Open Format: These formats use XML and ZIP, and they will be fully documented. Anyone will be able to get the full specs on the formats and there will be a royalty free license for anyone that wants to work with the files.
From the blog of Brian Jones, Program Manager Microsoft Word here. So they intend to enforce control over who uses them, but not by paying royalties.
Windows NT 3.51 was dubbed the Power PC release, because it was designed around the Power PC version of NT, which was originally supposed to ship in version 3.5.
From an article on Paul Thurrott's site.
I am sure NT has been ported to a lot more architectures than x86 alone.
It probably wouldnt make sense for Hollywood but it makes a hell of a lot of sense for Bollywood. The idea is there are a lot of Hindi movie watchers here in America who are mainly responsible for the piracy (maybe not exactly, but anyway). There aren't enough of these movie watchers in each city to justify releasing the movies in theatres, but there are a lot of them put together.
Which is why all of them will use pay per view and watch this in their living rooms instead of theatres coz they can't do the theatres any way.
It does improve somewhat on the Google desktop search syntax.
Check out regex searching and "from:john" kind of email searching at http://beta.search.msn.com/docs/toolbar.aspx?t=MSN Tbar_PROC_CompleteSearchSyntax.htm
I agree, though this is probably the minority here. Building an index to search through files is nowhere close to rocket science or innovation or anything similar. Think about it, how many ways are there to do "all files search" in seconds? You can only do it by building a large enough index beforehand. Google Desktop search just found a niche and exploited it at the right time and used their "search" branding to make it popular. So definitely not "Google innovation copied by Microsoft".
Because Windows file search is not desktop search i.e. it does not build an index, whereas this presumably does. Plus Outlook searching.
The basic idea, though, I believe is to directly eliminate competition from Google and Yahoo for something as useful as this.
That's a great idea. It takes care of the case when new applications have to come in and wait for some old ones to get swapped out to disk. This is the ideal compromise for people not interested in disk caches but wanting some free space around in their memory.
The worst part of/. is, posts like this get little or no discussion. Whereas, someone who just goes ahead to blast Win2K for aggressive disk caching gets +5. AFAIK, Linux is pretty aggressive at disk buffering too. And to posts who think that they should be able to get a Mozilla window back up in a sec after leaving it alone for 3 hours.
Oninw sruff is a different benchmark but in terms of trade, certain items cannot be imported into the country easily by law. Atleast, you would have to pay heavy duties for them. The idea behing such laws is to protect domestic businesses.
Otherwise, you would be able to buy CDs from India which cost you about Rs 200 = 4-5$ (These CDs come with a warning - For sale in India only).
On a sidenote, India had a pretty complicated system to keep foreign companies out. Coke, for example. There used to be heavy import duties (something like 300%) to keep imports away.
Of course allofmp3.com being online changes the definition of 'import', but I believe it's not as simple as you think. There is grey area here. The world is still not all one global marketplace.
I think this is the most crucial point. And this is why the US e-voting system is not really comparable to the Indian one. There's no idea of networking... this is just a small level above ticking on a paper.
Exactly my point. All these files are encrypted using the same public key and there must be a corresponding private key on all the machines. Which means....
What I don't understand about the OE exploit is that it basically results from running HTML code in something called a Local Security Zone of IE. Isn't that a vulnerability in IE itsel? That's what I can make out from the article itself :
An attacker would have to entice users to read a maliciously-crafted HTML e-mail message or use IE to surf to a malicious Web site to grab control of the PC...
If they really do a proper (RSA) public key crypto, the only way to crack this is by physically tampering with the hardware. The good part, however, is this -- they must be using the same public key - private key combination for all the machines. This means that if you crack one private key, everyone gets it and the DRM is gone. Atleast, if they are implementing crypto straightforwardly.
That is the only possible workaround I can imagine. Other than the fact that someone discovers an exploit in the firmware itself. Which is possible but not something to be relied on.
there are plenty of tools out there already that enable this
Yeah, but these guys claim better voice quality. IP does not offer real-time guarantees theoretically, so it means that there is a lot of flexibility in trying to get the best implementation of Voice-over-IP. And from personal experience, Skype calls sound much better than say, Yahoo! Voice chat.
What beats me is their claim about being peer-to-peer? What's peer to peer in voice chat? Unless they find the best route using all these peers, which doesnt look that possible.
I can imagine how it can get cooler and cooler. Instead of simplistic - 'What are your interests?', they could come up with a more elaborate configuration scheme, say with out-of-100 weights to the interest areas. Best part would be to get the interest areas itself generated dynamically (tie in google sets, perhaps?). And then, some kind of rule-based regex-based filters to find/block specific kind of pages.
And then people get to have these really complex configuration files to tweak the search to their liking. And after a stage, people would start exchanging googlerc's.
The best part would be that anyone who's not interested would still use vanilla google.
And this is the reason it works only in IE5. Non-standard methods :
However, Hotmail completely filters out that element, so another method of namespace declaration is needed. It so happens that Internet Explorer provides one other mechanism to declare a namespace, via the non-standard <?xml:namespace> processing instruction, which may be used anywhere in the document and does not get filtered.
Why would anyone write applications that require Mozilla, when Mozilla is on fewer than 10 percent of the computers out there? That's a good way to alienate your user base.
Writing applications in Mozilla doesnt mean they will work only on the 10% machines that have Mozilla. They will definitely include the mozilla libraries as a dependency or probably just bundle it with them. It's a non-issue.
What you are saying is possibly true only when there are people who leave around their clients long enough after they finish. This is not likely to happen unless there is some incentive for this (I think there is but it is not good enough)
The main point is that if you are in a system where most of the distribution is being done through cable modems and you want to use a fair scheme, there is no way to get around the fact that you can download only as much as you upload. And you can upload pretty slow.
Slashdot Mirror
http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2007/10/31/what-i-think-about-es4.aspx
A less-corporate-speak version of the MS executive's side here.
Open Format: These formats use XML and ZIP, and they will be fully documented. Anyone will be able to get the full specs on the formats and there will be a royalty free license for anyone that wants to work with the files.
From the blog of Brian Jones, Program Manager Microsoft Word here. So they intend to enforce control over who uses them, but not by paying royalties.
Windows NT 3.51 was dubbed the Power PC release, because it was designed around the Power PC version of NT, which was originally supposed to ship in version 3.5.
From an article on Paul Thurrott's site.
I am sure NT has been ported to a lot more architectures than x86 alone.
This is impossible with the kind of DRM WMA allows. Essentially the only way to use such a driver is to get Microsoft to sign it.
The only route is to use a high fidelity device to record stuff from your audio output.
It probably wouldnt make sense for Hollywood but it makes a hell of a lot of sense for Bollywood. The idea is there are a lot of Hindi movie watchers here in America who are mainly responsible for the piracy (maybe not exactly, but anyway). There aren't enough of these movie watchers in each city to justify releasing the movies in theatres, but there are a lot of them put together.
Which is why all of them will use pay per view and watch this in their living rooms instead of theatres coz they can't do the theatres any way.
Check out regex searching and "from:john" kind of email searching at http://beta.search.msn.com/docs/toolbar.aspx?t=MSN Tbar_PROC_CompleteSearchSyntax.htm
I agree, though this is probably the minority here. Building an index to search through files is nowhere close to rocket science or innovation or anything similar. Think about it, how many ways are there to do "all files search" in seconds? You can only do it by building a large enough index beforehand. Google Desktop search just found a niche and exploited it at the right time and used their "search" branding to make it popular. So definitely not "Google innovation copied by Microsoft".
Because Windows file search is not desktop search i.e. it does not build an index, whereas this presumably does. Plus Outlook searching. The basic idea, though, I believe is to directly eliminate competition from Google and Yahoo for something as useful as this.
Technically, who's responsible for the Fedora Legacy Support? If it is just the community, it doesn't sound like much.
The worst part of /. is, posts like this get little or no discussion. Whereas, someone who just goes ahead to blast Win2K for aggressive disk caching gets +5. AFAIK, Linux is pretty aggressive at disk buffering too. And to posts who think that they should be able to get a Mozilla window back up in a sec after leaving it alone for 3 hours.
Oninw sruff is a different benchmark but in terms of trade, certain items cannot be imported into the country easily by law. Atleast, you would have to pay heavy duties for them. The idea behing such laws is to protect domestic businesses.
Otherwise, you would be able to buy CDs from India which cost you about Rs 200 = 4-5$ (These CDs come with a warning - For sale in India only).
On a sidenote, India had a pretty complicated system to keep foreign companies out. Coke, for example. There used to be heavy import duties (something like 300%) to keep imports away.
Of course allofmp3.com being online changes the definition of 'import', but I believe it's not as simple as you think. There is grey area here. The world is still not all one global marketplace.
I think this is the most crucial point. And this is why the US e-voting system is not really comparable to the Indian one. There's no idea of networking ... this is just a small level above ticking on a paper.
Exactly my point. All these files are encrypted using the same public key and there must be a corresponding private key on all the machines. Which means ....
An attacker would have to entice users to read a maliciously-crafted HTML e-mail message or use IE to surf to a malicious Web site to grab control of the PC ...
That is the only possible workaround I can imagine. Other than the fact that someone discovers an exploit in the firmware itself. Which is possible but not something to be relied on.
You sound like a Palladium proponent!
Yeah, but these guys claim better voice quality. IP does not offer real-time guarantees theoretically, so it means that there is a lot of flexibility in trying to get the best implementation of Voice-over-IP. And from personal experience, Skype calls sound much better than say, Yahoo! Voice chat.
What beats me is their claim about being peer-to-peer? What's peer to peer in voice chat? Unless they find the best route using all these peers, which doesnt look that possible.
Finnegan's Wake just might have one such 'word'.
And then people get to have these really complex configuration files to tweak the search to their liking. And after a stage, people would start exchanging googlerc's.
The best part would be that anyone who's not interested would still use vanilla google.
However, Hotmail completely filters out that element, so another method of namespace declaration is needed. It so happens that Internet Explorer provides one other mechanism to declare a namespace, via the non-standard <?xml:namespace> processing instruction, which may be used anywhere in the document and does not get filtered.
Anyway, I didnt know of this preview thing .. time to uncheck...
You forgot Winamp. It writes the playlist file to its own directory and that is usually in Program Files.
OK, this makes perfect sense. I didn't think of it being a support to the traditional setup. Nice point there.
Writing applications in Mozilla doesnt mean they will work only on the 10% machines that have Mozilla. They will definitely include the mozilla libraries as a dependency or probably just bundle it with them. It's a non-issue.
The main point is that if you are in a system where most of the distribution is being done through cable modems and you want to use a fair scheme, there is no way to get around the fact that you can download only as much as you upload. And you can upload pretty slow.