Apparently they are only looking at going after cameras with HD capability, and the majority of home users won't be affected by this.
The key this the 800x600 resolution. Since all the SDTV and standard DV video formats fit within this resoultion.
NTSC:720x468 (It is actually 720x525, but only 468 lines carry image data, the rest are sync or are unseen. NTSC isn't used in Europe anyway.)
PAL:720x576 (again the actual resolution is 720x625, but only 576 lines are visible)
SECAM:720x576 (same as PAL)
Interestingly, SECAM was developed by the French as a political statement (rather than on technical merit) to protect local manufacturers, since it was so incompatible with everything else. It was only later that another standard was developed, MESECAM, to try to make it more compatible with PAL, but that is getting away from the original subject.
I'm not exactly sure how the EU came up with 800x600, but it seems that most home camcorders would be exempt from the tarrif on this basis. Instead it seems to be solely focussed on HD cmeras, perhaps as a means for preventing people from importing cheap HD cameras and making commercial content with them. I'd say the only people really affected by this are the budding filmmakers, where cheap HD consumer cameras are a good alternative to either film or extremely expensive betacam setups. Of course the manufacturers will feel the pinch too, since these tarrifs will help to discourage the consumer adoption of HDTV camcorders.
Only female mosquitos bite, in order to get protein for egg production. If the mosquitos are laying more eggs, then they will be biting more in order to get more blood. Add to that a higher survival rate, and there will be more and more of these super biters in each generation. Ahh... but there is good news: they don't carry malaria. Well actually 70% after 9 generations. 70%... that's close enough to 100%, right?
On top of that, there is no mention of yellow fever, dengue fever, epidemic polyarthritis, Rift Valley fever, Ross River Fever, and West Nile virus that mosquitos are also known to carry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
There is no way of predicting how these GM mosquitos will interact in the wild. There is the distinct possibility that they may breed hybrids with wild species and regain their malaria carrying capability, effectively becoming supercarriers of the disease.
Personally I think this is another silly attempt of man trying to play God. We don't understand the entire DNA sequence, yet we are chopping and changing the very few known genes with the vauge hope that a desired effect will be acheieved, instead of being able to accurately predict what will happen. While it is a nice exercise in a lab, and helps us understand more about genetics, it has no place in the real world until we can do it accurately.
Surely, instead of spending millions developing a new mosquito (that could potentially carry other diseases if not malaria), a better solution to the malaria problem would be to develop some kind of vaccine.
Actually the Advertising Standards Authority received about 70 formal complaints about the ad. They had a hearing and dismissed the complaints (Decision 06/259).
The ad was originally made for New Zealand television, and while it had a similar number of complaints when it first aired it remained on the air. The Advertising Standards Authority in New Zealand heard those complaints and dismissed them as shown here.
Personally I don't really like the ad, but I don't see how the ad promotes unsafe driving practices when it is quite obvious the ad is not intended to be serious. I highly doubt any toddler that might see the ad (despite it screening later at night) would try to copy what they see.
I really hate it when groups claim to be an International organisation, yet in reality are unilateral in their support of one country (typically the US).
Taken from the IIPA website:
"The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is a private sector coalition formed in 1984 to represent the U.S. copyright-based industries in bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve international protection of copyrighted materials."
To me this is a complete contradiction. The only International thing about them is they are lobbying to force the US agenda on the rest of the world.
The author of Inside the "iPhone: EDGE, EVDO, HSUPA, 3G, and WiFi" seems to have confused himself with the acronyms associated with 3G, and then goes on to attempt to explain it to the rest of us.
He correctly stated that we won't be seeing EVDO because that is the realm of CDMA handsets, not GSM ones. But then he goes on to talk about HSUPA as being 3G.
In GSM phones, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is considered 2.5G
Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) is simply an expansion on GPRS and is sometimes referred to as 2.75G, but is really still 2.5G
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) is referred to as 3G. It builds on W-CDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access), so that is sometimes refferred to as 3G too (Not to be confused with regular CDMA network phones).
High Speed Download Packet Access (HSDPA) and High Speed Upload Packet Access (HSUPA) are reffered to as 3.5G, and most carriers that have gone with it have implemented HSDPA without implementing HSUPA. So the constant talk of HSUPA for the iPhone is misinformed nonsense.
Unfortunately, this is only going to become more widespread. Hotel chains are only interested in profit, and running their own in-house ISP just isn't profitable. They will contract out whereever possible, and for the lowest price.
Superclick already has the backing of major Hotel chains, so it already has recognition in the marketplace (hotel owners). That is not going to change. They would also be very competitive for the services they provide and, given what has been found, it is not unreasonable to think that they are cheaper because they sell off the information they gather to marketing companies.
I cannot see this kind of tracking coming to an end until either the mainstream media make a story out of it, or someone sues the Hotel chain for breaching their privacy (or both).
Bluetooth came about in 1998, with the consortium formed between Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba.
The earliest of Mr Suominen's patents assigner to the University of Washington was filed in 1996, but wasn't granted until 1999. Of the four of Mr Suominen's patents assigned to the University of Washington, only one was filed before the formation of the Bluetooth consortium, and none of them were issued until after. It is entirely possible that Ericsson (or one of the other original Bluetooth founders) would have IP that predates the 1998 formation of the consortium.
The fact that the filing is only against three handset manufacturers, all of which have Bluetooth chipsets manufactured by CSR PLC in the UK, shows that this isn't an attack on Bluetooth, just one method of its implementation. Oddly enough, the lawsuit is going after the handset manufacturers and not the chipmaker. This just shows that they are only after money, and to rustle up some FUD regarding non-Broadcom chipsets. This is reinforced comments from Rob Enderle (whose previous clients include Microsoft and SCO): "Defendants would be quick to settle if it appeared the case was immediately threatening their product lines".
Undoubtedly, the defense would most likely claim Laches against any possible injunction. It is also highly likely that other memebers of the Bluetooth consortium would leverage their IP to prove prior art. It seems Washington Research Foundation and Mr Suominen have quite a large uphill battle in their hands.
I don't think this case will last very long, and even if they were successful, I'm sure Nokia, Samsung and Panasonic would just move to a different chipset in the future.
So, SCO are claiming that IBM have effectively destroyed their evidence. If this is such pivotal evidence, then why didn't SCO have it before they filed the case? SCO is just throwing a massive lawsuit at IBM and hoping they will find something. Too bad for them that the judge can see through this and is now getting annoyed by it.
Furthermore, SCO are saying that IBM have destroyed key Linux source code. The key point about Linux is that it is OPEN SOURCE. If IBM added such key source code, and then made the version public, the source would be public too. All SCO have is a developer saying he deleted DRAFT source code that MAY have been based on Dynix and/or AIX. Even if that is the case, it was draft code, and it would have been purely for internal purposes, and never saw any kind of public release (otherwise SCO woould have the evidence by now). That's hardly a smoking gun.
Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that SCO does own the patents/copyrights on UNIX. As far as I know, that has yet to be determined. At this time I'm more interested in the SCO vs Novell case, as the result from it would blow the SCO vs IBM case out of the water, and sink SCO completely.
Just because it is open, doesn't mean that it is legal to use it. If you left your front door open, would it be legal for some stranger to wander in and use your stuff? No.
Sure, they should secure it if they don't want people to use it, but leaving it open doesn't give people the legal right to use it without authorisation.
I doubt whether really sensitive information would be stored on traditional hard disks and platters. The ability to recover data, even after supposedly secure erasure, has been known for a long time now. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find any HDs on spy planes anymore. They would be moving to solid state systems.
If you have a look there you will find some pretty decent spec solid state drives that are US DoD certified. With their secureErase system, they claim to be able to safely and securely erase data in a fraction of the time it takes with other flash based systems. They can also be setup to erase the data if power is lost for any reason (eg. being shot down). There are huge advantages for solid state storage over traditional HDs in the military. Who cares if it costs hundreds or thousands of dollars more, they are the military.
Didn't they say that the Titanic was an unsinkable ship? We all know what happened there.
It is possible that it will be pretty secure if we ever see it, but to claim it will be the most secure OS is a bit of a stretch. For a start, making claims like that just begs every Black Hat out there to have a go when it it finally released. Odds are that its 'security' won't last then.
Based on my experience with MS 'security', Windows Vista will do as much as possible to lock out the end user, to protect them from themselves.
A quick trip to ahref=http://www.balthaser.com/rel=url2html-12637h ttp://www.balthaser.com/> reveals that they claim Macromedia and Shockwave.com as their clients. For a company that holds their own patent on rich online media, they use and awful lot of flash on their site.
Balthaser Online Inc. was established in Feb 1999, well after Flash was created. Their main product Pro:FX appears to be an online drag and drop web page creator (most likely flash based as well).
I don't imagine that they would last long if they tried to enforce their patent.
Not that I would ever buy Windows Vista, but why would I want Microsoft deciding who gets backdoor keys to my machine?
I recall some years ago, someone found supposedly secret NSA backdoor keys buried in Windows98. I don't recall if it was actually proven, but I would not be surprised if the NSA already has backdoor keys in 98/ME/XP and now Vista. Now the British Government wants their turn. Where will it end? Once MS bows to the British, surely other governments will also demand backdoor keys. Who decides which of those governments get it?
Sooner or later, other organisations (like the RIAA and the MPAA) will also want their keys too (if they don't already have them thanks to their DRM chips). Where will MS draw the line? I highly doubt MS would be very open about how many different governments or other organisations really have backdoor keys.
It is easy for us to say that we'll never use it, or that there are other options out there, but I'm more worried for less computer savvy members of the public who think they are buying a secure system. I know most of those users will never use encryption, but this will set another precident that will further erode all of our rights.
While it is nice to think that we will be seeing a NAND Flash replacement to hard drives (especially in laptops), I don't think we will be seeing them any time soon. Even then they will still remain very expensive. As has been pointed out earlier, these are 16Gb chips, not 16GB, so you will need 40 of them to match the storage capacity of an 80GB HD. Flash behaves very differently in write cycles than HDs. Once a byte is programmed, it can't be rewitten untile the entire block has been erased, so you will need a decent ammount of cache to make up for that. On top of that, Flash has a limited number of erase/write cycles. Virtual memory and/or swap partitions (not to mention constant writing and rewriting of data during normal use) will very quickly kill your expensive NAND Flash drive. Flash is a good stroage medium, but is simply no effective replacement for HDs yet.
In saying that, there are companies that do make Flash based solid state disks that solve most of these problems. I'd say that even the finite write/erase life is made less of an issue by large ammounts of caching and something akin to RAID 6. Since those manufacturers supply for military applications, be prepared to pay massive ammounts for it.
I can't see the cost of producing NAND Flash chips (even at 16Gb) in high enough quantities to equal the cost per GB of HDs. Once the cost drops further, packaging enough of them for redundancy into a 2.5" form factor with all the caching other circuitry (most likely some kind of hardware RAID 5 or 6 controller) will start to make economic sense. Until then I think we are stuck writing magnetic bits onto spinning chunks of metal.;)
I know the obvious impications for this patent include M$ trying to shut out OSes such as Linux, but I don't think that is as likely as everyone makes out. For a start it seems that M$ are going after device manufacturers that have physical products that use FAT filesystems. Bringing a lawsuit against software that just interacts with FAT would be a little harder to fight (especially with the likes of IBM and Novell to potentially fight against). I think preventing people from interacting with FAT filesystems would have M$ in trouble from an antitrust standpoint, so they are going after devices where there is an actual FAT filesystem rather than the potential a mere interaction with one (if that view makes sense - it was rather late when I wrote this)
There is one device that I can think off that needs the FAT filesystem preinstalled: the humble iPod.
All the recent iPods come with FAT32 as the filesystem (originally added for Windows users). They originally used HFS+, but that is no longer the case (and hasn't been for quite some time).
I am aware that the FAT Licensing page puts a supposed $250,000 cap, but this is M$ and they can change their minds or have other nasty clauses in Licensing agreements that would be unfavourable to companies like Apple. Towards the bottom of the page they even say: "Sometimes, companies may want to negotiate broader or narrower rights than the standard Microsoft license for FAT file systems. In this case, prices may vary." M$ could easily use this to shut iPods out of the Windows market (if they are forced to return to using HFS+ filesystems).
These patents could be very handy iPod killers if M$ wants to use them as such.
Greed.
"The market should decide, not a single retailer"
I'm pretty sure the market wants it to stay at $0.99.
As for wanting a share of the iPos revenues, they're dreaming.:)
A quick search of the USPTO reveals two trademarks:
Tiger, owned by Systemax Inc. (owners of TigerDirect.com) and first used in 1987, filed in 2000 and registered in 2002. Serial no. 75915934
and
Tiger, owned by Apple Computer Inc. Not yet registered, but filed in 2003 with publication for opposition in August 2004. Serial no. 78269988
While this seems the end for Apple's Tiger, a closer look reveals the important bits. Apple's Tiger has been filed for "computer operating system software", while Systemax's Tiger was registered for "Mail order catalog services featuring computers and computer related products; and Retail store services featuring computers and computer related products."
They are two very different uses for the trademark. I'm sure Apple's lawyers will pounce on this fact. TigerDirect does not have much of a chance of pulling this one off.
On top of this, waiting until the day before the product launch was not the best plan for TigerDirect. Apple's tradmark was published for opposition last year. Given all the publicity, TigerDirect's management would definately have known about this long before now. Any decent judge would see TigerDirect's real intentions in filing this late.
I suspect that TigerDirect's managment are hoping that Apple's lawyers are stupid and will settle immedaitely. If this is the case then I think TigerDirect's management are in for a rude awakening. Steve Jobs will fight this one.
To me it seems that you have misread your brief. Digital Versatile Disk (DVD) technology is much more then just Digital Video. In fact they are two quite different things. While DVDs can be used to store digital video, they can be used for many other things as well (DVD-Audio, data storage, etc).
Are you talking about Digital Video distribution methods? If so, comparing DVD video to VOD is also comparing two completely different things. VOD is a subscription service, while DVD video is an actual tangible medium. There is no getting away from that.
You could argue that they share similarities, in which case I will point you to DIVX (the failed alternative to DVD video, not the codec). It was a subscription service (the players had modems and you had to buy the rights to play the disks), but you (supposedly) owned the physical disk. It failed primarilly because people wanted the freedom to play their property (I'm talking about the physical disks) without having to keep paying for it.
Comparing DVD video to VOD is like comparing VHS to Cable TV. People buy and rent movies on VHS, but they still watch Cable TV. One hasn't replaced the other. They simply co-exist.
Simply, VOD will not replace DVD video because of the lack of it's portabilty. Quite simply, you cannot take your VOD player anywhere you want and expect to play movies. (I imagine Disney would frown on people taking their decoder boxes to their friend's houses and plugging them in to watch movies.) Until VOD is distributed wirelessly, this will never happen.
Where VOD will be an advantage, however, is from a marketing position. I believe movies will be released to VOD services between their theatrical release and the DVD/VHS release. Companies such as Disney will use it for extra cash, but will it replace DVD video? No.
Actually a more sinister aspect of Palladium would be a tool for Hollings to push the SSSCA (under whatever new name they decide to call it) through. Once there is evidence that hardware manufacturers (read AMD and Intel) can produce systems with tightly integrated DRM (under the guise of secure computing) there will be more motivation for something like the SSSCA to get pushed through. Until now the main opponent to the SSSCA under its various forms has been the hardware industries, claiming that to integrate such DRM into digital devices would be far too difficult. With the advent of Palladium, these claims are negated (helped by AMD and Intel - two companies who were oppsed to the SSSCA). With MS's Palladium as evidence the MPAA and the RIAA (via Hollings or one of his cronies) could push the next SSSCA through. Under this new bill, the FTC would make Palladium the defacto standard for DRM (since none of the hardware companies could previously agree).
BAM. Suddenly MS now controls DRM for all machines used in the US. Not only does this mean control of information, but it could also wipe out all other OSes since only Windows would be Palladium compliant. On top of this MS would then get royalties from hardware companies, which would be... hmm... ALL OF THEM.
Sure this may sound a bit scary, but it is highly possible. Now, picture this:
A few years down the track after Palladium is adopted. DRM would be in everything, from CD players to high end digital projection systems in theatres. Using Palladium, MS could decided it doesn't want to certify RIAA and MPAA content. It could effectively hold both to ransom. Now, not only has MS got control of machines, but it would then have control over content as well. The ability to decided what bands CDs can be played and what movies get made.
So sit back in your Microsoft Certified Chair (tm) while you read the Microsoft Certified Slashdot(tm) on your Microsoft Certified DRM Compliant Computer(tm) while you drink your Microsoft Certified Beer(tm). Welcome to the Microsoft Certified World(tm). Where do you want to go today?* (*notwithstanding anywhere you want to go will be controlled by us, therefore you will only go where we will tell you to go.)
Slashdot Mirror
The key this the 800x600 resolution. Since all the SDTV and standard DV video formats fit within this resoultion.
NTSC:720x468 (It is actually 720x525, but only 468 lines carry image data, the rest are sync or are unseen. NTSC isn't used in Europe anyway.)
PAL:720x576 (again the actual resolution is 720x625, but only 576 lines are visible)
SECAM:720x576 (same as PAL)
Interestingly, SECAM was developed by the French as a political statement (rather than on technical merit) to protect local manufacturers, since it was so incompatible with everything else. It was only later that another standard was developed, MESECAM, to try to make it more compatible with PAL, but that is getting away from the original subject.
I'm not exactly sure how the EU came up with 800x600, but it seems that most home camcorders would be exempt from the tarrif on this basis. Instead it seems to be solely focussed on HD cmeras, perhaps as a means for preventing people from importing cheap HD cameras and making commercial content with them. I'd say the only people really affected by this are the budding filmmakers, where cheap HD consumer cameras are a good alternative to either film or extremely expensive betacam setups. Of course the manufacturers will feel the pinch too, since these tarrifs will help to discourage the consumer adoption of HDTV camcorders.
On top of that, there is no mention of yellow fever, dengue fever, epidemic polyarthritis, Rift Valley fever, Ross River Fever, and West Nile virus that mosquitos are also known to carry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
There is no way of predicting how these GM mosquitos will interact in the wild. There is the distinct possibility that they may breed hybrids with wild species and regain their malaria carrying capability, effectively becoming supercarriers of the disease.
Personally I think this is another silly attempt of man trying to play God. We don't understand the entire DNA sequence, yet we are chopping and changing the very few known genes with the vauge hope that a desired effect will be acheieved, instead of being able to accurately predict what will happen. While it is a nice exercise in a lab, and helps us understand more about genetics, it has no place in the real world until we can do it accurately.
Surely, instead of spending millions developing a new mosquito (that could potentially carry other diseases if not malaria), a better solution to the malaria problem would be to develop some kind of vaccine.
Actually the Advertising Standards Authority received about 70 formal complaints about the ad. They had a hearing and dismissed the complaints (Decision 06/259).
Personally I don't really like the ad, but I don't see how the ad promotes unsafe driving practices when it is quite obvious the ad is not intended to be serious. I highly doubt any toddler that might see the ad (despite it screening later at night) would try to copy what they see.
Taken from the IIPA website:
"The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is a private sector coalition formed in 1984 to represent the U.S. copyright-based industries in bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve international protection of copyrighted materials."
To me this is a complete contradiction. The only International thing about them is they are lobbying to force the US agenda on the rest of the world.
He correctly stated that we won't be seeing EVDO because that is the realm of CDMA handsets, not GSM ones. But then he goes on to talk about HSUPA as being 3G.
In GSM phones, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is considered 2.5G
Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) is simply an expansion on GPRS and is sometimes referred to as 2.75G, but is really still 2.5G
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) is referred to as 3G. It builds on W-CDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access), so that is sometimes refferred to as 3G too (Not to be confused with regular CDMA network phones).
High Speed Download Packet Access (HSDPA) and High Speed Upload Packet Access (HSUPA) are reffered to as 3.5G, and most carriers that have gone with it have implemented HSDPA without implementing HSUPA. So the constant talk of HSUPA for the iPhone is misinformed nonsense.
That would be http://www.superclick.com/. Take a look at their customers. Hilton is one.
Superclick already has the backing of major Hotel chains, so it already has recognition in the marketplace (hotel owners). That is not going to change. They would also be very competitive for the services they provide and, given what has been found, it is not unreasonable to think that they are cheaper because they sell off the information they gather to marketing companies.
I cannot see this kind of tracking coming to an end until either the mainstream media make a story out of it, or someone sues the Hotel chain for breaching their privacy (or both).
The earliest of Mr Suominen's patents assigner to the University of Washington was filed in 1996, but wasn't granted until 1999. Of the four of Mr Suominen's patents assigned to the University of Washington, only one was filed before the formation of the Bluetooth consortium, and none of them were issued until after. It is entirely possible that Ericsson (or one of the other original Bluetooth founders) would have IP that predates the 1998 formation of the consortium.
The fact that the filing is only against three handset manufacturers, all of which have Bluetooth chipsets manufactured by CSR PLC in the UK, shows that this isn't an attack on Bluetooth, just one method of its implementation. Oddly enough, the lawsuit is going after the handset manufacturers and not the chipmaker. This just shows that they are only after money, and to rustle up some FUD regarding non-Broadcom chipsets. This is reinforced comments from Rob Enderle (whose previous clients include Microsoft and SCO): "Defendants would be quick to settle if it appeared the case was immediately threatening their product lines".
Undoubtedly, the defense would most likely claim Laches against any possible injunction. It is also highly likely that other memebers of the Bluetooth consortium would leverage their IP to prove prior art. It seems Washington Research Foundation and Mr Suominen have quite a large uphill battle in their hands.
I don't think this case will last very long, and even if they were successful, I'm sure Nokia, Samsung and Panasonic would just move to a different chipset in the future.
So, SCO are claiming that IBM have effectively destroyed their evidence. If this is such pivotal evidence, then why didn't SCO have it before they filed the case? SCO is just throwing a massive lawsuit at IBM and hoping they will find something. Too bad for them that the judge can see through this and is now getting annoyed by it.
Furthermore, SCO are saying that IBM have destroyed key Linux source code. The key point about Linux is that it is OPEN SOURCE. If IBM added such key source code, and then made the version public, the source would be public too. All SCO have is a developer saying he deleted DRAFT source code that MAY have been based on Dynix and/or AIX. Even if that is the case, it was draft code, and it would have been purely for internal purposes, and never saw any kind of public release (otherwise SCO woould have the evidence by now). That's hardly a smoking gun.
Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that SCO does own the patents/copyrights on UNIX. As far as I know, that has yet to be determined. At this time I'm more interested in the SCO vs Novell case, as the result from it would blow the SCO vs IBM case out of the water, and sink SCO completely.
Sure, they should secure it if they don't want people to use it, but leaving it open doesn't give people the legal right to use it without authorisation.
http://www.bitmicro.com/
If you have a look there you will find some pretty decent spec solid state drives that are US DoD certified. With their secureErase system, they claim to be able to safely and securely erase data in a fraction of the time it takes with other flash based systems. They can also be setup to erase the data if power is lost for any reason (eg. being shot down). There are huge advantages for solid state storage over traditional HDs in the military. Who cares if it costs hundreds or thousands of dollars more, they are the military.
It is possible that it will be pretty secure if we ever see it, but to claim it will be the most secure OS is a bit of a stretch. For a start, making claims like that just begs every Black Hat out there to have a go when it it finally released. Odds are that its 'security' won't last then.
Based on my experience with MS 'security', Windows Vista will do as much as possible to lock out the end user, to protect them from themselves.
http://www.balthaser.com/
Bedtime for this squirrel. ;)
Balthaser Online Inc. was established in Feb 1999, well after Flash was created. Their main product Pro:FX appears to be an online drag and drop web page creator (most likely flash based as well).
I don't imagine that they would last long if they tried to enforce their patent.
I recall some years ago, someone found supposedly secret NSA backdoor keys buried in Windows98. I don't recall if it was actually proven, but I would not be surprised if the NSA already has backdoor keys in 98/ME/XP and now Vista. Now the British Government wants their turn. Where will it end? Once MS bows to the British, surely other governments will also demand backdoor keys. Who decides which of those governments get it?
Sooner or later, other organisations (like the RIAA and the MPAA) will also want their keys too (if they don't already have them thanks to their DRM chips). Where will MS draw the line? I highly doubt MS would be very open about how many different governments or other organisations really have backdoor keys.
It is easy for us to say that we'll never use it, or that there are other options out there, but I'm more worried for less computer savvy members of the public who think they are buying a secure system. I know most of those users will never use encryption, but this will set another precident that will further erode all of our rights.
In saying that, there are companies that do make Flash based solid state disks that solve most of these problems. I'd say that even the finite write/erase life is made less of an issue by large ammounts of caching and something akin to RAID 6. Since those manufacturers supply for military applications, be prepared to pay massive ammounts for it.
I can't see the cost of producing NAND Flash chips (even at 16Gb) in high enough quantities to equal the cost per GB of HDs. Once the cost drops further, packaging enough of them for redundancy into a 2.5" form factor with all the caching other circuitry (most likely some kind of hardware RAID 5 or 6 controller) will start to make economic sense. Until then I think we are stuck writing magnetic bits onto spinning chunks of metal. ;)
There is one device that I can think off that needs the FAT filesystem preinstalled: the humble iPod.
All the recent iPods come with FAT32 as the filesystem (originally added for Windows users). They originally used HFS+, but that is no longer the case (and hasn't been for quite some time).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod
I am aware that the FAT Licensing page puts a supposed $250,000 cap, but this is M$ and they can change their minds or have other nasty clauses in Licensing agreements that would be unfavourable to companies like Apple. Towards the bottom of the page they even say: "Sometimes, companies may want to negotiate broader or narrower rights than the standard Microsoft license for FAT file systems. In this case, prices may vary." M$ could easily use this to shut iPods out of the Windows market (if they are forced to return to using HFS+ filesystems).
These patents could be very handy iPod killers if M$ wants to use them as such.
Greed. :)
"The market should decide, not a single retailer" I'm pretty sure the market wants it to stay at $0.99.
As for wanting a share of the iPos revenues, they're dreaming.
Tiger, owned by Systemax Inc. (owners of TigerDirect.com) and first used in 1987, filed in 2000 and registered in 2002. Serial no. 75915934
and
Tiger, owned by Apple Computer Inc. Not yet registered, but filed in 2003 with publication for opposition in August 2004. Serial no. 78269988
While this seems the end for Apple's Tiger, a closer look reveals the important bits. Apple's Tiger has been filed for "computer operating system software", while Systemax's Tiger was registered for "Mail order catalog services featuring computers and computer related products; and Retail store services featuring computers and computer related products."
They are two very different uses for the trademark. I'm sure Apple's lawyers will pounce on this fact. TigerDirect does not have much of a chance of pulling this one off.
On top of this, waiting until the day before the product launch was not the best plan for TigerDirect. Apple's tradmark was published for opposition last year. Given all the publicity, TigerDirect's management would definately have known about this long before now. Any decent judge would see TigerDirect's real intentions in filing this late.
I suspect that TigerDirect's managment are hoping that Apple's lawyers are stupid and will settle immedaitely. If this is the case then I think TigerDirect's management are in for a rude awakening. Steve Jobs will fight this one.
Are you talking about Digital Video distribution methods? If so, comparing DVD video to VOD is also comparing two completely different things. VOD is a subscription service, while DVD video is an actual tangible medium. There is no getting away from that.
You could argue that they share similarities, in which case I will point you to DIVX (the failed alternative to DVD video, not the codec). It was a subscription service (the players had modems and you had to buy the rights to play the disks), but you (supposedly) owned the physical disk. It failed primarilly because people wanted the freedom to play their property (I'm talking about the physical disks) without having to keep paying for it.
Comparing DVD video to VOD is like comparing VHS to Cable TV. People buy and rent movies on VHS, but they still watch Cable TV. One hasn't replaced the other. They simply co-exist.
Simply, VOD will not replace DVD video because of the lack of it's portabilty. Quite simply, you cannot take your VOD player anywhere you want and expect to play movies. (I imagine Disney would frown on people taking their decoder boxes to their friend's houses and plugging them in to watch movies.) Until VOD is distributed wirelessly, this will never happen.
Where VOD will be an advantage, however, is from a marketing position. I believe movies will be released to VOD services between their theatrical release and the DVD/VHS release. Companies such as Disney will use it for extra cash, but will it replace DVD video? No.
DVD is far from being a dead end.
BAM. Suddenly MS now controls DRM for all machines used in the US. Not only does this mean control of information, but it could also wipe out all other OSes since only Windows would be Palladium compliant. On top of this MS would then get royalties from hardware companies, which would be... hmm... ALL OF THEM.
Sure this may sound a bit scary, but it is highly possible. Now, picture this:
A few years down the track after Palladium is adopted. DRM would be in everything, from CD players to high end digital projection systems in theatres. Using Palladium, MS could decided it doesn't want to certify RIAA and MPAA content. It could effectively hold both to ransom. Now, not only has MS got control of machines, but it would then have control over content as well. The ability to decided what bands CDs can be played and what movies get made.
So sit back in your Microsoft Certified Chair (tm) while you read the Microsoft Certified Slashdot(tm) on your Microsoft Certified DRM Compliant Computer(tm) while you drink your Microsoft Certified Beer(tm). Welcome to the Microsoft Certified World(tm). Where do you want to go today?* (*notwithstanding anywhere you want to go will be controlled by us, therefore you will only go where we will tell you to go.)