This story shows the basic problem with illegal immigration. Primarily that, due to the nature of illegal immigration, we cannot track who's comming over the border.

You see, this illegal was deported after a conviction of "indecency with a child". But he came back... And of course, who knew?

The whole nature of not securing the border means that almost anyone, criminal or not, can come walking across the border, and we have NO way of tracking them. Even if we were to legalize all the illegals that were here, we still can't detect and prevent the criminals from comming across the border.

Are illegal immigrant advocates going to say it was a good thing this illegal was able to come back??? He should have been allowed to come back???

There are essentially two key elements to illegal immigration which are the crux of the issue. The first is capacity, that is, we can only hold so many people before the quality of life begins to drop. In many areas we have already surpased this point, here in Southern California. The second is the issue illustrated here: We have no way of knowing who has come here.

The bottom line is that we cannot allow unfettered access for unidentified illegals into this country, as criminals will pour in and continue to rob, rape and murder our citizens. We need to identify each person who comes in. We cannot do this unless we completely seal the border. Because even if we were to somehow say "anybody who applies can come in", thoes who are known criminals will still sneak in the old fashion way, as they know they can't get in otherwise...

I got a Trojan report the other day indicating my DNETC client contained a Trojan. For those who don't know DNETC (or the Distributed.net Client) is a 'folding' program that uses the extra CPU cycles of a computer to attempt to break an encryption algorithm. Now - this isn't a bad AT thing, as what it is doing is testing the viability of encryption. It actually gives you a pretty good idea as to how reliable it is, when a chain of 10s of thousands of CPUs take several years to break the encryption. And in the end the user of the machine which does break it gets a small financial award...

There are several other things out there that use CPU cycles. One of the more popular ones is the SETI (Search For Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) project, which attempts to analyze tons of data pulled from radio satellites aimed into space. There's also others, that attempt to analyze disease & genomes and the like.

The whole concept is there are millions of computers out there which generally are left on during times when they aren't doing much, so these programs use the computer that is sitting there doing nothing & proceeds to perform these computations. Essentially getting better than super computer calculations out of CPU cycles that would otherwise go unused.

At any rate, I had assumed the Trojan warning was indicating my DNETC executable had become infected with a secondary virus of some kind. I realized today, after my 4th attempt to re-download it, that Trend Micro isn't reporting that there is a Trojan attached to it, rather that it is in fact a Trojan...

TROJ_DISTNET.A

There is of course a major problem here, as I have been running DNETC on my work system for years. You see, my work computer stays on all night doing very little, so I use the extra CPU cycles to run the client (tied to my screen saver). That was until a couple days ago, as Trend Micro will no longer allow me to run it at all. I cannot even download it at this point...

Nice...

This site has a nice little post about how "Apple takes back the copycat title". The long list of items that apparently (re?)-earns the title is iTV. Yes, apparently this one device outweighs the long list of M$ copycat's that continues to grow to this day.

You see, there is one little problem, and to see this problem, we must start at the beginning.

iTunes was released many years ago for the Mac, and was at the time, arguably the most advanced free MP3/Music program out there. Don't get me wrong, it definitely wasn't the first with the original features, however all the other products were, for the most part, cripple-ware. That is to say, you pay $X to enable specific features. The next step was iMovie, the first consumer level video editing program (originally free) The next step was iPhoto, the first consumer level photo library solution (originally free), and finally iDVD, the first consumer level DVD production software. Granted these were at the time all Mac only, and all but 1 still are, but they were first on Mac, and Microsoft's equivalent to these (Window Movie Maker comes to mind) were cough*copied*cough from Apple's version.

iTunes, of course, is now available on Windows, and is still arguably one of the best totally free MP3 players out there (with emphasis on "one of"). iTunes, of course, also contains the #1 (by a landslide) online music stores on the market. Apple was the first to bring online music stores to the main stream, and the first to offer a "you own the song" model. Someone could try to argue Apple's music store was a copy of someone else's idea, but that would be like trying to argue Amazon is a copy, because it was not the first online retailer in the world...

Apple, again, was also the first to begin selling current TV shows digitally (legally). And, while I believe Amazon beat them by a couple weeks (if I have my timeline right), they also began offering Movies as well. All be it it's hard to determine exactly when Apple began working on the Movie concept, because they do keep those things under wraps.

Of course I could go the direction of copycat by going after the Zune (again, one device awards the copycat title according to the article above), which was developed to try to beat the iPod, is a copy of the iPod in that sense. To try to say "well, it offers this feature, which the iPod doesn't, so it isn't a copy" would essentially mean that the whole argument that iTV is a copy would be invalid as well. Because, you see, last time I checked, I couldn't find the ability to stream movie trailers to your XBox at the click of the remote. I can't find a method of streaming Google Video (a currently rumored iTV feature) to the XBox at the click of a button either. Not to say you can't do either, however you cannot do it without downloading them to your media center first.

At any rate, to get back on track as to the purpose of the article: Why a copy isn't a copy. Above I listed several things that Apple was the first to do, and again I'm targeting the consumer level, not the professional level. They were essentially the first to bring all these digital media types which are now a common part of all our lives to a single collection of applications that work together to deliver these pieces of media in a fluid manner.

There essentially was only one thing missing that was a logical next step: Delivering these items to the primary media center of the household. So the reason I say it's not a copy is this: Apple is simply bringing the media which they were the first to make tools to fully create and organize on every level for the consumer, and delivering it to the location the consumer wants it. Would you argue that Virgin Records is copying Vivendi-Universal because they both deliver music on CD's to your CD player??? Would you argue that Miramax is copying 20th Century Fox because they both deliver movies to your local movie theater???

You see, with iTV Apple is simply bringing all the media which they have been working on assembling into one tightly integrated package for years now to the one location where it's currently missing.

Oh, and for the record the copycat story linked up top is also not accurate, as there is some untruthful information in there. It states that apparently you can't view high definition downloaded content. Where in the world did Steve Jobs say "oh, by the way, you cannot..."??? Oh that's right, he didn't. Truth be told, you can download high definition content anywhere off the internet today, and copy that video into iTunes TODAY. iTunes can in fact handle any type of video that QuickTime can, it just so happens that not all that content can play on the iPod in it's native formats. But try it yourself, drag your videos into iTunes and watch what happens. Now, will that video play on iTV? I don't know, but since it appears to be based on the QuickTime standard and not the iPod standard (I say this based off of various things that were shown in the demo), I would venture to guess that yes, it will in fact play on iTV. Keep in mind also (which the story writer may not even know) that the iPod can in fact play downloaded content that has been encoded to the MP4 specification. It doesn't only play content purchased from the iTunes Music Store... I've converted several videos I've had for years to MP4, and they are sitting in my iTunes, waiting for the day I finally get a Video iPod... Some of these clips I've had in excess of 10 years, long before iTunes even existed, and yet since I converted them, they will definitely play on the iPod and without a doubt will play on iTV...

Also, he states that you can't play recorded TV shows. Who said this? In what format are they recorded in? If they are recorded in MP4, not only will they play on iTV without question, they will play on your Video iPod as well. Again, I don't know if the Author is aware of this.

[edit]
One thing I forgot the first time around: Being iTunes Music Store is the #1 digital music store in the world, there are well over a billion iTunes Music Store songs out there that cannot be streamed with an XBox. None of your purchased iTunes Videos will work either. So if you purchased any of these things, your media center supporting XBox isn't gona do much for you.

Now, when it comes to video, it's true that the iTunes videos aren't HDTV quality, as they are, at maximum, 640x480. But try to keep in mind an NTSC DVD is (according to Wikipedia's DVD entry) 720x480 at best. So the 640x480 would be pretty close to the best standard DVD quality you can get today.
[/edit]

And finally streaming video. Does iTV handle it? In some fashions it does right now. Primarily in viewing Movie Trailers, that video is streaming off of the internet. If Google Video is supported, that will be streaming as well. And who knows, maybe when all is said and done, other forms of streaming video will work as well. We won't know until the end though.

So to sum up, the article contains flatly inaccurate information, assumptions, and opinions that aren't all that sound, as well as a narrow view of the whole picture. To then use this as some type of proof that iTV is A) a copycat title earner, and B) a sub-par device is in all honesty a dishonest thing to do.

This video is fairly interesting.



Supposedly it shows outtakes of a faked moon trip. A lot of people are posting that the video prooves nothing. This may in fact be correct, but in all honesty, you can't simply ignore the video simply because it doesn't quite line up with the official story of what had happened... The statement "we did go to the moon so the video means nothing" is a bit of a short sided statement...

What I also found interesting was Buzz Aldren's threat to sue when presented with the video...



If the said footage means nothing, he sure seems both somewhat affraid (ie: the "Ask NASA" statement), then gets angry & threatening... If someone presented me with a video supposedly showing something untrue about myself, I would have just responded with something along the lines of "dude, you're an idiot" & walked out... Why bother having an arguement if the argument isn't worth having???

Are either of these things proof we didn't go to the moon? No, but until they are explained, they cannot be simply discounted...

I ran across a story today regarding Halogen, a mod Killed by M$.

I at first didn't know what Halogen was, so I figured I will explain it here. Halogen is a mod for Command & Conquer generals. It turns the game's components (people, vehicles, buildings) into components from the game Halo, essentially chaning the atmosphere of the game.

Microsoft does hold the rights to the components from Halo, and therefore can request it stop, but the story isn't that simple. Mod makers generally do the work, and it's very hard & very skilled work, for absoltuly nothing other than the satisfaction of doing & completing the work. In relation to other Halo mods for other games, Microsoft has directly stated that mods are fine as long as the mods are not used to generate a profit...

The Halogen mod is no different. It contains hours - days - months - years worth of work. The makers literally get nothing for there work other than what there work itself brings them. So what's the difference between this mod & the mods M$ said were okay? The only real difference is the level of work. Apparently this mod was done a little too well, and had a little too much work put into it.

So what does this move mean for everybody involved? Well, for the mod makers it means the years of work they invested in something that will never bring them any money will now never bring them satisfaciton of completion and a wide user base - the only two things I really get out of stuff I post to BobbyWare (my own freeware site). Microsoft is pretty much in the same position financially that they would have been had they left it alone. Unless M$ is planning to either sell their own symiler mod, or release a game symiler to what the mod provides to CnC Generals.

But in the end there is one sure fire thing it does bring Microsoft. That being the dislike of the company by people like me to even more people out there. They seemingly enjoy squashing the little guy, even when the little guy isn't trying to make money...