If the DRM is causing them problems, then yes, they'll search for solutions. They'll probably quickly figure out that a keygen is not a solution by itself. Then they'll figure out how to download a cracked executable from any of the numerous places you can get them, and all will be well. Well, that depends. If they've paid for the software and are using a cracked version to get around restrictive DRM, I can understand that. But downloading a cracked version to avoid paying for software is wrong, in my opinion.
Another option is simply to not use software or hardware that comes with an overly restrictive license. The battle of fair-use vs corporate-greed is easy to get entrenched in, but it can't be won with keygens and cracks -- only escalated. We can send a strong and legal message, however, by just walking away from a product. Does it suck that we can't get what we want on what we consider to be fair terms? Yes, but we can collectively show them that their terms are not profitable or their products as must-have as their marketing departments would believe.
If I do have a problem, then I would expect Valve to solve it asap, as it is their DRM scheme that is depriving me of what I paid for. Valve did solve the issue, though it took two phone calls and most of an afternoon. The individual "techs" were understanding, but it was clear they had scripts to follow. About average for call-center support.
If it takes longer than a couple days, then I believe they should compensate me for the loss of access to the game I paid for. The fact that they aren't obligated to, and probably won't, just illustrates how screwed up our current IP laws are. Our IP laws are definitely screwed up, but I don't see any legal way to handle the compensation you suggest that wouldn't be either severely abused or more trouble than it is worth.
I think you misunderstand. What the parent is saying is that you hope your valid key is not generated by a keygen somewhere.
Yes, people who use keygens regularly will probably use cracked versions that don't connect to a server. But as the backlash against DRM grows, more and more people will be trying out "solutions" like keygens on legitimate media, often borrowed from a friend. These people either a.) don't know what cracked software is, or b.) are concerned that a cracked version off some warez site may be malware-infected.
As a legitimate owner of HL2 whose key was blacklisted because of a keygen somewhere, I understand the parent's concerns. Are the odds long of your key being blacklisted this way? Perhaps, if the keygen author's algorithm generates from the full spread of possible keys and not just a small subset. Does it matter what the odds are, when you are blacklisted this way? No.
Of course -- Teflon and ceramic with a copper topping, to make capacitors that interact directly with electromagnetic waves -- it's all so simple!
Seriously, though, this is wild. Does this sound like something out of a sci-fi novel or what? And according to the article, one of these "lenses" has been successfully made.
I'm not sure whether to mod this interesting, insightful or funny (in a sarcasm sense.) It all depends on how (or whether) people correlate disagreement and judgment. Regardless, I think the parent ought to be modded up, as it asks some deep questions.
Personally, I believe that classifying any decision or action as right or wrong is a false dichotomy. Any decision or action can be broken down into pieces that may be judged right or wrong (some dependently and some independently of each other,) and doing such an analysis is both recursive and geometric. Where to "draw the line" on such an analysis is what makes such judgments subjective. How to weigh each facet during the analysis is what makes the process philosophical, moral and ethical.
That being said, while I agree that any judgment we make will be both subjective and philosophical, I believe that that the concepts of right and wrong themselves are based on absolutes. Obviously this is a belief, albeit one shared by a number of religions and philosophies. I don't want to start a debate, though, so I'll make a technological analogy.
Assume that people are processors, and that these processors do not know their internal logic. Any given processor thinks that it is generating correct output for a given set of inputs, but different processors generate different results for same set of inputs. The question is, how can the results of any particular processor for a particular set of inputs be verified?
Well, the processor cannot reliably test itself, as the faculties performing the test are suspect. Other processors cannot reliably model the internal logic of the flawed system, as it is not known. Since different processors generate different results for the same set of inputs, their reliability is unknown. The only option is to use a set of other processors to generate output from the same input. This may generate a consensus of what the correct output should be. (Depending on the distribution of flaws in subcomponents of the processors, the standard deviation of the results may vary significantly for different input sets.) Any consensus that is reached would be analogous to cultural morality. But any judgment by a processor, even if it includes as an input a given consensus, must be subjective.
So how can any results be absolutely verified? As I see it, there are only two ways. The first would be to have a reference processor that is known good, and compare results generated by the reference processor. The second is to have a reference document outlining the correct results.
Obviously, different religions claim to have reference processors and/or reference documents. Which of these (if any and to what extent and/or in what combination) to believe is where religious and philosophical differences occur.
we unfortunately sometimes have to enforce courtesy. There is precedent, even. Talk too loudly for too long in a cinema, and they will remove you. It seems to me like that would work just as well on a plane.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Normally I'd shake my head and laugh, but what you propose is dangerous for two reasons:
1.) Many people believe TV "documentaries" are valid, correct and complete. This is especially easy when the subject is one with which you are unfamiliar.
2.) It is tempting to make specious jumps in logic, e.g., "If something works in one context, why not another?" This isn't helped by the media's drive to sensationalize information with tantalizing "what ifs".
I would strongly advise you (and anyone else who is susceptible to your argument) to read up on Kerckhoffs' Principle. Wikipedia's article is an excellent summary.
Actually, this is quite right. As per 1 Kings 7:26, the bowl was a hand breadth thick. If we figure on a hand breadth of 4 inches and a cubit of 18 inches (both commonly accepted definitions,) that would make the diameter 172 inches.
The circumference given is 540 inches. Since the text states that the outer edge was decoratively wrought (1 Kings 7:26,0 it would make sense for them to measure the inner circumference. So we're left with:
Circumference = 540 inches Diameter = 172 inches
540/172 = 3.1395348837209302325581395348837, which is an excellent approximation given the limited units of measurement available.
Even using current calculations of pi, this would give a diameter of ~171.887 inches, vs the 172 inches calculated from the text. How would you describe that using cubits and handbreadths?
Games are great at motivating the development of better video cards, and to some extent bus speeds, processors and other non-gaming-specific components. This is a good thing, though I have some old-man opinions on how Moore's Law is spoiling many developers.
That being said, I don't believe games drive the adoption of hardware as much as you might be thinking. As a case in point, look at Vista. Ugly and bloated, yes, but perforce nearly everywhere. And the minimum requirements for Aero (which is the one feature your average user is going to jump on -- ooh, it's pretty!) are going to do more to push the next large jump in base video card standards than any given game.
Retailers don't have enough fiscal incentives to stop pushing Vista, even if they do try to gain positive PR by selling Ubuntu or XP on a few low-end models. And if they're pushing Vista, they want to support the pretty interface the public expects. By making hardware-accelerated rendering a practical requirement of the OS, Microsoft has raised the bar of the "minimum acceptable" video card.
Right now we see physics cards as a niche product, barely supported. It has been the same with all technical developments. But if we're heading toward 3D interfaces (which I believe we are,)then physics can only play an increasing roll in such an environment. If that should become the case, then a dedicated processor will be much more valuable then assigning a generic CPU core to try and handle the calculations.
The way I picture things, a Physics Processing unit (PPU?) will end up like FPUs: at first an optional, narrow-use add-on, then integrated on premium products, then more widespread as software vendors feel comfortable relying on it, and finally ubiquitous and practically indispensable.
And then Slashdotters will be able to say, "You kids with your integrated PPUs nowadays -- when I was your age, we had to calculate trajectories and drag coefficients by hand, and we liked it that way!"
[After reading just the story title] It's about time! They laid me off back in '99 five minutes after we RTM'd Win2k, and they're only just now getting around to apologizing? Well, better late than never, I suppose.
[After reading TFA] It is refreshing to see such a direct and honest explanation and rationale. Even if it isn't exactly front page news, it's much better than the typical PR-filtered triple-speak that tends to get the press. A good reminder that the developers != the company.
Thanks, David. If more decision makers at Microsoft were to take a similar approach to problems, even if just internally, I think the corporate image could be improved. Whether there's time to turn the ship around before it hits the iceberg*, I don't know, but it would be an interesting thing to watch.
*Yes, I know the engine reversal and attempt to turn was what doomed the Titanic. It's a complex analogy, with layers of irony and humor.
Slashdot Mirror
Another option is simply to not use software or hardware that comes with an overly restrictive license. The battle of fair-use vs corporate-greed is easy to get entrenched in, but it can't be won with keygens and cracks -- only escalated. We can send a strong and legal message, however, by just walking away from a product. Does it suck that we can't get what we want on what we consider to be fair terms? Yes, but we can collectively show them that their terms are not profitable or their products as must-have as their marketing departments would believe. If I do have a problem, then I would expect Valve to solve it asap, as it is their DRM scheme that is depriving me of what I paid for. Valve did solve the issue, though it took two phone calls and most of an afternoon. The individual "techs" were understanding, but it was clear they had scripts to follow. About average for call-center support. If it takes longer than a couple days, then I believe they should compensate me for the loss of access to the game I paid for. The fact that they aren't obligated to, and probably won't, just illustrates how screwed up our current IP laws are. Our IP laws are definitely screwed up, but I don't see any legal way to handle the compensation you suggest that wouldn't be either severely abused or more trouble than it is worth.
I think you misunderstand. What the parent is saying is that you hope your valid key is not generated by a keygen somewhere.
Yes, people who use keygens regularly will probably use cracked versions that don't connect to a server. But as the backlash against DRM grows, more and more people will be trying out "solutions" like keygens on legitimate media, often borrowed from a friend. These people either a.) don't know what cracked software is, or b.) are concerned that a cracked version off some warez site may be malware-infected.
As a legitimate owner of HL2 whose key was blacklisted because of a keygen somewhere, I understand the parent's concerns. Are the odds long of your key being blacklisted this way? Perhaps, if the keygen author's algorithm generates from the full spread of possible keys and not just a small subset. Does it matter what the odds are, when you are blacklisted this way? No.
Of course -- Teflon and ceramic with a copper topping, to make capacitors that interact directly with electromagnetic waves -- it's all so simple!
Seriously, though, this is wild. Does this sound like something out of a sci-fi novel or what? And according to the article, one of these "lenses" has been successfully made.
Unbelievable. But very cool!
I'm not sure whether to mod this interesting, insightful or funny (in a sarcasm sense.) It all depends on how (or whether) people correlate disagreement and judgment. Regardless, I think the parent ought to be modded up, as it asks some deep questions.
Personally, I believe that classifying any decision or action as right or wrong is a false dichotomy. Any decision or action can be broken down into pieces that may be judged right or wrong (some dependently and some independently of each other,) and doing such an analysis is both recursive and geometric. Where to "draw the line" on such an analysis is what makes such judgments subjective. How to weigh each facet during the analysis is what makes the process philosophical, moral and ethical.
That being said, while I agree that any judgment we make will be both subjective and philosophical, I believe that that the concepts of right and wrong themselves are based on absolutes. Obviously this is a belief, albeit one shared by a number of religions and philosophies. I don't want to start a debate, though, so I'll make a technological analogy.
Assume that people are processors, and that these processors do not know their internal logic. Any given processor thinks that it is generating correct output for a given set of inputs, but different processors generate different results for same set of inputs. The question is, how can the results of any particular processor for a particular set of inputs be verified?
Well, the processor cannot reliably test itself, as the faculties performing the test are suspect. Other processors cannot reliably model the internal logic of the flawed system, as it is not known. Since different processors generate different results for the same set of inputs, their reliability is unknown. The only option is to use a set of other processors to generate output from the same input. This may generate a consensus of what the correct output should be. (Depending on the distribution of flaws in subcomponents of the processors, the standard deviation of the results may vary significantly for different input sets.) Any consensus that is reached would be analogous to cultural morality. But any judgment by a processor, even if it includes as an input a given consensus, must be subjective.
So how can any results be absolutely verified? As I see it, there are only two ways. The first would be to have a reference processor that is known good, and compare results generated by the reference processor. The second is to have a reference document outlining the correct results.
Obviously, different religions claim to have reference processors and/or reference documents. Which of these (if any and to what extent and/or in what combination) to believe is where religious and philosophical differences occur.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Normally I'd shake my head and laugh, but what you propose is dangerous for two reasons:
1.) Many people believe TV "documentaries" are valid, correct and complete. This is especially easy when the subject is one with which you are unfamiliar.
2.) It is tempting to make specious jumps in logic, e.g., "If something works in one context, why not another?" This isn't helped by the media's drive to sensationalize information with tantalizing "what ifs".
I would strongly advise you (and anyone else who is susceptible to your argument) to read up on Kerckhoffs' Principle. Wikipedia's article is an excellent summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_principle
Hopefully this will clarify the problems with your argument.
Actually, this is quite right. As per 1 Kings 7:26, the bowl was a hand breadth thick. If we figure on a hand breadth of 4 inches and a cubit of 18 inches (both commonly accepted definitions,) that would make the diameter 172 inches.
The circumference given is 540 inches. Since the text states that the outer edge was decoratively wrought (1 Kings 7:26,0 it would make sense for them to measure the inner circumference. So we're left with:
Circumference = 540 inches
Diameter = 172 inches
540/172 = 3.1395348837209302325581395348837, which is an excellent approximation given the limited units of measurement available.
Even using current calculations of pi, this would give a diameter of ~171.887 inches, vs the 172 inches calculated from the text. How would you describe that using cubits and handbreadths?
Games are great at motivating the development of better video cards, and to some extent bus speeds, processors and other non-gaming-specific components. This is a good thing, though I have some old-man opinions on how Moore's Law is spoiling many developers.
That being said, I don't believe games drive the adoption of hardware as much as you might be thinking. As a case in point, look at Vista. Ugly and bloated, yes, but perforce nearly everywhere. And the minimum requirements for Aero (which is the one feature your average user is going to jump on -- ooh, it's pretty!) are going to do more to push the next large jump in base video card standards than any given game.
Retailers don't have enough fiscal incentives to stop pushing Vista, even if they do try to gain positive PR by selling Ubuntu or XP on a few low-end models. And if they're pushing Vista, they want to support the pretty interface the public expects. By making hardware-accelerated rendering a practical requirement of the OS, Microsoft has raised the bar of the "minimum acceptable" video card.
Right now we see physics cards as a niche product, barely supported. It has been the same with all technical developments. But if we're heading toward 3D interfaces (which I believe we are,)then physics can only play an increasing roll in such an environment. If that should become the case, then a dedicated processor will be much more valuable then assigning a generic CPU core to try and handle the calculations.
I see your floating point.
The way I picture things, a Physics Processing unit (PPU?) will end up like FPUs: at first an optional, narrow-use add-on, then integrated on premium products, then more widespread as software vendors feel comfortable relying on it, and finally ubiquitous and practically indispensable.
And then Slashdotters will be able to say, "You kids with your integrated PPUs nowadays -- when I was your age, we had to calculate trajectories and drag coefficients by hand, and we liked it that way!"
It is refreshing to see a misunderstanding resolved in a civil manner. Even an AC apologized!
+1 "Admits mistake" to Yetihehe and +1 "Courteous" to cbart387 -- both rare mods these days.
Thanks for raising the level of behaviour on the boards for a moment.
[After reading just the story title] It's about time! They laid me off back in '99 five minutes after we RTM'd Win2k, and they're only just now getting around to apologizing? Well, better late than never, I suppose.
[After reading TFA] It is refreshing to see such a direct and honest explanation and rationale. Even if it isn't exactly front page news, it's much better than the typical PR-filtered triple-speak that tends to get the press. A good reminder that the developers != the company.
Thanks, David. If more decision makers at Microsoft were to take a similar approach to problems, even if just internally, I think the corporate image could be improved. Whether there's time to turn the ship around before it hits the iceberg*, I don't know, but it would be an interesting thing to watch.
*Yes, I know the engine reversal and attempt to turn was what doomed the Titanic. It's a complex analogy, with layers of irony and humor.