I can confirm this behaviour, having just tried it on an install of XP Pro.
Set to 0 (as it was initially), searching for files named "*.java" containing text "class" failed to find a file in my "My Documents" directory called "test.java" that contained the word "class".
Set to 1, it found it. I don't have JBuilder (or any other Java IDE) installed (as I do all my Java work on my linux box)
No, tool making *is* our advantage, specifically weapon making.
All the agression in the world will do you no good if you're lying dead with a wild animal eating your entrails.
On the other hand, the sharpest teeth and claws in the jungle are no good to an animal lying dead with a spear through it's chest.
Perhaps it was agression that lead us to make weapons, but without our brains, it wouldn't have happened, and we'd still be running scared from predators - just as we do now, if caught out without any means of defending ourselves.
/The only problem with porting is Direct3D->OpenGL/
I'd imagine that, like the original, there'll be an OpenGL option as well as a Direct3D one (iirc, the original shipped with software, Glide, OGL and D3D support, and an early update added HotMetal support (or whatever the S3 one was called...)).
I thought that the Linux client was the latest version - I'm running 4.36 under Linux, isn't that the latest? Anyway, I agree with you - performance, at least with an NVidia card, is comparable with that under Windows.
I too will buy UT2003, probably shortly after it's released, whether there's a Linux version or not. I'd love for there to be one, and I'd love to be able to go into a retailer and buy the Linux version specifically, but failing that, I'll be happy to play it under Windows.
A few of us play Unreal Tournament after work sometimes, and even on our old machines (P3 450, TNT2Ultra, 376meg of RAM) it ran fine. Now that we have P4 1.9GHz machines with GeForce 2s and 3/4gig of RAM, it absolutely flies.
Perhaps a tad more realistically, I've run both UT and Q3 on my home machine, which at that time was a P3 700 with 96meg of RAM and the previously-mentioned TNT2Ultra (my card, once I bought a GeForce 3 for home I put the TNT2 in my work machine). Qualatively, performance of both games was identical under both Linux and Windows 98. That's using the NVidia drivers, of course; I'm not sure how good the XFree ones are, as I stopped using them after NVidia started releasing theirs.
As you used Windows Update, it almost certainly worked out what components you require, and downloaded only those. The 133meg file size would be for the whole thing, including updates for components that you don't have installed and/or don't come with your version of XP (i.e. Home vs. Pro, language/locale, etc).
If you look around on the Microsoft site, you'll find that there's a "network install" (or similar) version of the service pack, that's the entire thing in one file. It's designed for sites that may have a variety of different configurations installed, so they can essentially mirror it locally. 133meg sounds about right for that sort of service pack (the Windows 2000 ones have generally been around the 100+meg mark).
You CANNOT be made to work more than 48 hours per week if you don't want to.
I'm afraid that you've been misinformed.
The law, at least in the UK (and we only have it because of the Working Time Directive that we must implement, being a Member State), is that you cannot be forced to work more than 48 hours per week averaged over a 13 week period.
Of course, my contract contains a clause saying that I waive that right, and I'd be very surprised if there were many IT firms in the UK that didn't have that sort of contract.
So yes, we do have laws, but don't feel quite as safe as you seem to.
if projects aren't pumped out in a timely manner, the business will go under
Of course, if you piss your staff off too much, or work them too hard, they'll leave, the projects won't be pumped out in a timely manner, and the business will still go under.
15 hour days and weekends is unreasonable to the point of being a joke.
Yes code quality will suffer. Perhaps not in the short term, but in the long term, most people simply cannot keep up those sorts of hours. It quickly becomes a long, hard slog, and people become demoralised. An unhappy worker is an unproductive worker. A tired worker is an unproductive worker.
Coders need to be able to concentrate. That becomes increasingly more difficult the more tired you become. After a certain point, the code you produce will be of sufficiently poor quality that you would do better not to write it at all.
I have a family to support, and a mortgage and loans to pay, and my reaction to that would still be hostile in the extreme. I would explain, rationally, why I thought that working such a schedule was a bad idea, both personally and for the business. If and when that failed to make an impression, I'd quit. There's more to life than work, and there is always another job out there.
When I was in University, in my first year, we had a lab experiment on superconductors. It involved (amongst other things) using liquid nitrogen to cool the conductor down to 77K, in order to make it superconducting.
I never did it, but I saw others put their fingers in the container, and splash liquid nitrogen around on the desk, etc. As long as you're quick, it's perfectly safe.
Also, as for the cost, back then I remember being told that liquid nitrogen, bought in sufficient quantity, is about the same price as milk, so I imagine that theirs didn't cost them that much; probably no more than most people would spend getting drunk. They wouldn't have cooled the nitrogen themselves, just bought a container of it precooled.
I have actually read some EULAs, and many state that you may KEEP your CD as a backup, not make a copy of your CD as a backup
That's nothing. According to the Stronghold EULA (iirc; it may be another game), once you have installed the game, you may only use the original CD for archival purposes.
Of course, if you want to play the game, you have to instert the CD. Now, that doesn't meet my definition of "archival" (which is "put away somewhere safe and not touched"), so in my opinion, their EULA actually prevents me from using their product at all.
Sure, it's not what they meant - but it's what they said.
The procedure you describe is traditional forwarding on some systems.
No it isn't.
Traditional email forwarding works completely transparently to the client. You send your message, and it's delivered. The *server* handles any forwarding, *nothing* is returned to your client.
The patented method is *different* - in that, the email server knows nothing about the forwarding address, it just bounces the undeliverable mail. The client then (automatically) discovers an address to forward to, from a different server.
The only similarity is that the forwarding is automatic; the implementations are entirely different.
If he's running gentoo, then he's clearly not using his PC just for playing games.
I'm a Java programmer by trade, and use JBuilder, and my old P3 450 was *painfully* slow. Now that we've finally got our new 1.9GHz machines, work is almost a pleasure again. I'm happy that so many people here are happy with their old, slow machines, but ours drove us to distraction (literally).
even if those very same expert users are measurably quicker with the mouse
I just don't see how this can be true.
If I'm typing, then my hands are already on the keyboard - how can it be faster to remove one, move it over to the mouse, navigate to the appropriate menu option, and select it? Surely just hitting two keys at once (rather than one at a time as I'm already doing) is quicker?
I admit that I don't fit the profile of the average user - I'm a programmer, so I can touch type fairly well and type "normally" at a respectable rate. Perhaps normal end users, the "peck and hunt" typers, would be slower, but for techies, secretaries, etc, I just can't see it, usability experts' opinions to the contrary or not.
On the other hand, a project manager that used to work with us didn't know that ctrl+p is the shortcut for print (which raised a few eyebrows amongst us...)
There are indeed loads of ISPs here in the UK offering ADSL conncetions.
However, almost all of them get those connections from BT wholesale. If BT decided to start imposing some draconian conditions, we'd still be screwed.
Sure, oftel (the regulator mentioned - OFfice for TELecommunications, iirc) are making lots of noise about BT opening up their exchanges and allowing other companies to install equipment (for a suitable rental fee, of course), but it's not really happening. Last I heard, only one company had actually done so, and only at a couple of exchanges. BT are not making it easy (that's the reason for all the noise).
The UK has plenty of competition amongst residential-level and business-level ISPs, but only really one backbone provider. There are others, of course, but not to homes, the majority of which already have a BT line.
By its very definition, no, it is not permitted. If it were, it wouldn't be disobedience:-)
I don't know what you'd be charged with, but you can bet you'd be charged with something. Consider this - if I came to your house each day, and taped newspaper over your windows, you'd have me arrested, right? Same principle - I'd be (temporarily) denying the owner of something the use of it. It would also cost them money to have someone remove the tape, and you can bet they'd want to recover that plus punitive damages. Finally, if I had to enter/climb onto any private property in order to reach the camera, you'd almost certainly be looking at a trespass charge.
So no, they can't charge you with destroying the cameras, but they'd find something to charge you with.
That's not to say I don't think it's a good idea, just don't go doing it assuming that you'll get nothing more than a chuckle and a shake of the head from the police.
It is also somewhat less serious - no new DVDs would work with your exisint player, but all the ones that you'd already bought would be fine. All the ones that were pressed before this happened would also be fine, although clearly, you'd have a progressively harder time finding any.
The difference is that under the proposed MS DRM solution, all your existing media would stop working too. Your player would become completely useless.
I can't see this working, to be honest. The first time it happened, MS would be hit with a class action lawsuit by all the people whose legally-owned hardware had been disabled. Either that, or users would have to be provided with some sort of for-free key changing service, in order to be able to reactivate their hardware, in which case the shutdown is no deterrent at all.
I work in a large office that houses around 50 people, and noise can, at times, be a real problem.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting people chat, or listen to music, or whatever helps them get their work done and to stay happy. However, I am dead set against having music playing "over the air" as it were.
I have two reasons for this, one purely selfish, the other more practical. The selfish reason is that I have a somewhat unusual taste in music, and so would almost be guaranteed to not like whatever was played, or to be very popular with regards to what I wanted to be played.
The practical reason is that, as a programmer, there are times when I need peace and quiet in order to concentrate. I may be trying to track down a particularly elusive bug, or work out some convoluted piece of code, or just figure out the best solution to a customer's requirements (I do speccing and estimation, and team leading, as well as coding). Whatever the reason, if I need quiet, and there's music playing (or other noise), I can't have it. On the other hand, if I need music, and there isn't any, I have headphones. Same goes for everyone else - let them choose to have music.
If the stereo thing works for your group, then fine - but one group we had here a while back that tried that almost came to blows over it (mostly because one guy took some sort of pleasure out of annoying another with the music he played)
As for the original poster's problem, I agree with you - just ask the woman to please be a little more considerate. Failing that, her boss really should just *tell* her to cut it out - that's one of the things he's there for.
Now, I know that you were thinking specifically of p2p software, but there are plenty of other types that can be used to share files.
Almost any client/server software pair can be used. Examples include HTTP clients & servers, ftp, Samba/nfs/etc.
If you really, really want to ban sharing files, you'd have to go as far as removing the CD drives, possibly even the floppies.
Besides which, employee/employer relationships, like any other, are about give and take. If I want to have mp3 copies of songs that I own saved to my hard drive so that I can listen to them while I work, I should be allowed to do so. Offices are not safe places to leave CD collections. If you want me to be happy, and to work well and not mind too much about yet another stint of unpaid overtime, you're going to have to make a few concessions, or I'll start thinking about finding an employer that will.A blanket ban on mp3s will almost certainly be counter-productive.
Not if the code wants to access any part of the system that deals with DRM. If it were possible to create self-signed code that interfaced with DRM components, then it would be possible to circumvent any access controls and get at the raw data.
The only way to enforce DRM policies would be to require some sort of licencing/certification process for companies and developers that want to be able to write such code. That way the high cost would effectively prevent people from committing copyright infringement in that way.
At some level, self-signed code must be regarded as being (potentially) untrustworthy, and so refused access. It's just a question of where the designers decide to draw the line. You can bet, though, that it'll be this side of enabling people to access data that the system thinks they shoudn't. This will help stamp-out copyright infringement and home-grown/open source media players...
It is a DoS attack. It's just not aimed at any of the computers on the network, but at the network as a whole.
If they flood the network with fake files, then most downloads will effectively result in garbage files being downloaded. The network becomes essentially unusable - service has been denied.
Just because it's still capable of transeferring files doesn't mean that it's providing a useful service.
Don't forget that every nasty corporation hoping to turn a quick buck by selling private data can eventually be subject to the same inspection as Joe Schmo driving to work.
You mean that we can sell their private data?
People go to prison for that sort of thing.
I also take issue with your assertion that I misbehave when left to my own devices.
The only thing that a loss of privacy will bring is more targetted advertising, and more targetted attacks on members of minority groups by the majority.
There was a case here in the UK a couple of years ago involving a little girl that was killed by a paedophile. Some groups of parents around the country started protesting against known and suspected paedophiles in their community, occasionally going as far as hounding them out and forcing them to move.
All fine, right? After all, paedophiles are evil, right?
Only trouble is that one of the people forced out was a paediatrician. The mob just saw the "paed" prefix and went baying for blood. She'd still be living in the same house now and would've been spared the experience if she'd only had a little more privacy.
As for the mob, they were interviewed on TV regularly over the course of a week or so. Lack of privacy didn't stop them, it encouraged them - they wanted people to sit up and take notice, to get a law passed forcing police to inform people of paedophiles that moved into the area.
My personal feeling is that a lack of privacy will do little to improve society, and has the potential to expose even more people to victimisation and pressure to conform. But then, I was teased at school and am "different" now, so I guess my outloook isn't as rosy as it could be.
You still end up with an imperfect copy with no binding.
If you copy a CD, you get a perfect (well, almost perfect; you can't hear the difference) copy, with no "binding".
Also, photocopying a book generally works out costing more than just buying a copy new, or at least, it does here in the UK. At an average of about 5p a copy, 2 pages per sheet, and say 300 pages per book, that's 150 copies or £7.5. The book probably only costs about £6-£7 brand new; what's the point?
go to the UK (and most of EU) mention Oakenfold, and everyone will know who you're talking about.
I guess that by "everyone", you mean "everyone that likes the same music I do", as I've certainly never heard of them (him? her? it??)
Sure, "dance music" is massively popular here in the UK, but it's not made it to 100% acceptance. It's mainstream, but doesn't actually seem to make the mainstream charts very much - they're still dominated by boy/girl bands and imported pap (Britney Spears, etc). (At least, that's the way it sounds whenever I happen to overhear a rundown; I've not been into chart music for at least 10 years now)
Slashdot Mirror
I can confirm this behaviour, having just tried it on an install of XP Pro.
Set to 0 (as it was initially), searching for files named "*.java" containing text "class" failed to find a file in my "My Documents" directory called "test.java" that contained the word "class".
Set to 1, it found it. I don't have JBuilder (or any other Java IDE) installed (as I do all my Java work on my linux box)
No, tool making *is* our advantage, specifically weapon making.
All the agression in the world will do you no good if you're lying dead with a wild animal eating your entrails.
On the other hand, the sharpest teeth and claws in the jungle are no good to an animal lying dead with a spear through it's chest.
Perhaps it was agression that lead us to make weapons, but without our brains, it wouldn't have happened, and we'd still be running scared from predators - just as we do now, if caught out without any means of defending ourselves.
/The only problem with porting is Direct3D->OpenGL/
I'd imagine that, like the original, there'll be an OpenGL option as well as a Direct3D one (iirc, the original shipped with software, Glide, OGL and D3D support, and an early update added HotMetal support (or whatever the S3 one was called...)).
I thought that the Linux client was the latest version - I'm running 4.36 under Linux, isn't that the latest? Anyway, I agree with you - performance, at least with an NVidia card, is comparable with that under Windows.
I too will buy UT2003, probably shortly after it's released, whether there's a Linux version or not. I'd love for there to be one, and I'd love to be able to go into a retailer and buy the Linux version specifically, but failing that, I'll be happy to play it under Windows.
Cheers,
Tim
A few of us play Unreal Tournament after work sometimes, and even on our old machines (P3 450, TNT2Ultra, 376meg of RAM) it ran fine. Now that we have P4 1.9GHz machines with GeForce 2s and 3/4gig of RAM, it absolutely flies.
Perhaps a tad more realistically, I've run both UT and Q3 on my home machine, which at that time was a P3 700 with 96meg of RAM and the previously-mentioned TNT2Ultra (my card, once I bought a GeForce 3 for home I put the TNT2 in my work machine). Qualatively, performance of both games was identical under both Linux and Windows 98. That's using the NVidia drivers, of course; I'm not sure how good the XFree ones are, as I stopped using them after NVidia started releasing theirs.
Cheers,
Tim
As you used Windows Update, it almost certainly worked out what components you require, and downloaded only those. The 133meg file size would be for the whole thing, including updates for components that you don't have installed and/or don't come with your version of XP (i.e. Home vs. Pro, language/locale, etc).
If you look around on the Microsoft site, you'll find that there's a "network install" (or similar) version of the service pack, that's the entire thing in one file. It's designed for sites that may have a variety of different configurations installed, so they can essentially mirror it locally. 133meg sounds about right for that sort of service pack (the Windows 2000 ones have generally been around the 100+meg mark).
Cheers,
Tim
You CANNOT be made to work more than 48 hours per week if you don't want to.
I'm afraid that you've been misinformed.
The law, at least in the UK (and we only have it because of the Working Time Directive that we must implement, being a Member State), is that you cannot be forced to work more than 48 hours per week averaged over a 13 week period.
Of course, my contract contains a clause saying that I waive that right, and I'd be very surprised if there were many IT firms in the UK that didn't have that sort of contract.
So yes, we do have laws, but don't feel quite as safe as you seem to.
Cheers,
Tim
if projects aren't pumped out in a timely manner, the business will go under
Of course, if you piss your staff off too much, or work them too hard, they'll leave, the projects won't be pumped out in a timely manner, and the business will still go under.
15 hour days and weekends is unreasonable to the point of being a joke.
Yes code quality will suffer. Perhaps not in the short term, but in the long term, most people simply cannot keep up those sorts of hours. It quickly becomes a long, hard slog, and people become demoralised. An unhappy worker is an unproductive worker. A tired worker is an unproductive worker.
Coders need to be able to concentrate. That becomes increasingly more difficult the more tired you become. After a certain point, the code you produce will be of sufficiently poor quality that you would do better not to write it at all.
I have a family to support, and a mortgage and loans to pay, and my reaction to that would still be hostile in the extreme. I would explain, rationally, why I thought that working such a schedule was a bad idea, both personally and for the business. If and when that failed to make an impression, I'd quit. There's more to life than work, and there is always another job out there.
Cheers,
Tim
When I was in University, in my first year, we had a lab experiment on superconductors. It involved (amongst other things) using liquid nitrogen to cool the conductor down to 77K, in order to make it superconducting.
I never did it, but I saw others put their fingers in the container, and splash liquid nitrogen around on the desk, etc. As long as you're quick, it's perfectly safe.
Also, as for the cost, back then I remember being told that liquid nitrogen, bought in sufficient quantity, is about the same price as milk, so I imagine that theirs didn't cost them that much; probably no more than most people would spend getting drunk. They wouldn't have cooled the nitrogen themselves, just bought a container of it precooled.
Cheers,
Tim
I have actually read some EULAs, and many state that you may KEEP your CD as a backup, not make a copy of your CD as a backup
That's nothing. According to the Stronghold EULA (iirc; it may be another game), once you have installed the game, you may only use the original CD for archival purposes.
Of course, if you want to play the game, you have to instert the CD. Now, that doesn't meet my definition of "archival" (which is "put away somewhere safe and not touched"), so in my opinion, their EULA actually prevents me from using their product at all.
Sure, it's not what they meant - but it's what they said.
Cheers,
Tim
The procedure you describe is traditional forwarding on some systems.
No it isn't.
Traditional email forwarding works completely transparently to the client. You send your message, and it's delivered. The *server* handles any forwarding, *nothing* is returned to your client.
The patented method is *different* - in that, the email server knows nothing about the forwarding address, it just bounces the undeliverable mail. The client then (automatically) discovers an address to forward to, from a different server.
The only similarity is that the forwarding is automatic; the implementations are entirely different.
The patent still sucks, though.
Cheers,
Tim
If he's running gentoo, then he's clearly not using his PC just for playing games.
I'm a Java programmer by trade, and use JBuilder, and my old P3 450 was *painfully* slow. Now that we've finally got our new 1.9GHz machines, work is almost a pleasure again. I'm happy that so many people here are happy with their old, slow machines, but ours drove us to distraction (literally).
Cheers,
Tim
even if those very same expert users are measurably quicker with the mouse
I just don't see how this can be true.
If I'm typing, then my hands are already on the keyboard - how can it be faster to remove one, move it over to the mouse, navigate to the appropriate menu option, and select it? Surely just hitting two keys at once (rather than one at a time as I'm already doing) is quicker?
I admit that I don't fit the profile of the average user - I'm a programmer, so I can touch type fairly well and type "normally" at a respectable rate. Perhaps normal end users, the "peck and hunt" typers, would be slower, but for techies, secretaries, etc, I just can't see it, usability experts' opinions to the contrary or not.
On the other hand, a project manager that used to work with us didn't know that ctrl+p is the shortcut for print (which raised a few eyebrows amongst us...)
Cheers,
Tim
There are indeed loads of ISPs here in the UK offering ADSL conncetions.
However, almost all of them get those connections from BT wholesale. If BT decided to start imposing some draconian conditions, we'd still be screwed.
Sure, oftel (the regulator mentioned - OFfice for TELecommunications, iirc) are making lots of noise about BT opening up their exchanges and allowing other companies to install equipment (for a suitable rental fee, of course), but it's not really happening. Last I heard, only one company had actually done so, and only at a couple of exchanges. BT are not making it easy (that's the reason for all the noise).
The UK has plenty of competition amongst residential-level and business-level ISPs, but only really one backbone provider. There are others, of course, but not to homes, the majority of which already have a BT line.
Cheers,
Tim
The least they could do is insert a (sic) next to a missplet[sic] word
Ah, the irony of a spelling mistake in a post complaining about spelling mistakes...
Cheers,
Tim
Is Civil Disobedience permitted in the UK?
:-)
By its very definition, no, it is not permitted. If it were, it wouldn't be disobedience
I don't know what you'd be charged with, but you can bet you'd be charged with something. Consider this - if I came to your house each day, and taped newspaper over your windows, you'd have me arrested, right? Same principle - I'd be (temporarily) denying the owner of something the use of it. It would also cost them money to have someone remove the tape, and you can bet they'd want to recover that plus punitive damages. Finally, if I had to enter/climb onto any private property in order to reach the camera, you'd almost certainly be looking at a trespass charge.
So no, they can't charge you with destroying the cameras, but they'd find something to charge you with.
That's not to say I don't think it's a good idea, just don't go doing it assuming that you'll get nothing more than a chuckle and a shake of the head from the police.
Cheers,
Tim
It is also somewhat less serious - no new DVDs would work with your exisint player, but all the ones that you'd already bought would be fine. All the ones that were pressed before this happened would also be fine, although clearly, you'd have a progressively harder time finding any.
The difference is that under the proposed MS DRM solution, all your existing media would stop working too. Your player would become completely useless.
I can't see this working, to be honest. The first time it happened, MS would be hit with a class action lawsuit by all the people whose legally-owned hardware had been disabled. Either that, or users would have to be provided with some sort of for-free key changing service, in order to be able to reactivate their hardware, in which case the shutdown is no deterrent at all.
Cheers,
Tim
I work in a large office that houses around 50 people, and noise can, at times, be a real problem.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting people chat, or listen to music, or whatever helps them get their work done and to stay happy. However, I am dead set against having music playing "over the air" as it were.
I have two reasons for this, one purely selfish, the other more practical. The selfish reason is that I have a somewhat unusual taste in music, and so would almost be guaranteed to not like whatever was played, or to be very popular with regards to what I wanted to be played.
The practical reason is that, as a programmer, there are times when I need peace and quiet in order to concentrate. I may be trying to track down a particularly elusive bug, or work out some convoluted piece of code, or just figure out the best solution to a customer's requirements (I do speccing and estimation, and team leading, as well as coding). Whatever the reason, if I need quiet, and there's music playing (or other noise), I can't have it. On the other hand, if I need music, and there isn't any, I have headphones. Same goes for everyone else - let them choose to have music.
If the stereo thing works for your group, then fine - but one group we had here a while back that tried that almost came to blows over it (mostly because one guy took some sort of pleasure out of annoying another with the music he played)
As for the original poster's problem, I agree with you - just ask the woman to please be a little more considerate. Failing that, her boss really should just *tell* her to cut it out - that's one of the things he's there for.
Cheers,
Tim
Now, I know that you were thinking specifically of p2p software, but there are plenty of other types that can be used to share files.
Almost any client/server software pair can be used. Examples include HTTP clients & servers, ftp, Samba/nfs/etc.
If you really, really want to ban sharing files, you'd have to go as far as removing the CD drives, possibly even the floppies.
Besides which, employee/employer relationships, like any other, are about give and take. If I want to have mp3 copies of songs that I own saved to my hard drive so that I can listen to them while I work, I should be allowed to do so. Offices are not safe places to leave CD collections. If you want me to be happy, and to work well and not mind too much about yet another stint of unpaid overtime, you're going to have to make a few concessions, or I'll start thinking about finding an employer that will.A blanket ban on mp3s will almost certainly be counter-productive.
Cheers,
Tim
Not really.
George will talk to Tony, and everything will be smoothed over.
Trust me, the UK parliament is so nearly an American lap dog you'd swear it was wagging at times.
Cheers,
Tim
(UK citizen, born and bred)
Of course you can live with it - until it breaks.
Then what do you replace it with?
That's not even considering all of the software that you won't be able to run, some of which you might actually need.
Cheers,
Tim
Not if the code wants to access any part of the system that deals with DRM. If it were possible to create self-signed code that interfaced with DRM components, then it would be possible to circumvent any access controls and get at the raw data.
The only way to enforce DRM policies would be to require some sort of licencing/certification process for companies and developers that want to be able to write such code. That way the high cost would effectively prevent people from committing copyright infringement in that way.
At some level, self-signed code must be regarded as being (potentially) untrustworthy, and so refused access. It's just a question of where the designers decide to draw the line. You can bet, though, that it'll be this side of enabling people to access data that the system thinks they shoudn't. This will help stamp-out copyright infringement and home-grown/open source media players...
Cheers,
Tim
It is a DoS attack. It's just not aimed at any of the computers on the network, but at the network as a whole.
If they flood the network with fake files, then most downloads will effectively result in garbage files being downloaded. The network becomes essentially unusable - service has been denied.
Just because it's still capable of transeferring files doesn't mean that it's providing a useful service.
Cheers,
Tim
Don't forget that every nasty corporation hoping to turn a quick buck by selling private data can eventually be subject to the same inspection as Joe Schmo driving to work.
You mean that we can sell their private data?
People go to prison for that sort of thing.
I also take issue with your assertion that I misbehave when left to my own devices.
The only thing that a loss of privacy will bring is more targetted advertising, and more targetted attacks on members of minority groups by the majority.
There was a case here in the UK a couple of years ago involving a little girl that was killed by a paedophile. Some groups of parents around the country started protesting against known and suspected paedophiles in their community, occasionally going as far as hounding them out and forcing them to move.
All fine, right? After all, paedophiles are evil, right?
Only trouble is that one of the people forced out was a paediatrician. The mob just saw the "paed" prefix and went baying for blood. She'd still be living in the same house now and would've been spared the experience if she'd only had a little more privacy.
As for the mob, they were interviewed on TV regularly over the course of a week or so. Lack of privacy didn't stop them, it encouraged them - they wanted people to sit up and take notice, to get a law passed forcing police to inform people of paedophiles that moved into the area.
My personal feeling is that a lack of privacy will do little to improve society, and has the potential to expose even more people to victimisation and pressure to conform. But then, I was teased at school and am "different" now, so I guess my outloook isn't as rosy as it could be.
Cheers,
Tim
You still end up with an imperfect copy with no binding.
If you copy a CD, you get a perfect (well, almost perfect; you can't hear the difference) copy, with no "binding".
Also, photocopying a book generally works out costing more than just buying a copy new, or at least, it does here in the UK. At an average of about 5p a copy, 2 pages per sheet, and say 300 pages per book, that's 150 copies or £7.5. The book probably only costs about £6-£7 brand new; what's the point?
Cheers,
Tim
go to the UK (and most of EU) mention Oakenfold, and everyone will know who you're talking about.
I guess that by "everyone", you mean "everyone that likes the same music I do", as I've certainly never heard of them (him? her? it??)
Sure, "dance music" is massively popular here in the UK, but it's not made it to 100% acceptance. It's mainstream, but doesn't actually seem to make the mainstream charts very much - they're still dominated by boy/girl bands and imported pap (Britney Spears, etc). (At least, that's the way it sounds whenever I happen to overhear a rundown; I've not been into chart music for at least 10 years now)
Cheers,
Tim