I'm not stealing any music. I have a legal right to download music (this bill would not take that right away) and in any case, I pay a levy on most of my media, a levy which is meant to make up for lost sales due to my downloading.
And I don't download movies, though I think that is not illegal either.
However, I agree with your claim that people arguing against laws like the DMCA need to admit that people download music without compensating the recording industry in the U.S. In Canada, on the other hand, the recording industry is compensated.
There is a price premium, and it can be significant. I recently priced out an AMD64 system. I wanted to use four hard drives in RAID-5 to give me approximately 1 terabyte of storage, though I eventually settled on 800 gigs. 2 gigs of RAM and a decent video card (NVidia 6600 GT PCIe, in this case). Ignoring the fact that Macs don't support PCIe, I priced out a similar system from Apple. A little over $5000 CAD. This system cost me well under $2500 CAD going the Wintel route (actually, the Linux route). So, the price premium in this case was well over 100%.
What has happened in recent times, though, is that some Macs have become price-competitive if you are satisfied with and want to use everything that comes with the Mac. If you are satisfied with the CPU in the Mac mini (and most people, though by NO means all people, should be), want a small case, firewire, etc. etc., well the Mac is price competitive at the least.
So, essentially the Apple computers are price competitive if you start with an apple computer and then try to go for a similar Wintel system. If you go the other way around, though, you'll find that Apple basically doesn't play in the same sport. Part of the reason for this, though, as Jobs has pointed out, is that the current CPUs in Apple computers are simply not competitive with those in Wintel systems.
No. You'll need Apple-branded hardware, still, to run OS X. It'll have a different type of BIOS, etc. etc. Basically, the hardware will still be quite different. Really the only thing that has changed is the CPU.
You'll still need different hardware. Apple-branded x86 hardware. It'll have different BIOS chips, etc., so you won't be able to use your current system. I suppose it's possible they may put out a demo, though.
No, OS X won't run on it. Just because they switch CPUs doesn't mean that standard x86 clones will run OS X. The BIOS, for example, will be radically different.
But an Apple computer with an x86 CPU inside means that the computer IS an x86 machine. While I agree, it is unlikely you'll be able to run OS X on your current x86 system, you will be able to run it on some x86 machines... those manufactured (or at least, sold) by Apple.
Remember, the developer kits have a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 in them.
What is the juicebox? I've tried several different browsers, but each time I go to the juicebox.com web page, all I get is an empty white page, or a white page with 'copyright 2005 Mattel' at the bottom.
Yeah, Microsoft said that about the XBox as well, before that was released. Experimental games, games that were radically different than anything available on the other consoles. It never really materialised, though the XBox did have a few good games.
I doubt XBox 360 will be any different. More of the same, with more chrome.
99% of business email is HTML? I just checked my logs and I tend to disagree. Far fewer than 20% of my business email is HTML. Somewhere below 1% of the total is correctly validatable HTML. Please note that I took the time to discount incoming spam before calculating these figures. Also, this is based on a sample of just over two thousand messages.
Perhaps your business is an exception?
I haven't checked my home email. It is a little different because my friends know not to send me HTML email.
I can factor primes of any size in constant time. It does not matter how large they are. Let us take a prime number, we'll call it p. What are the factors? The factors are exactly 1 and p. There are no other integer factors of prime number p.:)
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Assuming this is to be used for quantum cryptography (the original article is terribly badly written and this isn't clear), latency has absolutely nothing to do with it. A man-in-the-middle attack simply won't work due to quantum mechanics.
Sharing (that is, making a copy available in your shared items folder for someone else to download) was explicitly noted as non-infringing by the original Copyright Board decision that explicitly made downloading okay. The board noted that it was reasonable to expect the person downloading the music was legally entitled to do so, just as you were when you downloaded from someone else.
Uploading rather than just allowing-for-download is slightly more of a grey area, however.
This is a very good point. I will honestly make an effort to stop pointing out similar flaws in Windows unless someone is saying how Windows does something right and I don't agree.
It's a pain in the ass to get simple brain-dead stuff like printing and mounting drives working in Windows, too.
For printing, my home desktop needs new (and uncertified) drivers from Brother. My brother's computer can't share the printer hooked up to my sister's computer and I've spent a couple of hours trying to figure out why. All the sharing _seems_ to be set up correctly, it just doesn't share.
And at work, I had to write up a document showing how to remap drives when my coworkers plug in removable drives to their systems. Windows kept on assigning drive letters that were already in use. Why on earth do we still use drive letters, anyway?
NONE of these things are things I would expect average users to be able to do. Linux certainly has plenty of problems, but so does Windows.
Are you sure about that? I obviously did not receive the letter. What encryption do they use?
I'm surprised they reported this, then. At the moment, a company is not required (in California) to report a loss of data if the data was encrypted using a reasonable encryption algorithm.
I hope if I get into a car accident, I get into an accident with someone like you. 'It was just an accident.' 'Oh, okay then, no problem. Shit happens.'
Someone was grossly at fault. They shipped unencrypted data via a shipping company.
Properly encrypted data is only at risk if the wrong hands have the encryption key. If they can get the encryption key AND the encrypted data, they could just as easily have got the unencrypted data in the first place.
The only other problem, of course, is if the encryption algorithm is significantly broken. But you are only expected to go so far. AES-256, for example, should be sufficient protection and a company can hardly be blamed for using the officially sanctioned encryption algorithm (compare with DES).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not stealing any music. I have a legal right to download music (this bill would not take that right away) and in any case, I pay a levy on most of my media, a levy which is meant to make up for lost sales due to my downloading.
And I don't download movies, though I think that is not illegal either.
However, I agree with your claim that people arguing against laws like the DMCA need to admit that people download music without compensating the recording industry in the U.S. In Canada, on the other hand, the recording industry is compensated.
There is a price premium, and it can be significant. I recently priced out an AMD64 system. I wanted to use four hard drives in RAID-5 to give me approximately 1 terabyte of storage, though I eventually settled on 800 gigs. 2 gigs of RAM and a decent video card (NVidia 6600 GT PCIe, in this case). Ignoring the fact that Macs don't support PCIe, I priced out a similar system from Apple. A little over $5000 CAD. This system cost me well under $2500 CAD going the Wintel route (actually, the Linux route). So, the price premium in this case was well over 100%.
What has happened in recent times, though, is that some Macs have become price-competitive if you are satisfied with and want to use everything that comes with the Mac. If you are satisfied with the CPU in the Mac mini (and most people, though by NO means all people, should be), want a small case, firewire, etc. etc., well the Mac is price competitive at the least.
So, essentially the Apple computers are price competitive if you start with an apple computer and then try to go for a similar Wintel system. If you go the other way around, though, you'll find that Apple basically doesn't play in the same sport. Part of the reason for this, though, as Jobs has pointed out, is that the current CPUs in Apple computers are simply not competitive with those in Wintel systems.
No. You'll need Apple-branded hardware, still, to run OS X. It'll have a different type of BIOS, etc. etc. Basically, the hardware will still be quite different. Really the only thing that has changed is the CPU.
You'll still need different hardware. Apple-branded x86 hardware. It'll have different BIOS chips, etc., so you won't be able to use your current system. I suppose it's possible they may put out a demo, though.
No, OS X won't run on it. Just because they switch CPUs doesn't mean that standard x86 clones will run OS X. The BIOS, for example, will be radically different.
The cost will be $999US. Apparently, '[t]hey will have to be returned by the end of 2006', but I don't know why this would be the case.
But an Apple computer with an x86 CPU inside means that the computer IS an x86 machine. While I agree, it is unlikely you'll be able to run OS X on your current x86 system, you will be able to run it on some x86 machines... those manufactured (or at least, sold) by Apple.
Remember, the developer kits have a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 in them.
Wrong. The developer kits ship with a pentium 4 running 3.6 Ghz. This is either x86 or x86-64.
What is the juicebox? I've tried several different browsers, but each time I go to the juicebox.com web page, all I get is an empty white page, or a white page with 'copyright 2005 Mattel' at the bottom.
How do you divide $400 million by 400 million and get $1 million?
Yeah, Microsoft said that about the XBox as well, before that was released. Experimental games, games that were radically different than anything available on the other consoles. It never really materialised, though the XBox did have a few good games.
I doubt XBox 360 will be any different. More of the same, with more chrome.
99% of business email is HTML? I just checked my logs and I tend to disagree. Far fewer than 20% of my business email is HTML. Somewhere below 1% of the total is correctly validatable HTML. Please note that I took the time to discount incoming spam before calculating these figures. Also, this is based on a sample of just over two thousand messages.
Perhaps your business is an exception?
I haven't checked my home email. It is a little different because my friends know not to send me HTML email.
I can factor primes of any size in constant time. It does not matter how large they are. Let us take a prime number, we'll call it p. What are the factors? The factors are exactly 1 and p. There are no other integer factors of prime number p. :)
That's not true at all:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
"any third party".
Assuming this is to be used for quantum cryptography (the original article is terribly badly written and this isn't clear), latency has absolutely nothing to do with it. A man-in-the-middle attack simply won't work due to quantum mechanics.
Computer Gaming World has a policy that their reviewers must have finished a game prior to reviewing it.
Sharing (that is, making a copy available in your shared items folder for someone else to download) was explicitly noted as non-infringing by the original Copyright Board decision that explicitly made downloading okay. The board noted that it was reasonable to expect the person downloading the music was legally entitled to do so, just as you were when you downloaded from someone else.
Uploading rather than just allowing-for-download is slightly more of a grey area, however.
No, that is not the case. At the moment, just the fact that we have the surcharge protects us.
This is a very good point. I will honestly make an effort to stop pointing out similar flaws in Windows unless someone is saying how Windows does something right and I don't agree.
It's a pain in the ass to get simple brain-dead stuff like printing and mounting drives working in Windows, too.
For printing, my home desktop needs new (and uncertified) drivers from Brother. My brother's computer can't share the printer hooked up to my sister's computer and I've spent a couple of hours trying to figure out why. All the sharing _seems_ to be set up correctly, it just doesn't share.
And at work, I had to write up a document showing how to remap drives when my coworkers plug in removable drives to their systems. Windows kept on assigning drive letters that were already in use. Why on earth do we still use drive letters, anyway?
NONE of these things are things I would expect average users to be able to do. Linux certainly has plenty of problems, but so does Windows.
I got the idea that they are not obligated to report loss of encrypted data here.
Are you sure about that? I obviously did not receive the letter. What encryption do they use?
I'm surprised they reported this, then. At the moment, a company is not required (in California) to report a loss of data if the data was encrypted using a reasonable encryption algorithm.
I hope if I get into a car accident, I get into an accident with someone like you. 'It was just an accident.' 'Oh, okay then, no problem. Shit happens.'
Someone was grossly at fault. They shipped unencrypted data via a shipping company.
If the data was encrypted, there'd be no reason for them to announce a loss.
Properly encrypted data is only at risk if the wrong hands have the encryption key. If they can get the encryption key AND the encrypted data, they could just as easily have got the unencrypted data in the first place.
The only other problem, of course, is if the encryption algorithm is significantly broken. But you are only expected to go so far. AES-256, for example, should be sufficient protection and a company can hardly be blamed for using the officially sanctioned encryption algorithm (compare with DES).