I know this is unrealistic, but if you'd read the article you would have found out that this is an extension of PCI Express and PC manufacturers would like to extend this to Desktop PC's.
They're gonna put a video card on this solution? My point was that PCMCIA didn't need to be any smaller in order to be adapted to PCI-Express. By making this new format so small, they've pigeon-holed themselves into all but the smallest niches.
10:1 that you won't see this on the mainstream desktop for this very reason. It is too small.
Is the goal of everything to eventually become a choking hazzard? What was wrong with the old PCMCIA infrastructure? Why not just add some additional bandwidth and be done with it?
What we need is a good upgradeable PCI standard for desktops so that people can slide their cards in without opening the case. *That* would be innovative...
The question in your scenario is - what is the DRM really doing for the consumer of the box?
It is keeping one person from buying one "episode" and sharing it will 30 million other people.
Lets say that the big networks were to buy into this scheme. In order to cram a good, quality (HDTV, of course) show into the box, you'll need some huge P2P sharing ala bittorrent. The boxes themselves will become the method of distribution. Zero overhead. Now, why on earth would I pay for an episode if it is already sitting on this box, free of charge?
Good DRM also opens the door for people to sell "virtual DVDs" - no media, low overhead. Why bother if there is no DRM? I can't believe that many people do not understand this.
The hackers would be all over this in a few seconds without unbreakable DRM. This chip from Intel has the potential to do as much good as it does to do bad.
FWIW, I used the $0.12 per hour figure because that is about what an hour of content will yield for a Big Media provider on a per user basis. But I'm sure users would be willing to pay much more to watch the best of the best.
When you have tens of millions of viewers, it doesn't take much to bring fortunes to those that deserve it.
I disagree with the assessment that "all DRM is bad". While it can and most certainly cause a lot of hell for many people, it can be used for A Good Thing.
Someone takes a chip like this and builds a set top box. This box plugs into a broadband connection. It contains unbreakable DRM. The box is provided to consumers at no cost and does not cost them anything if they do not use it. The box checks for content on the internet. It finds popular content and downloads it. This content is available to the end user for a nominal fee (say, $0.12 per hour).
Since Big Media does not want to relinquish their stranglehold, they do not participate at first. But the little, independent producers from all over the world come up with very creative content and many end users purchase it. The popularity of the little guys starts displacing Big Media. So Big Media starts participating. Because people no longer need a cable or satellite provider, they discontinue service.
Because Big Media is now competing with potentially millions of other talented independent studios, the cream rises to the top. Big Media is no longer as big. The little guys are no longer as small. The Evil Cable and Satellite Monopolies are no more.
Multi-processing is the way to go. We need to do that to help heat dissipation...
So, you think that using multiple iterations of an inherently power-hungry technology will somehow solve the power problem? While, certainly, we could back off clock speeds with multi-processing and reduce heat considerably, but, people always want the cutting edge so the demand to "crank it up" would still be a profitable venture, thus pressuring the price of the lower-end stuff.
Look at page 8. Processors are approaching the heat density of a nuclear reactor. Silicon is dead. We'll need something else if we want more clock cycles (or perhaps a new computing paradigm... something "non-Von Neumann).
The difference is that, to do it with any kind of speed requires expensive materials like gallium arsenide. Intel is doing it with the standard silicon CMOS process which means that Joe Six Pack could afford a product with this technology.
If you answered "no" to the above question, please exit stage left. Thanks for playing.
I don't consider myself "old", but my first PC was an XT with *dual* 5.25" floppy drives (that required a soldering iron for overclocking when there was no such word as "overclocking"). My second PC was a 386SX with an 80 megabyte hard drive.
As much as I knew it would happen (just looking at the graphs in Byte Magazine was enough to see that), it is still amazing to me. I'm just happy to be working in such a dynamic industry.
Hopefully, some higher power will pick an OSS desktop, create some interface and application standards and we can all start dumping Windows. Until then, my Linux migration ends at the point where I have to pick gnome or KDE (or even something else).
Was it all a hoax? Or was it the result of careful and complete planning and upgrading?
How about the combination of the two? I remember seeing Y2K companies trading on the stock market with $10 billion market caps. But then I remember hearing legitimate stories about real world fixes.
It is like the Tsunami. Lots of people are going to make money unethically but, ultimately, we can't stop them unless we just cut off all help.
The submitter of this story seems to think that hydrogen is an energy source. It is not. Hydrogen is an energy carrier. You need energy to generate hydrogen which can then be used to store, transport and ultimately use this energy via fuel cell or combustion.
It is not an energy source until we find large, usable stores of it.
If you re-read my comment, I was requesting a non-cellular walkie-talkie. Take this thing and add support for the device to communicate over a WiFi network. No cellular contract needed or even relevant.
The only problem with that is that with pay per view rates being what they are, the networks would want to charge $1 to $2 per episode.
Just like the recording associations will never sell singles for under a dollar. Riiiight.
So in essence this simple use of DRM to give "more options to the consumer" would just basically in essence be the removal of all our fair use rights laid out decades ago when VCRs were deamed leagal by the courts.
I'm not saying that right should go away. I'm just saying that good DRM will enable the cable and satellite monopolies to disappear. Certainly, if you want, you should be able to subscribe to expensive cable and record it with whatever device that you prefer.
But if this came about, I have a feeling that people would like it more than the old model. It would certainly open up the whole world to a television show (no matter who produced it). It will be like the internet, only for TV.
The only problem with that is that with pay per view rates being what they are, the networks would want to charge $1 to $2 per episode.
This is where we will have to "agree to disagree". Currently, the advertising revenue only amounts to a few cents per viewer. If they can get $0.25 directly from the viewer, there would be no reason not to do it.
Now, even without cable, you can get it over-the-air with an antenna - free of charge. But, say that the owners of the show wanted to find a few extra bucks. With good DRM, they could offer it without commercials or maybe a hour or two early.
Some of the 30 million viewers would be willing to pay $0.25 or $0.50 to have this option. That quickly works out to a lot of money. I'd really like to be the business that provides the tech to make this happen.
And I'm not suggesting that people get to "own" the media once they've paid for this service. Perhaps it might be a possibility but for the most part, content providers will want that to disappear once the premium functionality has been used up.
The networks will NEVER EVER DO THIS!!! Do you really think that the same networks that work so hard on their timeslots and schedules are interested in using DRM to give you on demand viewing?
The technology that I've laid out would not be any different from the current television experience that we have today. The DRM would provide the media to be viewed in a strict timeslot. Say, The Daily Show comes on at 7:00PM? Well then lock it down on the DRM box so that it comes on at 7:00PM. Commercials are mandatory for those that don't pay for the non-commercial version. How is this any different to the end user except that they've got more options?
If the content provider chooses, they could "allow" the media to be "purchased" and viewed at any time after the initial airing. Perhaps yet another option is that "premium members" could watch the shows in advance. The possibilities are endless. Yet another twist is that the "little guy" can make his own shows and become rich without having to worry about toppling the wall that is the media today.
With good DRM, you can do anything. But there has to be profit motivation for the providers. That free stuff doesn't work in a Capitalist economy (as much as we would all like it to). Yeah, that sucks but if "we the geeks" don't invent this, some enterprising - possibly evil company - will do it and we'll all be bitching about how the implementation was screwed up.
The true monopoly here is the cable and satellite companies.
With that kind of mind set, they are. But lets imagine what could be:
Take a broadband pipe and stick it into a box with - GASP! - unbreakable DRM. Now, the content providers (read: NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, et cetera) are now free to use bittorrent-like P2P (GASP!) technology for their distribution method - no cableco or satellite company needed.
Here's how it works:
The data is cached in advance (think of it as "buffering" only it does it hours in advance - while you're sleeping, maybe). The box, with its trusty DRM, will not allow the media to be viewed until a preset time. Lets say that you want to catch the Sopranos but you don't have cable. The box will download it in advance and then let you watch it simultaneously with the rest of the world - without a cable or satellite TV company. This will be to TV what the iPod is to music. No monthly subscription - just pay for what you buy. Don't want the commercials? Fine - just pay extra and you'll get the version without them.
The geeks really need to stop hating all aspects of DRM. Ultimately, it will make the world a better place and eliminate eveil entities like the cable companies (though they will just become the bandwidth providers).
I would be interested to see how this could present itself in a regular consumer atmosphere...
It is funny that you used the word "atmosphere" but that might be one of the applications: combustion research.
A friend of mine works at General Motors doing combustion chamber research. Basically, with a high-speed camera, he films the combustion in what basically amounts to an engine with a glass block and cylinder head. They currently film at 900fps with an industrial film based camera. This is quite expensive so it takes a lot of paperwork to run the thing.
This new digital unit would be ideal. Ultimately, it will probably allow reduced emmissions from automobiles. Diesel is the next big thing but we've got to reduce emmissive levels on those before they become widely accepted.
So yes, this will present itself to the consumer atmosphere. Just indirectly. Oh, and when you watch that balloon popping, just imagine Keanu saying, "whoa!" and you get another application.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but now I'm gonna have to change my splash screen.
I know this is unrealistic, but if you'd read the article you would have found out that this is an extension of PCI Express and PC manufacturers would like to extend this to Desktop PC's.
They're gonna put a video card on this solution? My point was that PCMCIA didn't need to be any smaller in order to be adapted to PCI-Express. By making this new format so small, they've pigeon-holed themselves into all but the smallest niches.
10:1 that you won't see this on the mainstream desktop for this very reason. It is too small.
Is it just me, or has GTA clouded the minds of others as well?
It isn't just you...
Don't do it!
Is the goal of everything to eventually become a choking hazzard? What was wrong with the old PCMCIA infrastructure? Why not just add some additional bandwidth and be done with it?
What we need is a good upgradeable PCI standard for desktops so that people can slide their cards in without opening the case. *That* would be innovative...
While I realize that bundling will get them somewhere, how can they compete?
The question in your scenario is - what is the DRM really doing for the consumer of the box?
It is keeping one person from buying one "episode" and sharing it will 30 million other people.
Lets say that the big networks were to buy into this scheme. In order to cram a good, quality (HDTV, of course) show into the box, you'll need some huge P2P sharing ala bittorrent. The boxes themselves will become the method of distribution. Zero overhead. Now, why on earth would I pay for an episode if it is already sitting on this box, free of charge?
Good DRM also opens the door for people to sell "virtual DVDs" - no media, low overhead. Why bother if there is no DRM? I can't believe that many people do not understand this.
The hackers would be all over this in a few seconds without unbreakable DRM. This chip from Intel has the potential to do as much good as it does to do bad.
FWIW, I used the $0.12 per hour figure because that is about what an hour of content will yield for a Big Media provider on a per user basis. But I'm sure users would be willing to pay much more to watch the best of the best.
When you have tens of millions of viewers, it doesn't take much to bring fortunes to those that deserve it.
I disagree with the assessment that "all DRM is bad". While it can and most certainly cause a lot of hell for many people, it can be used for A Good Thing.
Here is my vision (discussed previously):
Someone takes a chip like this and builds a set top box. This box plugs into a broadband connection. It contains unbreakable DRM. The box is provided to consumers at no cost and does not cost them anything if they do not use it. The box checks for content on the internet. It finds popular content and downloads it. This content is available to the end user for a nominal fee (say, $0.12 per hour).
Since Big Media does not want to relinquish their stranglehold, they do not participate at first. But the little, independent producers from all over the world come up with very creative content and many end users purchase it. The popularity of the little guys starts displacing Big Media. So Big Media starts participating. Because people no longer need a cable or satellite provider, they discontinue service.
Because Big Media is now competing with potentially millions of other talented independent studios, the cream rises to the top. Big Media is no longer as big. The little guys are no longer as small. The Evil Cable and Satellite Monopolies are no more.
It sounds like a good story to me.
Multi-processing is the way to go. We need to do that to help heat dissipation...
So, you think that using multiple iterations of an inherently power-hungry technology will somehow solve the power problem? While, certainly, we could back off clock speeds with multi-processing and reduce heat considerably, but, people always want the cutting edge so the demand to "crank it up" would still be a profitable venture, thus pressuring the price of the lower-end stuff.
Look at page 8. Processors are approaching the heat density of a nuclear reactor. Silicon is dead. We'll need something else if we want more clock cycles (or perhaps a new computing paradigm... something "non-Von Neumann).
We've found the limits of silicon and hard drives and they are being approached asyptotically. Relax...
The difference is that, to do it with any kind of speed requires expensive materials like gallium arsenide. Intel is doing it with the standard silicon CMOS process which means that Joe Six Pack could afford a product with this technology.
So... anyone got anything interesting to say?
Seriously... isn't this a wonderful industry?
If you answered "no" to the above question, please exit stage left. Thanks for playing.
I don't consider myself "old", but my first PC was an XT with *dual* 5.25" floppy drives (that required a soldering iron for overclocking when there was no such word as "overclocking"). My second PC was a 386SX with an 80 megabyte hard drive.
As much as I knew it would happen (just looking at the graphs in Byte Magazine was enough to see that), it is still amazing to me. I'm just happy to be working in such a dynamic industry.
Enough nostalgia for now...
What's ahead for the next five years?
Hopefully, some higher power will pick an OSS desktop, create some interface and application standards and we can all start dumping Windows. Until then, my Linux migration ends at the point where I have to pick gnome or KDE (or even something else).
Which one should I pick and why?
Was it all a hoax? Or was it the result of careful and complete planning and upgrading?
How about the combination of the two? I remember seeing Y2K companies trading on the stock market with $10 billion market caps. But then I remember hearing legitimate stories about real world fixes.
It is like the Tsunami. Lots of people are going to make money unethically but, ultimately, we can't stop them unless we just cut off all help.
The submitter of this story seems to think that hydrogen is an energy source. It is not. Hydrogen is an energy carrier. You need energy to generate hydrogen which can then be used to store, transport and ultimately use this energy via fuel cell or combustion.
It is not an energy source until we find large, usable stores of it.
If you re-read my comment, I was requesting a non-cellular walkie-talkie. Take this thing and add support for the device to communicate over a WiFi network. No cellular contract needed or even relevant.
I'm still waiting for my non-cellular Wifi walkie-talkie. Just imagine the possiblities... Like IM for voice...
The only problem with that is that with pay per view rates being what they are, the networks would want to charge $1 to $2 per episode.
Just like the recording associations will never sell singles for under a dollar. Riiiight.
So in essence this simple use of DRM to give "more options to the consumer" would just basically in essence be the removal of all our fair use rights laid out decades ago when VCRs were deamed leagal by the courts.
I'm not saying that right should go away. I'm just saying that good DRM will enable the cable and satellite monopolies to disappear. Certainly, if you want, you should be able to subscribe to expensive cable and record it with whatever device that you prefer.
But if this came about, I have a feeling that people would like it more than the old model. It would certainly open up the whole world to a television show (no matter who produced it). It will be like the internet, only for TV.
Time will tell.
The only problem with that is that with pay per view rates being what they are, the networks would want to charge $1 to $2 per episode.
This is where we will have to "agree to disagree". Currently, the advertising revenue only amounts to a few cents per viewer. If they can get $0.25 directly from the viewer, there would be no reason not to do it.
It is called the "Invisible Hand".
Lets use CSI as an example.
Now, even without cable, you can get it over-the-air with an antenna - free of charge. But, say that the owners of the show wanted to find a few extra bucks. With good DRM, they could offer it without commercials or maybe a hour or two early.
Some of the 30 million viewers would be willing to pay $0.25 or $0.50 to have this option. That quickly works out to a lot of money. I'd really like to be the business that provides the tech to make this happen.
And I'm not suggesting that people get to "own" the media once they've paid for this service. Perhaps it might be a possibility but for the most part, content providers will want that to disappear once the premium functionality has been used up.
The networks will NEVER EVER DO THIS!!! Do you really think that the same networks that work so hard on their timeslots and schedules are interested in using DRM to give you on demand viewing?
The technology that I've laid out would not be any different from the current television experience that we have today. The DRM would provide the media to be viewed in a strict timeslot. Say, The Daily Show comes on at 7:00PM? Well then lock it down on the DRM box so that it comes on at 7:00PM. Commercials are mandatory for those that don't pay for the non-commercial version. How is this any different to the end user except that they've got more options?
If the content provider chooses, they could "allow" the media to be "purchased" and viewed at any time after the initial airing. Perhaps yet another option is that "premium members" could watch the shows in advance. The possibilities are endless. Yet another twist is that the "little guy" can make his own shows and become rich without having to worry about toppling the wall that is the media today.
With good DRM, you can do anything. But there has to be profit motivation for the providers. That free stuff doesn't work in a Capitalist economy (as much as we would all like it to). Yeah, that sucks but if "we the geeks" don't invent this, some enterprising - possibly evil company - will do it and we'll all be bitching about how the implementation was screwed up.
The true monopoly here is the cable and satellite companies.
With that kind of mind set, they are. But lets imagine what could be:
Take a broadband pipe and stick it into a box with - GASP! - unbreakable DRM. Now, the content providers (read: NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, et cetera) are now free to use bittorrent-like P2P (GASP!) technology for their distribution method - no cableco or satellite company needed.
Here's how it works:
The data is cached in advance (think of it as "buffering" only it does it hours in advance - while you're sleeping, maybe). The box, with its trusty DRM, will not allow the media to be viewed until a preset time. Lets say that you want to catch the Sopranos but you don't have cable. The box will download it in advance and then let you watch it simultaneously with the rest of the world - without a cable or satellite TV company. This will be to TV what the iPod is to music. No monthly subscription - just pay for what you buy. Don't want the commercials? Fine - just pay extra and you'll get the version without them.
The geeks really need to stop hating all aspects of DRM. Ultimately, it will make the world a better place and eliminate eveil entities like the cable companies (though they will just become the bandwidth providers).
I would be interested to see how this could present itself in a regular consumer atmosphere...
It is funny that you used the word "atmosphere" but that might be one of the applications: combustion research.
A friend of mine works at General Motors doing combustion chamber research. Basically, with a high-speed camera, he films the combustion in what basically amounts to an engine with a glass block and cylinder head. They currently film at 900fps with an industrial film based camera. This is quite expensive so it takes a lot of paperwork to run the thing.
This new digital unit would be ideal. Ultimately, it will probably allow reduced emmissions from automobiles. Diesel is the next big thing but we've got to reduce emmissive levels on those before they become widely accepted.
So yes, this will present itself to the consumer atmosphere. Just indirectly. Oh, and when you watch that balloon popping, just imagine Keanu saying, "whoa!" and you get another application.
I've seen open source software that wasn't free. There definitely needs to be a distinction.