No, it's not; you're absolutely right. In our frame of reference, it just happened recently -- and while you could say, "yeah, but in the star's reference frame, it happened tens of millions of years ago," it's also true that in the star's reference frame, dinosaurs on Earth are just now going extinct. IOW, it's not a very meaningful reference frame from where we're sitting.
I don't understand that. This whole relativity thing sounds really just like bullsh*t, nothing more: if something happened a long time ago but we are only able to see it now, it STILL happened a long time ago. Lacking the ability to see the event doesn't mean the event never happened.
Meh, this whole relativity-bullshit seems like a phase: it's 'cool' and 'hip' to refer to everything as relative and as happening all the time and so geeks are falling over themselves trying to be 'cool' and 'hip' among their peers.
You are aware that OtherOS was removed because Geohotz used it to implement his first hack and it was then used by piraters exploiting Geohotz work?
As I said, it would've happened eventually anyway. And Geohot didn't do it to play pirates, he was just exploring the protections in place and I remember him saying he wanted to access HW accelerated graphics. Oh, not to mention the fact that he actually didn't even mention the exact method he got access to the hypervisor. Sony still proceeded to overreact and removed a feature that many people had actually paid for, just because Geohot managed to PARTIALLY access hypervisor and even though he had not told anyone the actual method to do it themselves.
Feel free to blame Geohot all you want, but it would've happened anyways.
I have a collection of old game systems and enjoy playing them regularly. I just can't get my head around these current schemes. I am I right that it will be impossible to collect something like the PS3 and this Capcom game and play it 15 years from now, unless Capcom still has exists, the PS3 can still connect to the net, and Capcom still has their DRM servers running? It's incredible.
That's the whole plan: they don't want you to be able to play it 15 years from now, they want you to keep on buying.
As for the DRM itself: sure, they _could_ release an update a few years from now that would disable the call-home feature. But there is no guarantee that they will. And even if they did then you'd have to go to lengths to preserve a copy of that update in case you have to re-format the HDD or something because it simply won't be available on any live servers anymore after so many years.
Or to say it straight out: it would have happened eventually ANYWAY, with or without geohot. Sony pissed on too many toes when they suddenly removed OtherOS. Blaming geohot is simply wrong, blame Sony for being f*cktards in the first place.
When a pirate throws a game at their console they get: a working game, with no call-home, most likely no requirement for stable internet connection, and a hassle-free gameplay experience. A legitimate user gets: a mostly working game, with call-home, requirement for a stable internet connection, and definitely not hassle-free gameplay experience should there be issues with the connection.
Basically, this won't affect pirates at all. There is simply nothing stopping from someone releasing a crack for this game and it'll work just as peachy as ever. It's only legitimate customers being hurt here.
Did you read 17 USC 109? It specifically gives you the right to sell a copy that you lawfully made and own
No, it doesn't. As I said, it clearly says "a particular copy." There is absolutely no mention whatsoever at all about allowing you to create copies. If it did indeed allow you to make unlimited copies of any work you might have and then sell those it would similarly allow you to copy DVDs, CDs, computer games and whatnot and sell those. And that clearly isn't true.
The license cannot take this right away.
Indeed, the license is only granting rights, not removing them. It's the copyright law itself that isn't giving any rights.
He can now sell all 50,000 of them. Joe gets his right to sell from 17 USC 109, which the license cannot take away.
Copyright law takes precedence here. First Sale Amendment on the other hand takes precedence over copyright law. But since this isn't sales First Sale Amendment doesn't apply. Or to give a simplified example: if the law worked as you say I could just make 50,000 copies of my favorite DVD and give them to my friend Joe. Joe would then proceed to sell those 50,000 copies.
What happened to James Kim and his family is of course very sad and shouldn't happen to anyone, but.. it's also very different from people who blindly follow their GPS, even so far as to ignoring all markings and signs around them and then driving to rocks/waterbed/etc. Having a GPS simply is no excuse whatsoever for ignoring local markings and regulations, and yes, it does sound rather arrogant, but ignoring everything around you and then running into trouble is all your own damn fault.
Ah.... but are they selling the assets? Arguably, particularly since they have a lower price point, they are merely bundling the assets for free in the package that they *ARE* selling.
They are not distributing the assets as a separate package, they are distributing them as one single work and are charging for the work, and thus it does count as license violation. The cost of the work has nothing to do with it, law doesn't make any difference between a work priced at $1 or a work priced at $1,000.
In any event, a "you can do anything but sell it" license can't work, due to 17 USC 109: "[T]he owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord[.]" - 17 USC 109
You can make 50,000 copies of the assets and then give them to me. You have complied with the license, since you didn't sell them. I can then sell them, since 17 USC 109 gives me that right and a copyright license cannot take away any rights.
First of all, that is not how the copyright law works. The law that you quote quite clearly says "particular copy", ie. it doesn't say you are allowed to make unlimited copies without copyright holder's permission, it only states that you may sell the particular copy you have bought yourself, not copies of it. Secondly, copyright license isn't taking away any rights in this case: by default you do not have the right to make copies of copyrighted works nor distribute them. It's only after copyright holder has given the permission to do so that you may do it, and in this case you get that permission only if you abide by their rules. Copyright law is very precise and clear on this: you do NOT have any rights whatsoever regarding copyrighted work unless explicitly given by the copyright owner or mandated by other laws.
It's quite reasonable that assets are considered part of the source code for a program. If a program is completely unusable without the assets, then those assets are essential data, and can be considered part of the source that gets compiled into a whole program.
There is no clause whatsoever in the GPL that the source released must be functional or even worth anything to anyone or to suit any kind of specific purpose. Thus the whole basis for your argument is already wrong. Besides, the engine is indeed perfectly functional and working. It may not work the way you wish, like for example being playable, but that is only your own problem.
and it was expecting that the GPL covered everything needed to run the program.
As said, GPL does not mandate one to include all possible kinds of data with the actual code. If it did it would be a real red herring for lawyers who'd come in troves arguing that you need to include this or that data and because you didn't you're liable for damage. And again, the engine is working perfectly fine and is entirely useable. You are the one expecting it to be more than it is whereas others take it for simply a game engine.
IMHO the art work for that program is really required to make it workable
It's a game engine. Usually engines do not come with art work, audio files etc, instead requiring you to create them and thus the engine isn't very useful before you have such. This is no different.
So either it needs to be under the GPL too, or that program is not truly under the GPL and cannot be redistributed in any form.
Incorrect. GPL does not mandate in any way or form that the source-code package must work or that it must include all assets, including those which are not even source-code at all nor part of it. GPL does not even mandate that the code released must make any kind of sense at all or be useable by anyone. Thus they (Wolfire Games) are perfectly within their rights in doing this.
That's just my reading though. They have (purposely) made the issue so muddied that it would probably require lawyers to straighten out.
It's actually very straight-forward and there's no need for lawyers here: source-code is indeed under GPL and you are free to do with it as you please. Only the external assets are still proprietary and you may only use those for gratis distributions. Even if iCoder went on to claim that their version of Lugaru on App Store includes those assets for no charge they'd still be in violation of the license as the whole package counts as redistribution and it rather clearly isn't gratis.
People like you are the problem with western society today.
Because I state why I think 3MB data in 10 days is probably a bit much and should be looked into? Wtf?
You purport strong conclusions
I quite clearly said that it's all my personal feelings, not conclusions, and hell, I even clearly stated I don't own an iPhone so I don't know if comparing to my phone even has any meaning. And yet you attack me like I did or said something horribly wrong? Geesh.
The article indeed doesn't give much information, but it does say they disabled a bunch of running services on the phone, and left it unattended for only 10 days. 10 days, with no apps on and no user interaction is simply too little to rack up 3 megabytes of data. As a reference point I don't own an iPhone so I don't know how relevant it is, but my N900 only racks up about 25kb-100kb a day at max if I turn off mail-checking, even less if I disable automatic updates. As such I can't help but feel the 3MB of data for 10 days is indeed inflated.
I personally live my life by similar rules and I've had to take flak every now and then for being honest, but it has also forced a few entities to straighten up their ways and that is a good thing for all. But then again, here in Finland you quite can't get sued for such small things. If you were trying to sue someone for a slightly negative review you'd just be laughed out of the court room. So with that in mind I understand why the OP feels like he does and there really is no reason to berate him for that. He is entirely entitled to feel differently than us and it is by no means wrong. As unlikely as it is, I do hope one day lawmakers over there learns that people should have the right to voice their opinions without the fear of getting sued.
I personally have exactly the opposite: all of my friends who play car games and me are all very responsible and careful on the streets, we anticipate things, keep a keen eye on our surroundings, and start braking very early just to avoid any accidents or mishappenings.
Personally, I don't think games really have anything to do with this. It's the personality: some people just tend to be more aggressive and careless and thus it reflects in both their real-life driving and virtual driving, not because virtual driving was the reason behind the aggressiveness.
Plus, can you image a goddamn smart phone with a week long battery life?? Or a laptop that runs for days without needing to recharge? A server farm that could be powered by solar power and a few large battery power storage units?
You have misunderstood the article. It clearly says molybdenite transistors consume 100.000 times less energy than silicon ones in STANDBY. Not when operational. Sure, it would increase efficiency of mobile devices where you turn unneeded transistors off to save energy, but it would do nothing for when the system is operational and in use. Thus your idea of a server farm being solar powered is completely without basis.
Molybdenite's strength is in mobile applications: when the device is in standby mode it consumes a lot less energy than traditional silicon-based ones. But it has another strength here: silicon is a 3-layer material, whereas molybdenite is monolayer. This means that you can make smaller chips, or cram more stuff in a chip of the same size.
I don't understand how can people have so many friends: I have about 15 people in my friends list..:/ Then again, I have no interest in adding random people there or someone whom I've met only once. I guess _I_ am your typical antisocial nerd, not the previous poster:/
But why not elsewhere in this Galaxy? We know now that there are plenty of planets at a habitable range from their stars. Our solar system seems pretty favourable however based on what we can see there should be equally favourable solar systems within 1000 light years or so. The process of kick starting microbial life doesn't seem to have been just a stroke of luck. It happened on earth pretty much as soon as conditions were suitable.
Indeed, that's a good question. But we simply lack the data to answer that with any certainty. Though, we DO know that there atleast has been microbial life on other planets, including Mars, and thus it's likely there is or has been on other favourable systems. The real question is why they didn't survive and what chances does such microbial life have to survive in any one galaxy.
The galaxy should be ablaze with life. It would only take one spacefaring race to colonise the entire galaxy. It's only 100,000 light years across - that's do-able in a few million years even at sublight.
A) The Milky Way ain't the only galaxy in the universe. There most likely is life somewhere but it may or may not be in this galaxy. B) It takes A LOT of time, effort and resources to colonize even one country, not to mention a complete planet. A lot, lot more than it takes to just travel the distance between the two end-points. C) Colonizing even half a galaxy would take quite a bit more than "a few million years."
Heck, Earth is primo real estate
Only if you happen to breath oxygen and otherwise the atmosphere is suitable for your species. If not then no, it's not "primo real estate."
That was the clear intention of the patch, but.. well, Sony knows this won't stop people anymore. The master key has been leaked, it is built into hardware, and cannot be changed programmatically, thus any patch or update they release will be possible to unpack with the master key and thus can easily be circumvented. There simply is no way to work around a non-changeable master key built into hardware and that's that. It seems Sony's only plan for now is to appear like they are doing something so as to try to please shareholders who don't fully understand the situation while trying to figure out a Plan B.
As for the functionality in this latest patch: well, it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You can bypass it by setting your PS3 to use a certain proxy which just changes the firmware version number sent by your PS3, and POOF, everything works as before. Great job, Sony, and thanks for being useless asshats.
I am supposed to be one of the lucky ones with a broadband connection. When I do Internet tests it says my download connection is over 20 Mb/s. Nevertheless I have never had a download that goes faster than 2 Mbit/s. In fact I have very rarely had one that goes faster than 1 MB/s. Usually I am happy to get 500 Kb/s. The only downloads that go over 1 mb/s are various ubuntu downloads from canonical.
As other have said you are mixing Mbit/s and Mb/s; they are not the same thing. You have a connection of 20 Mbit/s, which translates to 2.5 Mb/s. Thus it's no wonder you so rarely go over 2 Mb/s..Btw, the article speaks of 5 Mbit/s, not 5 Mb/s.
(You can convert x Mbit/s to x Mb/s by doing simple x/8. Or convert x Mb/s to Mbit/s by doing x*8.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not; you're absolutely right. In our frame of reference, it just happened recently -- and while you could say, "yeah, but in the star's reference frame, it happened tens of millions of years ago," it's also true that in the star's reference frame, dinosaurs on Earth are just now going extinct. IOW, it's not a very meaningful reference frame from where we're sitting.
I don't understand that. This whole relativity thing sounds really just like bullsh*t, nothing more: if something happened a long time ago but we are only able to see it now, it STILL happened a long time ago. Lacking the ability to see the event doesn't mean the event never happened.
Meh, this whole relativity-bullshit seems like a phase: it's 'cool' and 'hip' to refer to everything as relative and as happening all the time and so geeks are falling over themselves trying to be 'cool' and 'hip' among their peers.
You are aware that OtherOS was removed because Geohotz used it to implement his first hack and it was then used by piraters exploiting Geohotz work?
As I said, it would've happened eventually anyway. And Geohot didn't do it to play pirates, he was just exploring the protections in place and I remember him saying he wanted to access HW accelerated graphics. Oh, not to mention the fact that he actually didn't even mention the exact method he got access to the hypervisor. Sony still proceeded to overreact and removed a feature that many people had actually paid for, just because Geohot managed to PARTIALLY access hypervisor and even though he had not told anyone the actual method to do it themselves.
Feel free to blame Geohot all you want, but it would've happened anyways.
I have a collection of old game systems and enjoy playing them regularly. I just can't get my head around these current schemes. I am I right that it will be impossible to collect something like the PS3 and this Capcom game and play it 15 years from now, unless Capcom still has exists, the PS3 can still connect to the net, and Capcom still has their DRM servers running? It's incredible.
That's the whole plan: they don't want you to be able to play it 15 years from now, they want you to keep on buying.
As for the DRM itself: sure, they _could_ release an update a few years from now that would disable the call-home feature. But there is no guarantee that they will. And even if they did then you'd have to go to lengths to preserve a copy of that update in case you have to re-format the HDD or something because it simply won't be available on any live servers anymore after so many years.
but this rubbish is all thanks to geohot.
Ignorance is a bliss, eh.
Or to say it straight out: it would have happened eventually ANYWAY, with or without geohot. Sony pissed on too many toes when they suddenly removed OtherOS. Blaming geohot is simply wrong, blame Sony for being f*cktards in the first place.
When a pirate throws a game at their console they get: a working game, with no call-home, most likely no requirement for stable internet connection, and a hassle-free gameplay experience. A legitimate user gets: a mostly working game, with call-home, requirement for a stable internet connection, and definitely not hassle-free gameplay experience should there be issues with the connection.
Basically, this won't affect pirates at all. There is simply nothing stopping from someone releasing a crack for this game and it'll work just as peachy as ever. It's only legitimate customers being hurt here.
When are game companies going to learn?
Did you read 17 USC 109? It specifically gives you the right to sell a copy that you lawfully made and own
No, it doesn't. As I said, it clearly says "a particular copy." There is absolutely no mention whatsoever at all about allowing you to create copies. If it did indeed allow you to make unlimited copies of any work you might have and then sell those it would similarly allow you to copy DVDs, CDs, computer games and whatnot and sell those. And that clearly isn't true.
The license cannot take this right away.
Indeed, the license is only granting rights, not removing them. It's the copyright law itself that isn't giving any rights.
He can now sell all 50,000 of them. Joe gets his right to sell from 17 USC 109, which the license cannot take away.
Copyright law takes precedence here. First Sale Amendment on the other hand takes precedence over copyright law. But since this isn't sales First Sale Amendment doesn't apply. Or to give a simplified example: if the law worked as you say I could just make 50,000 copies of my favorite DVD and give them to my friend Joe. Joe would then proceed to sell those 50,000 copies.
Capiché?
What happened to James Kim and his family is of course very sad and shouldn't happen to anyone, but.. it's also very different from people who blindly follow their GPS, even so far as to ignoring all markings and signs around them and then driving to rocks/waterbed/etc. Having a GPS simply is no excuse whatsoever for ignoring local markings and regulations, and yes, it does sound rather arrogant, but ignoring everything around you and then running into trouble is all your own damn fault.
Ah.... but are they selling the assets? Arguably, particularly since they have a lower price point, they are merely bundling the assets for free in the package that they *ARE* selling.
They are not distributing the assets as a separate package, they are distributing them as one single work and are charging for the work, and thus it does count as license violation. The cost of the work has nothing to do with it, law doesn't make any difference between a work priced at $1 or a work priced at $1,000.
In any event, a "you can do anything but sell it" license can't work, due to 17 USC 109:
"[T]he owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord[.]" - 17 USC 109
You can make 50,000 copies of the assets and then give them to me. You have complied with the license, since you didn't sell them. I can then sell them, since 17 USC 109 gives me that right and a copyright license cannot take away any rights.
First of all, that is not how the copyright law works. The law that you quote quite clearly says "particular copy", ie. it doesn't say you are allowed to make unlimited copies without copyright holder's permission, it only states that you may sell the particular copy you have bought yourself, not copies of it. Secondly, copyright license isn't taking away any rights in this case: by default you do not have the right to make copies of copyrighted works nor distribute them. It's only after copyright holder has given the permission to do so that you may do it, and in this case you get that permission only if you abide by their rules. Copyright law is very precise and clear on this: you do NOT have any rights whatsoever regarding copyrighted work unless explicitly given by the copyright owner or mandated by other laws.
It's quite reasonable that assets are considered part of the source code for a program. If a program is completely unusable without the assets, then those assets are essential data, and can be considered part of the source that gets compiled into a whole program.
There is no clause whatsoever in the GPL that the source released must be functional or even worth anything to anyone or to suit any kind of specific purpose. Thus the whole basis for your argument is already wrong. Besides, the engine is indeed perfectly functional and working. It may not work the way you wish, like for example being playable, but that is only your own problem.
and it was expecting that the GPL covered everything needed to run the program.
As said, GPL does not mandate one to include all possible kinds of data with the actual code. If it did it would be a real red herring for lawyers who'd come in troves arguing that you need to include this or that data and because you didn't you're liable for damage. And again, the engine is working perfectly fine and is entirely useable. You are the one expecting it to be more than it is whereas others take it for simply a game engine.
IMHO the art work for that program is really required to make it workable
It's a game engine. Usually engines do not come with art work, audio files etc, instead requiring you to create them and thus the engine isn't very useful before you have such. This is no different.
So either it needs to be under the GPL too, or that program is not truly under the GPL and cannot be redistributed in any form.
Incorrect. GPL does not mandate in any way or form that the source-code package must work or that it must include all assets, including those which are not even source-code at all nor part of it. GPL does not even mandate that the code released must make any kind of sense at all or be useable by anyone. Thus they (Wolfire Games) are perfectly within their rights in doing this.
That's just my reading though. They have (purposely) made the issue so muddied that it would probably require lawyers to straighten out.
It's actually very straight-forward and there's no need for lawyers here: source-code is indeed under GPL and you are free to do with it as you please. Only the external assets are still proprietary and you may only use those for gratis distributions. Even if iCoder went on to claim that their version of Lugaru on App Store includes those assets for no charge they'd still be in violation of the license as the whole package counts as redistribution and it rather clearly isn't gratis.
People like you are the problem with western society today.
Because I state why I think 3MB data in 10 days is probably a bit much and should be looked into? Wtf?
You purport strong conclusions
I quite clearly said that it's all my personal feelings, not conclusions, and hell, I even clearly stated I don't own an iPhone so I don't know if comparing to my phone even has any meaning. And yet you attack me like I did or said something horribly wrong? Geesh.
The article indeed doesn't give much information, but it does say they disabled a bunch of running services on the phone, and left it unattended for only 10 days. 10 days, with no apps on and no user interaction is simply too little to rack up 3 megabytes of data. As a reference point I don't own an iPhone so I don't know how relevant it is, but my N900 only racks up about 25kb-100kb a day at max if I turn off mail-checking, even less if I disable automatic updates. As such I can't help but feel the 3MB of data for 10 days is indeed inflated.
I wish I could mod you up.
I personally live my life by similar rules and I've had to take flak every now and then for being honest, but it has also forced a few entities to straighten up their ways and that is a good thing for all. But then again, here in Finland you quite can't get sued for such small things. If you were trying to sue someone for a slightly negative review you'd just be laughed out of the court room. So with that in mind I understand why the OP feels like he does and there really is no reason to berate him for that. He is entirely entitled to feel differently than us and it is by no means wrong. As unlikely as it is, I do hope one day lawmakers over there learns that people should have the right to voice their opinions without the fear of getting sued.
I personally have exactly the opposite: all of my friends who play car games and me are all very responsible and careful on the streets, we anticipate things, keep a keen eye on our surroundings, and start braking very early just to avoid any accidents or mishappenings.
Personally, I don't think games really have anything to do with this. It's the personality: some people just tend to be more aggressive and careless and thus it reflects in both their real-life driving and virtual driving, not because virtual driving was the reason behind the aggressiveness.
Plus, can you image a goddamn smart phone with a week long battery life?? Or a laptop that runs for days without needing to recharge? A server farm that could be powered by solar power and a few large battery power storage units?
You have misunderstood the article. It clearly says molybdenite transistors consume 100.000 times less energy than silicon ones in STANDBY. Not when operational. Sure, it would increase efficiency of mobile devices where you turn unneeded transistors off to save energy, but it would do nothing for when the system is operational and in use. Thus your idea of a server farm being solar powered is completely without basis.
Molybdenite's strength is in mobile applications: when the device is in standby mode it consumes a lot less energy than traditional silicon-based ones. But it has another strength here: silicon is a 3-layer material, whereas molybdenite is monolayer. This means that you can make smaller chips, or cram more stuff in a chip of the same size.
I don't understand how can people have so many friends: I have about 15 people in my friends list.. :/ Then again, I have no interest in adding random people there or someone whom I've met only once. I guess _I_ am your typical antisocial nerd, not the previous poster :/
A galaxy is a massive, gravitationally bound system
Hey! Leavy my mom out of this!
The key can be changed by a firmware update
No, it can't. It's written in non-volatile ROM, the only way to replace it is to change the physical ROM chip.
http://www.popfi.com/2011/01/06/hackers-unlock-ps3-master-key/ exerpt: "Well, when Sony was designing the PS3, they put the master key on the hardware of the PlayStation itself"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12116051 exerpt: ""The only way to fix this is to issue new hardware," he said. "Sony will have to accept this.""
There's plenty more if you wish to Google.
But why not elsewhere in this Galaxy? We know now that there are plenty of planets at a habitable range from their stars. Our solar system seems pretty favourable however based on what we can see there should be equally favourable solar systems within 1000 light years or so. The process of kick starting microbial life doesn't seem to have been just a stroke of luck. It happened on earth pretty much as soon as conditions were suitable.
Indeed, that's a good question. But we simply lack the data to answer that with any certainty. Though, we DO know that there atleast has been microbial life on other planets, including Mars, and thus it's likely there is or has been on other favourable systems. The real question is why they didn't survive and what chances does such microbial life have to survive in any one galaxy.
The galaxy should be ablaze with life. It would only take one spacefaring race to colonise the entire galaxy. It's only 100,000 light years across - that's do-able in a few million years even at sublight.
A) The Milky Way ain't the only galaxy in the universe. There most likely is life somewhere but it may or may not be in this galaxy.
B) It takes A LOT of time, effort and resources to colonize even one country, not to mention a complete planet. A lot, lot more than it takes to just travel the distance between the two end-points.
C) Colonizing even half a galaxy would take quite a bit more than "a few million years."
Heck, Earth is primo real estate
Only if you happen to breath oxygen and otherwise the atmosphere is suitable for your species. If not then no, it's not "primo real estate."
That was the clear intention of the patch, but.. well, Sony knows this won't stop people anymore. The master key has been leaked, it is built into hardware, and cannot be changed programmatically, thus any patch or update they release will be possible to unpack with the master key and thus can easily be circumvented. There simply is no way to work around a non-changeable master key built into hardware and that's that. It seems Sony's only plan for now is to appear like they are doing something so as to try to please shareholders who don't fully understand the situation while trying to figure out a Plan B.
As for the functionality in this latest patch: well, it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You can bypass it by setting your PS3 to use a certain proxy which just changes the firmware version number sent by your PS3, and POOF, everything works as before. Great job, Sony, and thanks for being useless asshats.
Hell, I don't care about parties, I have always dreamed of a god damn nuclear bunker of my own!! Geesh, I'd buy that this instant if I had the money :D
Yeah, if we want to be really anal about it we could also include MiB/s too, but that really doesn't help OP much and would only add to the confusion.
I am supposed to be one of the lucky ones with a broadband connection. When I do Internet tests it says my download connection is over 20 Mb/s. Nevertheless I have never had a download that goes faster than 2 Mbit/s. In fact I have very rarely had one that goes faster than 1 MB/s. Usually I am happy to get 500 Kb/s. The only downloads that go over 1 mb/s are various ubuntu downloads from canonical.
As other have said you are mixing Mbit/s and Mb/s; they are not the same thing. You have a connection of 20 Mbit/s, which translates to 2.5 Mb/s. Thus it's no wonder you so rarely go over 2 Mb/s..Btw, the article speaks of 5 Mbit/s, not 5 Mb/s.
(You can convert x Mbit/s to x Mb/s by doing simple x/8. Or convert x Mb/s to Mbit/s by doing x*8.)
I hope this clears up your confusion.