Doing so would violate the license. You're only allowed to create fully compliant implementations.
All MS is saying is, "If your reader can handle the entire WordML schema, just writing and using a reader isn't a violation of our patents."
Now, I'd rather they took it a step further and said that writing fully compliant documents was also legit. I think the license says that, but I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure a real lawyer would find the restrictions in place.
Tell a DS owner that Nintendo makes better games. I, for one, haven't seen them making much of anything for it. It's been four months since launch, and all they've got for us is Wario Ware? What a load of crap.
To be fair, TC won't solve this problem - there's still the analog hole.
TC in conjunction with something like Secure Audio Path would be a more effective solution, but then you'd have to replace your sound card and speakers. I think consumers would balk at buying new hardware to provide a secure platform for content delivery, unless there were no other way to access that content.
Your examples are all of technological innovation making something more efficient. While online distribution of music certainly is more efficient, if no one's getting paid for creating the content, then it's certainly not going to make it easier for us to produce more music - who'd want to do it as a career if there's no money in it?
The idea of free content is nice, but creative professionals like to eat too.
Digital Rights Management lets copyright owners continue to manage their rights after the transaction has taken place. Unfortunately, it also conflicts with the legitimate rights of the content purchaser.
So who wins? On one hand, you're injured because you can no longer copy your media as you see fit. On the other hand, take DRM away and some fucking jackass is going to happily violate your copyright, and distribute copies across the internet much faster than they could have using copied tapes or CDs. Neither one is a real solution
The solution is for that jackass to stop being a jackass, and then we won't need DRM. Good luck getting that to happen. In the meantime, an unobtrusive DRM system that lets you unprotect music if necessary (such as burning a CD of the content) is a good middle ground, until we find a better solution.
After: users spend x hours trying to get solitaire working again.
All my management courses drilled into my head the idea that you can only expect six hours of productivity from an employee per day. I don't see any point in fighting it. Why piss them off in the process?
If this weren't tied to a single API, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. As it stands, I'll wait. It's like 3Dfx and Glide, giving way to OpenGL and Direct3D. Time for OpenPL and DirectPhysics....
When I can get a general-purpose coprocessor that games can access through a multi-vendor API, I'll be first in line - I'd shell out $100 or so for such a device.
(And yes, I realize I just described a SMP system. Most games aren't multithreaded yet, however, I hope the rise of dual-core changes that.)
No, banning spam is not a free speech issue. We're not restricting what he or she can say. A spammer is more than welcome to walk into a crowded public square and start yelling out penis enlargement offers. Similarly, they can put up a website advertising these products. What they can't do is consume someone else's resources in order to send their message.
Which would be why I said "as well as what's best for those you love." Having a roof overhead and food to make for dinner every night certainly goes a long way towards keeping my fiancee and I happy.
Dvorak's half right - Windows' device compatibility is a huge benefit.
But the other side of the coin - software compatibility - is equally important. Windows has the Win32 and DirectX APIs, and so long as they are dominant in software development, everyone else who reverse-engineers them will be one step behind - especially with DirectX, which evolves rapidly to keep up with changes in video hardware.
Unless MS is bringing Win32 with them to MS-Linux, it won't be worth it. And why would they bother, when they can make a ton of cash by keeping their code to themselves?
True, but there's still a difference between being a caring, attentive parent whose kid is unfortunately mentally ill, and shirking your parental responsibilities to get high and screw two guys in the back of your trailer.
I'm not saying every parent whose kid goes out and shoots someone falls into one of these two extremes, but I'd guess they're closer to the latter than the former. Parents need to be active participants in their children's lives, assessing their behavior and determining whether they're ready for what they are getting into. It's a tough job, which is why not everyone should be getting themselves into it.
We'll see the same thing we normally see - people will stick pretty close to the libraries and so forth at the beginning, and as the tools and compilers improve, and programmers get more familiar with the specific chips, they'll be able to write more efficient code and increase the quality of the game environment.
Hey, the only voices I hear are my friends back home, or who've moved away, who get together to play Halo 2 a couple times a week.
We're all having a great time with that "mediocre shooter". Sure, the single-player was pretty vanilla (and the ending utterly sucked) but the multiplayer is an absolute blast, and there's no shortage of players.
And promptly get themselves a shareholder lawsuit for failing to practice due diligence?
Face it, corporations are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders. If a course of action will earn them a profit, not violate any laws, and not cause a moral backlash against the company, they're pretty much obligated to do it, or face a lawsuit from their shareholders.
The reason we have laws that affect corporations is to protect us from corporate personhood without corporate morality. It's not a bad counterbalance, but in practice, it's tough to come up with regulations that promote a fair market without overly restricting a company's actions.
Why in God's name does it matter how I wish to store or transport my music?
I hate this sort of thing. Legislators need to find the action that actually causes harm and outlaw THAT, rather than attacking some random point in the chain. (In this case, that means punishing those who distribute copyrighted content, not those who copy it.)
How the hell would anyone be able to use an iPod in Norway?
They've lost the right to control the dissemination of their work. Whether they choose to only provide their work to people who pay them (or even those who agree not to share it with others) is irrelevant.
Our society agreed a couple hundred years ago that copyright is a good way to motivate and reward creative individuals. If you'd like to change the rules of the game, that's fine, but stop using the stuff the rest of us are creating under the impression that the rules are still in effect.
If you're going to do that, it's only fair to also reject the benefits of the system you shun, and only consume content from providers who permit you to use their content under terms that are more palatable to you. For example, use Linux instead of Windows, only listen to music that artists provide to the public domain, etc..
Claiming that intellectual property is invalid and then helping yourself to the fruits of IP owners' labors is utter hypocrisy.
Hey, twiddle those particles all you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
Unfortunately for you, the government feels that someone is harmed when you start rearranging those bits into a copy of the bits representing someone else's ideas without their permission, and they've got a valid argument (though there could be equally valid opposing arguments as well). If you don't like that, write your representative and convince them otherwise.
Ding! This person hits the nail on the head. If your department doesn't directly make money, you've got to get out there and show how you're saving money. Otherwise, managers get into a mentality of seeing you as a necessary expense (and then eventually, an unnecessary expense).
Slashdot Mirror
Doing so would violate the license. You're only allowed to create fully compliant implementations.
All MS is saying is, "If your reader can handle the entire WordML schema, just writing and using a reader isn't a violation of our patents."
Now, I'd rather they took it a step further and said that writing fully compliant documents was also legit. I think the license says that, but I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure a real lawyer would find the restrictions in place.
Tell a DS owner that Nintendo makes better games. I, for one, haven't seen them making much of anything for it. It's been four months since launch, and all they've got for us is Wario Ware? What a load of crap.
To be fair, TC won't solve this problem - there's still the analog hole.
TC in conjunction with something like Secure Audio Path would be a more effective solution, but then you'd have to replace your sound card and speakers. I think consumers would balk at buying new hardware to provide a secure platform for content delivery, unless there were no other way to access that content.
Your examples are all of technological innovation making something more efficient. While online distribution of music certainly is more efficient, if no one's getting paid for creating the content, then it's certainly not going to make it easier for us to produce more music - who'd want to do it as a career if there's no money in it?
The idea of free content is nice, but creative professionals like to eat too.
Digital Rights Management lets copyright owners continue to manage their rights after the transaction has taken place. Unfortunately, it also conflicts with the legitimate rights of the content purchaser.
So who wins? On one hand, you're injured because you can no longer copy your media as you see fit. On the other hand, take DRM away and some fucking jackass is going to happily violate your copyright, and distribute copies across the internet much faster than they could have using copied tapes or CDs. Neither one is a real solution
The solution is for that jackass to stop being a jackass, and then we won't need DRM. Good luck getting that to happen. In the meantime, an unobtrusive DRM system that lets you unprotect music if necessary (such as burning a CD of the content) is a good middle ground, until we find a better solution.
Before: users spend x hours playing solitaire.
After: users spend x hours trying to get solitaire working again.
All my management courses drilled into my head the idea that you can only expect six hours of productivity from an employee per day. I don't see any point in fighting it. Why piss them off in the process?
Those can't be directly compared; a Cell APU isn't the same thing as a full PPC core.
If this weren't tied to a single API, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. As it stands, I'll wait. It's like 3Dfx and Glide, giving way to OpenGL and Direct3D. Time for OpenPL and DirectPhysics....
When I can get a general-purpose coprocessor that games can access through a multi-vendor API, I'll be first in line - I'd shell out $100 or so for such a device.
(And yes, I realize I just described a SMP system. Most games aren't multithreaded yet, however, I hope the rise of dual-core changes that.)
Every company's just in it for the money. Their shareholders would sue them if they did otherwise.
No, banning spam is not a free speech issue. We're not restricting what he or she can say. A spammer is more than welcome to walk into a crowded public square and start yelling out penis enlargement offers. Similarly, they can put up a website advertising these products. What they can't do is consume someone else's resources in order to send their message.
Which would be why I said "as well as what's best for those you love." Having a roof overhead and food to make for dinner every night certainly goes a long way towards keeping my fiancee and I happy.
And like I said, there are other jobs out there.
You have to do what makes you happy, as well as what's best for those you love. There's other jobs out there.
Besides, it means more work for those of us who could care less about working with MS tools.
As nice as the chivalrous knights would have been, I'd wager it was the headchopping assholes who actually got shit done.
Way of the world.
Dvorak's half right - Windows' device compatibility is a huge benefit.
But the other side of the coin - software compatibility - is equally important. Windows has the Win32 and DirectX APIs, and so long as they are dominant in software development, everyone else who reverse-engineers them will be one step behind - especially with DirectX, which evolves rapidly to keep up with changes in video hardware.
Unless MS is bringing Win32 with them to MS-Linux, it won't be worth it. And why would they bother, when they can make a ton of cash by keeping their code to themselves?
True, but there's still a difference between being a caring, attentive parent whose kid is unfortunately mentally ill, and shirking your parental responsibilities to get high and screw two guys in the back of your trailer.
I'm not saying every parent whose kid goes out and shoots someone falls into one of these two extremes, but I'd guess they're closer to the latter than the former. Parents need to be active participants in their children's lives, assessing their behavior and determining whether they're ready for what they are getting into. It's a tough job, which is why not everyone should be getting themselves into it.
You know, part of being a fair and impartial interviewer is avoiding exactly this sort of trap question.
We'll see the same thing we normally see - people will stick pretty close to the libraries and so forth at the beginning, and as the tools and compilers improve, and programmers get more familiar with the specific chips, they'll be able to write more efficient code and increase the quality of the game environment.
Hey, the only voices I hear are my friends back home, or who've moved away, who get together to play Halo 2 a couple times a week.
We're all having a great time with that "mediocre shooter". Sure, the single-player was pretty vanilla (and the ending utterly sucked) but the multiplayer is an absolute blast, and there's no shortage of players.
And promptly get themselves a shareholder lawsuit for failing to practice due diligence?
Face it, corporations are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders. If a course of action will earn them a profit, not violate any laws, and not cause a moral backlash against the company, they're pretty much obligated to do it, or face a lawsuit from their shareholders.
The reason we have laws that affect corporations is to protect us from corporate personhood without corporate morality. It's not a bad counterbalance, but in practice, it's tough to come up with regulations that promote a fair market without overly restricting a company's actions.
Why in God's name does it matter how I wish to store or transport my music?
I hate this sort of thing. Legislators need to find the action that actually causes harm and outlaw THAT, rather than attacking some random point in the chain. (In this case, that means punishing those who distribute copyrighted content, not those who copy it.)
How the hell would anyone be able to use an iPod in Norway?
And your valid, sound counter-argument is....
They've lost the right to control the dissemination of their work. Whether they choose to only provide their work to people who pay them (or even those who agree not to share it with others) is irrelevant.
Our society agreed a couple hundred years ago that copyright is a good way to motivate and reward creative individuals. If you'd like to change the rules of the game, that's fine, but stop using the stuff the rest of us are creating under the impression that the rules are still in effect.
If you're going to do that, it's only fair to also reject the benefits of the system you shun, and only consume content from providers who permit you to use their content under terms that are more palatable to you. For example, use Linux instead of Windows, only listen to music that artists provide to the public domain, etc..
Claiming that intellectual property is invalid and then helping yourself to the fruits of IP owners' labors is utter hypocrisy.
Hey, twiddle those particles all you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
Unfortunately for you, the government feels that someone is harmed when you start rearranging those bits into a copy of the bits representing someone else's ideas without their permission, and they've got a valid argument (though there could be equally valid opposing arguments as well). If you don't like that, write your representative and convince them otherwise.
Ding! This person hits the nail on the head. If your department doesn't directly make money, you've got to get out there and show how you're saving money. Otherwise, managers get into a mentality of seeing you as a necessary expense (and then eventually, an unnecessary expense).