More like, you p0st t0 t3h int3rw3b without being labled a noob.
/. doesn't "tell you what to do", but you get modded down if you post in bold ALL CAPS and you LOL too much. LOL! On myspace, you get +3 cool points for choosing a retarded colour scheme with broken CSS, and on YouTube you get thousands of video views for posting "OMG guy gets hit IN THE BALLS! LOL!" or badly cut south park excerpts.
Like all lowest common denominators, these mainstream websites require no real thought, effort, consideration or engagement. It's nothing to do with the internet, it's everything to do with people.
I think that the second slashdot story in two days on the name of an unreleased console is evidence enough that the marketing folks over at Nintendo have made a sensible decision.
Why oh why do people care? Hardcore/. nerds won't give a damn what it's called, they'll just want the specs and the reviews. Casual consumers won't remember what it's called, they'll just want to look at the pretty colours.
The point I was trying to make is that at the moment, there is a spectrum of computer expertise, as one would expect. Some people use custom unix-like systems, compile all their own software, patch their own systems, build all their machines, etc. Other people use Ubuntu, go to the support forums for any problems they have and use in-built update mechanisms to patch. Other people dual boot linux and windows, and dip in to linux from time to time. Some people use windows, but manage their own AV and patching. Other people use a pre-installed windows environment and never touch it.
And that, as a status quo, is just fine. The problem is that at the moment, there seems to be a movement to drive everyone to one extreme or the other. Vista will handle things like file encryption and other aspects of privacy for you. Microsoft is moving into AV and anti-Malware software. Trusted Computing will make it impossible to tinker with your own OS or shell, provide hardware support for DRM, and lock out the average computer user from their own box. It seems to me that a true WebOS is another aspect of this - the programs and system files take care of themselves, file storage is handled for you - you can't do anything the OS or system doesn't want you to. If the average consumer ends up relying on Web based services for everyday computing tasks, it's even more bullet proof than Trusted Computing, because not only can the user not tinker with system files or protected content, the user can't even access or even see them unless the OS or Web service wants them to. The user doesn't even know where the files are stored, what programs they're relying on, what the system is doing with their data. Nothing is local.
And while the average slashdot user would not accept a situation like that, most people will. That's what I was trying to get across, the movement that forces users to either accept the OS and programs that are supplied in the way they are supplied and use them in the way the manufacturer wishes them to be used, or to forgo mainstream coroporate software altogether and learn the (relative) complexities of OSS, and potentially extremely complex workarounds to access content designed for locked-down mainstream systems.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to maintain your own car and relying on a garage to do it for you, unless the car goes where it wants to go and only where it wants to go in the way it wants to get there, and you are not allowed or unable to examine the components of the car to see why it does what is does, and how you might get it to do what you want it to do. There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to maintain a car, unless it leads to a situation where you either buy a car that does what it wants to do, or make your own damned car, and have to learn all the technical skills that entails.
"I would expect that most people would ditch a $30/month tethered service (existing landline DSL or whatever) in favor of free, everywhere available service."
It's an interesting point, but if it's true, why do ISPs keep rolling out lines with more and more bandwidth?
If "most people" do a little light browsing, some e-mail, hell, maybe even a little bit of file downloading or watching streaming video, why do ISPs bring out packages with more and more bandwidth? For "most people", surely latency would be a hugely more important factor than bandwidth in terms of the speed of surfing?
And while it's possible that ISPs provide 24Mbs lines (as opposed to 512Kbs lines a few years ago) because they believe the consumer will be happy to pay for as "good" a connection, based on a single number, as possible, it seems curiously at odds with their costs. Providing very high-bandwidth lines to "most people" simply encourages them to use more bandwidth, racking up costs for the ISP, whereas providing a package sold as low-latency would cost the ISP less and bring more benefit to the consumer.
I think that perhaps we're in danger of being condescending to "most people", and that in fact they are more demanding of their internet package than we assume.
"As a result, many residents are still paying for monthly landline connections."
Is this surprising, or some kind of a sign of failure? I think that free city-wide Wi-Fi is a nice idea, but I still wouldn't surrender the autonomy, privacy, control and efficiency of my own pipe. b
If I wanted a customisable environment I could access anywhere, I'd make a custom install of a lightweight linux OS on a flash drive and carry it around with me. All my programs, anywhere - plus encrypted storage, plus no need for a network connection, plus no bandwidth usage, plus no latency issues, plus programs that I choose, customise, install and run myself, that I trust, that I can examine the source code of and compile myself if I choose OSS, plus no server downtime, plus less risk of my personal data being accessible by any one of thousands of users with read/write privaledges in an account on the same server that I use that happens to find an unpatched exploit.
The move toward a WebOS is another part of the "stupid user" school of computer education. Instead of actually promoting learning how to use a box properly, you just move all the sensitive stuff server-side. "Installing programs? We'll do that for you! Configuring system files? Leave that to us! Data storage? Backups? System Patches? Anti-virus? Malware detection? It's all on us! You don't need to know a damned thing, just sit down at your thousand dollar terminal, log in, point and click. Sports Broadcasts will resume as normal."
It's just another aspect of the great computer devide that's gradually starting. On the one hand, unix geeks who run their own systems and software, spec their own hardware, believe in open source, try to make personal backups of media, won't buy DRM and want control of their own boxes. On the other, the average consumer who doesn't give a damn about anything aside from getting a system that just works with as little management and maintanence as possible. For the second group, WebOS is brilliant. All you need to remember is a URL, a login and a password. Instant system wherever you are. You've surrenedered the autonomy of your box, but in return you get an easier system to manage. It's a dream for content suppliers as well - imagine the strength of DRM if the average media player is stored on a remote server, and the user has no access to it's program files.
Media Center software is not commercially viable
on
Viiv Falls Flat
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It seems to me that the concept of a Media Center PC is totally at odds with current corporate movements towards content protection.
Any half-decent MCPC will be able to, at a minimum, record televsion broadcasts through whatever medium the customer happens to use. This is not something that content producers or media corporations want. It grants far too much freedom to the consumer to keep high-value programs without buying them on physical media and to avoid advertising.
Also, it's very likely in the future that media producers will want to separate media playback and the home computer as much as possible. An easy way to cut down on content copying is simply to only chip purpose-built media players and not license chipped optical drives for PCs.
Media corporations have massive lobbying power, I can't see any large hardware vendor empowering the consumer in the way that a useful MCPC requires without running into large problems.
Personally, I blame high ticket prices on people illegally sneaking into concerts and stealing sound from legal concert-goers.
I propose a system of Digital Concert Management, where all sound output is encrypted using a closed-source algorythm (and compressed to save bandwidth costs - 128kbs should be fine). Legal concert goers are then given headsets containing a Trusted Concert-Going Chip which decodes the compressed signal and plays back the audio through a complementary set of approved headphones.
Of course, discussion of how to decrypt the signal, or even overhearing the encrypted signal without permission from the content producer, would be a criminal offence.
Everybody wins!
"A laser created by simply painting a solution of crystals onto glass could be used to make super-fast computers that use light instead of electricity"
"They send the key across, using the last key. Duh."
Sorry, I'm sure it's really obvious, but I still don't see how this works.
If you're talking about sending an encrypted key, surely there must be some kind of shared, reproducable key in order for the original encrypted key to be decrypted? How is that shared key reproduced? Isn't that incompatible with the "quantum" element?
am I correct in ascertaining that the key is generated using some of the quantum properties of very small particles?
In that case, how is the key shared with the end terminal? In what way is the key generation reproducible at the remote computer to decrypt the signal?
Publicly admitting an intention to abuse a relatively high-ranking public position to further a personal agenda should be ground for dismissal.
Imagine if the head of the Electoral Commission announced that he "was a fan" of a particular political movement, and was going to try to use his "bully pulpit" to promote it. That would be utterly intolerable.
I think that, although less serious, this is an equivalent situation - a public official announcing an intention to promote a corporate movement, possibly even hinting at using her department's sway with private companies to further her agenda. Even if it was something less controversial than DRM, it would still be completely out of order.
Exactly what kind of security is file-system supported on a Macbook?
If you're using your Macbook as a multi-user Windows server, using NTFS support of user private data - well, perhaps you should worry less about filesystem insecurity and more about hardware selection.
NTFS support of private user data is pretty useless anyway, it's fairly trivial to work around, especially on a windows box.
If I was going to go through the hassle and risk of an Ipod firmware upgrade, I'd greatly prefer the freedom and flexibility of something like Ipod Linux, rather than just a multi-codec jukebox platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Are local calls currently free for American phone users?
Either the TFA is extremely poorly written, or this story is wholly unremarkable.
"they don't 'tell you what to do.
/. doesn't "tell you what to do", but you get modded down if you post in bold ALL CAPS and you LOL too much. LOL! On myspace, you get +3 cool points for choosing a retarded colour scheme with broken CSS, and on YouTube you get thousands of video views for posting "OMG guy gets hit IN THE BALLS! LOL!" or badly cut south park excerpts.
More like, you p0st t0 t3h int3rw3b without being labled a noob.
Like all lowest common denominators, these mainstream websites require no real thought, effort, consideration or engagement. It's nothing to do with the internet, it's everything to do with people.
I think that the second slashdot story in two days on the name of an unreleased console is evidence enough that the marketing folks over at Nintendo have made a sensible decision.
/. nerds won't give a damn what it's called, they'll just want the specs and the reviews. Casual consumers won't remember what it's called, they'll just want to look at the pretty colours.
Why oh why do people care? Hardcore
Those communists over at Blizzard want to use Edward Whitacre's pipes for free!
I misspelt "title". Instant /. death. HEAD SHOT. PEDANTRY is on a killing spree.
The project is being developed with the working titly "Duke Nukem Forever".
The point I was trying to make is that at the moment, there is a spectrum of computer expertise, as one would expect. Some people use custom unix-like systems, compile all their own software, patch their own systems, build all their machines, etc. Other people use Ubuntu, go to the support forums for any problems they have and use in-built update mechanisms to patch. Other people dual boot linux and windows, and dip in to linux from time to time. Some people use windows, but manage their own AV and patching. Other people use a pre-installed windows environment and never touch it.
And that, as a status quo, is just fine. The problem is that at the moment, there seems to be a movement to drive everyone to one extreme or the other. Vista will handle things like file encryption and other aspects of privacy for you. Microsoft is moving into AV and anti-Malware software. Trusted Computing will make it impossible to tinker with your own OS or shell, provide hardware support for DRM, and lock out the average computer user from their own box. It seems to me that a true WebOS is another aspect of this - the programs and system files take care of themselves, file storage is handled for you - you can't do anything the OS or system doesn't want you to. If the average consumer ends up relying on Web based services for everyday computing tasks, it's even more bullet proof than Trusted Computing, because not only can the user not tinker with system files or protected content, the user can't even access or even see them unless the OS or Web service wants them to. The user doesn't even know where the files are stored, what programs they're relying on, what the system is doing with their data. Nothing is local.
And while the average slashdot user would not accept a situation like that, most people will. That's what I was trying to get across, the movement that forces users to either accept the OS and programs that are supplied in the way they are supplied and use them in the way the manufacturer wishes them to be used, or to forgo mainstream coroporate software altogether and learn the (relative) complexities of OSS, and potentially extremely complex workarounds to access content designed for locked-down mainstream systems.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to maintain your own car and relying on a garage to do it for you, unless the car goes where it wants to go and only where it wants to go in the way it wants to get there, and you are not allowed or unable to examine the components of the car to see why it does what is does, and how you might get it to do what you want it to do. There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to maintain a car, unless it leads to a situation where you either buy a car that does what it wants to do, or make your own damned car, and have to learn all the technical skills that entails.
"I would expect that most people would ditch a $30/month tethered service (existing landline DSL or whatever) in favor of free, everywhere available service."
It's an interesting point, but if it's true, why do ISPs keep rolling out lines with more and more bandwidth?
If "most people" do a little light browsing, some e-mail, hell, maybe even a little bit of file downloading or watching streaming video, why do ISPs bring out packages with more and more bandwidth? For "most people", surely latency would be a hugely more important factor than bandwidth in terms of the speed of surfing?
And while it's possible that ISPs provide 24Mbs lines (as opposed to 512Kbs lines a few years ago) because they believe the consumer will be happy to pay for as "good" a connection, based on a single number, as possible, it seems curiously at odds with their costs. Providing very high-bandwidth lines to "most people" simply encourages them to use more bandwidth, racking up costs for the ISP, whereas providing a package sold as low-latency would cost the ISP less and bring more benefit to the consumer.
I think that perhaps we're in danger of being condescending to "most people", and that in fact they are more demanding of their internet package than we assume.
"As a result, many residents are still paying for monthly landline connections."
Is this surprising, or some kind of a sign of failure? I think that free city-wide Wi-Fi is a nice idea, but I still wouldn't surrender the autonomy, privacy, control and efficiency of my own pipe.
b
TTL = ~13 minutes
read story comment on story
I couldn't agree more. What's the point?
If I wanted a customisable environment I could access anywhere, I'd make a custom install of a lightweight linux OS on a flash drive and carry it around with me. All my programs, anywhere - plus encrypted storage, plus no need for a network connection, plus no bandwidth usage, plus no latency issues, plus programs that I choose, customise, install and run myself, that I trust, that I can examine the source code of and compile myself if I choose OSS, plus no server downtime, plus less risk of my personal data being accessible by any one of thousands of users with read/write privaledges in an account on the same server that I use that happens to find an unpatched exploit.
The move toward a WebOS is another part of the "stupid user" school of computer education. Instead of actually promoting learning how to use a box properly, you just move all the sensitive stuff server-side. "Installing programs? We'll do that for you! Configuring system files? Leave that to us! Data storage? Backups? System Patches? Anti-virus? Malware detection? It's all on us! You don't need to know a damned thing, just sit down at your thousand dollar terminal, log in, point and click. Sports Broadcasts will resume as normal."
It's just another aspect of the great computer devide that's gradually starting. On the one hand, unix geeks who run their own systems and software, spec their own hardware, believe in open source, try to make personal backups of media, won't buy DRM and want control of their own boxes. On the other, the average consumer who doesn't give a damn about anything aside from getting a system that just works with as little management and maintanence as possible. For the second group, WebOS is brilliant. All you need to remember is a URL, a login and a password. Instant system wherever you are. You've surrenedered the autonomy of your box, but in return you get an easier system to manage. It's a dream for content suppliers as well - imagine the strength of DRM if the average media player is stored on a remote server, and the user has no access to it's program files.
It seems to me that the concept of a Media Center PC is totally at odds with current corporate movements towards content protection.
Any half-decent MCPC will be able to, at a minimum, record televsion broadcasts through whatever medium the customer happens to use. This is not something that content producers or media corporations want. It grants far too much freedom to the consumer to keep high-value programs without buying them on physical media and to avoid advertising.
Also, it's very likely in the future that media producers will want to separate media playback and the home computer as much as possible. An easy way to cut down on content copying is simply to only chip purpose-built media players and not license chipped optical drives for PCs.
Media corporations have massive lobbying power, I can't see any large hardware vendor empowering the consumer in the way that a useful MCPC requires without running into large problems.
Username: jpmorgan
Password: chastise
courtesy of http://www.bugmenot.com/
Personally, I blame high ticket prices on people illegally sneaking into concerts and stealing sound from legal concert-goers. I propose a system of Digital Concert Management, where all sound output is encrypted using a closed-source algorythm (and compressed to save bandwidth costs - 128kbs should be fine). Legal concert goers are then given headsets containing a Trusted Concert-Going Chip which decodes the compressed signal and plays back the audio through a complementary set of approved headphones. Of course, discussion of how to decrypt the signal, or even overhearing the encrypted signal without permission from the content producer, would be a criminal offence. Everybody wins!
there is no hope
"A laser created by simply painting a solution of crystals onto glass could be used to make super-fast computers that use light instead of electricity"
I'm sorry, is light faster than electricity?
"They send the key across, using the last key. Duh."
Sorry, I'm sure it's really obvious, but I still don't see how this works.
If you're talking about sending an encrypted key, surely there must be some kind of shared, reproducable key in order for the original encrypted key to be decrypted? How is that shared key reproduced? Isn't that incompatible with the "quantum" element?
am I correct in ascertaining that the key is generated using some of the quantum properties of very small particles?
In that case, how is the key shared with the end terminal? In what way is the key generation reproducible at the remote computer to decrypt the signal?
I prefer Deny Rights to Music lovers.
Publicly admitting an intention to abuse a relatively high-ranking public position to further a personal agenda should be ground for dismissal.
Imagine if the head of the Electoral Commission announced that he "was a fan" of a particular political movement, and was going to try to use his "bully pulpit" to promote it. That would be utterly intolerable.
I think that, although less serious, this is an equivalent situation - a public official announcing an intention to promote a corporate movement, possibly even hinting at using her department's sway with private companies to further her agenda. Even if it was something less controversial than DRM, it would still be completely out of order.
Exactly what kind of security is file-system supported on a Macbook? If you're using your Macbook as a multi-user Windows server, using NTFS support of user private data - well, perhaps you should worry less about filesystem insecurity and more about hardware selection. NTFS support of private user data is pretty useless anyway, it's fairly trivial to work around, especially on a windows box.
Gmail? Google? China? Sarcasm, anyone?
they can still use Gmail.
If I was going to go through the hassle and risk of an Ipod firmware upgrade, I'd greatly prefer the freedom and flexibility of something like Ipod Linux, rather than just a multi-codec jukebox platform.