Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Slashback: OpenDocuments, RFID Passports, Firefox Celebration

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Oct 26, 2005 06:59 PM
from the it's-bad-if-i-can-leverage-that-for-political-office dept.
Slashback tonight brings updates and continuations of recent Slashdot stories including a continuation of the Massachusetts document format debate, a response from the US State Department on RFID passports, a unique celebration of Firefox's 100 millionth download, and more.

Politics still muddying the water of the MA OpenDocument debate. The Commonwealth's Secretary of State William Galvin says he has "grave concerns" about the switch and told secretary of administration and finance Thomas Trimarco that "we will not be participating." Galvin is considered one of the strong candidates to run as a rival candidate for next year's gubernatorial race against incumbent Mitt Romney who supports the switch.

RFID passports still the best option. The US State Department released a final ruling on the issue of RFID technology to be included in all US passports after October 2006 which also contained some of the reasoning behind their move. Other technologies were apparently looked at and discarded due to the difficulty of implementation and several security measures have apparently been taken to try and placate the opposition.

Firefox fans at Oregon State celebrate 100 million downloads. CNet has a pictorial about a local OSU LUG that had a few interesting ways to celebrate the recent big numbers on the Firefox downloads page. Happy to show their support students both painted a giant Firefox logo and launched a weather balloon, I can't think of any better way to say congratulations.

DrDOS didn't really break, it just reverted. The FreeDOS folks have an update on their webpage stating that DrDOS 8.1 no longer exists and all links on the DrDOS webpage apparently point to DrDOS 7.03. There were some negative reactions to the release or 8.1 stating that it included software that it shouldn't have so for now the "band-aid" fix appears to be in place.

Flexbeta takes a look at Flock. Noting the roots of Flock in Mozilla's Firefox browser, the folks over at Flexbeta take a quick look at the additional functionality offered by this newcomer. This comes with the recent news that Flock has also decided to open source their browser. Looks like this Firefox offspring is fighting hard for some recognition of its own.

iTunes continues to take over the world. With the recent release of iTunes Australia and Apple's continued growth in the industry a recent announcement brings us "Standford on iTunes". This new service will give alumni and the general public access to a wide range of Stanford-specific digital audio content.

+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by oldosadmin (759103) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:02PM (#13885503) Homepage
    The new OpenDocument Fellowship is working with a petition to get Microsoft to implement the format. SIGN IT! http://www.opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/ [opendocume...owship.org]
    • MS isn't a government institution, you can't just petition them into doing something. They'll only do it if it something that will improve their bottom line. So far, they haven't felt that open standards do that. Perhaps, they'll see the error of their ways - but a petition won't make MS do anything.

      Just thought I'd point out the obvious.

      • RTFL (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oldosadmin (759103) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:11PM (#13885569) Homepage
        Read the link.

        Quote: Microsoft has stated that they will support the OpenDocument format in MS Office if there is customer demand:

        http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510161 05739574 [groklaw.net]

        The purpose of this petition is to quantify the customer demand for OpenDocument support. EndQuote
        • Point one, petition signatures do not equate to customer demand. Note the word 'customer'. I.e., the claim is that, if enough CUSTOMERS request the feature, then a future version MIGHT contain the requested feature.

          Point two. The state of Massachusetts IS a current customer, and IS demanding this 'feature' and Microsoft is, so far, refusing to include it in any future version. So much for claims of "...will support the OpenDocument format in MS Office if there is customer demand."

          Once their claim has been P
  • by Maow (620678) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:02PM (#13885504)
    100 million downloads is a good thing, but what exactly does it mean?

    For example, I've downloaded 10 myself - I'm sure many others have too.

    There's no way to compare these numbers to the main competition (IE), so I'm not celebrating much myself.

    ps First Post!?!

    • This may sound dumb but....

      If you assume that this happens with all software, then you just have to assume total downloads is an arbitary figure and use it to compare with other downloads?

    • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:11PM (#13885571)
      This comes up every time such stats are mentioned.

      First of all, they don't track downloads via the update feature of Firefox.

      Second, while you've downloaded it ten times, there are many businesses and schools who have installed it on hundreds of workstations from a single download. So it may be one of those things that balances out in the end.

      And finally, it's not so much about the exact number. It's about the general magnitude of the number. Even if they're 10 million downloads off either way, that's still an impressive number of people to reach.

      • by Bogtha (906264) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @08:48PM (#13886083)

        Second, while you've downloaded it ten times, there are many businesses and schools who have installed it on hundreds of workstations from a single download. So it may be one of those things that balances out in the end.

        No. If you have x unknown amount of additional downloads that shouldn't be counted, and y number of installations that weren't counted, then the odds of x - y = 0 (the hypothesis that it "balances out in the end") seems extremely unlikely.

        Why is there this fascination with using all kinds of contorted non-logic to try and derive statistics from data that just can't support it? If you don't have the facts, the right thing to do is hold your hands up and say "I don't know", and the wrong thing to do is say "well because we don't know how many we undercount by and how many we overcount by, we'll just sweep logic under the rug and pretend that it "balances out".

      • by LeonGeeste (917243) * on Wednesday October 26 2005, @09:38PM (#13886328) Journal
        I think a good idea would be for them to truly find out how many people are using it. Make it so that when you download it, you have to state how many people it's for. And to make that accurate, you should have to give your SSN or whatever your country's national ID number is, and the ID number of everyone who you claim will use it. Then they can strike any duplicates. To make sure people don't give it away and distort the number, they could make the file encrypted such that it will only run if you register it. To confirm you're not using someone else's number, they could set up centers at DMV's (Department of Motor Vehicles) where you can verify that it's you before you can register it (and they'd have computers you'd use to register your copy).

        To prevent people from compiling it on their own, they could close the source so that you can only run it through the official installer and only that would be counted in the tallies. To verify transparency, they should put all the names and ID numbers in a central database that everyone can access so that independent agencies can verify the names and contact people to be sure they're actually using it. This could all be funded by selling the contact information in the database to direct marketing organizations (the legitimate ones, not the ones who harass you).

        This is the only way to get an accurate, scientific count of the true number of users.
        • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @11:24PM (#13886850)
          What if you just give them one of your testes or ovaries when you first download Firefox? If you download it again, then they'll crush your ovary/testicle. If you stop using Firefox, then you can request your organ back. When they want a fairly accurate count of Firefox users, all they have to do is count the number of ovaries and testes that they have.

    • It means somewhere between 1 and 99,999,991 users.
    • I'd be responsible for about 20 of those...

      Any time that a friend asks for IT help of any kind, the first thing I do is d/l firefox, eradicate the links to IE, and tell them to use that instead.... even if the 'IT help' request had nothing to do with IE or the 'net.

      I've even started doing it on other peoples PC's at work.

      Sure IE has improved of late, but that appears to have been only due to the increased interest in the foxy lady.

      And to think that ten years ago I was one of the biggest MS fanboys out there
    • I always use the latest nightly build so I don't know how they count that.

      I notice that the Flexbeta review is not comparing Flock to the latest nightly builds of Firefox because some features the latest nightly builds have that are similar to Flock's are missing from the screenshots. They are giving Flock credit for features Flock may have inherited from the Firefox codebase.
  • by mctk (840035) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:03PM (#13885509) Homepage
    I can't think of any better way to say congratulations.
    Seriously? Man, you're not planning my birthday party.
  • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:04PM (#13885513)
    Indeed, if there's one thing that we can learn from this whole OpenDocument debacle, it's that we should instead use LaTeX and plaintext.

    Plaintext emails and memos work just fine. LaTeX is fantastic for more complex documents. And you can even output PDFs of documents, if you really want to make viewing easy and exact.

    These new technologies seem to bring nothing but problems, especially when the existing formats work so well.

    • What if I want to use Rich Text? What if I want to use PostScript? What about HTML?

      Admittedly, I'm not necessarily in favor of creating more standards when there are existing ones that are throughly adequate, but if "they" can create one standard that everyone's needs will be met by, that works cross-platform and across the board, then I'll endorse that if it actually works. I've seen too many headaches with MS-Works, Appleworks, Lotus WordPro, and Microsoft Word writing to formats that the others can
      • Then you generate RTF, PS or HTML files from the LaTeX source. It works like a charm.

        Indeed, it'd be great if they could come up with something better. But it seems that they can't. That's why they're running into so many problems. Indeed, being able to read the various formats is a problem, especially when they're some proprietary binary format. That's why using plaintext, LaTeX and PDF files works so well: they're well documented, non-obfuscated, and are easily transmittable.

    • Parent is not a troll, I get stuff in HTML and .doc and .rtf all the time that uses no formatting at all that couldn't be done in plaintext. (Line breaks, and...that's about it.) It's silly, it wastes bandwidth, it wastes space, and it wastes time. Even most of the posts I see here, despite the fact HTML is usable, make use of nothing but good old text and line breaks. Most of the correspondence I receive is the same. I do encourage people to send me stuff in plaintext unless they really need the formatting

      • by Thing 1 (178996) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @09:10PM (#13886192) Journal
        Back in 1994, Steve Remondini was the head of IT (then MIS) at Citrix Systems. He sent an email to every employee, telling them that they need to delete items from their inboxes because the server was too full (Exchange, one of the older versions).

        The punch line? He sent it as an attachment, in .DOC format. The fucker took around 256 KB to send an email which contained under 1 KB of content.

        He was fired not very long thereafter. I remember one manager kept stating about him, "He spends too much travel time" (he was down the long hall and around the corner, and never picked up the phone, instead insisting on showing up in Scott's office and badgering him).

        • The punch line? He sent it as an attachment, in .DOC format.

          This probably isn't very relevant -- I presume what you mean is that he sent it as a Microsoft Word document. Back in 1994 I remember that the .DOC format was more well known for being plain ASCII text --- it was a common extension for electronic software user manuals everywhere.

          Somewhere along the line, Microsoft decided to make it the default extension for Microsoft Word. I'm not sure if it was used in Word for DOS, but Word for Win

    • Indeed, if there's one thing that we can learn from this whole OpenDocument debacle, it's that we should instead use LaTeX and plaintext.

      And while were at it, let's all go back to doing everything from the command line! This whole WYSIWYG thing is waaay to complicated.

      These new technologies seem to bring nothing but problems, especially when the existing formats work so well.

      Which is exactly why I'm sticking to parchment and carrier pigeons. These new technologies mess up everything. Sure, instant m

    • Where's the OpenDocument debacle? Sounds like a state is having issues defining what document format they want to use, but it's not an OpenDocument debacle.

      I'm all for using plain text a lot more, but using LaTeX as the only other format is foolish. Don't get me wrong, I love TeX, but it should, like Postscript/PDF be used for page layout, not for authoring content that is meant to be shared between individuals or applications.

      We should use semantic markup to describe what the pieces of a document mea

        • ...giving arbitrary file access,...

          This was a concern of mine for a project that I started researching, which would have accepted source files from the web and compiled them (I still want to take it further but havn't got the time).

          The most obvious problems are commands like \input, allowing files to be read, which could be disasterous (e.g. \input{/etc/passwd}).

          Potentially worse is \write18, which allows you to write a file..

          All is not lost however, after asking a suitably enlightened TeXnician, Tho

    • Hah! As if Microsoft would even THINK ABOUT LaTeX. Look, Microsoft is struggling against (or is it US who are struggling against Microsoft for?) OpenDocument. LaTeX isn't even in their radar screen.

      Besides, you forgot the reason for OpenDocument to exist: Inter-operability. And you also forgot its power: XML.
      Anyone with an XML parser can read opendocument. But to read LaTeX, you need a complicated parser.

      OpenDocument can be transformed into HTML with an XSLT template automatically. Heck, you could render OpenDocument with Internet Explorer! (With the appropriate XSL stylesheet, of course)
      Also, any XML can be transformed into PDF via XSL:FO.
      You could put a bunch of OpenDocument files and index them from with a simple program that supports XML.

      The point of OpenDocument is that it's EASY to handle. The EZPublish content management system ALREADY supports importing and exporting of OpenDocument files. Heck, there's even a C++ IDE [codeblocks.org] that can export the sourcefiles (syntax-highlighted) to OpenDocument.

      I don't care how much you're fond of LaTeX. Is it powerful? Yes. But is it popular? Is it easy to implement?

      Sorry, but I think you're stuck a few years behind.
      • by Noksagt (69097) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @08:30PM (#13885983) Homepage
        This is the minimum of what's needed in an office suite
        Right--you are arguing different philosophies. LaTeX could certainly be part of some monolithic Office Suite, but it is already very good at what it does. It may even be better than you give it credit for.
        Spreadsheets
        See the EMACS file [fi.upm.es] as a proof of concept. Something similar could be written in TeX.
        graphs
        PSTricks & other packages let you add graphs which are generated on the fly.
        presentations
        I actually like LaTeX Beamer quite a bit--the PDF presentations are fantastic.

        Does LaTeX excel at any of these? Probably not. But why not do, as others do, and choose tools which DO excel at them.
        a single-file container format so exchange is easy. OpenDocument has it. HTML and LaTeX fails it;
        Just zip the needed files together, as OpenDoc does....
        * a user interface that regular users can migrate to. OpenDocument has it. HTML has it. LaTeX fails it;
        These are file formats. Not interfaces. There are friendly HTML and LaTeX authoring tools.
        * macro language (admitedly not standardised in OpenDocument). OpenDocument has it. LaTeX fails it;
        This is laughable. LaTeX is VERY scriptable.
        * integration with other office formats such as OleDB datasources. OpenDocument has it. LaTeX fails.
        No, again--the programs that grok OpenDoc have it. Not the format itself. There are LaTeX tools which can pull data from a database.
      • by Coryoth (254751) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @10:56PM (#13886706) Homepage Journal
        Before we start, I agree with you entirely: LaTeX is a silly option as any sort of replacement for OpenDocument formats, and the person who suggested it was a fool. I ought to clear up a few points however. ...presentations, OpenDocument has it. LaTeX fails it.

        LaTeX actually does exceptionally good presentations if you actually know how to use it. There are some packages out there to help, or you can simply roll your own to get the best results. In fact LaTeX offers something no Office suite I've ever seen does: the ability to have a single document that is both the presentation and the full paper report at the mere toggle a switch.

        I think the biggest problem is that the basic LaTeX slides package sucks (it was designed for OHP transparencies) and some of the other presentation pakages are a little underwhelming in terms of visual flair. In practice it is quite easy to quickly design "templates" (in practice documentclasses) that look as good or better than anything I've seen PowerPoint produce - I've even written the better part of a GUI tool to let you drag and drop images and text to design one - but it takes a little know how which, apparently, most LaTeX presenters don't have.

        LaTeX represents a damn fine solution to the issue of presentations, especially when you are doing one as a summary of more detailed paper report.

        macro language (admitedly not standardised in OpenDocument). OpenDocument has it. LaTeX fails it;

        What exactly do you think TeX is? TeX is a macro language. It may not have the "live updates" that you seem to have in mind, but that more to do with the compilation step rather than any lack of macro capability of TeX's part. Run TeX again and you'll get all your updates/changes magically propogating through.

        Jedidiah.
      • by civilizedINTENSITY (45686) on Thursday October 27 2005, @04:11AM (#13887613)
        "Spreadsheets, graphs, presentations" are areas where LaTeX excells. I like to use gnumeric to layout my data, and gnumeric or (heavy lifting) octave for calculations, but then saving from gnumeric to latex gives infinte control of presentation. For highschool quality reports, sure, print from the spreadsheet. For anything real (try to publish to a peer reviewed journal using .doc!) use latex. For graphs, use R. It is exceptional. But again, tie it all together in latex.
         
        a single-file container format so exchange is easy which means you want a built in tarball roller? Not a bad idea. Anybody want to add a button to Kile's File/Save?

        user interface that regular users can migrate to which requires you define "regular users". I agree that for highschool, and even lower division work, office products are fine. Business, all technical users, and upper division students should be able to use better tools. (Try KDE's Kile.)

        macro language!!! *snort* Do you have any clue what latex even *is*? Have you heard of TeX? Did you know that LaTeX is a set of macros?

        integration with other office formats is good to great for gnumeric and abiword, OpenOffice, and KOffice. Try selecting the "save as" button. It works :-)
         
        So unless by "regular users" you mean grandmas who have trouble sending email, or people who just want to write a quick letter, I think you underestimate LaTeX.
  • About ODF, Mass. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 (468618) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:05PM (#13885520) Journal

    The Commonwealth's Secretary of State William Galvin says he has "grave concerns" about the switch and told secretary of administration and finance Thomas Trimarco that "we will not be participating." Galvin is considered one of the strong candidates to run as a rival candidate for next year's gubernatorial race against incumbent Mitt Romney who supports the switch

    I hardly think this will be a big issue in the election for Massachusetts voters, but if it becomes one, this will be a huge way to get non-techies to identify problems with the Microsoft monopoly. If this issue somehow becomes a big (if not the biggest) factor in this election, we can expect ODF to come up in elections all over the place.

    • Be interesting to see if William Galvin receives any campaign finance contributions from Microsoft when he runs.

      If he does, I trust you'll do your duty as a citizen and enlighten the electorate with a few well written letters to the editors of the major Mass. newspapers. Ordinary folks may not know about ODF but they'll certainly know corruption when they see it.

      Peace
      • Ordinary folks may not know about ODF but they'll certainly know corruption when they see it.

        Yes, and they won't care. Massachusetts has long been known for having the best politicians money can buy.

  • by Dr. Zowie (109983) <slashdot&deforest,org> on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:06PM (#13885535)
    I read the text [gpo.gov] of the passport release earlier, and they claim to have addressed the privacy concerns but really haven't. The biggest problem is that a criminal could very easily grab all of your identity information without your knowledge. They assert that (I'm paraphrasing) "since the chip has no internal power source, it can't broadcast your identity". But that is a canard -- anyone who wants to read out your identity can simply use the same high-gain antenna to beam power your way as to pick up your passport's readout. Of course the protocols will be discovered -- at least by the people you don't want reading your passport.

    All the more reason to stick your passport in the microwave with your new shirts from Wal-Mart.

    Meanwhile, bop on over to www.house.gov [house.gov] and send a quick note of outrage to your representative!

    • Will your reps actually do anything? Do any of them have the guts to stand up to this? Are they capable of saying, "This is not in the best interest of freedom. This will not prevent terrorism. This is a bad idea."

    • by TWX (665546) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:21PM (#13885652)
      Supposedly they've come up with a cover that is effectively a Faraday cage. When the passport is closed it will severely impede RFID operation. If it works then it'd be much more effective for someone to come out in front of you with a knife and mug you for your passport than it would be to try to overpower the defenses built into the passport cover.

      As far as I'm concerned, making it 'hard enough' to where it's more cost effective to resort to old fashioned brute force is just as good as not putting it in.

      I'm not advocating in favor of this particular device either, but I'll admit that I'm kind of surprised that passports have been the way that they are for so incredibly long, when they're easily forged, easily modified, and probably fairly easily fraudulently applied for.
      • My gf just renewed her passport in Thailand and got one of theire brand new "ePassports," which includes RFID. Although there are a million privacy adn security issues, her main interest was that it is so much prettier than her last one...
    • Also it doesn't seem to solve anything that a cryptographically signed credit card sized CD (including a signed picture of the passport holder) wouldn't (or a mini USB flash device). We have the technology to make a completely open standards based passport system that any country can cheaply and safely read and generate their own (signed with their own keys).

      But noone's listening because (Insert proprietary vendor conspiracy theory here.)
  • come on... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mscnln (785138) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:10PM (#13885561)
    Standford engineers have discovered...
    "Standford on iTunes"


    It appears ScuttleMonkey didn't just make a typo, but just has no clue that it is actually Stanford not Standford...
  • For Flock to not open source their browser? By basing it on Firefox, doesn't the Mozilla Public License [mozilla.org] require that the changes to the source be distributed?
    • Not to mention the fact that every single feature they mentioned is included in the version 1.5 betas.

      Perhaps the blog editor and the rss viewer isn't there, but all the other things they were cooing over as differences between firefox and flock were all default 1.5 behaviour.
  • "Recreational hazard: One group member shows the downside that comes with using their chosen artistic medium (temporary paint made from a mixture of corn starch, food coloring, Kool-Aid, and water)."

    You COULD have just painted the firefox logo with sidewalk chalk, but nooo, you had to be fancy and now look what you've done!
  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sH4RD (749216) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:31PM (#13885700) Homepage
    This comes with the recent news that Flock has also decided to open source their browser.

    They had a choice?
  • by jabster (198058) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @07:38PM (#13885739)
    Hold on....The Democrats are opposed to ODF.....supporting a big business....thought....only.....Republicans....did that....

    Damn. This must be Bush's fault somehow....

    -john
  • by dtfinch (661405) * on Wednesday October 26 2005, @08:03PM (#13885855) Journal
    Even their website says "Copyright 2004" and their latest news item is dated 2003. Or has their site always been like that?
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday October 26 2005, @11:04PM (#13886741)
    RFID's in passports are one of the dumbest anti-terrorism ideas to make it past the drawing board. It has already been demonstrated [technologyreview.com] that so-called "short-range" RFID tags can be read up to 70 feet away with easily attainable current technology, the tools will only get more sensitive as time passes.

    The "anti-skimming material" that the Dept of State references will make it harder to get exact bits off the RFID, but it sure won't stop someone from being able to at least tell if you have one of these RFID passports in your pocket.

    Carrying your passport around with you (as you are required to do in most foreign countries) will be the equivalent of wearing a big sign on your back that says, "Get Your Grudge On! Kidnap Me! I'm an American!"

    Short of sending hundreds of legit blank passports directly to Osama, I can't think of a passport plan likely to enable more terrorism than this cockamamie scheme.
    • I'd imagine that part of the argument made in favor of the RFID passport is that it would be more difficult to forge. This doesn't mean that it's actually true, but if a new passport design were difficult-to-impossible to forge then the utility of it for verifying identity would be improved greatly for international travel.

      I got to hear a crypto presentation from a guy whose working on high-end crypto smart cards that are basically small computers that handle crypto. They are designed to be interfaced
    • Greeting fellow, err, Massachusan? Whatever.

      If you really want to get involved, according to Groklaw [groklaw.net] the meeting Monday, October 31, in Boston, at the State House, room A1, from 1 to 5 that's open to the public. If you can't make that kind of commitment, Mass.gov [mass.gov]. One useful page is this one [state.ma.us] which lets you type in your city and find out which state congress critters are yours. They're the ones who want your vote next time around. We also already know that Romney is in favor of ODF and Galvin (who wants