Thursday, May 17, 2007

Kdenlive - Open Source Video For Linux

Kdenlive - Open Source Video For Linux

Looks like jumpcut for the home PC...I may have to get a machine set up to try this out...

I Chat, Therefore I Am... | Technology | DISCOVER Magazine

I Chat, Therefore I Am... | Technology | DISCOVER Magazine

So, what happens when two machines start up a conversation in a chat room? I've heard far less coherent conversations from real humans...

Sunday, May 6, 2007

Friday, May 4, 2007

Legal action could follow Digg's encryption key U-turn | OUT-LAW.COM

Legal action could follow Digg's encryption key U-turn | OUT-LAW.COM

Okay...so, a string of 32 alphanumeric characters is considered part of their encryption technology, and cannot exist anywhere outside of that? I think it's time I delved into my old math roots and figure out some different ways of generating arbitrary source text for specific MD5 hashes...

Groklaw - Two Conferences You Might Want to Attend

Groklaw - Two Conferences You Might Want to Attend (and a serious head-scratcher from PJ)

There have been a very few times where I've disagreed with Groklaw's PJ, but unless I'm misunderstanding her sentiment, I'll have to increment my instance counter ($pj{'disagreements'}++).


PJ quoted Professor Lee Hollar, who said:

"I'm proposing a new, limited patent-like protection. It combines the disclosure and claiming requirements of patents, so that the current database of patented technology can be substantially expanded, with copyright's infringement defense of independent creation. Because protection comes into being only when a registered innovation is actually used in commerce, many of the problems with "patent trolls" are eliminated. And providing such an alternative would allow more substantial examination of regular patents through greatly increased application fees and more stringent requirements. The protection is particular suitable for software developers who have created new techniques. Without such protection, there is no way for an open-source software developer to keep those who don't want to share with the community from using their new technique."

PJ then responded:
"I love this idea. And Amédee Turner, Queen's Counsel, Honorary Member of the European Parliament, will be speaking..."


I don't profess to know as much about the law as PJ, but I know plenty about the monetary resources of small development outfits, and "greatly increased application fees" doesn't sound like something developers on small budgets would love (taking for granted that we're stuck with software patents for now).


More stringent requirements sounds fine...I'd personally like them to be stringent enough that software doesn't qualify at all (a point of view I believe PJ shares). Most things that help stem the tide of software patent applications are probably to our benefit, however, the end of the statement made by Mr Hollar is what has me scratching my head.


In those last two sentences are a pair of comments about [open source] developers who have created new techniques. I suppose that here, again, it's reality (software patents exist) vs. the ideal world (software is protected by copyright alone), so if the comments are meant to address specific concerns that have been expressed by developers, I can understand them.


For me, where those statements go off the tracks is in how they relate to the spirit of free software development in general. The main point of free software development is that software is something that anyone can create, and that by allowing the free sharing of the ideas, concepts, and functions made visible in code, we all learn more than we would have if it was all a big secret.


Yes, there will always be leeches who take what they want from what's freely available and then refuse to share what they create from that, but they are the poorer for it, not the developers that they've taken it from.


I don't see a burning need to keep "those who don't want to share with the community from using [some random technique]", since it doesn't do harm to the original project, and underscores the fact that open-source development works well enough that proprietary companies sometimes find it easiest to steal to stay competitive.


All in all, I have to say that I don't love this idea. At a minimum, I like it a lot less than the idea of abolishing software patents. Maybe I misunderstand, maybe I'm wrong, and (a distant third) maybe I'm right about this...one way or another, I'm sure PJ will clear the air.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Dr. Dobb's | AJAX: Selecting the Framework that Fits | May 1, 2007

Dr. Dobb's | AJAX: Selecting the Framework that Fits | May 1, 2007

Slashdot | Censoring a Number

An insightful comment:
they hardly do themselves any favors when they decide not to support all these geeks' OS of choice, so that if they want the shiny new high-definition movies, and many of them do, they need to marshal all of those computer skills and idle time towards utterly destroying the 'unbreakable' copy protection scheme that accompanies each generation of media.

So, there I am, merrily skipping along through comments about a certain unspeakable number (kind of a "We do not speak his name!", but related to HD video discs).


The comment above is simple and unassuming, but man does it ring true.


Think about this: who do you know that's the first one to have all the high-tech/high-performance gear? First one on the block with surround-sound? A DVD player? An HDTV?


I'd bet even money that it's a geek. More than likely a single 25-35-year-old male employed in some sort of tech job who has money to burn and a desire to have the newest and shiniest of things.


Let's entertain another thought: who do you know that's the most likely to tinker with something? Attatches item A and item B together when the two are ordinarily not connectable? Writes a program to be a coffee timer and then solders together a serial cable, a relay, and a wall outlet to make the whole thing work? Decides that they want to run some variety of Open-source operating system because they can make it do whatever they want it to do?


There is, I believe, a significant overlap there. The simple fact that a large quantity of people appreciate both newer media formats (assuming they offer increased fidelity reproduction of the source material) and the freedom to tinker means that there's incentive to make something happen.


The fact that the creators of said media formats purposely make it as difficult as possible to view the content they encode on anything other than their approved devices means that the "something" will be discovering a way to overcome that limitation.


"saviorsloth" had it exactly right (and said it in a lot less words than I just have), but it bears further discussion. What can the creators of this digital content do to improve the situation?


Basically, they have two choices. They can abandon the arms race, or they can maintain the status quo.


In the second case (the status quo), they still spend big wads of cash developing encryption, worrying about rampant copying, and trying to get stereo makers to encrypt the signals going to loudspeakers.


I'm not a business analyst, but I am a consumer, and I know that I'm getting *really* tired of having to deal with intrusive technology that forces me to either spend a lot of money or accept a lesser experience (Time Warner cable replaced a DVR with a newer model that has replaced my previous DVI connection with a component cable...it sucks).


In the first case (standing down), they could use the money saved on not developing arbitrary encryption to distribute the media at lower prices (thereby eliminating both the need to hack the encryption and much of the incentive to copy).


Why is there a market for pirated versions of CDs or DVDs? People don't think they're worth the full price. It's bad enough to have to pay 8 bucks a pop to go to a theater for a new release that turns out to be not-so-great, but 15-50 dollars for a movie released on DVD (or even HD-DVD/BluRay) is probably the wrong price range.


If we're talking about production costs, let's think about how much it costs to make a pressed DVD/CD/HD-DVD/BluRay disc today, and then factor in the cost of packaging, etc. For a typical run of 1000 DVDs, you're looking at $1 each for pressing and a little more than that for the cases with outer wraps. Let's add, say, another 50 cents for the cost of the little miscellaneous flyers, brochures, and menus that get stuffed inside. I'll be generous and round up to $3.00 for all of that.


Tack on another 50 cents each for the cost of getting them to a distributor's warehouse, and we're at $3.50. Add in 10 cents each for the cost of the distributor getting the disc to a store. Tack on 2 dollars in markup so that the content creator makes a profit. We're talking $5.60 before it gets to a retailer.


So, now the disc is at a store that's paid 5.60 for it. They want to make a profit, too, so they sell it for $10.00. At that point, they sell every single one of their DVDs and there's still consumer demand (plus you'd have a hard time downloading them or getting a pirated version for much less).


Over-simplified? Of course. Basically correct? Probably. The RIAA and MPAA can, of course, continue to shoot themselves in the feet, but who **in their right mind would want to do that?




**I have no idea what the mental state of the person or persons in charge at the [RI|MP]AA is/are. They may very well not be in their right mind.

Doctors Change the Way They Think About Death - Newsweek Health - MSNBC.com

Doctors Change the Way They Think About Death - Newsweek Health - MSNBC.com

Heart stopped? Don't worry, you have an hour or so...no, really.