"We are also concerned with making sure we are (sic) understand and make use of the latest technological advances"
I think that is the most important thing said in the whole article.
MP3s & P2P has caused them to change tactics slightly but everything is still heading exactly where they want things to go, they just need to wait a few years.
What will things be like then?
1. DVDng players will be even more restrictive than they are now, possibly only allowing a limited number of plays on certain discs. They'll need internet connections for billing, license & firmware updates. 2. The Trusted Computing version of Windows will only run approved hardware&software and anything else loaded/detected will prevent media apps from working properly. Import restrictions will be placed on non-secure hardware. 3. Tivos & PVRs will only record what broadcasters want you to record and auto-delete shows after a short time 48hrs. 4. DVDs will be sold will variable licenses. Either a basic license which allows 1 or 2 plays or a more expensive license with more 'free' plays. 5. Distributable digital media will be centrally stored on a MediaCenter WinPC. Every time a song/movie is 'transferred' to another device its no longer available from the MC PC without paying extra. If 2 songs from the same album are listened to at the same time, you'll get billed extra.
The politicians there are prepared to pass whatever laws the media companies want. Hardware manufacturers will be required to TC harden all their devices or get locked out of future windows/apple releases.
The european politicians are just as bribe-able as in the states so they'll do the same.
India will replace the east as the main source of cheaper electronics goods until china/japan/taiwan agree to make TC hardware. This will make non-TC hardware and devices harder to obtain and much more expensive.
The MPAA/RIAA are just waiting. They never wanted to release digital media until the market was ready for them. Its not ready yet but soon.
And when its revealed its going to cost ten times as much as 'their' report says they'll make 2 databases, one for police/government use and another to 'sell'.
Companies will want access to track goods deliveries. Solicitors & spouses to track marriage cheats. A whole new level of parcel tracking, watch the van on its way up the M42. Parents to track their kids?
1. You can't afford actual beta-testers. 2. You're more honest than Micro$oft who's beta products are called New Releases. (eg WinXP+SP2 is the *real* finished product) 3. Most hired beta-testers are fairly tech savvy. Public beta allow you to get your releases tested by people who often aren't as clued up. You cant make software idiot-proof because idiots are ingenious. 4. People are more likely to suggest ideas than if they feel it is finished. 5. The users feel as though they are a part of creating it. 6. Someone else is releasing something similar and you want yours 'out there' first. 7. Its easier to type the greek capital letter for beta than gamma. 8. People are usually more forgiving of bugs/flaws in beta code. 9. Your product has been/will be in development a long time and you want people to see it before they lose all interest/forget.
1. Someone will release an alien-proof firewall endorsed by god. 2. Flying Spagetti Monster releases an open source firewall. 3. The Babel fish is called in to give evidence in the patent dispute.
"We were able to obtain a set of older NVIDIA drivers, revision 71.24, that don't include a chipset-based lockout for SLI. These drivers aren't new enough to support monsters like the GeForce 7800 GTX 512, but they work just fine with a couple of GeForce 6800 Ultras. Here's the K8T900 going head to head against the nForce4 SLI in SLI mode."
I could produce a report detailing the number of 'Cumulative Updates' for various OSes. Windows.. lots, Linux.. nil:)
A report on reliability/security should count the number of vulnerabilities. The time it takes to patch the system should include the time between the vulnerability is found until it is patched.
The report doesn't even mention vulnerabilities once.
I guess getting some gimp to produce an 'independent report' means MS can't get sued for false advertising.
Why does your report focus on the number of patches and not the number of vulnerabilities? Patches can be combined, vulnerabilities can remain unpatched leading to misleading results.
Why do you not make any mention of the time between a vulnerability being discovered and a patch being released?
The report does not provide details on exactly which software was installed? A standard Linux installation is made up of thousands of individual packages, many of which are not required for this type of server. This would make a big difference in the number of patches required and the time needed to install them.
This wouldn't work except for maybe reality tv shows.
The Save Enterprise campaign raised about $4m. That might pay for maybe 2 episodes. IIRC.. DS9 used to cost about $2.5m per episode, B5 about $1.7m so I'd bet newer shows cost at least that much.
Then you have to deal with profit sharing, ownership (wouldn't you want a piece if you put a few thousand in?).
Advertising the virtual land when they sell other real estate that devalues his? Will he put Google adwords billboards on the land?
How about branded game items? I hear JCB is doing a great deal on virtual backhoes.
.
But I guess at the end of the day buying virtual land is no different to buying virtual music like mp3s.
le I do not agree with the exploitation of minors in any way...
"What a swell guy you are! "
You have a problem with that?
"I certainly don't think minors are entitled to the same rights as me. They don't pay taxes, or work full time, they're not parents, nor do they even drive."
So if someone doesn't pay taxes, drive, have kids of their own or work full time shouldn't have the same rights as you? That includes the unemployed, those working part time, those who choose not to or are unable to have kids and even people who are unable to drive. Anyone else you feel shouldn't have the same rights as you?
"They haven't accumulated enough life experience to make serious decisions. They still need rules, guidance and boundaries."
I never said there shouldn't be rules or boundaries, if you read my post, I said we need to educate children to the dangers that exist.
As someone who has written chat software and run a chat system, can I just say..
There is NO way to protect children from the dangers of the real world. The best (only?) thing we can do as a society is to try to educate children enough to make their own choice.
On the surface, banning/restricting access to people under 18 might looks nice from a moral/political standpoint, but it will have a minimal effect on the underlying problem.
Even with a Bush/MS/RIAA/eutopian world of a hardware locked(palladium) 1984 society, this will still go on, just as it has before the internet. Contrary to popular belief, pedofiles did exist before the internet and will continue to exist despite whatever restrictions are imposed on free speech/association.
Unfortunately, most people seem to feel throwing blame at someone or something will fix this. IT WILL NOT. I have spend 3 years trying to solve this for my own purposes.
People need to understand that the internet makes communication/access to information easier, it is a gateway, a tool. Despite what politicans/business tells you human nature can NOT be stopped. If you put up a barrier, society will eventually go around it.
While I do not agree with the exploitation of minors in any way, I also think that minors (who are still people and entitled to the same rights as everyone else) should be allowed to make their own decisions in life.
what follows is a few definitions for those who lack the cognitive ability to process rational thought...
Real world = Everything, not just 'the internet' Educate = teach, *not* scare/brainwash Politicans = people who try to force their moral/political/religious views on other people for power, personal or monetary gain.
From reading these posts, it seems most people agree, it would be good if someone was acountable for flaws/bugs in software but they cant agree on who is responsible.
What I propose is the creation of an international independent organisation to check source code for bugs & flaws. This organisation would NOT be responsible for any kind of assurances or guarantees regarding the software other than to verify that the code had been verified independently. The developer/software company would be responsible for any license/guarantees attached to the software.
I am a developer of buggy software but I am woefully underqualified for this so it would need people who actually know more about this.
Would this work?
It would need support from some major software vendors/developers to be accepted.
I'd be prepared to donate some money to get this started if it would help.
How about requiring all code to be independently audited/checked? Sure it wont get rid of all bugs/flaws but it will reduce sloppy coding.
If companies are held responsible for flaws in their software, I'd bet the EULA will get a lot more complicated, requiring ALL installed software to be fully patched and 'Recommended Configurations' to get a lot more specific.
Running firefox.. ahh but out software was only approved for use with IE. Using 512mb of ram.. our software was only approved for use with 1gig or more.
Companies will just find a way to shift blame to someone else (probably the user).
Archos makes a few similar (and better) devices, as do a few other companies. It even seems to use the same software. The transfer from DVR to PocketDish is via USB. 1 hour of video transferred in 5 mins, USB1 perhaps?
Does anyone have any more information about this? Do both 'parties' want this?
Even if campaign finance thru the infobahn is regulated, wouldn't this be almost impossible to track/stop anyway?
A few thoughts...
Company A wishes to donate (influence/buy) to Political party B so they pay political website C (possibly not hosted in the US) a large amount of money for banner ads.
or.. suppose a large search company decides to favour one party over another, they could 'alter' their rankings. Either to lower the actual sites, or to show more FUD results. If a few bloggers can affect search results i'm sure a company with a few million dollars at stake could do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
"We are also concerned with making sure we are (sic) understand and make use of the latest technological advances"
I think that is the most important thing said in the whole article.
MP3s & P2P has caused them to change tactics slightly but everything is still heading exactly where they want things to go, they just need to wait a few years.
What will things be like then?
1. DVDng players will be even more restrictive than they are now, possibly only allowing a limited number of plays on certain discs. They'll need internet connections for billing, license & firmware updates.
2. The Trusted Computing version of Windows will only run approved hardware&software and anything else loaded/detected will prevent media apps from working properly. Import restrictions will be placed on non-secure hardware.
3. Tivos & PVRs will only record what broadcasters want you to record and auto-delete shows after a short time 48hrs.
4. DVDs will be sold will variable licenses. Either a basic license which allows 1 or 2 plays or a more expensive license with more 'free' plays.
5. Distributable digital media will be centrally stored on a MediaCenter WinPC. Every time a song/movie is 'transferred' to another device its no longer available from the MC PC without paying extra. If 2 songs from the same album are listened to at the same time, you'll get billed extra.
The politicians there are prepared to pass whatever laws the media companies want. Hardware manufacturers will be required to TC harden all their devices or get locked out of future windows/apple releases.
The european politicians are just as bribe-able as in the states so they'll do the same.
India will replace the east as the main source of cheaper electronics goods until china/japan/taiwan agree to make TC hardware. This will make non-TC hardware and devices harder to obtain and much more expensive.
The MPAA/RIAA are just waiting. They never wanted to release digital media until the market was ready for them.
Its not ready yet but soon.
They've probably changed it now but the MS EULA used to allow you to get a refund if you didn't agree to the EULA.
http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html
The problem was getting the money back.
And when its revealed its going to cost ten times as much as 'their' report says they'll make 2 databases, one for police/government use and another to 'sell'.
Companies will want access to track goods deliveries.
Solicitors & spouses to track marriage cheats.
A whole new level of parcel tracking, watch the van on its way up the M42.
Parents to track their kids?
The EU passed the EUCD which I believe is possibly even worse.
http://www.eucd.org/
1. You can't afford actual beta-testers.
2. You're more honest than Micro$oft who's beta products are called New Releases. (eg WinXP+SP2 is the *real* finished product)
3. Most hired beta-testers are fairly tech savvy. Public beta allow you to get your releases tested by people who often aren't as clued up. You cant make software idiot-proof because idiots are ingenious.
4. People are more likely to suggest ideas than if they feel it is finished.
5. The users feel as though they are a part of creating it.
6. Someone else is releasing something similar and you want yours 'out there' first.
7. Its easier to type the greek capital letter for beta than gamma.
8. People are usually more forgiving of bugs/flaws in beta code.
9. Your product has been/will be in development a long time and you want people to see it before they lose all interest/forget.
1. Someone will release an alien-proof firewall endorsed by god.
2. Flying Spagetti Monster releases an open source firewall.
3. The Babel fish is called in to give evidence in the patent dispute.
I doubt M$ intends to release a version of their server software with advertising.
Punching holes in your server's security to receive adverts seems dumb to me. Even if it wasn't, how many people do work in the GUI on a server?
Especially if a bug/flaw in the GIF, JPG, flash implementation could bring down explorer.
If an infinite number of slashdotters typed on an infinite number of keyboards, would they produce an original article?
The results seem to disagree with the review of the Transcend Jetflash here http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20050520/index .html
"At 27 MB/sec maximum read transfer rate, Transcend has set the bar pretty high for its competition."
The Tech Report got SLI working with this chipset. http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/via-k8t900/in dex.x?pg=5
"We were able to obtain a set of older NVIDIA drivers, revision 71.24, that don't include a chipset-based lockout for SLI. These drivers aren't new enough to support monsters like the GeForce 7800 GTX 512, but they work just fine with a couple of GeForce 6800 Ultras. Here's the K8T900 going head to head against the nForce4 SLI in SLI mode."
The number of patches is irrelevant.
:)
I could produce a report detailing the number of 'Cumulative Updates' for various OSes. Windows.. lots, Linux.. nil
A report on reliability/security should count the number of vulnerabilities. The time it takes to patch the system should include the time between the vulnerability is found until it is patched.
The report doesn't even mention vulnerabilities once.
I guess getting some gimp to produce an 'independent report' means MS can't get sued for false advertising.
Why does your report focus on the number of patches and not the number of vulnerabilities? Patches can be combined, vulnerabilities can remain unpatched leading to misleading results.
Why do you not make any mention of the time between a vulnerability being discovered and a patch being released?
The report does not provide details on exactly which software was installed? A standard Linux installation is made up of thousands of individual packages, many of which are not required for this type of server. This would make a big difference in the number of patches required and the time needed to install them.
You have a stick? I have to use my finger.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
If ideas are parented, how long will it be before we all need regular brain scans to ensure we dont think anything that might infringe?
This wouldn't work except for maybe reality tv shows. The Save Enterprise campaign raised about $4m. That might pay for maybe 2 episodes. IIRC.. DS9 used to cost about $2.5m per episode, B5 about $1.7m so I'd bet newer shows cost at least that much. Then you have to deal with profit sharing, ownership (wouldn't you want a piece if you put a few thousand in?).
Advertising the virtual land when they sell other real estate that devalues his? Will he put Google adwords billboards on the land? How about branded game items? I hear JCB is doing a great deal on virtual backhoes. . But I guess at the end of the day buying virtual land is no different to buying virtual music like mp3s.
They could take it further, IM adverts.. relevant to whatever you're currently chatting about. They do the same with searches and gmail.
le I do not agree with the exploitation of minors in any way...
"What a swell guy you are! "
You have a problem with that?
"I certainly don't think minors are entitled to the same rights as me. They don't pay taxes, or work full time, they're not parents, nor do they even drive."
So if someone doesn't pay taxes, drive, have kids of their own or work full time shouldn't have the same rights as you? That includes the unemployed, those working part time, those who choose not to or are unable to have kids and even people who are unable to drive. Anyone else you feel shouldn't have the same rights as you?
"They haven't accumulated enough life experience to make serious decisions. They still need rules, guidance and boundaries."
I never said there shouldn't be rules or boundaries, if you read my post, I said we need to educate children to the dangers that exist.
As someone who has written chat software and run a chat system, can I just say..
There is NO way to protect children from the dangers of the real world. The best (only?) thing we can do as a society is to try to educate children enough to make their own choice.
On the surface, banning/restricting access to people under 18 might looks nice from a moral/political standpoint, but it will have a minimal effect on the underlying problem.
Even with a Bush/MS/RIAA/eutopian world of a hardware locked(palladium) 1984 society, this will still go on, just as it has before the internet. Contrary to popular belief, pedofiles did exist before the internet and will continue to exist despite whatever restrictions are imposed on free speech/association.
Unfortunately, most people seem to feel throwing blame at someone or something will fix this. IT WILL NOT. I have spend 3 years trying to solve this for my own purposes.
People need to understand that the internet makes communication/access to information easier, it is a gateway, a tool. Despite what politicans/business tells you human nature can NOT be stopped. If you put up a barrier, society will eventually go around it.
While I do not agree with the exploitation of minors in any way, I also think that minors (who are still people and entitled to the same rights as everyone else) should be allowed to make their own decisions in life.
what follows is a few definitions for those who lack the cognitive ability to process rational thought...
Real world = Everything, not just 'the internet'
Educate = teach, *not* scare/brainwash
Politicans = people who try to force their moral/political/religious views on other people for power, personal or monetary gain.
From reading these posts, it seems most people agree, it would be good if someone was acountable for flaws/bugs in software but they cant agree on who is responsible.
What I propose is the creation of an international independent organisation to check source code for bugs & flaws. This organisation would NOT be responsible for any kind of assurances or guarantees regarding the software other than to verify that the code had been verified independently. The developer/software company would be responsible for any license/guarantees attached to the software.
I am a developer of buggy software but I am woefully underqualified for this so it would need people who actually know more about this.
Would this work?
It would need support from some major software vendors/developers to be accepted.
I'd be prepared to donate some money to get this started if it would help.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/12/ibm_open_s ource_blueprints/ is reporting that IBM wants to contribute software development blueprints to the open source community to help developers make fewer coding flaws.
How about requiring all code to be independently audited/checked? Sure it wont get rid of all bugs/flaws but it will reduce sloppy coding.
If companies are held responsible for flaws in their software, I'd bet the EULA will get a lot more complicated, requiring ALL installed software to be fully patched and 'Recommended Configurations' to get a lot more specific.
Running firefox.. ahh but out software was only approved for use with IE.
Using 512mb of ram.. our software was only approved for use with 1gig or more.
Companies will just find a way to shift blame to someone else (probably the user).
Archos makes a few similar (and better) devices, as do a few other companies. It even seems to use the same software.
The transfer from DVR to PocketDish is via USB. 1 hour of video transferred in 5 mins, USB1 perhaps?
Does anyone have any more information about this? Do both 'parties' want this?
Even if campaign finance thru the infobahn is regulated, wouldn't this be almost impossible to track/stop anyway?
A few thoughts...
Company A wishes to donate (influence/buy) to Political party B so they pay political website C (possibly not hosted in the US) a large amount of money for banner ads.
or.. suppose a large search company decides to favour one party over another, they could 'alter' their rankings. Either to lower the actual sites, or to show more FUD results. If a few bloggers can affect search results i'm sure a company with a few million dollars at stake could do the same.