of success -- that any use of "their" music not explicitly authorized by them is prima facie unauthorized and therefore illegal.
If we were to regard this view as legitimate, then when you purchase a CD, you have received a license from the media conglomerate to listen to it, and nothing else. You have not been authorized to perform it publicly (such as at a party), you have not been authorized to extract snippets for critical commentary or to incorporate into your newest rap parody, and you have not been authorized to use it as the data source for a visual transformation engine. Ergo, using a visualizer is a copyright violation.
Further -- if we, again, are to regard the media companies' view as legitimate -- the images resulting from a particular CD played through a visualizer constitute a derivative work, since they are derived directly from the original copyrighted musical work. As such, the specific visual presentation also falls under the media conglomerate's copyright. When you bought the CD, you only obtained a license to listen to it; therefore, the resulting derivative images covered by the same copyright require a separate license which you don't have. Ergo, watching the visualizer is a copyright violation.
Reductio Ad Absurdum? I'd desperately like to think so. However, recent court cases concerning intellectual "property" make me very, very worried that we are perilously close to such absurdity.
Schwab
In the consumer space, this has already happened with DIVX (the DVD "rental" scam). DIVX's answer to its customers was, essentially, "Fsck you."
However, there are also several high-end software packages out there -- the old Diab C compiler and Perforce source repository system come to mind -- where you have to install a "license" server and periodically update the key that allows it to continue to operate. Doubtless others exist. How many of these have had their parent companies fold? What did their customers do? Was the eventuality covered in the contract?
Schwab
Quake/first-person shooter maps based on actual floorplans of high schools or post offices or other such locations, in general, don't play well.
Good FPS maps have a "flow" to them where, in the natural progression of things, a player will encounter another player moving in another direction. This is why Quake's DM6 is so well-liked: Walkways cross over/under other walkways, where other players are likely to appear, affording lots of scoring opportunities.
Real-world architecture, by comparison, doesn't have this. Most of the space is consumed by rooms of various size, ususally with a single door. This means that another player isn't likely to be found inside, since the room doesn't lead anywhere. Players are always on the move, and won't walk into a dead-end unless there's a good reason. If you "force" people to enter the room by putting items inside, then the room becomes a camping site (just launch rockets at the only door and get dozens of cheap frags as people try to enter to collect the item). Very dull.
Unless the architect was unusually creative, most real-world buildings don't make good FPS maps. The only exceptions to this rule are shopping malls and amusement parks, where sculpting the flow of visitors past storefronts and attractions is actually a design goal.
If you're playing CounterStrike, however, all the bets are off, and real-world architecture tends to rule the day.
As I (dimly) recall, user-created maps for Duke Nukem 3D had an unusual leaning toward real-world and semi-real-world sites.
Schwab
Believe it or not, the issue of units naming for bits and bytes has been addressed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Though the unit names are not officially part of SI (Systeme Internationale), and the chosen names are unfamiliar, they make a good starting point.
Schwab
You can't even download a complete page these days in 5-7 seconds, much less an animated GIF. How is this supposed to work if you don't have broadband access?
This will also give the masses yet another (good) reason to turn off JavaScript.
Schwab
Oh, you mean how the US Goverment interferes less with the motion picture industry now that MPAA ratings are in place?
Don't kid yourself.
There are more important questions here, however:
Schwab
If you're interested in small, imaginative companies that publish small, imaginative games, then you'd be well-served to check out wonderfully named Cheapass Games.
Don't let the name -- or the packaging -- fool you. It is their very simplicity that makes Cheapass Games so enjoyable. The concepts are ludicrous, the artwork often hilarious, and the game fun due in no small part to a handful of simple rules.
Some offerings of note:
Really good stuff.
Schwab
Thank you very much for the heads up. I went to CERT's site, and found an example syslog entry almost identical to the one on my laptop. Fortunately, I already had the fixed rpc.statd (v0.9.1-1) installed on my Debian laptop.
I'll go update 'bind' now (assuming I bothered to install it).
Schwab
But don't you also need an ISP to provide mail hosting, an NNTP source and stuff? Or will Covad do that?
I don't have my own domain yet. I have a box I bought that is intended to function as the Web and mail server, with FreeBSD 4.0 installed. But I don't want to go live until I've learned how to properly secure the box. Otherwise, I risk becoming another nuisance to the community.
Schwab
Maybe it's just coincidence, but last night, I had a very weird syslog event while I was pulling down email off my (Northpoint :-) ) DSL line. Copied below is a (very badly formatted) octal dump of the relevant section of the log:
________ : :
0000000 M a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 3 : 2 7
0000020 w a l k i e s - - M A R K
0000040 - - \n M a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 4
0000060 0 4 w a l k i e s i d e n t
0000100 d [ 1 2 2 8 6 ] : s t a r t e
0000120 d \n M a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0
0000140 7 w a l k i e s \n M a r 2
0000160 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 w a l k i
0000200 e s s y s l o g d : C a n n
0000220 o t g l u e m e s s a g e
0000240 p a r t s t o g e t h e r \n M
0000260 a r 2 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 w
0000300 a l k i e s 1 7 3 > M a r 2
0000320 3 0 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 / s b i n
0000340 / r p c . s t a t d [ 1 6 4 ]
0000360 g e t h o s t b y n a m e e
0000400 r r o r f o r ^ X 367 377 277 ^ X
0000420 367 377 277 ^ Y 367 377 277 ^ Y 367 377 277 ^ Z 367
0000440 377 277 ^ Z 367 377 277 ^ [ 367 377 277 ^ [ 367 377
0000460 277 % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x
0000500 % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 8 x % 2 3 6
0000520 x % n % 1 3 7 x % n % 1 0 x % n
0000540 % 1 9 2 x % n 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220
0000560 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220
*
0002160 220 220 220 1 300 353 | Y 211 A ^ P 211 A ^ H
0002200 376 300 211 A ^ D 211 303 376 300 211 ^ A 260 f 315
0002220 200 263 ^ B 211 Y ^ L 306 A ^ N 231 306 A ^
0002240 H ^ P 211 I ^ D 200 A ^ D ^ L 210 ^ A
0002260 260 f 315 200 263 ^ D 260 f 315 200 263 ^ E 0 300
0002300 210 A ^ D 260 f 315 \n M a r 2 3 0
0002320 1 : 5 4 : 0 7 w a l k i e s
0002340 307 ^ F / b i n 307 F ^ D / s h A 0
0002360 300 210 F ^ G 211 v ^ L 215 V ^ P 215 N ^
0002400 L 211 363 260 ^ K 315 200 260 ^ A 315 200 350 177 377
0002420 377 377 \n
0002423
________
Did someone try to h4x0r my laptop?
Schwab
I have 416K SDSL service through Best/Verio. Northpoint is the actual DSL provider, and they've done nothing to annoy me. Actual transfer rates are typically in the 480K bit range. Occasionally, the entire net will vanish, killing my Quake/HalfLife games, but that's more down to Best/Verio's routers going apesh*t than Northpoint's equipment. In fact, I can't ever recall a ping failing to get through to Best's nameserver, which tells me Northpoint had their act together.
I really can't understand why two of the biggest DSL providers are on the ropes. I can't use cable modem service (I want to run servers), and I really don't want PacificSmell's ADSL offering (I want to run servers, which needs more than 128K upstream). I don't know of any other DSL network providers in my area (SF Peninsula). I'm not rich enough to afford a full T1, and PacificSmell would probably fsck it up, anyway.
Even if it means I have to change out my DSL modem, I'd prefer to be switched over to Covad. Maybe the influx of new customers will help keep them going.
Schwab
Assembly? Geez, kids these days. Back in my day, we entered machine code directly, entered in octal by toggling address and data switches on the front panel and hitting DEPOSIT NEXT.
Schwab
(Better mod this down; "Can You Top This?" cascades can get out of hand...)
(And no, I'm not kidding, I really did fiddle with IMSAI and Altair boxes...)
No no. You cut two spiral tracks in the disc. The head will lock on and track whichever one it finds first. Yes, a given track will be "moving" twice as fast as it ordinarily would, but I can't imagine a CD player that couldn't handle that.
Schwab
I have a copy of that very album. Yes, you could copy off the content (which is of course first-rate), but there's just something ineffably cool about a three-sided record.
Unless I'm remembering my Red Book spec wrong, there's no reason you couldn't apply the same technique to a CD. Someone in a pressing house should give it a try.
Schwab
The Beatles attempted copy control on their albums? This is the first I've heard of any such thing. Those guys were richer and more popular than God, and they attempted copy control? Do you have a reference for this? Was it at the band's request, or did the publishing house try it behind their back?
Schwab
Expect to get sued by The Walt Disney Corporation.
"Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" is the name of a children's ride at DisneyLand. You can bet that the name has been trademarked with lethal efficiency. And since Disney are one of the most ruthless, humorless, ligitious agents out there when it comes to intellectual "property", I place the lifespan of your venture somewhere short of a crippled, emphysemic cockroach in a Raid factory.
Schwab
Here is a link to John Gilmore's Most Excellent Essay addressing your very question.
Schwab
Except that copyrights are not property. They are a limited-time monopoly right conferred by the government.
Property is tangible; rights are not. Property can be stolen; rights can only be infringed.
The RIAA/MPAA/SIAA are relying on the misconceptions they've sown over the past few decades to confuse the debate, to get people arguing over the wrong things while they loot your wallet and strip your rights. Be smarter than that.
Schwab
Nope, it's really easy.
First, you get a logo designed and trademarked. Then, in your Copious Spare Time, you evalute a bunch of devices. If they prove compliant, then you send a polite letter to the manufacturer saying, "Congratulations! Your Flabloden model #XP-Z7 meets the conditions for bearing the OMI compliance symbol. As you may be aware, OMI is an organization dedicated to promoting the values of [blah blah blah...] So that consumers will be able to more readily identify your product as safe, you are authorized to use the OMI logo on the specific-named product, and on product-related promotional literature and Web sites. Encapsulated Postscript and PNG files of approved logo imagery may be obtained from..."
Some manufacturers may choose not to bother, but their stuff still gets listed on the OMI Web site. So a central resource listing approved devices still exists, and people can still make informed choices.
Yes, it's a massive exercise in reputation-building. No better time to start than now...
Schwab
If you are sued, then the proscribed measures are in place, and OMI certification is denied. QED :-).
As for getting manufacturers to submit to testing, that would happen on a "pro-bono" basis, at least initially. Since an OMI certification currently has no value in the marketplace, manufacturers would have no reason to seek it. So studies and certifications would be done in a sort of "Consumer Reports" manner. Once OMI compliance becomes a consumer requirement, manufacturers will seek certification directly.
It's a risky proposition -- the risk being that the public may Just Not Give a Damn -- but I think it's worth a try.
Schwab