Efficiency in wireless communication is something of a purple elephant, mostly due to interference concerns that aren't at issue in wired Ethernet transactions. True, wired connections will have the occasional collision (though this is largely solved by modern algorithms and operating systems) but digital transmissions over an analog medium are difficult enough when they aren't running into each other in the air. And then you have other interference introduced by microwaves, whether from devices like cell phones, microwaves, or sunspots. It's a very noisy environment!
The concept of using algebra is a unique step forward in this field. Most here would agree, if you're in a crowded cafe and trying to carry on a conversation, it's easier to shout "Pythagoreas" than to talk about squares and triangles. But with computers it happens to be exactly the opposite because they're designed to compute -- it's what they do and what they like to do. So feed it generalities and, often, it can come up with specifics, much like the Monty Hall Paradox.
The next step appears to be to move from algebraics to broad descriptions of the type of data you want to download. This is waiting on computers with a great deal more processing power and perhaps emergent AI, but there will come a time where instead of feeding a bunch of packets over a noisy channel the Internet will simply say to your computer "short film with 20-something actor wondering whether to marry now or enjoy life for a while longer" and your system will fill in the rest, completing the transfer mathematically. This is down the road a ways, but newer technology such as lossy compression for data is already available and potentially lucrative for those who are willing to think outside of the conventional box and try something with a few more holes in it.
As much as some quarters would dismiss today as slacktivism or a cheap stunt, the Internet has needed for a long time now to take the political process seriously.
There is this sort of mythology that has been embraced regarding the idea that technology can route around misapplication of the legal process; that some combination of steganography, encryption and dark fiber will always allow us to enjoy the freedom we've taken for granted on the Internet. But we're on borrowed time. The abuses of copyright law as it currently stands are myriad, whether it's publicly funded research locked down in private journals, or fair use aggregation and citation of news coming under legal attack, or DMCA takedown notices being inappropriately filed, without repercussion, by "content owners" who don't actually have a right to the content they're taking down.
Hide inside TOR if you want to, but the fact of the matter is some truly awful precedent is being set and horrible legislation crafted because only one side reliably shows up to this fight. Take solace in the idea that someone will make you a "free Internet", at least until encryption is illegal over cable and airwaves. Enjoy your privacy until it becomes mandatory to provide ID to browse the web -- commercial interests already examine everything you do and put it in your permanent file. At the end of the day, do not expect technology to provide an answer when the law sets the specifications for the Internet.
I couldn't be happier that the Internet is finally creating a notification and response system for awful legislation. Now it's time to let your representatives know they'll lose your support if they draft, sponsor and pass anti-Internet bills. If they ignore you, vote Rastafarian. Also, consider buying your movies and music used, selling back to the used market, and encouraging your friends to do the same. It's high time to send a fuck you back, because right now everybody thinks we're a joke.
...of these computers. I was wondering, does this provide an opportunity to also educate students about personal finance and responsible borrowing, perhaps with an ebook that comes preloaded on the computer?
And I think it's wonderful that somebody has come up with a low-cost, low-profile system new programmers can cut their teeth on. But given my background, I also know it's a bad idea to mix sugary fruit with silicon.
That said, are you concerned that the name of the project will lead to gastronomic problems with its users, or are you encouraged by the relatively trouble-free history of Apple Computers in this regard?
After it gets off the ground, have you given thought to incorporating other common peripherals into the design such as Blu-Ray, surround sound or Windows 7?
You raise a good point that a all-in-one solution, such as a laptop, would be ideal.
But what's so interesting about the $25 PC is that it's not all-in-one, and encourages thinking outside the box. After spending a month or two toying around with Linux, students could be encouraged to explore cutting-edge technology by pushing all their Raspberry Pi computers together and building beowulf clusters, render farms, or protein folding simulators at very low cost. Or perhaps even create a next-generation videogame console with this PC at the heart!
The cloud is a big thing these days. Cloud this, cloud that, it's almost like we're all in a fog trying to wrap our minds around how to make use of it.
But as with many new technologies, its own hype precedes it. Sure, you can put everything you own data-wise into a cloud, but should you is the question we need to ask ourselves. And you know, it's not even that the answer is "no" as you might be expecting from the way that question was phrased.
As the name suggests, clouds are mainly good for carrying very lightweight data. Your e-mail, for example, has effectively been in a cloud since the day it was invented (at least until you download it). Websites are in their own clouds. Games and operating systems, on the other hand, are very rarely in clouds.
So if you're trying to figure out whether or not to use a cloud for yourself, you should ask, "Is this a game or operating system?" If not, I say go for it wholeheartedly. And you know what, even if it is the case, go for it. You're your own man and nobody tells you what to do.
We're at the point where consoles have achieved parity with personal computers in all ways except freedom. Which begs the question, why not go back to personal computers for gaming? It's ironic, but for most games that come out on consoles a keyboard and mouse are the superior input solution, and you can do a lot more with a computer besides.
The whole situation brings to mind a discussion I had about information security the other day at the bakery. Ten years ago, who even thought you could play music on a computer? And now look at things. We need to get to a point where instead of using credit card information for transactions we use tokens instead -- that way, if someone gets into a database, they end up with a whole bunch of tokens instead of credit cards. Good luck using tokens anywhere else, they don't take em. Or maybe we should go back to paper for billing.
Anyway, computers are conclusively better if only for the fact that you can play MP3s while you game. That rules.
The missing element in these claims is the citation of some sort of study that combines an examination of buying power and psychology to determine when piracy or the purchase of a counterfeit good represents a lost sale to the afflicted rights holder and when it does not.
You can't just multiply retail cost of original good by estimated number of IP violations; that very likely surpasses the upper bound of the "damage" that has been caused. It's faulty journalism to ignore this fact or pass the responsibility for the veracity of this information to somebody else, but that doesn't seem to stop anybody from breathlessly regurgitating these sky-high numbers.
...that rampant piracy has diminished the useful and legitimate purposes of these devices to such a degree that they must be criminalized. I grew up in an era where "homebrew" was the only type of gaming there was. One could say that it actually created the game industry.
But the game industry has grown up now into serious business, and while landing a couple of pasted-together white blocks onto a platform of larger white blocks used to be great fun, I don't think anybody wants to give up Mario 25 and Zelda 21 just yet.
Is that the price to be paid in a world where these devices are permitted to exist? A better question, perhaps, is do you want to take that chance?
Especially now that people text while driving, it's probably a good thing that we're bringing automation to bear on traffic problems.
They could do more to prevent problems than to catch people after the fact, I think. They're able to drop crossing guards on railroad tracks and tollbooths; why not set them up at every practical intersection as well? There's some good talk out there about adding a breath test to the steering columns of every vehicle, but how about in-car interference of the cellphone frequency?
I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg on what can be done here to ensure safety.
I like the looks of the new interface, but am rather concerned it might put people off by being too different from Windows.
I've been playing around with soft lighting in the GIMP, and I think one innovation I'd like to see come up (in X-windows or wherever) would be to allow users to "tint" the whole desktop with a particular color scheme and pattern... something that can hit the windows and wallpaper evenly not unlike the sun is currently hitting my monitor, only not so bright, blurry and distracting.
Think looking at a monitor with the faint reflection of light hitting rippling water... ahh, soothing!
Fuck trolling. Every time I start getting into a good thread about the relative merits of the GPL vis a vis the BSD license, or a deep legal examination of the ramifications of massive copyright theft, or the advantages of using strongly statically typed languages like Perl over Python for implementing LAMP servers... whammo, there's something gaping, oozing, or epitheting the middle of a decent conversation.
Enough already. Why don't you guys go troll a worthier target already, like the mainstream media or Canada. We're trying to literally make the future of the Internet here and you're ruining all over it.
This is generally the case, but it is not an absolute rule. It's quite possible in a copyright infringement case for one side or the other to be required to pay the expenses for both sides.
The way I see it, they faced a fork in the road when preparing their case: either agree that some infringement could have taken place with/without the defendant's knowledge but that the impact was minimal and the act was unlikely to be repeated in the future, or assert that no infringement took place and force the plaintiff to show 51%+ likelihood that it did. In the courtroom one tactic would tend to undermine the other (though as a Slashdotter on a jury I imagine one would be free to discuss both possibilities.)
The problem with the first approach, which would have probably been easier to argue, is that in the best case scenario they were looking at $750/song in damages (for 1,702 songs, $1,276,500.) Hardly a win, especially if you put plaintiff's attorney fees into the mix, and they'd still face the risk of a costlier judgement.
The second approach was essential if they were to provide the jury the additional choice of not finding infringement. It's a weaker case as you point out, especially with the tie between the KaZaA username and the internet account username, but as it kept the door open on the only desirable outcome I think it was the better choice.
Perhaps it would have been wisest to settle, but maybe not.
It depends on what you want to focus on. It'd be a pretty hard sell to explain to 11 people who have at best a passing familiarity with computers how spoofing and viruses introduce an element of doubt into who has what IP address on a filesharing network. It'd be easier to wonder aloud whether $750/song ($18,000) wouldn't be more than enough deterrent to casual downloading on the defendant's behalf. And it'd probably be easiest to speculate that if there are millions of people on P2P networks at any given point the odds are pretty good that even a steelworker's kids might find their way into some pretty major financial damages on the family computer without his knowledge until it's too late. I think it's easier to change minds when the argument you put forward is in terms that others can understand, process, and judge based on what they know, so if it comes down to explaining technology against trying to work out how long it'd take anybody in the room to pay off $222,000, I'd definitely try the latter approach.
In a federal civil trial the verdict must be unanimous unless both sides agree to a non-unanimous verdict; basically, if you're sufficiently motivated you can stick to your own decision and force a new trial (likely after a few days of being sent back in the little room by the judge and getting 11 people + most of the courtroom frustrated with you.) So -- depending on the Slashdotter -- the result could have been significantly different, but as it depends on either employing persuasive communication techniques or sacrificing personal comfort for the greater good... well, I don't know that I'd put money on it.
Keep your store clean, your employees in line and your customers happy. There's more than enough to do without inventing new policies on-the-fly.
Everybody wants to be big brother. What's next, tiny plastic cups and a private room to make sure the little bastards aren't toking up before you'll deign to allow them to make a purchase? It makes me ill to think where we're headed.
They're caught up with the idea that they can continue to play the game by the old rules. They still seem convinced that the Internet will possess and distribute content solely by the terms of copyright holders. Their efforts to deal with copyright violations are disproportionally stick to carrot, and any benefits technology brings to the table with regard to low-cost distribution and promotion are set aside in pursuit of abusing technology to restrict distribution and limit choice.
Irregardless of the ethics of the situation, the reality is that copyright holders are competing with those who appropriate their content and share/copy it for free. One can't beat them on cost, but there are other carrots that could be offered with legitimate purchases -- "live" Internet webcasts of concerts, real concert tickets, audience-prompted cast interview events, mail-in tickets for exclusive merchandise, etc. Such things may even build fan loyalty or otherwise work as positive public relations.
On the other hand, one could sue handfuls of people and hope that's enough to pursuade millions of downloaders to change their evil ways. It does have the benefit of feeling "right", even if it doesn't alter the calculus of the situation one shred.
Tor uses the concept of 'onion routing' to obscure the source and destination of content passed through it. What this means is that, like an onion, content is wrapped in multiple layers of destinations and buried in the ground (or routed) until, after a delay, shoots come up (the headers are interpreted and the onion is passed to another destination) and ultimately the onion is ready to be dug out of the ground (the content reaches its destination).
Unfortunately, it's possible to tell it's still an onion by the time it reaches your house. And that's what this article is referring to. If you wrapped an apple in an onion (used secure public key encryption) then you have an additional layer of security. That's a whole nother layer of complication, however.
One of the biggest problems in dealing with software piracy is that the copy protection mechanisms often punish legitimate users disproportionally. Who wants to put down $60 for a game that makes you put in a CD-Key, keep the CD in the drive while you play, establish/maintain an active internet connection to verify your right to play each time you start the game up? Especially when pirates get the same product for free without the aggravating restrictions?
It's never seemed logical to me that people who buy software should have to bear the brunt of copy protection when pirates get a superior experience without compensating the company producting it. So it's about time that Microsoft has figured out a way to degrade the experience of software pirates instead of that of legitimate users. Not to mention of course that it'll be nice to see Windows come down in price once this takes effect.
Well, it's Christmas time here so I've got a little time to do some reading. And frankly, I'm
excited to hear about the progress on greener technologies forthcoming next year. I
was just reading about a projection TV set that will use laser to increase range-of-color
and decrease power usage by a third -- win-win! And it got me to thinking; given that the average
computer uses about 52,000 pine trees worth of energy every day there's probably a lot of slack
that can be tightened up to restrict wasteful consumption. While one could probably save the most
by dimming the 'Brightness' setting on his monitor, I strongly suspect the greatest savings will
be realized by emphasizing energy saving technologies in the personal computer.
Sure, spending another hundred or so on efficient computing wouldn't make the video games run any
faster, but if it was mandated we'd probably notice huge dividends in nationwide energy
consumption. Energy that could then be used to run our cars, or air conditioning, or substinence
farming. Until then I suppose we could just use the coal from our Christmas stockings to offset
the electric bill, lol.
Slashdot Mirror
Who here got to go to Comic-con this year?
Efficiency in wireless communication is something of a purple elephant, mostly due to interference concerns that aren't at issue in wired Ethernet transactions. True, wired connections will have the occasional collision (though this is largely solved by modern algorithms and operating systems) but digital transmissions over an analog medium are difficult enough when they aren't running into each other in the air. And then you have other interference introduced by microwaves, whether from devices like cell phones, microwaves, or sunspots. It's a very noisy environment!
The concept of using algebra is a unique step forward in this field. Most here would agree, if you're in a crowded cafe and trying to carry on a conversation, it's easier to shout "Pythagoreas" than to talk about squares and triangles. But with computers it happens to be exactly the opposite because they're designed to compute -- it's what they do and what they like to do. So feed it generalities and, often, it can come up with specifics, much like the Monty Hall Paradox.
The next step appears to be to move from algebraics to broad descriptions of the type of data you want to download. This is waiting on computers with a great deal more processing power and perhaps emergent AI, but there will come a time where instead of feeding a bunch of packets over a noisy channel the Internet will simply say to your computer "short film with 20-something actor wondering whether to marry now or enjoy life for a while longer" and your system will fill in the rest, completing the transfer mathematically. This is down the road a ways, but newer technology such as lossy compression for data is already available and potentially lucrative for those who are willing to think outside of the conventional box and try something with a few more holes in it.
As much as some quarters would dismiss today as slacktivism or a cheap stunt, the Internet has needed for a long time now to take the political process seriously.
There is this sort of mythology that has been embraced regarding the idea that technology can route around misapplication of the legal process; that some combination of steganography, encryption and dark fiber will always allow us to enjoy the freedom we've taken for granted on the Internet. But we're on borrowed time. The abuses of copyright law as it currently stands are myriad, whether it's publicly funded research locked down in private journals, or fair use aggregation and citation of news coming under legal attack, or DMCA takedown notices being inappropriately filed, without repercussion, by "content owners" who don't actually have a right to the content they're taking down.
Hide inside TOR if you want to, but the fact of the matter is some truly awful precedent is being set and horrible legislation crafted because only one side reliably shows up to this fight. Take solace in the idea that someone will make you a "free Internet", at least until encryption is illegal over cable and airwaves. Enjoy your privacy until it becomes mandatory to provide ID to browse the web -- commercial interests already examine everything you do and put it in your permanent file. At the end of the day, do not expect technology to provide an answer when the law sets the specifications for the Internet.
I couldn't be happier that the Internet is finally creating a notification and response system for awful legislation. Now it's time to let your representatives know they'll lose your support if they draft, sponsor and pass anti-Internet bills. If they ignore you, vote Rastafarian. Also, consider buying your movies and music used, selling back to the used market, and encouraging your friends to do the same. It's high time to send a fuck you back, because right now everybody thinks we're a joke.
...of these computers. I was wondering, does this provide an opportunity to also educate students about personal finance and responsible borrowing, perhaps with an ebook that comes preloaded on the computer?
And I think it's wonderful that somebody has come up with a low-cost, low-profile system new programmers can cut their teeth on. But given my background, I also know it's a bad idea to mix sugary fruit with silicon.
That said, are you concerned that the name of the project will lead to gastronomic problems with its users, or are you encouraged by the relatively trouble-free history of Apple Computers in this regard?
After it gets off the ground, have you given thought to incorporating other common peripherals into the design such as Blu-Ray, surround sound or Windows 7?
You raise a good point that a all-in-one solution, such as a laptop, would be ideal. But what's so interesting about the $25 PC is that it's not all-in-one, and encourages thinking outside the box. After spending a month or two toying around with Linux, students could be encouraged to explore cutting-edge technology by pushing all their Raspberry Pi computers together and building beowulf clusters, render farms, or protein folding simulators at very low cost. Or perhaps even create a next-generation videogame console with this PC at the heart!
The cloud is a big thing these days. Cloud this, cloud that, it's almost like we're all in a fog trying to wrap our minds around how to make use of it.
But as with many new technologies, its own hype precedes it. Sure, you can put everything you own data-wise into a cloud, but should you is the question we need to ask ourselves. And you know, it's not even that the answer is "no" as you might be expecting from the way that question was phrased.
As the name suggests, clouds are mainly good for carrying very lightweight data. Your e-mail, for example, has effectively been in a cloud since the day it was invented (at least until you download it). Websites are in their own clouds. Games and operating systems, on the other hand, are very rarely in clouds.
So if you're trying to figure out whether or not to use a cloud for yourself, you should ask, "Is this a game or operating system?" If not, I say go for it wholeheartedly. And you know what, even if it is the case, go for it. You're your own man and nobody tells you what to do.
We're at the point where consoles have achieved parity with personal computers in all ways except freedom. Which begs the question, why not go back to personal computers for gaming? It's ironic, but for most games that come out on consoles a keyboard and mouse are the superior input solution, and you can do a lot more with a computer besides.
The whole situation brings to mind a discussion I had about information security the other day at the bakery. Ten years ago, who even thought you could play music on a computer? And now look at things. We need to get to a point where instead of using credit card information for transactions we use tokens instead -- that way, if someone gets into a database, they end up with a whole bunch of tokens instead of credit cards. Good luck using tokens anywhere else, they don't take em. Or maybe we should go back to paper for billing.
Anyway, computers are conclusively better if only for the fact that you can play MP3s while you game. That rules.
The missing element in these claims is the citation of some sort of study that combines an examination of buying power and psychology to determine when piracy or the purchase of a counterfeit good represents a lost sale to the afflicted rights holder and when it does not. You can't just multiply retail cost of original good by estimated number of IP violations; that very likely surpasses the upper bound of the "damage" that has been caused. It's faulty journalism to ignore this fact or pass the responsibility for the veracity of this information to somebody else, but that doesn't seem to stop anybody from breathlessly regurgitating these sky-high numbers.
...that rampant piracy has diminished the useful and legitimate purposes of these devices to such a degree that they must be criminalized. I grew up in an era where "homebrew" was the only type of gaming there was. One could say that it actually created the game industry.
But the game industry has grown up now into serious business, and while landing a couple of pasted-together white blocks onto a platform of larger white blocks used to be great fun, I don't think anybody wants to give up Mario 25 and Zelda 21 just yet.
Is that the price to be paid in a world where these devices are permitted to exist? A better question, perhaps, is do you want to take that chance?
Especially now that people text while driving, it's probably a good thing that we're bringing automation to bear on traffic problems.
They could do more to prevent problems than to catch people after the fact, I think. They're able to drop crossing guards on railroad tracks and tollbooths; why not set them up at every practical intersection as well? There's some good talk out there about adding a breath test to the steering columns of every vehicle, but how about in-car interference of the cellphone frequency?
I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg on what can be done here to ensure safety.
I like the looks of the new interface, but am rather concerned it might put people off by being too different from Windows.
I've been playing around with soft lighting in the GIMP, and I think one innovation I'd like to see come up (in X-windows or wherever) would be to allow users to "tint" the whole desktop with a particular color scheme and pattern... something that can hit the windows and wallpaper evenly not unlike the sun is currently hitting my monitor, only not so bright, blurry and distracting.
Think looking at a monitor with the faint reflection of light hitting rippling water... ahh, soothing!
Fuck trolling. Every time I start getting into a good thread about the relative merits of the GPL vis a vis the BSD license, or a deep legal examination of the ramifications of massive copyright theft, or the advantages of using strongly statically typed languages like Perl over Python for implementing LAMP servers... whammo, there's something gaping, oozing, or epitheting the middle of a decent conversation.
Enough already. Why don't you guys go troll a worthier target already, like the mainstream media or Canada. We're trying to literally make the future of the Internet here and you're ruining all over it.
Assuming it's a civil matter and not a criminal one, of course.
This is generally the case, but it is not an absolute rule. It's quite possible in a copyright infringement case for one side or the other to be required to pay the expenses for both sides.
The way I see it, they faced a fork in the road when preparing their case: either agree that some infringement could have taken place with/without the defendant's knowledge but that the impact was minimal and the act was unlikely to be repeated in the future, or assert that no infringement took place and force the plaintiff to show 51%+ likelihood that it did. In the courtroom one tactic would tend to undermine the other (though as a Slashdotter on a jury I imagine one would be free to discuss both possibilities.)
The problem with the first approach, which would have probably been easier to argue, is that in the best case scenario they were looking at $750/song in damages (for 1,702 songs, $1,276,500.) Hardly a win, especially if you put plaintiff's attorney fees into the mix, and they'd still face the risk of a costlier judgement.
The second approach was essential if they were to provide the jury the additional choice of not finding infringement. It's a weaker case as you point out, especially with the tie between the KaZaA username and the internet account username, but as it kept the door open on the only desirable outcome I think it was the better choice.
Perhaps it would have been wisest to settle, but maybe not.
It depends on what you want to focus on. It'd be a pretty hard sell to explain to 11 people who have at best a passing familiarity with computers how spoofing and viruses introduce an element of doubt into who has what IP address on a filesharing network. It'd be easier to wonder aloud whether $750/song ($18,000) wouldn't be more than enough deterrent to casual downloading on the defendant's behalf. And it'd probably be easiest to speculate that if there are millions of people on P2P networks at any given point the odds are pretty good that even a steelworker's kids might find their way into some pretty major financial damages on the family computer without his knowledge until it's too late. I think it's easier to change minds when the argument you put forward is in terms that others can understand, process, and judge based on what they know, so if it comes down to explaining technology against trying to work out how long it'd take anybody in the room to pay off $222,000, I'd definitely try the latter approach.
In a federal civil trial the verdict must be unanimous unless both sides agree to a non-unanimous verdict; basically, if you're sufficiently motivated you can stick to your own decision and force a new trial (likely after a few days of being sent back in the little room by the judge and getting 11 people + most of the courtroom frustrated with you.) So -- depending on the Slashdotter -- the result could have been significantly different, but as it depends on either employing persuasive communication techniques or sacrificing personal comfort for the greater good... well, I don't know that I'd put money on it.
From what I've seen of YouTube commentary, my guess is you were caught by some form of literacy blocking algorithm.
Because we all know DRM isn't going anywhere. Sadly.
Keep your store clean, your employees in line and your customers happy. There's more than enough to do without inventing new policies on-the-fly.
Everybody wants to be big brother. What's next, tiny plastic cups and a private room to make sure the little bastards aren't toking up before you'll deign to allow them to make a purchase? It makes me ill to think where we're headed.
They're caught up with the idea that they can continue to play the game by the old rules. They still seem convinced that the Internet will possess and distribute content solely by the terms of copyright holders. Their efforts to deal with copyright violations are disproportionally stick to carrot, and any benefits technology brings to the table with regard to low-cost distribution and promotion are set aside in pursuit of abusing technology to restrict distribution and limit choice.
Irregardless of the ethics of the situation, the reality is that copyright holders are competing with those who appropriate their content and share/copy it for free. One can't beat them on cost, but there are other carrots that could be offered with legitimate purchases -- "live" Internet webcasts of concerts, real concert tickets, audience-prompted cast interview events, mail-in tickets for exclusive merchandise, etc. Such things may even build fan loyalty or otherwise work as positive public relations.
On the other hand, one could sue handfuls of people and hope that's enough to pursuade millions of downloaders to change their evil ways. It does have the benefit of feeling "right", even if it doesn't alter the calculus of the situation one shred.
Tor uses the concept of 'onion routing' to obscure the source and destination of content passed through it. What this means is that, like an onion, content is wrapped in multiple layers of destinations and buried in the ground (or routed) until, after a delay, shoots come up (the headers are interpreted and the onion is passed to another destination) and ultimately the onion is ready to be dug out of the ground (the content reaches its destination).
Unfortunately, it's possible to tell it's still an onion by the time it reaches your house. And that's what this article is referring to. If you wrapped an apple in an onion (used secure public key encryption) then you have an additional layer of security. That's a whole nother layer of complication, however.
One of the biggest problems in dealing with software piracy is that the copy protection mechanisms often punish legitimate users disproportionally. Who wants to put down $60 for a game that makes you put in a CD-Key, keep the CD in the drive while you play, establish/maintain an active internet connection to verify your right to play each time you start the game up? Especially when pirates get the same product for free without the aggravating restrictions?
It's never seemed logical to me that people who buy software should have to bear the brunt of copy protection when pirates get a superior experience without compensating the company producting it. So it's about time that Microsoft has figured out a way to degrade the experience of software pirates instead of that of legitimate users. Not to mention of course that it'll be nice to see Windows come down in price once this takes effect.
Well, it's Christmas time here so I've got a little time to do some reading. And frankly, I'm excited to hear about the progress on greener technologies forthcoming next year. I was just reading about a projection TV set that will use laser to increase range-of-color and decrease power usage by a third -- win-win! And it got me to thinking; given that the average computer uses about 52,000 pine trees worth of energy every day there's probably a lot of slack that can be tightened up to restrict wasteful consumption. While one could probably save the most by dimming the 'Brightness' setting on his monitor, I strongly suspect the greatest savings will be realized by emphasizing energy saving technologies in the personal computer.
Sure, spending another hundred or so on efficient computing wouldn't make the video games run any faster, but if it was mandated we'd probably notice huge dividends in nationwide energy consumption. Energy that could then be used to run our cars, or air conditioning, or substinence farming. Until then I suppose we could just use the coal from our Christmas stockings to offset the electric bill, lol.