I don't disagree that the impact on the file system is of lesser significance than, say, a human life, but the alternative was fifty zillion people asking why this belongs on slashdot or what this has to do with Linux or who the hell is Hans Reiser anyways?
Which is basically what a few other sites got when they were posting about the investigation a few weeks ago.
They ask him about PlaysForSure three times, and each time he gives an explaination about why Zune will not support it.
Well, not exactly. He does spend a heck of a lot of breath talking about how Zune is somehow different from the rest of the PlaysForSome^H^H^Hure "space", but he doesn't outright say that Zune won't be able to play that sort of media. He doesn't say it will, either. This may mean that it won't. On the other hand, it may mean that it will, but Microsoft isn't quite ready to piss off their partners by saying outright that they're competing head-to-head with them but not having to pay all the various royalties and stuff.
It didn't really help that the interviewer didn't outright ask him "will Zune play PlaysForSure media?!?". He just kind of beat around the bush about users with existing media libraries and how Microsoft already had this ecosystem...
I'm hardly what you'd call a Microsoft fan-boy (I'm not even a Microsoft user), but I'm not seeing where it says that it can't play this stuff. I haven't seen any confirmation from the horse's mouth. I mean, this is all coming from a footnote in a PR document which says:
Zune software can import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC; photos in JPEG; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264.
It doesn't say that other applications can't put protected music onto the device, nor does it say that it can't play that stuff. It just says that the built-in software can't do it. Which makes sense, really, because it would imply that Microsoft is ready, willing and able to break the protection applied by a partnering online music store. That's pretty nasty, even for a "stab your partner" company like them.
Of course, that won't make it much of an iTunes killer. "Oh, you want to import music from some other store. Okay.... open their player app, and see if they'll let you export each individual piece of media to the Zune. Including the stuff you ripped from CD and it helpfully 'protected' for you. Then, if you're lucky and they haven't changed the terms and conditions or you've moved computers or devices or something..."
Terrible analogy. For one thing, you'd call the police to deal with a robbery.
And you have to resolve the difference between private and semi-public property. If you allow anyone into your lobby to take pictures, then decide that you don't want to let anyone in anymore, do you have any sort of right to prevent people from publishing pictures they've already taken? If you didn't require them to sign some sort of agreement?
The law might say you have some control over access to your property, but common sense would suggest that you can't change your mind on the policy and retroactively apply that policy.
I pity the fool who tries to argue common sense in any modern courtroom, though...
escalating the issue to searching is really abusive
Why?
Google just got sued by these guys for indexing their site. When you lose a lawsuit with ignorant assholes (i.e. anyone running a business on the web who doesn't use robots.txt and then complains about being indexed), the safest thing to do is make completely sure there's nothing left by which they can leverage that lawsuit into something like a contempt complaint.
Of course, not being indexed by Google can apparently be the basis for a lawsuit, too. Damned if you do...
the barrier to do something cool is in the stratosphere
I was thinking that, myself, but I'm actually convinced otherwise. The barrier is quite high, if by "something cool" you mean games and graphics.
However, there's still an obscenely huge amount of useful, interesting things which can be accomplished by small amounts of little scripts... All these internet-based APIs out there (Google, Flickr, etc) provide a low barrier of entry for some degree of "cool".
I think the real problem is a lack of motivation. In the good old days, you hacked on computers because, quite frankly, there probably wasn't that much else to do. Now, computers do (WAG) 99% of what the average kid expects/wants/needs.
in the meantime the CPSC release gives all the details
Be warned that the CPSC release and the Apple site have, as of a few minutes ago, different serial number ranges for the third group of 12" iBook batteries (6C626 vs 6C552). I'll probably have to wait for the phone lines to clear in order to find out if we need to replace one or two...
I can easily add folders or book marks to any folder I want with only a couple clicks.
There's actually a Firefox extension providing this same functionality
But overall, I agree 100%. Konqueror's been my primary browser for a good four years or so. I switched to Firefox for a few months, and while there were things it did better (faster rendering, some nice extensions), I switched back within a few months.
The only Firefox functionality which I found useful at the time was adblock, and between squid/adzapper and Konqueror's new adblock (when it doesn't core the browser), I've got that covered.
Firefox does have some nice web developer extensions...
...if a hardware manufacturer releases source for a software product which drives their hardware but the hardware won't actually run modified versions...
That's not a problem.
The big problem is if enough hardware manufacturers lock things down like that, then people who actually care about being able to hack/upgrade/brick their purchases won't be able to do what Linus suggests, which is to vote with their wallets.
In a market free of large, hostile, illegal monopolies, greedy copyright holders, and assorted knee-jerk anti- initiatives, that would be the ideal solution.
I'm not certain that it's safe to assume that the market will sort things out. I think we're starting to see evidence that the consumer electronics industry is starting to figure out how expensive and difficult it is to lock things down, but we're still pretty far down the wrong path.
just do what they say because they tell you it for national security and you have to assume that it is legal.
We're not talking about (legally) defenceless individuals here. We're talking about telecom companies, who have legal departments that make law firms look like amateurs and government lobbying programs that trade senators and congresscritters like baseball cards.
In other words, they've got people who's job it is to not just assume that something related to their business (and I'm thinking wiretapping is somehow related to telecom) is legal.
I don't particularly care what or how people talk to each other when IM'ing. The problem is that when they try to use the same constructs and shorthands in a different context (e-mail, say), they come across like half-wits.
If studies also indicate they are perfectly capable of using decent english (or whatever) but just choose not...
ANY generator... should be run regularly under some form of load to ensure that when they're needed they still function.
Generally speaking, I agree.
But it's worth pointing out that I've seen almost as many failures caused by doing the testing as from actual main power failures (last week, both the generator and the UPS failed during scheduled testing).
That being said, I'd rather see the batteries on the UPS explode during testing than during a real power failure. Fire departments tend to be less busy...
Because Yahoo China has demonstrated that they're able and willing to filter search results, pass off user account information to anyone who asks, and generally behave like asshats. Which means they totally lose the "we're just an innocent little search engine, we can't filter our output, it'd be a major hardship" common-carrier type of defense.
That's probably not the reason, but it would be about what they deserve...
One of the more interesting electives I took doing my CS major was a "cognitive science" course which was basically an intersection between AI, cognitive psychology, and philosophy (PHIL 256 at University of Waterloo, IIRC).
So check the philosophy or psychology departments.
Currently the cost of most of the more interesting robot systems are rather prohibitive to the poor geek tinkerer, but I expect that will change in the next few years.
Fifteen years ago, Mark Tilden was building interesting robots using components from dead tape players and dollar store solar calculators.
Somehow, he managed to parlay this stuff into a job with NASA...
If you think you need to spend a large chunk of change to do neat stuff with robots, you definitely need to do more research...
It could be intentional... It's really hard to say. Doesn't really matter, in practice. Labelling something as the "official GNU kernel" isn't more than a gesture unless it actually works. And by "works", I mean does pretty much everything the Linux kernel does _and_ has a functional and up-to-date distribution behind it.
GPLv3 hasn't even been released yet. The public discussion on what it will be like only started a few days ago. And yet Linus seems to be categorically certain that he won't even consider using that license?
I seem to recall reading something from the FSF stating that even though it's not finalized, the draft will be the final license unless a serious problem is identified.
Linus refusing to support it might be enough of a problem. Certainly, I strongly suspect that the code signing issue will be largely mooted if the underlying free operating system doesn't support GPLv3.
For the end-user. The programmer has the freedom to use the GPL or to not use the GPL. Or to use the GPL and some other license. That's really all the freedom they need. Oh, and the freedom to use GPL'ed code as a basis for other projects or the freedom to use some other code as a starting point.
I've thought for some time that if there were some way for free software to somehow manage to be able to protect DRM'ed content without compromising the freeness of the software code itself,
First, somebody has to solve that thorny problem of effective DRM while compromising the freeness of the code. Given how much effort's been put into it with such consistently pathetic results, there's not a whole lot of incentive for FLOSS developers to try tackling what's arguably a much harder problem with no real benefits to any end-user.
Some bonehead ordered us to replace our Linux-based firewalls with Cisco PIX systems because "we're not supposed to use PC's as firewalls".
Oddly enough, the PIX (which, near as we can tell, is basically a PIII system running off of a flash drive) is one of the very few Pentium-based boxes I've ever seen which doesn't ship with a Intel Inside sticker. Now corrected.
I was actually thinking about them using the DMCA to try to shut down reporting on their DRM measures. Buying new laws to let them pull that stuff is a different problem, although I'm not sure Sony'd have the guts to actually go after security researchers that are so clearly working in the customers interests.
Then again, they were stupid enough to pull this rootkit stunt, so I guess all bets are off.
They don't give a second thought b0rk1ng their customer's computers, but they absolutely hate getting caught.
Their problem, now, is that they will get caught, and it's going to be expensive. Every single release they make containing copy protection is going to be scrutinized to death and every single possible security risk or stability problem or spyware-like behaviour is going to be publically flogged until the PR problem forces Yet Another Recall.
SonyBMG is going to have to decide whether they're in the music distribution business or the software distribution business, and they're going to have to understand that if people can't be convinced to patch the operating system, they're going to have a struggle getting people to download patches for music. That implies a level of software quality well above what they'll get from First4Internet and their ilk.
Their other problem is that I suspect the anti-virus companies have a shiny new business model: DRM software shakedowns. You want to ship a CD with some nasty DRM, you need to pay off 50 AV companies. Because consumers don't like seeing a this CD is infected message when they insert the latest Celine Dion monstrosity.
Unless they pull some DMCA shenanigans, but I can't see them being quite that stupid...
The code isn't included as executable, but as metadata usable in identifying LAME.
Of course, that would lead us to the question as to why, exactly, Sony would even think that there's something wrong with someone having an MP3 encoder installed on a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree that the impact on the file system is of lesser significance than, say, a human life, but the alternative was fifty zillion people asking why this belongs on slashdot or what this has to do with Linux or who the hell is Hans Reiser anyways?
Which is basically what a few other sites got when they were posting about the investigation a few weeks ago.
Damned if you do...
c.
They ask him about PlaysForSure three times, and each time he gives an explaination about why Zune will not support it.
Well, not exactly. He does spend a heck of a lot of breath talking about how Zune is somehow different from the rest of the PlaysForSome^H^H^Hure "space", but he doesn't outright say that Zune won't be able to play that sort of media. He doesn't say it will, either. This may mean that it won't. On the other hand, it may mean that it will, but Microsoft isn't quite ready to piss off their partners by saying outright that they're competing head-to-head with them but not having to pay all the various royalties and stuff.
It didn't really help that the interviewer didn't outright ask him "will Zune play PlaysForSure media?!?". He just kind of beat around the bush about users with existing media libraries and how Microsoft already had this ecosystem...
I'm hardly what you'd call a Microsoft fan-boy (I'm not even a Microsoft user), but I'm not seeing where it says that it can't play this stuff. I haven't seen any confirmation from the horse's mouth. I mean, this is all coming from a footnote in a PR document which says:
It doesn't say that other applications can't put protected music onto the device, nor does it say that it can't play that stuff. It just says that the built-in software can't do it. Which makes sense, really, because it would imply that Microsoft is ready, willing and able to break the protection applied by a partnering online music store. That's pretty nasty, even for a "stab your partner" company like them.Of course, that won't make it much of an iTunes killer. "Oh, you want to import music from some other store. Okay.... open their player app, and see if they'll let you export each individual piece of media to the Zune. Including the stuff you ripped from CD and it helpfully 'protected' for you. Then, if you're lucky and they haven't changed the terms and conditions or you've moved computers or devices or something..."
Terrible analogy. For one thing, you'd call the police to deal with a robbery.
And you have to resolve the difference between private and semi-public property. If you allow anyone into your lobby to take pictures, then decide that you don't want to let anyone in anymore, do you have any sort of right to prevent people from publishing pictures they've already taken? If you didn't require them to sign some sort of agreement?
The law might say you have some control over access to your property, but common sense would suggest that you can't change your mind on the policy and retroactively apply that policy.
I pity the fool who tries to argue common sense in any modern courtroom, though...
c.
escalating the issue to searching is really abusive
Why?
Google just got sued by these guys for indexing their site. When you lose a lawsuit with ignorant assholes (i.e. anyone running a business on the web who doesn't use robots.txt and then complains about being indexed), the safest thing to do is make completely sure there's nothing left by which they can leverage that lawsuit into something like a contempt complaint.
Of course, not being indexed by Google can apparently be the basis for a lawsuit, too. Damned if you do...
the barrier to do something cool is in the stratosphere
I was thinking that, myself, but I'm actually convinced otherwise. The barrier is quite high, if by "something cool" you mean games and graphics.
However, there's still an obscenely huge amount of useful, interesting things which can be accomplished by small amounts of little scripts... All these internet-based APIs out there (Google, Flickr, etc) provide a low barrier of entry for some degree of "cool".
I think the real problem is a lack of motivation. In the good old days, you hacked on computers because, quite frankly, there probably wasn't that much else to do. Now, computers do (WAG) 99% of what the average kid expects/wants/needs.
c.
in the meantime the CPSC release gives all the details
Be warned that the CPSC release and the Apple site have, as of a few minutes ago, different serial number ranges for the third group of 12" iBook batteries (6C626 vs 6C552). I'll probably have to wait for the phone lines to clear in order to find out if we need to replace one or two...
c.
I can easily add folders or book marks to any folder I want with only a couple clicks.
There's actually a Firefox extension providing this same functionality
But overall, I agree 100%. Konqueror's been my primary browser for a good four years or so. I switched to Firefox for a few months, and while there were things it did better (faster rendering, some nice extensions), I switched back within a few months.
The only Firefox functionality which I found useful at the time was adblock, and between squid/adzapper and Konqueror's new adblock (when it doesn't core the browser), I've got that covered.
Firefox does have some nice web developer extensions...
c.
That's not a problem.
The big problem is if enough hardware manufacturers lock things down like that, then people who actually care about being able to hack/upgrade/brick their purchases won't be able to do what Linus suggests, which is to vote with their wallets.
In a market free of large, hostile, illegal monopolies, greedy copyright holders, and assorted knee-jerk anti- initiatives, that would be the ideal solution.
I'm not certain that it's safe to assume that the market will sort things out. I think we're starting to see evidence that the consumer electronics industry is starting to figure out how expensive and difficult it is to lock things down, but we're still pretty far down the wrong path.
c.
just do what they say because they tell you it for national security and you have to assume that it is legal.
We're not talking about (legally) defenceless individuals here. We're talking about telecom companies, who have legal departments that make law firms look like amateurs and government lobbying programs that trade senators and congresscritters like baseball cards.
In other words, they've got people who's job it is to not just assume that something related to their business (and I'm thinking wiretapping is somehow related to telecom) is legal.
They darn well knew it was illegal.
c.
I don't particularly care what or how people talk to each other when IM'ing. The problem is that when they try to use the same constructs and shorthands in a different context (e-mail, say), they come across like half-wits.
If studies also indicate they are perfectly capable of using decent english (or whatever) but just choose not...
c.
ANY generator ... should be run regularly under some form of load to ensure that when they're needed they still function.
Generally speaking, I agree.
But it's worth pointing out that I've seen almost as many failures caused by doing the testing as from actual main power failures (last week, both the generator and the UPS failed during scheduled testing).
That being said, I'd rather see the batteries on the UPS explode during testing than during a real power failure. Fire departments tend to be less busy...
c.
Why does Yahoo China get the can for this?
Because Yahoo China has demonstrated that they're able and willing to filter search results, pass off user account information to anyone who asks, and generally behave like asshats. Which means they totally lose the "we're just an innocent little search engine, we can't filter our output, it'd be a major hardship" common-carrier type of defense.
That's probably not the reason, but it would be about what they deserve...
c.
One of the more interesting electives I took doing my CS major was a "cognitive science" course which was basically an intersection between AI, cognitive psychology, and philosophy (PHIL 256 at University of Waterloo, IIRC).
So check the philosophy or psychology departments.
c.
Fifteen years ago, Mark Tilden was building interesting robots using components from dead tape players and dollar store solar calculators.
Somehow, he managed to parlay this stuff into a job with NASA...
If you think you need to spend a large chunk of change to do neat stuff with robots, you definitely need to do more research...
c.
It could be intentional... It's really hard to say. Doesn't really matter, in practice. Labelling something as the "official GNU kernel" isn't more than a gesture unless it actually works. And by "works", I mean does pretty much everything the Linux kernel does _and_ has a functional and up-to-date distribution behind it.
c.
I seem to recall reading something from the FSF stating that even though it's not finalized, the draft will be the final license unless a serious problem is identified.
Linus refusing to support it might be enough of a problem. Certainly, I strongly suspect that the code signing issue will be largely mooted if the underlying free operating system doesn't support GPLv3.
c.
For the end-user. The programmer has the freedom to use the GPL or to not use the GPL. Or to use the GPL and some other license. That's really all the freedom they need. Oh, and the freedom to use GPL'ed code as a basis for other projects or the freedom to use some other code as a starting point.
I've thought for some time that if there were some way for free software to somehow manage to be able to protect DRM'ed content without compromising the freeness of the software code itself,
First, somebody has to solve that thorny problem of effective DRM while compromising the freeness of the code. Given how much effort's been put into it with such consistently pathetic results, there's not a whole lot of incentive for FLOSS developers to try tackling what's arguably a much harder problem with no real benefits to any end-user.
c.
Some bonehead ordered us to replace our Linux-based firewalls with Cisco PIX systems because "we're not supposed to use PC's as firewalls".
Oddly enough, the PIX (which, near as we can tell, is basically a PIII system running off of a flash drive) is one of the very few Pentium-based boxes I've ever seen which doesn't ship with a Intel Inside sticker. Now corrected.
c.
Well, not really, but we do have Troy working for us.
c.
I was actually thinking about them using the DMCA to try to shut down reporting on their DRM measures. Buying new laws to let them pull that stuff is a different problem, although I'm not sure Sony'd have the guts to actually go after security researchers that are so clearly working in the customers interests.
Then again, they were stupid enough to pull this rootkit stunt, so I guess all bets are off.
c.
Their problem, now, is that they will get caught, and it's going to be expensive. Every single release they make containing copy protection is going to be scrutinized to death and every single possible security risk or stability problem or spyware-like behaviour is going to be publically flogged until the PR problem forces Yet Another Recall.
SonyBMG is going to have to decide whether they're in the music distribution business or the software distribution business, and they're going to have to understand that if people can't be convinced to patch the operating system, they're going to have a struggle getting people to download patches for music. That implies a level of software quality well above what they'll get from First4Internet and their ilk.
Their other problem is that I suspect the anti-virus companies have a shiny new business model: DRM software shakedowns. You want to ship a CD with some nasty DRM, you need to pay off 50 AV companies. Because consumers don't like seeing a this CD is infected message when they insert the latest Celine Dion monstrosity.
Unless they pull some DMCA shenanigans, but I can't see them being quite that stupid...
c.
Of course, that would lead us to the question as to why, exactly, Sony would even think that there's something wrong with someone having an MP3 encoder installed on a computer.
c.
And if you strip out everything that you didn't already see on the 'net, you can save even those 20 minutes.
c.