News Common PC Linux Mac CUCUG
The next CUCUG meeting will be held on our regular third Thursday of the month: Thursday, January 18th, at 7:00 pm, at the First Baptist Church of Champaign in Savoy. The Linux SIG convenes, of course, 45 minutes earlier, at 6:15 pm. Directions to the FBC-CS are at the end of this newsletter.
The January 18 gathering will be one of mystery meetings. Bring in anything you like. It's just an excuse to see your friends anyway. [Hope you can see me grinning while I'm saying that.]
ToC
We'd like to welcome back our renewing members Mike Latinovich, Mark Zinzow, James Zinzow, George Krumins, Dave Witt, Anderson Yau, John Bjerke, Ed Hadley, Jim Berger, Bill Strutz, and Michael Habermann. We also would like to express our appreciation to our Lifetime members Kevin Hisel and Richard Rollins.
We welcome any kind of input or feedback from members. Run across an interesting item or tidbit on the net? Just send the link to the editor. Have an article or review you'd like to submit? Send it in. Have a comment? Email any officer you like. Involvement is the driving force of any user group. Welcome to the group.
ToC
He may be most famous as '60s-era singer, but it was his tinkering with a printer that got him into the Smithsonian.
Smithsonian-worthy printer
January 15, 2007 5:59 AM PDT
URL: http://news.com.com/2300-1025-6149904.html
Graham Nash is best known for his music, but he's also earned a spot in the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History for his work with digital photo printers. In August 2005, Nash and colleague Mac Holbert donated this IRIS 3074 printer to the museum.
Although the printer from IRIS Graphics was designed as a color-proofing device for commercial printing, Nash decided in the late 1980s to experiment with the printer to create large-scale digital photos. He founded a company, Nash Editions, which the Smithsonian describes as the world's first fine art digital-printmaking studio.
Nash and Holbert wrote their own image management software and created a hand-built scanner, the Smithsonian said. They also forced the IRIS printer to do something it was not built to do: print high-quality black-and-white photographs on archival paper. According to the Smithsonian, one example of their determination to make their idea work was to hook up a vacuum cleaner inside the IRIS printer to keep lint flying from the paper out of the ink nozzles.
National Museum of American History Director Brent Glass, Nash, Steve Boutler, curator Shannon Perich and Holbert pose with the IRIS printer when it was donated in August 2005. Also pictured is the first photographic print it produced: a print of singer David Crosby called The Man Jan Sees by Nash.
Nash Editions used its tweaked version of the printer from 1989 through 2004 to produce high-quality black-and-white digital photographs.
ToC
By Anne Broache
Story last modified Fri Jan 12 13:09:00 PST 2007
URL: http://news.com.com/Senators+aim+to+restrict+Net%2C+satellite+radio+recording/2100-1028_3-6149915.html
Satellite and Internet radio services would be required to restrict listeners' ability to record and play back individual songs, under new legislation introduced this week in the U.S. Senate.
The rules are embedded in a copyright bill called the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act, or Perform Act, which was reintroduced Thursday by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). They have pitched the proposal, which first emerged in an earlier version last spring, as a means to level the playing field among "radio-like services" available via cable, satellite and the Internet.
By their description, that means requiring all such services to pay "fair market value" for the use of copyright music libraries. The bill's sponsors argue the existing regime must change because it applies different royalty rates, depending on what medium transmits the music.
But the measure goes further, taking aim at portable satellite radio devices, such as XM Satellite Radio's Inno player, that allow consumers to store copies of songs originally played on-air. The proposal says that all audio services--Webcasters included--would be obligated to implement "reasonably available and economically reasonable" copy-protection technology aimed at preventing "music theft" and restricting automatic recording.
"New radio services are allowing users to do more than simply listen to music," Feinstein said in a statement.
<http://feinstein.senate.gov/07releases/r-perform0111.htm>
"What was once a passive listening experience has turned into a forum where users can record, manipulate, collect and create personalized music libraries."
The Recording Industry Association of America applauded the effort and urged Congress to make passing the legislation a top priority this year. The lobbying group sued XM </2061-11199_3-6073185.html> last year over a music-storing device offered by the service, arguing that it should have to pay licensing fees akin to what Apple pays to run its iTunes download service.
"We love satellite radio," RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol said in a statement. "But this is simply no way to do business. It's in everyone's best interest to ensure a marketplace where fair competition can thrive."
XM Satellite Radio spokesman Chance Patterson called the proposed legislation "ill-advised" because, among other things, it would "harm consumers' long-protected recording rights." The company is making "good progress" in resolving what he referred to as "a business dispute with our partners in the music industry" and, besides, satellite radio outfits already pay royalties, he said.
In what the bill's sponsors describe as an attempt to avoid "harming" songwriters and performers, the Perform Act makes distinctions about what sort of recordings listeners would be allowed to make, according to a copy of the bill obtained by CNET News.com.
Radio listeners would be permitted to set their devices to automatically record full radio programs on certain channels at certain times. But allowing users to program their devices to automatically find and record specific sound recordings, artists or albums--say, only all Michael Jackson tracks played on the service--would be prohibited. So-called "manual" recording would be allowed, as long as it's done "in a manner that is not an infringement of copyright."
In addition, the services would have to employ technological protection measures that prevent people from "separating component segments of the copyrighted material" contained in broadcasts. And they would be required to restrict users' "redistribution, retransmission or other exporting" of all or part of copyright music to other devices--unless the destination device is part of a secure in-home network that also limits the scope of automated recordings.
It is unclear how the proposed requirements would affect software recorders. A Mac OS X utility called StreamRipperX, for instance, permits songs from Internet radio stations to be saved as unprotected MP3 files. If future versions of such software tried to circumvent the digital rights management (DRM) technology used in encrypted broadcasts, they would almost certainly violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
<http://streamripperx.sourceforge.net/>
Digital rights advocacy groups vowed to fight the proposal. A similar bill of the same name introduced last spring encountered considerable resistance from such groups and individual Webcasters, even spawning an opposition Web site.
Opponents argue the proposed rules would stymie users' ability to record music off the radio. And by forcing Webcasters to blanket their content with DRM schemes, they would essentially erase the possibility of editing broadcasts for personal use and would potentially make the shows interoperable with fewer portable players.
Under current law, Webcasters must pay royalties to record companies and may not assist their users in recording their Webcasts, but they do not have to employ DRM. Most streaming radio stations, including those operated through Live365, ShoutCast and Apple's iTunes, use an open MP3-streaming format.
The proposal "remains a fundamental assault on consumers' reasonable rights and expectations about home recording and fair use in any modern context," said Robert Schwartz, general counsel to the Home Recording Rights Coalition.
Gigi Sohn, president of advocacy group Public Knowledge, said she sympathized with calls for streamlined music licensing but blasted the bill as "a direct attack on the satellite music industry and on nascent terrestrial digital radio." She said the bill attempts wrongly to equate download services like iTunes with radio services.
"This bill looks to the past rather than to the future," she said in a statement, "by limiting the ability of consumers to use material to which they have subscribed and by limiting future innovations in electronics."
/CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report./
ToC
Written and produced by John Anderson (mediaminutes@freepress.net)
Audio: http://freepress.net/mediaminutes/archive/mm010507.mp3
Text: http://freepress.net/mediaminutes/transcripts/mm010507.pdf
On December 29th, without the benefit of holding an open meeting, the Federal Communications Commission formally gave its blessing to a merger of AT&T with BellSouth. The $85 billion dollar deal creates the largest landline, wireless, and broadband company in the country by far, with tentacles in at least 22 states. The FCC vote was four to nothing, with Commissioner Robert McDowell abstaining to avoid ethics concerns stemming from his prior work as a lobbyist for other phone companies.
After several months of wrangling, on December 28th AT&T submitted a list of merger conditions to the FCC for its consideration. Key to passage of the deal was a company commitment to preserve the principle of network neutrality on how it treats the traffic that crosses its broadband network. However, the promise is only good for two years. Another important concession will allow customers of AT&T the choice to buy their phone and broadband internet connections separately - something AT&T would sell in a package only before. However, it's not clear that AT&T's network will be able to separate DSL signals from dialtones that easily, and that separation clause is only good for 30 months, after which AT&T could force consumers to buy many more services than they actually need to get what they want.
But these conditions are only temporary - they preserve the status quo in telecom policy, not make it any better. That will be the job of Congress in the new year - to pass legislation that makes network neutrality the law of the land, setting the principle of Internet freedom in stone. It will be an uphill battle: AT&Ts lobbying largesse surpasses that of the entire cable and satellite TV industries combined, and dwarfs any other media company.
We'll have much more on this story and its implications during our special on-location coverage from the National Conference for Media Reform, coming up next weekend.
The announcement that Clear Channel is being bought up by two private investment firms for nearly $19 billion opens a new can of worms in the debate over media ownership. Unlike public media conglomerates, whose holdings are clearly known, private investment firms dabble in a wide range of industries, and many of them may already be large stockholders in other media firms. While there is no definitive evidence that the investors buying Clear Channel have other strategic media holdings, the situation might arise where one investment firm could have its fingers in so many media pies that it might run afoul of FCC and other limits on how much media a single company can control. It's a trend worth watching in the future as more media mergers and acquisitions are announced in 2007.
There can be no question about it: consolidation in the radio industry has most definitely limited program diversity on the dial. So says a recent report from the Future of Music Coalition, which used industry-collected data to evaluate the number of program formats available in markets across the country. Some of the findings:
The number of radio station owners peaked in 1995 and has declined precipitously since then, thanks to the massive consolidation allowed by the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In fact, the number of stations owned by the ten largest companies in the industry increased fifteen-fold between 1985 and 2005, the last year for which data was available.
Radio industry revenue has consolidated as well: in 1993, the top four radio companies made 12% of the money in the business. Now they capture half of it. The same is true with listenership - today, more than half the U.S. population tunes into stations owned by just two companies, Clear Channel and CBS Radio.
On the programming front, just 15 formats account for 76% of the commercial radio programming available in America today, and many of those formats overlap greatly. Most of the largest broadcasters focus on just eight primary formats. And specialty programming, including public affairs shows, are predominantly provided by independent stations or smaller radio companies.
The Future of Music Coalition recommends the FCC consider lowering the number of stations a single company can own, both locally and nationwide, in order to reverse the industry's decade-long trend of homogenization. It also suggests that more station license opportunities be awarded to independent groups, both for full-power and low-power radio stations. And that the practice of payola - which is already technically illegal but nonetheless is widespread within the radio industry - be fully investigated and prosecuted by the FCC to the fullest extent of the law. You can read the full report on radio consolidation online at http://www.futureofmusic.org.
Related Links:
Save the Internet: AT&T Yields to Neutrality, Paves Path to Congress
Private Equity Heads for Tussle on Media Ownership
False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry
Media Minutes
Media Minutes NCMR Special Coverage: January 12, 2007
Media Minutes NCMR Special Coverage: January 13, 2007
Media Minutes NCMR Special Coverage: January 14, 2007
ToCThe National Conference for Media Reform
by Kevin Hopkins
Kevin Hisel brought up a very important point at the last meeting for those using Insight as their ISP. Insight has recently boosted the speed of their service, but they've not been as forthcoming with the information that you can't take full advantage of that increase with older cable modems and/or routers. These devices aren't fast enough. You need to examine your equipment and see if it is DOCSIS 2.0 compliant. Mine were not. Insight is quite willing to upgrade your rented cable modem, but it seems you have to know to ask.
Certified Cable Modem Project (DOCSIS)
What are the key differences between DOCSIS 1.1 and 2.0?
DOCSIS 1.1 and 2.0 Specifications are posted on the specifications page of www.cablemodem.com.
DOCSIS 2.0 builds upon DOCSIS 1.1, and provides all of the features and functionality that DOCSIS 1.1 provides. In addition, it provides the following enhancements:
http://www.cablemodem.com/faq/
http://www.cablemodem.com/faq/#FAQ19
From: Edwin Hadley <elhadley@life.uiuc.edu>
SPEAR is an application for audio analysis, editing and synthesis. The analysis procedure (which is based on the traditional McAulay-Quatieri technique) attempts to represent a sound with many individual sinusoidal tracks (partials), each corresponding to a single sinusoidal wave with time varying frequency and amplitude.
Something which closely resembles the original input sound (a re-synthesis) can be generated by computing and adding all of the individual time varying sinusoidal waves together. In almost all cases the re-synthesis will not be exactly identical to the original sound (although it is possible to get very close).
Aside from offering a very detailed analysis of the time varying frequency content of a sound, a sinusoidal model offers a great deal of flexibility for editing and manipulation. SPEAR supports flexible selection and immediate manipulation of analysis data, cut and paste, and unlimited undo/redo. Hundreds of simultaneous partials can be synthesized in real-time and documents may contain thousands of individual partials dispersed in time. SPEAR also supports a variety of standard file formats for the import and export of analysis data.
Read more in the ICMC paper "Software for Spectral Analysis, Editing, and Synthesis." (pdf) (http://www.klingbeil.com/papers/spearfinal05.pdf)
Currently SPEAR runs on MacOS X (PowerPC), MacOS 9 and Windows. For a variety of reasons SPEAR will probably operate better on MacOS X. The program is still in a pre-1.0 stage, meaning that not only will there be some bugs but that significant underlying changes may still take place before a 1.0 release. With that said, it is currently quite stable and useful.
Dec. 14, 2006 Due to the beta expiration date in version 0.6.3, version 0.6.4 is now available. Sadly there are no new features. The Universal Binary version is still in the works. Due to some regressions involving adoption of wxWidgets 2.6 it is taking much longer than anticipated.
Feb. 15, 2006 Version 0.6.3 will probably be the last release available for MacOS 9. In the coming weeks, the MacOS builds will be transitioned to XCode in preparation for doing a Universal Binary version (x86 native). With that said, the x86 version is probably still a few months away.
Version 0.6.4 released. Visit downloads. (http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/downloads)
Version 0.6.3 released.
RBEP export
using v19 (development version) of PortAudio.
This may solve compatibility problems with some audio interfaces.
using v1.0.13 of Erik de Castro Lopo's libsndfile.
Supports reading Sound Designer II files (at least on MacOS X)
analysis frequency tracking bug fixed
Version 0.6.1 released.
time stretch bug fixed (when nothing was selected prior to stretching)
preference for choosing output sound file format and bit depth
adjusted SDIF stream IDs - 1NVT is ID -3, 1TYP is ID -1
(http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/analysis.html)
You can help the development effort in a number of ways. Here are some things that are needed:
Please visit the download page. (http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/downloads/)
The program has been written with portability in mind (using the wxWidgets framework) so future versions could run on GTK. There are of course numerous features I would like to add.
Analysis of input sound from the Analysis/Synthesis Comparison Session (http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/SDIF/ICMC2000/) at ICMC 2000 in Berlin.
Coming soon: lisp code for reading text formats, utilities for OpenMusic.
Available here. (http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/downloads/releases.php)
Send e-mail to: spear@klingbeil,com
ToC
[Editor's Note: I recently received this note from my friend Kevin Hisel.
"Kevin, I thought that after running so many stories touting government regulation of the Internet regarding "network neutrality" you'd welcome a couple of articles with a different view..."
My inclination has always been, "Anything a member wants to contribute to the newsletter that's computer related goes in. It's your newsletter. So, without further comment.]
Prof. Christopher Yoo, Vanderbilt University School of Law
URL: http://www.networkperformancedaily.com/2007/01/clarification_a_case_for_nonne_1.html
[Editor's Note: This is a clarification of the original article which appears at http://www.networkperformancedaily.com/2007/01/network_neutrality_debate_a_ca.html .]
This article continues our series examining the issue of Network Neutrality.
Professor Christopher Yoo joined the faculty of the Vanderbilt University School of Law in 1999, and his research focuses primarily on how technological innovation and economic theories of imperfect competition are transforming the regulation of electronic communications.
In addition to clerking for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and working at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson under the supervision of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., he has also published "Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion" [PDF] in Georgetown Law Journal, and "Beyond Network Neutrality" [PDF] in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology.
We asked him to share his thoughts on Net Neutrality with us.
The Internet has undergone a rather amazing transformation over the last several years. The number of Internet users has exploded, and the number of possible connections has increased quadratically with the number of users.
Furthermore, the variety of ways in which consumers are using the Internet has exploded along with the number of users. The early Internet was dominated applications, such as e-mail and web browsing, which did not require significant amounts of bandwidth and were not particularly sensitive to delay. In fact, delays of half a second were essentially unnoticeable. Over time, consumers have begun to turn to newer applications-such as streaming video, and online gaming, and Internet telephony (also known as "voice over Internet protocol" or VoIP)-which are placing much greater demands on the network. Many of these new-style applications employ sophisticated graphics that require much more bandwidth than did previous applications. Equally importantly, many of these new applications are significantly more sensitive to delay. In fact, a delay of as little as a third of a second can render VoIP unusable under the global standards for voice communications promulgated by the International Telecommunications Union.
As a result, network providers are trying to meet these new demands by experimenting with new ways to manage congestion and reduce delay. Enhancing network owners' ability manage traffic is essential if the full range of innovative content and applications that depend on guaranteed transmission speeds is to appear.
The problem is that the Internet of today is not well designed to manage the recent increases in congestion and to support these newer, more time-sensitive applications. Most Internet users and providers currently communicate through a set of nonproprietary protocols known as TCP/IP, which routes traffic on a "first come, first served" basis. Although such an approach was sufficient to support low-bandwidth, non-time sensitive applications like e-mail and web browsing, it cannot provide the guaranteed transmission rates that streaming video and VoIP need to survive. The current network's inability to meet these new demands has prompted a number of leading technologists to regard TCP/IP as a thirty-year-old technology that is rapidly becoming obsolete.
One obvious solution would be to give traffic associated with time sensitive applications higher priority than traffic associated with non-time sensitive applications. Doing so would allow the network to guarantee transmission speeds to those applications that need it even when network capacity is overloaded. Without priority routing, many innovative services that depend on guaranteed throughput rates could not exist. Indeed, companies developing applications that depend on guaranteed transmission rates have indicated that they would willingly pay more to guarantee faster service, in much the same way people who absolutely, positively need to send a letter coast-to-coast overnight are more than willing to pay FedEx more for the additional costs needed to provide express service. Unfortunately, this is precisely the type of discrimination between types of applications and levels of service that network neutrality would condemn.
Another interesting innovation is the emergence of content-delivery networks like Akamai, which reportedly serves 15% of the world's Internet traffic. Suppose that an end user in Los Angeles attempts to download a webpage from CNN.com. If CNN.com hosted the content itself, this request would have to travel thousands of miles to a server located in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta and back, passing through any number of points of congestion along the way. Akamai takes a different approach. Rather than storing Internet content at a single location, Akamai caches content at over 14,000 locations around the Internet. Storing content closer to consumers reduces transmission costs and delay by allowing the network to route the requests for content to servers that are closer and less congested. In the process, it provides additional security against denial-of-service attacks and other types of malevolent activity that plagues the Internet. The catch from the standpoint of network neutrality is that Akamai is a commercial service available only to those who are willing to pay for it. In other words, CNN.com may be able serve customers more quickly than MSNBC.com so long as it is willing to pay Akamai for its services.
These examples underscore how the best design for yesterday's Internet may not always be the best design for today's or tomorrow's. The Internet must be allowed to evolve to meet the times. Well-intentioned efforts to preserve the benefits of the past threaten to prevent the Internet from adapting to shifts in technology and changes in what people want from the network. These examples also underscore the extent to which the term "network neutrality" represents something of a misnomer. Every network architecture inevitably favors some applications and disfavors others. As a result, mandating the use of any particular architecture would be anything but "neutral."
Rather than locking the Internet into any particular architecture, Congress should instead embrace a principle that I call "network diversity," which would allow network providers to experiment with different ways to meet the needs of today's users. Allowing networks to experiment in this manner would provide valuable information about different ways to manage congestion while increasing the variety of services available to consumers.
Allowing broadband providers to use different protocols can also expand the number of dimensions along which networks can compete with one another for business. Employing different protocols might permit smaller network players to survive by targeting sub-segments of the larger market, in much the same way that specialty stores do when confronted with competition from a low-cost, mass-market retailer. For example, network diversity might make it possible for three last-mile networks to coexist: one optimized for traditional Internet applications (such as e-mail and website access); a second designed to facilitate time-sensitive applications (such as streaming video and VoIP), and a third incorporating security features to facilitate e-commerce and to guard against viruses, spam, and other undesirable aspects of life on the Internet. By mandating that the entire Internet operate on a single protocol, network neutrality threatens to foreclose this outcome and instead force networks to compete on price and network size-considerations that reinforce the advantages already enjoyed by the largest players.
The last twelve months also demonstrate how imposing network neutrality could slow the deployment of new last-mile technologies. The Supreme Court's June 2005 Brand X decision made clear that content and applications providers could no longer count on regulation to guarantee access to cable modem and DSL systems. When faced with the prospect of losing access to the existing network, companies such as Google, Microsoft, Earthlink, and Intel began to pour money into alternative last-mile technologies, such as wireless broadband and broadband over powerline (BPL), demonstrated most dramatically by Google's agreement to build a wireless broadband network in San Francisco for free. Guaranteeing content and applications providers access to the existing network would destroy their incentives to undertake these beneficial investments. In other words, access regulation threatens to deprive would-be builders of alternative last-mile networks of their natural strategic partners, thereby having the perverse effect of cementing the existing last-mile oligopoly into place.
The examples I have laid out demonstrate how deviating from network neutrality can actually benefit consumers and promote economic welfare. At the same time, network neutrality proponents point to the notorious Madison River case, in which a rural local telephone company blocked its customers from accessing VoIP, as evidence that deviations from network neutrality may actually harm consumers. In so doing, they overlook the fact that Madison River does not justify the kind of general nondiscrimination mandate favored by network neutrality proponents. Network owners like Madison River may have some incentive to block access to websites and applications that compete with services they already offer. They have no incentive to block access to innovative services with which they do not compete, since doing so would simply lower the value of their network and thus lower the amount that they can charge for access to it. In other words, a DSL provider that does not operate an auction site of its own has no plausible incentive to block access to eBay. At most, then, concerns about website blocking would support limited regulatory intervention that would only prohibit vertically integrated network owners from blocking content and applications that competed directly with their own offerings. It would not support the type of blanket restrictions on discrimination associated with network neutrality.
It is thus quite plausible that circumstances exist in which deviations from network neutrality might be beneficial and that circumstances also exist in which deviations from network neutrality might be harmful. How should our nation's Internet policy react when confronted with this uncertainty? Fortunately, the Supreme Court's antitrust jurisprudence, which embodies the conventional wisdom on competition policy, provides some useful guidance. The Supreme Court's precedents suggest that if a practice would always be beneficial, the government should mandate it in all cases. If, on the other hand, the practice would always be pernicious, the government should prohibit it in all cases. When it is impossible to tell whether a practice would promote or hinder competition, the accepted response is to permit the practice to go forward until those challenging it can show actual harm to competition.
Supreme Court precedent would thus counsel against adopting regulations that would make ambiguous practices like access tiering categorically illegal. Instead, it would seem to favor taking the middle course embodied in my "network diversity" proposal, by allowing different networks to pursue different approaches unless and until they are shown to harm competition. Requiring a showing of actual, rather than hypothetical, harm provides the room for experimentation upon which technological and economic progress depends. It would guarantee that any intervention would be restricted to the precise scope of the threat to competition and would not spill over into activities that could not plausibly harm consumers. It would also exhibit appropriate humility about our ability to predict the technological future and would instead allow consumers' choices to determine the shape of the Internet of tomorrow.
[Editor's Note: My thanks to Kevin Hisel for submitting this item.]
ToC
By K.C. Jones, <kirconley@cmp.com>
TechWeb.com
January 11, 2007 (12:47 PM EST)
URL: http://tinyurl.com/yng5gn
Opponents of network neutrality are criticizing a bill introduced this week by Senators Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).
The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2007 would prevent broadband service providers from prioritizing some Internet content, applications, or services over other content, applications, or services.
Hands Off the Internet co-chairs Mike McCurry and Christopher Wolf issued a joint statement saying the bill would benefit large content companies like Google, eBay, and Amazon, while forcing consumers to bear the burden of the cost of upgrading U.S. communications networks. Verizon and other network providers are also critical of the bill.
"It's disappointing that Senators Snowe and Dorgan would introduce essentially the same bill to regulate the Internet that went down to such decisive defeat in Congress last June," they said. "With America lagging many of our economic competitors in broadband deployment, Congress' focus should instead be on spurring affordable high-speed deployment. And, as numerous opponents of neutrality regulations, including the Communications Workers of America, have correctly noted, promoting deployment, not cumbersome new regulation, is the key to economic growth and job creation."
Hands Off the Internet -- whose members include Alcatel, AT&T, the National Association of Manufacturers, hardware manufacturers, Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union and the National Black Chamber of Commerce -- pointed out that a 269-152 vote defeated a network neutrality bill in Congress last year. A similar attempt for statewide neutrality legislation failed in Michigan.
The congressional defeat did not end the debate last year. Several similar bills failed to get to the floor for a vote.
Peter Davidson, Verizon senior VP for federal government relations, said network neutrality legislation would be a "huge step backward.
"Verizon supports and protects consumers' rights to full Internet access, and we provide them with an unmatched online experience," he said. "Net neutrality -- better named net regulation -- is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. We expect a robust debate. In the end, most policymakers will focus on how to increase broadband deployment, and wonder how net regulation advances that goal. It's ironic that this bill is introduced at the same time the Consumer Electronics Show is filling the news with broadband-enabled innovations. There is a 'disconnect' between consumers' desires for new products and services and the stifling effects of this bill."
FreedomWorks chairman and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said there is already too much government "meddling in the telecom sector" and said liberal groups support more legislation. Network neutrality supporters include the Gun Owners of America and the Christian Coalition.
"Common sense tells us that if it ain't broke don't fix it," he said. "The Internet has done just fine without the help of regulators and politicians. Liberal politicians and groups such as MoveOn.org are promoting the idea that active government interference is necessary to 'save' the Internet. The Internet is the modern frontier of innovation and economic development, and should remain free from regulation. Net neutrality mandates are something true small government supporters need to rally against."
FreedomWorks, which is supported by telecommunications companies and claims 700,000 grass roots activists, said it will call upon its nationwide army of volunteers to lobby against the bill.
Network neutrality proponents have garnered 1.43 million signatures on petitions supporting network neutrality legislation.
[Editor's Note: My thanks to Kevin Hisel for submitting this item.]
ToC
On The Media, January 05, 2007
URL: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/01/05/04
Audio: http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram?file=/otm/otm010507d.mp3
The Internet began as a digital Wild West, lawless and immune from market or government control. Columbia law professor Tim Wu explains not only how important national borders have proven to be, but also why policing them might not be so bad.
<http://www.physorg.com/news6901.html>
<http://www.technewsworld.com/story/49127.html>
BOB GARFIELD: For the first show of the New Year, we thought we'd address the future of the computer - what it can't do, what it can do, what it's about to be able to do.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: On the matter of what it can't do, we turned to Tim Wu, co-author, with Jack Goldsmith, of Who Controls the Internet? What he found is that the computer, or rather the Internet it spawned, cannot be an oasis of freedom without borders or rulers or hardly any rules. President Clinton joked in 1998 that China's effort to control the Internet was like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall, but it turns out that Jell-O is nailable, if you have the will, the technology and the law behind you.
And nations have all three, especially laws, governing everything from copyright to privacy to speech. Then there are the laws of the marketplace, which may be the most powerful of all. Tim Wu joins us now. Tim, welcome back to the show.
TIM WU: Thanks, great to be here.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So after studying the question, "Who controls the Internet," you saw time and time again that mostly it's governments, and it's governments with competing ideologies. Could you explain, first of all, how that works and what these competing ideologies are?
TIM WU: Sure. If you look at the history of the Internet, one government, especially the American government, has an enormous role in shaping the nature and the ideology of the network. It is built to be free. It is built to be decentralized. It is built to be an engine of information transmission.
And what I think has changed over the last ten years is that other countries have begun to get into this game and say that they want a say in what the Internet looks like. And they've used the powers that governments have to try and make the Internet more in their image than simply the American image.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And the American ideology that governed the Net was essentially a celebration of free markets and free speech.
TIM WU: And that was supported by the American government and by the American Defense Department, in particular. And what we chronicle in this book are the efforts by other nations to fight that ideology with their own ideas of how things should be regulated.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: France was able to rule that Yahoo couldn't sell Nazi memorabilia in France. China can use American technology, principally, to pursue and jail dissidents online.
TIM WU: Let me talk about Yahoo because that was a big turning point.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Mm-hmm.
TIM WU: Yahoo was sued in France by a French plaintiff for selling or for being possible to buy Nazi goods from the Yahoo auction site in France. And Yahoo really thought there was no way some court in France was going to tell them what to do, you know.
So they fought the lawsuit. They dismissed it. They just basically ignored it, until finally the French judge ruled that they had violated French law and began threatening Yahoo with really serious fines and possible imprisonment of Yahoo executives if they came anywhere close to France. And suddenly, Yahoo rolled over. And that was a real turning point in the history of the Internet.
And then, you know, things went further. Not only did Yahoo then agree to everything that France said, although they claim not to be, eventually Yahoo, the once agent of free speech, became an agent of thought control for the Chinese government when they began, you know, collecting emails and reporting on dissident activities of their users on behalf of the Chinese government, eventually leading to at least one dissident being thrown in jail for ten years for leaking a memo on a Yahoo email account.
And so, you know, in that story of Yahoo and its transition is really that story of how the Internet's changed over the last ten or fifteen years.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: One sentence in your book that really stood out for me was your observation that the question used to be: how will the Internet affect China. And now the question is: how will China affect the Internet.
TIM WU: I think that's exactly right. They are leading the way in trying to make the Internet much more centralized and much more controllable, something that you can sit in one office and see what's going on and decide what people can and can't see.
I don't intentionally mean to link these two parties in the United States, but the Bell companies and the cable companies, but more Bell, have been fighting also to have a more controlled Internet. They say it'll be safer. There is a big-picture ideological battle going on right now, and it's a big battle between a centralized ideology and a decentralized ideology. And it is being fought out every day, and every time you click on something.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: You don't come down on the position that government interference is always bad. In your book, you say it's not only inevitable, it's frequently very, very good.
TIM WU: There's a general reaction that governments- Internet, bad. But you have to ask in the future, you know, if this medium is so important, how do we decide what it's going to be like. People in Germany, for example, or in France, I think, have a right, if they feel like it, to say that we don't want Nazi material sold or displayed on our nets. They have these rights as sovereign nations.
Now, it doesn't agree with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but that is the United States Constitution. So, to the degree that we think that governments represent people, it makes sense to me that governments should have the right to have some say over what this network looks like.
Governments do very bad things, but, you know, they also, for basic security and basic functioning of a nation, they're pretty important, and even, you know, libertarians admit that.
And if you look at any business, at some degree they're dependent on property rights, they're dependent on a basic secure environment; they need a financial system. All of these are things where you need some type of government.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And eBay is a perfect example of that.
TIM WU: Yeah, eBay is a great story. I mean, eBay was founded on the idea that you can trust people, and, you know, they will do the right thing and they will pay up their debts. And, generally speaking, that has been true. The feedback system on eBay works most of the time.
But there are some people who are just not interested. They're there to cheat the system, steal money and make off with whatever they can make off with. And what eBay found, slowly, is that its system was not working, and it had to go into direct cooperation with the FBI, with California state police, and try to, as much as it can, catch frauders, arrest them, have them put in jail and threaten anyone who does this.
Right now, I think it has employed over 800 former law enforcement officials who spend their time trying to catch frauders and, you know, cooperate with the FBI to put them in jail.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Eight hundred people, some who -
TIM WU: Yes.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: - had investigated organized crime in their previous life for the FBI. And this was a company that started with a nice guy called Uncle Griff, in Vermont, who would personally adjudicate disputes among well-intended parties. Suddenly you have an entire police force, almost like Interpol.
TIM WU: Right. I mean, eBay is just a perfect example of sort of what you need to do to make utopia work.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tim, thanks a lot.
TIM WU: I enjoyed it. Thanks.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tim Wu is the author, with Jack Goldsmith, of Who Controls the Internet?
ToC
On The Media, January 05, 2007
URL: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/01/05/05
Audio: http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram?file=/otm/otm010507e.mp3
For some time, wireless Internet has been available in places like coffee shops and airport terminals. But now municipalities are moving to expand WiFi networks city-wide. OTM's Mark Phillips reports that how cities choose to build the networks could have a big effect on the end result.
<http://www.cctexas.com/?fuseaction=main.view&page=2725>
<http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/21_9/statelocal/28436-1.html>
BOB GARFIELD: Despite the strenuous efforts of nations the world is growing ever more interconnected. But that doesn't much matter if your connection is slow. You can't run an efficient business on a bad connection, and it's increasingly clear you can't run an efficient city on one either, not to mention educate students or support economic growth.
That's why some 300 American municipalities are looking to offer wireless service, or Wi-Fi, everywhere, from a cramped studio apartment to a secluded park bench. But what kind of Wi-Fi?
OTM's Mark Phillips offers a few real-life models, public, private, and one that's a little bit of both.
MARK PHILLIPS: Whole cities covered with a wireless Internet network, giving free access to everyone, anywhere, for free. It seems like a utopian vision. Is free citywide wireless really possible?
HEATHER PAINTER: Well, I've always been able to log on. I've always had success keeping a steady signal. It's worked really well for me, and the people that I've talked to, it has worked really, really well for them, too.
MARK PHILLIPS: Heather Painter lives in St. Cloud, Florida, a small town outside of Orlando. The municipal government spent just under three million dollars to build a Wi-Fi network to cover the 15-square-mile town. Accessing the Internet is free anywhere in the city limits. The network was partially funded by tax dollars, but the free Wi-Fi ends up saving most residents money by eliminating their monthly Internet bill. Howard DeYoung is St. Cloud's IT director.
HOWARD DeYOUNG: Well, it benefits us from an economic development point locally. You know, instead of paying large telecom companies five to six hundred dollars a year, where that money leave the area, now a resident has five to six hundred dollars a year that they can spend locally.
MARK PHILLIPS: Residents save, but so does the city. In Corpus Christi, Texas the Wi-Fi network is used regularly in dozens of ways by municipal employees, 70 percent of whom work in the field. Gas, water and electric meters in Corpus Christi are now automated so that each day they turn themselves on and send a reading over the wireless network. Leonard Scott works for Corpus Christi's IT Department.
LEONARD SCOTT: We started out with about 25 meter readers, and at the end of the meter deployment, we'll be down to about 4 key individuals. So the wireless system pays for itself. It eliminates costs, it avoids costs and has reduced costs.
MARK PHILLIPS: With everyone seemingly saving on the deal, building a public network should be a no-brainer, but not to Don Berryman, executive vice-president of EarthLink, a big Internet service provider.
DON BERRYMAN: You've got to think of the cost of the back end of that model. Somebody has to pay for it. So it would be then shared among all of the taxpayers in the community, whether you wanted to use it or not. And so there would be an unfair advantage for those people who actually used it.
MARK PHILLIPS: The residents of St. Cloud haven't complained, and, in fact, three-quarters of them opened accounts within six months of the free network's launch. Still, Philadelphia decided to go a different way and hired EarthLink to build a citywide private network. Not only is that more fair, says EarthLink's Berryman, but there are other good reasons why cities shouldn't build their own Wi-Fi.
DON BERRYMAN: We don't necessarily think local governments ought to go out and build these networks, one, because they don't have the expertise, and, two, they don't have the infrastructure to run them once they're built.
SASCHA MEINRATH: To declare that cities don't have the know-how is utterly ridiculous.
MARK PHILLIPS: Sascha Meinrath is the co-founder of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network.
SASCHA MEINRATH: Cities run police departments. They run fire departments. They respond to anyone and everyone who calls incredibly quickly. So they run incredibly complicated, incredibly critical resources all across the country, and they do it well.
MARK PHILLIPS: Greg Goldman is the head of Philadelphia Wireless, a nonprofit working with EarthLink and the city to launch the network. He says Philadelphia probably could have managed it logistically, but that the city couldn't hack it politically.
GREG GOLDMAN: We just don't think it was a political and economic possibility in real terms. You know, we have a major corporate player in Philadelphia, Comcast, which is very much involved in this market.
MARK PHILLIPS: Comcast is one of Philadelphia's biggest Internet service providers, or ISPs, the businesses we pay each month for Internet access. We pay them and they pay whoever owns the cable or phone lines they use. But Comcast also owns the cable lines, so it makes money in two ways - off the ISPs that use their cable and every customer who subscribes to its service directly.
Meanwhile, Verizon owns Philadelphia's telephone lines, so they get paid by ISPs, too. Needless to say, neither Comcast nor Verizon are thrilled about EarthLink eliminating the need for wires altogether. That's a payday they'll lose to EarthLink. Greg Goldman.
GREG GOLDMAN: Those folks are not happy about the model that we've created, which is a for-pay model. I can only imagine how much more unhappy they would be if all of a sudden people give it away for free. Plus, it would have required a major investment from the taxpayers of the city, and so from a political perspective you don't see the possibility of how it actually could have been offered for free.
MARK PHILLIPS: Verizon and Comcast waged serious lobbying efforts to block any Wi-Fi plan that was even indirectly public, and eventually the city turned to EarthLink to build the network. EarthLink, of course, is thrilled to have a network of their own, bypassing Comcast's cable lines. It is now pursuing similar projects in dozens of cities.
But advocates of publicly owned wireless don't believe EarthLink can solve the twin problems of limited access and high prices. After all, EarthLink's for-profit network does come with a price tag to residents. Wi-Fi service will cost 22 dollars a month.
But the company says it aims to be a more compassionate pipeline. If you earn less than $13,000 a year in Philadelphia, you're eligible for a reduced rate. Berryman from EarthLink.
DON BERRYMAN: It's, in Philadelphia, $9.95 a month for a low-income household. So that's pretty inexpensive. That's less than the cost of McDonald's for the day. And so you have Internet access, high-speed Internet access for the people who currently have access.
MARK PHILLIPS: About a third of EarthLink's Wi-Fi customers will be eligible for that discount, and the company plans to assist even those with bad credit in opening accounts. Plus, wireless Philadelphia is looking into providing computers and computer training to low-income families.
Other cities are also looking to bridge the digital divide.
PAMELA REEVE: We have, in Boston, 60 percent of the households and close to 80 percent of the Boston public school children don't have Internet access at home.
MARK PHILLIPS: Pamela Reeve was a member of the Boston Wireless Task Force, charged with finding a solution in Beantown. The task force wasn't sold on Philadelphia's private model.
PAMELA REEVE: There were some cases where cities have granted one private entity the right to build and manage a network, and we were concerned that would not give us the kind of openness and the kind of competitive environment for products and services that we felt was going to be really important.
MARK PHILLIPS: But the Boston Task Force also saw problems in a model that was entirely public.
PAMELA REEVE: A purely public model, which relies on tax resources or the focus of any given administration, didn't seem to be the way to go, so that's why we decided to create a separate nonprofit organization.
MARK PHILLIPS: That separate nonprofit organization will raise the money to build the network and will therefore own it, but it won't act as the ISP. The Boston nonprofit will let ISPs use their network at very low rates, so low, in fact, that even small local services can jump in. Reeve says Bostonians will still have to pay for the service, but about half as much as Philadelphians pay - around ten or fifteen dollars per month.
With lots of little ISPs competing in the same market, there will be plenty of room to experiment with pricing.
PAMELA REEVE: If someone wants to buy bits from us and turn around and offer them for free to their users, maybe an ad-based model, something like that, that's fine. If they want to sell them on a subscription basis, we don't really care. We're going to sell wholesale to any and all ISPs that will jump on this network.
MARK PHILLIPS: Boston's model is much closer to how Internet service is provided in Europe.
PAMELA REEVE: In the U.K., by regulation, there is a separation between the network providers and the service providers, the ISPs. And in that country, there are 15 to 25 ISPs in any given location.
MARK PHILLIPS: The dozens of ISP options in European cities have led to much lower prices for much faster service than what's offered in the U.S. And after leading the world in Internet access and affordability, the U.S. is quickly falling behind.
MICHAEL COPPS: We're 21st, right behind Estonia.
MARK PHILLIPS: FCC Commissioner Michael Copps.
MICHAEL COPPS: And other countries are cleaning our clock and getting a lot of bandwidth out to their folks at a cheap price. We know that we're not in the competition. Other countries are not going to wait for that kid in rural America to catch up.
MARK PHILLIPS: These new wireless networks offer a chance to catch up, but it also presents another chance to mess up. Cautious municipal governments are reluctant to embark on bold public projects, but once they choose and build the network, residents could be stuck with it indefinitely.
If cities choose incorrectly or stick to the status quo, they'll miss out on not just a utopian wireless future but also the benefits in the technological wave currently sweeping past our shores. For On the Media, I'm Mark Phillips.
ToC
On The Media, January 05, 2007
URL: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/01/05/06
Audio: http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram?file=/otm/otm010507f.mp3
Efforts are underway to create a new generation of the web that's smarter and more intuitive than the web we use today. Artificial Intelligence expert Nigel Shadbolt explains Web 3.0, and just how smart we can expect the future Internet to be.
<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~nrs/>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/business/12web.html?ex=1320987600&en=254d697964cedc62&ei=5088>
BOB GARFIELD: This is On the Media from NPR.
And I'm Bob Garfield. For a couple of years now, we've been living in a Web 2.0 world. Web 2.0 is the nickname given to the second generation of the Web in which the static pages of the early Internet gave way to something more fluid, where users can more easily find and share information, music and video.
We were just settling into Web 2.0 when suddenly, back in November, The New York Times ran a page-one story about the future of a new Semantic Web, a Web that thinks. Web 3.0? Huh?
Nigel Shadbolt is a professor of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, at the School of Electronics and Computer Science at Southampton University in England. He says that Web 3.0 will not only give us the facts we seek, it will choose among them, organize them - essentially do our work for us.
NIGEL SHADBOLT:So I might ask of Web 3.0, if it was actually there and running at the moment, book me a holiday in Vienna in a nice resort near Innsbruck for my family next week. Oh, and by the way, I've got a 12-year-old.
Now, that kind of expression of a complex question is nothing that we can precisely enter into the Web as it currently exists. People's hopes and aspirations for this more complete Web are that it will be able to deal with these kinds of complex queries.
BOB GARFIELD: Under Web 3.0, you're talking about the computer actually making some judgments for me. How do it know?
NIGEL SHADBOLT:Well, when you look at the Web page of a holiday provider and look at all of those features on those page, a particular location, a particular hotel type, how long it'll take to get there, you are extracting all of that information using your wetware and your eyeballs and four billion years of evolution. That's what human beings are exquisitely good at.
What we're developing in this next generation of Web are markup languages which are able to take the content on pages and documents like that and describe the bits of that content that are about the hotel and its location, about the expected amount of sunshine at a particular month in the year. It's called metadata, and the metadata is now allowing us to have information about the information available. And that's how the machines know.
Essentially, one machine will be using a particular vocabulary to describe its markup, and it will go and tell another machine that this is the place to look for to find out how it's using those definitions.
BOB GARFIELD: It sounds to me what you're describing is Artificial Intelligence.
NIGEL SHADBOLT:I kind of think of the Web as almost like a natural ecology. And what we're seeing start to pop up in various parts of the Web are simple sorts of micro-intelligences. Now, this isn't full-blown AI, but in just the way that we now have shopping assistants, shop-bots that can go out there and get a good price for us from particular stores, or an auction agent that can sit around and make a bid for us on eBay, these very limited sorts of adaptive behavior are going to start to spring up across the Web.
So I think of the Web starting to illustrate lots of micro-intelligences rather than being some kind of super-sentient information fabric. I think that really does remain in the realm of science fiction.
BOB GARFIELD: In The New York Times, there was a piece about Web 3.0, talking about a system called - forgive me, I don't know the pronunciation, but it's CYC.
NIGEL SHADBOLT: "Sike."
BOB GARFIELD: Okay.
NIGEL SHADBOLT:The CYC Project was an attempt, some years ago now, to try and use AI techniques to construct encyclopedic knowledge that humans have about the world. Now, one of the very hardest things to get our computers to understand is all the common-sense knowledge we have about how the world works and is structured.
The fact that if I have a can of water above a cup and I pour the can of water under normal gravity, that water will just flow into the cup - all that common-sense knowledge that we have packed in over years of development is hard to reproduce in computers.
Now, what CYC has been about is trying to regiment large amounts of common-sense knowledge and put that to work in programs that reason about various aspects of the world.
Now, CYC has been seen as a potential help to Web 3.0. I don't think we're going to be able to kind of plot all of that encyclopedic knowledge into the Web and just have good things happen. It's much more likely that we'll take facets and aspects of CYC's knowledge base and use them for particular tasks.
BOB GARFIELD: This is all fascinating. Is there any reason to think that this is going to materialize in the next year, the next five years, the next thirty years? How close are we to a Web 3.0 Artificial Intelligence online world?
NIGEL SHADBOLT:I don't see that just around the corner. I think what we'll see is increasing amounts of these limited intelligent services. I also see a Web that will be still very much driven by people. People are the real intelligence in the Web.
And what we see happening in very interesting developments like Wikipedia, where you get this collective wisdom, large numbers of individuals collaborating to reveal and put down their experience, their intelligence, what we see there is this key facet of the Web - that people are extremely good at being the general intelligence on the planet.
And what the Web machines deliver up to us are particular ways of holding vast amounts of detailed information and serving and filtering that information in accurate ways.
BOB GARFIELD: Nigel, you're kind to talk with us. Thank you very much.
NIGEL SHADBOLT: Thank you.
BOB GARFIELD: Nigel Shadbolt is Professor of Artificial Intelligence in the School of Electronics and Computer Science at Southampton University.
ToC
On The Media, January 05, 2007
URL: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/01/05/07
Audio: http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram?file=/otm/otm010507g.mp3
Computer scientist Gordon Bell is at the vanguard of a movement called "lifelogging," digitally recording every moment of his day in an effort to create a complete virtual memory of his life. But why? We talk with Bell and also technology writer Clive Thompson about the implications.
<http://research.microsoft.com/~GBell/>
<http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mediapresence/MyLifeBits.aspx>
<http://www.collisiondetection.net/>
Listen to Brooke's unedited interview with Clive Thompson here <http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram?file=/otm/otm010507clive.mp3>.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Gordon Bell is a 72-year-old computer scientist with an eye for detail - every detail, in fact, that he's accumulated over the course of his life. A senior researcher for Microsoft, Bell is at the vanguard of a movement called "lifelogging," digitally storing every letter and photo, every phone call, email and video, every conversation, keystroke and scrap of paper, the entire minutiae of his daily routine, onto a hard drive.
He wears a camera around his neck, called a SenseCam that takes snapshots every minute of whatever may be in his path, including you if you happen to be standing there.
Gordon Bell is creating a complete virtual memory to supplement his own imperfect one, a defiant, Proustian reclamation of lost time that may be changing the very way we think about the past. But why?
GORDON BELL: Why?
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Yeah.
GORDON BELL: Why does anybody ever preserve anything? Is there any value to having a photograph of my mother at age three or so, you know, or a deed that I happen to have that would have been around in a shoebox that came from great-grandparents before 1900? So anything that, in fact, represents information, those things are all put in cyberspace, and those are the things that I think should be in cyberspace.
I go further than anybody else, which is to essentially really overtly get rid of anything I can that I can scan, and that includes coffee cups and tee shirts and mugs, you know, things like that, where I may want a memory of that.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: I suspect this isn't for everyone. I mean, some of us really like to get rid of stuff. I feel the burden of all of life's flotsam and jetsam.
GORDON BELL: Yeah, that's true. But I've got a kind of a systematic way of getting rid of it, but yet it's there if you ever will, in fact, want it.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Gordon, do you see your computer as a real extension of your brain these days?
GORDON BELL: I think I do. I really do. I think of it as offloading a tremendous amount for me and giving it a lot of responsibility.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Could you go back to life before?
GORDON BELL: Oh, I think I could go back to life before. It's a different life. Frankly, I think of myself a little bit, I'm in an explorer's life right now. I see it as a quest to have an electronic memory that has so much of one's own real memory in it, because I tend to think that everybody is going to be here in or at some point in time.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Lifelogger Gordon Bell. Journalist and technology whiz, Clive Thompson, wrote about Bell and the implications of lifelogging in Fast Company magazine. Clive, welcome back to the show.
CLIVE THOMPSON: : Good to be here.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So what did you expect, and what did you find when you went to visit Gordon Bell?
CLIVE THOMPSON: Well, I think I expected that there would be this guy who has, you know, this brain that would give him perfect recall of everything immediately. And I could ask him, who's the person that sat next to you on the plane three weeks ago, and, you know, what was the recipe that you cooked two years ago for dinner? And there would be this very precise thing because all the information is there.
And it's true - all the information is there - but he hasn't quite figured out how to organize it and sort it perfectly. So although he would sometimes be amazing at recall - like he was talking about a jazz symphony that he saw in Australia, and he's trying to describe it and you realize he doesn't need to describe it. He can just play it for me, you know.
So sometimes it was amazing, but a lot of the times he would start to try and find something and then spend 20 minutes trying [LAUGHING] to find it. And it eventually would sort of get lost in this buggy software, because it's a new piece of software. It's a demo.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So it's easy to preserve all this raw data.
CLIVE THOMPSON: : Yes.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: But it's extremely hard to lay your hands on exactly the piece you want at that time. But isn't he developing or aren't other people developing for him programs to do that - LifeBrowser, Remembrance Agent, FacetMap?
CLIVE THOMPSON: You know, that's the Holy Grail quest right now. Like at Microsoft, they have this thing called FacetMap. It's this beautiful sort of graphical interface where you can zoom down on any one thing and it's connected to everything else. Like you could say, okay, show me last Thursday, and it'll show you all the emails you send and all the documents you looked at and all the websites you looked at.
And then you might go, well, let's look at those websites. And you find a website, and it might show you all the other days that you accessed that website. So you can sort of tunnel through your memories in very interesting, sort of dreamy ways.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And is it also FacetMap that uses not just days or time periods, but you can also drill down on a person?
CLIVE THOMPSON: Oh, yeah, yeah.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tell me everything about my Aunt Susie that I've stored up.
CLIVE THOMPSON: And that's very useful, because what'll happen is you'll think, okay, well, you know Brooke mentioned this book to me. I can't remember the name of the book, so I'll start by just looking at everything I have that's related to Brooke. And I'll remember that you said that to me, I don't know, a month ago when I was on the show, so I'll look at all the communications I had with you a month ago. And so, it actually becomes very quick to find the name of the book, because I find the email or the conversation.
It works very well though because that's sort of the way our memories work. Psychologists have long discovered that we organize our memories very often based on people and time. And if you put those two things together, you can index the vast majority of your memories very quickly.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So if you want to be able to find this information, you have to sort of replicate what your memory would naturally do.
CLIVE THOMPSON: Yes, exactly.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And you focus quite a bit on the effect that a surrogate brain has on actual carbon-based memory, our physical minds.
CLIVE THOMPSON: Sure, absolutely. Well, I mean, what Gordon's found is that it's changed the way that he decides to remember things and what he decides to remember. And he compares it to doing long division. He could probably remember how to do long division if he really thought about it, but he doesn't need to, because he has pocket calculators.
Just think about our behavior with our mobile phones. A lot of people can't remember the phone numbers of their very, very close associates because their phones remember it for them. And they put it in once and they forget it.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Long division we were forced to learn at some point.
CLIVE THOMPSON: That's right.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So we have the luxury of forgetting it - but not these phone numbers. Without our cell phones, we're lost.
CLIVE THOMPSON: Right. And, actually, in Europe, where their phone really has thousands of phone numbers and emails, because it's their central device and there is a huge anxiety about losing your phone or losing the memory on your phone. They have all these backup devices for like saving all your phone information, because they'd just be like emotionally destroyed if they lose their phone, because everything was on it. You know, it's like having a stroke. The information's all gone.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Exactly. And, actually, you met another lifelogger, not Gordon Bell, who actually went through a kind of digital stroke - a crash of his computer.
CLIVE THOMPSON: Yeah. He lost about four months.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Who was this?
CLIVE THOMPSON:
But what happened was that he had a crash and he lost about four months of it. And up until then, he had sort of thought, well, this is just this funny little experiment. I'm doing it to sort of learn how to make this software. I don't really rely on this stuff. But once the information was gone, he realized that he did rely on it, that it was like hot water or lights in his house, and that when he lost it, he felt absolutely bereft.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now, losing that day at the beach you spent back in April, I mean, your brain was still working then, wasn't it? Don't you still have it?
CLIVE THOMPSON: Yeah, theoretically. The workings of human memory are very, very complex. Psychologists are as yet uncertain as to what the effect of all this virtual memory will be. Will it really be true that we'll sort of stop remembering things? Or will it release us to remember things in different ways? Or, in some cases, will it make our memories better, because the one thing that some scientists found, in Ireland - they took Gordon's camera that he wears around his neck. It takes pictures every minute or so, all day long.
And, you know, he's got thousands and thousands and thousands of these pictures. And you think, well, what are you ever going to do with those? You're never going to look at them again, right?
What these guys in Ireland discovered was that if, at the end of the day, you look at all those pictures, just flip, flip, flip, really quickly scroll through them in about a minute, you relive your day as seen out your eyes, and it dramatically improves your long-term recall of what happened.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And this has been applied to people who are afflicted with short-term memory impairment, right?
CLIVE THOMPSON: That's right, that's right. This is being done with a woman in England who has a very severe form of amnesia. She really has no recall past a day or two. And so, what she started doing was that every time there was something that she wanted to remember - a dinner with her husband, perhaps - she would make sure she wore this camera, and that after the event was over, she would review the images every day for a couple of days. And she started to be able to remember this stuff; it would last for months.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And you can really see the value of it in that case.
CLIVE THOMPSON: Oh, my goodness, yes.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: I guess I still find puzzling why we need this kind of recall in our everyday life, unless you believe, as many people do, that really all we are are our memories. Are we fuller, more complete people if we can hold onto that stuff?
CLIVE THOMPSON: Yeah, that's a very good question. I think that's what's going to happen is that people will sort of make decisions about what type of memory they want to have. You might decide that, you know, I'm actually someone who just wants to see that one perfect picture from last summer - the sort of classic shoebox idea where by the time you're 60 you've got a shoebox full of pictures, and that's all you've got - these little snapshots that represent an entire year in your life. And when you look at it, you recall everything, and it's a really majestic, almost poetic way of looking at your life.
And you'll find other people who really want to have everything there. I think some people might choose to record a lot of stuff and then realize later on that, my God, why did I do this, you know, in the same way that some kids are discovering now that all the stuff they put on their websites is being googled by their employers.
So, you know, we'll make decisions about what type of memories we want to have. And in some cases the decisions will be taken out of our hands, and that's where things get troubling, potentially.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Privacy then becomes a huge issue, doesn't it?
CLIVE THOMPSON: Sure.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: There are certain things we'd all rather not remember. If you're engaged with, you know, one or two other people, one of them's bound to have it on tape.
CLIVE THOMPSON: That's right. But I think there's also a sort of a very weird form of privacy when you have this automatic recording capability, which is privacy from yourself. There are parts of your life that maybe you shouldn't remember, and making sense of your life is as much about forgetting the vast majority of it or subtly distorting it as it is perfectly remembering it.
Any psychologist would tell you that forgetting is an incredibly important part of how we make sense of ourselves and of our lives. And being able to reexperience directly everything might be sort of nightmarish.
And the very few times that psychologists have encountered people with absolutely perfect recall - and it has been found, it's very rare; it's sort of a mental condition where people literally can, if you ask them, two years ago on this date, what did you do, they'll be able to tell you - these people do not have remarkable lives in any way. You would think that they're smarter or that they did better at college, and they're not. And they don't necessarily have a better emotional experience of their lives.
The idea of remembering everything, it might not be as much of a gift as we think it would be.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Clive, thank you so much.
CLIVE THOMPSON: Thanks a lot.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Clive Thompson is a contributing writer for Fast Company magazine and others. Go to onthemedia.org if you'd like to listen to the unedited version of this conversation. It's all there, as it really happened.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: http://www.wininformant.com/
This week, Microsoft finalized the latest version of Windows Live OneCare 1.5, which adds Vista compatibility to the company's PC health subscription offering. OneCare 1.5 will ship by the end of January to make the Vista launch and is considered a major upgrade. If you're already a OneCare subscriber, all you have to do is wait: The update will be downloaded and installed automatically.
One of the big hardware advances that Vista takes advantage of is support for hybrid hard drives, a new generation of mobile hardware that includes both flash and hard-disk memory in a single unit. The hybrid hard drives will reportedly speed boot-up, return from sleep and hibernation, and even general performance, although you'll need a Vista-based mobile computer to take advantage of them. Well, I have good news if you've been waiting anxiously: This week, Samsung announced that it will soon ship its first hybrid hard drives, which feature as much as 4GB of flash memory. The company says Vista users who utilize these drives will see a 20 percent performance boost in typical hard drive usage. Versions from Toshiba, Hitachi, Seagate, and Fujitsu are also on the way.
Faced with the shocking news that Windows Vista might actually be susceptible to electronic attack, Microsoft this week went on the defensive with an argument that should be pretty obvious, mostly because it's true and because the company has been very clear about this fact for some time: Vista is more secure than Windows XP, yes, but it's not perfect. "The finding of vulnerabilities in any software is to be expected," Stephen Toulouse, a Microsoft senior product manager in the security response center wrote in his blog this week. "This is all part of the process of creating complex software today, and no one is immune to it. It's not, as they say, big news to us in the security industry." Nor should it be. But people seem to get all twisted up whenever Vista comes up in a security context, but my take on this is that Vista is definitely more secure than previous Windows versions. Whether that matters in the long term remains to be seen, but I've got a good feeling about this one.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/94712/94712.html
Microsoft will officially launch Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 System for consumers at a special event in Times Square in New York on January 29 called "Wow Starts Now." At the event, Microsoft and its partners will promote Vista, Office 2007, and related products.
"On January 29, Microsoft will celebrate the launch of two amazing products that represent the culmination of a tremendous team effort," an email message from Microsoft reads. "Millions of people--Microsoft employees, developers, valued customers, bloggers, families, media, the entire industry--have come together like never before and added their own individual imprints to help make Vista and Office 2007 the most tested products in Microsoft history."
The January 29 event apparently includes a lunch reception, then a launch celebration. "Our celebration is dedicated to the millions of people who helped transform the operating system into a rich experience that's more exciting and more powerful than ever before," the email reads.
ToC
by Ken Fisher - 1/8/2007 5:15:00 PM,
URL: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070108-8573.html
Much of what we predicted about Home Server is true. It's all about centralization and ease of use, and it's targeted at users who want an easy way to back up all of the important data in their house. It's built using a mix of new and not-new sever technology, but whereas we previously believed it was based on a client OS, Windows Home Server is in fact based off of Windows Server 2003. Dropped behind a suitable firewall, this should be a strong server product that meets many emerging needs in the computing household. Whether or not it can fight off competition from other products, especially the coming onslaught of consumer NAS products, remains to be seen.
One challenge facing Windows Home Server (WHS for short) is that it is an OEM-only product, meaning that you won't be able to head out and buy WHS at your local retail joint. And much like Media Center in the early days, we don't expect specialty shops to carry an OEM version of the software anytime soon. This is disappointing news, because the early-adopter segment isn't particularly interested in paying top dollar for OEM creations when do-it-yourself delivers a better experience. That said, I discussed this briefly with a Microsoft representative who said that Microsoft is aware that there's a big enthusiast crowd out there, and a retail release of the OS isn't out of the question.
What's in the box? There's the obvious stuff you'd expect to find in a "Home Server," like securable file and print sharing that you can centrally manage. Home Server does not provide a centralized Active Directory, as you might expect (that would be overkill, to say the least). Instead, Home Server will sync user accounts and passwords between client machines and the server, so if "Jonboy" changes his password on the downstairs PC, that change will sync to the Home Server.
There's also a fairly robust centralized backup system which will track "previous versions" of files that have changed or have been deleted. Users can opt to store data directly on the server, or the server can be configured to do periodic backups of local machines. Or both. I really like the idea of a centralized backup solution in the home, and WHS looks to be easier to use than your run-of-the-mill consumer NAS solution.
WHS is about more than file storage, of course. WHS supports disaster recovery functions, including scheduled snapshots of client systems that can be fully restored by booting off of a CD that connects to WHS. This is a killer feature because it obviates the need for all kinds of tech support stemming from a spyware infestation or a hardware install gone bad.
Microsoft has tapped Single Instance Store (SIS) technology to reduce the size of backups. Files are backed up, and then monitored for changes. When changes are made, only the changes are added to the backup, making subsequent backups both fast and small in size. Furthermore, the backup system monitors your entire network for duplicates. If you have Quiet Riot's greatest hits on one PC, the system will not back up that same album on another PC if it determines that the copy is identical. This greatly reduces the size of multiple-system backups, since many system files and applications will not be backed up more than once.
The Home Server will also monitor the health of your PCs, including drive health. Notably, WHS will report the complete status of the Security Center on Windows Vista PCs.
In terms of storage for files, music, etc., users of the WHS won't see a "C:\" drive, but instead just a single storage pool which can be almost endlessly expanded thanks to WHS Drive Extender. This is accomplished with a new twist on dynamic disk control. Adding more space will be as simple as adding more hard drives (internal or external, ATA/SATA or USB/Firewire) and using a tool to add that drive's capacity to the central store. The use of dynamic disks will also allow for a degree of data redundancy. This isn't RAID, but something more akin to data mirroring. WHS will duplicate data among two or more other disks (if present), so the system should be protected against the failure of any one particular disk.
One item worth noting is that the file sharing is handled via SMB, meaning that Linux and Mac clients can use WHS. In fact, you can even back up these clients by having them store their own backup images on the server.
On the entertainment side of the fence, WHS' storage system is designed to be used for sharing digital media, including that which you create with various devices like cameras and camcorders. The server will stream music and video to anything that supports Windows Media Connect, including the Xbox 360, which means that Windows Media Video will rule the day on WHS. While we like the idea of streaming media, the format limitation is something that irks us, especially when we know that greener pastures are coming in the form of media- and format-agnostic solutions. Then again, no one is going to buy WHS to just to stream media.
In terms of interaction, WHS is designed as a headless server package. Microsoft has developed client-side software to handle most routine management tasks, but management can also be done via web browser. The Remote Administration tool that runs in Internet Explorer will also allow you to remotely see PC desktops and shared files. As a nice touch, you can download entire directories from the server, and it will compress the download into a zip for you, on the fly.
In fact, Microsoft is planning a Windows Live tie-in that will allow you to remotely connect to your Home Server or network to upload or download files or make changes to settings. You can grant this capability on a per-user basis, too. This tie-in with Live will allow for users to register their own domains with the service, even if their IPs are not static.
Windows Home Server will be entering beta sometime in the next 60 days, with general availability following 120+ days after that. As such, we won't see Windows Home Server in action until the second half of the year. Minimum system requirements are quite low: 1GHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 80GB of free space on the primary drive, and an Ethernet connection.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/94747/94747.html
Refuting rumors that Windows Vista's vaunted Aero UI slows down computers, Microsoft pointed to a study this past week that comes to a different conclusion. According to a Principled Technologies study sponsored by Microsoft, the Aero UI has "little or no negative effect on Windows Vista's performance." In fact, in some instances, the Aero UI actually provides a performance boost.
"We put quite a bit of effort into making sure that the new visuals were as [efficient] as possible, and it really paid off," Matt Ayers, a program manager in Microsoft's Windows Client Performance group, wrote in the newly christened Windows Performance Blog ( http://blogs.msdn.com/winperf/ ). The key finding of this study--which measured performance on a wide range of machine types--is that Vista is more responsive than Windows XP after rebooting and is roughly as responsive as XP in general. The Aero UI, meanwhile, has little effect on Vista responsiveness.
What I find interesting about this study is that most of the PCs tested weren't particularly high-end systems. Principled Technologies reported that it tested one notebook system, three desktop PCs, and one Tablet PC. Only one of those systems had a dual-core processor. A wide range of system operations were also tested, including opening and using various Microsoft Office and third-party applications. You can download a PDF version of the study's findings--Responsiveness of Windows Vista and Windows XP on common business tasks--from the Principled Technologies Web site.
http://principledtechnologies.com/clients/reports/Microsoft/VistaXPBusResp.pdf
ToC
Mozilla continues to fine-tune the feature set for the next major update to its Firefox browser, due in the second half of 2007, and on Wednesday posted an updated plan.
The Firefox 3 wiki, a list of the planned changes and additions to the next upgrade of the open source browser, now sports designations that mark features as either "functional" or "non-functional." The latter, although strictly not optional, are more intangible goals, such as "improve usability of Add-On Manager" or "simpler print preview dialog." The former, however, are more concrete, and include to-dos like "support Microsoft CardSpace" and "improve search, retrieval, and startup performance."
Among the features currently pegged as must-haves by Mozilla for Firefox 3 are an overhaul of the browser's bookmark system and new identity management tools.
Mozilla released an early preview of Firefox 3.0, dubbed "Gran Paradiso Alpha 1," last month.
When the previous update to Firefox 2.0 was launched in October, Mozilla said it would roll out a major enhancement about once a year. According to the Firefox 3.0 release plan, however, the company may also consider incremental updates -- Firefox 2.5, for instance -- that act as extension packs to the standard browser.
Microsoft also has promised that it will update its Internet Explorer browser every 18 to 24 months, a much shorter cycle than the 50 months between IE 6 and IE 7.
ToC
Market researcher NPD says commercial sales far ahead of Windows 2000 in first month and just behind that of Windows XP.
By Ina Fried
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: January 11, 2007, 10:40 AM PST
URL: http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6149468.html
Sales of Windows Vista to businesses were stronger than expected during the operating system's debut month, according to a report from NPD Group.
The sales outpaced the first month's tally for Windows 2000 and only slightly trailed that for Windows XP, the market researcher said Thursday. Commercial revenue from Vista in December was 62.5 percent above that racked up by Windows 2000 in March 2000, its first month after launch. But Vista's total is 3.7 percent below what Microsoft got in the commercial channel for Windows XP in November 2001, its first month on the market.
In addition, the average price of Vista was about 4 percent higher than of Windows 2000 and roughly similar to that of Windows XP, NPD said.
"I think these results could be classified as 'strong,' or at least 'stronger than expected,'" NPD analyst Chris Swenson said in an e-mail interview. "Although Vista dollars were slightly lower than XP dollars in its first full month, I consider Microsoft's December results to be very impressive, given the commercial-only 'soft launch' approach that Microsoft took with the OS."
The results track only U.S. licenses sold indirectly to businesses, through resellers such as Soft Mart, Software Spectrum and CompuCom, Swenson said; NPD does not track software licensed directly from Microsoft. Vista went on sale to businesses at the end of November and should start showing up on new PCs and on retail shelves at the end of this month.
The marketing muscle behind the consumer launch should allow Vista sales to businesses to start eclipsing what Microsoft saw with Windows XP.
"Sometime after January 30, when Microsoft makes Vista available to the general public and ratchets up the marketing campaign, I suspect that we will likely see sales of Vista in the commercial channel begin to meet or surpass levels previously set by XP," Swenson said.
A key question around Vista is how quickly businesses will move to the new operating system. Microsoft has said that a year after Vista's launch, it expects twice the number of business users it had in the first year after Windows XP launched.
Microsoft did not say exactly how many PCs that would be. It did point to figures from analyst firm IDC, which said about 10 percent of business PCs were running Windows XP a year after launch. IDC has said it does not expect 20 percent of businesses to be running Vista in a year's time.
One of the key factors as to whether Microsoft can meet its goal is the pace of sales of new computers for the remainder of the year. Microsoft recently noted that in the unit that sells Windows for laptops and desktops, 80 percent of revenue comes from new PCs.
"Thus, although the commercial software sales figures are a telling indicator of corporate behavior, the real key to predicting the success of the new operating system among businesses will be to look at sales of PCs in the commercial channel over the next few months," Swenson said.
Swenson noted that not many businesses opted for Windows Vista Ultimate Edition--not terribly surprising, since the ultrahigh-end version is targeted mainly at consumers.
However, he also noted that buying Ultimate is "the only way a small business can get their hands on one of the most compelling features of the new operating system: the new BitLocker security feature that fully encrypts an OS volume, similar in some respects to Apple's FileVault."
BitLocker is also available in the Enterprise Edition of Vista, but that is sold only to volume license customers and therefore not an option for most small businesses.
"Assuming Microsoft does a better job of marketing Ultimate to small businesses and other organizations, we might actually see sales of Ultimate increase in the commercial channel over time," he said.
ToC
Survey says nearly 50% of businesses will be using Linux for critical roles in five years
Bryan Betts
URL: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9006990&intsrc=news_ts_head
January 02, 2007 (TechWorld.com) -- Nearly half of all companies will be running mission-critical business applications on Linux in five years' time. That's according to survey of IT directors, vice presidents and CIOs carried out by Saugatuck Research, which questioned 133 businesses worldwide.
The Westport, Conn.-based firm predicts a steep rise: Only 18% of businesses will be using Linux in business-critical roles by the end of 2007.
"Linux operating systems -- and open-source-based software in general -- have reached critical marketplace mass," according to the study's authors, Saugatuck analysts Bruce Guptill and Bill McNee.
They predicted that the number of companies in "early or full deployment" of mission-critical applications on Linux would grow by 40% from 2007 to 2009 and would then accelerate to grow by 80% from 2009 to 2011.
Vendors, service providers and IT executives alike all need to take notice of the trend and reposition themselves to meet it, the researchers claimed.
"Recent Linux deals and announcements by Oracle and Microsoft have only reinforced the 'open source is enterprise-grade' message that IBM, Unisys and others have been preaching for years," Guptill and McNee said.
"In short, open source, especially Linux, is being legitimized by the major enterprise vendors, and user executives are more than happy to believe them," they said. "Microsoft's thawing toward Linux is now easier to understand when faced with such data -- even as Windows continues to grow as the other main server platform of choice."
Software as a service and application hosting suppliers will also get a boost from Linux, since it cuts software and maintenance costs and brings greater standardization, the researchers said.
However, they added that "most large vendors remain tied to legacy cash-cow operating systems" and need to reposition themselves on Linux fast.
ToC
"If your immediate response was to think, "Well, at least that's one thing we don't have to worry about - we've got the original disks, packaging materials and registration documents all on file," you might want to rethink that assumption. What most people would consider proof doesn't stand up to the standards of the BSA, an alliance of software companies. None of the materials listed above would constitute legal proof of ownership in a BSA software audit.
"What's more, if you think that the BSA looks only for big-time offenders, think again. During the past year, several midsized companies have agreed to settlements running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, small and midsized businesses are often more at risk than larger ones."
The BSA is busting a growing number of businesses simply because they can't appropriately document their legal ownership.
"It's no good to show me a software box," says Jenny Blank, BSA director of enforcement. "We need proof of ownership - and that's a dated invoice."
ToCComplete Story - http://advantage.hanleywood.com/default.aspx?page=article355
Wednesday, January 10 2007 @ 08:57 AM EST
The Supreme Court opened the door Tuesday to a category of patent lawsuits that a lower court had barred, issuing a decision [PDF] that will probably shift power in the courtroom from bigger patent-owning companies to smaller start-up companies that rely on obtaining licenses for patented technology.
The court's 8-to-1 decision [MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc.] held that the holder of a patent license can sue to challenge the patent's validity without first refusing to pay royalties and putting itself in breach of the license agreement.
ToCComplete Story - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10scotus.html?ref=business
Darren Waters, BBC
Wednesday, January 10 2007 @ 07:43 AM EST
The backers of the One Laptop Per Child project plan to release the machine on general sale next year.
But customers will have to buy two laptops at once - with the second going to the developing world.
ToCComplete Story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246989.stm
James Turner, Senior Editor
Linux Today
Tuesday, January 09 2007 @ 07:57 PM EST
I have seen it, touched it, and played with it.... AMD hosted a luncheon on Monday to give the press an update on the project, and to unveil the completed design....
The innovative display design serves two purposes. By overlaying a lower resolution (1024x768) color screen over a very high resolution (200 DPI, 1200x900) black and white one, then can get what to the eye appears to be a much higher color resolution. ... The ultra-high resolution black and white display is meant to make the eReader highly useable for textbooks. Bletsas notes that although the display cost only about one-third what a typical laptop LCD costs, it will have a higher resolution than 95% of the laptops on the market.
The software is based on Fedora Cora 6, put on an diet to reduce it to 150 MB, and leverages Python heavily. According to Bletsas, both Microsoft (WinCE) and Apple (OS X) offered their operating systems, but neither fit the footprint or security requirements that the XO demanded. In addition, the closed-source nature of those operating systems wasn't a good fit to the OLPC philosophy.
The application environment looks nothing like a typical X-Window GUI that you or I have ever seen.
ToCComplete Story - http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007010902326NWHWEV
Preston Gralla, ComputerWorld
Tuesday, January 09 2007 @ 01:37 AM EST
The backup tool built into Windows Vista may be the worst utility every packed into an operating system. It doesn't allow you to back up individual files, folders or even file types. Instead, you have to back up every single file and folder of broad generic types.
For example, if you want to back up a single picture, you have to back up every single graphic of every graphic file type on your entire PC.... I've talked to Microsoft honchos about the awful backup in Windows Vista, and they insist they did it because they didn't want to confuse people with too many choices about backup.
ToCComplete Story - http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4303
Richard Thurston, CNET News
Friday, January 12 2007 @ 06:22 AM EST
The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency said Wednesday that it "strongly recommends" schools do not deploy Microsoft's latest operating system within the next 12 months.
In a further dig at Microsoft, the agency asserts that there are no "must-have" features in Vista and that "technical, financial and organizational challenges associated with early deployment currently make this (Vista) a high-risk strategy."
ToCComplete Story - http://news.com.com/British+agency+tells+schools+to+avoid+Vista/2100-1016_3-6149401.html
An introduction to Linux on the PlayStation 3 Overview, installation, and first programming steps
Jonathan Bartlett (johnnyb@eskimo.com), Director of Technology, New Medio Wednesday, January 3, 2007
The Sony PLAYSTATION 3 (PS3) is the easiest and cheapest way for programmers to get their hands on the new Cell Broadband Engine (Cell BE) processor and take it for a drive. Discover what the fuss is all about, how to install Linux on the PS3, and how to get started developing for the Cell BE processor on the PS3.
The PLAYSTATION 3 is unusual for a gaming console for two reasons. First, it is incredibly more open than any previous console. While most consoles do everything possible to prevent unauthorized games from being playable on their system, the PS3 goes in the other direction, even providing direct support for installing and booting foreign operating systems. Of course, many of the game-related features such as video acceleration are locked out for the third-party operating systems, but this series focuses on more general-purpose and scientific applications anyway.
The real centerpiece for the PS3, however, is its processor -- the Cell Broadband Engine chip (often called the Cell BE chip). The Cell BE architecture is a radical departure from traditional processor designs. The Cell BE processor is a chip consisting of nine processing elements (note the PS3 has one of them disabled, and one of them reserved for system use, leaving seven processing units at your disposal). The main processing element is a fairly standard general-purpose processor. It is a dual-core PowerPC¨-based element, called the Power Processing Element, or PPE for short. The other eight processing elements, however, are a different story.
ToCComplete story - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/pa-linuxps3-1/index.html?ca=drs-
[Editor's Note: My thanks to Allen Byrne for the contributions to this section of the newsletter. Thanks to my mail list mates for the "heads up" on the last selection.]
ToC
by TidBITS Staff <editors@tidbits.com>
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/8810>
TidBITS#862/15-Jan-07
Despite months of rumors about an Apple phone, Steve Jobs still managed to wow the crowd at the Macworld Expo 2007 keynote with the iPhone, a sleek handheld device that incorporates features of the iPod, a smartphone, and an Internet communications device. A two-year service commitment from Cingular is required; it will not be sold separately. Service plans have not yet been announced. The iPhone will begin shipping in June 2007 in the United States in two configurations: a 4 GB model for $500, and an 8 GB model for $600. Jobs said that it will be available in Europe by the fourth quarter of 2007, and available in Asia in 2008.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/>
The delay in availability was a letdown for the primed audience, but Jobs noted that the iPhone still needs to go through certification by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC); he said Apple wanted to announce the iPhone, even if it's six months early, and not have the FCC "announce" the device in its public records.
(This explanation rang flat to contributing editor Glenn Fleishman, who noted that the FCC has a confidential process in its Office of Engineering and Technology Equipment Authorization program for products that have not been publicly announced; it was expanded to handle items like the iPhone back in 2004. Confidentiality can be granted for up to 180 days before a product is marketed or shipped, and it covers all details of the product. In fact, it's likely that the AirPort Extreme introduced at Macworld at the same time as the iPhone was certified under these rules, as no information was available from the FCC until the device was announced.)
<http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1705A1.pdf>
As we've come to expect from Apple's industrial design division, the look of the new device is both impressive and distinctive - it looks nothing like any other phone on the market, nor does it look like an iPod or any of the supposedly leaked mockups that appeared before the announcement. Measuring 2.4 inches (61 mm) wide, 4.5 inches (115 mm) tall, and just 0.46 inches (11.6 mm) deep, it's only slightly larger than the current fifth-generation iPod with video. It weighs 4.8 ounces (135 grams).
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/862/iphone_hero.jpg>
Apple opted out of a physical keyboard, eschewing the tedious 10-key phone layout, the awkward mini-QWERTY keyboard on devices like the Blackberry and Palm Treo, and even the newer two-letters-per-key entry found on the Blackberry Pearl. Instead, you type with your fingers on a virtual keyboard that appears as needed on a touch-sensitive color display measuring 3.5 inches diagonally. The screen resolution is 320 by 480 pixels at 160 pixels per inch (ppi). Omitting the keyboard also allows nearly the entire face of the device to be used to view video or photographs.
The iPhone can be viewed in landscape or portrait mode; a built-in accelerometer automatically shifts mode (when viewing photos or Web pages, for example) depending on how the phone is held. David Pogue of the New York Times noted that the phone can be used upright in portrait mode with the single front button at the bottom, and in a counter-clockwise landscape mode, but not 180 degrees from either of those positions.
In addition to the accelerometer, the iPhone incorporates two other sensors. A proximity sensor above the screen turns off the backlight and disables the touchscreen feature when you bring the phone to your ear, to avoid, in Jobs's words, "spurious inputs from your face." An ambient light sensor automatically dims the screen in low-light conditions (thereby also reducing battery consumption).
A Home button below the display takes you to the iPhone's main screen, and is one of just a few physical switches; there's also a mute switch and a volume slider on the left side of the device, and a button on the top to put the phone to sleep and lock the touchscreen. The paucity of physical switches is important; the more of the iPhone's interface that's provided by software, the easier it is for Apple to change or add to it.
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/862/iphone_home.jpg>
The back of the unit is an expanse of brushed metal, interrupted only by a small camera lens - for its 2-megapixel digital still camera - and a mirrored Apple logo. (That logo is a good example of Apple's minimal design approach. Most camera phones include a small mirror near the lens, which you can use when framing photos of yourself. That reflective blob would be superfluous to Apple's designers, leading to the mirrored logo.)
What you won't find on the back is a speaker, another departure from many cell phone designs. Instead, there's a speaker at the top of the front face where the iPhone meets your ear, along with a second speaker on the bottom edge for playing ringtones and other sounds, and for when you're using the iPhone as a speakerphone. You can listen to music through the speaker, too, and the quality was fine on a prototype unit. A microphone at the bottom captures voice input. As one would expect, the iPhone also includes two ports: a jack for headphones and microphones, and a 30-pin iPod connector for connecting to an included dock.
Jobs advertised the battery life at 5 hours of talk time, video playback or Web browsing, or 16 hours for audio playback. (In a Saturday Night Live sketch, "Steve Jobs" was asked - after describing a range of hyperbolic features including iGenie for making iWishes - about battery life, and said, "20 minutes" to guffaws from the audience.)
Apple also plans to release an optional wired headset (resembling iPod earbuds with a small microphone on the cord) or a tiny Bluetooth headset that would automatically pair with the iPhone; it was unclear if third-party headsets would be compatible. Given that Apple is using the term Bluetooth, it's reasonable to assume that other Bluetooth headsets would work, as the Bluetooth specification doesn't allow the use of the name and associated profiles - like headset - without allowing all compatible devices to be used.
Since the iPhone's screen takes up nearly the entire front of the device, most of the controls are offered through what Apple is calling the "multi-touch display." The proprietary technology ("And, boy, have we patented it!" exclaimed Jobs) allows the user to control the device with a hand, incorporating not just pointing, but also scrolling by dragging a finger across the touchscreen, and "pinching," a two-fingered gesture that zooms images and other content.
Pressing the Home button takes you to a page of icons representing the main features. From there, everything operates via gesture. For example, a virtual left-to-right slider unlocks the rest of the interface (so you don't inadvertently activate the iPhone in a pocket or purse). Scrolling through the list of contacts functions like a physical wheel: run your finger up or down the screen and the list scrolls by at a speed based on how fast you dragged, slowing gradually and "rubber-banding" off the top or bottom if you hit the edge fast. On her Creating Passionate Users blog, Kathy Sierra has an excellent discussion of why this lack of abruptness in the interface is so important.
<http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/01/iphone_and_the_.html>
By not implementing physical buttons, Apple gains the capability to display whatever interface is most appropriate for a given task, such as context-specific buttons while talking on the phone, watching movies, listening to music, or browsing the Web. Watching Jobs demonstrate the device during the keynote provided half of the "wow" factor. View the keynote online or watch the QuickTours that Apple has set up on its Web site for a better sense of how multi-touch functions.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/keynote/>
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/phone/>
Jobs made much of the fact that the iPhone is actually running Mac OS X - not a stripped-down version, but the full operating system that powers your Mac. (David Pogue says that Apple told him otherwise - that it was a subset of Mac OS X.) However, don't expect to run it the same as a computer. The iPhone's features and interface are the only aspects of Mac OS X that are accessible, with the rest of the system locked away by Apple. This also means that developers are not going to be able to write their own applications or even widgets; if anything, Apple will approve future applications and distribute them itself. Given Apple's tight hold on the iPod, we anticipate that third-parties will be limited to cases, docks, and other accessories that can plug into the iPhone's 30-pin dock connector.
<http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list-part-2/>
Job announced that Cingular will be the "multi-year" exclusive provider of cellular service to the iPhone in the U.S., and guest presenter Cingular CEO Stan Sigman noted, in reading a speech from index cards, that the two companies forged a "multi-year" contract. Interestingly, according to Glenn Lurie, Cingular's president of national distribution, in a PC Magazine article, the deal was a win for Cingular, with Apple giving more than they got. (Cingular's name will start transitioning to AT&T today, as the acquisition of BellSouth by AT&T gave the telecom giant 100-percent ownership of Cingular. Formerly, it owned 60 percent.)
<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2082059,00.asp>
The iPhone goes way beyond the basics of placing and receiving calls, making it easy to look up phone numbers, put calls on hold, and create conference calls. Jobs demonstrated taking an incoming call and performing other features, such as looking up movie times from the Web, while the call remained active. These aren't unique features to smartphones, but Apple has made the interface extremely easy to use (especially setting up multi-party calls, which on most phones is frustrating).
It also features Visual Voicemail, which provides nonlinear access to voicemail messages and avoids the dreaded menu trees used by most systems. Most phones and smartphones show, at best, the number of messages waiting for you to listen to. The rest of the process is aural: you listen and skip messages in the order they were left. On the iPhone, the process is both visual and random access. The messages appear in a list, each of which is accessible with a finger tap. The messages have a contact name if Caller ID matches someone in your address book. Apple was able to add Visual Voicemail through the partnership they've forged with Cingular, which had to re-engineer part of its network and storage system to provide this feature. It's a bar to entry for other non-U.S. Apple partners, to be sure, unless Apple makes that feature optional outside America.
The iPhone also features SMS text messaging, and the iChat-like interface allows users to maintain multiple discussions, while typing on a small QWERTY key layout on the touchscreen. Text input is eased by automatic completion and other entry aids. There is no instant-messaging client planned for inclusion, oddly enough, not even a version of iChat.
The new iPhone can connect to the Internet via super-fast 802.11n-enhanced Wi-Fi or a mobile connection using Cingular's EDGE service (which provides data speeds of about 50 to 150 Kbps downstream). Jobs promised third-generation (3G) network support at some future point. Cingular has, to date, deployed UMTS (200-300 Kbps downstream) and HSDPA (350 to 500 Kbps downstream) spottily throughout the United States; European and Asian carriers have deployed those faster flavors aggressively. The supposition was that Jobs didn't want a phone that offered higher speeds but couldn't work at those higher speeds in all urban areas. Verizon and Sprint's incompatible 3G technology covers virtually all major cities and many smaller ones. AT&T will likely push HSDPA nationally as part of its overall strategy as a new, enormous entity.
Once connected, the iPhone uses a version of the Safari browser to display Web pages. In contrast with most WAP-enabled browsers running on mobile phones, Web pages load with their layout looking as it would normally in Safari running on a Macintosh, but with tiny text and images. iPhone's Safari compares favorably with Opera's browser designed for mobile phones, too.
Users can use hand gestures like double-tapping and "pinching" to enlarge portions of the page that they wish to view. Although, no doubt you wouldn't want to do huge amounts of Web surfing on such a tiny screen, it looked like an intelligent and useful way to use the Web, especially in comparison to any other mobile phone in existence.
You can also send and receive HTML email from the device, which will apparently work with any IMAP or POP3 connection. In particular, Apple has partnered with Yahoo to provide free "push" IMAP email to all iPhone customers. Push email was one of the reasons that Research in Motion's Blackberry devices gained such quick acceptance: the instant you receive mail at a server, that server in turn pushes the message to your device, much as receiving voicemail causes an almost immediate notification on a phone. You can also pull messages through normal POP and IMAP.
The iPhone's email interface looked like it would be familiar to users of Apple Mail, although no one will be typing long messages on the onscreen QWERTY keyboard. The device automatically recognizes phone numbers in email messages, and users can call a number by tapping it. It's likely that the Bluetooth support includes a keyboard profile, which would allow a compact keyboard to turn the iPhone into more of a computing device on the road.
Jobs also demoed widgets (mini-applications, just like in Dashboard on the Mac) working on the iPhone to check stocks and weather, and he showed what appeared to be a special Google Maps application that provided mapping (but apparently not driving directions) in both a street map view and a satellite image view. While no mention was made of location-based GPS services in the phone, a federal mandate requires all cell phones to offer E911 coordinates to operators. The iPhone thus has to have some method of triangulating its location and sending it over the air - whether real GPS or cell-tower interpolation - and we might see a combination of mapping and location awareness.
The iPhone software that enables it to play videos and movies has the same basic organization as what you'd find in an iPod, but it adds some new access methods. You won't find a click wheel; instead, you scroll using the multi-touch dragging method described earlier. The iPhone also inherits the CoverFlow feature from iTunes, which lets you browse albums by flipping through miniaturized versions of the album covers.
All in all, for anyone who is struggling to integrate data between different devices, or for anyone who wants to put more of the features found on a personal computer onto a mobile device, the iPhone looks like a winner, assuming the touchscreen works as well as advertised and doesn't show greasy fingerprints too much. Well... there are plenty of other open questions about the iPhone, and we'll be looking at those in an upcoming article.
ToC
by Glenn Fleishman <glenn@tidbits.com>
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/8811>
TidBITS#862/15-Jan-07
Come, feel the hem of my garment, ye lowly. Or at least that's what it felt like at Macworld Expo when I would mention, offhandedly, that I had iFondled an iPhone. As a bona fide member of the print press - representing The Seattle Times at the show - I received an executive briefing, and spent 10 minutes with the iPhone. I joked to Macworld editorial director Jason Snell, who also touched an iPhone, that we could put up a sign that read, "Hear about what it's like to play with an iPhone: 25 cents."
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/practicalmac/>
I didn't realize then that Apple allowed only select press and partners to touch an iPhone. Samples were encased in glass pillars on the show floor. Demonstrations were continuous at Apple's booth with a specially equipped iPhone that had its display inserted into a mockup on screen.
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/862/iphone-security.jpg>
The iPhone feels like a device that fell through a wormhole from the future. I can safely say that I've never held anything but certain sculpted art objects that had the feel and nature of the iPhone. It's definitely a work of art. [Writing about the iPhone on a current Macintosh feels a bit like this photo I took in the lobby of the W hotel. -Adam]
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/862/iphone-typewriter.jpg>
The touchscreen works as somewhat breathlessly promoted by Steve Jobs. Gestures result in almost instant responses. Learning to pinch and expand (or my preferred terms of "pucker" and "bloat," suggested by a colleague) takes a matter of seconds. Navigating a Web page requires a little more effort because you have to sort of grab the page and move it around, and then pinch to zoom in on a story.
I didn't have a chance to try typing, which several colleagues who'd used the iPhone said was rather satisfying. It offers predictive and what I'd dub "postdictive" suggestions. If you typed, for instance, "t" it might add an "h" as a suggestion, but if you followed the "h" with an "f" - typing "thf" instead of "the" - the iPhone would helpfully recognize you probably meant "the." (I don't know if it prescriptively changes it or just offers the change, however.)
The built-in speakers provided good sound, and navigating iTunes libraries was pretty straightforward. I'm not sure the navigation method of being able to scroll by throwing your finger - sliding it rapidly off the edge of the screen - is perfect, but it has a kind of artificial gravity to it that seems to work. There's also friction, so the speed at which you throw the page doesn't continue in pure Newtonian (the scientist, not the late Apple PDA) terms.
The iPhone would sell remarkably well as an iPod with no Wi-Fi and no phone capability. But based on reports following its announcement, a phone sold for $500 by a cell provider and with a required two-year commitment would retail for as much as $1,000. It's likely the touchscreen represents a significant portion of that - perhaps a few hundred dollars. (Cancellation fees might require many hundreds of dollars to be repaid.)
Those that don't opt to switch to Cingular and buy an iPhone may be waiting some time for costs to drop enough for the touchscreen and interface to make its way into the regular iPod lineup.
ToC
by TidBITS Staff <editors@tidbits.com>
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/8812>
TidBITS#862/15-Jan-07
Although the big news at Steve Jobs's Macworld Expo keynote was the iPhone, Jobs also introduced the Apple TV, previously codenamed iTV when it was previewed at a special press event in September 2006 (see "Apple Updates iPods, Introduces Movies, Previews iTV," 2006-09-16). The $300 Apple TV sits between Macs and large-screen televisions, offering both local storage of audio, video, and photos on a 40 GB hard disk, and streaming of media using Ethernet or pre-standard 802.11n, which is not yet part of Wi-Fi. Media arrives on the Apple TV's hard disk by synchronizing from a single Mac through iTunes, just like syncing to an iPod. For media that either doesn't fit on the Apple TV's hard disk or that exists only on a visiting Mac, the Apple TV can stream audio and video from other copies of iTunes, from up to five different computers. Apple is currently taking orders for Apple TV, and plans to begin shipping in February. The Mac mini-shaped Apple TV is 7.7 inches (19.7 cm) square, but only 1.1 inches (2.8 cm) high, making it 1.2 inches (3.0 cm) wider in two dimensions, and 0.9 inches (2.3 cm) thinner than the Mac mini.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/>
<http://www.apple.com/appletv/ >
<http://db.tidbits.com/article/8676>
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/862/appletv_frnt_rem.jpg>
On the TV, the media is accessed via a Front Row-like interface, controlled by a slim Apple Remote. Interspersed with menu choices for playlists and albums, and other methods of browsing the local content, are choices that play movie trailers from Apple's Web site, connect to the iTunes Store, and more. When you're not actively using the Apple TV, a screen saver kicks in, with a new multi-photo display of your synced photos.
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/862/appletv_interface.jpg>
Output ports include HDMI (encrypted digital audio and video), component video, analog audio, and digital optical audio. In terms of connectivity, the Apple TV sports a 10/100 Mbps wired Ethernet port, and 802.11n wireless networking that can also hit 100 Mbps in real world throughput. 802.11n is backwards compatible with 802.11b (AirPort) and 802.11g (AirPort Extreme) wireless networks as well, but 802.11n isn't yet final, which casts a cloud of doubt over industry-wide compatibility. We anticipate that Apple will ensure compatibility with at least existing and future wireless-enabled devices also from Apple.
A USB 2.0 port is also present, which Apple's specifications page lists as being "for service and diagnostics." That's a pity, because it would be nice to plug in an external hard disk or network-attached storage drive to augment the internal 40 GB drive, as is possible on the new AirPort Extreme Base Station. 40 GB simply isn't much when it comes to storing video, so it remains to be seen if the Apple TV is more of a media center or a media relay.
ToC
by Glenn Fleishman <glenn@tidbits.com>
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/8790>
TidBITS#860/18-Dec-06
Adobe Systems rarely releases public betas, which made the announcement last week that it would let anyone test Photoshop CS3, the company's flagship image-editing program, even more remarkable. The download is a universal binary, the first public appearance of any core graphics application from Adobe that natively supports Intel-based Macs. A Windows beta is also available. The full Creative Suite 3 (CS3) is expected to ship in the second quarter of 2007 for Mac and Windows, with all applications available as universal binaries under Mac OS X.
<http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200612/121406Photoshop.html>
<http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/photoshopcs3/>
Downloading the beta requires an Adobe ID, which is free, and you may already have one (and forgotten about it, as I do every time). The beta can be used for only two days after download unless you obtain a serial number for further testing by visiting a special URL and providing an existing serial number for Photoshop CS2, Creative Suite 2, Production Studio, Adobe Web Bundle, or Adobe Video Bundle. Adobe notes that any copy of those programs in any language will qualify, even though the public beta provides just the English language version.
<http://www.adobe.com/go/photoshopcs3beta_serialnumber>
The Mac download is 685 MB; the Windows download is 337 MB. System requirements are Mac OS X 10.4.8 running on a computer with a PowerPC G4 or G5 processor or an Intel processor; PC users need Windows XP SP2 or Vista.
Photoshop is a computationally intensive program, and while Photoshop CS2 runs at a reasonable pace using the Rosetta translation mode with Intel Macs, professional users have been eagerly awaiting a native version that should boost speed on any Mac Pro far above any Power Mac G5. Of course, this requires optimization for the new platform, and that's part of what a beta (public or private) is all about. Often, code is still being optimized for speed during beta testing cycles, which can frustrate users who might not expect crashes and unusual slowness in some parts of a program, while seeing huge increases in speed with other features.
The release of this public beta has a few different meanings for those of us who read the tea leaves.
First, the Photoshop team is probably ahead of other product teams in the Creative Suite development cycle. Three years ago, Adobe tied together its core programs (InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, and GoLive), increasing the average time between major updates, but also providing better bundled prices and a predictable budget item.
But the Creative Suite also means that all development teams are yoked to the same harness. This was particularly disastrous for GoLive, a program that I have written books about and been particularly intimate with for several years. In Macworld, I gave the CS2 release two mice for crashes, flaws, and missing features, while other reviewers gave 4 or 4.5 mice to the other major programs in the CS2 suite. Six months passed before a maintenance update fixed many of GoLive CS2's problems. (GoLive has been designated a non-starter in CS3, being dropped to get its own separate identity - perhaps as a revised entry-level Web design program; Dreamweaver will take its place. See "GoLive Booted from Adobe Creative Suite, Acrobat 8 Released," 2006-09-18.)
<http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/reviews/golivecs2/>
<http://db.tidbits.com/article/8679>
In this case, the public beta program is a signal that Photoshop is right on schedule.
Second, this public beta is a market signal so that serious users and corporate buyers can expect not just an on-time release of CS3, but one that's worth buying. It means that Intel-based Mac purchases that may have been on hold for designers and production artists, or by individuals including yours truly, may be given the go-ahead. Opening the doors to people who were primarily Adobe graphics tool users could significantly boost Apple's sales in the first half of 2007.
Third, the beta release reduces the impression that Photoshop CS3 is vaporware. Adobe has done a good job with its initial CS and subsequent CS2 release in anticipating the date they would ship and hitting it closely. By producing a public beta of Photoshop CS3, they tell their customers and the stock market that good things are coming without having to commit to specific dates.
As a dilettante Photoshop user and one who hasn't yet purchased an Intel-based Mac for myself, I'm also fascinated to see what new features will emerge; early reports show that this version could offer much more flexibility in non-destructive editing - a key feature in Apple's more-focused Aperture editor - as well as a new interface approach.
ToC
by Jeff Carlson <jeffc@tidbits.com>
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/8809>
TidBITS#862/15-Jan-07
On the heels of a recent software update (see "Microsoft Releases Office 2004, Office X Updates," 2007-01-08), Microsoft last week released Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac 11.3.3. The update improves security throughout the suite; improves compatibility with Rich Text Format (RTF) documents created with Office Word 2003 for Windows; corrects calculation of standard deviation in PivotTable reports within Excel 2004; fixes an issue in Entourage 2004 that caused events after 11-Mar-07 to be displayed incorrectly; and updates the Japanese postal code dictionary in Entourage. The updater is a whopping 57.6 MB download, but it includes the improvements and fixes from all previous Office 2004 updates. It's available via direct download or through the Microsoft AutoUpdate utility.
<http://db.tidbits.com/article/8799>
<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location=/mac/download/Office2004/Office2004_1133.xml>
Microsoft also presented us with a preview of features that will be included in Office 2008, the Macintosh refresh of the suite due in the second half of 2007, despite the 2008 moniker. In short, Microsoft is trying to make much of the existing functionality in the Office applications more obvious and easier to use. Alas, there was no word about new collaboration features that small workgroups so desperately need from Word and other applications. We'll keep you updated as details become available.
ToC
reported by Kevin Hopkins (kh2@uiuc.edu)
December 21, 2006 - The meeting began with President Richard Rollins welcoming back our prodigal sons Anderson Yau, Mike Latinovich, Dave Witt, and Jim Huls. Good to see you, guys.
President Rollins then turned the floor over to Kevin Hisel to conduct the election of club officers for 2007. In doing so, Richard announced the candidates.
| President: | Richard Rollins |
| Vice-President: | Emil Cobb |
| Secretary: | Kevin Hopkins |
| Treasurer: | Richard Hall |
| Corporate Agent: | Kevin Hisel |
After no new nominations were made, Mike Latinovich moved closing the nominations. Wayne Hamilton seconded. Kevin Hisel moved and Ed Serbe seconded a motion for a voice vote. The vote was so taken with no decent. Ed Serbe congratulated those elected.
Treasurer Rich Hall then gave the annual Treasurer's Report. Bottom line, we were $477 to the plus side this year.
The floor was opened to Questions and Answers and general discussion.
Richard Rollins announced he had a friend who wanted to sell an A1000. This started a discussion on all the old technology we all own.
Jerry Feltner asked about how to turn on a laptop without charging the battery. Jerry was worried about running it through too many charge cycles. Del England talked about charge cycles, noting that from 90% up is not really a full charge cycle. Only NiCad batteries have memory problems.
Kevin Hisel reported that Insight did upgrade its system to 10MB down 1 MB up. You'll want DOCSIS 2 on any cable modem or router your have now. Tom's Hardware has a chart showing you hardware comparisons.
Go to http://www.tomshardware.com/ and click on the Network tab
which takes you to SmallNetBuilder at http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/index.php
Click the "LANs & Routers" tab, then over on the left click on "Router Charts" under the "Browse All LAN / Router" heading
or just click on this:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,156/
You can use Speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net/> to check your connection. On the map, click on Chicago and it'll do the rest. Mark Zinzow and Dave Witt got into a discussion about Gigabit News and server feeding. Mark also showed a slot fan he'd gotten from Ben's Bargain for $4 a piece.
Another bit of hardware shown was a CyberGuys portable power unit that you can hand crank for 5 minutes and it'll give you 20 minutes worth of charge to charge his phone or MP3 players. Has a USB port and several headed cable. <http://www.cyberguys.com/>
Richard Rollins brought up the AT&T and Verizon deal and how it aims to strip local control.
There was a discussion of the excerption to the DMCA for Abandonware brought up by an article in the newsletter this month.
The BBC is going to go peer to peer to broadcast their shows.
There was a discussion MAME and radar detectors. Connecticut has outlawed radar detectors.
The was a statement that the Nintendo Wii is a rebranded Game Cube with a 900MHz G3 processor (upped from 700 MHz). This lead to a discussion of the PS3. George Krumins said there are no good games out for it yet. The group talked about Microsoft's Zune MP3 player. It was stated that IBM is making out like a bandit on the processors.
What's happening with Vista? It goes on retail sale January 31.
There was more talk about gaming and addiction. World of Warcraft and Second Life seem to be particularly affecting.
Richard Rollins said Rob Noble will join the club for next year and will be doing free training sessions on the Toaster.
Best Buy has a 37" Westinghouse LCD LVM-37W3 about $1400. Mike Latinovich recommended it. The Samsung 244T is another good one.
ToC
reported by Kevin Hopkins (kh2@uiuc.edu)
The December meeting of the CUCUG executive board took place on Tuesday, December 26, 2006, at 7PM, at Kevin Hisel's house. (For anyone wishing to attend - which is encouraged, by the way - the address and phone number are both in the book). Present at the meeting were: Richard Rollins, Emil Cobb, Kevin Hopkins, and Kevin Hisel.
Richard Rollins: Richard reported that there were no doughnuts left. He said it was good to see Mike Latinovich, Dave Witt, Jim Huls and Anderson Yau again.
He reported that he had paid the room rent for next year, so our meeting place is set for another year.
Richard commented on the interesting conversation at the meeting. He noted, "The railroad occurred again." He conveyed the message that Mike said the doughnuts were good. The board discussed arranging a Vista demo which will require a new machine. There was a discussion of XP versus Vista.
Discussing Insight's new upload/download speeds, Kevin Hisel said it requires an upgrade of your hardware. For his system he purchased these.
new router: DGL 4300 by D-Link, got it on Amazon.com
new cable modem: DCM 202 by D-Link, got it at (couldn't remember off the top of his head)
You need a DOCSIS 2 type modem, not a DOCSIS One, to take advantage of Insight's new speed boost.
Richard Rollins got a new router to accomplish the same thing, an AR504 (he thinks) from AirLink 101 purchased on Outlook.com.
Emil Cobb: Emil reported that we had 22 attendees at the December meeting.
Kevin Hopkins: Kevin reported that Treasurer Rich Hall was "winging his way to Australia as we speak." Rich wanted it reported that we had ten renews of membership at the meeting and in the mail.
Kevin also delivered various items from the mail, including a package from Symantec which contained some software which we can give away as prizes.
Kevin Hisel: Kevin said, "I'm coming up dry."
With no further business, the meeting adjourned.
ToC
The CUCUG is a not-for-profit corporation, originally organized in 1983 to support and advance the knowledge of area Commodore computer users. We've grown since then, now supporting PC, Macintosh and Linux platforms.
Meetings are held the third Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the First Baptist Church of Champaign in Savoy. The FBC-CS is located at 1602 N. Prospect Avenue in Savoy, on the NE corner of Burwash and Prospect. To get to the the First Baptist Church from Champaign or Urbana, take Prospect Avenue south. Setting the trip meter in your car to zero at the corner of Kirby/Florida and Prospect in Champaign (Marathon station on the SW corner), you only go 1.6 miles south. Windsor will be at the one mile mark. The Savoy village sign (on the right) will be at the 1.4 mile mark. Burwash is at the 1.6 mile mark. The Windsor of Savoy retirement community is just to the south; Burwash Park is to the east. Turn east (left) on Burwash. The FBC-CS parking lot entrance is on the north (left) side of Burwash. Enter by the double doors at the eastern end of the building's south side. A map can be found on the CUCUG website at <http://www.cucug.org/meeting.html>. The First Baptist Church of Champaign is also on the web at <http://www.fbc-cs.org>.
Membership dues for individuals are $20 annually; prorated to $10 at mid year.
Our monthly newsletter, the Status Register, is delivered by email. All recent editions are available on our WWW site. To initiate a user group exchange, just send us your newsletter or contact our editor via email. As a matter of CUCUG policy, an exchange partner will be dropped after three months of no contact.
For further information, please attend the next meeting as our guest, or contact one of our officers (all at area code 217):
President/WinSIG: Richard Rollins 469-2616 Vice-Pres/MacSIG: Emil Cobb 398-0149 Secretary/Editor: Kevin Hopkins 356-5026 Treasurer: Richard Hall 344-8687 Corp.Agent/Web: Kevin Hisel 406-948-1999 Linux SIG: Allen Byrne 344-5311
Email us at <http://www.cucug.org/contact/index.html>, visit our web site at <http://www.cucug.org/>, or join in our online forums at <http://www.cucug.org/starship/> .
CUCUG
912 Stratford Drive
Champaign, IL
61821-4137
