See the article: "At Fenopy.com, Revision3's tracker was used for 296,000 downloads, mostly of unauthorized copyrighted movies, Saaf said."
The only way that could be true is if the tracker was open. Unless those "unauthorized movies" were MD fakes, but then that statement would still be false because MD fakes are definately not "unauthorized copyrighted movies". So I conclude that those must have been real, in which case the tracker must be open, or at least exploited by people other than MD.
I made no claim that what MD did was right, or legal. I am just clarifying what the article clearly implies about what actually happened.
The article definitely makes it sound like there were non-authorized files that were not MD's fakes on the tracker. When those were dropped, MD assumed the tracker when private. It sounds like the fact that MD had fakes on the server was unrelated to the DoS.
Actually, in this case, it sounds like the tracker in question was open, and so other people started using it to track infringing files without Revision3's knowledge or consent. MediaDefender notices this and adds fake content, as well as presumable connecting to non-fake content and requesting pieces to gather evidence against the uploaders.
Now when Revision3 made the change, MediaDefender thought that this tracker had become a private tracker (one of those password needed-trackers) when in fact it just stopped tracking files other than those Revision3 had intended it to track.
MediaDefender then begins DoSing the server, trying to take down this "private tracker". Even at this point MediaDefender was completely unaware that this was tracker intended for Legal content only, or that it was Revision3's tracker in particular. As far as MediaDefender knew, it was just another tracker that was tracking infringing content.
Well, we do have the informal notion of "pressing charges". Basically, in many cases the testimony of the victim is crucial to a prosecution winning the case. Hence if the victim refuses to testify, the case must be dropped, or the victim compelled to testify. Compelling a victim to testify is terrible form, so it is not uncommon for the case to be dropped, or formal charges never filed if the victim indicates that they are not willing to testify. Further, I am not certain, but there might be cases where victims rights would prevent the compelling of testimony.
However, there are Common Law countries, where private prosecution is possible. AIUI, generally, in those places any attorney that has been admitted to the bar of the court (i.e. is a barrister) can file criminal charges by following the exact same procedure the Prosecutor's Office follows. From that point forward, the case is treated no differently than any case brought by the Prosecutor's Office. The Office can terminate the prosecution or assign a new prosecutor (i.e. assume control of the case), just like with it's own cases.
But what client did he use? He did not say. He also seems to assume that all clients have the same behavior here. That seems quite unlikely. Until he mentions which client(s) he tested, his study is basically worthless.
That is true, but many of the more nasty CSS bugs, which are a source of many (but definitely not all) of the IE specific workarounds should probably be fixed, since apparently IE 8 does pass Acid 2.
Did I say it was worse than them not giving it away? No I did not. I said that trying to use it in an open source program would be problematic. As it stands though, It looks like it is free to all windows PC developers, so I do expect to see better physics In PC games (free and commercial) in the future. As for your comment that they don't have any obligation to give the public anything, I counter that they are indeed obligated under the license that Intel took out on behalf of the public. Obviously, they had the right to refuse that license, but since they accepted it, they are surely now obligated to hold up their end of the bargain.
Well, the problem is that using it in an open source game partially defeats the oint of the game being open source. Any which way, it is unlikely to be integrated with GPL'd works. From the explanitory pages:
With the free download of Havok Physics and Havok Animation for the PC, you can develop and distribute your free PC Game or free PC application for no direct or indirect commercial value provided the Havok libraries are compiled and distributed with your application or game in an integral, non-separable way.
This sounds like the game must be distributed Gratis which is not guaranteed by the GPL.
Further, this is all specific to Windows PC game development. Non Windows development is not covered. This probably does not matter much as no non-windows binaries were made available. Similarly, console game development is not covered, but once again the lack of binaries would be a bigger issue.
For the record, it sounds like there are no further restirctions for commerical games costing $10 (USD) or less, and that a different license (still at no cost) is available for Commerical Windows PC development of games costing more than $10 (USD).
Well, there are rights issues concerned with performance. For example you cannot in general perform a work without a license, despite the fact that under your definition, no "copy" was made. Further, Prince may own copyright to his arrangement of the work. Just like if i wrote a song, and performance it, and you recorded it, your work would still be a derivative of my work (my composition, fixed in the form of the sheet music I was using, even though you did not ever see the sheet music), generally requiring a license from me.
But Copyright Law in the US is excessively convoluted, especially in musical, dramatic, or television works. Consider the fact that the copyright act defines the term "gross square feet of space" (referring to square feet of floorspace in an establishment). One can guess what that is used for, but it seems wrong that the copyright act gets into such details. How about the existence of Copyright Royalty Judges?
The fact that this likely involves copyrights in multiple countries (England and the US) makes things even more complicated). Only a Lawyer who specializes in musical copyrights could be very confident about the situation.
There are some problems with this. Since Prince did have the work recorded, (production of a phono-record) he needed license to the actual work itself. If he used the compulsory license to the work, then he would need explicit permission from the copyright holder to claim a derivative copyright. Otherwise he needs a license from the copyright holder. Radiohead probably does not own any relevant copyrights to that work seeing as they made it while part of a large label, who usually require transfer of all relevant copyrights. Please keep in mind that the compulsory license does bypass any other licensing scheme used by the copyright holder, including Copyleft. (This whole post assumes the compulsory license of US Copyright law is applicable to nondramatic musical works of Britian, but it probably does.)
Agreed, because RMS and Linus are both destitute penniless wanderers.
Well, RMS just about is. My understanding is that when he is not travelling he actually LIVES in his office in MIT, where he still works an an unpaid research associate. I honestly half suspect that the only reason he still has that office is that nobody is willing to kick him out. He puts little emphasis in hygenics, and often could be mistaken for just another homeless person. Now, much of this is more by choice than anything else, but he still acts a surprising amount like a "destitue penniless wanderer".
Linus on the other hand is most definitely not a "destitute penniless wanderer", but is not filthy rich either.
Outlook Express has included NNTP capabilities since before it was even called Outlook Express. The old name of "Microsoft Internet Mail and News" should make that clear. Heck even Windows Mail (OE's Vista replacement) and Windows Live Mail (a windows mail derivative with special Hotmail support), still have Newsgroup functionality.
However, I'm not sure all is lost for the content protectors out there.
It certainly is... DRM is an inherently untenable system.
Last time I check the P4 and greater smart cards used by directv have not been cracked despite a huge demand for it. If I'm wrong please correct me.
You're wrong about the "huge demand". Since DishNet is wide open (and they were even nice enough to use standard DVB-S protocol which any $50 tuner can receive) there isn't much reason for anyone to bother with DirecTV. Citation Please. I am a legit E* subscriber, and to the best of my knowledge, only the anti-pirate channels and the FCC-mandated channels (like the NASA channel) are broadcast clear. Well actually, I believe the information channels are also broadcast in the clear. This is so that those information channels can be seen by unactivated E* receivers. My understanding is though that the remaining channels are indeed encrypted.
Matlab has always been a tool for crunching numbers. Nothing more, nothing less. It excels at matrix calculations, or parallel scalar computations. It has limited symbolic capabilities, from it's Maple integration. It has only a few real intended uses: scripts to perform simulations, common calculations, etc, and command line one-off tasks. Now don't get me wrong, when I say calculations I am including things like image manipulation and processing (it works very well for that) and other DSP style tasks, and much more, but it is still a calculation tool. Matlab is not a programming tool! It should be thought of as closer related to the other mathematics tools like Maple, MathCad, and Mathematica.
Now it is quite common for Schools to include Matlab in an Engineering Curriculum. The idea being that Matlab is what they will most likely use for most number crunching in the future. Your school decided that learning how to do numerical calculations was more important than learning to program. For EE that is probably the case. They also erroneously believe that because Matlab has some programming-style control structures teaching it doubles as a basic programming course. That part is the problem.
I've never understood using webmail. To me an IMAP service has always made more sense. A local mail client is almost invariably easier to use and better supported by everything. Further, the local client keeps offline copies of messages, so I can review email and compose new ones even if I have my laptop with me, even if I don't have internet. Further, any decent IMAP service will have some form of limited webmail interface for use when you are away from your main computer. But surprisingly many people now use web mail for everything.
Well, this service is definitely interesting. For songs which they have streaming rights for everyhting works as will be explained followed. Otherwise only 30 seconds can be streamed.
You can listen to any song on the service once for free. After that, you can pay one credit (10 cents each, with 50 free at signup), to unlock to song so it can be replayed an unlimited number of times.
You can import existing songs through some mechanism. If you import the song, and they have full streaming rights it just unlocks the song on their server. Otherwise it apparently uploads the file from your computer, and streams it back to you on request. I have no idea what formats it supports. Can I unlock one of the songs they can stream just by importing an MP3 of that song I got from P2P?
Should you want to download the MP3 of a song you unlocked with a credit, you get ten cents off the purchase price of the mp3. (89 cents per mp3, 79 cents after the 10 cent discount)
Sounds like a reasonable media service provider, but not one most Slashdot posters would be too interested in.
I know for a fact that my DVD player runs no java. BD-J is a java system, but my DVD player does not support BlueRay. My DVD player supports the DVD-video standard, and a few other little standards live VCD. None of the standards supported by my DVD player require Java. Now, my BlueRay player on the other hand... that does run Java.
Originally, CableCards only had one directional transmission capability. This prevented services such as on demand, pay per view, and guide data.
So, being a developer who writes software for tru2way stacks, let me point out where my understanding differs.
The purpose of the CableCard was to separate the specifics of how pay-per-view, subscription channels (like HBO) and encryption from the cable box. This would allow things, like the next HD TiVo box with the 2 CableCards, to handle subscription channels without a settop box. Guide data is not tied to the CableCard in any way.
The fact is, the cable industry moves slowly, and if you think about it, it has too because of the millions of installed devices. One can't simply swap out 10 million of anything with updated hardware without significant cost. So the first versions of the CableCard spec had 1-way (broadcast only) capabilities, while the next generation had 2-way and then 2-way with multiple simultaneous connections. Not all these versions were deployed, but there were specs, transitions testing and so on associated with each revision. Frankly I think that when the form-factor was chosen, the technology could not fit all the hardware for 2-way communication and multiple connections into the device, which caused the phased development.
The hardware complied with the CableCard 2.0 specification but the software for each card did not.
The CableCard is a hardware/software combination that provides a specified interface to the proprietary network encoding that the cable companies run on. The proprietary nature is not from the cable company, but the hardware vendors that provide that equipment. The CableCard provides a bridge, through the CableCard standard, to that network. This allows the TiVo to run all the TiVo software (just like the original boxes) but also directly access subscription channels if you've subscribed with them. The cable company then talks to the CableCard to control what channels are authorized and the TiVo talks to the CableCard to get a decrypted stream for authorized channels.
While that is indeed what CableCard does, it is combined with licensing restrictions that would prevent certain features. For example, only a complete certified hardware stack with approved features to prevent export of the raw HD MPEG feed can be licensed.
The cable companies didn't want manufacturers to use their own software in the boxes/televisions/DVRs that would be using the cable cards. No, the cable companies wanted them to use OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP). Of course this isn't an open platform at all.
Picture your Tivo now, with its great recording software. Compare that to the crappy software your cable company uses on their DVR. Well, the OCAP part of the CableCard 2.0 standard requires all hardware be running the cable company's software. In other words, your Tivo would have to be running Comcast/Cox/whoever's horrid interface instead of the standard one. At least, that's how I understand it.
This part is where you are way way off. The tru2way (OCAP) specification is a Java VM and library. That technology allows a company (like TiVo) to write their own Java applications that do what they like, look the way they want etc etc.
Are you claiming that the tru2way system and its licensing will will enable me to run one hardware manufacture's interface on a different manufactures DVR device? So I can run Tivo's interface on my Sony DVR, or Sony's DVR interface on my tru2way-compatible Tivo box?
Further, why is tru2way even needed? Cable card worked by having the the tv send a command along the lines of "request channel 234", the cablecard would check to see if I was authorized to receive that channel, and if not would return an error. However if I was authorized, it would decrypt the signal, perform the necessary conversions and provide the signal to t
Yes, the cable company needs to have some global access control, just to be sure that only paying customers have access to the paid content. But they should only limit themselves to that. Standards already exist for the satellites (CAM - control access modules). As long as you insert the correct card into a compatible CAM you can do pretty much everything.
But instead, what we are starting to see is cable companies who force you to rent *their* box and that's the only single way to access the content of their channels.
This situation may not apply in all countries, but that's what I'm seeing here around (Switzerland).
Here in the United States the CableCard system was originally the cable equivalent to your CAM system, but lacked support for two-way communications (for interactive features, VOD, PPV, etc.)
Here the Satellite providers have full control over everything. While you can buy satellite receivers instead of renting them, only receivers made for the satellite company can be used. The only good thing here is that the satellite companies have generally been slightly less abusive than the cable companies, and do not disable to "jump forward 30 seconds" DVR features, etc. But there is still no way to record HD content except using one of the receiver/DVR combos that support it.
Well, Gunpei Yokoi was around at basically the very beginning and was both hardware-software. He also assisted in several of Miyamoto's more famous franchises, as well as created the Metroid franchise. While perhaps not Miyamoto's equal, he comes very close.
As far as the others, Will Wright really sticks out. Simcity spawned a huge franchise for Maxis, "The Sims" will be remembered well as a shocking success. (even though it really was not nearly as timeless or as great as the classics). Time will tell what Spore will do.
Sid Meier while a hell of a designer has no true franchises that are really part of Popular Culture. Many more people are aware of Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Sim City, Metroid, than the Civilization series. In fact I've come quite close to never having played any of his games. Of the ones I have played, I've found them rather unremarkable.
The original Netscape code was abandoned in favor of a complete rewrite. Eventually the main product was considered so bloated that a lightweight version was needed. Eventually the main product was dropped in favor of the lightweight system, which had to have not one but two name changes, and is now fairly widely considered bloated, despite its original goal.
I'd say that while Mozilla has done quite well overall, it could hardly be considered a good blueprint to follow.
Well, I personally support the idea of a maximum wage. Nobody needs more than £100 000 a year to live on.
I also think that job advertisements should be required by law to show the wages after tax. It's not like I get £x into my bank account and then £y taken out, in two separate transactions; my employer pays me £(x-y) and the taxman £y. The problem there is probably that there is no way to determine at advertisement time the exact tax amount that would apply. I'm not certain about how the tax System in the U.K. is set up, but I'm fairly confident is is not a flat tax with no exceptions, exemptions, deductions, etc.
You plug your POTS telephone into your neighbor's phone jack and your PSAP will see your neighbors address. AT&T knows the address based on the endpoint of the copper wire. You plug your Vonage device into your neighbor's internet connection and dial 911, and your PSAP will see *your* address. Vonage depends upon you registering your phone's location, which is a step beyond what is needed on POTs. That is very much a technical difference with special challenges. That is not to say they are difficult challenges for the most common usecase, but what about VOIP over Wifi on a smartphone. (Something cellular companies fear). There is definitely no easy way for your VOIP provider to know your location in that case, and there is currently no standard for your device to provide such information be it through GPS, AGPS, or Wifi access point triangulation. Heck, even with Cell phones, passive (tower-side) tower triangulation could be performed in many cases (look at which towers hear your phone, and with what intensity), but there is no way for a VOIP provider to do the equivalent.
Ok it wasn't FSF but a simular organization linked from the FSF site.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/nov/20/busybox/
You could have also googled it yourself. This is slashdot not an accedemic paper. My views are my own, and often I am going off of memory, So I messed up FSF from an other organization. I am not going to spend all day doing research for a slashdot post.
But my point stands that the GPL is to strict for my personal liking and I would feel volnerable legally if I were to develop under the GPL.
That was simply a case of an agent of the primary developer suing a company that distributes the code in object form without providing the source.
That is not unlike Microsoft suing you if your redistribute a piece of redistributable code but did not follow the license.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the FSF, who is powerless to enforce the GPL on projects where they do not own the copyright, and the Copyright holder has not requested their help.
Further, no GPL copyright holder has been known to sue unless the other party is unwilling to comply or cease distribution. Yes, one can almost invariably get a GPL lawsuit dropped just by ceasing the distribution of the relevant code.
The GPL's culture is very relaxed compared to many other licenses where once a lawsuit has started only money or cross-licensing agreements can terminate it early. I'll admit that much of this is true for other Free Software or Open Source licenses too, but it does show that your concern may be just a bit overblown. That said, if you prefer other licenses, there is little reason not to use them, especially if they remain GPL compatible.
Which E911 are you talking about? There are 3 different E911 Systems.
My understanding is that wireline E911 has been fully operation in most of the country for many years. There may be a small number of rural PSAPs that are not properly equipped, but I'm actually doubting even that.
Wireless E911 is newer and should probably be working just fine in all major metropolitan areas. How well it is actually working elsewhere I am not certain. This usually uses either Assisted GPS (allegedly phone captures raw GPS signals, and transmits them to phone company for decoding), full GPS, and cell tower triangulation. I'm not sure how well the providers support the systems though, which may result in the system failing even though the phone and the PSAP having proper support for Wireless E911.
VOIP E911 is the newest system. Actually half the difficulty here is figuring out which PSAP to contact. The Cell phones can reasonably choose to contact the PSAP that services the physical location of the tower itself. (Should be close enough that fire and rescue crews can respond in a reasonable timeframe. The same is true of police, althiugh jurisdiction is also relevant there. Thankfully cops usually have at least limited felony jusridiction statewide.) Wirelines know exactly where they are, so the difficulty there is minimal. But VOIP providers have no real way of accurately determining your general location, so figuring out which PSAP to contact is actually a major problem above and beyond providing location information to the PSAP.
Slashdot Mirror
See the article: "At Fenopy.com, Revision3's tracker was used for 296,000 downloads, mostly of unauthorized copyrighted movies, Saaf said."
The only way that could be true is if the tracker was open. Unless those "unauthorized movies" were MD fakes, but then that statement would still be false because MD fakes are definately not "unauthorized copyrighted movies". So I conclude that those must have been real, in which case the tracker must be open, or at least exploited by people other than MD.
I made no claim that what MD did was right, or legal. I am just clarifying what the article clearly implies about what actually happened.
The article definitely makes it sound like there were non-authorized files that were not MD's fakes on the tracker. When those were dropped, MD assumed the tracker when private. It sounds like the fact that MD had fakes on the server was unrelated to the DoS.
Actually, in this case, it sounds like the tracker in question was open, and so other people started using it to track infringing files without Revision3's knowledge or consent. MediaDefender notices this and adds fake content, as well as presumable connecting to non-fake content and requesting pieces to gather evidence against the uploaders.
Now when Revision3 made the change, MediaDefender thought that this tracker had become a private tracker (one of those password needed-trackers) when in fact it just stopped tracking files other than those Revision3 had intended it to track.
MediaDefender then begins DoSing the server, trying to take down this "private tracker". Even at this point MediaDefender was completely unaware that this was tracker intended for Legal content only, or that it was Revision3's tracker in particular. As far as MediaDefender knew, it was just another tracker that was tracking infringing content.
Well, we do have the informal notion of "pressing charges". Basically, in many cases the testimony of the victim is crucial to a prosecution winning the case. Hence if the victim refuses to testify, the case must be dropped, or the victim compelled to testify. Compelling a victim to testify is terrible form, so it is not uncommon for the case to be dropped, or formal charges never filed if the victim indicates that they are not willing to testify. Further, I am not certain, but there might be cases where victims rights would prevent the compelling of testimony.
However, there are Common Law countries, where private prosecution is possible. AIUI, generally, in those places any attorney that has been admitted to the bar of the court (i.e. is a barrister) can file criminal charges by following the exact same procedure the Prosecutor's Office follows. From that point forward, the case is treated no differently than any case brought by the Prosecutor's Office. The Office can terminate the prosecution or assign a new prosecutor (i.e. assume control of the case), just like with it's own cases.
But what client did he use? He did not say. He also seems to assume that all clients have the same behavior here. That seems quite unlikely. Until he mentions which client(s) he tested, his study is basically worthless.
That is true, but many of the more nasty CSS bugs, which are a source of many (but definitely not all) of the IE specific workarounds should probably be fixed, since apparently IE 8 does pass Acid 2.
Quite possibly so. I have not had a chance to ask him myself, and the information I have come across on the Internet could very well be out of date.
Did I say it was worse than them not giving it away? No I did not. I said that trying to use it in an open source program would be problematic. As it stands though, It looks like it is free to all windows PC developers, so I do expect to see better physics In PC games (free and commercial) in the future. As for your comment that they don't have any obligation to give the public anything, I counter that they are indeed obligated under the license that Intel took out on behalf of the public. Obviously, they had the right to refuse that license, but since they accepted it, they are surely now obligated to hold up their end of the bargain.
Well, the problem is that using it in an open source game partially defeats the oint of the game being open source. Any which way, it is unlikely to be integrated with GPL'd works.
With the free download of Havok Physics and Havok Animation for the PC, you can develop and distribute your free PC Game or free PC application for no direct or indirect commercial value provided the Havok libraries are compiled and distributed with your application or game in an integral, non-separable way.From the explanitory pages:
This sounds like the game must be distributed Gratis which is not guaranteed by the GPL.
Further, this is all specific to Windows PC game development. Non Windows development is not covered. This probably does not matter much as no non-windows binaries were made available. Similarly, console game development is not covered, but once again the lack of binaries would be a bigger issue.
For the record, it sounds like there are no further restirctions for commerical games costing $10 (USD) or less, and that a different license (still at no cost) is available for Commerical Windows PC development of games costing more than $10 (USD).
Well, there are rights issues concerned with performance. For example you cannot in general perform a work without a license, despite the fact that under your definition, no "copy" was made. Further, Prince may own copyright to his arrangement of the work. Just like if i wrote a song, and performance it, and you recorded it, your work would still be a derivative of my work (my composition, fixed in the form of the sheet music I was using, even though you did not ever see the sheet music), generally requiring a license from me.
But Copyright Law in the US is excessively convoluted, especially in musical, dramatic, or television works. Consider the fact that the copyright act defines the term "gross square feet of space" (referring to square feet of floorspace in an establishment). One can guess what that is used for, but it seems wrong that the copyright act gets into such details. How about the existence of Copyright Royalty Judges?
The fact that this likely involves copyrights in multiple countries (England and the US) makes things even more complicated). Only a Lawyer who specializes in musical copyrights could be very confident about the situation.
There are some problems with this. Since Prince did have the work recorded, (production of a phono-record) he needed license to the actual work itself. If he used the compulsory license to the work, then he would need explicit permission from the copyright holder to claim a derivative copyright. Otherwise he needs a license from the copyright holder. Radiohead probably does not own any relevant copyrights to that work seeing as they made it while part of a large label, who usually require transfer of all relevant copyrights. Please keep in mind that the compulsory license does bypass any other licensing scheme used by the copyright holder, including Copyleft. (This whole post assumes the compulsory license of US Copyright law is applicable to nondramatic musical works of Britian, but it probably does.)
Well, RMS just about is. My understanding is that when he is not travelling he actually LIVES in his office in MIT, where he still works an an unpaid research associate. I honestly half suspect that the only reason he still has that office is that nobody is willing to kick him out. He puts little emphasis in hygenics, and often could be mistaken for just another homeless person. Now, much of this is more by choice than anything else, but he still acts a surprising amount like a "destitue penniless wanderer".
Linus on the other hand is most definitely not a "destitute penniless wanderer", but is not filthy rich either.
Outlook Express has included NNTP capabilities since before it was even called Outlook Express. The old name of "Microsoft Internet Mail and News" should make that clear. Heck even Windows Mail (OE's Vista replacement) and Windows Live Mail (a windows mail derivative with special Hotmail support), still have Newsgroup functionality.
It certainly is... DRM is an inherently untenable system.
You're wrong about the "huge demand". Since DishNet is wide open (and they were even nice enough to use standard DVB-S protocol which any $50 tuner can receive) there isn't much reason for anyone to bother with DirecTV. Citation Please. I am a legit E* subscriber, and to the best of my knowledge, only the anti-pirate channels and the FCC-mandated channels (like the NASA channel) are broadcast clear. Well actually, I believe the information channels are also broadcast in the clear. This is so that those information channels can be seen by unactivated E* receivers. My understanding is though that the remaining channels are indeed encrypted.
Matlab has always been a tool for crunching numbers. Nothing more, nothing less. It excels at matrix calculations, or parallel scalar computations. It has limited symbolic capabilities, from it's Maple integration. It has only a few real intended uses: scripts to perform simulations, common calculations, etc, and command line one-off tasks. Now don't get me wrong, when I say calculations I am including things like image manipulation and processing (it works very well for that) and other DSP style tasks, and much more, but it is still a calculation tool. Matlab is not a programming tool! It should be thought of as closer related to the other mathematics tools like Maple, MathCad, and Mathematica.
Now it is quite common for Schools to include Matlab in an Engineering Curriculum. The idea being that Matlab is what they will most likely use for most number crunching in the future. Your school decided that learning how to do numerical calculations was more important than learning to program. For EE that is probably the case. They also erroneously believe that because Matlab has some programming-style control structures teaching it doubles as a basic programming course. That part is the problem.
I've never understood using webmail. To me an IMAP service has always made more sense. A local mail client is almost invariably easier to use and better supported by everything. Further, the local client keeps offline copies of messages, so I can review email and compose new ones even if I have my laptop with me, even if I don't have internet. Further, any decent IMAP service will have some form of limited webmail interface for use when you are away from your main computer. But surprisingly many people now use web mail for everything.
Well, this service is definitely interesting.
For songs which they have streaming rights for everyhting works as will be explained followed. Otherwise only 30 seconds can be streamed.
You can listen to any song on the service once for free. After that, you can pay one credit (10 cents each, with 50 free at signup), to unlock to song so it can be replayed an unlimited number of times.
You can import existing songs through some mechanism. If you import the song, and they have full streaming rights it just unlocks the song on their server. Otherwise it apparently uploads the file from your computer, and streams it back to you on request. I have no idea what formats it supports. Can I unlock one of the songs they can stream just by importing an MP3 of that song I got from P2P?
Should you want to download the MP3 of a song you unlocked with a credit, you get ten cents off the purchase price of the mp3. (89 cents per mp3, 79 cents after the 10 cent discount)
Sounds like a reasonable media service provider, but not one most Slashdot posters would be too interested in.
I know for a fact that my DVD player runs no java. BD-J is a java system, but my DVD player does not support BlueRay. My DVD player supports the DVD-video standard, and a few other little standards live VCD. None of the standards supported by my DVD player require Java. Now, my BlueRay player on the other hand... that does run Java.
Originally, CableCards only had one directional transmission capability. This prevented services such as on demand, pay per view, and guide data.
So, being a developer who writes software for tru2way stacks, let me point out where my understanding differs. The purpose of the CableCard was to separate the specifics of how pay-per-view, subscription channels (like HBO) and encryption from the cable box. This would allow things, like the next HD TiVo box with the 2 CableCards, to handle subscription channels without a settop box. Guide data is not tied to the CableCard in any way. The fact is, the cable industry moves slowly, and if you think about it, it has too because of the millions of installed devices. One can't simply swap out 10 million of anything with updated hardware without significant cost. So the first versions of the CableCard spec had 1-way (broadcast only) capabilities, while the next generation had 2-way and then 2-way with multiple simultaneous connections. Not all these versions were deployed, but there were specs, transitions testing and so on associated with each revision. Frankly I think that when the form-factor was chosen, the technology could not fit all the hardware for 2-way communication and multiple connections into the device, which caused the phased development.
The hardware complied with the CableCard 2.0 specification but the software for each card did not.
The CableCard is a hardware/software combination that provides a specified interface to the proprietary network encoding that the cable companies run on. The proprietary nature is not from the cable company, but the hardware vendors that provide that equipment. The CableCard provides a bridge, through the CableCard standard, to that network. This allows the TiVo to run all the TiVo software (just like the original boxes) but also directly access subscription channels if you've subscribed with them. The cable company then talks to the CableCard to control what channels are authorized and the TiVo talks to the CableCard to get a decrypted stream for authorized channels.
While that is indeed what CableCard does, it is combined with licensing restrictions that would prevent certain features. For example, only a complete certified hardware stack with approved features to prevent export of the raw HD MPEG feed can be licensed.
The cable companies didn't want manufacturers to use their own software in the boxes/televisions/DVRs that would be using the cable cards. No, the cable companies wanted them to use OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP). Of course this isn't an open platform at all.
Picture your Tivo now, with its great recording software. Compare that to the crappy software your cable company uses on their DVR. Well, the OCAP part of the CableCard 2.0 standard requires all hardware be running the cable company's software. In other words, your Tivo would have to be running Comcast/Cox/whoever's horrid interface instead of the standard one. At least, that's how I understand it.
This part is where you are way way off. The tru2way (OCAP) specification is a Java VM and library. That technology allows a company (like TiVo) to write their own Java applications that do what they like, look the way they want etc etc.
Are you claiming that the tru2way system and its licensing will will enable me to run one hardware manufacture's interface on a different manufactures DVR device? So I can run Tivo's interface on my Sony DVR, or Sony's DVR interface on my tru2way-compatible Tivo box?
Further, why is tru2way even needed? Cable card worked by having the the tv send a command along the lines of "request channel 234", the cablecard would check to see if I was authorized to receive that channel, and if not would return an error. However if I was authorized, it would decrypt the signal, perform the necessary conversions and provide the signal to t
Here in the United States the CableCard system was originally the cable equivalent to your CAM system, but lacked support for two-way communications (for interactive features, VOD, PPV, etc.)
Here the Satellite providers have full control over everything. While you can buy satellite receivers instead of renting them, only receivers made for the satellite company can be used. The only good thing here is that the satellite companies have generally been slightly less abusive than the cable companies, and do not disable to "jump forward 30 seconds" DVR features, etc. But there is still no way to record HD content except using one of the receiver/DVR combos that support it.
Well, Gunpei Yokoi was around at basically the very beginning and was both hardware-software. He also assisted in several of Miyamoto's more famous franchises, as well as created the Metroid franchise. While perhaps not Miyamoto's equal, he comes very close.
As far as the others, Will Wright really sticks out. Simcity spawned a huge franchise for Maxis, "The Sims" will be remembered well as a shocking success. (even though it really was not nearly as timeless or as great as the classics). Time will tell what Spore will do.
Sid Meier while a hell of a designer has no true franchises that are really part of Popular Culture. Many more people are aware of Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Sim City, Metroid, than the Civilization series. In fact I've come quite close to never having played any of his games. Of the ones I have played, I've found them rather unremarkable.
The original Netscape code was abandoned in favor of a complete rewrite. Eventually the main product was considered so bloated that a lightweight version was needed. Eventually the main product was dropped in favor of the lightweight system, which had to have not one but two name changes, and is now fairly widely considered bloated, despite its original goal.
I'd say that while Mozilla has done quite well overall, it could hardly be considered a good blueprint to follow.
You plug your POTS telephone into your neighbor's phone jack and your PSAP will see your neighbors address. AT&T knows the address based on the endpoint of the copper wire. You plug your Vonage device into your neighbor's internet connection and dial 911, and your PSAP will see *your* address. Vonage depends upon you registering your phone's location, which is a step beyond what is needed on POTs. That is very much a technical difference with special challenges. That is not to say they are difficult challenges for the most common usecase, but what about VOIP over Wifi on a smartphone. (Something cellular companies fear). There is definitely no easy way for your VOIP provider to know your location in that case, and there is currently no standard for your device to provide such information be it through GPS, AGPS, or Wifi access point triangulation. Heck, even with Cell phones, passive (tower-side) tower triangulation could be performed in many cases (look at which towers hear your phone, and with what intensity), but there is no way for a VOIP provider to do the equivalent.
That was simply a case of an agent of the primary developer suing a company that distributes the code in object form without providing the source. That is not unlike Microsoft suing you if your redistribute a piece of redistributable code but did not follow the license.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the FSF, who is powerless to enforce the GPL on projects where they do not own the copyright, and the Copyright holder has not requested their help.
Further, no GPL copyright holder has been known to sue unless the other party is unwilling to comply or cease distribution. Yes, one can almost invariably get a GPL lawsuit dropped just by ceasing the distribution of the relevant code. The GPL's culture is very relaxed compared to many other licenses where once a lawsuit has started only money or cross-licensing agreements can terminate it early. I'll admit that much of this is true for other Free Software or Open Source licenses too, but it does show that your concern may be just a bit overblown. That said, if you prefer other licenses, there is little reason not to use them, especially if they remain GPL compatible.
Which E911 are you talking about? There are 3 different E911 Systems.
My understanding is that wireline E911 has been fully operation in most of the country for many years. There may be a small number of rural PSAPs that are not properly equipped, but I'm actually doubting even that.
Wireless E911 is newer and should probably be working just fine in all major metropolitan areas. How well it is actually working elsewhere I am not certain. This usually uses either Assisted GPS (allegedly phone captures raw GPS signals, and transmits them to phone company for decoding), full GPS, and cell tower triangulation. I'm not sure how well the providers support the systems though, which may result in the system failing even though the phone and the PSAP having proper support for Wireless E911.
VOIP E911 is the newest system. Actually half the difficulty here is figuring out which PSAP to contact. The Cell phones can reasonably choose to contact the PSAP that services the physical location of the tower itself. (Should be close enough that fire and rescue crews can respond in a reasonable timeframe. The same is true of police, althiugh jurisdiction is also relevant there. Thankfully cops usually have at least limited felony jusridiction statewide.) Wirelines know exactly where they are, so the difficulty there is minimal. But VOIP providers have no real way of accurately determining your general location, so figuring out which PSAP to contact is actually a major problem above and beyond providing location information to the PSAP.